The Politian - Questions

His selection of allies may include those in the box when he gets allies.

He is able to get help from people who otherwise wouldn't be available to investigators in Arkham because they've left town. (let's not even try to think about those who have been killed by the Southside Strangler!)

He doesn't automagically get every Ally that goes to the box (leaves town) just because he's cool.

hence all the disagreement on this topic!

that is probably what they meant, just not what they wrote....

Rule: Any cake is chocolate.

Instruction: You may take a piece of cake.

This assumes that the cake you take is chocolate. Just because the instruction doesn't explicitly say "You may take a piece of chocolate cake" doesn't mean you can take Pineapple Up-side-down cake.

If they meant the instruction to be so wildly in opposition to the rule, the instruction would have been more elaborate. It's very vagueness implies that it follows as closely to the original rule as possible.

I feel like I've been transported to a game of Fluxx.

You don't have to take a piece of cake, but if you do, it can be chocolate if you like.

Zombie Fluxx:

The cake is dead. You must take the cake. If you have cake, you cannot win. But you can give the cake to someone else if you have the chainsaw.

@jeffszusz
I'm gonna have to disagree. While we certainly don't play it that way (gaining all allies ever), vague rules don't necessarily imply the intent. Under the rules as given, it is possible to arrive at the conclusion that he may, during any ohase, gain all allies which were returned to the box (i.e. all that were sorted out in the beginning and those which are later returned to the box due to the terror level).

I'm pretty sure his abillity is supposed to just allow him to always be able to gain specific allies even if they have been returned to the box somehow (no matter how). But it doesn't say that.

I don't think your example applies to the situation, and not just because the cake is a lie.

*edit*
And besides, the example is faulty. If the instruction only is "You may take a piece of cake", then you can also take a piece of banana-split cake with vanilla ice toppings introduced in the "Yog's interstellar cooking expansion", even if the base game only had pieces of chocolate rhombus cakes - they are both pieces of cake, so you may take one.

jeffszusz wrote:Zombie Fluxx:

The cake is dead. You must take the cake. If you have cake, you cannot win. But you can give the cake to someone else if you have the chainsaw.

I love Zombie Fluxx! Coming soon, Monty Python Fluxx!

Cake is always a tasty lie.

Seriously though. We know the card isn't specific enough. Play it fairly and don't be RAW-Nazi about it.

The card also says he's a politician. It doesn't specify otherwise, so that must mean he can do anything a real politician can...

In that case, I declare that he's entitled to take as much money as he wants from Arkham, get a free Sedanette, doesn't have to pay for any food at Velma's diner (even magic pie!) and any Deputized character has to do what Charlie's player says or else he gets fired.

Edit: also he gets to smoke in non-smoking establishments and go golfing instead of fight Cthulhu... XD

The cake is chocolate, even if it's undead.

Is Monty Python Fluxx a joke or real???

jeffszusz wrote:Cake is always a tasty lie.

Seriously though. We know the card isn't specific enough. Play it fairly and don't be RAW-Nazi about it.

The card also says he's a politician. It doesn't specify otherwise, so that must mean he can do anything a real politician can...

In that case, I declare that he's entitled to take as much money as he wants from Arkham, get a free Sedanette, doesn't have to pay for any food at Velma's diner (even magic pie!) and any Deputized character has to do what Charlie's player says or else he gets fired.

Edit: also he gets to smoke in non-smoking establishments and go golfing instead of fight Cthulhu... XD

The cake is chocolate, even if it's undead.

I realize you are mostly joking, but Playing by RAW has nothing to do with playing it "fairly" or "unfairly" or anything else like that. Not playing by RAW is the realm of house rules (fine) or arbitrary chaos (not fine at all). And labelling someone (even in general speaking) a RAW-Nazi (and thus apparently a person possessed of a "lower ethical" codex, whatever that is), is just silly and disingenuous. And "real-world" examples like that politician one don't apply at all to a game where characters are highly abstracted into a simpler form (i.e. this game; in a a free-form live RPG or something similar your example would be much better). Any number of characters in Arkham Horror don't represent their real-world jobs to any lengthier extent; that's the nature of the game.

We can have, in such an extreme case, a much higher percentage chance of knowing what the designer wanted to do with this guy, simply because we know that the way characters are balanced (which is more or less known through the strange eons program), that this character is probably not supposed to work that way. But we don't really know it, we are assuming that it is so because of a sort of precedent.

