Copycat

Copycat

This card has interesting applications in supporting a teammate, as you are not limited to committing it to your own tests. An investigator’s deck typically has more skills suited to their own specialty than someone else’s. This means you can help out your guardian pal with their own Vicious Blow, recommit a seeker’s Deduction to their next investigation or even fill out a fellow rogue’s poker hand if one of their Aces ended up in the discard.

Kergma · 11
that's a clever idea. when i tried testing this i was mostly just using it to steal Eureka or Inquiring Mind from Minh's discard. it did work quite nicely for that. i even used it to get extra clues a couple times with Deduction — Zinjanthropus · 229
Not fully convinced that works. Copycat says to search for "a skill you can commit to this test" and you can't commit more than one card to a teammate's skill test, so after you've committed Copycat, no skill card is one you can commit to that test. Other users seem to have interpretted Copycat in a different way, suggesting that Wini wouldn't "control" the second skill card committed by Copycat, but I think given the card text states "you" can commit, the more natural reading is that you (the owner of Copycat) control and commit both cards. FAQ ruling pending! — Trinity_ · 203
After I commit "copycat" to a skill test,search the discard pile of another investigator for the "Leadership",and commit to the test. This test is successful. Can both two investigators gain 2 resources? — QQ5623 · 1
@QQ5623: I think that will depend on whether you or the other investigator is considered to be in control of the skill. My first instinct was that the one who is playing Copycat is the controller (controlling another investigator's card is not unprecendented), but others have cast doubt on that. I think we'll need to await a FAQ to be sure (or more likely have to send a query once the decks are released). — Zinjanthropus · 229
@aeongate: Thanks for pointing that out, I had actually not seen that line in the rules and had been playing it wrong. Still I do think this might work (pending FAQ). I’d skip past the arguments over who controls the card and move straight to the “specific overrides general” part of the Golden Rules. The language in the skill test timing section is permissive, saying each other investigator “may” commit one card. Nothing forbids you from committing additional cards if explicitly told to do so, as this card does. At that point, it’s a matter of whether you “can” commit it, and it’s logically consistent with the rules to say you can or to say you cannot. So... yeah, needs FAQ. — Kergma · 11
According to the leaflet thing that comes with the Wini deck, Copycat triggers Wini's ability, which implies to me that Wini is controlling the skill committed from the discard — Zinjanthropus · 229
If you look at ST.2 in Appendix II, you'll find that it doesn't say you can't commit more than one card to a skill test another investigator is performing, it merely fails to permit you to commit more than one card. (Contrast "Each other investigator at the same location as the investigator performing the skill test may commit one card with an appropriate skill icon to this test." with "Cards that lack an appropriate skill icon may not be committed to a skill test.") That, combined with the insert for Wini's deck, implies the following to me: 1. Although you can normally only commit one card to another investigator's skill test (and only if they're at your location), that only applies to cards committed as part of the ST.2 framework step, not to cards committed by card effects like Copycat or Daredevil. 2. The investigator committing Copycat controls the skill committed by its effect (which so far is only relevant to Wini's ability). — Thatwasademo · 58
Compare dealing damage to an enemy -- the only way the game rules normally allow you to do so is as part of a successful fight action ("Fight Action" in the glossary), but events or abilities on assets can also deal damage; this isn't really a case of the Golden Rules applying since nothing says you *can't* deal damage, it's just that you can't modify the game state unless either a rule *or* a card effect allows you to do so. — Thatwasademo · 58
Regarding the interpretation that you acquire control over the card that you are committing through copycat, if that was true, then you wouldn't be able to copy "Neither Rain nor Snow" or "The Home Front", becase the FAQ specifies that you can never gain control of a signature card. — Killbray · 12020

Lost Soul

Lost Soul

Note: There is some disagreement (see comments below)

This is not a review, instead it is for those lost souls who choose to play with Calvin Wright

I couldn't find out how this card interacts with Calvin Wright with a google search so here is my interpretation (this also applies to other investigators)

Using the top part of this card in the example, the skill test timing is broken down to steps. ST.1 is that we determine that this is a [Intellect] skill test ST.5 is when modifiers are added to the investigators base skill value for the test type ([Intellect] in this case), if Calvin has 4 horror on him, then with his ability he will add +4 to a total modifier value of 4. ST.6 is when failure/success is determined. The difficulty of the test is Calvin's [Willpower]. As this is an [Intellect] test, at no point where we instructed to modify Calvin's [Willpower] value, so therefore the test difficulty is 0. As 4>0, Calvin is successful in this test.

