It's pointless to try and discuss this with you because you cannot understand examples that are in any way abstract.
If you ignore the card, then the point of the thread - that the cards are stupid and bad - is entirely correct. What more do you want here?

I like playing the app because then there's no loser. That's the most important part of it I'd say.
When I'm playing the overlord it makes me feel like a huge jerk when I win, it's not fun for 4 people then because they've got smashed. And because this game snowballs it often means it stays not fun for them as we go on. The app totally removes that problem.
 
And yea it means I can play it two player without it being....rubbish.

I like playing the app because then there's no loser. That's the most important part of it I'd say.
When I'm playing the overlord it makes me feel like a huge jerk when I win, it's not fun for 4 people then because they've got smashed. And because this game snowballs it often means it stays not fun for them as we go on. The app totally removes that problem.
 
And yea it means I can play it two player without it being....rubbish.

It specifically says "from your local retailer" in the news post

Wait, what? What's given you the idea that it's only available on the FFG website? I've not seen that anywhere.

Wait, what? What's given you the idea that it's only available on the FFG website? I've not seen that anywhere.

I feel like if they're going to release anything new (which is DEFINITELY feeling like a no) it'd be something to do with the Uthuk to tie it in more with the other games.

I feel like if they're going to release anything new (which is DEFINITELY feeling like a no) it'd be something to do with the Uthuk to tie it in more with the other games.

I feel like if they're going to release anything new (which is DEFINITELY feeling like a no) it'd be something to do with the Uthuk to tie it in more with the other games.

How do you try to not go insane in some scenarios that give automatic horror with no test? We played one scenario (you investigate the town on 3 separate days, Innsmouth maybe?) and after each day you are given automatic horror (1, then 2, then 3 after each day). If you do not have a way to heal horror (not something you can control) then any investigator with 6 or less starting sanity WILL be insane at the end, guaranteed. If they then draw a traitor card, either they must play against the goal (NOT fun for my gaming group as we care about experiencing the story of the scenario) or they ignore the card and then what's the point?
Regardless, I don't claim that it's a broken mechanic and if you like it then great for you but my group HATES them as it ruins OUR idea of fun. I don't understand the desire to argue one idea of fun is somehow better and more pure than another. The OP hates the traitor cards and probably hopes that FFG will provide an official variant (a sentiment I agree with as I feel this game is almost perfect otherwise <- opinion in case that wasn't clear). I loathe traitor and semi-cooperative games but love almost everything else this game brings to the table. So, while I generally avoid houseruling games, I make an exception in this case as otherwise amazing gaming experiences can occasionally be ruined <-opinion warning.

Then why have the card? If you are going to ignore it, why have the card?
Why have a card that creates new win conditions for part of the party and makes them a traitor in an otherwise co-op game? That, again, is the whole point of the thread.

I've never been on a forum where it even allows you to give a reason for editing and I feel like that's etiquette that you're pushing onto everyone else. Especially since this thread gets maybe two posts a week, it's not like we're in a chatroom replying at a mile a minute.

The thing is why would that person grin?
Again, for a lot of us if you "win" because you've set a load of fires and it ends the investigation in a co-op game that doesn't feel like a real win. The game is over and the investigation isn't done, that's absolutely a loss.

are you kidding me dude?  players want to win.  so they are either forced into doing something they dont want to do to 'win' and then no one is happy or they are forced to lose when everyone else in a co-op game wins.  all potentially from actions COMPLETELY out of the player's control.  They were simply told by the game 'you take horror damage because the app says and now you have a card that says you lose.  enjoy'
 
like... this is bad.  what about this do you not get?  Take your head out of 'lore' and whatever other muddy waters you are confusing yourself with and understand this is bad game design.

I don't want a third edition (I'm just now getting close to owning everything in 2E) but much like with many FFG lines, I wish they were more a lot more transparent about the state of the game.
 
As a fan of stuff like IA and Descent, GenCon can be downright depressing when we get nothing year after year.

