능력

마법. 숙련.

XP: 5.

탐구자

이번 능력 테스트가 음모 카드에 있는 능력 테스트이고 이번 테스트가 성공했다면, 해당 음모 카드를 승점 더미에 추가하고 그 카드에 ‘진실의 눈’을 부착합니다.

‘진실의 눈’이 음모 카드에 부착되어 있는 동안, ‘진실의 눈’의 능력 아이콘은 해당 음모 사본에 있는 모든 능력 테스트에 기여합니다.

항상 당신을 지켜보고 있다.
Adam S. Doyle
우주의 가닥을 엮는 자 #325.
진실의 눈

FAQs

(from the official FAQ or responses to the official rules question form)
  • Q: I have a question regarding The Eye of Truth and the Restless Journey cards from Where the Gods Dwell. I commit Eye of Truth to Restless Journey (Fallacy) and then succeed at the test, putting them both into the victory display. Eye of Truth says: "While attached, The Eye of Truth contributes its skill icons to all tests on copies of the attached treachery." I know that "copies" of cards are determined by card title, so does this mean that Restless Journey (Hardship) and Restless Journey (Lies) are not eligible for the +4 Wild icons on their tests? Or is the parenthetical text intended to be considered a sub-title (since each Restless Journey says "Restless Journey" rather than the full title with its matching parenthetical text)? A: We rule that the text in parentheses after each “Restless Journey” is meant to be a subtitle. As such, when you play The Eye of Truth while attempting a skill test on a Restless Journey, should you succeed, you would be able to apply the wild icons on The Eye of Truth to the other copies of Restless Journey.
Last updated

Reviews

For a skill card to cost 5 xp, the effect must be awfully useful, and this card definitely is. It's not just that you're helping the entire team pass an annoying treachery easily; you're also permanently removing one such copy from the game, which is useful in every scenario you can think of and especially ridiculous in The Circle Undone with its "if three of these are in play, bad thing happens" treacheries - Terror in the Night, Ultimate Chaos.

And if that wasn't enough to convince you, it's practiced, meaning you can just pull it with Practice Makes Perfect on any kind of non-treachery test you're having difficulty with. Parley/evade/whatever at +4, then get the card in your hand ready for the next treachery.

Erdjo · 321
Yeah, I feel like Practice Makes Perfect combos quite well with this. I think it especially deserves mention for Joe Diamond, as he both has a ton of good targets for Practice Makes Perfect, and tends to get beat up by treacheries a lot. — Zinjanthropus · 223
Wouldn't you not get the card back in hand? It says "add that skill to your hand instead of discarding it", but the Eye of Truth's text prevents the from happening, so the replacement effect fails — Chitinid · 14
Depends on the skill check. You would not get it back if it was used against a Treachery skill check but any other skill check would have it return to your hand. — LikeWise · 1
Yeah, it's great, you get +4 to _any_ test, and then you get it in hand to use against a treachery later. That's incredibly efficient. — Zinjanthropus · 223
As a side note, how does this behave if you commit it to the test on Slumber (from GotA)? The wording would imply that you could remove Slumber from your threat area (which you normally can't do until you lower the strength of the abyss). — Zinjanthropus · 223
@Zinjanthropus ‘If the test is successful, add that treachery to the Victory Display’. It is as simple as that. The ability you mention is a way to remove Slumber, but there is no card text preventing it from being removed by other effects. (For example, see Straightjacket.) There are plenty of other ways Slumber could be removed from play without using that ability, including Cheat Death, Otherworld Codex, and Alter Fate. — Death by Chocolate · 1359

Really doesnt need much discussion. Great card.

As a 4x skill card you can beat some surprising tests, a hard scenario test, a parlay, but treachery tests is where it'S at. On one hand you can filter out a bad treachery by sneaking it aside, and you make the other copies of it easier too! Many late-campaign treacheries will murder you if you get hit! Also makes stuff like Frozen in Fear less nasty.

Great card, but is it worth 5 XP? Not at the start, no. Not worth slowing down a research card or some key asset. It's a great use for XP once youre post-20 XP.

Tsuruki23 · 2472

Incredible in Carcosa.

Picked up an annoying weakness that's blocking your infinite deck shenanigans, but it's labeled as a 'treachery'?

Buh-bye.

Present & future list of cards this skill may apply to (Spoiler Warning):

arkhamdb.com search

tercicatrix · 15
Also great for your teammates, because they also have one copy each in their decks. — PowLee · 20
Wow... None of the basic weaknesses involve tests... Huh — NarkasisBroon · 10
None of them are treacheries (and I guess all the scenario/campaign specific ones are treacheries) — Gandalph · 34
Um, lots of the basic weaknesses are treacheries. It looks like b:weakness doesn't detect basic weaknesses. — NarkasisBroon · 10
try b:basicweakness — Thatwasademo · 52
Oh, you also need to show player cards and not only encounter cards in the search to get investigator or basic weaknesses — Thatwasademo · 52
I'd update the link, but edits don't seem to be working for me right now: https://arkhamdb.com/find?q=t%3Atreachery+b%3Aweakness%7Cbasicweakness+x%3Atest+&sort=name&view=list&decks=encounter — tercicatrix · 15
https://arkhamdb.com/find?q=t%3Atreachery+b%3Aweakness%7Cbasicweakness+x%3Atest&sort=name&view=list&decks=all — tercicatrix · 15
Edited. Turns out the edit area silently appears toward the top of the page, not down here where my review is. — tercicatrix · 15

Just browsing cards that can be used by Amanda Sharpe and found this card. In an Amanda deck this is an additional Promise of Power without the cost of curse tokens, and it may remove a random treachery you draw the next turn. Does it worth 5xp for that effect? I don't know, but I know I will try this card in my next companion.

PhotonCat · 1
The challenge with this card in Amanda is that it disappears from your deck. Since Amanda can cycle through cards super fast, that might not be something you want. However, it's an amazing card anyway, and I've certainly used it in Amanda. — acotgreave · 782