"Get over here!"

"Get over here!"

Less a review, and more of a note/question.

Similar to Deciphered Reality, It's worth noting that this card doesn't have the world "instead" or "but" on it. This means that the latter half of the effect is not a replacement effect, but an additional effect. Is that accurate? I believe that means that this allows you to Engage and Fight something that's already at your location. After resolving that, you could then choose an enemy up to 2 locations away, move it to your location, engage it, and attack it.

Is that accurate? If so, this becomes even better than it appears at a glance, giving you an opportunity for two separate engages and attacks, or two attacks at the same target. This adds a lot of flexibility as a fast action in exchange for the cost - especially since it means Nathaniel Cho will potentially deal up to 3 damage with it.

If that changes on release or a ruling clarifies things, it's likely still a reasonable card. However, there might be even more power in it than one expects at a glance.

Edit: The recent 2021-06-28 FAQ to Seeking Answers and the comment which said, "some players (rightfully) interpreted it to discover 3 clues in total", leads me to suspect this even further. The same applies for Righteous Hunt - none of the wording explicitly indicate you engage the specified enemy "instead" of the standard enemy you'd engage, or indicate that you can select the distant enemy as a valid target for the standard Engage action. This definitely seems like a case where the intent is clear, but a strict reading of the rules leaves some very odd gaps, and it only hasn't become an issue because only the three cards and Riot Whistle would really interact with it.

Ruduen · 1010
No, the rules state that bold action designators perform the rules action, modified by the card ability. It's clear I believe from context that the card text is modifying Engage and Fight and not adding an additional effect — tessarji · 1
Considering the 2020-06-28 FAQ confirming that Seeking Answers, which lacked the "Instead" clause, was an additional effect on top, I'm still not certain that that's actually the case. I think that's probably the original intent, but the reading of it is still weird. — Ruduen · 1010
The FAQ is simply saying that it was reasonable players would interpret the card that way, not that they were correct in doing so. The actually errata itself (in the FAQ document and reposted on this site) clarify that the intent was always to replace the effects of the original Investigate, not add to them. As that was their intent, there's no reason to think that the same intent doesn't apply here - in other words, you only engage one enemy and only fight one time with this card. — Sethala · 5
Heya y'all, question for the community: — Quantallar · 8

Strange Solution

Strange Solution

If this were the only choice for upgrading Strange Solution, I would rarely, if ever, use it. But given the availability of Strange Solution, no one in their right mind should ever choose this. 4 evades versus 3 attacks with +2 damage each? Evading is generally only better than attacking when the enemy is not hunter and you can do what you need to do and leave the location the same turn. This card should have had at least 6 supplies to be in the same ballpark as Acidic Ichor.

jmmeye3 · 629
Evasion version of archaic glyphs is so much better if you don't need the arcane slot. Your INT will be higher than 6, easier to boost, you get a clue and you're much more flexible what you evade. You could help you fighter so he can kill a cultist with the final doom. — Django · 5108
I think this card was a pretty big miss. Acidic Ichor is a test at 6 with +2 action economy of upside, while this has... no bonus effect. Maybe if this had ‘If successful, they don’t refresh this round.” would give it enough value to be viable and play into the flavor of a freezing solution IMO. At least the healing one (the other 4 supply option) gets 2 units of value with its healing, and the Econ (with 3 supply) gives 3 units of value. — Death by Chocolate · 1485
I could see playing this with Joe Diamond if I were ever silly enough to play him in TFA. He would be able to take care of some enemies but would need to be able to evade some during the campaign. But Django is right that Archaic Glyphs is much better since it is untested. — The Lynx · 980
There is one reason that you might consider Strange Solution over Archaic Glyphs and that is the synergy with Supply cards like Fingerprint Kit. You can add ECache or Venturer if you are Joe to reload either one. — The Lynx · 980

Daredevil

Daredevil

(review edited 2023-09-10)

Disclaimer: this interpretation is just mine, and not offical one.

Original version: if all of the following conditions hold, discarded weakness would not be shuffled into the deck. It means that the weakness can be passed.

  • Only the single weakness card is discarded.
  • No compatitable rogue skill card exist. It means all cards in the deck should be discarded.
  • The test is initiated during the playing a card (commonly event) or during the revalation of the effect.

This is reinterpretation of FAQ point 1.13, linked here.

Taboo 2.1 (2023-08-30): if all of the following conditions hold, discarded weakness would not be drawn. It means that the weakness can be passed.

Notable things:

  • The number of weaknesses in the deck is not important, now.
  • The deck is needed to be rebuilded and cannot stay discarded.

This is reinterpretation of the offical FAQ related to Pilfer found in offical FAQ document and arkhamDB Pilfer FAQ.

elkeinkrad · 499
I believe the drawing cards rules state that "When a player draws two or more cards as the result of a single ability or game step, those cards are drawn simultaneously. If a deck empties middraw, reset the deck and complete the draw." — masterearth · 1
It's not draw though - it's discard. Elkienkrad is correct. — Eggzavier · 1

Drawing Thin

Drawing Thin

One question that might have been answered elsewhere: the Taboo instructs that this card costs 3 additional experience, but it's still a level 0 card, right? So, Preston or Marie can use it in their decks.

fran · 1
Correct, it’s still level 0 — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Correct — NarkasisBroon · 10

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

This looks like a great card with cool abilities for high Agility rogues, but in practice I found it disappointing. First you need to get it and a gun played. Then you realize it exhausts, so if the first shot misses or fails to kill the target you need a back up source of damage. Tony isn't going to bother with it.

It's much too expensive for its limited usefulness.

The Ornate Bow is still a better weapon for this role.

Oweldon · 39
Also note that most Rogues have 3 combat. If you're taking Delilah O'Rourke that becomes 4 (and Delilah is probably the best ally for a mixed agility/combat enemy manager Rogue). This means that with the Derringer (2) you'll already be fighting at 6 most of the time. Sure, this would bring Finn or Skids up to 8, but you could do that anyway with High Roller or Well Connected, and those are a bit more versatile than Sharpshooter. You could take Sharpshooter and High Roller, but that adds another asset that you need to draw and play. Wini is probably just committing a bunch of cards to the test, anyway to try to get the extra action (and drawing a card in the process). I think the benefits are just too marginal for it to make the cut. Kind of a shame, as it's a cool concept. — Zinjanthropus · 229
This card feels like something you need to build your deck around, and then potentially fails to show-up and therefore never really ends up seeing play. It might be interesting if one day we got a version that was both Exceptional and Permanent (similar to how On Your Own got developed, and was a similar build-around style of card), I think it might be a lot more playable in that case — DigitalAgeHermit · 24
If I'm reading this correctly, for the attack in question you would benefit from bonuses to both your Fight AND Agility, correct? e.g. Reliable or Dark Horse would add +2 to the attack rather than the usual +1? — HanoverFist · 739
HanoverFist: The way I would read it is yes, but you probably can't commit combat icons to the test, still. @DigitalAgeHermit: In the case of Wini, you can be pretty confident that you'll draw it, at least, so it might be a decent build-around there. — Zinjanthropus · 229