A Test of Will

About even with Ward of Protection, and we know how often that sees play. You are spared the Horror, but the cancellation isn't certain. Leaving Calvin Wright out of it, only Silas Marsh starts with a below 3, with the Remaining investigators split evenly between 3 and 4, so a (3) test shouldn't be insurmountable for most of the Survivors (and it could save Calvin from a late game Horror Treachery...). I wouldn't say that this is an auto-include, but it's certainly a useful tool in the Survivor toolchest.

I like this card better than A Test of Will (1); I'm not sure the consistency is worth the Exiling, unless you are worried about a specific game-ruining Treachery or are leaning heavily into Exile with Déjà Vu. I think I would feel worse about missing the test on A Test of Will (2) than I would on this version.

Outside Survivor, I doubt Agnes Baker or Marie Lambeau want it (unless they are doing some sort of "shut down the encounter deck" strategy). Finn Edwards and Preston Fairmont surely don't. I suppose William Yorick or Tommy Muldoon could combo it with "Fool me once..." to blank an event and cancel the next instance, too. Minh Thi Phan probably prefers Dr. William T. Maleson or Forewarned. A Tony Morgan too soft-hearted for "You handle this one!" might like this card better.

The cancellation requiring a test makes this a notable amount worse than Test of Will 1 or Ward. In either of those cases, you only need one card and a resource to guarantee a cancel. Here you will usually either commit something on top of it, or lose an extra card in addition to the treachery effects. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
I like that this card can be included in a L0 deck but I will take the certainty of the L1 exile version since I mostly play on Hard. I have Pete/Duke up next and would certainly play it with them since I bring a lot of skill cards. I also love playing Yorick and Rita. I would probably play it with them but I don't bring a lot of skill cards and am not sure I can pass the WP test. — The Lynx · 980
One advantage this has over Ward of Protection is that you can use it to cancel anyone's Treachery draw, not just the cardholder's, an effect that only WoP (2) gets. This might make it worth the Willpower test, which (in my opinion) is not that terrible; Survivor is getting Assets with static Willpower boosts. It's not that hard to get Willpower to 5 or 6, which makes this test comfortable on Easy or SDtandard. You make good cases for the attraction of the XP versions of this card, though. I guess I should embrace Exile if I am going to play Survivor. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1067
Unless the treachery has Surge, or some other non-revelation effect, A Test of Will (and similar cards) don’t combo with “Fool Me Once...” because it requires some of the card’s effects to resolve - and canceling the revelation treats that effect as never having resolved. — Death by Chocolate · 1485
Realistically though, if you're boosting will that high, who cares about including a card like this? You mostly either get a will test you'd pass anyway, or an enemy that this can't hit. The real advantage is cancelling other people's things, which Ward 2 and Test 1 and 2 do fine enough already. I will say that Test of Will 2 is a lot better than Test of Will 1 if you're in that support camp, but otherwise, if the goal is self protection, take 1 and avoid 0 and 2. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
It depends on the campaign? TDL and TCU have no-test Treacheries that are a pain, and getting rid of Ancient Evils or Spires of Carcosa at the right moment are a huge tempo savings. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1067
Live and Learn

Setup question: is the second attempt part of the same action, or a second action that has its action cost waived? This leads to the real question: How does this interact with Quick Learner? Quick guess: it's like Drawing Thin in that if you use it in your first action you'll get -1 to both attempts (-1 +2 = +1 for the second go). This would be true if both attempts are considered part of your first action. However if the second attempt is a second action whose cost has already been covered (including the action cost), then L&L is now a full +2. Flavor-wise the second makes sense as you are benefiting from learning quickly.

Taevus · 775
Since L+L says to attempt the test again, rather than, say, giving you an action if the type you failed, I would say you're still on your first action. For instance, you Fight, fail, and L+L: you attempt the combat test again, but you don't actually take a fight action again. — SGPrometheus · 821
If you don’t pay an action for something, it isn’t an action at all for any rules purposes. There is a potential argument that L&L takes place after, so it happens between your first and second action here, however I would interpret that as irrelevant as you are retrying the same test, which is at +1 difficulty, so when attempt ‘that test’ again, it is still at +1 difficulty. — Death by Chocolate · 1485
Discussed on Discord. -- An action that is a skill test ends at the same time as the skill test (https://arkhamdb.com/card/04200). "that test" was only +1 difficulty because of a constant ability which is no longer true rather than something like Drawing Thin that alters the test itself. So it definitely loses the +1 difficulty when you LaL due to being "after" the test ends. — Yenreb · 15
Recently, I hear that I can play multiple Live and Learn for a single failed test. After the test of L&L finished, the timing would go back to the initial failed test and the second copy of L&L could be play. That make me think some big combo. — Chris_yang · 4
sorry I wrote the review in wrong place. — Chris_yang · 4
Taunt

We don't talk how ridiculously good this card would work in the Dream eaters cycle. You have two swarming (3) enemies at a location? How about dealing 6 damages and drawing 6 cards for 1 resource and without action? Such situation isn't so hard to imagine after all. I won't even talk about the action compresion.And the more players, the more powerful this card can be. This should be considered as warcrime against the dream-people.

