Напасть. Базовая слабость




В начале каждой игры у вас на 2 ресурса меньше.

Что одному долги, другому — прибыток.
Sara Biddle
Наследие Данвича #37.
В долгах


(from the official FAQ or responses to the official rules question form)
  • Read the rulebook entry for Permanent cards.

  • The rules don't specify whether you're permitted to know what your random weakness is before the start of the game, so you can do it either way. If you like being surprised, you can shuffle your pool of basic weaknesses facedown, but put this card faceup. This way if you happen to draw Indebted, you'll know it, but if you draw something else, you won't know what your random weakness is until you draw it.
Last updated


I'm surprised that the top review of this weakness calls it very mild. I consider it way worse than average. It's probably not the worst weakness in the game (Overzealous exists, and I'm no fan of Amnesia) but it's quite bad.

Now, you might argue that Indebted has two things going for it. First, it only takes away two resources. That doesn't seem too bad. A run-of-the-mill weakness like Haunted or Chronophobia probably takes away two actions (actions being more valuable than resources), and something like Paranoia has the potential to take away a lot more than two resources. Second, you'll obviously never draw Indebted, so it won't cost you a card as other weaknesses do. And if you're Indebted, your odds of drawing any other specific card you want in your deck are ever so slightly higher.

But I still consider this weakness terrible. First: it hits you every single game. There are no reprieves. A good rule of thumb is that a standard scenario lasts about ~12 turns, all things considered. There are 28 or more cards in your deck after your opening hand. That means that as long as you're not spending a ton of actions drawing cards, there is a pretty decent chance you will never draw your basic weakness. Or, if you do draw it, you might draw it so late in the game that it doesn't matter (there are many weaknesses that can simply be shrugged off if drawn late enough). This will never be the case with Indebted, which will always hurt you.

Second, the cost of two resources may not seem that bad, but in fact they are more significant than they seem, because resources are at their most valuable on turn 1. Almost every investigator needs to play key assets to be effective, and needs to get them out ASAP. Wendy wants Leo De Luca and Fire Axe. Daisy wants Old Book of Lore and Dr. Milan Christopher. Agnes wants Shrivelling and Peter Sylvestre (and probably many other things besides.) Notice how all these investigators want cards that combined cost 6+ resources. Notice also how many of these cards grant lasting benefits and are therefore weaker the later they are played. Being Indebted makes these starts agonizingly slow. Unless you are lucky enough to draw Emergency Cache and the key assets in question, you'll have to choose between spending multiple "take a resource" actions (which slows you down a lot) or not getting your critical assets out for several turns (which also slows you down a lot.) You'll be faced with this every single game. On the first turn, resources are almost as important as actions, and Indebted costs you two. Every time.

You might say "just build your deck with Indebted in mind." Well, first, investigators are just flat-out less effective without their key assets, so avoiding some of your investigator's most powerful cards to play around your weakness is not a great solution. Moreover, by the rulebook you get your weakness after building your deck. So this is not really an option.

There may be some investigators who might not care too much about it, like Dark Horse Pete (though I think even he finds it a little irritating.) But by and large, this is a really harsh weakness.

CaiusDrewart · 3046
I am currently running it with solo Jim and yeah, the starts are more difficult because I need Leo out asap. On the other hand, it never happened that I have been overrun due to bad draw even with Final Rhapsody. IMO this weakness's best advantage is being flat and so you can deal with it when the game conditions are not that hard, and so you can fully focus on the act just after (instead of risking double bad draw and trying to be prepared for it constantly). But as you have mentioned - this weakness is always in effect and so you will never get the relieve of not appearing like the others could have. — XehutL · 47
I've had this weakness in several 2 and 4 player games, but dont see your point. I never had problems compensating because it's easy to plan ahead (adding more ressource cards to deck and mulligan starting hand). I fear most other weaknesses because they can hit you anytime you draw a card and put more pressure on you. If you draw the wrong encounter cards in addition, that's even worse. This card makes it so much easier to stay "in control" of the board. — Django · 4973
This weakness make you lose at most 2 actions at the beginning of the game. Except in very few cases, scenarios have few "quiet turns" at the beginning, so the remaining of the team will be able to compensate. I agree with the other post on this weakness being one of "the best pick" — MoiMagnus · 62
We are currently running a 3 player Dunwich legacy campaign and we have two investigators who have this weakness. As you say it hit's us at every game and put our lives at risk directly because we have two investigators who start with an handicap. — Wirbowsky · 1