From the top of this page:
When MoM1 was released, the only other Arkham board game (there was an old Call of Cthulhu CCG that they acquired and turned into the first LCG) was Arkham Horror.  The bases were made to use the same sized tokens as AH2 used.  This allowed you to slide either token into your minis, depending on which game you were playing.  (Unless you were my boss, in which case you glued the MoM1 tokens into the bases.  Seriously.)
The bases served for that, but I'm with you that I'd prefer most other options for their basing.  Now, having Descent2, Imperial Assault and the upcoming AH3, I'd much rather have the pertinent information for the enemies on cards.  They'd be easier to sort, store, and use.
Anyway, that's the history lesson.  I think that was the deciding factor for Eldritch Horror to use the same token style for its monsters.  I'm super glad they didn't make it into either Elder Sign or the LCG.

You've misunderstood there.
I'm saying that when the game ends it says you've lost when you have (for example) Pyromaniac because you've not set six fires.  But really if the app is completed and the "quest" is done then you've won regardless of what the card is saying to you. And like totgeboren said this is a fake loss, it doesn't mean anything. In the same way as when you set six fires and the game is over and you've "won". Well I've not, because the game is over and the investigation isn't complete.

You've misunderstood there.
I'm saying that when the game ends it says you've lost when you have (for example) Pyromaniac because you've not set six fires.  But really if the app is completed and the "quest" is done then you've won regardless of what the card is saying to you. And like totgeboren said this is a fake loss, it doesn't mean anything. In the same way as when you set six fires and the game is over and you've "won". Well I've not, because the game is over and the investigation isn't complete.

I think this is taking some liberties with the definition of what "winning" is. When you get wounded (loss of all your health the first time around), you are punished by the game, and it makes playing more difficult. You have certainly not "essentially lost", the game is still very much on but it's more difficult and thus often more exciting! If you health drops to zero a second time, you die. Only then is the game lost.
The loss of all sanity the first time around should be seen in a similar light, especially since the game is made in a way that makes sanity loss much more likely than health loss. The first time you lose all sanity your character has become a bit unhinged, but they are not beyond recovery. The loss of all sanity the second time around means the asylum for you, your mind has snapped and no amount of restful rustication is going to improve your mental condition. 

I.e. the first time you lose all health or sanity, your character can recover should they survive. Therefor you can still 'win' the game. If someone loses all health or sanity the second time around, they are either dead or permanently insane, therefor they cannot lore-wise win the game anymore.
 
I admit I haven't tried finding other dedicated MoM forums online, to my knowledge this place is where the action happens. Since MoM does not have a tournament scene, official rulings and such are generally not needed. The amount of feedback the company gets will also be seriously reduced due to the character of the game.
I suspect die-hard gamers are over-represented among the posters on this forum, so whatever we can learn of the the general sentiments regarding the game will be skewed.
But even taking all that into account, the only source of 'public opinion' available at the moment is this forum, and here a noticeable proportion of those responding to this thread have issues with the way some of the insane-conditions have been written.

And why would people send in feedback on their own? My main MoM group (casual gamers except me) all hated the instant-death win condition for some of the insane cards, and so I changed them to function more like the fun insane conditions. Done. I don't need FFG to approve my suggestions, no for them to publish erratas because my group was unhappy with that part of the game. And that goes for all other groups, due to this being a co-op game. You don't need an external arbitrator, so why would people contact FFG with their objections? 

The bases are the worst and stupidest thing in any FFG game I've ever played and I have a lot of them. I cannot understand why they've done them that way.
Why put artwork on a card that's covered at all times, for example? Baffling.

