Eldritch Tongue

Eldritch Tongue

Can we play event from discard pile twice with Double, Double, or event removed from the game immediately? ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ

BetterRedThanDead · 1
Nope, "after" triggers when the event is already removed from the game. Should be clear from the FAQs on that card's review page. — AlderSign · 477
Even if both "afters" triggered simultaneously, the event from being removed from the game prevents further interaction with the game during the initiation sequence (https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Appendix_I_Initiation_Sequence). — AlderSign · 477
I don’t think we have a clear rule on this. — Eudaimonea · 9

Katarina Sojka

Katarina Sojka

Re: Olive + Katarina (making an Agatha deck).

This has kind of come up, but I am putting this in a separate post so that (if there is a concise answer) it takes little effort to find the response. This got way longer than expected, but someone out there can probably post a pretty succinct response.

Does anyone have a very concrete example of a by the rules draw using both of those together? Suppose one example for Olive first and one for Sojka first... {then I have a lot of going back and forth on this while typing both possible orders of operation/think the logical use is just use olive first/feels like something sort of eludes me}.

  • Olive then Katarina (very clearly state the plan beforehand/exhaust both) - draw until you pick a symbol, then draw 2 more. Pick 2 of the last 3.

  • Katarina then Olive - State plan. Technically could say draw 18 tokens and use Olive on #19 (if there have been no symbols). Not 100% clear whether I have to draw the first token regularly, to satisfy Sojka (cause otherwise it is the same as Olive going first/making this one basically academic). Pull the 3 for olive and pick 2. If neither are a symbol, additional draws until you get a symbol.

Functionally the best use is?: 1) Get the bonus high enough to overcome any non-autofail outcome. 2) Hope the ones you drew for Olive include a symbol or the autofail (which is sort of a 50/50).

Long story short, I guess I am wondering, does Katarina's requirement exist within the 3 tokens drawn during the the Olive portion?

Tshop01 · 2
I would handle it like a nested sequence. You use Olive as usual and if you resolve the choose tokens you check against Katrina's condition if one is a symbol — Tharzax · 2
Katarina works differently than other 'Reveal X tokens' cards, as Katarinas reveals are sequential, one at a time. Therefore, you don't have to state which token you use olive on beforehand, but you can react on what you see after each reveal. (Alternately, you would have to use her on the first token, because that is the only one you know you will reveal, and then continue revealing, if you don't pick a symbol) — Adny · 1
@Adny: Reading through the card review pages and the FAQs there that sounds incorrect. Especially since "when you would" cannot happen after the triggering condition, which you suggest. — AlderSign · 477
in the review coments, an email with a ruling is mentioned, that confirms, it works as i wrote — Adny · 1
Oof, too bad it's not quoted instead of rephrased. But even with that ruling you repeated it wrong here: You don't get to react to what you see but still have to choose BEFORE you reveal each token in the sequence (which makes sense, I think). — AlderSign · 477
I think you misunderstand the each. It means, before you reveal the NEXT token, so exactly what i wrote — Adny · 1
You literally wrote "after each reveal", that's why I understood it like that. But I think we have reached a consensus now :) — AlderSign · 477

Shining Trapezohedron

Shining Trapezohedron

How to save 10+ resources to play a bad card:

The other X card I found is Explosive Ward, but that has an even stricter upper limit (your empty arcane slots) so there is not much money to save there.

Honestly, I wanted to theory-craft ways to cheese this card, having discovered you can commit the card you are discounting to the test, but it's apparently harder than I thought. You get at maximum +2 to the skill test without further shenanigans like Bestow Resolve, which is just that.

(Credits to @Jim_Bob, who originally made me aware of this.)

AlderSign · 477
It's really weird, that this works. One would thint, that the rules will make sure, that the played card must be in your hand. But it doesn't seem to be the case. One would also think, that the game loses track of the card, since it changed areas, and the play would fail. Appears not to be so. Unfortunately, it's not even the craziest thing in the game. Bonus point: the rules for "Fast" do not even require a fast asset to be in your hand to play it. Go nuts... — Adny · 1
This is not even a unique case; it works with Unearth the Ancients as well. I don't understand what you mean by last part of your comment (regarding "fast"). — AlderSign · 477
The thing is, that 'Play' doesnt restrict you to play only a card from your hand. That comes only as a part of a 'Play Action', from which Fast cards are exempt. For Fast events, the rules require, that they come from your hand, but that is not the case for Fast assets. So RAW, you can play Fast assets from anywhere (?!)... — Adny · 1
Oof. — AlderSign · 477

Remington Model 1858

Remington Model 1858

I already wrote about a combo the Remington has with Act of Desperation in a Mark Harrigan deck. You can read about that combo in my review of AoD.

EDIT: I wrote a ton of stuff I don't think is actually true because I misunderstood the exact details of the "when" timing condition. I'm just going to get rid of all that to avoid confusion, and leave the first sentence that this gun is really cool with Act of Desperation, because it is. Just not as cool as I thought it was.