Note that I did say that you are probably kidding - "RAW bashing" is just a pet peeve of mine, especially in competitive games (which isn't the case here, unless you count the League).

jeffszusz wrote:Play it fairly and don't be RAW-Nazi about it.

You might be having a go at me, but I have no idea what one of those are.

RAW stands for "Rules as written" i.e. a RAW-Nazi is someone whom plays the rules exactly as written (some claim that this is done only to gain an advantage). The addition of "Nazi" is only for the purposes of explaining that someone is really, really intensely doing this. For example, a chocolate-nazi would hate having this with his chocolate and might have negative things to say about mixing chocolate with strawberries.
Fluff-nazi would be someone whom adheres stoically to the "fluff" (i.e. background) of a certain game/other thing, and so on.

I'm not "RAW-bashing", and yeah I was mostly kidding.

I just think it's silly to take part of the Rules As Written that you know are improperly written and need correcting and actually play the way it's written, word for word, taking all the allies from the box because that's "what it says." It's -not- what it says.

"Charlie may gain X that Y" is not the same as "Charlie gains X when Y"

"Charlie may take Allies that have been returned to the box." Those allies in the box are valid for him to take. It does not tell you to take any. You take one when something else in the game instructs you to do so: encounter or buying at Ma's.

"Any Phase:" is not "whenever the heck you want".
It means "At any point in the game where the following rule could apply."

@Tamsyn: I wasn't making a personal go at anyone, not even yourself. I was making a general suggestion to everyone that they not take the RAW so literally when there's an obvious lack of clarity. We KNOW there is a problem with the text as written.

jeffszusz wrote:
I just think it's silly to take part of the Rules As Written that you know are improperly written and need correcting and actually play the way it's written, word for word, taking all the allies from the box because that's "what it says." It's -not- what it says.

"Charlie may gain X that Y" is not the same as "Charlie gains X when Y"

"Charlie may take Allies that have been returned to the box." Those allies in the box are valid for him to take. It does not tell you to take any. You take one when something else in the game instructs you to do so: encounter or buying at Ma's.

"Any Phase:" is not "whenever the heck you want".
It means "At any point in the game where the following rule could apply."

I'm afraid that those examples you've listed do indeed mean what you say that they don't mean. Sure, it doesn't tell him to take any. It does say that he may do so though. In Any Phase. While this does not mean "whenever the heck you want", it does mean you can take them at any point in the game, as the entire game is made up of phases - sure, only when the rule applies, but the only thing preventing the taking of allies is the investigator's wish to not do so.

"Any Phase:" is not "whenever the heck you want".
It means "At any point in the game where the following rule could apply."

Right. Which is why it is an open question whether it is supposed to be that any ally card that gets returned to the box during play is immediately handed to he politician or that any time he is entitled to an ally he can treat it as if it were available even if it is in the box.

Both are plausible interpretations. Both can make some amount of sense when people have left town because of the terror level increases. Both make little or no sense when allies have been removed by the Southside Strangler and then raised as Servants of Glaaki. But which ever way it's supposed to be done, you'd still do it during the Southside Strangler Rumor.

-Frank

I have not weighed in on this issue yet, but I have seen some compelling arguements from both sides.

The Choice: Use the 2 clues to keep the terror level down or take the ally.
Although this is an interesting take on Charlies abilities and does fit his character nicely, I'm almost certain that this isnt how he is meant to be played. I do like this alot though and would consider it a house rule as Charlie would definately be a better character for it, but maybe too good. If others want to play this way so be it. As other have pointed out, Charlie could potentially take up to 10 allies for free, just from ignoring the terror level and letting it rise. Seems a bit over-powering.

Being able to start the game with the 23 allies that are removed from the game is just silly and I think we all agree this is simply wrong and game-breaking.

I have always played him and understood his ability to mean, just like others have pointed out, that he is able to get allies unavailable for other players, when he encounters them or buys them at Ma's. This way would include all 33 or so allies for him to choose from when buying at Ma's and allows him to always get the ally during an encounter as long as no other player has it already. I shall continue to play this way as I am sure this is how it is meant to be.

This is all just re-interation of this whole thread, but I think we know how this is meant to be played, but people do have the option of house-ruling anything they like, so go for it. I just would not do this in a League game is all.