Just to underline a key point in this weakness's power, as has already been mentioned. This weakness hits you every single game.

Trying to list every possible way a weakness (even this one) can mess with your game is impossible, but all the basic weaknesses share one, essentially the same, game effect , you loose a round (With the notable exception of Amnesia, Paranoia and Overzealous, all of which can cost you a good deal more). The way Indebted differs? Instead of "When drawn, loose a round" it basically reads "You loose the first round each game".

The first round each game is usually where the team sticks together and drops the assets they mulliganed for on the table, indebted slows this down so you're still setting up on round 2, or entering the fray underprepared, Indebted can wind up on itself, especially if you draw a bad starting hand, imagine the scenario where you get all of your support stuff on the opening hand and no main gear, mystic drawing their holy rosary, blinding light and Arcane studies on the opening hand for example but no Shrivelling or Rite of seeking, playing these cards and paying their costs makes actually playing for your main cards that much harder when you finally draw into them.

How to deal with this weakness? Depending on your investigator you might just ignore it, you might spend your first actions getting back the lost resources, you might start tecking out costly cards. The key positive factor about indebted is that it reduces a lot of pressure and add's a little bit of predictability to your deck. Even so, do not make the mistake of underestimating this weakness. Depending on which Investigator you are playing, Hypochondria and Psychosis are still probably easier to shrug off.

TL:DR. Indebted is the most mitigatable weakness, it is unique however in the fact that it must be mitigated every single game (whereas other weaknessess only show up 2 out of 3 scenarios) and that it always hits you in the very first round.

Tsuruki23 · 2486
Part of the difference opinion on this card may boil down to playing style. If (like me), you try to win by zipping through scenarios as fast as possible, Indebted is really rough. The fact that it hits every game and significantly slows you down hurts a lot. If you are a player who takes a slower approach and draws a lot of cards, Indebted starts to look better relative to other weaknesses. — CaiusDrewart · 3046

I haaaaaaatteeee this weakness. My brother and I have decided to ban this card from our campaign because frankly, it's overpowered, on top of the permanent keyword spoiling your fun if you like keeping your random weaknesses a surprise.

1) One of the big selling points of this game for me was the fact that you couldn't trust your own deck, and this card undermines that. It's never in your deck which makes drawing cards significantly less dangerous compared to decks with any other weakness.

2.) It's 1 less card in your deck. If there was a card in Netrunner that said "reduce your minimum deck size by 1, but start the game with 2 fewer credits" I guarantee that it would see play.

3) Most weaknesses are less devastating the earlier they hit you in the game, this weakness hits you at the very start of the game, where you'll have plenty of time to recover from its effects. Speaking of which...

4)... -2 credits is nothing. The worst this could do is screw up your plans of playing Leo De Luca or some other expensive card on turn 1, which is inconvenient but it's nowhere near as bad as the other basic weaknesses.

I'm not entirely against permanent weaknesses, but I think if we ever see any more of them in the future they should be a problem that haunts you for the entire game, rather than just a minor speedbump.

That said, taking this card AND another random basic weakness could be an interesting challenge.

