Coste: 1. PX: 2.
Iconos de habilidad:

Investigar. Si tienes éxito, descubre 2 pistas en total entre tu Lugar y los Lugares conectados.

Hay gente que necesita saber la verdad a toda costa. Algunas verdades pueden cortar como cuchillos.
Andreia Ugrai
Harvey Walters #27.
Buscando respuestas
FAQs (taken from the official FAQ or FFG's responses to the official rules question form)
  • 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 January 2022): Erratum: This card's ability should read "...If you succeed, instead of discovering a clue at your location, discover 2 total clues from among your location and connecting locations." - FAQ, v.1.9, June 2021
Last updated

This seems like it would be perfect for Luke Robinson. With Dream-Gate having a shroud of 1 and being connected to every location, this card is essentially pay 1 resource and discover 2 clues from any revealed location. Plus, while it is an event, you don't even need to use his investigator ability on it. Though I guess you would have to lean a bit more by taking St. Hubert's Key over Holy Rosary for instance.

alcaro · 497
"Connecting locations" (plural). So you need not even discover both clues from 1 place! — Yenreb · 15
You don't even need to doiscover clues where you are! — LivefromBenefitSt · 927
Rereading the card. This card actually discovers 3 clues. 1 (at your location) from the investigate action designator, and 2 more from the event itself. It is not a replacement effect like Seeking Answers (0). So if you were playing Luke you would want to use it in a location with clues. — toastsushi · 62
Discover two total clues implies it does not give you two clues on top of one from the action itself. Total implies replacement. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
Why would total imply a replacement? As I understand, the adding of total is to prevent misreading "discover 2 clues" as discovering 2 clues at each valid location. If they intended it to replace the successful investigate effect, they should've added "instead of discovering a clue at your location", like Seeking Answers (0). — toastsushi · 62
Because total means total- all 2 clues you discover are from this location or any connecting location, the exact composition being your own choice. The original Seeking Answers let you investigate somewhere to discover an adjacent clue, it makes sense that the upgrade essentially doubles that for 2 XP. Look What I Found 2 works the exact same way with the exact same wording of total. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
It wouldn’t be replacement if it were an added effect eg if it said “additional”. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
I understand the comparison for Look What I Found (2), but that one is certain as it doesn't have an Investigate action designator. I changed my interpretation of this card to be "unsure" in part of them just copying the text of LWIF (2), and that the lack of "additional" and "instead" just adds to that ambiguity. — toastsushi · 62
I agree that it's 2 clues from any adjaent locations (with clues). The investigate test is part of the cost, everything after "if you succeed..." is the replacement effect. It is also telling you you can't combo with cards Deduction, Rex's ability, etc to increase the number of clues. Otherwise, this could approach Deciphered Reality (with a 4 XP and 2 cost savings) pretty easily. — LivefromBenefitSt · 927
I don't see why Rex's ability or Deduction can't be used in response to this card. Those are separate effects entirely. — toastsushi · 62
At risk of trying not to sound unintentionally rude in my previous comment: Rex's ability triggers after the investigation is completely done. He would discover the clues from Seeking Answers, then discover 1 clue from his ability (if he succeeded by 2 or more). Deduction also specifies "additional". — toastsushi · 62
First, the use of the word "total" indicates a limit. If it was expandable, I would expect the card to read "If you succeed, discover 2 clues from among your location and connecting locations." The somewhat clumsey wording at the end indicates that, unlike a standard Investigate action, you do not necessarily have to find a clue at your location. II think you can use this card to investigate a cleared low-Shroud location and find cluese at on or 2 adjacent high-Shroud locations. A second reason to believe in the limit is that, otherwise, you could use this card to largely duplicate the effects of a much higher XP card, which I doubt was their intent. — LivefromBenefitSt · 927
I was initially in the camp of 'this card picks up 2 total clues including the 1 from investigating,' but after seeing that it is the same wording as LWIF2, I have been convinced otherwise. LWIF2 sets a precidence for that phrase being used as an independent rules text with no underlying assumptions. Thus, like with Deciphered Reality, there is clearly no replacement effect going on here. It is an investigate test, so you obviously can use Rex's ability (if you succeed by 2 or more) to pick up a clue at your current location - although, slight correction to toastsushi: Rex's ability triggeres after Step 6 of Skill Test Timing when success is determined, not after the test is completed. There have been FAQ rulings about similar effect timing. 'After succeeding'/'if you succeed' is the one weird exception to the normal when/if/after ordering in AHCG because 'if you succeed' has special meaning of adding another consequence for Step 7 rather than triggering at the time of success/failure (Step 6). (see the whole debate involving Take Heart, Try And Try Again, and Grisly Totem (Survivor)). If a card doesn't specify that there is a replacement - there isn't one. Otherwise cards such as One-Two Punch would be garbage, since the first attack wouldn't deal any damage! Likewise, you could commit Deduction since the investigation does get clues, but it specifies at the location you investigated, so you couldn't use it to get an additional remote clue. Regarding LivefromBenefitSt's concern that it is getting close to Deciphered Reality's power (with a 3xp and 3 cost savings) - that may be true, but almost nobody was really playing Deciphered Reality, and it wouldn't be the first time that FFG added a lower level card with comparable power to an underplayed XP card (see Encyclopedia 0 vs Encyclopedia 2 and Dumb Luck 2 vs Close Call 2) or a very significant upgrade to an existing underplayed card for only 1xp (see Mano a Mano 2 or Esoteric Atlas 2). — Death by Chocolate · 1229
