Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cubano

Elusive monester appearing as a result of an encounter.

Recommended Posts

Are you referring to clue tokens that appear in the mythos phase?  They felt the need to write a special rule stating that you can pick those clues up during the mythos phase.  If it weren't for that rule, you'd have to wait until the end of the movement phase.  Similarly, if we want to says that monsters that appear in the encounters phase should count as having moved, we probably need a special rule stating this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My last post came out a little muddled so let me try another approach here. The definition of the words appears and enters may not be the same but they do have overlap. If I enter a room I am relocating myself from another place to that room,  true it may be from the adjacent hallway but if I teleport there from mars I've still entered the room, even spontaneously coming to be in that room I've still entered it. It does not matter where I was before just that I am there now. Reverse that and it can be said that if I walk into a room from the hall I have appeared in the room I could also appear there by teleporting from mars or spontaneously coming into existence In both cases the operative criteria is absense followed by presence. The thing that matters here is that token was not there before and is now. Heck when the token gets placed on the board its said that it enters play I think it's safe to say that a token enters the location where it enters play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand what you're saying; I just think there's some ambiguity.  What if the werewolf appeared as part of this encounter in the Black Cave?

In the darkness you happen upon the remains of a previous spelunker. Make a Luck (+0) check and consult the chart below:

Successes:
0) The body begins to bloat and splits open, releasing the horror within. Lose 1 Sanity and a monster appears!
1) The body has been ripped apart as if shredded by a powerful monster. Lose 1 Sanity.
2+) Searching the body you find something intersting. Draw 1 Common Item.

 

Does the werewolf still count as having entered the Black Cave after the investigator got there?  In this case, it looks to me like it had been in the cave well before the investigator arrived.  

But that's just theme.  If we only look at the mechanics, you're saying that placing a monster on the board is the same as moving the monster.  I can see how it might be so, but I don't think that's the only possible interpretation.  Also, "enters plays" is not necessarily the same as "enters a location."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things can get really murky really fast if you base mechanical aspects of a game on flavor text. As I said before the theme of how it got there does not mater only the timing and placement of the token. If this were a story game I would concede your point but this is a board game and mechanics tend to trump in board games.

Also I'm not saying that putting a piece on the board is like moving it, I'm saying that putting a piece in a location constitutes it entering the location. The werewolf's damage does not say that it happens when he moves it happens when he enters a location. Weather or not this was the intent of the author I don't know, but Arkhams Razor suggests that this interpretation is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a couple other questions that also hinge on the possibility of an enters/appears distinction:

1) One Thousand Young Rumor: If a monster appears in the Uptown streets, does it go onto the card? I'm tempted to say yes, despite being otherwise sympathetic to the idea that appearing in a location does not imply entering it.

2) Monsters can't enter a closed location.  If, say, because of a mythos card, one is supposed to appear in one, does it not appear at all (supports Veet's interpretation) or does it appear and get ejected into the street (supports Avec's)?  (Mind you, I'm not entirely sure this situation is possible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a monster would appear at a closed location(not via a gate), then it would remain there, in my opinion.Appear is not the same as enter in this case.

I agree with what you've said previously: a monster may(hypothetically) lurk in a location indefinitely until it decides to  make itself visible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also makes a difference when a mythos card like Horror at Groundbreaking would cause monsters to appear in a street that is protected by the Pentagram of Blood.  

Pentagram (Exhibit Item):  Discard this card and X Stamina to ward your current street. Place this card on the street with X tokens to indicate this. Monsters must have toughness greater than the tokens on this card in order to enter this street.

Horror at Groundbreaking: An ancient stone is disturbed by the construction, releasing 2 monsters into the Miskatonic U. streets.

If being placed on the board counts as entering a location (or street), then the pentagram cancels the monster placement.  Otherwise it doesn't, I think.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... what have we learned?  That sometimes enters=appears and sometimes it doesn't, depending on whether it makes things harder for the investigators?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or more precisely that "appears" is a type of "enters" ("appears" implies "enters," but "enters" does not imply "appears").  I don't really agree with this ruling by the way, but I can live with it.  I suppose it's simplest this way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:

So... what have we learned?  That sometimes enters=appears and sometimes it doesn't, depending on whether it makes things harder for the investigators?

