Arkham Woods

question: does this mean if I draw a -1 chaos token, and then a -2 with the additional chaos token, that these are summed together for a -3? Or does the "reveal and resolve" only apply to the effect of the additional chaos token, like drawing a tablet could cause you to take damage?

raigunn · 1
I believe you get the -3 — Weirdmarine · 3
You get -3. All special tokens effects are applied too. — jd9000 · 73
Impromptu Barrier

I am trying this card out in an evasion-focused Finn deck in multiplayer TFA (normal mode). It seems to be pulling its weight. This card seems a little easier to fit into decks than Improvised Weapon because most characters that will fight will want to trigger their Fight actions from an asset instead of from Improvised Weapon. You typically don't have an equivalent asset for evasions, unless you're using Stealth, which most players find only useful in solo mode.

The card also somewhat fits into "succeed by X" archetypes (in combination with Finn and Pickpocketing, etc.). Daring Maneuver paired with this card can help you occasionally evade another baddy and avoid annoying Alert keywords. It's not a mindblowing combo but can be helpful at lower XP.

iceysnowman · 164
Does the play from discard pile effect for the second evade require an evasion test? This does not say automatically evade like Cunning Distraction. — luccros · 66
You may be confused by the fact that "Evade" is both an action and an effect. Compare it to "Fight" an "deal damage" or "Investigate" and "discovre clues" which are clearly distinguishable. However generally when a card is talking about the action of Evading unless it's an action designator it says "Evasion attempt". "Evade" for anything that isn't an action designator always refers to the effect of a successful Evasion attempt, in other words it means "disengage from an enemy and exhaust it" directly. — Killbray · 11945
Late coming back here but thanks for the response! Still I am a little confused why Silas Net uses the phrase "automatically evade" whereas Impromptu Barrier does not. (Cunning Distraction may have been a bad initial example because it indicates the Evade action is being taken, but no skill test occurs - it is automatically succesful)). Silas Net and Barrier are very similar in that there is an initial Evade action taken with its respective skill test, then based on X an additional evade may occur. If evade is just an effect in this case, why does Silas Net need the phrase automatically evade? — luccros · 66
Crystallizer of Dreams

I finally had a chance to try this card out yesterday on my blind run through the first Dream Eaters scenario. I'm playing Tony in a group that doesn't have a dedicated cluever so I'm running both Evidence! and Intel Report to help out on the clues side of things. This card really pulled its weight ! The ability to play an event that nets you clues while then attaching it to the Crystalliser and commit it again for 2 book pips on a subsequent test makes Tony into a pretty reliable clue-getter. Despite being the least clue-focused of our 3 player group I came out with more clues than anybody else while still breezing through the zoogs. Great card. Can recommend.

I do have a question about the interactions with a couple of cards though, which hopefully some of you more knowledgeable folk can clear up. Firstly, how would it interact with Ever Vigilant ? Could you play this as one of your assets after EV is played and then still attach EV to it afterwards or does the discarding of EV occur before the reaction effect comes into play ? Secondly, does the reaction effect only kick in immediately after you play the event ? For example, could you play Well-Maintained onto one of your guns and then a few turns later when it gets discarded attach WM or would that not be allowed ? Delay the Inevitable is another event that could be affected by this if it turns out to be a restriction. I'd assume that it would be fine, but the wording on the card is "after you play an event", which could be interpreted differently.

Sassenach · 179
Ever Vigilant attaches to the Crystallizer just fine but events that don't get discarded immediately don't - the Crystallizer replaces the standard discard that happens when playing an event, but those event's don't have that, so there's nothing to replace. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
@thenamewastaken I think he's suggesting a sequence of: play Ever Vigilant, play Crystallizer (with ever vigilant), attach ever vigilant to crystallizer, which would not work. If the crystallizer enters play after the timing point that it's looking for, it can't trigger, even if the event is still resolving. Play =/= resolve. — SGPrometheus · 821
@SGPrometheus What does "After you play an Event" mean? It should be the timing point after complete execution of the event, right? The discard of Ever vigilant happens AFTER all three assets are in play. This discard can be replaced by the crystallizer, as it is already in play. — trazoM · 9
@trazom I might be looking at this from too much of a Magic perspective, but the only timing point when a card is "played" — SGPrometheus · 821
Part 2: would be after costs and targets are determined and when the effect goes on the stack (not that AH has a stack, per se). The parts you're describing are the resolution of that effect, not the playing of the card. Again, this might not align perfectly with the actual rules, but it aligns with MtG's timing rules, which i consider a gold standard. — SGPrometheus · 821
From Appendix I, I understand that the trigger occurs in step 4. — trazoM · 9
trazoM has it right - an event is considered played after its effects resolve. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
Appendix I says clearly that a card is only considered to be discarded (in the discard pile) when its initieted effect is resolved. This means that "Ever Vigilant" will discard after the chosen assets are in play, triggering "Crystalizer of Dreams" in the process, as trazorM rightly points out. — Alogon · 1125
Cool, that's handy. EV has double book pips so that's a pretty sweet combo. — Sassenach · 179
Wow, that's nuts. Good tech. — SGPrometheus · 821
"You owe me one!"

