Seeking Answers

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 · 565
"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 · 1067
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 · 74
Discover two total clues implies it does not give you two clues on top of one from the action itself. Total implies replacement. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
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 · 74
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 · 13028
It wouldn’t be replacement if it were an added effect eg if it said “additional”. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
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 · 74
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 · 1067
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 · 74
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 · 74
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 · 1067
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 · 1485
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 · 13028
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 · 74
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 · 1067
@LivefromBenefitSt Go to the FFG website > More > Customer Service > Rules Questions > Rules Question Form. — Death by Chocolate · 1485
Merci. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1067
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 · 10
double agility icons for Crystallizer Ursula! — Zinjanthropus · 229
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 · 1067
Right, so Deduction and Rex work as we all expected, but the investigate just discovers two clues total otherwise. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
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 · 521
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 · 13028
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 · 269
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 · 2
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 · 184
Knowledge is Power

Now Knowledge is Power can be use ti trigger the powerful ability of some tome This may use with the following expensive books

AquaDrehz · 198
Yeah, getting 3 testless fast damage without using up any secrets from the Necronomicon is pretty busted — Zinjanthropus · 229
You say "busted" but without KiP/secrets manip/Tome bouncing Nekonomicon (the cat book) would be hard to justify 5 XP for me. — Yenreb · 15
Just use Sleight of Hand. Honestly, there are more ways to break Necro than there should be, to the point that it’s not even hard to do it by accident. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Every seeker should take scavenging with versatile cause they can easily trigger it (thereby recyclying necrocomicon). — Django · 5108
Sneak By

I love this cycle of resource cards. We have Clean Them Out, Burning the Midnight Oil, this card, Voice of Ra, and Take Heart. The big advantage Sneak By has in this cycle is that basic Evade actions are pretty much par for the course for evasion characters. Basic fights are usually bad, and basic investigates are fine in high characters and otherwise need to be supplemented with Lockpicks or Flashlights. It's for this reason that I expect Sneak By to see the most play of all of them, along with Take Heart which is a staple of any one with access to it that expects to fail often, like Preston Fairmont. So Sneak By works especially well for not just evady Rogues, but for those wannabe Rogues in Survivor like Wendy Adams or, especially, Rita Young. Rita's Trick access hasn't done much for her historically, but this is a solid resource generator for anyone who isn't taking Drawing Thin for taboo reasons. You could now run this alongside Easy Mark, or alternatively you replace these with Easy Mark, depending on your curve. Last thing to note is the pips here. Though you're unlikely to commit this, you might if you find yourself flush in resources later on. I personally think this would work really well with Crystallizer of Dreams, just saying.

StyxTBeuford · 13028
One advantage that Burning the Midnight Oil has over it is that you can always investigate, while Sneak By requires an enemy to be around. That being said, E-Cache is better if you weren't already going to investigate, and I do think that a basic evade is significantly better than a basic fight. Definitely agree about Rita, as well. Maybe she'll be able to afford to spam Pilfer (3) with this and Easy Mark. — Zinjanthropus · 229
I love all these events too, especially Clean Them Out, even though I agree it's probably the worst one. Just having that option to gain resources by fighting, just for punching rats or something, is so good for a resource-starved guardian. It's also less of a tempo loss than playing EC since you'd rather be investigating or fighting than taking a resource action. I love these cards. — SGPrometheus · 821
@SGPrometheus: I don't disagree with that, it could even finish a 3-healther or something, anyway. Nathaniel can make it a 2-damage attack, as well, so it's even better for him. — Zinjanthropus · 229
Clean Them Out is one of Nathaniel's bread-and-butter cards; I can't really imagine not running it in him; but I don't know if it would make the cut outside of him. Usually you want to set up before the enemies appear so E Cache is preferable. Anyway, for the card under review - I agree with what's been said. I haven't actually run it yet though. It didn't actually seem useful for Winifred herself; she wanted skills and more skills, not events... but that campaign isn't going too well. She's up to 3 mental trauma out of 3 scenarios (Web of Dreams, Campaign B), so I'm probably doing something wrong. I do like the idea of putting Sneak By on a Crystallizer! — Yenreb · 15
That’s a fair point to make- Sneak By is not a card I’d take in Wini either. She runs a very low curve deck, and she wants wild icons. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Daring Maneuver

To really justify Daring Maneuver 2, you have to figure out exactly how important it is to have the insurance to succeed by 3. The question you have to ask yourself in a deck where you take the original is whether to upgrade it to this or to swap it for something more practical. Winifred Habbamock and really any skill happy Rogue probably took the og just for the pip, as it does suffer from the fact that, often instead of holding it in your hand, you could've just committed it, and that margin of +2 versus +1 is really narrow. +3 vs +1 is, of course, much nicer, and it drawing you a card means you get a much larger incentive to hold it back instead of commit it, which means it really should only be used to help your other succeed by triggers, and NEVER committed. The weirdest thing about this upgrade is that, even if you have no triggers, it at worst just draws you a card "actionlessly" (most likely you took an action to do a test, but assume you would've done this test anyway) once you succeed any test, which is solid deckcycling on its own. So, let's look at the triggers available:

