Trick to the Plan made me laugh. — MrGoldbee · 1492 4/17/25

It might be an interesting experiment to run Rita as a rogue, with seven survivor cards (two of which are going to be track shoes.) — MrGoldbee · 1492 4/17/25

Disguise and Slip Away are the best examples in my opinion, since you bother even less about not disengaging :) — AlderSign · 397 5/4/25

Counterpoint: Stealth specifies that, until the end of the turn, that enemy "cannot" engage you. Therefore, I would rule that you must prioritize Stealth over String Along in order to fulfill the "cannot" clause. — NightgauntTaxiService · 463 5/15/25

Better find another way to draw a card for free? — Tharzax · 1 5/15/25

Hi!! I'd say that: — Piegura · 7 5/16/25

On the successful evade action -> You don't disengage for String Along (even if Stealth would let You) - The enemy doesn't exhaust (for Stealth) - And, oh yeah: You draw 1 card. — Piegura · 7 5/16/25

As a result: You are in the same situation as before the evade action = engaged with the enemy, but with 1 more card (and 1 less action in this turn) in your hand. So basically You spent 1 action to test to draw 1 card without the opportunity attack of the enemy engaged with You. :-D — Piegura · 7 5/16/25

Updated the review after some digging in the rules. — AlderSign · 397 5/16/25

Piegura is correct. The two texts don’t directly contradict each other because Stealth is the action you initiate and then String Along is a reaction that modified it. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/16/25

And also the enemy can't engage you but he already is. — Tharzax · 1 5/16/25

@Eudaimonea: What action comes "first" is irrelevant; here you have two ABILITIES that both initiate an effect that resolves at the same timing point (the step during the skill test). Since they tell you A and not-A, that's a contradiction. — AlderSign · 397 5/16/25

I wasn’t really saying it mattered which one came first. You initiate an action, which is obviously legal and has clear effects. Then you take a reaction to modify the initial action in a certain way—in this case to subtract one of its effects. This is also legal and leaves you in a position where the successful evasion achieves very little. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/17/25

Ah, I see what you mean. But that's not how the resolution works. String Along doesn't modify Stealth, they both modify an evasion attempt. That's two different effects. The reaction ability just adds an effect. The part(s) of both effects in question relate to the exact same timing point during the skill test ("if successful"). That way, you could actually compare it to commiting both Perception and Deduction to a skill test, making you choose the order in which they resolve on success. — AlderSign · 397 5/17/25

Oh, I’ve been referring to Stealth (0) because that’s the one you (probably inadvertently) linked, but you’re referring to Stealth (3). I think you have a better argument for choosing the effects than I originally believed actually, when I consider your point about identical timing. You said one thing slightly inaccurately, which is that technically, “after you successfully evade” is ST.6, but you’re right that Stealth clearly intends to modify the result of successful evasion, which occurs at ST. So perhaps it’s best to interpret Stealth as a “replacement effect,” as described in the RR. String Along is worded to resolve at ST.7, but it can’t reasonably be read to add an additional effect to that step, such as cards like Perception do, or else you could choose first to exhaust and disengage the enemy per standard evasion rules and then to draw the card from String Along. So it’s probably best to think of String Along as a replacement effect. So your choice to use Stealth and then String Along is basically a replacement effect followed by a replacement effect. Upon consideration, I think you have a strong argument for being able to choose their order and get the best of both worlds. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/18/25

Which version of Stealth we are talking about should not make a difference, because the timing point is determined by the effect, not the cost (the action). Hm, I must disagree with the replacement effect interpretation: they are always signaled by the word "instead", which is missing on both cards here and makes the whole thing so confusing (see https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Instead). Where did I say "after"? The indicator for the timing point here would be "if", which is between "when" and "after" (https://arkhamdb.com/rules#If), but with skill tests it should "add" the effect(s) to the results in ST.7, like you said. — AlderSign · 397 5/19/25

