Burden of Leadership

-- NB: ArkhamDB now incorporates errata from the Arkham Horror FAQ in its card text, so the ArkhamDB text and the card image above differ, as the ArkhamDB text has been edited to contain this erratum (updated February 2024): Erratum: This card’s Revelation ability should read: “…Otherwise, for each Ally asset you control, you must either exhaust it or deal it 1 direct damage and 1 direct horror.”" - FAQ, v.2.2, February 2024 [What follows below is two ruling requests exploring this topic.]

Q: I heard today that with Burden of Leadership, since there's no ''must'' in the text, you can choose to exhaust an ally that's already exhausted to prevent them from taking the damage/horror. I reach out to you because I feel it kind of strange to be allowed to do this and would like to know if it's the intent of the card or the designers forgot to include the ''must'' to force a choice that can alter the game state? A: You cannot exhaust a card that’s already exhausted—this is stated outright in the rules reference under Exhaust, Exhausted. If you have Ally assets that are already exhausted when you resolve Burden of Leadership, you must deal the damage and horror to them. Ruling updated: Though there exists a rule under Exhausted stating that an exhausted card cannot be exhausted again until it is ready, this rule doesn’t have much bearing when there is also a rule for Must stating that its absence when choosing between multiple options allows the player to choose “an option that does not change the game state.” Thus, the rules of Must conflict with the intention of Burden of Leadership. For that reason, Burden of Leadership will be receiving an errata, where “must” will be included in the presented choice: “For each Ally asset you control, you must either exhaust it or deal it 1 direct damage and 1 direct horror.”
Q: In late 2022, there was a ruling on Charlie's weakness, Burden of Leadership. In July of this year, many months after that ruling, the new v2.1 FAQ was released and the new FAQ did not include this errata. Does this mean that the Burden of Leadership ruling was reversed and there is no inclusion of "must"? Or should this errata have been included in the new FAQ and it was an oversight not to include it? A: No, the ruling wasn’t reversed—it was an oversight on our part not to include it in the latest FAQ. Burden of Leadership needs an erratum where its ability states “…for each Ally asset you control, you must either exhaust it or deal it 1 direct damage and 1 direct horror.” Please apply this ruling to the card if you play Charlie. (October, 2023)

Last updated 2/28/24

This isn't exactly the kind of weakness that is going to have Charlie too worried because you have flexibility to decide how to handle the revelation effect.

Let's say you exhaust all your allies during the upkeep phase; the result is you have a subpar next turn where you avoid tests and do some other stuff with your actions (draw, move, resource, etc). Sure, there will be times when there's an enemy or another really critical test that you need to deal with. But you can always take the damage/horror route if there is something important going on, not to mention passive effects on your allies are still going to work.

Just don't get caught with no allies in your hand or in play and only this card in your deck. That would be bad...

7/15/22

kingofyates · 26

I just noticed the disclamer regarding the weakness in Valentin's review of Charlie. I'd say, he is wrong. Because of the ruling for exhaust: "An exhausted card CANNOT exhaust again until it is ready (typically by a game step or card ability)." So the biggest threat is indeed, if the weakness hits you, when all your allies are exhausted. Many simply can't take more than 1 damage or horror, so would get defeated by it. — Susumu · 363 7/15/22

You are correct that the exhausted card doesn't exhaust again, but that doesn't stop you choosing the exhaust option. From the rules on must "In the absence of the word "must" while choosing among multiple options, any option may be chosen upon the resolution of the effect – even an option that does not change the game state." — NarkasisBroon · 10 7/15/22

That's the reasoning, Valentin stated. However, I think, it is not true. If you theoretically could exhaust a card a second time, you could choose this option, even though it would not change the game state, because there is no "must" on this card. However, it is not even possible to exhaust the card a second time, hence the rule for exhaustion. Therefore, you can't even choose this option. — Susumu · 363 7/15/22

An interesting effect of this weakness is that Charlie has a large soak pool that he might not want to use very much. Might make him a good candidate for the Desperate skills and similar cards. — Maseiken · 1 7/16/22

I'm with susumu on this. it is not about not changing a game state, it is about choosing an ilegal action — Adny · 1 7/20/22

"Choosing an illegal action" isn't a concept this game has, though. The word "cannot" only means that it doesn't happen. If it's part of a cost, that means you aren't able to pay the cost in full, if it's part of an effect, it can only stop you in as much as it might mean the effect doesn't have the potential to change the game state. Failing to exhaust an exhausted card is no different from failing to lose resources you don't have or counters from a card that doesn't have any. — Thatwasademo · 57 8/3/22

Furthermore, I just want to point out that FFG knows how to use the word "must" when writing cards for this game, and if they meant it to be there, they would have put it there. — Thatwasademo · 57 8/3/22

Every game has the concept of invalid targets and invalid actions - eg succeed or fail on encounter card, tap lucky/rabbit, enter location that says "Forced: When you enter this location, exhaust 3 assets you control" You can't pick the cigs/rabbit. It's not a valid target for that, because it's already exhausted. If the card read "exhaust all ally assets you control, or deal 1 direct horror and damage to all ally assets you control' the absence of a must should permit the former even with all allies already tapped, but it's a choice made per card, and therefore... Honestly even given this the weakness is not _THAT_ bad, but it means that you'll probably lose allies from time to time. — Lailah · 1 11/15/22

"Just don't get caught with no allies in your hand or in play and only this card in your deck. That would be bad..." Actually, no. As per the Rules Reference: "A single card cannot be shuffled into an empty player deck or encounter deck via card effect. If this shuffling would occur during the playing or revelation of a card that is typically discarded after it is resolved, such as an event or treachery card, it is discarded. Otherwise, the card remains in its current game area." — Red_Rob · 1 4/27/23

Le Poids des Responsabilités

FAQs

Reviews