This applies to other investigators too. Using Daisy Walker with St. Hubert's Key, Daisy would be testing 6 [Intellect] against 3 [Willpower]. Because the skill test is an [Intellect] test, we add the +1 modifier from St. Hubert's Key, but do not add the +1 Willpower modifier from St. Hubert's Key.

This is not an official interpretation as one doesn't exist yet, I hope this helps!

KakuRainbow

KakuRainbow · 97
this is completely wrong; I'd suggest you reread the rules entirely because there are many concepts you missed. — jd9000 · 73
This would actually be an interesting ruling, because it would also affect cards like Read The Signs (where you add your willpower for the test - under this ruling you wouldn't get passive willpower bonuses) and cards like Ace of Rods (which gives +2 to multiple skills, but would only modify the ones that are "tested"). I am not sure how I feel about this ruling in terms of how it makes the game play. The way you describe it, it makes mechanical sense, but to me it seems un-intuitive and like a lot of people are likely to get it wrong while playing. — ArkhamInvestigator · 305
From p2 of the rules reference: "Constant abilities are simply stated on a card with no special formatting. Constant abilities are always interacting with the game state as long as the card is in play. (Some constant abilities continuously seek a specific condition, denoted by words such as “during” or “while.” The effects of such abilities are active any time the specified condition is met.) Constant abilities have no point of initiation." That means that Calvin's skills are always the modified values because the ability is always in effect. ST.5 is when you check the value as modified by constant abilities _as well as committed cards and the chaos token_; it isn't intended to imply that ST.5 is the only time at which Calvin's stats are boosted. — Monotone · 304
This is wrong. For it to test at 0 it would require the words “base intellect/willpower”. This test basically tests equal values eg if Calvin has 3 horror it’s 3v3. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
I'd totally missed the ability section before. It was useful to read. — KakuRainbow · 97
I'm still not sure whether it works the way you've suggested however. And the only solution may be to ask FFG. — KakuRainbow · 97
ST.5 Determine investigator's modified skill value. Start with the base skill (of the skill that matches the type of test that is resolving) of the investigator performing this test, and apply all active modifiers, including the appropriate icons that have been committed to this test, effects of the chaos token(s) revealed, and all active card abilities that are modifying the investigator's skill value. The questions that arise are: What is 'base skill'? This is different to 'base value' in the rules reference Does the last part 'that are modifying the investigator's skill value' refer to just the object before it (active card abilities) or does it refer to all of the objects listed above? Milan Christophers +1 [Intellect] is a constant ability, but is this just saying that it's never not active for [Intellect] tests (as it doesn't have a during/while clause) From my understanding, a +1 [Intellect] is only ever of use during a skill test? I might be wrong, there isn't a card that says 'play only if you have 4 [Intellect] or more'? — KakuRainbow · 97
@KakuRainbow There is a very common circumstance where it matters outside of skill tests: Enemies with the Prey trait often specify the investigator with the highest or lowest of a stat. So it can be quite relevant. — Death by Chocolate · 1479
If a "skill value" was supposed to be an unmodified skill value outside of skill tests, Trial by Fire and the Red-Gloved Man wouldn't need to specify that they change the "base skill value". — Killbray · 12020

Armor of Ardennes

Armor of Ardennes

After 3 years...

We FINALLY have an investigator who wants this card.

fanfare

Everyone say hello to Sister Mary, our friendly neighbourhood 5 health Guardian! Slam one of these bad boys down, and between your Armor of Ardennes, your whopping 9 Sanity, and whatever other allies or accessories you have, you are not dying any time soon that's for sure.