Yup that's how I see it. gran_risa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:

Or more precisely that "appears" is a type of "enters" ("appears" implies "enters," but "enters" does not imply "appears").  I don't really agree with this ruling by the way, but I can live with it.  I suppose it's simplest this way.  

 

Your last sentence say it all :-) Sometimes with rulings, the simplest way is the best. Other times, the most "un broken" way is the best...Whether that's good or bad for investigators as awhole doesn't really matter to me as long as it's consistent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't like this ruling because it's based on the fallacy that the monster cup is a "location."  The assumption seems to be that if a monster is placed in the Woods, it travels from the cup to get there, perhaps passing a sign that reads "Thanks for visiting the Monster Cup.  Please come again soon!"  In reality, because the monster cup is not a location, monsters in the cup do not have any particular location assigned to them.  They're not "lost" and they're not "nowhere."  They're just nowhere in particular.  

We also know that all monsters that exist must be located somewhere.   Abstract concepts like "***** envy" and "tort reform" don't have locations, but monsters do.  If a monster is in the cup, we know the monster exists.  Because it exists, it has a location.  But the fact that it's in the cup means that the location is undetermined.  It's somewhere, but we don't know where.   When a monster appears in an encounter, it's taken out of the cup and placed on the board.  Its location status changes from "undetermined" to, say, "The Woods."  We have no reason to believe that the monster has changed locations (because the cup is not a location).  Therefore, we have no reason to believe that the monster has just entered the Woods.  It's location hasn't changed so much as been revealed.  

When a gate opens, it's a different story.  We are told that the monsters that are placed on the board have emerged from the gate.  Therefore, in that case they did change location.  Technically, their location was revealed to be the other side of the gate, which they then immediately traveled through. Because they changed location, they can be said to have entered the Woods.

Okay, I'll shut up now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That's what I'm trying to say.  If a monster appears during an encounter, it was always there.  Because it was not previously anywhere else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it was not always there. It was nowhere. It ended up in the location therefore entering it, because it was not there before. Its not a mater of space its a mater of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monsters can't be nowhere.  If they exist, they take up space and must therefore occupy a location.  The only question is which one.  

The only monsters that are truly nowhere are the ones that have been returned to the box, because they don't exist any more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but that's incorrect. Anything that is not in play is in a state of flux until it is in play. Since that monster could be slated to appear at a gate on the unvisited isle, as the result of a mythos card in the merchant district streets or be encountered in the grave yard. All are equally possible and equally unknowable until they happen therefore none of them are true until they happen. It's similar to a Schrodinger situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, which is why a special version of Arkham's Razor that I call Occam's Razor comes into play.  If a monster that appears in the Woods could theoretically be anywhere, in any location, which location is the simplest to assign to it?  Was it in Independence Square and teleported to the Woods?  No.  Was it in the Uptown Streets and ran into the Woods?  Conceivably but unlikely.  Was it Lost in Time and Space and suddenly found itself in the Woods.  That's more plausible but there a simpler explanation.  It was in the Woods and didn't move at all.  

Also, beware of using Schrodinger's Cat to argue for a particular conclusion.  At the risk of quoting Wikipedia, "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum...   Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat

In layman's terms, you're saying that Schrodinger's Cat can be dead and alive at the same time.  I'm saying nuh-uh.  The fact the we don't know where a monster is means that it could be anywhere, but it's our knowledge of the location that is in flux, not the location itself.  We both have scary physicists to back us up.   Seriously, those guys are built like tanks.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK for starters I was likening it to Schrodinger not saying its exactly that way, hence my use of the modifying word "similar". The thing is when you apply that situation to narrative tropes you end up in situations where something can be alive and dead at the same time because it is first fictional and second may have multiple requirements placed on it depending on the demand of a plot. Look up Schrodinger's Gun instead to see what I mean.