Bravo McWilley wrote:
I have always played him and understood his ability to mean, just like others have pointed out, that he is able to get allies unavailable for other players, when he encounters them or buys them at Ma's. This way would include all 33 or so allies for him to choose from when buying at Ma's and allows him to always get the ally during an encounter as long as no other player has it already. I shall continue to play this way as I am sure this is how it is meant to be.

This is also how I house-rule it. Yes, house-rule it, for it isn't what the card says (it's the only house rule I have, because due to alot of data on character power levels, it is an okay guess to make). But because this is a house-rule, I am not going to use him in the League, unless an official clarification is made, to avoid the issue entirely.

(If someone held a gun to my head and told me to play with him in the League, I would play him like it sez on the card though, as using house rules in the League is basically "cheating", and in competitive efforts I'm a firm believer in RAW. I know no-one sees it that way, and I am not calling you lot cheaters [I think it is self-evident what a cheater is, so no need to say that sort of thing], nor would I care if someone played it one way or the other: In the case of ÜBER-Politician, it is following the rules of the game and the League - in any other interpretation, you are ignoring advantages, which is perfectly legit as well. I just personally find playing with less than all your strength to be unsportsmanlike, but that "sportsmanship" is an ill-defined term and since it doesn't appear in the rules, it can be cast aside completely with no consequences. Ideally anyway.)

Ahh good point. Basically any interpetation of his ability is a house-rule at this point as there hasnt been an official ruling one way or another.

I getcha. I'm picking up what your putting down.

Start Speculation - But if we had to bet on it, I think the way we currently play him is going to be the official rule in the end. - End Speculation

Hence the RAW-Nazi comment.

We know it's not intended to be that way. If it were, he would be Dimitri Martin with 9000 Myspace friends, not Charlie the Politician, investigator in Arkham Horror.

"It's -not- what it says"

I was referring to the fact that it does not explicitly say so.

RAW Interpretation: He gets any allies from the box, whenever he wants.
This interpretation assumes that because it doesn't explicitly say to follow the other rules, you get to just take them.

RAW Interpretation: He has the luxury of taking boxed allies when he gets an ally by the usual means.
This interpretation assumes that the other rules in the game are implicit.

Both interpretations are possible, absolutely.

To isolate the text and assume that the other rules in the game are NOT implicit, and that because there is no explicit restriction, you can just take all the allies from the box, is to be a RAW-Nazi. (To gain an advantage, yes.)

To accept the other rules in the game as implicit, and assume that boxed allies are fair game when gaining allies normally, is more balanced, makes the game fun for everyone (not just Charlie's player), and is more likely by far the intention of the designers.

@Victimizer: a House Rule is when you -change- a rule from what it was intended to something else. Interpreting a vague rule that doesn't specify what really happens to actually make some sense in the game isn't a House Rule

@Ricky
Oh absolutely - although I think it is possible, to a small, but not to be ignored, degree that he might only be able to take returned allies from the original 11. I would still bet on the interpretation that he has access to all of them, and can take them when instructed to do so by encounters/tomes/etc., as well as being able to choose which one he likes when he buys from the boarding house. If I were a betting man anyway.

I understand that the wording of Charlie's ability is technically ambiguous.

I'm just having trouble imagining a native English-speaker setting out to write a card that grants the ability as Tamsyn's reading it and choosing to use the phrasing used on Charlie's card.

I really can't imagine someone designing an investigator to gain allies as the Terror level rises and not just saying "When an ally is returned to the box, Charlie may take that ally" if that's what they meant.

-Lactamaeon.

jeffszusz wrote:Hence the RAW-Nazi comment.

We know it's not intended to be that way. If it were, he would be Dimitri Martin with 9000 Myspace friends, not Charlie the Politician, investigator in Arkham Horror.

"It's -not- what it says"

I was referring to the fact that it does not explicitly say so.

RAW Interpretation: He gets any allies from the box, whenever he wants.
This interpretation assumes that because it doesn't explicitly say to follow the other rules, you get to just take them.

RAW Interpretation: He has the luxury of taking boxed allies when he gets an ally by the usual means.
This interpretation assumes that the other rules in the game are implicit.

Both interpretations are possible, absolutely.

To isolate the text and assume that the other rules in the game are NOT implicit, and that because there is no explicit restriction, you can just take all the allies from the box, is to be a RAW-Nazi. (To gain an advantage, yes.)

