False Surrender

False Surrender

The detail you might miss on first glance is that you don't also convert bonuses of the weapon you play to . So if you whip out a Old Shotgun, you must use your on that attack, ignoring the +3 . That makes it somewhat negative/neutral on most rogues trying to compensate for their poor combat score.

However, an "add " type weapon like Hatchet would double it up, mainly relevant on Kymani Jones and Wendy Adams. The only other one I can think of is Butterfly Swords's second attack, which is only maybe relevant for "Skids" O'Toole.

Probably the main utility here is the effectively 0-cost bonus action to get a weapon out even when you're already engaged. That's pretty mid until if you have some parley interaction like Alessandra Zorzi and/or Eldritch Tongue.

NoSleepTillHippo · 37
I use it for Hatchet in Rita. I also value the opportunity to only play a weapon when needed quite highly. Often you play a weapon "just in case", even though tempo-wise your action and resources would have been better spent on something else. This card allows you to take care of other important stuff until the last moment - without any tempo loss! Especially (or maybe only?) for Hatchet it makes sense to run this, since you will play them more often during the game. — AlderSign · 450

Dark Pact

Dark Pact
  • Be me
  • Play as Sefina Rousseau
  • Build a deck for her
  • Draft random weakness
  • I get Dark Pact
  • She only has 5 Health and my companion would punch me if I stab him with this weakness

Feels bad man

  • Start the first scenario
  • Got the basic weakness in my starting hand
  • Put it beneath Sefina, where it does literally nothing
  • Draw Stars of Hyades three turns later
  • Out of all 5 events, Dark Pact gets randomly removed from the game

Feels good man

HeroesOfTomorrow · 86
Rules say nope (you still replace weaknesses): https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Appendix_III_Setting_Up_The_Game — AlderSign · 450
@AlderSign Thought the Forced effect would overwrite the rules — HeroesOfTomorrow · 86
Yes and no :/ It replaces part of rules, but the other aspects (like redrawing weaknesses during the whole step) still hold. You essentially got lucky while nerfing yourself. — AlderSign · 450
Kill an ally. Or bring in Drain Essence (even with adaptable). — MrGoldbee · 1524
Or simply deny the existence of this card? — Tharzax · 1
No, because this is a player card type (event), it isn’t a scenario card. You can’t Deny Existence the 2 damage. — Eudaimonea · 9

Mauser Tankgewehr M1918

Mauser Tankgewehr M1918

I have been wondering if you could tinker this in order to make take up only one hand slot, causing it to fit into a quickdraw holster so that you can fire it freely. The shell would still be lost, but it's effectively only one action to fire and reclaim the shell. The entire combo is 9xp though to setup.

SLI · 1
Well, it's not letting me edit the review, but I've overlooked that it's not a tool. Boo. — SLI · 1

Task Force

Task Force

Isn't this card just insane for Sledgehammer builds? You move to an enemy, deal 6 dmg and find a clue for 2 actions and then you can still atk for another 2 dmg with the first ability of Sledgehammer if something is still standing (or crawling or slithering or whatever).

CATS · 2
Never mind, I thought it worked like Ad Hoc. — CATS · 2
Or to be more precise: this card only reduce the costs to activate an asset by one action. So if you need more actions to activate the asset you still have to pay the rest. (Compare to hand-eye coordination) — Tharzax · 1

In the Know

In the Know

Rules question. My interpretation of the FAQ related to as if mechanics would mean that our location would be the 'remote' location from initiating the investigate until the resolution of the investigate, which notably includes the player windows. Would that mean that we could use shortcut or eon chart to basically blink across the map by using those during the investigate player windows?

