Props to FFG for the improvements to their rule writing over the years bucking the temptation to refer to the company as "FAQ Flight Games".

But, as with many things in life, there's always one isn't there? In the case of the Arkham Horror LCG for me, it's the rules about the "Prey" instruction vs. an Enemy spawn without a specific spawn instruction on the card. It's not just me as there have been several threads both here and at BGG debating the application of the rules to the point that an FFG official chimed in with a ruling. To wit: If two Investigators are at the same location and an enemy card does not have a Spawn instruction, it goes engaged to the Investigator that drew it regardless of any "Prey" instruction on the card. On the surface this seems reasonable. After all, pg. 19 of the rulebook under Spawn says, "If an enemy has no spawn instruction, it spawns engaged with the investigator who drew it." Well, I find several problems with this to the point that FGG might want to consider adjusting the rule. I could be wrong, but the problems as I see them are as follows:

1. It's persnickety in old-school FFG fashion: This rule has confused people because pg. 17 under Prey it says that, "If an enemy that is about to automatically engage an investigator at its location has multiple options of whom to engage, that enemy engages the investigator who best meets its "prey" instructions..." The result is that you have one side saying, "Aha! Drawing an investigator without a specific spawn instruction is an automatic engagement, therefore the "Prey" instruction applies!" and the other saying, "No, no, no. The key word here is "is about to". It isn't "about to" engage the investigator, it's already engaged and therefore the card does not have multiple options." C'mon guys. This is like trying to separate the gnat poop from the pepper. Especially when there is a much simpler solution available. Which brings me to...

2. It's counter-intuitive: The great thing about recent FFG LCGs is that once you have a little experience with the rules framework, the cards take over and drive the game forward eliminating many rulebook dives stopping play. This is intuitive: "Time to draw from the encounter deck. Ahh, a Ravenous Ghoul with a Prey instruction. Well since we are in the same location the card instructs us to give to the player with the lowest health. That's you, here you go." This isn't intuitive: "Ahh, Ravenous Ghoul. Even though every natural instinct tells me to obey the card and give it to the investigator with the lowest health which is you, we have to remember kewldood94 v. rlzlwyr17, 671 P.2d 1085 (FFG 2017). where the appellate FFG court ruled that "spawns engaged" is the governing word in the rules, so it's actually mine." Ok, that's an exaggeration, but you get the point. Card text should run the show wherever possible. And it is possible as far as I can tell, so finally...

3. It's persnickety and counter-intuitive in an unnecessary degree: Here's where I might be off base. That is, there might some card combo I haven't thought of that would wreck the game by changing the prey/spawn rule to be more natural. Really I can't think of one. Sure it would change a few consequences during a game, but to a game-breaking degree? I don't see it. Letting a Prey instruction on the card dictate its placement is more natural, follows the doctrine of letting the cards run the game and therefore ought to be officially made so.

So what do you think? Right? Wrong? Bonkers? Way too much time on my hands? (Nevermind, I plead no contest to that one).

I think its pretty intuitive. Whoever drew the encounter card gets the monster unless it spawns somewhere. Prey only comes into effect while the monster is already in play. I think your quote for spawning is the most convincing reason to think this. Regardless of what prey says, because the spawning rules are written after the prey rules I think if it were to work that prey takes over when spawning enemies they would have mentioned it.

*Edit* Fluff wise you can think of it as the monster surprising the investigator when they enter a room (The monster isn't going to think of who to target first just attack the first thing they see).

For your third point you can house rule it and see how it affects your game. If nothing changes and its easier for people to play that way go for it. The only consequence I can see is meta gaming the encounter deck and knowing which prey enemies "could" spawn and thus position investigators appropriately. I.E You know a certain enemy will always engage with Roland (Highest health) and so you keep daisy with him so she can buff him with encyclopedia to pass combat checks. By having enemies spawn randomly ignoring prey rules makes it so everyone might have to deal with enemies instead of a handful. its the encounter deck after all and the point of it is to make everyone stressed and nervous about what card the might pull. If you could meta game it and control the deck slightly it could effect the game. But like you stated and I doubt it will change much.

Intuitive is in the eye of the beholder. In the absence of a Spawn instruction, I find "you drew it, you get it" to be simple and easy to remember. When there is a Spawn instruction referring to a specific location (not "engaged with prey" or something similar), you place the enemy at the defined location, then follow the rules for automatic engagement (Prey fitness, ties broken by lead investigator's choice).

This topic has been discussed, as you said, many times. To me it seems that once people who don't understand the correct way to do it actually sit down and read the rules they walk away understanding the correct way of implementing it.

Spawning and Engaging are not the same thing. An enemy spawns when it is drawn. Simple. Does it have spawn instructions? If Yes, Spawn as per the instructions, if no, it spawns in the threat area of the Investigator who drew it. The only thing that matters when Spawning is Aloof. As Aloof enemies won't spawn in threat areas, instead going to the investigator's location.

After the enemy has spawned, then you worry about engaging. Even though the Engage step may be mere milliseconds after Spawning. If the enemy is on a location with Investigators, it engages as per the Prey condition, the Lead Investigator making the choice in case of a tie.

The biggest problem is most people mash Spawning and Engaging into one step when they aren't, and that's where the confusion comes in. Separate it back out, like the rules already do, and you won't make mistakes.

Thanks for the replies. Bear in mind I'm just discharging my mind in line with the idea that writing about something frees me from having to think about it anymore. To that end I'm just going to play as officially ruled rather than house-rule testing it just so I can move on with enjoying the game. It's a sleek game that FFG should be proud of. I just find this ruling to be a minor kink in a sharp blade that can easily honed out with a few passes on the whetstone. Even if my case fails, perhaps FFG can take a look at the language in the Spawn and Prey sections and see if they can adjust it to make it more dispute-proof for future newcomers.