Soloclue · 2604
Or for the same XP you could buy 2x Brother Xavier and Bulletproof Vest, also True Grit is 0 XP, so... — SergSel · 370
@SergSel None of those cards singlehandedly offer the kind of damage soak you get here or come close to the economy. Even if they did, it's exciting to finally have a character who can reasonably kill monsters that wants and can use this. — SGPrometheus · 821
And then add Well Prepared for the double icon boost. This card still only makes sense in high XP campaigns but I think it can work for Sister Mary. — The Lynx · 980
it makes sense flavorwise as well, because of the Christian motif on the armor. — PowLee · 15
I've yet to run it, but I've been wondering if Solemn Vow might raise the value of this card a bit (or perhaps a future down-leveled version, if it retains the reaction) — DigitalAgeHermit · 24
Solemn Vow just moves damage, it doesn’t ‘assign it’ (a specific step when taking damage), so solemn vow doesn’t really combo with it. — Death by Chocolate · 1479
So much for that then, I suppose. Guess that means this card is just as bad as everybody seems to have figured :). Thanks for the clarification — DigitalAgeHermit · 24
I think, this might be still good with the nun, if she takes "Blood Eclipse". She can also get the level 3 version quite cheap, if she takes "Arcane Research", and she is quite high in willpower. Both would be probably late campaign upgrades for her, though. She could use her research for free spell upgrades like "Rite of Seeking" or "Ward of Protection" first, then go for armor and flagellation. — Susumu · 371
I think the only problem is if you want to run Blessed Blade or the bag-infusing Book of Psalms with a bigger weapon, Sister Mary loves a Bandolier (2) - one of these days maybe we'll get a body equivalent to Charisma and Relic Hunter, but I doubt it... — Krysmopompas · 360
I mean, if you think a "whopping" 9 Sanity is enough, then 4 extra Health is all you need for Mary to reach the same value and that's what the much cheaper Bulletproof Vest can offer. Which might actually become +8 health if you really need it since you'll want to have 2 copies. Not to mention the fact that Mary has already 3 soaks available from her signature. So even for Mary this armor is still way overkill for what she needs and you can hardly justify the 10 XP for getting 2 copies. — Killbray · 12020

Shining Trapezohedron

Shining Trapezohedron

Quote from Appendix I: Initiation Sequence: Determine the cost (or costs, if multiple costs are required) to play the card or initiate the ability. If it is established that the cost (taking modifiers into account) can be paid, proceed with the remaining steps of this sequence.

So you must have the ressources to pay the spell, even if you ignore them with this card.

