I tried my first solo game this past weekend. Ran Roland and Wendy through first scenario of The Gathering. It did not end well, but I'm happy to report that my countless hours of studying up beforehand really paid off because I was able to fluidly apply the rules.

But there's one logistic--which seems like it should be so obvious--for which I am having trouble finding a definitive answer. I'll use character names just for ease of description.

Let's say Wendy spends her third action to exhaust an enemy. That enemy is then disengaged. The card is moved from Wendy's threat area to the location card.

It's Roland's turn next--and this is where I get confused. Let's say he's at same location as Wendy, and he wants to attack the exhausted enemy.

• Does Roland need to first engage the exhausted enemy in order to attack it and inflict damage?
• Or can he attack the exhausted enemy without spending an action to engage it, based on the fact it is at the same location?

I think I'm kind of brain-fried after trying to assimilate so many rules. I'm sure this seems like a really dumb question, but I'd sure appreciate some clarification.

No worries!

Roland can absolutely shoot the unengaged, evaded enemy without taking any actions to engage it, just like he could shoot it while it's engaged to Wendy.

As long as it's not ready and aloof, and barring any bizarre circumstances, an unengaged enemy can be attacked by any investigator at its location. An exhausted enemy can also always be attacked by investigators at its location.

Hope that helps!

Thanks SGP, it definitely does help!

So by the same logic, if Wendy were to successfully evade on her first action, then she could also spend the the next two actions to attack the exhausted, unengaged enemy - right? Now, I grasp that Wendy's combat ability is way too low to make this a viable strategy, but it might work well for a more balanced character.

Could you possibly identify the rules reference that allows investigators to attack an exhausted/unengaged enemy? Still not sure why I'm not seeing this. I feel like this rule is staring me right in the face.

Wait, can exhausted aloof enemies be shot?

1 hour ago, Sir_Blacksoutalot said:

Could you possibly identify the rules reference that allows investigators to attack an exhausted/unengaged enemy? Still not sure why I'm not seeing this. I feel like this rule is staring me right in the face.

It’s the last bullet point under Fight Action: “An investigator may fight any enemy at his or her location, including: an enemy he or she is engaged with, an unengaged enemy at the same location, or an enemy engaged with another investigator who is at the same location.”

56 minutes ago, Sooner535 said:

Wait, can exhausted aloof enemies be shot?

Only if they are (re)engaged by an investigator after being exhausted, as per the last bullet point under Aloof: “An investigator cannot attack an aloof enemy while that enemy is not engaged with an investigator.”

4 hours ago, SGPrometheus said:

An exhausted enemy can also always be attacked by investigators at its location.

Unless I'm missing something, this isn't quite right. RR page 4, Aloof: "An investigator cannot attack an aloof enemy while that enemy is not engaged with an investigator."

There's no condition there that it has to be ready to be unattackable. So if you're engaged with an Aloof enemy and evade it, someone will have to re-engage it in order to attack it.

Outside of Aloof, you can generally attack any enemy at your location.

Edit: That's what I get for not reading all the responses before replying Others beat me to it...

Yep, @Assussanni and @Buhallin are correct; an exhausted unengaged aloof enemy still can't be attacked. Don't know how I got that idea.

This helps me so much, I had the exact same question! Thanks!

Agreed. This clears up a lot of confusion - thanks guys!

Looking forward to a second solo run of The Gathering this weekend. Maybe now I'll only get spanked down half as bad, since on my first run I ignored exhausted enemies rather than following up by attacking. This has been a critical clarification.