Taurmindo said:

Not basing this on anything but instinct (and possibly vague ancestrial recollection I sometimes remember the impressions of previous Avis), but I'm 99.9% confident that the answer is no (and I wouldn't usually say that, actually, that might be the only time I've said something like that). Dam, Tibs, can you remember a specific ruling? I'm calling out our top paid rules lawyers ;'D

It would also run parallel with the ruling against returning Spawn Monsters to the box by game effects (other than combat checks).

My two cents on this issue... I've alwyas played that - generally speaking - whenever an encounter instructs Kate to face a monster, that monster is not allowed to appear; but I've always played that spawn monsters are not affected by her ability. Thus in games against Nyogtha, she does encounter the Tendril of Nyogtha, since the encounter instructs her to face a spawn monster, instead of a normal one.

Ha ha ha, sorry Avi, I haven't noticed your post

Julia, in desperate need of some more hours of sleep / night

Dam said:

Actually, I'm arguing against the literal approach. I've argued in other threads that a monster is not the same as a monster chit. (For one thing, monster chits can travel back and forth from the monster cup. Monsters cannot, since the cup isn't a location.)

I agree about TTE, but that's the opposite situation. In TTE, there are chits, but no Arkham location. In CD, there are Arkham locations, but no chits. Kate and Jim's abilities don't work against TTE because as you say, the monsters don't appear in Arkham. In CD, the mummies are in Arkham, and we're told they have the same stats as Zombies (with +1 toughness). To me, this makes them monsters.

Echo: "I can think of 2 off-hand that are sorta like that. Both encounter cards. One has you pitted against bank robbers, and another against a vampire. Both are encounter cards, and both are Combat checks to pass. I still have Kate do them, and Jim also doesn't "Auto-beat" the Vampire for someone else if he passed his PS. But that's just me!"

Those encounters are just combat checks. They don't allow you to e.g., evade the monster, or even make Horror checks. With Clothing Drive, we are told that the mummies have the same stats as Zombies. To me, this makes the mummies full fledged monsters. By way of comparison, there is also an encounter in Velma's Diner where you can take an Injury card to throw someone out. The dude that you throw out isn't a monster. There's lots of fighting that can happen in the game that isn't "combat" against a "monster." The fact the mummies are given monster stats and are treated in all ways as monsters leads me to believe that they are monsters.

jgt7771 - "Avec, you're right (from a certain point-of-view). If I played with Clothing Drive, I would do the same thing. (Frankly, I hate the stupid card, and I'm glad it's gone.) But arguing with Dam about handicapping his favorite "ruination" card is foolish, especially when you're doing it in order to give (the much-hated) JIM a break. Unless someone is going to come forward with a FAQ judgment, this is another play-however-you-like-it situation. Agree to disagree, and let it rest."

Eh, I like debate. It gives me a sense of whether my position is strong or not. Also, I think some people on the boards try to interpret the game very literally. I think in the long term a 100% literal view is going to create more problems than it solves and I enjoy pointing that out.

Julia said:

Aren't we all.

ZZZzzzzz...

avec said:

Honestly... I could see FFG ruling either way with this :'/ But it wasn't asked for the FAQ ;'D oh well.

EcnoTheNeato said:

I knew of those, but neither of them IIRC give stats, they are "just" a combat check (some have wondered if they were meant to be a Fight check), with 1 success needed to pass them.

EcnoTheNeato said:

You could argue that Kate prevents the Dunwich Horror from appearing, but only if she spends the rest of the game on Sentinel Hill. Probably not even then. But if you consider the cost of being down one investigator, that alone would probably be enough to discourage people from trying to "game" the Dunwich Horror. Well, people who aren't Dam or Avi anyway.

avec said:

Wouldn't work with them either. They always play with Innsmouth, and thus the Deep One Rising Track is always in play. Dunwich Horror appears, Kate blocks, ad infinitum. Recursion loop will wake the Ancient One, game over.

Kate blocks EVERYTHING. Cup, Spawn, Mummies-that-don't-exist, God of the Bloody Frakkin' Tongue. If she's there, it AIN'T. No exceptions. It is the only thing that makes Kate special, and I won't take that away from her. If Michael's ability is always on to the point that it breaks Ancient Ones, then Kate can block a lumpy pile of rags.

Avi_dreader said:

*GASP!* Avi, bad! Breaking your non-disclosure act :-p Or did you and you want to through us off the scent o_O

jgt7771 said:

Recursion loop? The DOR track isn't activated when monsters are prevented from appearing. Just gates.

EcnoTheNeato said:

::Shrug:: The questions given for the FAQ were the questions given for the FAQ (i.e. they were publically posted on the forum). I'm saying it wasn't asked for the FAQ, it's public knowledge. Was that answer circular enough for your liking? ;'D