Thanks for responding to my post! I will try to address the things you've mentioned, though bear with me, I am still figuring out how quotations work in this forum. I think I've got the hang of it now (I say, after spending twenty plus minutes editing this response, oops)
Apologies if I missed something you said in your post, I read most of this thread in one go and tried to respond to the queries by going through each card individually.
Just double checked the rules: "An investigator can place Fire in his space or an adjacent space by performing the set fire action." I haven't found where it states you need (a) specific item(s) to start fires? 
I will admit, I misremembered how fire spreads - one new space of fire per turn rather than one new space of fire per existing space of fire per turn. Which would make it a little easier, I suppose, though you'd need to have an investigator in the right place/chasing the fire-starter to keep putting the fire out (which is never a guaranteed success given you have to roll agility, whereas setting fire does not require a roll). Additionally, I am far more used to playing with 2/3 investigators. I suppose if you have 5 investigators it would be possible. But I think it's fair to say that the majority of games do not have all 5 investigators (eg. stats in pinned post show 2-investigator games are easily the most common) so while 5 is optimum and yeah, probably more doable, I was thinking more in the general sense, which would include games with 2/3 investigators. Unfortunately there is almost no scaling in this game, which is why I am taking into account the worst case scenario.
I meant super easy in that you just have to end a turn in a space with one investigator, thus your next turn will automatically start in a space with an investigator. I refer to turn here being 'Investigator Phase' as that is how the app/people I know have distinguished it, rather than separate turns for each investigator. I guess if you do separate them, it is easier to avoid, but I was writing with that understanding of player turns.
Ending a space with just 1 investigator is far more likely that 2 or 3 investigators, not just because most games do not have more investigators, as mentioned above, but also because as the investigators spread around the board, they are likely to be more separate, even if they are still very much in range of each other. A bladed weapon (or two) occurs in basically every game. With 1-2 players (which is the majority of my experience that I am speaking from, I will admit that) it's pretty darn likely you will have or end up with a bladed weapon. 
I guess in my experience it has not been difficult to meet the conditions of the card at all, and as such, I respectfully disagree with you on that front. 
As it happens, I have never ignored an insanity condition in any game I have played. In the games I have played, they have been compulsory or thereabouts, since choosing not to do them didn't seem like an option I guess? I mention this for context: I am speaking from experience of exclusively playing insanity conditions as written rather than ignoring them as you suggest. 
I am well aware you cannot use the attack action against other investigators. When I say mitigate the damage, I am referring to fixing mixed up puzzles (that another player can do if the others do not finish it in a single turn), putting out fires (because fires are of course inconvenient), stealing items and pushing investigators. 
Fair enough on the abruptly front, I checked that card after posting, but it can still very easily event in the other player(s) having to drop the investigation to mitigate the damage, as already mentioned. Again, with 5 players, as most things in this game seem to be, it becomes a lot easier, but with 2-3 investigators, it is very difficult to do much else that react to this stuff in your turns. 
I actually really like For The Greater Good for flavour, and I did mention in my post that it doesn't entirely count as a traitor condition as you are mostly playing the game as normal. This is the one I have the least issue with to be honest, but I was simply highlighting the drawbacks of the card (eg. dying before game end but not too late to ensure the investigation is completed can be hecking difficult if you've not played the scenario before). Plus again, a 2-3 investigator game is very different from a 4-5 investigator game.
I already mentioned I don't ignore them, but you are right that I (and people I have played with) have been, at times, somewhat frustrated when a game ends (what we feel to be) prematurely or, perhaps more annoyingly, without a real narrative conclusion. (Even the lose conditions in the app have an epilogue of sorts. imo some of the frustration would be much lessened if there were, for example, alternate app endings depending on how you lost.) 
Re: LabanShrewsbury's posts over the course of this thread, there are definitely instances where it comes off as refusing to accept people's reasoning eg. this is not the game for you if you want to have workarounds. True, you can't be 100% sure of tone/intent on the internet, but that was what I was addressing, not the confusion over specific card functions.
That's great that you have funny games with one of the players mute, but it's not for everyone, and it works better in some games than others. In addition, the card does not specify that it's specifically your character that cannot speak, and thus it can be read as the player needing to be quiet. If you think about it, the way you play could be considered a sort of workaround to some people due to the ambiguity of the card, which in a way just emphasises the idea that this game can be played with minor tweaks for player enjoyment. The way you suggest playing it does sound worthwhile though, I may well use it next time that card comes up!
I think I've covered everything? (Sometimes I get a little overwhelmed at lots of text - which I realise is pretty hecking rich seeing how long my post was - hence I've broken it up into smaller chunks, but do let me know if I have missed anything or misunderstood what you meant.) I think it's fair to say our experiences playing this game have been a little different, which likely colours our opinions, but it has been fun discussing the intricacies of these conditions! You certainly mentioned a couple things I hadn't thought of, which is one of the reasons why I find discussions like these so interesting.

