Jump to content
ForAiur

Anyone beat the boss in scenario 3 yet?

Recommended Posts

Well now I don't feel so bad about my failure. Even after getting 5 Cultists and feeling super lucky, on the Devourer Below, I ended up failing 3 consecutive combat attempts against some weakling Ghoul with the Ancient One token -5, the Tentacle, and the -4. Chaos was against me that night, so I just let him devour Arkham.

But at least this feels winnable. It's not as bad as the LOTR LCG Core scenario #3, which you basically can't beat at all with the Core cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get lucky and gear up well, a couple of shotgun blasts, dynamite blasts, sneak attacks, backstabs, and dodge, it seems possible. You just need to get those clues and advance fast, and capture a lot of Cultists so there's fewer enemies to worry about. For me, though, those dang Byakhees and Goat Spawns is what feels the most unfair. Then it's like 3 to 5 mini-bosses on top of the Big Baddie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, when playing solo, 1 CS, the main problem in scenario 3 is the lack of time. Travelling from site to site, gathering clues and dealing with enemies (either by combat or throught evasion) takes a lot of rounds/actions. The agenda advances too fast. By-passing the main path party isn't that difficult, but you still need about 2 rounds on ritual site to get R1.

It feels that you really need more than 1 character to cover all the ground.

Also it feels very luck dependent. Some of the random setups will be much more difficult for some characters than other.

The same is true about random set of Agents of.. Drawing Byakhe or Yithian Observer at a wrong moment might be actual a game over or at least substantial setback. In fact Byakhe is probably the worst, it is very likely that it will be 5 fight, 5 evade monster hunting you round by round.

And the random basic weakness you might get here, some are just minor nuisances, other game breakers.

Considering all those factors it is possible to get a dream setup or a nightmarish one.

Edited by Reid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have!

I did it 2 player with Daisy/Zoey.  Zoey's Cross for 1, Shotgun +5.   Daisy played 2x Hypnotic Gaze to stop Umordhoth's attack that round, one of which scored a hit for +3 damage.   Next turn a second +5 damage shotgun hit finished it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, awp832 said:

I have!

I did it 2 player with Daisy/Zoey.  Zoey's Cross for 1, Shotgun +5.   Daisy played 2x Hypnotic Gaze to stop Umordhoth's attack that round, one of which scored a hit for +3 damage.   Next turn a second +5 damage shotgun hit finished it off.

Zoey's Cross doesn't work. Umordhoth is massive so the cross will never trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting,  I doubt it would have mattered because I still had 2 actions and shotgun bullets left (plus daisy's whole turn)    But still, that's just the sort of ruling that I hate.    I don't understand why Machete should work and Zoey's cross/ability doesn't.   I can't understand the logic.  

Edited by awp832

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only guess is that while it is engaged with you (allowing machete to work) you never actually "become engaged" with it, it's just a state that exists. We need some rules lawyers to talk about this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We killed it in a 4 player game.

I think we had Rex, Zoe, Jenny and Jim.  No shotguns, but Lita helped us out a lot.

Dynamite wasn't that great since it only does 3 damage and most of us were hitting for 3 or 4 anyway at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jobu said:

We killed it in a 4 player game.

I think we had Rex, Zoe, Jenny and Jim.  No shotguns, but Lita helped us out a lot.

Dynamite wasn't that great since it only does 3 damage and most of us were hitting for 3 or 4 anyway at that point.

I do hope you were not giving the +1 damage to him because of Lita, as he's not a monster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

right.   To me,  if I am engaged with something, then there was some point at which I became engaged with it.   But I guess that doesn't hold true in FFG logic land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, awp832 said:

right.   To me,  if I am engaged with something, then there was some point at which I became engaged with it.   But I guess that doesn't hold true in FFG logic land.

Except with Massive enemies, you were never engaged. Just "considered to be engaged". Yeah it's wonky but it's consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, monorico said:

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.

It's more like if you are "considered" to have 3 additional cards in your hand, and Zoey's ability triggered off drawing cards. Even though you are considered to have those cards, you never drew them.

Becoming engaged and being engaged are distinct triggering conditions, even though they are related. Just as having 5 cards is distinct from drawing your fifth card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, monorico said:

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.

Yes, you skip the step where you become engaged because you aren't engaged with a Massive enemy. You're only considered to be engaged - meaning you can act as if you are engaged for the purposes of Fight, Evade, Attacks of Opportunities, and abilities that reference engaged enemies - but you still aren't engaged and never actually engaged the enemy for the purposes of cards that reference engagement (e.g. Zoey and her Cross; or a hypothetical Fast Event like "When you would engage an enemy, immediately move to a connecting location.")

At no point did you become engaged with the enemy. You never transitioned from a non-engaged state to an engaged state. It did not ever happen. Like I said, it's wonky but consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally you are only engaged when the enemy is in your threat area, I just think of becoming engaged as being the act of moving that enemy into your threat area.  This doesn't happen with massive enemies, so there is no moment where it actually becomes engaged, it just counts as being engaged for the purposes of other effects, as others have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...