  • .41 Derringer and .41 Derringer 2. Using it for the former seems really weak in my opinion, as the Derringer is much more a weapon that exists to enable other succeed bys instead of needing the insurance itself. 1 extra damage on the og is ok, but the extra action on the upgrade is worthwhile, assuming you actually want to take that instead of...
  • Switchblade 2. Again, same basic principle as .41 Derringer, except most likely you're Tony Morgan spamming actions into your shiv not really caring if you hit for 1 or 2. It might be good insurance for the original Switchblade, but last I checked no one on Earth is playing that.
  • .45 Thompson. Okay, this one is actually exciting. For multiplayer, as a means to get enemies already engaged with other people, this seems more than solid. Fight values are also almost always 3 and 4, so the +3 here is relevant.
  • Mauser C96 and Mauser C96 2. I really like these triggers. The succeed by 4 or more on the upgrade is incredibly generous, netting you a resource and the ability to re-ready a gun that is basically just a better .45 Automatic at that point. For sure, getting back a card, a resource, and letting you fight again if you really want to is nice, especially for 3 Rogues for whom it's less guaranteed.
  • Beretta M1918. Probably the best use case of all the guns. If you're building a Daring Maneuver based deck with lots of succeed by triggers, you might as well use the gun that gives you the most bang for your buck. You'll likely succeed by 2 very often with that massive +4 boost, but succeeding by 4 is a bigger ask.
  • Sawed-Off Shotgun. I mean, this is definitely not a bad use for Daring Maneuver, though I question anyone who spends all their XP into Sawn Off without the intention of just Three Aces-ing the test to perfection with Double or Nothing anyway. 2 shots? Come on. Daring Maneuver would have a place here were it not for the build existing solely to one hit KO a boss.
  • Cheap Shot and Cheap Shot 2. Cheap Shot is not a particularly strong card in my opinion. Its main draw is the ability to fight an enemy engaged with someone else just to evade them and free your friend. It's a decent compression option in Rita and not many others, and Rita cannot take Daring Maneuver anyway.
  • Slip Away and Slip Away 2. On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, Slip Away is an amazingly useful card. Keeping an enemy locked down for two turns instead of one can be really helpful (especially for upcoming Trish Scarborough). The key to both this and the upgraded Cheap Shot is that the level 0 trigger you can get from Daring Maneuver is the same regardless if you're using the level 0 version or the level 2 version (auto evade for CS, lock down for SA), while the upgraded versions of both cards let you retain the card for a later use, but ONLY if you succeed by 3, which Daring Maneuver 2 alone can guarantee, and not its level 0 counterpart. Constantly using Slip Away 2 for lockdowns seems like a great enemy management strategy, and Daring Maneuver 2 fits in nicely.
  • Backstab 3 and Pilfer. Neither of these really benefit directly from Daring Maneuver 2 versus the original, but if you're running a Chuck Fergus deck, you might want the level 2 version anyway just from all the other succeed by triggers you have and for the card draw. Chuck and Daring Maneuver 2 certainly work well with Cheap Shot and Slip Away as well, so these cards are not unwelcome either.
  • Burglary. Don't. Just use Easy Mark or "Watch this!".
  • Pickpocketing 2. No particular distinction for level 0 vs level 2 Daring Maneuver, but more cards and resources while you're triggering other effects is not bad at all.
  • Lockpicks and Lockpicks 1. Again, neither card particularly cares about the boost to +3 that Daring Maneuver 2 provides, however the card draw is welcome to mitigate some of the risk that Lockpicks inherently carries with it.
  • Suggestion 4 and Suggestion 1. Same deal, no real consequence for using the upgraded Daring Maneuver over the original or vice versa.
  • Opportunist and Opportunist 2. I really think this is the most interesting one of the bunch, because it implies, to me, that the 4 XP you would've spent towards Opp 2 is better spend towards Daring Maneuver 2, since the +3 satisfies the level 0 version of Opportunist. That said, only a handful of Rogue decks even use Opportunist 2 (I mean they're all basically Wini decks).
  • "Watch this!". Once again, the +3 vs +2 is irrelevant. But a card AND resources if you just barely succeeded (eg by 0) is not unwelcome at all.
  • Momentum. Well this is just gravy. You can turn your Daring Maneuver into an even easier test to stack more succeed by effects onto, and the limit is 3.
  • All In. I heard you really like cards. This is probably the best skill card to use this on, no surprises. The only real caveat here is how you're triggering All In's megasuccess, as Three Aces is not an uncommon alternative.
  • Lucky Cigarette Case and Lucky Cigarette Case 3. Oh mama. Yeah, so the original works really nicely with Daring Maneuver's +2, while the upgrade likes any boost it can get, so the +3 of Daring Maneuver 2 is certainly not going to waste. These cards are critical to any deck using Daring Maneuver in general, so much so that I'd say you shouldn't even bother using the card without having these in play. Because these are up for any of the other triggers you do, the real power of playing a card like Daring Maneuver is stacking those triggers. So a Lucky Cig 3 plus a Beretta test you Momentum'd and Opportunist'd that led you to only succeeding by 1 or 2 would be a fantastic place to play in Daring Maneuver 3.