This post is mostly in response to LabanShrewsbury, but of course everyone is free to read/discuss/comment/etc 
I will go through each traitor condition in the hope  of explaining to you what people are trying to say here.
If I am understanding correctly, there are effectively 2 options upon drawing an insanity condition:
a) Choose not to do what the card says is your win condition
b) Choose to do what the card says is your win condition
Pyromania
Drawn early game.
a) Choose not to do it. 
You choose not to start any fires / make sure there are not more than 6. aka things you were probably going to be doing anyway. Effect on game: nonexistent
b) Choose to do it.
You start a bunch of fires. Other investigators either try to stop you, meaning that the entire game becomes a repetitive game of cat and mouse starting and extinguishing fires, and the story/mystery/investigation goes out the window, (which is what most people play the game for) 
OR other investigators leave you to it, fire spreads, game ends really early. 
OR of course, some amalgamation of the two which ends up being ultimately unfulfilling for most players since they cannot move on with the investigation nor successfully end the fire starting for good. 
Drawn late game.
a) Choose not to do it. 
You don't start any new fires. You put out existing spreading fires, taking actions that could otherwise go to moving on the investigation. Players are annoyed since they have made progress and this massively screws their chances of finishing the game. Nobody wins or it feels like a hollow victory for fire-starter.
b) Choose to do it.
You start fires, or knowingly let them spread to 6 tiles. Investigators, like earlier, either try to put them out or leave them be. Game ends quickly one way or another as they are near the end of the game so limited turns are either spent putting out fires and not being able to finish the investigation or trying to complete investigation in time, losing to the fires just before win scenario (frustrating) or winning just before (insanity condition has little to no effect on game, except fire-starter is the only one who doesn't win)
c) There are already 6 fires, which can realistically happen late game, since players tend to be concentrating on stopping the big bad/disrupting the ritual/whatever the win condition is. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, any hopes of finishing the game go out the window. Lots of players tend to feel cheated as they have made progress and it feels out of their control.
One of the Thousand
At any point during the game tbh
a) Choose not to do it
This is the only one where it kinda works out like some of the others in that you cannot end a turn with another investigator. But this can super easily end up having no effect on the game whatsoever or too much if it's in close quarters, like hallways and such, in which case game ends abruptly or becomes impossible to continue investigation
b) Choose to do it
Super easy. Game ends abruptly no matter how quickly you manage it. Hollow victory for traitor, lose for everyone else.
c) You draw the card and already have a bladed weapon and sharing a space. Game ends abruptly, players have no way to stop it, etc.
Crisis of Conscience
At any point during game.
a) Choose not to do it
Literally no effect on game except you are the only one to lose if everyone else wins
b) Choose to do it
Super easy to end game abruptly. OR other investigators again spend all their turns trying to mitigate any damage you do and thus cannot continue investigation.
For the Greater Good (I'm including here even though not sure how much it counts? Since for most of the game you are trying to complete the investigation)
a) Choose not to do it/don't die at the right time
No effect on game outcome except you are the only one to lose if everyone else wins.
b) Choose to do it
Try and die. Late game, might be nice flavour to die 'for the greater good' as opposed to for no reason, but next to no effect on game mechanically, OR you spend last turns walking into fire/letting things attack you/etc. either succeeding to die and not completing the investigation or failing and losing either way
With the minor exception of choosing not to do One of the Thousand, which almost works out like a non traitor condition (except as a heightened claustrophobia/paranoia condition that risks ending the game on accident), the traitor insanity conditions either have zero effect on the game (largely by choosing not to do them, which questions why they have them in the first place*) or too much effect on the game, ending the game abruptly or making continuing the investigation next to impossible.
We all know the game is meant to be difficult, but lots of people play for the challenge, and even a lose condition has a narrative conclusion in the app which helps even a loss feel like a satisfactory game, instead of an abrupt game end or doing away with the investigation altogether (which can also be repetitive/boring).
Everyone has different things they enjoy, of course, but you seem to refuse to accept people's reasoning as to why they don't like these cards. In this post I have tried to explain why this is. You don't have to agree, but please try to understand instead of dismissing their concerns, which you have done a lot of in this thread. I mean no disrespect, but people have explained this already, I am only going into such close detail to help you understand. This doesn't have to be an argument.
*A lot of people enjoy the insanity conditions as an additional challenge whilst continuing the investigation rather than a flat game over (with no narrative conclusion) or dismissing the investigation itself to mitigate the damage of the traitor. If you have the option of choosing not to do the insanity card, it is a valid question as to why have it in the first place? People tend to do the insanity cards as that is the consequence of losing their sanity points. Choosing not to do them sort of defeats the point of having them there in almost every instance.
As an additional note, conditions like "You cannot speak" rather than "You cannot speak in game" can ruin it for some people. Playing games is a very social experience for a lot of people; not everyone wants to end up playing charades, and if they don't want to do this (which is 100% okay, it's meant to be fun, it's not for everyone) they do risk getting left out because they cannot speak, which sucks. You can choose not to do it of course, but again, why then have the card.
Saying that not following certain things in game means it's the wrong game for people dismisses a lot of the reason people are playing it in the first case. Lots of people like the game a lot, hence why they are coming up with these minor workarounds in order to continue playing the game they love without having to deal with the little things that ruin it for them. Just like when people play a video game with a mod or two, it doesn't mean they don't like the base game (otherwise they wouldn't be playing it) they are just slightly altering it to tailor it to their own enjoyment. And enjoying yourself is the whole reason you play games in the first place.
Have a great week everyone!
?