Drostt · 116
Yeah this looks pretty busted in Dream Eaters. Nuff said. — SGPrometheus · 821
I wonder now if this actually works the way we think: don't swarm enemies engage as a single unit? So do you only get 1 card and 1 damage no matter how many swarm cards there are? — SGPrometheus · 821
SGPrometheus is correct, the example from the swarm rules makes it clear, only 1 damage: (For example, if a host enemy or any of its swarm cards are evaded, all of them exhaust and become disengaged.) — Django · 5108
That's true if you evade one of them, but in this case couldn't you still target as many of them as you want? If not maybe that has implications for Zoey's ability, or Rita's ability (after an Elder Sign pull) comboed with Survival Instinct. Seemed like most people were saying that Zoey gets 1 resource / swarm, and Rita could ping each enemy after using Survival Instinct (which evades all engaged enemies). — Zinjanthropus · 229
Yeah, I think Zoey's only supposed to get 1 resource, no matter how many swarm cards are under the host card. Likewise Taunt can only deal 1 damage and draw 1 card no matter how many swarm cards are under the host. The rules specify that swarm cards are individual enemies under MOST conditions, not all. One of the conditions under which they're not considered separate enemies is while engaging. I'm pretty sure. — SGPrometheus · 821
if you click on "rules" here on arkhamDB, search for swarm, you'll find the following rule where i copied above example from. I guess i was expecting too much of people to look up the rules themself. It clearly states that the example also applies to "engage": The host enemy and all of its swarm cards move, engage, and exhaust as a single entity. — Django · 5108
That's right, though there are some nuances that are unclear at first glance. Yeah they engage as one enemy, but you became engaged with x+1 enemies as in rules: "if an investigator is engaged with a host enemy with 2 swarm cards underneath it, that investigator is engaged with 3 enemies in total". And has two lines: first says about engaging enemies, second one about dealing damages and drawing cards. After engagement action resolves, you count the enemies that became engaged, and now there is x+1 enemies engaged with you. But well yeah, after deeper consideration, you need to count enemies that were "engaged this way", so there was only one such enemy. — Drostt · 116
This might be one of those odd cases where the action isn't necessarily linked to the effect. The Engage Action can only be used on enemies at the same location that are not already engaged with you. However, I think this might fall under the same clauses as the Evade action has when triggering many "Automatically Evade" effects often do - the specific targetting of the card ("at your location") could overwrite the general targetting set by the normal action (Engage), meaning you might be able to engage something already engaged, and therefore are able to engage every enemy in the swarm. This is definitely something I'll keep an eye on the FAQ for. — Ruduen · 1010
The faq states "If a swarming enemy engages Zoey, each of its swarm cards are also enemies that have engaged Zoey. Therefore, she may trigger her ability once for each of them." So I guess that it applies for this card as well. — Pug · 1
The host enemy and all of its swarm cards move, engage, and exhaust as a single entity. (For example, if a host enemy or any of its swarm cards are evaded, all of them exhaust and become disengaged.) — Drostt · 116
Accidentally clicked post :v reading only this, it will be against the combo ruling, but, Zoey FAQ makes it in favour of combo. I would interpret it in the way Zoey FAQ is described/ — Drostt · 116
Offer You Cannot Refuse

I have a question about this basic weakness.

Right now the rules say the random basic weaknesses are added at the end of the deckbuilding process. Does that mean that the 2 experience you get from becoming the bearer of this weakness can't be used until the end of the first scenario? With the rules as written, that seems to be the case, but I wonder if that was the intention.

I haven't played with this weakness yet, but it seems debilitating if your name isn't Preston Fairmont. I think most investigators would prefer Paranoia. These campaign weaknesses that evolve to create disastrous consequences just seem mean in general. Having 2 experience here is at least nice little bit of compensation - if you could use the experience before the first scenario, it would seem more like the game was saying "here's a challenging weakness, take some experience to see if you can fight it off." However, since it seems like the experience comes after the first scenario, it feels instead more like the game is saying "this weakness is ultimately going to get you so you might as well live fast, here's some experience to see how far you can level up before you go."

I think the rules are worded that way to prevent you from totally restructuring your "all-money Preston" deck after drawing Paranoia. I'd say that the weakness gives you the two xp after deck construction, but before the first scenario, allowing you to upgrade your deck instantly. I really like that this weakness is just Doomed-but-that-was-divisive-so-we-balanced-it. — SGPrometheus · 821
My gut instinct says that there isn't a window to spend XP in before the campaign starts but Mateo contradicts that so I would stay consistent with Mateo and spend the XP before the campaign starts. — The Lynx · 980
You build your deck, THEN get the weakness. The window Mateo uses to build his deck is the same window everyone gets, he just has more XP for it. You get this weakness AFTER that window, so presumably you have to just live with it for one scenario before you even get to use the 2XP. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
I wonder, why there is even a XP Bonus. Yes thematically it's a offer, so there have to be some benefit, but they could also designed it more like arcane research "lv0 survivor permanent, cannot discard by any means, you are gifted with more xp but dont have start resources". The difference were, it would be an active decision, not some random weakness — armin321 · 1
Lucky!

This card make for "Skids" O'Toole (Paralled) . With new deck building option he can put all 6 Lucky !!!! and recurring use Lucky to any test!!!

For another investigator it still be good to use because -3 would appeared more often on higher difficulty. The this card cost 0 so it not annoy you resource gained from upkeep.

AquaDrehz · 198
This upgrade is actually crazy: one resource cheaper and one more skill value are already worth one xp, but on top of that this allows you to use it on your nearby allies. That's crazy good. — SGPrometheus · 821
This card is totally bonkers. Parallel — Zinjanthropus · 229
Parallel Skids can also Double, Double it for a whopping +6 on a failed test. — Zinjanthropus · 229
Just remember you cant take all 6 at once, only 2 of any combination. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Double, double is so good for him. Tried already and impressive so much. — AquaDrehz · 198
Nevermind, I didnt realize how parallel Skids worked. That is interesting. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
You can't Double, Double when using Parallel Skids's back (Rogue level 0-3 only) and Double, Double is level 4 — arkhamproxy · 1
Nevermind, apparently the Parallel back displayed on arkhamdb is different than the Parallel back on the downloaded card from FFG — arkhamproxy · 1