Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Soakman

  1. I remember when I discovered the horrors of how frequently Independence square gates appeared. I had a game where I closed independence square three or more times... only to have a gate pop the very next mythos. I eventually just let it stay there so that doom wouldn't advance and only surges would occur. The surges, I could handle.


    Looks like you're making great strides!

  2. No worries. :) 


    The only time I've had to take down the Crawling Chaos, it was Agnes with 2 lore improvements casting Storm of Spirits with her passive used to buff it.


    That's the only reason why I know so many specifics regarding magical resistance, haha. I went to the source for clarification, and Nikki was very helpful. :wub:

  3. No she can't. If it adds bonus dice to the combat and is a magical source, it can't be used. This includes "magical" assets/allies. Anything without the "magical" keyword or that is not a spell is considered a physical source when referring to resistances.


    However, spells such as Shriveling, Poison Mist, Banishment, and Storm of Spirits can be used with no problems since they do not add bonus dice to a combat roll. Agnes can also use her passive ability to enhance these spells as it adds "additional dice" and is not a "lore bonus."

  4. I think the AO specific research deck and mysteries, as well as the fact that you build a Mythos deck for every game (instead of just putting them all in a huge pile), will help tremendously with avoiding the  expansion bloat seen in Arkham Horror. There, all the story flavor came from the, ever growing, Mythos deck, where in EH it comes from the mysteries and research decks.

    I still would have preferred not having extra game boards, but I can't make a final judgement on that, until I have played MoM a few times..

    MoM is great fun. But I personally found the story flavor in arkham came more from the combo of encounters/OW Encounters/Investigator Personal Stories than the Mythos deck.


    I personally don't feel in EH that the AO-specific research encounters add much "story." Maybe flavor, but not story. Since they Research Encounter have to provide clues no matter which mystery you are working on, they don't seem like narrative. They just feel like "things that happen."  There is not really any progression, in my mind.


    You just look for as much info about the AO as you can until all of a sudden the mystery is solved.


    I honestly think the "extra deck" mysteries provide much better story/narrative than research encounters.


    I don't really know where any of these thoughts came from or how they are on-topic, but I had to get them out, haha. Feel free to ignore this. Basically I just wish the story in EH was stronger. It seems like it should be, but it is not tight enough to feel like story to me.

  5. Fair enough on some of these points... and there were certainly a few typos and unclear rules that went out with the finished product


    That being said, I think the game has been drastically enhanced and given many more options. 


    As far as your unique allies comments , preludes, and AO mysteries... sometimes less is more. And I wouldn't be surprised if we see more mysteries for old AO's in later expansions.




    Still not seeing any reasons why you should set aside 6 and not 5 or 4. 6 were all the cultists available at the moment; possibly cultists can be added in further expansions simply because there was space on the punchboard. My suggestion is to ask directly FFG via the Rules Questions option on the site.


    The reason to set aside 6 cultists is because the card says "set aside 6 cultists".





    Ok, let's try it again: I don't see any reason why you need to set aside exactly six cultists and additional cultists released in future expansions are not to be set aside as well. And I'm talking gamewise, not grammar: I understand the difference between a printed 6 and any other printed number. Six meant "all" at the time FS was released, and I don't see any reason related to the game why it should be considered more probable that additional cultists are to be treated differently rather than thinking that possibly no one developing FS was considering future possible cultists arriving. Especially because Yig's cultists have very peculiar rules, and have a huge impact on the game.


    This said, considering that there are no elements allowing to judge which interpretation is the correct one, I'd suggest to ask directly FFG via the Rules Question option of this site and see what's Nikki's view of this issue. Regardless of who's right, we'd have an official ruling to follow (also for the future in case a similar conundrum repeats with a different AO)



    Why would there be any question at all? The rules say to set aside 6. Not "all" or "as many as there are in the base game plus this expansion" or anything like that. We've gotten an official answer, so its kinda moot at this point...but I just don't understand why there was any confusion to begin with, when the rules text is very clear and explicit.


    It's good to have an official reply. I think the worry was about the probability alteration on Ancient One mechanics being supplied more often than normally required (read: intended) as future expansions are released and more monsters are added to the monster cup/pool. 


    I can't remember the cultist abilities for each AO, but dilution of components and alteration of mechanics due to addition of expansions is a big "problem" for other FFG titles (particularly Arkham Horror). 

    Even though it is a moot point, I like that this was pointed out by people in this Thread. It sounds like Yig (and maybe others) will become either slightly more or less difficult as expansions are released and cultist triggers become possible to activate via random monster draws from the Monster Cup/Pool.

  7. Julia is correct. There is an answer (though non-intuitive) in the thread about magical/physical resistance. :)


    (PS...I don't know why this quote background is gray...but this is a quote from GAThraawn)



    ...about Unique Assets, and I received this response from Nikki Valens:


    An investigator can use each component action no more than once per round. That is to say, he can use the “Action:” effect of each card once per round. If an investigator has two copies of the same component action, he may perform each of those actions once per round.
    In your example, the investigator may use the action of both of his Dog Sled Unique Assets and/or both of his Old Journal Unique Assets in the same round.
    Likewise, if your investigator and another investigator have the Detained Condition and are in the same space, you could perform the action of your own Detained Condition, and if successful, you could also perform the action of the other investigator’s Detained Condition in the same round.

