Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Arkham Horror: Dunwich Horror Expansion» Forums » Rules

Subject: Does Violent Outburst Negate Mists of Releh? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were and ask why not
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mists of Releh: Cast and Exhaust to pass an evade check.

Violent Outburst: You can never attempt to evade or flee from a monster.

The spell is a Lore check, but it is enabling the investigator to pass an evade check.

According to the Madness, you can never attempt to evade or flee.

2) If the spell is failed should stamina loss be sustained?

I've always counted it as a Lore check, and did not sustain damage to the investigator, until I got the Violent Outburst combination, and now question whether that's just one more thing I've been doing wrong.

BTW, I didn't allow the spell to be cast.

Brian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You can't even cast the spell. You're not allowed to make evade checks, so you can't pass them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were and ask why not
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kungfro wrote:
You can't even cast the spell. You're not allowed to make evade checks, so you can't pass them.


The second question related to generally, without Violent Outburst. I've never charged the failed caster with stamina loss.

Brian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oops, I'm sorry. Missed that.
If you fail the spell, you still get to attempt the regular evade check.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D. Silberman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
kungfro wrote:
Oops, I'm sorry. Missed that.
If you fail the spell, you still get to attempt the regular evade check.


This strikes me as a pretty generous interpretation of a zero-sanity cost spell that's already very potent in the hands of an investigator with high Lore and limited Sneak. Do you also allow the reverse procedure: attempting to cast Mists of Releh after failing an Evade check?

Compare the wording of Mists of Releh to the Silver Key unique item:

Mists: "Cast and exhaust to pass an Evade check."

Key: "Put 1 Stamina token from the bank on Silver Key before making an Evade check to automatically pass it."

I read the Mists as being the means by which you pass, or fail, an evade check that is already underway. You've committed to the evasion attempt, and now, instead of skulking off into the shadows, you stand out in the open and utter the forbidden words that call forth the mists. If you fail the spell check, you're left exposed and Mr. Shoggoth comes sluicing your way, with no time for Plan B.

If the intent of the Mists is to precede the normal evade check, I wish it were worded something like, "Cast and exhaust before making an evade check to automatically pass it. If you fail the spell check, you may still attempt a normal evade roll."

All of this also applies to Mists of Releh's sister spell Markings of Isis from Curse of the Dark Pharaoh ("Cast and exhaust to pass a Horror check.")
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bern Harkins
United States
Buffalo
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Consider for a moment the similar spell "Find Gate", which has an effect on movement when cast... but whose failure does not preclude movement.
As I see it, Mists of Releh, successfully cast, negates any dice roll... but it does not replace the roll, which is still allowed, just without the guaranteed success.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tibs
United States
Amherst
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Similarly, assume that failing the spell means failing the evade check... what if your character's Lore is equal to or less than his Sneak? The spell would be worthless.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D. Silberman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
I don't think that Find Gate is a good point of comparison. Bind Monster might be better, since it's in the same form of "Cast [this spell] to pass [this skill check]."

Bind Monster: Cast and discard this spell to pass one Combat check. You must roll successes equal to the monster's toughness to cast this spell.


I'm guessing that everyone in favor of the "Plan B" evade check after a failed Mists of Releh is also in favor of a "Plan B" combat check after a failed casting of Bind Monster (without weapons, of course, since Bind Monster uses both hands for that round of combat).

I think the essence of this disagreement is, if a spell, or something else in the game, tells me, "Do x to pass y," and I don't succeed in doing x, have I now failed y or can I rewind and try something else without triggering the usual results of failure.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were and ask why not
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Do you also allow the reverse procedure: attempting to cast Mists of Releh after failing an Evade check?


I don't have the spell right here, but if it says "any phase," which I believe it does, then that I would definitely allow, unless the investigator is knocked out. You can fight or flee until then. The difference between making the evade check first and then trying to cast the spell is that stamina damage is automatic when failing the Evade check.