Non Rogue cards:

  • Alchemical Transmutation and Alchemical Transmutation 1. Intriguingly, both of these care about succeeding by at least 3, so you can actually get solid value from these in a Sefina Rousseau or Dexter Drake deck if you really want to.
  • Dream Diary. Another succeed by 3, though only Lola Hayes can take the upgraded diaries and Daring Maneuver 2.
  • Expose Weakness. A bit of a weird choice, but with enough draw this could be used to help sustain low fights for someone who might not be great at fighting otherwise. I'd look into this one for Trish.
  • Feed the Mind 3 and Feed the Mind. Feed the Mind 3 actually has no limit, which is kind of hilarious, but the level 0 version caps at 3, so both do well with this upgrade. Again, only Lola can take the level 3 version of Feed the Mind with Daring Maneuver 2, though eventually we will have a Seeker 0-5 Rogue 0-2.
  • Impromptu Barrier. So Finn Edwards, Wendy Adams, or Preston Fairmont I suppose are allowed to do this. Finn is the most likely to build into an evasion specialist build, and I should also mention that his effect also cares about succeed bys. Couple that with his free evades and this would work ok with Finn if it weren't for the costliness of a slot. That makes Wendy the next best candidate, and I'm sure there are plenty of Rogueish Wendy builds that specialize into things like Pickpocketing 2, Cig Case, Momentum, etc. Try it with Preston if you dare.
  • Shotgun. Leo Anderson finally gets a moment to shine here. The big con for Shotgun is its limited 2 shots (a big reason why Flamethrower and Lightning Gun have long since eclipsed it), but Leo can at least justify it more using Swift Reload, Venturer, Contraband, or Extra Ammunition. I suppose if you're building a succeed triggering Leo deck with Lucky Cig Case, Momentum, Watch This, maybe Mauser 2 or even Derringer or Switchblade, you could make this work, but overall it feels a bit janky. Who knows? Give it a try and see if it works out well.

So, what did we learn here today? Daring Maneuver 2 seems like it'll be a very helpful cog in Succeed By decks, however its usefulness depends heavily on the number of triggers available. A lot of Winifred Habbamock and some Finn Edwards and Tony Morgan decks will probably find it worthwhile, as well as some future decks featuring Trish Scarborough or her deckbuilding mirror. The big competitor here, as mentioned several times is Three Aces, though one could make an argument that the two could coexist in the same deck just fine. Daring Maneuver 2, after all, at worst, cycles you into your Three Aces slightly faster, and it's not like you can constantly trigger either throughout the game, so having both on hand to keep things moving is fantastic. Such a deck would benefit well from a lot of the new Seeker cards, especially Cryptic Writings, so definitely look out for such shenanigans come Innsmouth.

StyxTBeuford · 13028
This is a good analysis, I think. I have not yet been able to fit this into a deck, even in Wini, but I think there's a lot of potential. One set that is particularly interesting is Parallel Skids, who can take 4 Daring Maneuvers (2 of each) and up to 6 Luckies, so I think he's be a good candidate for a succeed-by deck where you're usually just barely passing tests and using Daring Maneuver to trigger your effects. — Zinjanthropus · 229
I keep forgetting about parallel gators. Yes, absolutely, look into both this and Lucky for Skids. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
I think the star of the show is the card draw. If you have enough succeed by triggers and can spare the xp towards the end of the campaign this not only strengthens those triggers but makes the deck more consistent by replacing itself. Specially in Rogue where your entire deck could be based around a single exceptional asset. — DaveHz · 1
Forbidden Tome

I admit, this card makes me want to design a Big Hand Ursula deck. With a couple of Pathfinders, plus this, she can get all the clues, everywhere, as long as she can get 12 cards in hand, which might be a bit if an ask, but she might be up to it. Harvey or Mandy with multiple Pathfinders is a better bet, although a tad less flavorful.

Atach it to Abigail Foreman for even more shenanigans! — Death by Chocolate · 1485
Even more efficient if you're triggering it with Knowledge is Power — Zinjanthropus · 229
Played once when I "blind translated" the book (I included the level 0 card without checking if the upgrade were interesting) and with less than 12 cards in hand I had never the tempo. — AlexP · 252