Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About monorico

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Utah, United States
  1. Following this example: You can think of Recall the Future as always committing a +1 wild skill icon to every single test (like committing a card or a resource). Except, if you fail the test, or draw a +1 or elder sign and end up not having to have committed that +1 card/resource (as you would have passed anyway without it). You get the card/resource returned to your hand, so you can use it again for the next test. Then no matter what happens, it gets returned to your hand at the end of the round... Whether you think that is worth it or not, for the 2 resources, card, and an action. For the rest of the game, having a free +1 wild skill icon you can commit to everything, and it only gets used up, if it is actually needed. Then, you get it back at the end of every turn anyway... is up to you. But sounds pretty sweet to me.
  2. It looks like a fun deck to try, I wonder how it would work in a 4 player game. If it would be worth it, or she could be effective at supporting the others.
  3. That is a good point, I didn't think about that. That would be a pretty cool combo.
  4. Pretty awesome, costs a lot of resources to pull though. I barely have enough to do dynamite most times.
  5. You guys should add your stuff to Google play music.
  6. I think something about the Council of Coffers should be based on the number of players though. Maybe 1 lock per player, or you can play up to 3 cards in any combination from any players deck, etc. I mostly play 2 player, and I don't think this would be worth the cost in 2 player.
  7. monorico

    Dunwich Investigators

    If you are doing Solo, Ashcan Pete is really good. Because he can do everything... well duke can do everything.
  8. monorico

    Ward of Protections

    I agree, it is like the guardian 5 cost one (monster slayer???), except you don't have to pass a test to instant kill the enemy.
  9. monorico

    Repetitive Encounter Cards

    I feel the opposite. Those are good generic sets that are fun to see every once in a while in the different scenarios. I love/hate the Ancient Evils card, but it is a great set to add if they need that extra fear of the encounter deck. That's one of the things I didn't like about Lord of the Rings, that they never really went back and used old encounter sets. I wish that they would keep doing this going forward, and even use some of the Dunwich generic sets in Carcosa, but I don't see that happening as they don't want to require people to buy Dunwich to play Carcosa. There was only 3 scenerios in the core, so I am glad they at least added them to some Dunwich campaigns so we could play with those sets more often.
  10. Well the point I was trying to make is that Zoey is actually engaged with a massive enemy in every way. And we can observe she is engaged in every way, there would be nothing to consider (in my opinion). Just like my arms, I have arms, and you wouldn't ever really have to say, I am "considered" to have 2 arms. You could just say "I have 2 arms". But I then I say "I am considered to have 2 arms", now you start to question if I actually have 2 arms. But then you study them, and realize, that I really do have 2 arms. Or in another way: "No he doesn't have 2 arms, he is just "considered" to have 2 arms." It's weird how they did that, I was just trying to show that in my statement. I think what Jobu said is the point I was trying to make, it is not very intuitive, if I hadn't read posts, I would still be blissfully playing my Zoey dealing her one extra damage to massive enemies. And I think that is what a lot of players are doing unless they go online and read posts.
  11. Btw, I really liked this example you wrote up. And all your examples, it helped me better see why they made this ruling. Ha, I am not sure I agree with the ruling, but I do like how it makes a little more sense now.
  12. I agree, I can't dispute the fact that this was the official ruling. Well that depends on how you view/interrupt it. I think a massive enemy would be able to focus on all of us at once, with his many arms, or tentacles or whatever, and be very engaged/occupied/attracted to all of us at the same time. That's why it is able to attack all of us at the same time, consistently, for the same amount of damage at the end of every turn. Because it is engaged with each of us, so it is making sure to hurt each of us, equally. Also there is the flip side of the coin where Zoey's ability says: "After you become engaged with an enemy: Gain 1 resource". Which I think we can both agree, that Zoey would be very engaged/occupied with that massive enemy, even if we say the massive monster isn't really engaged with her. Interestingly though her cross says: "After an enemy becomes engaged with you, exhaust Zoey’s Cross and spend 1 resource: Deal 1 damage to that enemy." One seems to proc off when Zoey herself becomes engaged with an enemy, and the other after an enemy becomes engaged with her. Probably doesn't mean much in the context of the game, but interesting to think about after thinking of the definition of engaged.
  13. I view it more as: Consider for a moment I have two arms. You can see that I have two arms, and that I use two arms to type this post, you can even prove I have 2 arms as I follow all normal rules and conventions for having two arms... but your only "considering" I have two arms. So when you try to prove I have two arms, it fails, because we were only considering I have two arms.
  14. Here is a reference from the rules: "Massive Massive is a keyword ability. A ready enemy with the massive keyword is considered to be engaged with each investigator at the same location as it. =An exhausted enemy with the massive keyword is not considered to be engaged with any investigators. =An enemy with the massive keyword cannot be placed in an investigator’s threat area. = When an enemy with the massive keyword attacks during the enemy phase, resolve its (full) attack against each investigator it is engaged with, one investigator at a time. The lead investigator chooses the order in which these attacks resolve. The massive enemy does not exhaust until its final attack of the phase resolves. = When an enemy with the massive keyword makes an attack of opportunity, that attack only resolves against the investigator who provoked the attack. =A massive enemy does not move with an engaged investigator who moves away from the massive enemy’s location. =If an investigator fails a combat test against a massive enemy, no damage is dealt to the engaged investigators." Also reference the enemy engagement section: "Any time a ready unengaged enemy is at the same location as an investigator, it engages that investigator, and is placed in that investigator’s threat area." If we are talking timing points for engagement, not that there is really any defined timing, first the enemy engages you, then you place him in your threat area. Massive enemies just block being placed in your threat area. Secondly I don't think just because the rules state "...considered to be engaged with..." Means you aren't really "engaged". I interpreted when the rules say I am "considered" to be engaged with an enemy, that means I am engaged with that enemy. I think we could easily debate how we both interrupt the meaning of the word "considered". If you really believe that one word puts you in a weird middle ground engaged state that follows all normal engagement rules except the part were you become engaged, then... I don't think there is anything else I can say. I don't think following a rule that says you become engaged with massive enemies when you transition from a non-engaged state to an engaged state breaks the game. You just get an extra resource or deal one little extra damage. I honestly don't know why I am the only one defending this. Maybe there was an official ruling I missed or something, but I can easily see this as being interrupted both ways.
  15. I disagree. You go from not being engaged to anything, to being"considered" engaged with a massive enemy. And rules lawyers are saying you skip the step were you become engaged??? At some point you have become engaged with the enemy. It makes logical sense. Even if the boss has a static, always engaged with all investors at his location. At some point you still become "engaged" with him. As your investigator transition from a non engaged state to an engaged state. You become engaged. Just because they don't explicitly state that in the rules, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.