As we all know from experience, the language isn't necessarily consistent. The reason for my initial question is that you aren't actually making an Evade check. You're making a Lore check to cast a spell that allows you to pass an Evade check. And the spell doesn't specifically say that failing to cast the spell is synonymous with failing an evade check.

It could very well be interpreted as meaning what Silver Key says. With Arkham, it isn't always easy to determine how to interpret the verbiage.

I agree with Tibs that VO does prevent the player from casting Mists, but that may not be correct, if a distinction is being made between failing the Lore check to pass an Evade check, as opposed to failing the Evade check itself.

Brian

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D. Silberman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
kungfro wrote:
Similarly, assume that failing the spell means failing the evade check... what if your character's Lore is equal to or less than his Sneak? The spell would be worthless.


Agreed. Like a lot of cards in AH, it's useful in some situations and not in others. The same criticism applies to the various "Mask" exhibit items in Curse of the Dark Pharaoh, which let you substitute one skill for another in skill checks. If the two skills are the same, what's the point? Or how about the .38 revolver? If you keep fighting physical-immune monsters, it's a useless weapon.

Mists of Releh is most useful for characters with low maximum speed. It lets them keep their speed maxed to achieve some mobility on the board without having to give up all hope of evading monsters.

Just in terms of game balance, it seems like having a zero-cost spell give you two rolls for a skill check, using different skills that are on different sliders, is overpowered. Especially when that spell can be used every turn. Compare this to the Stealth skill, which gives you a once-per-turn evade reroll, using the same skill. There's only one of these in the base game and it's an $8 skill instead of a $5 spell.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were and ask why not
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zelide wrote:
I don't think that Find Gate is a good point of comparison. Bind Monster might be better, since it's in the same form of "Cast [this spell] to pass [this skill check]."

Bind Monster: Cast and discard this spell to pass one Combat check. You must roll successes equal to the monster's toughness to cast this spell.


I'm guessing that everyone in favor of the "Plan B" evade check after a failed Mists of Releh is also in favor of a "Plan B" combat check after a failed casting of Bind Monster (without weapons, of course, since Bind Monster uses both hands for that round of combat).

I think the essence of this disagreement is, if a spell, or something else in the game, tells me, "Do x to pass y," and I don't succeed in doing x, have I now failed y or can I rewind and try something else without triggering the usual results of failure.


With Bind Monster, I do not inflict stamina damage. A Lore check isn't a Combat, Evade or Will check.

I've never seen this addressed, and I'm pretty sure it isn't in the FAQ. Maybe Kevin can give some guidance as to how these spells are supposed to work.

Brian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D. Silberman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
apatheticexecutioner wrote:
With Bind Monster, I do not inflict stamina damage. A Lore check isn't a Combat, Evade or Will check.

I've never seen this addressed, and I'm pretty sure it isn't in the FAQ. Maybe Kevin can give some guidance as to how these spells are supposed to work.

Brian


Definitely agree that we're at an impasse here without some official guidance. When faced with Arkham ambiguities like this, I usually find myself going with the outcome that's harder on the investigators, and I'm sure that's not always the right outcome.

I'm just hung up on this idea that trying to cast a spell that would make you pass a skill check, and failing to cast that spell, can leave the skill check in a neutral state, as if you'd never even tried. It reminds me of some old D&D session:

"I cast a fireball at the demon!"

"The demon is immune to magical fire, now it attacks you."

"No! I mean, instead of casting fireball I attack it with my +3 sword!"
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Mc Cabe
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
There are those who look at things the way they are and ask why . . . I dream of things that never were and ask why not
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I went ahead and pm'd Kevin. He's usually pretty good at responding, so it might not be too long.

I don't have a D&D background, but you do make a valid point. Maybe the investigator is hiding around the corner, sees the monster without being seen. Failing to cast the spell just means the investigator has to try to do it the old-fashioned way.

Brian
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D. Silberman
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmb
Looks like the just-released FAQ says I was wrong on this one:

Q: If you fail to cast Mists of Releh, can you still make the
Evade check normally?
A: Yes.

3 
 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.