I agree that the version of Stealth actually doesn't matter. I found it curious that you took exception to my comment that "Stealth is the action you initate and then String Along is a reaction that modifies it." I was trying to steel man your issue with that statement, which I believe to be correct. As to the replacement effect idea, maybe you're right that Stealth isn't. I'm just trying to find a way to your rationale. It seems obvious to me that I could initiate the Burglary investigation and then take an (imaginary) reaction during the first timing window that said "Don't gain resources during this test, but gain an additional clue. Draw 1 card if this investigation succeeds." Burglary would lock me out of the clue and the reaction would lock me out of the money, but I could still Eureka! or whatever and draw the card from the reaction and whatever else I committed--the Rex Murphy bonus clue or whatnot. At no point in there would there be a contradiction, and that's the exact situation you're asking about here re-skinned as an evasion. For contradiction, you really would need two effects trying to do opposite things at the same time, as we both state above. While my use of the word "aftter" was unfortunate and inaccurate, the major error I was and am emphasizing is your repeated misstatement that "Here you have two ABILITIES that both initiate an effect that resolves at the same timing point (the step during the skill test)." Then later, "The part(s) of both effects in question relate to the exact same timing point during the skill test ('if successful')." This is not correct. Stealth reacts to "if you successfully evade," which believe it or not is explicitly stated in the RR as a different timing point from "if you succeed." The former is ST.6, and the latter is ST.7. My post above identifies a problem with applying the text as written and imagines them instead as replacement effects. If they were not that, as I mention above, you would apply String Along's "exhaust and do not disengage" and "draw 1 card" at ST.6, then apply Stealth's "disengage but do not exhaust" at ST.7 and you would get the best of both. That seems unreasonable to me, so I suggested reading Stealth as a replacement effect. Again, to be clear, I am not concerned with the difference between "when / if / after," but rather with the following timing rule: "Skill Test Results and Advanced Timing (added in FAQ, section 'Game Play', point 1.7) During Step 7 of Skill Test Timing ("Apply skill test results"), all of the effects of the successful skill test are determined and resolved, one at a time. This includes the effects of the test itself (such as the clue discovered while investigating, or the damage dealt during an attack), as well as any "If this test is successful..." effects from card abilities or skill cards committed to the test. Reactions or Forced abilities with a triggering condition dependent upon the skill test being successful or unsuccessful (such as "After you successfully investigate," or "After you fail a skill test by 2 or more") do not trigger at this time. These abilities are triggered during Step 6, "Determine success/failure of skill test." That is the rule that explicitly declares these two cards do not resolve at the same time. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/19/25

Interesting, I read your statement about action/reaction differently. Thanks for clarifying. Good example with Burglary. While I agree in the meanwhile that those two effects don't directly contradict with another, but only because you can choose the order in which they resolve anyway - during ST.7. Yes, I don't see an indicator for something happening at ST.6 here, even, or, because of the FAQ you cited; "If you succeed" from String Along is NOT a triggering condition - at least not for the ability, which is what the FAQ states and I think the point you are making. If it would be, it would come before the colon (":"). See here: https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Abilities_Triggered — AlderSign · 397 5/21/25

Allow me to trim the quote for clarity: “triggering condition(s) … such as "After you successfully investigate” … trigger during Step .” That is the exact wording of Stealth. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/22/25

I left off the number 6 from the previous post. You get the idea. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/22/25

I get what you want to say, but it doesn't apply here. The "triggering condition" you are talking about would be stated before the ":" of the ability, which in neither the case with Stealth, nor with String Along. — AlderSign · 397 5/22/25

The triggering condition for String Along is "When you attempt to evade an enemy" and for Stealth (3) it is "During your turn" (Stealth (0) doesn't have one). — AlderSign · 397 5/22/25

You would have a case for Lucky Cigarette Case, though. — AlderSign · 397 5/22/25

I take your correction on the "triggering condition" and related timing issue. I see why a strict reading would lead you to think this effect resolves at the same time as Perception. As you mention a few comments above, if we read it literally like that, we can choose to apply first the "exhaust but don't disengage," then the "disengage but don't exhaust," just as with Perception you can choose to first gain the clue from successful investigation then the card from Perception or vice versa. I will reiterate that such a reading seems unreasonable to me. We probably should read this as an example of inconsistent templating. Both Stealth and especially String Along should probably be read to say, "The evasion does not disengage" and "the evasion does not exhaust," to make it clear that these cards are intended to modify the outcome of the evasion itself, not to apply separate effects that the rulebook explicitly declares are to be ordered one at a time and can be done so to maximize player benefit. It's probably abusing the card to read it as adding a fact, rather than subtracting an effect. Anyway, we seem to be in agreement that if playing Deduction does not create a Silver Rule conflict with Burglary, activating String Along does not create a Silver Rule conflict with Stealth. The only question is whether they're an ultimate wombo combo or an almost complete nonbo. I argue it's only reasonable to conclude the latter. — Eudaimonea · 5 5/22/25