"Get over here!"

If I have an enemy already engaged with me and play "Get over here!" on a different enemy at a connecting location, does that provoke an attack of opportunity?

I mean, I did play an action to Fight (which means no attack of opportunity), but that same action was also to Engage (which usually triggers an attack of opportunity).

JetLeisten · 4
My reading is it does not trigger an op attack. This card has the fight action designator. Op attacks trigger if you spend an action other than to fight, evade, resign, or parley. The fact that this is also a Play action and an Engage action doesn't change the fact that it is a Fight action, and thus avoids op attacks. For comparison, consider that any weapon with a Fight action is also an Activate action. So if this triggered op attacks, It would follow that the Activate action on every weapon also triggers op attacks — NarkasisBroon · 10
Is nobody else bothered that it leads with "Engage. Fight."? Usually, these keywords mean "do this basic action. Then if the card has more text, do that too". However, a literal reading of the card would suggest that you get to engage, then fight, then vacuum up a distant dude and engage and fight him too. Compare this with Counterpunch, which says "Fight. Also, here's a targeting restriction for this fight action". On the other hand, the design intent seems pretty clear. — jaunt · 20
Showmanship

As noted, it's great, and it doubles down on what Dexter wants to be doing every round- putting assets into play. Bursty guns & swords become very appealing, giving Dex something to do with his hands.

The problem, as with many signatures, is reliability. You can't really plan on it showing up, as to my knowledge, Dexter has no native way to tutor it... except for ... his OTHER signature option.

Intentional? Encouraging "Not only are you allowed to use both sets of signatures on an investigator: in this case, you should!"?

...eh, likely not. Sure, this is a nice card- and so is Molly- and Molly herself CAN be tutored with limited reliability- but Renfield Probably -> Calling In Favors -> Molly -> Showmanship seems like a long road that's interesting but inefficient.

Something of a tangent: it really feels like taking an additional sig + weakness is a trap. For 1 card, you're thickening your deck AND adding an additional weakness you didn't have to take, and even mild weaknesses like Dexter's are a major tempo loss at best. If you think about it, many would leap at the reliability of forfeiting their sig in exchange for losing the accompanying weakness. Not just the Rolands & Mandys of the world who's bad decisions are so strong you have to build your deck around them. (In fairness, this is sometimes to balance the char's inherent skills- this seems the case with Mandy's weakness.) An optional card has to pull a LOT of weight to be worth "Add a weakness to your deck".

Back to Showmanship itself, it's fine. Either it or Molly are solid; Molly adds consistency, Showmanship leaves your Ally slot open for more asset-cycling. I like the limited-synergy they have together. It would be neat to see this go further on a future 'gator who had replacement sigs explicitly designed to make the option of taking ALL sigs at once a genuine temptation.

HanoverFist · 743
Charon's Obol

I have a question about how this card interacts with setup for City of Archives.

You're instructed to remove all unique item cards from your deck during setup, but the Obol is permanent.

Does it get removed or not? I know the RR states that permanent cards cannot leave play, but is the Obol already in play by the time you work through setup? I have a feeling it is...

It gets removed from your deck before CoA. This means that you can't get the extra 2xp from it. — Zinjanthropus · 229
Thanks. I've had conflicting comments about this. I'm fine with not gaining the XP; it was the permanent issue that caused the headache. — MagnusLothar · 1
Aren't items returned to you during city of archives at a certain point? If so, wouldn't the Obol return before the scenario is up and therefore grant the XP bonus? — LaRoix · 1645
Agenda 1 stops you putting items in general into play and that effect goes away on the flip side of that agenda, but *unique* items are set aside in set-up and IIRC never given back. So I think if the obol gets set-aside , it stays gone... — bee123 · 31
It's very clearly the intent that Obol wouldn't be in play. I do believe strictly by rules as written the Obol would be in play already and couldn't be removed, although throughout TFA scenario setup instructions occur out of order with regard to investigator setup, and it's unclear when exactly Permanents are put into play. — Yenreb · 15
If you look at Appendix III: Setting Up the Game, I suspect step 4, "Assemble and shuffle the investigator decks" is when Permanents would be put into play, since they are not shuffled into the decks. The entry for Permanent just says "starts each game in play and is not shuffled into your investigator deck during setup." The special instructions for this scenario occur later, "before drawing opening hands" (which is step 8). On the other hand, if "begins the game in play" doesn't actually put it into play *until* the game begins (after step 13) I guess it's technically part of the 'deck' (in the deckbuilding sense, just not in the shuffled sense) and could be removed. — Yenreb · 15
That can't be right, though; there are Permanents which affect starting resources or the starting hand; Permanents must be in play already before those steps. By RAW the Obol must be in play already at that step and can't technically be removed. — Yenreb · 15
Whether the Obol is in your deck or in your play area doesn't affect at all. Because the setup says each investigators searches his/her deck and play area, and unique items are 'removed from the game' ,not 'discarded'. — Tzolkin1065 · 155
Brotherhood Cultist