Nissefarr · 9
According to the written rules, yes. But for the last several years, FFG has flatly refused to answer questions about how actions taken “as if at other locations” work, so this whole line of questioning is fraught. Like, don’t ask what happens if there are enemies in your threat area or at the location you intend to investigate, or what happens if you Work a Hunch during the investigation or a whole host of other questions. Probably just do whatever makes sense for you. — Eudaimonea · 9
The one ruling that got away... I think the intention was not to abuse it AND to make sense, i.e. (as written) change only the parts of the game state that are relevant for the resolution of it's effect. But whether you can use your Survival Knive when The Watcher attacks you during the mythos phase "as if it were the enemy phase" is nebulous to me, as are many other cases. — AlderSign · 450
They explicitly ruled you cannot use the Survival Knife in the instance you describe. In general, they violate the stated “as if” rule more often than they follow it, but the “at other location” rule is messed up even worse than other “as ifs.” Unfortunately, it is not the only one that got away. “For each / for every,” “This / Next,” fast events, “Must / May” are all contradictory messes. — Eudaimonea · 9
Didn't know that, thanks. About enemies in your threat area, for sure they opportunistically attack you for triggering the ability, but the question you probably meant and I honestly never thought about is "where are they during the investigation?" — AlderSign · 450
I’m afraid your understanding of how the AoOs work is outdated, Enemies in your threat region do not attack you according to the new rules regime. Read the last three stickied rules answers under Luke Robinson. https://arkhamdb.com/card/06004 — Eudaimonea · 9
Not quite. That case is different since the game state is altered when costs are paid during initiation. For In the Know, the "as if" ruling is part of the effects; when cost are paid (before that step) AoOs trigger as usual. Thanks for the informative link, though! — AlderSign · 450
I’m afraid you didn’t read closely enough. The second-to-last ruling compares Pocket Telescope, which has wording identical to In the Know, with Luke Robinson. FFG’s answer is about “these types of interactions,” meaning actions taken as if at another location. You have no rule basis to think Luke Robinson’s effect would have a different timing than In the Know or Pocket Telescope—presumably it just makes sense to you that way. But more importantly, the question that I linked explicitly repudiates that misunderstanding. The questioner asked if a ruling on Pocket Telescope (a.k.a. In the Know) being different from Luke Robinson is a contradiction. If FFG thought those two effects have different timings, they would have simply said, “No, no contradiction.” Instead they confirmed that their ruling on Luke is intended to map onto Pocket Telescope and by extension In the Know as they are all identical. I hope that’s helpful. — Eudaimonea · 9
And we should say, the most recent ruling from FFG—in July 2025, as recorded under Luke Robinson—is an explicit “no” to the OP’s question. The logic is a bit tortured so don’t ask me to defend it. It has something to do with Shortcut targeting your mini-card, which has not moved, rather than your investigator. I was not aware that Shortcut moves your mini-card, of course, and I’m wondering what other effects are performed on your mini-card rather than your investigator, but that’s the current rationale. — Eudaimonea · 9
You are right, I ignored the BS rulings that directly contradict the Rules Reference. Regarding your statement that I lack rules basis for distinguishing between Luke's ability and ItK/PT: For me the difference is really easy to see: In the former case, the whole initiation sequence of playing the card begins in the altered game state, which in my point of view is made clear by the fact that it's a constant ability, while in the latter case the game state is altered during effect resolution, after costs are paid. — AlderSign · 450
Not sure if I hate the stuff regarding the mini-card, i.e. physical game state, it could be a solid baseline for rulings in general. — AlderSign · 450
I’m sorry, but there is no basis for the distinction you want to make. The first bullet under “As if…” reads: “ The game state is considered to be altered throughout the duration of the indicated ability or action, from its initiation (including the paying of its costs, attacks of opportunity, etc) through the resolution of each aspect of its effect, and up until its completion.” This cannot be clearer. The people asking the questions we’re discussing take this for granted, as do the FFG respondents, as does the rules reference. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. — Eudaimonea · 9