Also you are failing to seperate crunch from fluff here. Weather or not the monster was hiding or slipping through cracks in space/time is part of the fluff and also unknowable unless revealed. In crunch terms the token was not at the site before the encounter. period.

Finally Occams Razor would support my theory better because as I stated before unless the encounter says where the monster came from you can't realy know, you are guessing. This is not the simplest way because it depends on likely unknowable information. The simplest way of interpreting this would be to stick to the crunch, the token was not there before, it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone is going to convince anyone else that their explanation is the simplest, but what seems to me to be the simplest explanation is that entering a location is what happens when a monster token or investigator was in one board location and is placed in another.  This is mainly because the alternative explanations are: 1) entering a location is not something that can only be done by things that move, and as such, clue tokens can enter locations, or 2) entering is indeed specific to things that move, but doesn't depend on actual movement having occurred.  Both of which strike me as pretty silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't a clue token be able to enter a location? A clue token is an object. Objects can enter and exit same as a person just the suggestion is not usually under it's own locomotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:

 

Also, beware of using Schrodinger's Cat to argue for a particular conclusion.  At the risk of quoting Wikipedia, "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum...   Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat

In layman's terms, you're saying that Schrodinger's Cat can be dead and alive at the same time.  I'm saying nuh-uh.  The fact the we don't know where a monster is means that it could be anywhere, but it's our knowledge of the location that is in flux, not the location itself.  We both have scary physicists to back us up.   Seriously, those guys are built like tanks.  

 

 

Ah, the marvels of therotical science. It can even be applied to Arkham Horror. gran_risa.gif Jokes aside, my interpretation is that when a monster appears, it was lurking in the background all along. A monster can suddenly appear and then vanish again is not because it spontaneously appeared, or it "travelled" from the monster cup. It was lurking in, lets say, in the woods. It stumbles upon an investigator and tries to kill it. If the investigator manages to escape, the monster just shrugs its shoulder and goes back into the depths of the forest. That simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avec said:

Right, which is why a special version of Arkham's Razor that I call Occam's Razor comes into play.  If a monster that appears in the Woods could theoretically be anywhere, in any location, which location is the simplest to assign to it?  Was it in Independence Square and teleported to the Woods?  No.  Was it in the Uptown Streets and ran into the Woods?  Conceivably but unlikely.  Was it Lost in Time and Space and suddenly found itself in the Woods.  That's more plausible but there a simpler explanation.  It was in the Woods and didn't move at all.  

Also, beware of using Schrodinger's Cat to argue for a particular conclusion.  At the risk of quoting Wikipedia, "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum...   Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a topical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat

In layman's terms, you're saying that Schrodinger's Cat can be dead and alive at the same time.  I'm saying nuh-uh.  The fact the we don't know where a monster is means that it could be anywhere, but it's our knowledge of the location that is in flux, not the location itself.  We both have scary physicists to back us up.   Seriously, those guys are built like tanks.  

 

So if I understand this correctly, and I'm sure I do, Schrodinger has allied with Herbert West to create an army of zombie cats to destroy us all!  DESTROY US ALL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Veet said:

Why wouldn't a clue token be able to enter a location? A clue token is an object. Objects can enter and exit same as a person just the suggestion is not usually under it's own locomotion.

 

Well, I guess my main hope there was that this would just seem crazy, but uh failing that, there's the fact that the cards use the words "enters" and "appears" kind of a lot, and haven't used "enters" in that way even once.

Another question for your interpretation is what happens when a monster emerges from a gate. Suppose it's an Uptown Streets gate when One Thousand Young is in effect; when does it "enter" the Uptown Streets? Certainly not while the gate is open, so it has to enter either when the gate is closed or not at all. The former, I maintain, is weird (though we've seen how far this argumentative strategy has gotten me in the past), and if the latter, then you're allowing for at least one instance of appearing without entering, so why not others?

 

But here's a better (unrelated) argument: according to the rules, Stalkers can't enter stable locations, but why should this entail that they can't appear there?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...