Pantalone

I got this card in my recent campaign as Minh Thi Phan, and it was awesome. Playing it with Scavenging (2) you can basically convert 1 resource into 2 cards. It can even be the resource you just got from Dr. Milan on the same test, because both abilities trigger at the same time. Then use Pantalone to punch some Rats, pick a Locked Door, evade an enemy or just discard the card to a treachery like Crypt Chill. Rinse repeat on the next test with Deduction (2), Perception (2), Sharp Vision, Archaic Glyphs: Guiding Stones...

Try it out before the next Taboo list will remove this card from the game after use!

Susumu · 152
Pants on head crazy. — MrGoldbee · 1086
Gift of Madness (Pity)

Q: When no more set-aside Monster enemies left, can I trigger action ability on this card to discard?

RR "Target" says :

The term "choose" indicates that one or more targets must be chosen in order for an ability to resolve. The player resolving the ability must choose a game element (usually a card) that meets the targeting requirements of the ability.

If an ability requires the choosing of a target, and there is no valid target (or not enough valid targets), the ability cannot be initiated.

csfeelx · 1
However, discarding Gift of Madness from your hand can change the game state. So you can trigger the ability to discard this card, even if there are no set-aside enemies left. — toastsushi · 62
But, by the "Target" rules, ability cannot initiated when have no valid target. And ability means not partial sentence but entire sentences. So, isn't it right that I can't trigger action ability while first sentence has no valid target? — csfeelx · 1
The colon appears before "Randomly choose 1 enemy...." this means that it's not part of the cost to trigger this ability, only the spent action is a requirement. So you can trigger this ability by spending an action, then you fufill as much of the effect as possible. When there's no monsters left, you can still discard the card. You payed for the cost to trigger it and fufilled as much of the effect as you possibly could. — MaleficMarby · 31
Thanx. I understand that "ability requires..." belongs to "cost". If so, in a similar case, is there any problem using "You handle this one" just to get 1 resource when I'm playing Solo? (have no valid target, but the game state changes by get 1 resources.) — csfeelx · 1
Sometimes, we overlook "choose" but "choose" defines the target of the ability and it works as another requirement in AHLCG. As long as it states "choose 1 enemy ...", you need an valid target (=set aside enemy) to trigger this ability. One possiblility is that "randomly choose" is different from "choose" but... — elkeinkrad · 168
For example, I'm sure you agree that you can play Eavesdrop only if there is an unengaged enemy in your location. Here, undefined X is 0, which means that you test intellect (0) if no rule prevent you play Eavesdrop with no unengaged enemy. Similarly, you can play Followed only if there is an enemy in your location. — elkeinkrad · 168
@elkeinkrad. So you're saying we can not trigger this card's action capability when no more set-aside monster remain? — csfeelx · 1
@elkeinkrad You're right. I just checked the Lonnie Ritter's FAQ. According to that, an ability with "choose" must needs a valid target. So we can not trigger this card's action ability trigger when no more set-aside monster left. — csfeelx · 1
Lonnie's FAQ does not apply. The second part of the ability is the requirement of the target, therefore you cannot trigger it if no item has damage on it. On Gift of Madness, the second half is done regardless if there was a target or not. Otherwise, a part of the game will be unplayable and you will be driven insane. — toastsushi · 62
@toastsushi. I know. I find that part strange, and that's why I asked this question. However, according to the choose rule about Target mentioned in the Lonnie's FAQ, this card's action ability "cannot be triggered" when no more set-aside monster left. Is there any rules to judge differently? — csfeelx · 1
Lonnie's FAQ particularly emphasized about "choose" rule. And "Ability" means not a one sentence, but the whole sentence. I also think it's unreasonable, but, by the book, isn't it right that we can not? Maybe the designer made a mistake, or want to drive someone insane. — csfeelx · 1
I beat this with Nephthys, luckily. — MrGoldbee · 1086
Azure Flame

This card has an unexpected synergy for an investigator who came out years earlier. Jim Culver, musician, can use this spell to great effect. His power lets him to treat the elder sign as a skull, and skulls as +0. But that’s different than the token.

So when Jim puts Flame into play, he’s only afraid if he draws an actual zero (on hard or expert, there aren’t any +1s in the bag.)

This makes it much better for him than shriveling, which can trigger off during a skull token even if it counts as a zero.

MrGoldbee · 1086
He also has pretty even health/sanity, as i recall. This also lets you focus your trumpet heals on encounter horror and horror from clairvoyance. — SGPrometheus · 554
I wouldn't call it a synergy, really, because Jim treats Azure Flame just as well as any other investigator. His power doesn't really interact with it. — DjMiniboss · 38
His elder sign does — MrGoldbee · 1086
That's fair enough, I just don't feel like it's particularly good for Jim. That's one token out of at least sixteen. — DjMiniboss · 38
There are not that many tokens, where "Azure Flame" (or the other Jaqueline spells) will hurt. In that regard, Jim has a significant lower chance of taking the blow, in Expert even better then Easy. — Susumu · 152
Law of 'Ygiroth (Pandemonium)

LivefromBenefitSt's review of the first Law of this set pretty much sums up why this might be the most annoying Treacheries in the game.

Fun fact for this particular card is that, if I'm not mistaken, this is the first instance of an effect that fundamentally changes the game depending on the language you are playing (card titles differ in word length in different languages). So for example Look what I found! is playable while you hold Pandemonium and can be discarded to get rid of it if you are playing the game in English; while it's the opposite (dead card in hand) if you are playing in Spanish ("¡Mira lo que he encontrado!").

bnvt · 5
I wonder if the design team did any kind of analysis of the balance of odd- and even-word card titles, and, if so, if they took the multiple languages into account.... — LivefromBenefitSt · 711
Restricted Access

This is a question as opposed to a review: suppose an investigator controlled the custodian and then lost control of it in Act 3a. Then for the purpose of Act 2b (and the scenario resolution), is it true that the investigator "has performed" the "An investigator controls the Custodian?"

To be clear, I think this is different from Act 2a, where it states "if three of the following are true..." and when you lose control, it is no longer true that you "have control". However, given the way the game resolves the number of tasks in the resolution of the scenario, it seems it expects the number of tasks you have "performed by the time the scenario ends" (as opposed to, say "to be true by the time the scenario ends") to be definitely between 3 and 6, and you can get into a state where you only have 2 tasks (by doing the Custodian and 2 other tasks, then losing the custodian), which is not given a consequence in the resolution.

krzhang · 5
You'd have to control the custodian at time of resolution; the text isn't in quotes so it's not asking you to remember something, it's just looking at the game state. It should say, roughly, "the more of the following that are true, the better..." but it seems to have slipped under QA's nets. — SGPrometheus · 554
I agree with SGPrometheus; you need control when all payers reach the “resign” condition. — LivefromBenefitSt · 711
That seems to be right to me as well but like the OP said , it does create a new hole in the rules in the resolution. If you advance from Act 2a to 2b with control of the Custodian and two other things , lose control of the Custodian in Act 3 and don't complete any other tasks by the time you resign then you end up with 2 tasks completed in the resolution and no instructions for what to do. And yeah, I also kinda think that suggests the intent was for it not to be possible to "un-do" the tasks....Might be worth asking over — bee123 · 24
I'd just go for the 3 tasks completed bullet; it doesn't get much worse than that anyway :p — SGPrometheus · 554
hehe I do agree with that! I still hold that if we are going to take cards to their word though, we would incentivize minmax players to go for the 2 tasks instead of the 3 to dodge a ‘ — krzhang · 5
(argh misclick) “better” outcome, so an errata would be nice. — krzhang · 5