Ants!

Seeing answers in Terrible Secret and Crisis of Faith it seems people want to resolve the whole revelation effect before applying the result so one card can deny the whole iterative cycle. But with the same logic here can you choice to discard four cards at random when you have only one, but plenty of assets. As that choose will still change the game state and as such should be a legal option?

The main question being if you have a revelation effect on a treachery card that has a for each statement. Do you resolve it step by step or as one effect at the end?

iro · 5
If I understand your question, you resolve any test, then apply the results as a group -- so, with Ants!, if you fail the test by 2, you could choose to discard 2 cards from your hand, then play Dent Existance to cancel that effect (ie discarding cards from your hand). Similarly, with Crisis of Faith, you could choose to take (say) 4 horror, and play I've Had Worse (4) to cancel all 4 and get 4 resources. I don't think you can do anything to Terrible Secret; I think that "Cannot be cancelled" applies to both the card and its effects; it is a weakness for the Queen of Cancellation, after all.. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1083
About Terrible Secret, cancellation like Dark Insight wouldn't work. But Deny Existence can, cause its text says "ignore", not cancell. These are two different effects, mentioned separately on Diana's IC. Mostly they do the same thing, though. — Secutor145 · 3
You resolve it all at once: ‘for each’ effects occur simultaneously, so you would first decide how many of each effect and then resolve them. You can’t chose to discard more cards than you can from hand. — Death by Chocolate · 1489
Thanks for the answers! :) For future reference can this be deducted by any excerpt from the rulebook? — iro · 5
Actually, wait --- this card doesn't say "must" unlike most treacheries, so presumably you *can* in fact choose an option that doesn't have the potential to change the game state. — Thatwasademo · 58
Which would mean, if I'm reading it correctly, that even if you *start with* 0 cards in hand or 0 cards in play you can avoid doing anything from failing this test... — Thatwasademo · 58
(see "Must", rr., naturally) — Thatwasademo · 58
You cannot "choose and discard a card from your play area" if there is no card in your play area, since "choose" requires a valid target. But yes to discarding from hand with an empty hand. — Yenreb · 15
(or if the only cards in your play area are not valid targets, such as Permanents or Sophie; in those cases your remaining failure points must be hand-discards. See the rules for 'Target'.) — Yenreb · 15
@Secutor145: Deny Existence can cancel the horror from Terrible Secret, but I'm pretty sure it's because Cancelling the horror from Terrible Secret doesn't require actually cancelling terrible secret. As far as I'm aware, there is no real difference between Cancelling and Ignoring in AHLCG. — Zinjanthropus · 229
Nope, it’s entirely because TS says you cant cancel, and Deny says you ignore. The distinction actually does matter. — StyxTBeuford · 13049
With the latest rulings Deny Existence is useless against this. You make a choice for each point you fail by, so it counts as 4 separate effects and Deny can only ignore one of the discards. — blackjet3 · 14
Beloved

Did a little math with a few sample bags:

Let's say unexpected courage gives you +25% chance to pass a test (going from say +2 above test to +4 on hard difficulty), and Beloved gives you ~1/2 that for a fight or int test with just its icon. The added benefit of beloved's ability is unfortunately pretty low, generally only about 5%, even with 10 blessing tokens in the bag. So Beloved only gives you +17% chance to pass the test vs UE's +25% chance.

Note that going down to 6 or 7 blessing tokens in the bag doesn't make that big of a difference.

The problem is that if you draw a blessing token in this sweet spot of where we tend to take tests when playing, if you draw a bless token without beloved, you're nearing or generally at "all but autofail" territory.

The value goes up a lot if you aren't likely to succeed at the test, but not by that much unless you are taking tests with <50% chance to succeed. If you're taking the test at +0 before you commit skill cards, the value of Beloved's ability goes up to ~10%, still not as good as UE.

I think the card still has a little value but it's niche. It keeps the bless tokens in the bag and it's a little better than UE for head or foot tests. UE doesn't make it into most of my decks these days anyway though it does in Patrice and Silas.

dubcity566 · 111
Return to Threads of Fate

I didn't think it could happen; they took a very solid scenario, one that is very fun and has a lot of replayability, and made it ven better. The addition of a 4th act deck requires a bit more text than most "Return to..." scenarios, and you need to hang onto your insert (or the PDF which is finally up at FFG) for set up and resolution information, but this scenario revision ups the pace, adds bothersome new enemies and treacheries, and generally makes a good scenario that much better. This is what I wish all "Return to..." scenarios were like.

Expose Weakness

Please don't take this card without talking to your teammates first. Sure, it sounds like a clutch card, but in practice, keep in mind:

1.) you have to OVERsucceed to get literally any use from this card whatsoever. and even if you do manage that against monsters with high fight, you aren't reducing the fight value by much. I'm going to guess an average of 1-2.

2.) This only lasts for one attack. ONE attack. Unless your teammate is close by and also using a Shotgun, a (well-used) Double or Nothing, etc. that can abuse the heck out of an easy fight test, you're just getting a mildly easier attack.

On top of that, you as a Seeker are spending an XP and card slot on something that isn't at all conducive to seeking (clues, cards) or self-defense. Trust me, there are much better cards for Seeker self-defense that DON'T cost 1 XP. Yea, cool, you reduced some enemy's fight value from 3 to 0 for one punch, but if your combat-oriented teammates desperately and frequently needed something like that, chances are what they really needed is to build their investigators to be more consistent. Spend your XP on something that will make you better at YOUR job (or, again, something to pull your own butt out of the fire).

Maybe this card does have its place, but you (and more specifically, your team) really need to have something worthwhile built around it. This card fills a pretty specific combat-support niche, and if you undershoot that, you're going to be disappointed. In my personal opinion, the setup that your team needs to intentionally make this card worth it.....is not worth it. I can visualize a few different, down-to-the-wire scenarios where a well-placed Expose Weakness (with a VERY forgiving chaos bag) could win you the game, but I'm not willing to shovel my money into a losing slot machine in the hopes of that triple 7.

tl;dr: yes for someone, no for me

TheDoc37 · 468
Yeah, this is a bad one. Maybe for Sawed-off Shotgun Trish? — Zinjanthropus · 229
New life with --Exploit-- Weakness. — MrGoldbee · 1485
"Get over here!"

If I have an enemy already engaged with me and play "Get over here!" on a different enemy at a connecting location, does that provoke an attack of opportunity?

I mean, I did play an action to Fight (which means no attack of opportunity), but that same action was also to Engage (which usually triggers an attack of opportunity).

JetLeisten · 4
My reading is it does not trigger an op attack. This card has the fight action designator. Op attacks trigger if you spend an action other than to fight, evade, resign, or parley. The fact that this is also a Play action and an Engage action doesn't change the fact that it is a Fight action, and thus avoids op attacks. For comparison, consider that any weapon with a Fight action is also an Activate action. So if this triggered op attacks, It would follow that the Activate action on every weapon also triggers op attacks — NarkasisBroon · 11
Is nobody else bothered that it leads with "Engage. Fight."? Usually, these keywords mean "do this basic action. Then if the card has more text, do that too". However, a literal reading of the card would suggest that you get to engage, then fight, then vacuum up a distant dude and engage and fight him too. Compare this with Counterpunch, which says "Fight. Also, here's a targeting restriction for this fight action". On the other hand, the design intent seems pretty clear. — jaunt · 20