Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Arkham Horror: The Card Game» Forums » Rules

Subject: Random Weakness w/ X Players: Draw from One Set or X Sets? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
I was reading some rules thoughts at arkhamprotection.wordpress.com where it's observed that:
"If the players share a collection with a single core set, then they share the same “general weakness pool,” such that after each investigator draws a weakness, the subsequent investigators will have a smaller pool to draw from for the initial weaknesses. Players sharing a collection that with an number of core sets equal to the players, each player will have their own “general weakness pool.”"

But the only strong support for that I could find in LTP or RRG was the LTP's statement that "To select a random basic weakness, take a set of the ten basic weaknesses in this core set, shuffle those weaknesses together, and draw one at random to add to the investigator’s deck."

This isn't a huge deal at the moment, but I was wondering how others were playing it. For some reason I had just assumed that even with X players you still draw from the same deck, but I realize that wasn't really directly supported either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D H
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Officially it's how you felt it is; once all decks are made, you shuffle the basic weakness collection of one base set together (plus one base collection of any other expansions you might have that have other basic weaknesses), deal everyone one card from the same deck, they look at them, and then they put them in their decks, and off you go!

Lots of people seem to be house ruling that, so it is what it is. Still, default is all cards from one copy of the base spread, then everyone knows what they get.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
If you read further down to the example just after the part you quoted on p. 14 LTP, you will see the official answer:

For example: Stephanie owns two copies of the core set, one copy
of the first deluxe campaign expansion, and one copy of the first
Mythos pack. To create a single set of basic weaknesses, she takes all
of the basic weaknesses in one core set
, in one copy of the first deluxe
campaign box, and in one copy of the first Mythos pack, and shuffles
them together. Her basic weakness is drawn at random from this pool.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bobby Marino
United States
Windsor
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Great Googly Moogly!
badge
That's the sealiest thing I've ever heard!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
If you read further down to the example just after the part you quoted on p. 14 LTP, you will see the official answer:

For example: Stephanie owns two copies of the core set, one copy
of the first deluxe campaign expansion, and one copy of the first
Mythos pack. To create a single set of basic weaknesses, she takes all
of the basic weaknesses in one core set
, in one copy of the first deluxe
campaign box, and in one copy of the first Mythos pack, and shuffles
them together. Her basic weakness is drawn at random from this pool.


While I agree with you and play it as you spelled out, that example would be a lot clearer if they added a line afterwards like, Now Stephanie's friend draws her weakness from the same pool.

Otherwise it could be decided that another player, coming with their own set of cards would draw from their own weakness pool and both players might have the same random weakness, instead of spreading the madness. In fact, the reason players might be playing from different card pools may very well be why they keep it ambiguous.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Yeah my issue is that I don't think that example dictates a specific outcome when you have multiple investigators.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
The rules already state one core is a complete game. To assemble the weakness deck you take the 10 cards from the core game. Where does it say each investigator would get his own weakness to draw from? It doesn't say that so why assume that as an option. They then go on to tell you what to do if you have the mythos packs or boxed expansions and even give an example if you have more than 1 core.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
The rules already state one core is a complete game. To assemble the weakness deck you take the 10 cards from the core game. Where does it say each investigator would get his own weakness to draw from? It doesn't say that so why assume that as an option. They then go on to tell you what to do if you have the mythos packs or boxed expansions and even give an example if you have more than 1 core.

I also make the same assertion as others that it is ambiguous from the fact that the rules state only Stephanie in the example not Stephanie and Bilbo. Truthfully, I don't know if it really matters. But I think it is much easier if there is only one weakness set to draw from.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Ok, then we have to agree to disagree.

The game is 1-4 players with 2 core sets. I don't know why Bilbo needs to bring his core set along too (for a presumably 3rd set now). An example is just an example, not going to cover every situation. If they said Stephanie and her friend, would that make it crystal clear or would there now be doubt with what to do with a 3rd investigator? And then a 4th?

With only 2 investigators and 1 core set, you only have 1 weakness deck. Why would you assume a 2nd one now when there is no mention of each investigator having their own deck?

It seems to me after several LCGs under his belt, Nate French was pretty precise in the language of the rules. I think if the intent was for more than one weakness deck, it would have been spelled out. Instead they go to the trouble of explaining with even 2 cores, only 1 set is used.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
San Jose
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
ColtsFan76 wrote:
Ok, then we have to agree to disagree.

The game is 1-4 players with 2 core sets. I don't know why Bilbo needs to bring his core set along too (for a presumably 3rd set now). An example is just an example, not going to cover every situation. If they said Stephanie and her friend, would that make it crystal clear or would there now be doubt with what to do with a 3rd investigator? And then a 4th?

With only 2 investigators and 1 core set, you only have 1 weakness deck. Why would you assume a 2nd one now when there is no mention of each investigator having their own deck?

It seems to me after several LCGs under his belt, Nate French was pretty precise in the language of the rules. I think if the intent was for more than one weakness deck, it would have been spelled out. Instead they go to the trouble of explaining with even 2 cores, only 1 set is used.


Let's completely ignore the example then. The plain text of the rules themselves says: "To select a random basic weakness, take a set of the ten basic weaknesses in this core set, shuffle those weaknesses together, and draw one at random to add to the investigator’s deck." There is nothing in that language to indicate that this process should differ for each investigator in a multi-investigator game, so going by the plain text I'd say that each investigator should "take a set of the ten basic weaknesses in this core set, shuffle those weaknesses together, and draw one at random to add to the investigator’s deck." There's no creative interpretation or example needed to come to that conclusion. Now as I said in the OP, I think your conclusion is the more reasonable one overall, and it's the one I've been playing with myself, but I'm not going to say that the alternative reading is contradicted by the rules either. In fact, I think the rules better support the alternative reading though in reality I think this is just something that wasn't considered and if addressed directly would be ruled the way we are all playing it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
brian
United States
Cedar Lake
Indiana
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
AstroLad wrote:
In fact, I think the rules better support the alternative reading though in reality I think this is just something that wasn't considered ...

Like I said, we just need to agree to disagree. It seems perfectly clear to me what is said and the intent.

The core game is clear with what you have for 1-2 players, I think we all agree there. So in the absence of anything else, you should stick with that. Everything else is reading into more than what was necessary to say. The fact they clarify that two sets still uses a single deck of weakness should close the door on this. The absence of any mention of each player having his own weakness deck should also indicate it is not even a concept in this game.

But if you still feel strongly, submit the question through FFG's website.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pauli Vinni
Finland
Espoo
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And then there is playing groups like mine...
I have 4 cores and one set of weaknesses.
My frien has 3 cores and Also one set of weaknes.
Yet another friend has two core and one set of weaknesses.

When we happen to play together, They bring their own invesgator who has a weaknes from their own pool. Sometimes the is Also one other player who use another investigator from one of us and he use the weaknes from that player pool...

It is not by book, but easier than trying to remember whoes cards in what deck...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hannibal_pjv wrote:
And then there is playing groups like mine...
I have 4 cores and one set of weaknesses.
My frien has 3 cores and Also one set of weaknes.
Yet another friend has two core and one set of weaknesses.

When we happen to play together, They bring their own invesgator who has a weaknes from their own pool. Sometimes the is Also one other player who use another investigator from one of us and he use the weaknes from that player pool...

It is not by book, but easier than trying to remember whoes cards in what deck...


I think this is perfectly reasonable and realistic. If multiple people are playing with their own cores it just makes much more sense logistically to do it the way you described here.

I still don't think it really matters in actual gameplay or mechanics...so what if two investigators have the same basic weakness?
2 
 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.