Django · 5108
I'm pretty sure that isn't actually the case - note "taking modifiers into account". It's possible to pay the cost as modified by the Trapezohedron, so you continue. — Thatwasademo · 58
So which is it then? Do we need to have the resources to play the spell or can we attempt to get it out onto the field with our pockets empty. While I usually grim rule, in this case, I personally think you can attempt to play it even if you don't have the resources for it. The reason being is if you fail the skill check, you are blocked from playing the spell or any other spell of the same name that turn. Meaning you can't just default to paying the resource cost if you fail so there's no point to having the resources other than to satisfy some weird video game logic. — LaRoix · 1645
"Instead" is also part of the rules reference: The word "instead" is indicative of a replacement effect. A replacement effect is an effect that replaces the resolution of a triggering condition with an alternate means of resolution. — Susumu · 371
So the resource cost is replaced by the test. You can and should consider it zero, when activating this card and therefore can "pay" it's cost regardless. — Susumu · 371
On the contrary, the fact that it's a replacement effect means that there must be an effect initiated to begin with. The card explicitly says, "When you would pay the cost of a Spell card," before you can activate the card whatsoever, meaning that, in very cut-and-dry words, you can't activate the card if you aren't initially "paying the cost" because THAT'S the effect that you're replacing. In response to LaRoix's "there's no point in having the resources [since you can't play the card for the rest of that turn after a failure]: why even add the clause where "you cannot play copies of that card" if you couldn't even afford it in the first place? Like, what a waste of text. If anything, that should support the idea that you have to be able to pay for the card to begin with: it's a gamble that has consequences should you fail (you can't just decide to play the card as usual). — TheDoc37 · 468
^ "you cannot play copies of that card" is not a waste of words, since of course you can still have a situation where you have the necessary resources but want to trigger ST, but a failed ST trigger prevents you from playing it afterwards. I'm fairly convinced that this card can be used even if you have no resources. The Initiation Sequence clearly states "If it established that the cost can be paid, proceed with the remaining steps of this sequence." (Answer: Yes the cost can be paid, by triggering ST) — flamebreak · 21
Also if you only think about the intention of the card from how it is written, it is obvious that you should be able to play spells with ST even if you don't have the resources. There wasn't a doubt in my mind this is how it works, until someone dug out the rulebook and started reading it word by word. Chuck Fergus has a similar issue with the wording of the card when it comes to picking the "Fast option" out of the three options. If you went by the initiation sequence, the Fast option can not be picked at all, since then you're taking a play action to play a Fast card, while the rules clearly state "A fast card is not played using the "Play" action." — flamebreak · 21
Sorry in advance for making this a reddit post haha: 1st comment.) I mean, I think we agree how the effect would work should that scenario be the case, but using that interpretation, you're actually being punished for having the resources to pay for it, as opposed to being poor, failing the test, then not having to worry about any backlash whatsoever. That....doesn't make sense balance-wise; they should have just left that line out entirely. 2nd comment.) I would agree with your Chuck example (and actually thank you for making me look up that interaction because I didn't understand it previously but now I do :) ) if not for the trigger difference: "When you PLAY", which the comment thread on the top review seems to be in consensus that that would occur when declaring intent, vs. the very very specific wording of "When you would PAY THE COST". Not DETERMINE the cost. PAY it. Based on that wording, this occurs while you are in the process of paying it, well after initiation. Also, sidenote, you can't just present the card's "intention" as a supporting point; the intention is the very thing being deliberated on right now <__< — TheDoc37 · 468
What steps would have to be taken to get an official ruling on this? It's certainly been out long enough. — TheDoc37 · 468
"If you succeed, its resource cost is considered paid" is not the same as "its resource cost is 0." Which means you still need to be able to pay the cost notwithstanding ST's effect in order to initiate playing it. In addition, Appendix says that paying the costs doesn't happen until after it is determined that the cost can be paid, so ST's reaction ability cannot have fired yet when you check whether the cost can be paid. — Signum · 14

Prepared for the Worst

Prepared for the Worst

Commenting because I don't see this point in the other reviews - I believe this there is great synergy between this card and Stick to the Plan SPECIFICALLY when you are also running 3 of Astounding Revelation. You get your first Astounding Revelation when you set up Stick to the Plan before the game even starts. You can have 1 copy of Prepared for the Worst in your deck and attach it to Stick to The Plan. Whenever you need to search for a weapon you have a decent chance of getting your second Astounding Revelation. By playing only one copy Prepared for the Worst and Sticking it to that Plan, you also avoid the dead draw of a PFTW when you don't need more weapons.

If it's your first play of the game you have a 60% chance of finding one of the two Astounding Revelations in your deck of 25 cards.

If it's your first play of the game and you have no weapon in your opening hand, you have the following probability of finding at least one weapon in the 9 card search:

6 in deck: 95.24%

5 in deck: 91.8%

4 in deck: 85.6%

3 in deck: 75.7%

2 in deck: 60%

gamwizrd1 · 2
I can’t say I’m super impressed by the second and third Astounding Revelation in here. What oh don’t account for is the ~30% chance at least one Surprised Rabbi will start in your hand, the guarantee that you will always have one dead copy unless you run more search effects, such as Tetsuo Mori. It also puts pressure on you to use PftW even if you have a weapon in hand at the start just to clear one out of your deck - in which case you’re really only getting 1 free resource from the second AS. Finally, the single Int pitch is pretty bad in most guardians, even the ones who can run it. Starting with 7 resources is generally enough to get a guardian rolling. I think there definitely could be a place for triple AS in Guardian IF they run more consistent deck searching, (run with Mr. Rook soon before he inevitably gets tabood this summer!), but generally I think you still only want one copy, even if you bring the PftW on SttP (which I think is a solid consistency choice in its own. — Death by Chocolate · 1479