Not sure if any of this really counts for spoilers but for those that care I discuss some of the unique-to-this-story mythos cards and some of the common going ons of investigators in this story.

Any ways. So we just finished a game of MoM with story 5, obviously, and some questions from the investigators and the keep, myself, came up. First off if an investigator is stunned by an attack from another investigator does the stun token consider him a monster or investigator? Second, the keeper cannot use uncontrollable urge to cast a spell against another player but can a player, on their own turn, cast a spell against another player such as bind monster? Third, although this didn't come up I am curious now, can a keeper override the investigator's normal turn order by using 'Compelled by Madness' on an insane character and forcing them to take their turn immediately?

I'm passing these along to what ever help or support email I can find for MoM or in general because I want an official answer for that first question since it sparked a heated debate on whether an investigator stunned by another investigator counts that stun as if it were a monster and investigator or whether it should have a special cycle all its own. Still want to see if anyone else has run into this and/or solved it.

Cheshiremythos said:

#1: I'd say he is still an investigator for the Stun tokens.

#2: Yes, on your investigator turn you can cast spells on other investigators.

#3: With that Mythos, Keeper effectively takes the role of the investigator player for that turn, so he can do as much (run into the Freezer in 1B ) or are little (nothing) with that turn as he chooses. Not sure what you mean by "normal turn order" though, since investigators can take their turns in whatever order they choose from one turn to another. Keeper can only play a Mythos card at the start of an investigator's turn (or at least play it then to get the most out of Compelled), but at least for me, the investigator whose turn it is has to be at least have been chosen ("I'll do my turn next.") before the Keeper can play Compelled on him.

Dam said:

Like if the investigators decided that Player A goes first but player C is the insane one could I cast the mythos card at the start of player A's turn and take control of C immediately?

I think you kind of answered my question though, or at least how you play it, in that you say the investigator you control is the one that us up next.

We also had another question about init and investigator turn order. When and how do you determine that a group of investigators do not agree on the order of who goes first, second so on? Does the keeper determine are the players supposed to say it? Do keeper-aligned investigators count in the discussion of who goes first?

We had 2 normal and one keeper aligned investigator, I ruled they couldn't agree since two said a non-aligned should go first but the aligned said that the aligned should go first. The aligned player was the first person clockwise to me, as I was the keeper, and so went first.

Yup, it is the heart of the issue. The "win" by the Keeper is a "win" only because he ruled that the player under his control went before the two players not under his control. Both players not under his control were going before the other player on the previous turns. Honestly, it is likely to cause me to stop playing the game at this point. It is not fun to lose merely because "This person goes first...this time, but not the other few times."

Just to make this clear, all the times before the last turn the players decided who went first on their own and all agreed to it. It was only the last turn, after the objective was revealed, that the group could not agree.

Cheshiremythos said:

Mythos cards are still keyed to the specific investigator whose turn they are played on, so if A goes first and you want to play Compelled on C, you'd have to wait until C starts his turn.

Cheshiremythos said:

"Investigator players decide as a group the
order in which they wish to act. If they cannot all agree on an
order, they proceed clockwise, starting with the player sitting to
the left of the keeper." (p. 6)

Sounds like you didn't rule anything wrong, if they didn't come to a consensus, then the traitor (aligned) would go first based on seating.

Dam said:

That makes sense on the mythos cards just wasn't at all sure how it was supposed to work.

That was my argument for the turn but Id still like an official answer, hence the email mentioned earlier, on whether traitors count in the order discussion because that is really what makes the difference here. If the traitor doesn't get a vote in order then they would have won fair and square. If he still counts then they couldn't agree and, no matter the order they set up before, the turn starts from my left as I understand.

Cheshiremythos said:

It would have changed everything if you had told us that the player under Keeper control went first. The players were told it was not important. So, we settled on an init system. Changing it at the end to gain a win for the Keeper... :/

An init system you changed throughout the course of the game. And I said it didn't matter with the implication that you all had to and would agree on whatever order was chosen, which apparently I should have made explicit but didn't think that the agreement aspect was necessary to be said since its kind of inherent to a fluid init system.

For me, traitor still takes his investigator turns as normal, so he would have a say in the turn order (at least without checking the relevant scenario's Special Rules or the Mythos cards). If the others think they know who the traitor is, deal with him accordingly before he can reach a space from which the point on the turn order is critical. Of course a smart (read: evil) Keeper will play his traitor Mythos cards on the investigators early/-ier in the turn sequence if he thinks there comes a point that the players can't agree on the turn order, that way his traitor goes early rather than later, first spot being idea (for both Keeper and traitor).

All that said, I played one game of scenario 5 and feel no need to go back, while I've played all the others with each of the three Objectives and Season of the Witch once so far, two more plays for certain of that scenario waiting. Pop-Up Witches aren't all that much fun even for bloodthirsty Keeper like me, I imagine a lot less fun for the investigators since there is no real point in attacking them (they never end) and if you want to move, chancy Evade test waiting. It's fairly easy to cripple the investigators to a point where after the Objective is revealed you need only one or two damage per investigator to kill them.

Dam said:

Indeed, the group would have killed the other player if you were the Keeper from the sound of it. We, the other players, knew he was under the control of the Keeper for several turns. The init order rule as given to us by the Keeper led us to believe that we moved before the other player....right up until the Keeper pulled the rulebook out at the last turn.

I blame myself for not knowing the rules at this point. Relying on other people... *shrug*

adderworks said:

Yep, sadly, I tend to be quite predictable in these sort of things . If you knew all the Objectives for the scenario, you shouldn't have much trouble at all knowing which one I choose, especially for the first run of the scenario (1B in both scenario 1 and 5 for example).

Predictability and blood lust, my two weaknesses as Keeper . Objective wins are nice, but TPKs (total party kills) feel satisfying as well.

I enjoy the bloody games. TPKs are fun...if they are legit kills. As long as the rules do not change mid-play, I am all for it.

Anyways, I will run with a house rule in all games at this point if I play the game, again. So, it is all good.

"Players under the control of a Keeper do NOT have any say in the order of turns."

It is unfair in any system to give one side the power over the other side's "choice" when it comes time to "decide" the winner.