Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
17 Posts

Arkham Horror: Dunwich Horror Expansion» Forums » Rules

Subject: Dark Pharaoh / Dunwich rules conflict? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Don Frew
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb

The Dark Pharaoh expansion says that, with the extra Allies, one should now remove TWO Allies whenever the Terror Level rises. Dunwich Horror says to limit the number of Allies in a game to 11. The combination of these results in all the Allies leaving town right quick! What's the resolution?

Thanks,
Don
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Iennaco
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
The one you like more.

Dunwich rules should prevail as they're more recent (and were so worded to avoid problems, like unintentional weakening of "The Southside Strangler", that Pharaoh rules caused).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Karl
Austria
Salzburg
Salzburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Officially it seems to be the Dunwich rules.
I think I will prefer the CotDP ones however for one reason: It sucks to have an encounter at that would give you an ally (at terror level 0) only to find that this ally isn't even in the game.
So either I'd remove 2(or 3?) allies when one is supposed to leave on ALL occastions (also with the Strangler) OR I'd only limit the allies in Ma's Boarding House to the Dunwich rules, but keep all for regular Encounters (unkillable in this case).
Final decision will be made when I fanally get Dunwich...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam B
United Kingdom
cheshire
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Yeah I'd go with keeping the all the allies and having a 2 Kill strangler. I just hate to see cards left out and, as the previous poster mentioned, when you score an ally in an encounter not actually having the card in play is frustrating.goo
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Personally I just go with the only 11 available rule. That's why they made "if that ally is not available" conditions.

But, fellow Arkham enthusiasts, there is a much more troublesome rule conflict at hand:

Curse of the Dark Pharaoh has encounter cards that allow you to draw items equal to your focus and choose one, or I've even seen a card where you gain clue tokens equal to your focus. But the handyman in Dunwich has infinite focus. I think the developers should've thought twice before giving him infinite, but infinite it remains. So what do you do when the handyman gets one of those CotDP cards?

In my opinion, if it's the "draw equal to focus; choose one" he should be able to search that deck for any item he wants and then reshuffle the deck after taking the card. If it's a "gain X equal to your focus," well, I'm out of workable options. Perhaps we should consider his focus in these cases to be 4, plus or minus ally/detriment bonuses? Maybe we should consider his focus for "draw X, choose one" also to be 4?

Maybe we should consider his focus in these cases to be 0, considering that he's well-adjusted to himself but not unseen forces? Or instead that it is 10 because that's the minimum where you can change your stats to anything you want, even if you fail the check for Harried? I know FFG gave him infinite focus so that his skill sliders could be anywhere at the start of any turn, but really. This sucks a bit.

Advice?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kevin Wilson
United States
Roseville
Minnesota
flag msg tools
designer
The Nicholas Cage of games! Oh god, not the beeeeeesssss!
badge
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I made a ruling on that one earlier over on the FFG boards. Consider his focus to be 4 in those cases. I try to stay on top of all the interactions, but Arkham Horror and its expansions have a lot of moving parts.

-Kevin Wilson
Fantasy Flight Games
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Iennaco
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
kungfro wrote:
Advice?

A similar card gives you Clue tokens equal to your Focus with a maximum of 3. So I considered Wilson's Focus to be 3 even when the upper limit wasn't written.
Since Kevin suggest 4, I'll use that from the next game.

Have fun! meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Should've put more faith in KW and crew
KevinW wrote:
Yeah, I made a ruling on [infinite focus issues] earlier over on the FFG boards. Consider his focus to be 4 in those cases. I try to stay on top of all the interactions, but Arkham Horror and its expansions have a lot of moving parts.


Rock on. I was kind of leaning toward 4 but should've known that an official ruling would be prompt. I don't even have the expansion yet. Caffiene, ho! surprise
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Will Shipley
United States
Valencia
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Sweet! Since that concern seems resolved, I have a comment on the original rules conflict:

Luke the Flaming wrote:
The one you like more.

Dunwich rules should prevail as they're more recent (and were so worded to avoid problems, like unintentional weakening of "The Southside Strangler", that Pharaoh rules caused).


I don't own Dunwich Horror (yet), so this may not be useful to anyone, but since Dunwich Horror provides a much larger set of items that modify the original game (cards shuffled into all the decks, new investigators, reprinted eratta cards, new board) I consider it to be in a seperate class of expansion from Curse of the Dark Pharoah (and The King in Yellow), which both seem designed to add the flavor of a *particular* Ancient One to the main game. (Nyarlathotep for CotDP, Hastur for KiY.)

So, in the future, I imagine that I might play games of Arkham Horror like follows:

* Base Game + Dunwich Horror (11 allies total from those two decks)
* + 1 card-expansion to add flavor (+ all allies from card-expansion, discard 2 from Southside Strangler and Terror Level)

. . . and if I were playing without CotDP or KiY, I'd just go with Dunwich's new ally rule.

Does that make sense to people?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Iennaco
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Skyfall wrote:
Does that make sense to people?

Of course. AH is the kind of game lending itself to be "customized".
Personally, I've no itnention to face the nightmare (-3 Sanity ) of removing the cards of a certain expansion from each deck (encounters, items, Mythos, etc.), so I'll go for the "all in" version, all the times. If the system can't handle it, I'll create some house rules to help it.

Have fun! meeple
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Karl
Austria
Salzburg
Salzburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depending on the players awareness, you could also keep the decks as one gigantic one and just keep drawing cards until you get one with an icon that matches your current active expansions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mill Master
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I like the start with 11 rule because there are alot of good allies to pick from if you have all 3 sets in at once. A random 11 sets some balance sicne the one or two allies that might really help vs your current environment might be gone!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Karl
Austria
Salzburg
Salzburg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are referring to the boarding house I tend to agree. However, having only 11 allies to meet in encounters seems to be a bit weak to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Wester
United States
California
flag msg tools
mbmb
Well, the concensus seems to be to set aside 11 random Ally cards for the purposes of milling and getting via the Boarding House only. If you get an Ally through an event, then search all available Allies.

Alternatively, I suppose you could stack all three decks together, mill away two for each raise in the Fear Level and Southside Strangler, then only look at the top three when using the Boarding House. That way you use them all, each one is at risk, and you can't go "Wow, I really need This Random Dude. It's a good thing I know exactly where he is!" and tutor out the guy who'll win the game for you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Danny Stevens
Australia
Brisbane
Queensland
flag msg tools
Games: Design 'em, rewrite 'em, play 'em!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is one of my pet grypes about expansion sets. The initial game has not been designed with the expansion sets in mind, the expansions sets include fixes and erata for the initial game which is absurd, and the expansions add or alter rules in ways which may conflict or don't make sense if you don't buy all the expansions.

Frankly the game company should re-release the initial game redesigned to accomodate the expansions, and the expansions should add to but not alter the game. Erata and fixes should be seperately available or, even better, be online and easy to print out.

robot erk ark grumble
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher KrackerJack
United States
Portsmouth
Rhode Island
flag msg tools
Avatar
Danny from Tower wrote:
This is one of my pet grypes about expansion sets. The initial game has not been designed with the expansion sets in mind, the expansions sets include fixes and erata for the initial game which is absurd, and the expansions add or alter rules in ways which may conflict or don't make sense if you don't buy all the expansions.

Frankly the game company should re-release the initial game redesigned to accomodate the expansions, and the expansions should add to but not alter the game. Erata and fixes should be seperately available or, even better, be online and easy to print out.

robot erk ark grumble


Danny,

The Errata and FAQ are available on FFG's site and under the files section of AH on BGG. FFG reprinted the Errata and FAQ with the expansion, but they are available separately for free.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.