Dark Bidding

Dark Bidding

Just a quick rules question. If you pull this card before the Hunting Horror emerges for the first time, it whiffs, right? As far as I can tell, the Hunting Horror starts in the encounter deck. While he's technically "out of play" while in the encounter deck (I checked), I'm aware of no mechanic that lets you attach a card to another card in a deck.

I only ask because Arkham, as a rule, HATES it when encounter cards whiff; in a "Return to..." set, those occasional lucky breaks for the players are usually revised away... But it looks like here that Matt, whether intentionally or not, may have introduced one!

Mordenlordgrandison · 462
That's how I play it. I certainly don't see any way to attach it to the horror in the deck — NarkasisBroon · 10
I can't see how this doesn't whiff, my logic was always that even it could attach it wouldn't stay attached given it only prevent detachment from being in the void. — Zerogrim · 295
you could still 'attach' the card virtually. it says you should attach it even if the HH is out of play and in the encounter deck is certainly an out of play area. just set it next to shadow spawns for the time being. it's at least how I play it. — PowLee · 15
@PowLee, I admire your grim ruling with this one! But I've dug more in the rules and I'm more confident that this is a whiffer. The rules say that an attached card MUST be placed "beneath and slighly overlapped by" the card to which it is attached. That's obviously a physical impossibility if the card in question is in a deck. The rules go on: "The “attach to” phrase is checked for legality each time a card would be attached to a game element, but is not checked again after that attachment occurs. If the initial “attach to” check does not pass, the card is not able to be attached, and remains in its prior state or game area. If such a card cannot remain in its prior state or game area, discard it." Clears it up for me. — Mordenlordgrandison · 462
I don't know. For me this is still unclear. Since the card states "even if it's out of play" I would argue that it overrides the normal attachment rules (golden rule). So it remains ambiguous to me and I will continue to grim rule it until MJ says otherwise. That being said, this is an edle case which doesn't happen too often, and the effect of this card is usually quite marginal, so I don't mind it too much. — PowLee · 15
It whiffs. The card must still find it's target to be attached to, even in an out of play area. if it cannot, it is discarded — Adny · 1
FAQ (written more recently than these comments) says it does whiff! Just hit this situation myself. unfortunately, the AI I was using picks up the opposite meaning; hopefully, this comment will help reinforce the real answer! — mrspaceman · 13

A Tear in Time

A Tear in Time

So, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has figured out that this card is an amazing target for Deny Existence (5)! Yes, I will take 3 extra actions this turn, thank you very much. The only problem is that it's hard to guarantee that you'll fail it if you're a primary Mystic investigator. Might be an interesting application of Olive McBride. Conversely, just make sure you draw this while you're at Chapultepec Hill (the version that gives you -2 ). I guess Mystic does have some tools to try to help you do that (could be Scroll of Secrets, Parallel Fates, or Alyssa Graham). Probably easiest to pull off as Gloria in any case.

Zinjanthropus · 229
Ha! Love this. You could pull the same shenanigans in the Miskatonic Museum, against Ephemeral Exhibits. And you're resting lore there, so easier for mystics to fail hard. — Mordenlordgrandison · 462
Good idea! — Zinjanthropus · 229
Dark prophecy is also a nice way to dig for bad tokens — NotSure · 22
I assume if you have no actions Remini — kevbotron1000 · 1
CORRECTION. I assume if you have no actions remaining, you MUST pay the cost in terror? — kevbotron1000 · 1

Well Prepared

Well Prepared

The most expensive blank card in the game, following the recent ruling on Lonnie Ritter we can now undeniably say that this card is blank, since your choice of an asset MUST affect the asset in a game state sense that is impossible to achieve with this card.

The serious point here is either the FAQ needs to be larger or smaller, half answers to rules questions are worse than just stating rules should be followed consistently by each player, the actual minutia of what is technically legal is IMO less important than just ruling all interaction the same way for your playgroup. (but if they want to go the MTG route and have a rule book the size of a dictionary that would at least solve ambiguity, just not the path I'd choose)

What about the card above, well if it isn't just a blank card then it's pretty amazing, try it with a chainsaw or big gun and have fun wrecking everything's face.