N146 · 49

I'm in disagreement with everyone that says this is a horrible weakness. Whenever I draw this card I actually feel lucky I didn't get something worse. To understand why, just imagine this scenario:

You are Daisy and you are engaged with a powerful monster, you can kill it with your trusty shriveling and higher education, but you only have 1 action left and you cannot afford to take another hit. You decide to evade the monster so you can kill it the very next round. You succeed, but you had to commit more cards than you wished to. Now you have four cards left. No big deal, or so you think, after all the upkeep phase is coming and you'll get your fifth card. You draw a card and it is a basic weakness...

Now the next round begins, having a weakness in this situation is already bad as it is, but there is another very bad effect of having drawn a weakness. Something that whoever thinks "Indebted" is awful is probably missing. You were robbed of the chance of getting a useful card. Now you have no way to use higher education to boost your willpower, you will not be able effectively attack the monster successfully. You will be defeated and you will lose the scenario.

A basic weakness in your deck doesn't simply do whatever it is written on its revelation effect, it also robs you of the chance of getting a useful card. You spent an action to draw a card, but you got a weakness? Your action was wasted. You just used overpower and perception, but when you draw a card you get a weakness? What was meant to be a reward became a punishment.

It is true, unlike other weaknesses indebted will always hurt you. But there are two things that indebted will never do. It will never haunt you at a most critical time, and it will never rob you of a chance of getting a useful card.

If you were given the choice to get a consistent mild evil or something that inconsistently swings between neutral to devastating, what would you choose? If you choose the latter I can only say I envy you for feeling that lucky, I sure don't.

Killbray · 10549
I mean, your assessment is correct, and I think most people here do appreciate the consistency of Indebted despite its drawbacks. However, most investigators in the game aren't Daisy. If Daisy gets this she laughs it off, gains a resource first action and still has Milan (and a huge income flow) on first turn. Indebted isn't a mild evil for Guardians, or other investigators with limited access to income; it is consistently devastating. That said, I still prefer this to Overzealous. — SGPrometheus · 776
The Daisy example was just one of many. Of course it is probably the situation that is most adversely affected by not drawing a useful card. A weakness can still be devastating just for coming at the wrong time. Here's another example that happened to me during "undimensioned and unseen". I ended my turn with a whippoorwill at my location. Not big deal, I could kill it next. I think this is a situation many of us found themselves in. But the I drew a weakness on the upkeep phase and it was Haunted. Not this would normally be a mild annoyance, but with a whipporwill at the same time that's -2 on all of your skills. And of course on the Mythos Phase i drew an Avian Thrall. The only monster with 5 combat in the deck, and I didn't have a weapon to mitigate that. The -2 basically made impossible to either attack or evade the monster. Engaging the whipporwill to kill it would have caused AoO, Removing the weakness would have caused AoO. It was yet another devastating effect of a basic weakness at the wrong time. — Killbray · 10549
I also agree that this is the easiest weakness in the game. I like it's predictability. As a side note, this means Joe Diamond starts without a weakness in his normal deck. — Django · 4973

The past-due notices in the art are addressed to Finn Edwards. Worth noting for anyone who is making lore-based decks.

(200 character count; 200 character count; 200 character count; 200 character count.)

anaphysik · 94
Indebted is a pretty good weakness, thematically, in general. A lot of stories you make make up around it. — Zinjanthropus · 225
I actually did get Indebted in Finn and didnt even notice that. Very cool. — StyxTBeuford · 12943

Standard cost of a weakness is 3 actions :

  • One action since you don't draw a card in compensation
  • Two actions to get rid of the weakness Depending on how much you draw, you draw a weakness between half of the time and 5 times over 6. Lets average it to 2/3. So in average, a weakness make you lose 2 actions each game.

This weakness make you lose two actions at the start of the game :

  • No surprise. Determinism is always a good thing, since you can build against.
  • The other players can compensate you inefficiency in the first few turns.
  • You are less likelly to draw a weakness. Drawing a weakness while searching for a solution to a problem is a VERY bad news. You are significantly reducing the probabilities of a bad news.