  8. BGotW gets ragged on a lot as well (and is definitely not the best small box), but suffers horribly from dilution. It is actually best used with as few expansions as possible or else many of the mechanisms are pretty much obsolete. Julia created a Herald that helps deal with this problem (and I love it).


    If you know you are going to get them all, you may want to start with less impressive small boxes such as BGotW so that you can appreciate the content ideas that went into them. A lot of players have made custom content that takes these mechanics and runs with them.

    Also, everyone suggests Dunwich as the first "big box" to get. For core experience, I can understand where they are coming from, but I strongly advise considering Innsmouth Horror for the investigator Personal Stories. The personal stories really make the game more of a character-driven experience. And for me, it enhanced the game much more than probably any other component.


    That being said, I also tend to play with Kingsport and Innsmouth more for some reason. I hardly ever play with Innsmouth and Dunwich in the same game. That is just asking for hurt and a lot of fiddly-bits to watch.

    (Just a final note: My suggestions are probably somewhat atypical and are attributed to idiosyncracies in the game that I love. For a core upgrade experience, definitely defer to the other experienced posters here.) 

  9. Lol. 1.800 sleeves.


    The investment in sleeves is probably worth it if you get very into the game. I LOVE the game, but do not have any of my components sleeved. I played it much more often before my game collection expanded, and my cards seem to be fine. I do bridge shuffle as well.

    That being said, there are oodles of components for this game damaging them is probably more likely than with other games due to its sprawling nature.

    Good luck on the discovery process! It's a wild ride!

  10. So are all the investigators added with MoM characters from FFG's other mythos games? I think its kinda cool that they've got this "core cast" of investigators that crop up in different titles.


    I agree. I really like this angle. It helps make the world of the games truly feel connected. The microcosm of Mansions of Madness and the macrocosm of Eldritch Horror bookend the quiet cityscape of Arkham Horror quite well.

    I'm very glad to see Agnes, Patrice, and Daisy again. Don't ask me why, but I was kind of hoping little Wendy Adams would make an appearance. She's a real pip! She hasn't been seen since Arkham Horror, so maybe she still will.


    I don't think any Investigator has been in all three games, so I'm expecting them to pull from the investigators NOT found in Mansions.

  11. Direct skill bonus is from only one asset (whatever that is), the other effects stack as much as you can get them - so two "reroll  1 die" turn into "reroll 2 dice", two "add 1 to one die's result" may give +2 to one die's result and so on. And they stack together.

    It usually didn't come up in my games, but with the added assets, I'm starting to wonder if I'm just wearing my Arkham Goggles and ruling against the Investigators because... well... Lovecraft.


    One thing that really helps when playing EH is to totally forgot everything about AH.

    Thank you. I try to forget about AH, but it must be entrenched in my logic.


    That being said, it sounds like anything with + [stat] is considered a bonus and will not stack with any other + [stat] even if it is a conditional + [stat] (like +2 lore when resolving a spell effect).


    Also note that Agnes's passive is not a "bonus" because it is worded as "two additional dice when resolving a spell effect" not "+2 lore when resolving a spell effect."

  12. Ok, so, I feel stupid because I have always played that if you had two assets with the SAME EXACT ability or a better version of the same ability (ex: re-roll 1 die during a combat check, or reduce stamina damage by 1 to a minimum of 1), you could only apply the best version once. 


    It usually didn't come up in my games, but with the added assets, I'm starting to wonder if I'm just wearing my Arkham Goggles and ruling against the Investigators because... well... Lovecraft.


    Someone at BGG also provoked this question by asking if the "+X to spell casts" tomes apply to Storm of Spirits (which they must because Agnes's passive does). Now... if they ALL apply to SoS... you can end up with a large large dice pool for that spell.  Granted you would need many many items to make it worth your while, but you could. 


    My question is can you use each ABILITY on your assets once per asset, or are they, for all intents and purposes, the SAME ability simply found in two different places.


    I'm starting to think it is once PER asset... but this seems like it'll sharply decrease the difficulty of my games. 


    Again, sorry if this is somewhere in the instructions. I don't have acces to mine atm and my mind was just blown a little.


    EDIT: Someone else just said that the +X to spell casts is considered a bonus and would replace the bonus from Arcane Scholar or whatever else. Is this a bonus? :wacko:

  13. This makes Agnes actually pretty formidable against magical resistant monsters then. :lol:  Being an ancient sorceress from Hyperborea, this makes sense to me.

    It also sounds as if all allies are, indeed, considered physical sources. Counter-intuitive, but good to know. This means that Arcane Scholar can also enhance Agnes's Storm of Spirits when used on a magical resistant enemy.


    Thanks for the info GAThraawn. It's also good to know about the double dog-sled question, though I doubt I would ever use the extra action to acquire a 2nd dogsled. Especially if Ursula is around.


    EDIT: I just got a very similar response from Nikki. There was also an emphasis that ally bonuses are, indeed, physical unless otherwise specified with the "magical" keyword.