You sound old in this post. You sound like the sort of person who says they don't want to use the internet because "we got along before without it fine". Why would you be against a labour saving device?
 
Play Gloomhaven. I absolutely love the game but if there was an app to control the monsters it'd be a thousand times easier. Having to go through and get the sleeves for each monster, then sleeve each one and then make sure you're using the right cards (out of hundreds) to control them is a lot of fiddling.  Last night we did a level with 6 types of demons and it's often hard to remember which cards you've drawn and which you've used. It's getting in the way of actually playing and an app would smooth that out so much.
I am glad the majority is pro-app and that the industry is moving in that direction.
 
In regards to the Overlord it just means that you always have to have at least 3 people to play (which isn't always easy) and it always means that someone isn't enjoying it. I played Descent as the overlord every time when we played pre-app as the game is mine and I have the most familiarity with it. Just like happens in most cases. It's nice to actually get to PLAY the game instead of just being someone who is there to annoy all the other players. And it avoids Descent's biggest problem - snowballing of one side so they always win and the other side gives up playing.
You don't need to go far back in posts here or on BGG to see that complaint over and over and it's in reviews too.
 

Thank you for saying exactly what I would have done.
If the cards give you the option to ignore them then like I said before the topic of this post - that they're better ignored - is pretty fulfilled isn't it? And if there's someone in your game group who just goes "Okay I win now" during a co-op game and just ends it when it's plain that everyone else doesn't enjoy it then why are you still playing with them?

Thank you for saying exactly what I would have done.
If the cards give you the option to ignore them then like I said before the topic of this post - that they're better ignored - is pretty fulfilled isn't it? And if there's someone in your game group who just goes "Okay I win now" during a co-op game and just ends it when it's plain that everyone else doesn't enjoy it then why are you still playing with them?