Jim_Bob · 27
Sorry, I got the FAQ wrong. It was Elusive, not Aloof. I get those two mixed up constantly since they sound so similar. — Jim_Bob · 27
@Jim_Bob What is even more confusing is that in Arkham Horror 3rd ed, Aloof IS called Elusive — HeroesOfTomorrow · 117
I just checked and find it very interesting that the rules for Limbo (https://arkhamdb.com/rules#Limbo) do not extend to assets. — AlderSign · 477
I also wonder why you took you theory about committing it while resolving its fight reaction. You might be right about it and I would be open to discuss. Related to tha, and even more promising as an application of your theory: Committing a spell card while being played to the test on Shining Trapezohedron. — AlderSign · 477
So for people who are curious I wrote a big review about potential combos with this card. The real important part is what game area the card is in during its enters play/leaves play trigger. — Jim_Bob · 27
"When" is defined as "the moment immediately after the specified timing point or triggering condition initiates, but before its impact upon the game state resolves." Which implies to me "right as you are about to do something, but before it happens", so the card is in play for its leaves play ability and (crucually) still in your hand for its enters play ability. However, the example kind of disproves that by saying "when you draw an enemy card" is immediately after you draw it from the deck, but before the revelation/spawn happens, so I figured my interpretation may not be true and "when" actually means "after the thing happens, but before anything else would happen as a result of the thing happening" which would make the gun in the discard for the leave play ability and in play for the enters play ability (which isn't nearly as fun or interesting). I didn't want to be using a review to spread inaccurate information, so I got rid of most of it. I am not certain Shining Trapezohedron is relevant because that appears to be using "when" to refer to a replacement ability linked to "when you would" and "instead", rather than an explicit timing trigger. — Jim_Bob · 27
The comment about Elusive and Aloof was because I was arguing that the gun would still enter play even if the card went somewhere else during the resolution of the "when it enters play" ability (i.e. if it is in your hand when the enters play ability happens you could commit it to its own skill test, and then it would enter play out of the discard). The example to show that once a card starts initiating it will resolve unless explicitly canceled involved an enemy with that keyword. I wrote the wrong one during the original review since I wrote the example out manually instead of just copying it. — Jim_Bob · 27
However, even if it does work the second way, there are still some weird interactions with cards that let you take it back into your hand, like custom grip, because then the gun would be in your hand when the "leaves play" ability resolves, which does mean you should be able to commit it to its own test. That's probably why custom grip is worded the way it is to then let you play a firearm asset from your hand (which the Remmington would no longer be in if you committed it to itself). Anyway, I've talked way too much. Have a great day! Sorry for the wall of text. — Jim_Bob · 27
The way I have understood "when" for years is indeed before the effect affects the game state - so following that logic the gun cannot be in play at the time its reaction ability triggers (that is during 4. of the initiation sequence, btw). Where else is it, then? In your hand. So why should you not be able to commit it to the fight skill test that interrupts placing the physical card in the play area? — AlderSign · 477
For Shining Trapezohedron it's even easier to argue, because the skill test replaces (like you said) step 2. of the initiation sequence. Limbo is not even relevant here, because that's only about the resolution of event and treachery effects, but they only resolve after the corresponding card has been played (which is during step 4.). — AlderSign · 477
The trigter is "when it enters/leaves play", not "when played". As per definition of "when", the gun is clearly already in play/out of play at the triggering point — Adny · 1
With the example given under the rules for "When" that sounds about right. But for Shining Trapezohedron it should work to commit the card being potentially discounted. — AlderSign · 477
Well this was an interesting conversation. I'm glad it happened since it helped me learn the rules better and some people may find it interesting, but it probably shouldn't have happened here on a review page. I'll try to read the rules more thoroughly before I post any questionable theories in the future. I have always found the rules in this game to be a little fiddly and esoteric to me, so Even when I really try to dig into them I can get to the wrong conclusion. Hopefully this review stays down at the bottom of the page so people can read other stuff without needing to scroll through everything. For what it's worth I do think the tech still works for the trapezohedron. I didn't know about that when I was writing the review, but the timing makes no mechanical sense unless the card is still in your hand when the check happens for that one. — Jim_Bob · 27

Act of Desperation

Act of Desperation

This card does so much good stuff for you. I feel like this was originally an upgraded version of a hypothetical "Act of Desperation [0]" that never got printed, because it has so much text on it, and all that text is awesome. It's a great way to get a little more value out of items that have overstayed their welcome, whether that be firearms or investigating tools. I have not used this extensively in-color, but it seems like it plays very well with the Survivor ethos of recurring cards from their discard.

I mainly wrote this review because I want to highlight one very specific combo I have been using that's probably not that good but feels absolutely hilarious. Play as Mark Harrigan, take this card since you get rank 0 tactics, and use the Remington Model 1858 as at least a backup weapon. You get a nice two for one since you can use all the ammo out of the Remington, then play Act of Desperation, and the weapon ability lets you get one more shot out of it before the Act of Desperation resolves.

If you really want to double down on a combo that is more cute than good you can add some stuff like Well-Maintained to let the gun bounce back into your hand after your BS gun-fu (which lets you play it again, maybe in the enemy's face, and get another free shot when it enters), or Custom Modifications to really lean into your sub-par weapon (and you still get to use it on the last shot when the gun is discarded, since the reaction happens just before it leaves play. Sadly it doesn't help you on the Act of Desperation attack).

Anyway, I think this card is really fun and potentially worth playing in any deck that gets value out of recurring their discard pile. It's not broken, and probably not even great, but it is a nice little extra value card to fill out your deck. We are at the point in the game where "cute value card" isn't really good enough unless you're building a more casual deck, but keep an eye out for this one just in case that's your thing.

Jim_Bob · 27
It's a bonus sig for Yorick. — MrGoldbee · 1596