The mini-card thing is a walking disaster. Among other absurd downstream effects of this ruling, they have ruled that if a seeker is walking around with a guardian pal, every time the seeker investigates with enemies on him, the enemies all slough off onto the Guardian during the investigation. Also, I’m at A investigating B and my enemies fall off me, so now I shortcut my mini-card out to C. Investigation ends. Enemies are at A and mini-card is at C. Shortcut + Pocket Telescope = Elusive. Weird. There are many others. It’s a mess. — Eudaimonea · 9
Eureka, you are right! That means you can avoid AoOs from enemies engaged with you with ItK, interesting (and partly nonsensical). It still leaves room for uncertainty, e.g. I wonder what happens if only PART of a nested effect contains "as if", say "Investigate your location. If you succeed, discover one clue at a connecting location." Would the initiation happen with the altered state in mind in this case? Ambiguous. — AlderSign · 450
I don't see why you would disengage from enemies when using PT + Shortcut. It even says that the physical game state is not altered, so the enemies stay in your threat area and specifically do not "fall off". Moreover, as I read that ruling, when you use Shortcut while at B, you neither move your mini-card to C nor D, but nowhere instead (actually, you might not even be able to play the card because it doesn't affect the game state). — AlderSign · 450
I take my sentence in brackets back; it affects the ALTERED game state, which is then "reset" (via not moving your mini-card), so no matter where you were during PT's resolution, you are back at location A. — AlderSign · 450
As to why enemies fall off you when you use Pocket Telescope, I will point you again back to the bottom ruling from the link we’re discussing. The whole reason you don’t take AoOs is because the enemies are not in your threat region when you are “as if” at B. They are at A. You are correct that the rulebook states that “enemies in your threat area are at your location,” which should be conclusive. But they keep on insisting they don’t care what the rulebook says and these enemies absolutely leave your threat region when you do stuff “as if” at other locations. If it makes no sense to you, that’s because it makes no sense. If you want to invent a rationale by which they’re saying something less nonsensical, have at it. But we honestly aren’t even talking about the most ridiculous implications of this ruling. Like, how do I even play Shortcut on my mini-card when it’s not at my location. What makes it a legal target? The answers to none of this can be found in the rulebook, because while these are “rulings,” they aren’t derived from rules. If you want, you can email FFG for clarification but they’ll ghost you, so as I said in my initial response, probably just do what makes sense to you. — Eudaimonea · 9
Yep. After reading the first bullet point in the FAQ section of Pocket Telescope, which supports my understanding regarding the difference between its functioning and that of Luke's ability and which I was explaining the whole time, it seems like the best answer is indeed "do what makes sense to you". *shrug* — AlderSign · 450
Except you’re misreading that ruling. It does not identify a difference between Luke and Pocket Telescope in terms of timing. The only difference in that ruling—from the MJ Newman era, which actually makes sense—is that because Luke says “and engaged with each enemy at (Location B)”, he takes attacks from both A and B, whereas Pocket Telescope and In the Know, lacking that clause, would only take AoOs at Location A. But in no era has there ever been a time when the timing on these two interactions was different. They are, and have always been, the same timing. That part you should not play by ear. There is still no ambiguity there. — Eudaimonea · 9
I was only talking about the AoOs, for which it is different. — AlderSign · 450
Also, you misread their Shortcut ruling. They ruled that “if the investigator triggers a movement ability during this process, they may only move their mini-card to a location connected to their mini-card’s current location.” There is no basis for your “reset” idea, which although presented in quotation marks, I don’t believe was quoting anything. Feel free to ban Shortcut and other movement effects during the “as if” window since these rulings are so contradictory but you’ll run into problems in scenarios where chaos tokens force movement and other unavoidable movement effects. At some point you’ll probably want a precedent, and the only one that’s workable is the previous regime’s. — Eudaimonea · 9
Forced - Read this thread and all associated FAQ's. Then, test (book) (3). If you pass, either take 1 mental trauma, or remove all cards with "as if it were..." from your collection. If you fail, do both. — DrOGM · 25
One way to get around destroying the cards is just not use them though. You can just play as if they’re destroyed. ;) — Eudaimonea · 9
“As if” they’re destroyed … — Eudaimonea · 9
See what I did there? — Eudaimonea · 9
Are you suggesting playing AH as a mind game? I bet OP was driven insane way up in the conversation already. — AlderSign · 450