Sidenote: most story assets have absurd icons, so if someones well prepared they also might be the best guard for any story allies you want to keep nice and safe.

Zerogrim · 295
I don't think this conclusion is correct. For Lonnie, you have to choose a target for which the resolution can be completed (ie it has to have a horror on it in order to heal a horror). For Well Prepared, any asset is a viable target because there is no required resolution (other than, I guess, it having some icons on it) — acotgreave · 886
Gotta agree with @acotgreave here, especially since that interpretation allows things to, y'know, work. — SGPrometheus · 835
Yeah as far as I know that game state rule only applies to things that could affect the game state. If it can, it has to. This can't under any circumstance so that rule doesn't apply- it just works. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
This review really belongs on Lonnie, but Zerogrim is right by RAW (see her FAQ for the reasoning why). However, since this is obviously silly, they should probably just change the rule to say a target is valid if it would modify the game state overall, instead of requiring the target's state to be modified, and then putting errata on Lonnie. — Hylianpuffball · 29
The first three comments are right in that that is how any sensible person should play the game, and wrong in that it is unambiguously not what the rules of AH:TCG as they currently stand say; which IS the first part of Zerogrim's point. He's saying: since we still need to subjectively interpret the rules, all the pernickety rulings and details aren’t as helpful as they should be. I’m not sure I agree that it would be best for the game to shrink the FAQ, but I certainly see where Zerogrim’s coming from. -- Also, with noting that Mitch Brown and Foolishness have excellent ?? icons. — Spritz · 69
Disagree. The rules also say that the text on the card can contradict the text in the rules reference guide. This text chooses a target and never changes that target's state, so it contradicts and overrides the RRG. Lonnie chooses a target and attempts to heal a damage from it, and therefore doesn't contradict the RRG, and doesn't override the conventional choosing a target rule — NarkasisBroon · 10
Yea these little nitpicky interpretation are at the end of the day just kinda worthless wastes of time, that's kind of my whole point. The rules state that contradictions are handled by the cards trumping the rules but well prepared doesn't contradict the rules, it simply requires you to ignore the rule to function, a contradiction would be a card that allows you to discard weaknesses from your hand. (even though that is against the rules in normal situations) — Zerogrim · 295
You can't exhaust "Well Prepared" if you don't controll an asset with matching icons to the current test. But if you do, you have a valid target. The triggered ablity targets a skill test. And for that, the game state is clearly altered if you activate the card. It's a very different case than with Lonnie, who can't heal damage from a card without damage. This review is rubbish. — Susumu · 381
The rules about "targeting" make it clear that it's the object of the verb "choose" that's the "target" of the card, though. When a card says "this skill test" it isn't establishing a target, it's establishing a duration. — Thatwasademo · 58
I think the actual problem with this analysis is what "changing the target's game state" means. Obviously moving a card to another zone, placing tokens on it, or rotating it (either exhaustwise or facewise) is changing its state, but you could also argue that making a change to parts of the game state not otherwise obviously associated with a card, *based on the target's characteristics*, also counts? Under that definition, the set of legal targets for Well Prepared's triggered ability is nonzero but also not everything -- it's those assets, and only those assets, which have at least one matching skill icon. — Thatwasademo · 58
Of course, that would true in this case anyway even without the targeting rules, since adding to your skill value is the only effect of the ability, and you can't trigger an ability that doesn't change the game state at all even if it doesn't target. But say you added text like "and place one resource token on Well Prepared, as a charge" to the ability. — Thatwasademo · 58
One could argue that the Golden Rule allows Well Prepared to function in spite of the targeting rule — and likewise for other cards which don't "affect" the card they "target", such as Call of the Unknown, Eavesdrop, Interrogate, Knowledge is Power, Esoteric Atlas (unless moving to a location is considered to "affect" it), Sixth Sense (unless investigating as if at a location is considered to "affect" it), Pendant of the Queen (unless any of those effects are considered to affect the location?), Followed (unless suppressing AoO "affects" an enemy), Otherworld Codex, Lucid Dreaming, Trish Scarborough's elder sign effect, Dynamite Blast. — Yenreb · 15
But that's a pretty long list of cards to lean on a rule that shouldn't be used so heavily to overwrite another rule that's so specific to a keyword which, if the cards "tried" to "affect" their targets, clearly would apply (and thus the Golden Rule wouldn't). — Yenreb · 15
While it is only implied, the rule talks about abilities, that affect their target. It is common sense, that if an ability isn't supposed to affect it's target, it is not required to change it's game state. — Adny · 1
Yeah, I think the response on Lonnie is just clumsily worded. It probably means "if the resolution of that ability's effect [would apply an effect but] could not change the target's state"; I suspect they'll release a clarification when they update the official FAQ. — pneuma08 · 26