Seems like quite an interesting card with a lot of interactions and not totally clear rules for me, which I hope to clarify here. First of all, it's a Roguish version of Teamwork, but with some advantages. Disadvantages are also present, but they seem pretty minor to me. Let's talk about obvious advantages:

  1. An awesome card in terms of action economy. 0-lvl, 0 cost. You trade one action, which is normally used to play one of your card, to play a card of your mate and to get two cards for the team. Unlike above mentioned Teamwork, it also gives something (two additional cards), not only provides distribution of already existed goodies among players.
  2. Rogues are the richest faction, so it allows to save some resources for poorer mates, while providing the same benefit for the team. E.g. Guardian's Agency Backup: it may totally devastate a guardian, yet can relatively easily be played by many Rogues.
  3. You can support your character's archetype with a card you normally cannot include in your deck. I haven't thought much about it, but Dark Horse for Leo Anderson or some cool weapon for Finn crossed my mind. And now regarding not very clear moments.
  4. "To play a card under you control". Obviously, you cannot play a skill card, and it is clear with assets. But what does it mean to play an event card under your control? Just to apply its effect on yourself instead of the owner? It seems like this card allows to play events as well, doesn't it?
  5. Attacks of opportunity. I read it as even though you're gonna play a card from your mate's hand which doesn't trigger an attack of opportunity (e.g. Dynamite Blast (2), you will get it because the initial event does provoke it and you apply an attack of opportunity before applying the effect of the card. If you play a card that also provokes an attack of opportunity, it will get you hit only once, as I understand, because you are doing one action (and it is the action that provoke attacks of opportunity) with several effects. There was also a question in comments whether you need to pay resource costs of the card you play. I decided to add the clarification to the review, since a friend of mine also asked the same: yes, you do.Tthe rules specifically say: "to play a card, an investigator must pay the card's resource cost and meet any applicable play restrictions and conditions." Sometimes cards allow to avoid paying the costs, then the wording "put into play" is used instead of simply "to play". Here are some examples: Sleight of Hand, Flare
chrome · 58
4. Playing an event ‘under your control’ means you play the event (as if it had been from your hand). Anything that effects the person who plays it affects you. Any tests that happen - you make. 5. Correct. — Death by Chocolate · 1473
I'm still unclear as to whether you need to pay the resource cost. Normally cards will specify "paying its cost" when that's the case, but the wording on this card doesn't say anything about that. I suppose it's reasonable to assume that you would need to pay, but it's ambiguous. — Sassenach · 179
They don’t always. Three cards have it as reminder text in parenthesis and italics, but at least as many don’t, as paying costs is an assumed part of ‘playing a card.‘ — Death by Chocolate · 1473
you do need to pay all card costs, including resource ones. It's absolutely clear, because the rules specifically say: "To play a card, an investigator must pay the card's resource cost and meet any applicable play restrictions and conditions." Sometimes cards allow to avoid paying the card costs, then the wording "put into play" is used instead of simply "to play". Here are some examples: <a href="03029">Sleight of Hand</a>, <a href="02115">Flare</a>. — chrome · 58
I think it would be more accurate to say that "You Owe Me One!" is neutral with respect to action economy, not awesome. The cost is one card from each player ("You Owe Me One!" and the card that you choose to play from your teammate) and one action, and the result is a new card for each player and a new card in play. The card draw for each investigator simply replaces the two cards that were lost. So the action economy is the same as if you played a card from your hand. — jmmeye3 · 628
@jmmeye3 the card is card neutral and gives you an asset; usually, you would be spending a card and resources to put an asset into play. This makes you just lose the resources, essentially. This is card advantage. — dichromate · 11
Old Book of Lore

Solid Mandy tech. Given that she can use this to see the top 6 cards in your deck, she can use this to fish for her weakness / free clues relatively cheaply. As most searches cost an action and resources, it seems worthwhile to pay an action for the search.

Bloodw4ke · 81
I think this card is still pretty expensive, even with mandys ability, especially spending an action each turn (or 2 on the first to get anything back). Another point is the 1/turn limit on mandys ability. In multi or if you include many search cards, it's not as useful if her ability was already triggered. — Django · 5093
I've not played Mandy so might be getting it wrong, but does she effectively make this card 1 Action to draw 2 cards? Either that or an infinite "No Stone Unturned"? On its own that doesn't seem shabby at all, but I don't know how that would play with a deck stacked with search already. — Octo · 96
I agree with @Django. Once I had Rook in play, the book became basicially obsolete. However, I could see it in a supportive Mandy build because unlike Rook it can be used on other investigators. — Warforce17 · 1390