I was going to say, I still think the card replaces the investigate action to being only 2 clues total, BUT it should absolutely work with Rex and Deduction, as it is still an investigate. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
If the card said "discover 2 clues from among your location and connecting locations.", the interpretation is that you would discover 2 clues each at those locations. I think it would be a little iffy if the card implies that you can only discover a maximum limit of clues, and if Deduction cannot work with this card, then it is equivalent, if not worse than its level 0 counterpart in terms of power. I just hope there would be an FAQ for this, as both interpretations just seem equally possible, or just errata it to add the word "instead" (which has a clear definition in the RR for a replacement effect) or "additional". — toastsushi · 62
Death by Chocolate -- so you think the "2 total clues" wording is just just to avoid people thinking that they get 2 clues at each of 2 locations? I guess that's possible, but wouldn't something like "discover 2 clues, from your location and/or connecting locations?" How does one submit a rules question the the AH team?/or adjacent locations — LivefromBenefitSt · 927
@LivefromBenefitSt Go to the FFG website > More > Customer Service > Rules Questions > Rules Question Form. — Death by Chocolate · 1229
Merci. — LivefromBenefitSt · 927
I think Death by Chocolate is right. There is no instead, it doesn't replace. — Nils · 1
Not that votes matter, but I agree with Nils and Death by Chocolate. Will be good to see the result of the rules question though — NarkasisBroon · 9
double agility icons for Crystallizer Ursula! — Zinjanthropus · 211
From FFG: You may use Seeking Answers (2) along with other effects that add to the number of clues discovered. Those additional clues would be discovered from the location indicated (typically your location, as in Deduction and Rex. The “2 total clues” from Seeking Answers is not meant to be a maximum, it’s just meant to direct you to discover 2 clues between your location and connecting locations without accidentally inferring that it’s 2 from each, or that sort of thing. — LivefromBenefitSt · 927
Right, so Deduction and Rex work as we all expected, but the investigate just discovers two clues total otherwise. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
Just to confirm the two clues from Seeking Answers can come from connecting locations rather than your current location? So, let’s say there are two locations revealed each with two clues. If I play Seeking Answers (2) and boost the test with Deduction (2) passing by +2, I could take all four clues: the two from my location (from Deduction) and the two from the adjacent location (from Seeking Answers)? — carlsonjd11 · 438
The two clues from SA can come from either your location or any connecting locations. But yes, Deduction/Rex would have to be YOUR location. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
I'm grateful to LivefromBenefitSt for sending the question to FFG but I'm a bit surprised that players are reading into that a resolution of the question as to whether the card gathers 2 or 3 clues naturally. It certainly seems to me like it should gather 3. The rules say that you fully resolve one sentence, then fully resolve another. The resolution of sentence one grants one clue. Then the resolution of sentence two grants two clues. There is no "instead of" clause, and it seems like pure verbal voodoo to say that the word "total" implies "instead." As many have said above, without the word "total," you would get clues from each. It serves a clear grammatical effect. The really novel idea is that some are suggesting this is the first ever "Investigate" card that you could add or subtract an "Instead of" clause without in any way changing its function. I can't see how that's right. — Holy Outlaw · 201
Given the way both the level 0 and level 2 versions are worded it seems like the level 2 version should give you 3 clues. But if that's not what FFG intended, then why didn't they use the same wording as the level 0 version? Why are people saying there's an exception to this one card, but not applying the same logic to all the other cards that have "investigate." — Li Ling Chen · 1
Is there now a consensus on 1+ 2 clues or 0 + 2? — tomcool · 1
It's been errata'd. It's only two clues. — Crazly · 1

2xp to get a 1-cost Deduction with some frills. The frills being that you can skip moving into the target location, which can save you 2+ actions or even your derriere.

I like it. It barely needs more explanation.

Tsuruki23 · 2324
It's really good for Crystallizer of Dreams Ursula (and probably Trish) with those double agility icons. Ursula can even use her extra action to play it. — Zinjanthropus · 211

It's 2 XP. but it's better than Working a Hunch (except in Joe) and less complicated than either version of Extensive Research. The ability to grab clues from more than one location is gold in Solo. It's cheaper than Working a Hunch, and will find a comfortable home in Roland, assuming he isn't spending all his XP on weapons.....

It’s not really better than Working a Hunch I dont think, in the hunch deck. You can always just WaH whichever location is more problematic. It is a good hunch though, and is much better than the level 0 version. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
Don't underestimate the power of an actionless, testless clue, especially on higher difficulties. — TheDoc37 · 462
No doubt, it's a good card, though not technically actionless or testless. But the ability to investigate any one location and grab the two most troublesome clues nearby will saves you actions almost always. — StyxTBeuford · 12738
@StyxBeuford I'm pretty sure TheDoc37 was referring to WaH in their comment. — Death by Chocolate · 1229