We had this come up in the last game we played. An investigator moved into the space of a Shogoth and had a weapon that had range of 2. Now, in order for an Evade check to be made, the rule book says that the player only has to make an attack action, but it does not specify that the attack has to be made against the monster in the same space the player is in. It would make sense that that would be the case, but the player moved into the space with the Shogoth and attacked a cultist 2 spaces away. Would that require an evade check for the Shogoth?

Bataar said:

Short answer: No

Long answer...

p. 14 of the Rule book says:

Evade Tests

An investigator must make an evade test against every monster in his space before moving or performing non-attack actions. An evade test is an attribute test that is resolved immediately before the investigator attempts to move or take the action.

Therefore:

1. The rule does state that the monster being evaded must be in the investigator's space prior to movement / action. It only makes sense when this is the case (maybe you're confusing this with a horror test, where you must make a roll even though a creature is in a different space in your room?).
2. An evade check is only necessary before moving or taking an action, not after landing on a space with a monster.
3. Although you do not have to evade the Shoggoth during this, your investigator turn, by ending your movement in its space you are putting yourself in danger of a Shoggoth attack when the keeper's turn comes around.

If you read the "Attack Action" section on page 9 in rules of play, the last paragraph says that attacking a monster is the only action you can perform while a monster is in your space unless you evade it. You would have to attempt the evade no matter what you want to do where.

Don't the rules also state that when you try to evade and you fail, you simply take damage from the monster and then you can do what you want?

In this case, it's not clear to me whether an investigator would have to pass the evade roll to attack another cultist further away, or whether they'd simply make an evade roll, take damage if they fail, and then attack a creature in another space with no restrictions.

Wait, what?

When there's a monster in your space, you can

• attack any monster or
• evade every monster in your square to do something else.

You don't have to evade a monster in order to attack another. That is the only thing you CAN do without causing ANY evade checks.

The only thing is, do ranged attacks count as "attack action"?
Imho yeah, they do, because the cards explicitly tell you to "attack", force the Keeper to draw Combat Cards, etc.
So using ranged weapons does, imho, never, ever, under no circumstances whatsoever force the investigator to make an Evade check. Never.

Regarding Evade checks and what happens when the investigator fails:
The action happens just as the investigator wanted to, but he takes damage from every monster he failed his check against.
Investigator wants to move away, fails check, gets damaged, survives, moves away for free.
Investigator wants to explore the room, fails check, gets damaged, survives, explores the room.
Investigator wants to use a tome, fails check, gets damaged, survives, reads the book.

Elbi said:

It is worth to notice that taking damage from monsters after failing evade check is not obligatory. The Keeper decides if he wants to damage youprefere to leave you, so he can later use some useful trauma cards...buahahaha...

Yamemoto said:

Good point. I'm not so sure of the answer now. It makes sense that you would be required to first deal with the direct threat in your space before making an attack across the room, but I would hope that if you needed to take out a monster to save your friend, to complete the story, etc. that you could. I suspect that the answer is that the direct threat would be considered another delay, so I think your answer will probably win out in an official answer.

Definitely room for interpretation here, I think.

The Evade test is worded "An investigator must make an evade test against every monster in his space before moving OR performing non-attack actions." I would read that to imply a non-attack action on the monster in your space.

In other words, if you Evade the Shoggoth, you are free to attack the Cultist. If you fail the Evade, you must deal with the Shoggoth.

At least, that's how I would play it.

K xx

Mr. K said:

I agree, except I would allow the investigator to attack the Cultist regardless of the evasion result against the Shoggoth. Either he successfully evades and fires at the Cultist or he ends up with a tentacle around his ankle (failing to evade, taking damage), but still manages to take a shot at the Cultist. To me, evasion is a simple pass/fail that doesn't otherwise effect what you intend to do. Pass, no damage, complete your movement/action. Fail, you take damage, complete your movement/action.

According to the rules as written, failing an evade check does not affect the investigator in any way regarding their actions/movement. All it does is potentially allow the Keeper to deal damage to the investigator.

Also, as written in the rules, using a ranged attack is an attack action. Nothing is said in the rules about the target of the attack needing to be the same monster that is in the space.

So if you shoot a monster in a different space, you are not subject to an Evade check from the monster in your current space per the rules.

I feel it is more than fair to NOT have to evade a monster in your space to attack a different one. My reasoning being that as long as you are 'fighting' as your action you are not ignoring monsters to do something else... like putting all your attention into reading a booksolving a puzzle.

Are you using an Attack Action? Yeah? Don't do any evade checks.

To those who try to interpret something like "closest threat", etc.: This never shows up in the rules anywhere.
Another scenario to show you how your interpretation would affect game play:

Joe is in the Kitchen.
A Zombie enters. A Cultist enters. Another Cultist enters.
All three end their movement in Joe's space. They attack him, he doesn't die.
Joe's turn. He decides to attack the Zombie.

Your interpretation:
Joe DOESN'T attack the Cultists, therefore he has to make two Evade checks against them.
No matter whether Joe succeeds on these rolls, as long as he's alive afterwards, he can attack the Zombie.