So except if you planed to "rush" trough the scenario (which is reasonnable when playing alone), this weakness is better than the "standard weakness".

MoiMagnus · 62
I love to play Mark Harrigan and it's not uncommon to cycle twice through my deck. Being indebted assures I won't see any treachery at the worst possible moment, and as Mark I need to control how much horror and damage I can sustain on any given turn. If I could choose, I'd take indebted anyday over almost any other treachery, since Mark doesn't particularly need any expensive card at the beginning thanks to Sophie. And I think I would be equally blessed playing any seeker with access to lots of card draw. — Freeman · 5

I just played a dunwhich campaign solo with this weakness, and I have to say I'm a bit lost as to why people find this weakness anything more than a slight annoyance.

Firstly, as a rogue you can hard counter it with 3xp, which is what I did scenario 3, using Another Day, Another Dollar. This means for 3xp you can remove your weakness from the game. That is insane value, that ANYONE would take, as tempo and consistency are everything. Survivors also aren't resource hungry, so to them this is a mild speed bump, as its seldom you build a deck that requires 5 resources turn 1. Leaving 3 classes that MAY struggle with this.

Secondly, it's consistent you get it every game. That to me is it's strength. There is no swing. Knowing you have to play around -2 resources means you can hard counter it with tech options, or taking two SAFE actions to counter it. Sometimes I'm engaged with something and can't two action Chronophobia, but need too. This is "whenever you want spend two actions to counter". This game is all about chaos, and your deck ideally is designed to counter it, this "weakness" removes luck and chaos, which overall makes the game easier.

In solo two actions for a weakness is crippling, in multiplayer its light, but with so many players two resources means nothing, so this weakness really hits hardest in duos, when you run the traditional "seeker/guardian asset heavy" combo. When you do run guardian/seeker combo and get indebted it isn't that big of a deal because guardian/seeker is so insanely strong.

Also remember that this makes drawing FAR less scary, which unless you have a helpful weakness i.e Dread Curse in a curse deck, is a major help. In summary, this weakness is consistent, meaning you know how to counter it, thins your deck (which is great), can be hard countered or ignored (depending on class), can safely be countered, doesn't swing games.

, · 527
I think most of the reviews that call it a bad weakness are pretty old. Probably back when Dunwich was the only full campaign, so the benefits of a weakness you don't draw were less obvious, since in Dunwich weaknesses get milled a decent amount of the time, and it discourages the kind of deck cycling that this weakness enables. — SSW · 206
They may also come from a time before AD,AD, which you accurately note may as well read, "Remove one basic weakness from your deck," which is insane. It's an annoying weakness, it's just not dangerous. At all. — SGPrometheus · 776
I mean, rogues are made of $. — MrGoldbee · 1416
Yes, every weakness is kind of depending on which investigator draws them. Of course Rogues have the least issues with it. (And Leo isn't the omnipresent Ally he used to be any more.) I also would particularly "like" it in a drawheavy Seaker. Most Mandy or Minh decks see each of their weaknesses at least once per game, even if they are not permanent, and not oncommonly twice. This weakness guarantees, that it triggers only once per game. — Susumu · 351
A lot of cards from very early on in Arkham's history have funky reviews. I would say Indebted can hit really hard if your in a class that wants to have a very accelerated 'rollout' (read: Any guardian that isn't rich like Zoey or Tommy), but otherwise its pretty mild. — dezzmont · 203
Card draw was a lot lower back then, so the fact that you might not see your weakness was an actual disadvantage for Indebted for many classes. Now though nearly every class can cycle their deck once per scenario if built for it. — suika · 9310
I feel like people also tend to forget that the gameplay was also more asset-focused in the Dunwich+Core-only era. The standard mode for turn one was usually setting up your weapons/spells/allies. What made Indebted a problem was that it could lead to an early-game tempo loss for this particular playstyle. — PowLee · 20

Fun fact - did you know this was the first card with the Permanent keyword that wasn't an asset? It's kind of weird when you consider that cards like the John Dee translation of the The Necronomicon are considered assets. Most other Permanent cards are assets, so it makes it a bit unusual in that regard.