“ugh, THIS Guy.” Learn this phrase well! You will be using it any time Sean Connery here shows up to throw your priorities out the window.

Forgotten Age is known as The Campaign Where Evading Matters; its only slightly less well known as The Campaign Where 3 Dmg Is The New 2 Dmg, and THIS Guy is a big reason. For such an avuncular looking 2-3-2, he can snowball into a game ender -fast-.

He’s straightforward- Kill him early, and in as few hits as possible. Don’t underestimate him. Think of it like this: got a straightforward machete guardian with 3 actions handy, figuring “Easy least, 2 chops and he’s gone, and I can afford a miss”. Yeah, well, bear in mind if you do miss either the 1st or 2nd swing, your final hit will be vs. a 5 Fight target, and not the slam dunk I’d anticipated. Miss that 3rd and now you’ve got 3 doom walking around the table.

HanoverFist · 743
TFA taught me to never set out to explore the jungle without .... a pair of Handcuffs ??? I really hate this guy, obnoxious to fight, but difficult to evade because of the hunter keyword, and the threat of that Dark Cult treachery turning him into a god — aurchen · 106
I won’t say he’s the worst, because there are so many candidates, but he is a royal PitA, that’s for sure. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1073
Yeah I just evade this guy whenever he shows up. Not a big problem to do so. — StyxTBeuford · 13042
He's definitely evade-able and of course that's encouraged in TFA. Then somebody pulls Mysterious Chanting like aurchen mentioned, and you have to burn down the 5+ fight creep or lose 2+ full rounds. Which may not happen, esp in solo! Come to think of it, this may be a rare sort of common enemy who's more dangerous in MP (admittedly most of my games are 3P or 4P) but easily dodged in solo. — HanoverFist · 743
I'm a pretty big fan of Hatchet Man + Delilah O'Rourke to deal with this MF. — Zinjanthropus · 229
Generally testless damage is very effective against this guy. — Django · 5128
Pathfinder

For my 50th review, I’d like to review a card it’s still super valuable at its new taboo cost (three experience points).

Pathfinder is Ursula’s best friend, turning one free action into two. It works extremely well with safeguard, so if guardians are doing their job, you can both move for free. This card may become less useful as we see additional movement as part of the and Smith conspiracy, but a free action to turn without a slot, that ignores frozen in fear, is an extremely useful tool.

Now that Mr. Rook isn’t an automatic pick, it’ll be harder to get this out. But paired with a copy or two of fieldwork, The seeker has a chance to pass tests they normally wouldn’t have a chance at.

So if you’re ever dealing with the mythos, keep moving. Deal with cosmic horror at a sprint.

MrGoldbee · 1478
It wasn't a first priority for every Seeker deck I upgraded but I would find a way to include this every time. Free actions are so strong. 3XP will definitely make me think twice about using it in some investigators and it will certainly slow down how fast some investigators power up. It will especially slow down Ursula because this is so strong for her. — The Lynx · 992
I’m a bit grumpy about 3XP, figuring that maybe “limit 1/play area” would be better, since it gets very janky with two out. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1073
Eh, it might be janky to have two out, but there are significant diminishing returns in most scenarios. — Death by Chocolate · 1482
Yeah, but Ursula loves being able to Pathfinder out of a location, then Pathfinder in to get a free Investigate. That's pretty pure jank. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1073
lol Truth — Death by Chocolate · 1482
I do love some good old fashioned 2xFieldwork + 2xPathfinder shenanigans in Ursula. — Zinjanthropus · 229