    Yup, basically all the decks had some extra cards arriving. The only decks that didn't receive attention (but clearly this is logic) are decks specific to old Ancient Ones. Hence, no cards for Azathoth, but yes, new OWs, new encounters, nex Expedition encounters (the expedition is also hitting new cities!) and so on

    As I understood new expedition like in Rome for example you only use in the case when you play with antarctica board righy?



    I dont' believe this is the case as the expeditions aren't in side-board locations. However, you may need the artifacts or some unique assets from the expansion. So if you keep those out of your games (using only base or base + FL), I'm not sure if you will be able to use those expeditions.  That being said, there is no reason not to keep all of the new cards in their appropriate decks. 


    I don't believe any have anything to do with the sideboard. All sideboard assets are "unique assets" that I'm assuming you can only acquire from the sideboard... For example, the Dog Sled.


    You should be able to mix everything in other than the antartica sideboard clues and the gates that appear there as well.

  15. As I read it, yes, you can use Storm of Spirit to swap the stat you use to fight the monster, but you won't be getting the bonus dice granted by Agnes. Good call on asking, tho. Thanks for taking the time to look deeper into this


    No problem. GAThraawn also brought up some good points about allies I hadn't thought of. Now I am really curious whether they are considered physical sources simply because they don't specifically say "magical."  I would argue that when Arcane Scholar was shipped with the base game, they weren't aware that they would need to include that keyword and that's the only reason why it's not there. And to simplify that problem with all other base game cards, I would just say they are non-physical, non-magical sources. This makes them a benefit to have even if you have a more powerful weapon.


    EDIT: Now I'm embarassed because I shipped them a message with typos... (effects/affects, typed (es) instead of (ed)... I hate it when I do that.  :angry:

  16. I see the point here. I'd say that Agnes cannot add dice, but I still don't have the final version of the game, and I don't know if the wording on cards / characters were modified since the version I have. Mind posting the exaxt wording on Agnes and the spell?



    Ok, so..

    Agnes's ability reads thusly:

    "You may spend 1 Health to roll 2 additional dice when resolving a [LORE] test as part of a Spell effect."

    Storm of Spirits reads:

    "Incantation - When resolving a Combat Encounter, you may resolve a [LORE] test in place of the [strength] test, using the same test modifier.  If you do, flip this card."

    Also, just a heads up, I sent FFG a rule question with the following:


    I recently purchases the new expansion Mountains of Madness that includes new magical/physical resistant monsters. This has raised a few related questions that I can't seem to find a clear answer on.
    My questions are in regards to magical resistant monsters, the spell "Storm of Spirits," Agnes Baker's/Jim Culver's passive ability, and also ally stat bonuses.
    It seems that Magical Resistance only effects "bonuses to your dice pool" (which I take to be the +1 Lore, +1 Str etc) during combat encounters.
    Can Storm of Spirits still be used on a magical resistant monster since it does not specifically apply a stat bonus to the roll? And if so, can Agnes use her passive ability to add +2 to the die roll? To me, it seems like passive abilities aren't strictly "bonuses" in the same sense that +1 Lore etc are on asset cards.
    Additionally, can Jim's extra die from his passive be used on physical/magical resistant monsters, and can it also be used by a character using "Storm of Spirits" if they are on Jim's space during their encounter?
    Are ally "bonuses" considered physical or magical in respect to resistances? Or are they neither?
    Thanks you much for your time!

    I will let you know what I hear when I hear back from them. 

  17. Re-reading the Reference Manual, adding bonuses is specifically listed as one step in determining the die pool, and it clearly states that you may gain one bonus from one source. additional dice from other effects are added in a separate step. So, since Resistance prohibits "bonuses", I am led to believe that anything that adds a numerical bonus (and that could not be applied if you added a different bonus) is prohibited, and anything else that is always applied is allowed. So Agnes will always get to apply her two extra dice to her spell, and Jim will get to add his extra die. However, if Agnes was using Storm against a monster with Physical Resistance, she couldn't get a bonus to her Lore test from an Arcane Scholar, or other non-magical source.


    This is exactly what I was thinking, but it seems so convoluted, haha. It seems like imprecise wording somewhere along the lines that might have greater affects on other cards down the road.  That's why I wanted to hear what other people thought.  At least I'm not going crazy and you understand where I'm coming from.

    Thanks for taking a 2nd look at the card. Hopefully it will get cleared up in an FAQ or errata?

    This being said, I always assumed bonuses from Allies were neither physical NOR magical...

  18. Her passive is giving her bonuses to her dice pool for casting the spell. The spell is then allowing her to resolve a different kind of check during combat, which is separate from a bonus. Agnes' passive can't actually give her extra dice to roll in combat.


    But it is giving her a bonus for the casting of the spell which the card says is an attack made with her lore... then you flip the card based on your successes you get different bonuses etc. If you aren't rolling lore for the cast of the spell (which is the attack), then how is it a spell? You don't roll lore to cast the spell and then roll lore again to attack. At least that isn't how the card appears to operate based on the text. 

  • Create New...