And apparently the witches you want to sleep with rather than run away from.

Rasiel said: Bleached Lizard said: 1) No. The torch specifically states that *all* investigators in the room can ignore darkness. Yes but what ignore darkness means ? Ignore -2 penalty to fights ? ignore text on keeper cards ? or makes the room not in darkness at all ? i want some rule quoting instead of opinion... You ignore the darkness token. If you want rules regarding this, read a dictionary.

1) No. The torch specifically states that *all* investigators in the room can ignore darkness.

Lyker said: Elbi said: Lyker said: *Keeper cards can never be played more then once preforming the exact same action. If the rule manages to get into the default set of rules, please explain "the exact same action". Otherwise we'd still end up with "Can I use UU on the same investigator, or is this the exact same action?" Exact same action = Same Action Card, same target, same choice of action, if there is one. I wrote about UU in my example. Exact same action would be move the investigator twice. (not legit) One move and one action would be legit. "May not perform the exact same action" is incredibly difficult to specify in rules terms. UU would need an FAQ all to itself if this was implemented as an official rule.

I know pretty much every scenario inside out. The first time I played as the investigators after learning the details of every scenario was the best game I've had of it so far. I think knowing the game well actually makes it better.

vagabond_666 said: When I played this I had a similar situation, but the early resolution and loss was made to feel more like the players fault. On the first turn they decided to split up and search the house. One of the players (there were 3 investigators, I was keeper) went down into the cellar kicking open the jammed door on their 2nd (maybe 3rd go) at which point the Maniac appeared, took a sample and command minioned into the altar room. On the next go the angry player went "Steal my hair/teeth/whatever! I'm going to kill that **ing Maniac" and chased him to the space outside the altar room, which meant that on my next turn I was able to command him out to the investigator and then take sample back to the altar in the one go. Cue Shoggoth next turn, I think at this stage we may still have yet to resolve the first event card. Meanwhile the other players had kept on exploring in opposite directions, so when I reveal that they have to stop the shoggoth getting out the front door they are about as split up and far away from the main action as it is possible to be. Meaning I was able to use various mythos cards to keep one of the investigators from even getting back into the foyer and participating in the Shoggoth hunt. That said, the investigator with the pistols nearly killed the Shoggoth, so I think if they'd stuck together a bit more and all been involved in the beatdown, I don't think the fact that I got the Shoggoth out as early as is possible would have stopped them winning. I think as keeper, I'd prefer the option in that scenario to reveal the objective and summon the Shoggoth at a time of my choosing once I've got the samples on the altar, not as soon as that condition is met. You could always just have the monster holding the sample to stand to the side of the altar until you are ready to place it.

I believe (though don't quote me on this) that the -2 from darkness only applies to checks required by combat cards. But I could be wrong. Likewise, I believe the main reason why some spells are classed as an "attack" is so that you don't have to make an evade check when casting them.

Nephilim said: Is it posible to exceed the starting number of skill points by using the microscope? Yes.

In scenario 4 it is likely that you will run out of darkness tokens, as there is not much else the Keeper can do in that scenario than plunge the map into darkness.

CraggleRock said: I got a response from Corey on this and I take it from his email that it can only be used once per target for a particular action, so you can't move any one investigator more than one space. Nor, I believe, can you use it to force them to use a given item more than once. It did sound to me that you could use it to move them, then make them use every item available to them. I shall post the full e-mail response later. If so, this is more errata, as nowhere on the card or in the rules does it say this.

I think scenario 1 is the only one that has this strange balancing mechanism in it, probably as it is designed as an introductory scenario. The other scenarios don't do this.

Lumice said: updated added most of the questions you said reorganized some of them as well Did not add number of players devoured or defeated, the number of characters defeated our devoured will tell us If they answer 3 characters were chosen and there is only 2 players we know 1 was defeated Not necessarily. It is commonly reported on the BGG boards that in 2-player games one player will often take on two characters.

