Anyone beat the boss in scenario 3 yet?

[Doma0997 72]

I think it has a lot to do with it being an lcg,  and the level of rules lawyering involved. In most games I've played,  the word considered changes everything. Take for instance cthulhu wars. There is a unit that is considered to be a great old one,  yet because the word considered is used,  it is not actually a great old one, but just acts like one when the rules need to check for certain things (I'm simplifying a lot) but essentially considered ends up putting a situation in a certain state,  without actually being in that state. 

[BD Flory 695]

2 hours ago, monorico said:

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.

There was an official ruling, yes. Zoey doesn't trigger.

[Jobu 720]

On 7/2/2017 at 2:17 PM, Doma0997 said:

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

Yeah, that's what I get for letting my friends read the cards instead of me.  We would have lost.

On 7/2/2017 at 7:35 PM, Network57 said:

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

I gotta say, while I have no issue with a ruling being made, this is really counter-intuitive.  I really wonder what the concern of it being the other way was?  Its not like Zoey will be shredding massive enemies with her 1 pt of damage.  Most likely future possible interactions for the trigger.

[BD Flory 695]

7 hours ago, Jobu said:

I gotta say, while I have no issue with a ruling being made, this is really counter-intuitive.  I really wonder what the concern of it being the other way was?  Its not like Zoey will be shredding massive enemies with her 1 pt of damage.  Most likely future possible interactions for the trigger.

Well, you generally want consistency. So it wouldn't just be that specific trigger, it would set a precedent for all "considered" interactions in the future, tacking on a bunch of related triggers that don't actually belong.

It's just the nature of CCGs/LCGs. The rules are as intricate as they are because they're written not only for all possible interactions among released cards, but to create a consistent framework for all possible future interactions not only for cards in development, but for cards that haven't even been conceived yet.

 

[awp832 447]

I'm in the same boat with Jobu,  I understand that it's been decided, but it's just counter intuitive,   it's like they decided that "considered engaged" is its own, technical term.  If they wanted a state that was just for massive enemies than they should have called it something different.   Like, you are "engaged" with regular enemies and "suppressed" with massive ones, or something.   Engaged and "considered engaged" is confusing.
 

[Jobu 720]

8 hours ago, BD Flory said:

It's just the nature of CCGs/LCGs. The rules are as intricate as they are because they're written not only for all possible interactions among released cards, but to create a consistent framework for all possible future interactions not only for cards in development, but for cards that haven't even been conceived yet.

 

I get that (CCG and LCGs are not new).  I just think its needlessly confusing despite that.  As far as future cards, they can change the interaction/ruling in the future if it becomes an issue.  That happens frequently in games (or new FAQs wouldn't be needed) and has happened at least once in this LCG.  Note, FFG considers a prior ruling being counter intuitive a reason to change a ruling.

[BD Flory 695]

Just because it happens doesn't mean it's something they want to happen. They issue errata and reversals out of necessity.

Regardless, this is a perfectly reasonable ruling. You are not engaged. You are only considered engaged. Therefore you never became engaged. It's really not that complicated.

[Doma0997 72]

Consider for a moment that I have two heads. You can talk to me like I have two heads,  look at me like I have two heads, heck you can run away from me like I have two heads,  but you're only considering that I have two heads. When you try to do something that needs proof that I have two heads,  you fail,  because you only were considering that I had two heads. 

It makes sense to me because of the massive trait in general. The monster is not actually paying attention to you specifically,  it's just taking up so much room that you're considered to be engaged to it because when it flails around, you'll be caught in that attack.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Doma0997

[monorico 30]

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.

[Doma0997 72]

This is quite the topic. It all comes down to, they say you are not engaged with said enemy, but your actions are affected as if you are engaged. Going by the literal definition of engage, it's to occupy or attract someone's attention. In the terms of massive, the game plays out where the creature is not specifically paying attention to us. Its attention is on multiple things at once, otherwise you'd be able to draw its attacks to you when they attack, instead of it attacking everyone. 