Looking at the rules as written - seen here - could suggest that this card actually has no effect since it's classified as a treachery and not an asset. "When a treachery card is drawn by an investigator, that investigator must resolve its effects. Then, place the card in its discard pile unless otherwise instructed by the ability." You technically never draw it, so you never trigger the effect, right? I could see someone reading these rules and interpreting the card this way. However, I think it's pretty clear that's not how this card is meant to be interpreted.

A more devastating read of this card would be "you start each game with 2 fewer resources" reading that each game starts you with 2 resources less than the game before it, so that your progression could look like this:

  • Game 1: 3 resources
  • Game 2: 1 resource
  • Game 3+: 0 resources

Technically the wording is ambiguous enough that you can read it that way. Tough, right? Again, I don't think this is how the card was meant to be interpreted, but it could be read that way. (But it shouldn't be, because I am very sure it's just a flat -2 resources at the start of play.)

As for my actual thoughts on the card, I generally find it to be one of the more preferable weaknesses. It's one of the weaknesses that actually impacts my playing more, actually - with less weakness cards in the deck, I am more likely to draw more. The downside is that it does get you with its effect every game, but I believe that one of the keys to a good deck is consistency, so I like knowing exactly when a weakness is going to hit. It's something that you can take into account for your plan. It does slow your start a little bit, but it saves you that tempo hit later on in the scenario. Having 3 resources still gives you enough to play key cards like Machete and Shrivelling (and Dark Horse, of course!) to get you started. Is it possible that 2 resources could be the difference between winning and losing? Yes, but most of the time this is just a minor and predictable setback. I still think it's well balanced, though - annoying, but not completely negligible.

I don't think the RaW is in conflict here. Sure you don't draw the weakness as described, but it begins in play and has a constant effect. — Difrakt · 1272
I’m seconding @Difrakt that there is nothing in conflict with RAW. What gets triggered when a Treachery is drawn is its Revelation effects (which Indebted doesn’t have). Permanent cards start in play, and Indebted has ongoing effects. Regarding ‘fewer reasources’, by your logic they should still get 5 on the first game since there was no previous game to have 2 fewer than. — Death by Chocolate · 1394
I'm not sure I agree. Its a pretty bad weakness to get. You *always* draw it, it always hits you early (when you are most vulnerable), it prevents you getting setup (as you can't build your deck around it), and it pretty much always takes 2 actions to clear as you need that economy back. It's not the worst weakness, but its up there as one of The Really Bad Ones. I think it just feels good, as you feel safer drawing now its out of the way, but that's just your brain forgetting how much it really has hurt you already. — duke_loves_biscuits · 1240
I also think of this as one of the harsher weaknesses. It's not quite Overzealous, but it's pretty bad. Getting properly set up at the start of every scenario is just critical and this really does significantly impede that. — CaiusDrewart · 3046
Basically for me the really bad weaknesses are this, Overzealous, Amnesia, most of the monster weaknesses, and Doomed. (Though of course this does vary quite a bit by investigator.) — CaiusDrewart · 3046

A friend pointed out to me that the easiest way of maintaining ignorance of your own weakness without seeing the card is to simply show it to your team mate and ask them if its a permanent then just not let on what it is. Ofc this wont help solo players, but mplain's approach would at indeed work there.

StartWithTheName · 66126
Alternatively, you can shuffle the basic weakness cards without looking at them, and pass one out to each player without looking at the card. Leave this card face-up so the player who gets it knows that they have Indebted. — Darthcaboose · 274
My group has all the weaknesses sleeved in opaque sleeves, except for permanent cards which get clear sleeves. That way we can quickly shuffle, cut, and deal basic weaknesses and you immediately know if you got a permanent one. — Death by Chocolate · 1394