Elbi said: Mind, however, that taking a new piece from the stack counts as one move and selecting the piece it replaces is another one. This is not technically true. Replacing a piece costs 2 actions. It is not separated into two actions costing 1 each.

I have created a set of cards that can be used to replace those as errata'd by FFG (page 1), along with a few changes to cards that I and others on these boards have felt may be over- or under-powered in some way (page 2): http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/65111/replacement-errata-cards Enjoy!

Nico Deluxe said: Even if it might have been intended otherwise, I'd say if you take the card text literally, it is the caster who takes the damage, because the card text is addressing him. Flavor text is no rules text and has no meaning other than spicing things up. In most cases, agreed. However, if you read the effect text on the backs of the Pact spells it seems to indicate that it should apply to the target, not the caster. For example, some of the effect text states "heal 1 additional damage". This *must* affect the target (otherwise it would not be additional), so therefore from that you can infer that all effect text on the back of the cards affects the target.

MustardTheTroops said: Hey, don't feel bad. I made a room inaccessible on the same story... we all scratched our heads about how they were supposed to get in it and it turned out that I had put the tile on backwards. Not my brightest moment. Which tile?

Our one and only experience with scenario 4 so far (1B) was also a disappointment. It seemed quite boring, with the only thing the Keeper could really do is use the Darkness action card and play Mythos cards. However, I'm willing to give the scenario another chance now that I know what to expect and be in a more suspense/haunted house mindset. *Spoilers for S4, 1B ahead* One thing that I was kinda curious about in this scenario though was the inter-relationship between the 1B objective, Clue 1B and Event 4. In summary: 1B Objective: The Keeper wins if the Hound escapes. The investigators win if the Hound is killed. Clue 1B: Reveal Objective. The Keeper may move the Hound 1 space and all locks are discarded. Event 4: Reveal Objective. Place the Hound on the board. So it seems the Hound will *only* appear by Event 4 being revealed. So what is the point of the "Keeper may move the Hound 1 space" on Clue 1? If the investigators find Clue 1 before Event 4 occurs, the Hound will not be on the board. If the investigators have not found Clue 1 by the time Event 4 is revealed, then there is no point them continuing to pursue Clue 1, as they already know their objective and the Hound will be on the board (and there is no massive advantage to all the locks being discarded that I can see). Can anyone explain this?

insanimo said: I've learned tricks to excuse myself from the room (get a drink, pick up the mail, clip my toenails... ) in hopes that the players will cheat to finish the puzzle before I get back in to pop that Shoggoth on them that I've been saving up to buy over the past 3 rounds. Umm... WHAT???

Doc, the Weasel said: The better fix may be that the skull could only be used once per turn. Agreed.

Pigeonbane said: Yeah, it looks like those are both ways to get around the kleptomania issue. The only drawback is that they both use an action, while trading items is usually free. By the way, does Duke require line of sight? No.

Toom said: Page 15 - top right "An investigator or monster figure in the room at the end of it's owner's turn is dealt 2 damage." Owner refers to the fire? or the the investigator/monster? example - Investigator walks past fire - in a safe room. Ends his turn. "sweet! i take no fire damage" I play a mythos card to "move the investigator 2 space", and i move him back into the fire. Owners turn - If the investigator (singular), the fire wouldn't hurt him. If the investigators turn (right before keeper) he would take 2 burn damage If the end of the keepers turn (owner of the fire), he would take 2 burn damage. Also, fire REALLY does spread 1 ROOM per turn if the keeper wants it as such. on an outdoor map, this is almost impossible for the investigators to do anything. At the end of the *figure's* turn. All figures - investigators and monsters - are damaged by fire. As for your last point, the Keeper needs to the Pyromaniac action card to do this - he cannot do it at will. This also costs Threat.

You are correct. I had this confirmed by Corey K a couple of days ago.

Try these: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/64665/exploration-tokens

It's the same as in Descent.

Not really. You might want to play with one extra suspect, though.