To accept the other rules in the game as implicit, and assume that boxed allies are fair game when gaining allies normally, is more balanced, makes the game fun for everyone (not just Charlie's player), and is more likely by far the intention of the designers.

The second "RAW" interpretation adds text that isn't there, and is hence no RAW interpretation. One should not view correct rules interpretations in forms of "does this give me an advantage?" or "does this net me a disadvantage?" That isn't RAW. That's wishful thinking.

The rules, if simply read, to the letter, allow what you take all allies returned to the box (it is explicit, by the way). There are no other rules one has to look to. Rules tell you what you can do, not what you are not allowed to do. Yes, the rules do not say you may not search the item decks and give your character whatever you like. They only tell you when and how to do this under specific circumstances. Similarly, the rules for gaining allies are explicitly mentioned on the politician's card.

Again, a real RAW-nazi follows rules absolutely. Someone wiggling out advantages for himself which are not in the rules is a cheater. I realize colloquially this is another matter, but I would fall into the category of a "RAW-Nazi", but I follow the rules to the letter and point them out even if such a case would automatically have me lose the game. "Advantage" and "Disadvantage" do not matter.

And again, I House-rule it so that it works differently, I do not play it this way. But no-one here is in their right to assume that people play it that way because they want the advantage. That isn't the case at all with all people. Nor can one know if this makes it "less fun" for these people.

I agree with what the intent of the designers is likely to be, but that isn't the issue at hand, and should have no bearing on looking at what the rules actually say. Intent of another person can never be truly known.

@Lactamaeon: I believe the problem with Tamsyn's interpetation (which I think isnt really an interpetation, but a house-rule she is suggesting as a new fun way of playing him) is that she has created a correlation or link between Charlies two abilities, where none actually exist. They should work indepentently. He can stop the terror level by spending 2 clues and he can also take allies from the box when appropriate.

She has linked the two together to form an interesting side play.

Bravo McWilley wrote:I have not weighed in on this issue yet, but I have seen some compelling arguements from both sides.

The Choice: Use the 2 clues to keep the terror level down or take the ally.
Although this is an interesting take on Charlies abilities and does fit his character nicely, I'm almost certain that this isnt how he is meant to be played.

Why?

The KH rules insist that only 11 allies should be in the game. In other words, the rules say both that the other allies are returned to the box and that they are out of the game. If they are out of the game, then they are clearly not available to Charlie.

I do like this alot though and would consider it a house rule as Charlie would definately be a better character for it, but maybe too good.

It sounds too good, but I don't think it really is. My wife, who played it that way, says she's not interested in playing him again. Why? His movement is 3 and none of the allies she got improved upon that. Essentially they turned him into a high Lore wizard who never got any spells.

IMO, being able to always get Professor Rice at Ma's boarding house is overpowered. Of course, he can't do that until he's accomplished a few things (gets 10 toughness markers) and the game will probably be half over by then.

If others want to play this way so be it. As other have pointed out, Charlie could potentially take up to 10 allies for free, just from ignoring the terror level and letting it rise. Seems a bit over-powering.

The terror rises when the terror level rises. It's not like Charlie has any control over when it rises. He can't make it rise faster. All he has is a choice stop its rise or take an ally. I'd advise people to house-rule it this way once and you'll find that it's not overpowering. However it is fun. Random allies are, well, random. Actually Charlie could get up to 11 allies, because he starts with one. On the other hand, he can't get allies that other players have.

I have always played him and understood his ability to mean, just like others have pointed out, that he is able to get allies unavailable for other players, when he encounters them or buys them at Ma's. This way would include all 33 or so allies for him to choose from when buying at Ma's and allows him to always get the ally during an encounter as long as no other player has it already. I shall continue to play this way as I am sure this is how it is meant to be.

We've played with Charlie four times. Only once with the new interpretation. I'd already consigned him to my second to last favorite character. He's just boring and stopping the terror level just isn't enough to save him.

mageith wrote:
The KH rules insist that only 11 allies should be in the game. In other words, the rules say both that the other allies are returned to the box and that they are out of the game. If they are out of the game, then they are clearly not available to Charlie.

Actually, it tells you to return the other allies to the box. To be exact:

"...shuffle it and deal out 11 cards faceup, returning the others to the box."

Quite clear on that account.

I find the "terror level or ally" thing, though lacking in incentive, a very fun house rule, visually speaking.