My interpretation:
Joe uses his action as an attack-action (thus neither a movement nor a non-combat-action) and attacks the Zombie. No evade check, the attack is resolved as per the rules.

You never stated that "but he has to deal with the other monster first!" only applies to ranged combat.
Therefore you have to deal with melee in the same way.
This results in an eff-ton of evade checks for actions that should never cause evade checks as per p. 9.

According to the rules as written, you don't have to make an evade check if you use an attack action.

In that scenario, which ever way you look at it, Joe's in a tight spot.

K xx

Elbi said:

I'd play (a). If you do not attack a monster, you have to evade it. Thematically, it makes much more sense to me . Though anyone can play the way he likes.

amikezor said:

Seriously? Even though there is no possible way for him to attack more than one of them and the rules expressly say that he doesn't need to make evade checks, you'd force the player to do so?

That seems like you're trying to be extra harsh on the investigators when the game is reportedly plenty hard enough for them.

OJSmith said:

Thanks, I started to feel like I'm being trolled. Good to hear that there are people who don't want to mate the rules, but play by them...

Umm, if attacking a monster two spaces away, you would have to use a ranged weapon and the Action printed on that card, wouldn´t you? While this still results in an attack, technically it is using a card action - which must be accompanied by an Evade action if in a space with the same monster, according to the rules.

Edit: The turn summary on pg. 6 spells it out: Use a card Action, or attack a monster in your space.

The detailed Action Step explanation on pg. 9, however, states that the investigator may choose a weapon or attack spell to attack a monster and get around the Evade check.

Worth asking FFG?

Parathion said:

An excellent point. In fact, in the Investigator Turn Summary (p.6), the Action Step 'Attack a Monster' is specifically described as:
'Choose a monster in his space to attack'. So using a ranged weapon doesn't count as Attack a Monster

Therefore, any action that is not attacking a monster in your space would require an Evade action. Interestingly, though, it seems as though in Elbi scenario of three monsters in your space, as long as you were attacking ONE of them, you wouldn't need to Evade the other two, as you would be legitimately performing the 'Attack a Monster' step.

Unless someone discovers something to undermine all this, I believe I've leant something myself!

K xx

Then again, if you check under Evade tests (p. 13 or 14 IIRC), it says attacking a monster with a Spell, weapon or with no weapon doesn't require an Evade test.

Which sadly does leave damaging, but not counted as "attacks" like Typewriter requiring Evade. Shanking some Cultist with a Knife doesn't require one, but bashing him over the head with a Typewriter or sprinkling Holy Water does.

Elbi said:

Ooops. Sorry, I wasn't aiming at trolling anyone. That is how I felt it. But the rules state it differently, I'd play with the rules.

Mr. K said:

That might be the solution, actually.
1st rule: As long as you attack a Monster in your space, you don't have to make Evade Checks (no matter what type of weapon).
2nd rule: If you use your ranged weapon to attack a Monster NOT in your space, you have to Evade every monster IN your space.

Looking at other games, it's basically "If you stand next to the archer, he can't shoot at someone" or "... you get to beat him if he DOES".
This would be represented in MoM by the 2nd Rule, while general "but the archer can try to defend himself in melee" is the 1st Rule...

I like that one

@ amikezor

I know you're not trolling, its just... the interpretations vary SO GREATLY from person to person that somewhere in the middle of the last page I thought I missed some inside joke O_o

Solved!

Q: Does an investigator in a space with a monster have to evade that monster if he intends to attack a different monster in a different space, e.g. using a ranged weapon?

A: As per the rulebook, he does not need to evade to attack another monster (page 15):
Attacking a monster does not require making an evade test.
This attack may be unarmed, with a weapon, or with an “attack”
Spell card. This attack does not need to target a monster in the
investigator’s space.

I hope this answers your question!

-Corey Konieczka
VP of R&D
Fantasy Flight Games

He's right, it's there in black and white. It really is amazing what you can miss in the rule book.

It's a shame though, I like it how we left it, and to me actually feels more "natural". I might have to make my first House Rule on this one.

K xx

Few questions about Evade checks:

1. From what I understand, Brass Knuckles, an equipment card that does not specify to attack a creature, would incur Evade checks from each monster occupying the Investigator's space before using? Equally, all cards that as an Action that do not state to attack a creature incur Evade checks too, even if they are stated or insinuated as Weapons?

2. If a monster is stunned, does it still incur Evade checks?

3. If an investigator has combat penalties, from Darkness, Broken Arm, etc., does he or she commit those negatives to Evade checks too?

4. In general, does Evade count as combat but without the use of the Combat cards?

Thanks.

Tromdial said:

#1: Going by RAW, yes. Some people want to argue that Brass Knucks, using the Typewriter, etc. should be attacks since they do damage and thus wouldn't require an Evade.

#2: No (as per FAQ).

#3-4: No, Evade is not combat. If something gives him -2 Dexterity, that will hinder him, as does Stun (-2 to all checks), but generally anything that modifies combat, doesn't modify Evade.