You are playing one of the co-ops released by FFG. There are monsters on the map.

It is time to draw an activation card and activate the monsters accordingly.

For our example, let's assume there is exactly 1 monster on the board (for simplicity sake, as it really won't matter for the question).

The activation card tells you to engage the closest hero, and attack the closest hero. Following the first instruction puts the monster exactly equidistant (adjacent) to two heroes. For this reason, attack the closest hero can apply to two different heroes.

Do you ...

1) Choose which hero to attack on your own, doing whatever is best for the heroes?

2) Choose which hero to attack by assigning some semblance of intelligence and logic to the automated OL, so that it attacks say a hero with more damage already on it, perhaps less armor, etc.

3) Choose a hero completely randomly?

Now, add a third "hero" that is adjacent, but in this case it is a familiar which is treated as a hero for purposes of the activation card.

4) Do you always choose the familiar (say the Reanimate) to take the attack, essentially using it as cannon fodder?

Assume for my question above that the monster has a single attack that in no way can affect multiple heroes.

I am curious how others play this. Since the rules allow you to activate any monster within a group first (assuming there is not split instructions for red (master) and white (minion) monsters), you have a significant amount of control over the end result of the attacks, which in turn can greatly impact how the co-op plays.

For instance, if there are three monsters on the map (all in the same group) but at slightly different distances from the hero(es) in question, engaging (moving) one before another can cause the rest to not have any possible attacks if done in the proper order. Do you do this to the benefit of your heroes, or do you once again do what is "logically" correct for the AI OL?

I will be curious to read the answers to the above from others.

I see it as part of the strategy and do what's best to help the heroes.

The heroes may choose as they wish.

I agree that heroes can do as they choose ... I just wonder if that is really the "proper" or "best" way to play.

For example, in Nature's Ire, there are Special Monster Rules on page 9 which specify that Merriods will utilize their Flail ability to target an additional hero. In addition, it states that Merriods and Ettins will always engage a hero by utilizing Reach, and staying two away from the hero.

So, there already is some intelligence implemented as far as monsters are concerned. I just wonder if the game would play better if you extended that to making logical attacks against the weakest hero, avoiding the familiars, etc. when all things are equal. Obviously, knocking out a hero and moving fate forward is better for the OL than just "killing" and removing a familiar from the board.

You should think of it like this: There isn't an Overlord giving out orders to the monsters on whom they should attack... they are just mindlessly picking targets. The heroes get the benefit of choosing who is going to be the target of the attacks should there be a tie and there needs to be a choice made. Honestly Co-Ops are hard enough so having this little extra perk is helpful.

I would do option 2. That's why I'm always wrong

So last night we are deep into a 4 hero Nature's Ire co-op battle, when we took a break to have a lengthy ... well ... let's call it a discussion

This discussion also revolved around an Activation card. Basically the activation card had a special rule for a specific monster group that allowed the monster group to have "... an additional attack action". Also, keep in mind that normally you only perform a total of 2 actions for each monster within the group, processing the list of actions top to bottom for each monster.

Now, as we all know, monsters generally can only attack once per turn (with exceptions for certain monsters that have abilities such as Ravage). So, the initial instinct is to say that this special rule for the activation card now allows this particular monster group to attack twice per activation, rather than once, resulting in "... an additional attack action".

Unfortunately, what one would think would be an "easy" interpretation, resulted in almost 45 minutes of "discussion".

I am posting this, without revealing my own thoughts, so that I can get some feedback from all of you. Assume the following:

1) Monster group A gets "... an additional attack action".

2) The activation card in question states the following for Monster group A: The Target is the furthest hero.

- Step #1: Engage the Target

- Step #2: Attack the Target

- Step #3: Engage the Target

- Step #4: Attack the Target

Now, suppose you have 1 monster from Monster group A. This monster's speed is 4. It is 9 spaces away from the Target.

So, it does Step #1 and engages the Target by moving 4 spaces closer - THIS IS ACTION #1.

It then is suppose to do Step #2 and attack the Target, but cannot do so, as it is still 5 spaces away and has a Melee attack. So it skips Step #2.

It then does Step #3 and engages the Target again, by moving 4 spaces closer - THIS IS ACTION #2.

Normally, this would be the end of this monster's turn, as it has performed 2 actions. But since the special rules for this activation card allows this monster "... an additional attack action", it does Step #4 and attacks the Target. Since it is now next to the Target, it attacks.

All of the above seems fairly straight forward and clear. And now the discussion ensues ...

POSITION #1: To some of us, this monster has had "... an additional attack action", as it has taken 3 ACTIONS. It engaged twice, and then attacked (this is the additional attack action).

POSITION #2: To others, it should be allowed to ATTACK A SECOND time, as the "... additional attack action" means one more attack than normally allowed. Since it has only attacked once, it still has "... an additional attack action".

If POSITION #2 is the correct interpretation, this monster will have taken 4 actions this turn.

For those of you who are familiar with, and have played the co-ops, how would you play this situation? Which POSITION above would you determine to be the CORRECT choice? Which position above would you consider to be FFG's INTENTION ?

I am generally interested in how others would interpret this.

The monster has a third action, and that action must be a "normal" attack action. The text used on the activation card os identical to frenzy, which has the same effect.

It's an additional action, but it must be an attack action.