Pushed into the Beyond

Pushed into the Beyond

This is more of a question than a point but Solemn Vow explicitly says it is played under the control of another investigator. So plausibly I can target it with this card, shuffle it into my deck, draw it and play it under the control of same investigator who owns it. Also, unless I'm also running Solemn Vow in my own deck it's probably the best target...

Artemysterious · 3
I don't think you can shuffle a card you don't own into your deck. Or at least, you can't shuffle in a card another player owns. I don't think you can choose it as a target, because nothing would happen. — SGPrometheus · 835
You can choose it as a target. See Ownership and Control in the RRG which says "If a card would enter an out-of-play area that does not belong to the card's owner, the card is physically placed in its owner's equivalent out-of-play area instead. The card is considered to have entered its controller's out-of-play area, and only the physical placement of the card is adjusted.". So you shuffle it into its owners deck, and discard the top 3 cards of your deck. Assuming you don't also have solemn vow in your deck you cannot take 2 horror — NarkasisBroon · 10
Pretty sweet. — SGPrometheus · 835
It is worth pointing out that per that section as quoted, the OP is (slightly) wrong about what happens -- Yes, you can target the Solemn Vow, but no, you don't shuffle it into your deck, you shuffle it into its owners deck (and the rest of Pushed Into the Beyond treats it as though you shuffled it into your deck). — Thatwasademo · 58
(That is to say, NarkasisBroon is entirely correct, but I briefly misread their post as saying the OP was correct and thought others might also) — Thatwasademo · 58

Manual Dexterity

Manual Dexterity

After so many years, let's discuss a very important point :-)

Is Trish Scarborough being pictured here?

I would say so: in which case we waited for almost 5 years before finding her! I really love the interconnections and contextual references of this game. It really adds to the narrative and immersive experience.

Lord Phrank · 76
The Arkham Horror files universe existed and was pretty fleshed out before this game even started. I think the only investigators in this game that didn't already exist when the core set first released were Stella, Nathaniel, and Wini IIRC??? Im pretty certain that every investigator released before the starter decks already existed before this game was even announced. — NarkasisBroon · 10
Nope, Sefina was new to the game at her release. She was later added to Eldritch Horror. — bricklebrite · 533
Noice. TIL — NarkasisBroon · 10
Also - and someone please correct me if I'm wrong - I believe that Calvin and Daniela had not yet been featured in an Arkham files game at the time of the Core Set release. — bricklebrite · 533
Preston Fairmont, Agatha Crane, Carson Sinclair, and Daniela Reyes were also released specific to Eldritch Horror. I'm really hoping we see Carson Sinclair in AH:LCG at some point. — Pinchers · 132
Calvin was the only promo investigator for 2nd Edition Arkham Horror. He had existed for years in the Arkham Files, but basically nobody actually had a copy. Also, at least some of the post 2nd Ed. AH new investigators actually first showed up in the Investigators of Arkham Horror book of short stories, including Agatha Crane and Father Mateo iirc. — Death by Chocolate · 1488
Calvin was an Ally card in Elder Sign* I believe (*probably not the base game). When they added his investigator card in the last expansion they instructed you to take out the Ally. — Yenreb · 15