Burning the Midnight Oil

Other, wiser reviewers may find sophisticated uses for this card, but I'll be considering only the obvious use -- to make some dough doing what you were gonna do anyway. Obviously, as a seeker, this is an easy card to play. Investigate your location, grab a couple resources. The question: is this benefit substantial enough for this card to deserve a place in your deck?

Maybe...?

First of all, let's keep context in mind. This is part of a starter deck designed to welcome new players to the game. A card with a nice simple effect like this is definitely beginner-friendly. It'll almost never be a dead draw, there are no complicated interactions to work out, no need to check the FAQ.

Also, there is a small advantage to getting the resources before you do the check. That means you can instantly spend them to boost something like Higher Education or Hyperawareness. I'm not sure how often this would matter -- pretty much only when you're broke, it seems -- but it's better than getting those same resources after the check, and definitely better than those resources being contingent on a successful check.

All the same, I have a hard time seeing a deck in which the Midnight Oil would be more effective that Crack the Case, which can easily net you 3 or 4 resources for the same action economy, and in some situations, more. The Midnight Oil might be handier in the first turn, helping you get down some pricier assets, but after that, it seems less bang for your buck, or fewer bucks for your bang, or something.

Verdict: I'm glad this card exists, because it's simple and user-friendly. It makes perfect sense as part of an entry-level deck you can snag for $15. But for players interested in optimizing their decks, and who have invested in a fuller collection, there are better options.

I would agree that this pales in comparison to Crack the Case for the most part. It has a few niche advantages beyond resource sink cards though. CtC does require you clear a location first before getting the resources, this does not (and in fact triggers regardless of the outcome). This can help you set up quicker before you go out hunting for clues. Also, this card works with Ursula's ability, and Ursula herself is a bit limited in more resource options. — StyxTBeuford · 13050
I would consider Crack the Case to be better but it is only better situationally. I have had Crack the Case and didn't want to play it because I was on a 2 shroud. Or I had to wait until I had cleared several clues. One issue with this card is that it has the bold Investigate action and can't be combined with Flashlight, Fingerprint Kit or untested clue cards. I think the comparison for this card should be Emergency Cache which I find it slightly more useful than since I might only need 2R and I save an action (although an investigate action is used) by playing this card. — The Lynx · 999
I think this cards succeeds CtC, if you are playing a farsight deck, basically giving you a fast investigation + 2 ressources — niklas1meyer · 1
Yeah, my go-fast Ursula deck every so often hits a speedbump if I don't get Dream Diary in my opening hand and have to rely on a Research Librarian to drag it out of the deck, so this would be a nice little bump early on in any scenario, and maybe welocme even toward the end. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1091
@StyxTBeuford What do you mean this works with Ursula’s ability? This is an regular Event card and therefore requires a Play action. You can’t combine it with Ursula’s ability which triggers an Investigate action. — Rompe · 8
@Rompe Ursula's ability allows you to take any bolded Investigate action, even those on events or assets. So Ursula can trigger flashlight or this card on her ability, because those are investigate actions, they are just also other types of actions at the same time. — h9uu · 31
Ursula's ability isn't "after you move, Investigate", it's effectively "Get an extra action which can only be used immediately and can only be used to Invetigate". Playing this card after moving means you use that free extra action to play it, not one of your normal three actions. — Sethala · 5
Lucky!

This card goes so much better with a Fire Axe + Dark Horse build Survivors. Other versions have to balance the +1 damage and +1 stat with the flexibility from Lucky!, but this version does not have that restriction since it can be played at 0 resources! To top it off, we get an extra +1 and can play it on friends to boot.

Fantastic.

pneuma08 · 26
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 · 13050
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 · 999
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 · 1091
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 · 1484
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 · 13050
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 · 1091
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 · 783
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 · 847
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 · 1484
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 · 152
Yeah this looks pretty busted in Dream Eaters. Nuff said. — SGPrometheus · 847
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 · 847
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 · 5163
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 · 231
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 · 847
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 · 5163
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 · 152
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 · 1021
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 · 152
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 · 152