[monorico 30]

14 minutes ago, Doma0997 said:

This is quite the topic. It all comes down to, they say you are not engaged with said enemy, but your actions are affected as if you are engaged.

I agree, I can't dispute the fact that this was the official ruling.

14 minutes ago, Doma0997 said:

Going by the literal definition of engage, it's to occupy or attract someone's attention. In the terms of massive, the game plays out where the creature is not specifically paying attention to us. Its attention is on multiple things at once, otherwise you'd be able to draw its attacks to you when they attack, instead of it attacking everyone. 

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.

 

 

[monorico 30]

8 hours ago, Doma0997 said:

Consider for a moment that I have two heads. You can talk to me like I have two heads,  look at me like I have two heads, heck you can run away from me like I have two heads,  but you're only considering that I have two heads. When you try to do something that needs proof that I have two heads,  you fail,  because you only were considering that I had two heads. 

It makes sense to me because of the massive trait in general. The monster is not actually paying attention to you specifically,  it's just taking up so much room that you're considered to be engaged to it because when it flails around, you'll be caught in that attack.

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. 

[BD Flory 695]

4 hours ago, monorico said:

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.

Here's the thing: In all likelihood you actually do have two arms. Som we could observe you, there would be nothing to consider.

The fact that we have to consider something as if it is in a given state means it is not in that state, because if it were in that state, we don't have to consider it anything. It just is that way.

If Zoey is "considered" engaged with an enemy, logically, she is not engaged withthat enemy. Therefore, she has never become engaged.

[Jobu 720]

Like I said, I am okay with the ruling, its just not intuitive.  When an investigator is not engaged by an enemy and then later on is engaged by enemy, there must be a time when he became engaged.  Kind of like if I am dry and at some point I am wet, there must have been a time when I became wet.

[monorico 30]

35 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

Here's the thing: In all likelihood you actually do have two arms. Som we could observe you, there would be nothing to consider.

The fact that we have to consider something as if it is in a given state means it is not in that state, because if it were in that state, we don't have to consider it anything. It just is that way.

If Zoey is "considered" engaged with an enemy, logically, she is not engaged withthat enemy. Therefore, she has never become engaged.

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.

[player2439400 22]

On 4.7.2017 at 10:58 AM, Doma0997 said:

I think it has a lot to do with it being an lcg,  and the level of rules lawyering involved. In most games I've played,  the word considered changes everything. Take for instance cthulhu wars. There is a unit that is considered to be a great old one,  yet because the word considered is used,  it is not actually a great old one, but just acts like one when the rules need to check for certain things (I'm simplifying a lot) but essentially considered ends up putting a situation in a certain state,  without actually being in that state. 

Another one:

normal enemies: (Another considered-thing)

"While an enemy card is in play, it is either engaged with an investigator (and placed in that investigator’s threat area), or it is unengaged and at a location (and placed at that location). Each enemy in an investigator’s threat area is considered to be at the same location as that investigator..." RR

Normal enemy is considered to be at the same location as that investigator. Card in Threat Area, Not in location.

Massive enemy is considered to be engaged with each investigator at the same location as it. Card in location, Not in Threat area.

Zoey's Cross triggers ....

A REACTION ability with a triggering condition beginning with the word “after...” may be used immediately after that triggering condition’s impact upon the game state has resolved.

Zoey is engaged with massive enemy, but  "An enemy with the massive keyword cannot be placed in an investigator’s threat area" RR

 

that's how I see it, may be completely wrong....

[chrycheng 0]

I've done it on my first try with a one-core set Roland Banks deck solo on standard.  It was a close shave.  Dealt the killing blow on my last action.  I was down 3 horror and no way to avoid getting hit on the enemy phase too!  I drew a +1 chaos token on a 5 combat vs. 5 combat test with +1 damage on success.  I think I may have just been lucky with the chaos tokens that session.