도벽

자산. 기본 약점

정신이상. 재능.

비용: –.

중립

다인플레이 전용.

폭로 – ‘도벽’을 당신의 플레이 영역에 둡니다.

: 당신이 위치한 장소에 있는 다른 조사자 한 명으로부터 자원 2개를 가져오거나, 또는 물품 자산 하나를 가져와서 조종합니다. 그런 다음, ‘도벽’을 당신의 덱에 섞어넣습니다.

강제 – 당신의 차례 끝에: 공포를 1 받습니다.

John Pacer
꿈을 먹는 자 #36.
도벽

FAQs

(from the official FAQ or responses to the official rules question form)

  • Q: Question about FAQ 1.13: "(1.13) Shuffling A Card Into An Empty Player/Encounter Deck A single card cannot be shuffled into an empty player deck or encounter deck via card effect. If this shuffling would occur during the playing or revelation of a card that is typically discarded after it is resolved, such as an event or treachery card, it is discarded. Otherwise, the card remains in its current game area." How does this interact with cards such as Rex's Curse, Kleptomania, and The Thing That Follows? For example, if you fail a skill test as Rex due to Rex's Curse while you have an empty player deck, does Rex's Curse get discarded (because it is a treachery while it is being resolved and generally speaking treacheries do to the discard pile) or does Rex's Curse remain in play (because Rex's Curse specifically would never be discarded so by 1.13 it remains in its current game area)? Similarly for trying to clear Kleptomania with an empty player deck or defeating The Thing That Follows with an empty player deck.

    A: If your player deck is empty when you would discard those cards: (1) Rex’s Curse would stay in play, as it cannot be shuffled into an empty deck, and the rules that would discard such a card don’t apply to it. (2) Kleptomania would stay in play for the same reasons as Rex’s Curse. (3) The Thing That Follows would be discarded instead. This is mainly because of process of elimination; it’s an enemy with no health remaining so it can’t stay in play, but it can’t be shuffled into the player’s deck, so in the end it’s discarded. (November 2023 Rules Submission)

Last updated

Reviews

What’s up with the card art. Looks like a photo of some cosplayers. I also saw this in the Arkham Horror Third Edition’s latest explanation set. In my opinion the art for this card breaks the immersion. Anyone else agree?

Michaeled · 5
The art is a pickpocket that, well, pickpocketing the lady in front of him. You can see his hand on her bag. — ak45 · 450
I agree that the art is horrible, which is too bad - it's a very well designed card otherwise. — ratnip · 65

I love the design of this card. All the new basic weaknesses are great actually, I can't wait to play them. This is genius though. Arguably it's not even a weakness. Imagine having this in a group that includes Preston or Jenny. You can turn it into a resource engine. At the same time it opens up some serious grief tech combinations along with "You owe me one!", "You handle this one!" etc, if you want to have fun screwing over your friends. Probably not recommended, but it's great that this exists.

Sassenach · 179
Our Sefina Rousseau whose already got two of Another Day, Another Dollar drew this late in our campaign. The rich get richer. — StyxTBeuford · 12985
As its a weakness and thus a treachery card, I can use the action to steal from the kleptomaniac and shuffle the weakness into his deck? — Kael_Hate · 1
This is not a treachery, it's an asset. It's also not in the threat area, but in the play area. Those are 2 reasons why no one else can use it (unlike most other weaknesses that require actions to discard). — neescher · 310
I mean, real talk, this is an annoying weakness because it potentially deals you horror every turn, and gets shuffled back into your deck if you get rid of it, but it definitely has some good janky applications. Ursula can finally get those Track Shoes or Lockpicks that she's always wanted, Wendy can steal a Magnifying Glass, Agnes can get her hands on some Rogue Booze, the list goes on. — Zinjanthropus · 227

As Kleptomania is a weakness with a player card type (asset), the player retains control of it when played to their play area. This means it should be a valid target for Dexter Drake to use as a sacrifice for his ability.

Valkun · 35
This might be true. But not, because it is an asset, but because it is put into the play area. Note, that Daisy's and Minh's signature weaknesses are also assets, but they are put into the threat area, so they are certainly not controlled by the player. — Susumu · 363
@Susumu where does it say that players don't control asset weaknesses in their threat area? The section for Ownership and Control says "Cards by default enter play under their owner's control.", and the section for Weaknesses says "Weaknesses with a player cardtype are controlled by their bearer.". I don't see anything that would limit the latter to only weaknesses in the play area, not ones in the threat area. — TheNameWasTaken · 3

Subject 5U-21 can devour this card due to her Ravenous Forced effect or her own free-triggered ability, right? It is not a story asset, it is no longer in hand once revelation effect is carried out, so it can be choosen as a valid target for a non-story asset controlled by an investigator in her location, and therefore this weakness is a blessing in disguise for her. She can even chose the order of "at the end of your turn" resolution so not a single point of horror will be assigned to her. Or am I missing anything?

chrome · 56

how will it work with Charon's Obol? Who will get the additional exp？ I guess the owner will.Because u should get Charon back when the game ends,and Charon give the owner exp during the resolution of a scenario. Or the thief will get?That's very interesting.

Yusaku · 2
Charon's Obol is a permanent so I'm pretty sure it can't be stolen. — Sassenach · 179
A card with the permanent keyword cannot be discarded by any means. — Yusaku · 2
Looking at the rules entry for permanent, it says permanent cards can't be discarded, shuffled into investigators' decks or used to pay for effects involving cards being returned to hand or shuffled into decks, but doesn't say anything about moving control between investigators without discarding it. So , rules as written, I'd say it can be moved by both this card and teamwork. As far as the effects of the obol go, the timing point is "during the resolution of a scenario" so it should be back in the deck of its original controller by then and the effects should apply to them. Oddly enough , it seems to me that for the second effect the wording is "if you were defeated during that scenario" so I think it also happens while earning EXP and so would also apply to the original controller. In other words the only effect of stealing the Obol would be satisfying your Kleptomania. That's just my reading though and it might be one for the FAQ, maybe? — bee123 · 31
Where in the rules reference does it say that cards will be back in their decks during resolution? If that was true, Delve Too Deep would be worthless. I vote that the effect of the Obol is on whoever controls it at the end. — Death by Chocolate · 1440
Considering that Matt rules that in case two players have an obol only one can put it into play and only that one will get the benefit and consequences, I think it's pretty safe to conclude that you don't get those for owning the card but for having it in play when the scenario ends. Thus if someone steals the obol he gets the benefit, or the negative consequences. — Killbray · 11474
If I remember correctly, you don't get bonus XP from Obol in City of Archives, because you don't have access to your unique items in that scenario. That too would suggest that stealing the Obol will give you (as in, the person who steals Obol), the extra exp — neescher · 310
Maybe I can help my teammates by stealing their item weakness such as The King in Yellow or something else like The Necronomicon ? — Shefield · 1
You can't steal signature assets with Kleptomania, so no stealing The King in Yellow: Act 1 or Necronomicon: John Dee Translation. — Katsue · 10
Actually, the King in Yellow: Act 1 isn't an Item so you wouldn't be able to steal it anyway. — Katsue · 10