How do you put this in Calvin? — CrimsonMatt · 2 10/16/21

You put this on Calvin with Bob Jenkins, Suika has foresight — FarisFlowers · 1 11/10/21

Sefina is a painter, I'd surmise she works with her hands often! — Chitinid · 14 12/28/21

This is excellent in a Jenny Barnes deck, that utilizes Dr. Elli Horowitz — discman86 · 1 7/14/22

Rogues can now buy extra hands! — althaea · 1 12/31/22

@althaea How so? — grifjo06 · 3 1/8/23

Hidden Pocket. It requires an armor or clothing asset and only works with illicit cards, but that covers 95% of the Rogue hand slot cardpool. — althaea · 1 2/4/23

Still, which other investigator should take this? He looks like better than any other character for this: he has no access to "Stick to the Plan" (for the combo with "Ever Vigilant", which is the same effect infinitive better), and he has several seeker tools, he can legitimately put into his deck in addition to weapons. — Susumu · 383 10/6/21

This card is getting way more hate than it deserves in the comments. I've run it for maybe ten scenarios now in Parallel Daisy, and it isn't good. It's bonkers amazing. I regularly start scenarios 4-6 assets in play, and I'm often wallowing in resources thanks to Schoffners and Backpack+Astounding Revelation. That's at level 0. With upgraded backpack and Studious, it just gets better. Seriously, create a an item-heavy deck in Arkhamdb and draw some opening hands. See for yourself. — Mordenlordgrandison · 466 10/15/21

I'm giving it a shot in a kit-heavy Zoey deck, alongside Underworld Support, STTP, and Astounding Revelation... which brings Zoey's deck size at time of draw to 22 (including her sig). At that small, it hasn't been difficult getting the deck to be 12+ items, for which it's quite easy to hit a bare minimum of 2 items post mulligan. — HanoverFist · 766 10/18/21

My understanding is that because this does not say “One at a time,” like Ever Vigilant, you cannot take advantage of Shoffners or Backpack on turn one. The players who positively review this card seem to miss that. — Eudaimonea · 6 12/30/21

Eudaimonea, I am not an expert in Arkham Horror but I played a lot of card games. I do not find correct to assume all the cards are played at the same time because one card says one at a time. — condedooku · 2 1/17/22

And also, Ever Vigilant is an event card, it has a limited time in play. Gear up says that when your first turn begins you can play the cards, the beginning of a turn is very wide, and unlike Magic, the investigator turn do not have steps, so in my opinion you can play cards from when your turn starts. Maybe I am wrong, it is a little ambiguous, but in my point of view comparing it with Ever Vigilant which is an event, is incorrect and less obvious. — condedooku · 2 1/17/22

It always is worth repeating that each player can make his or her own determination on how to play each card and which rules to ignore. Your understanding of “when the turn begins” is definitely counter to the rules though. All forced effects must resolve, then all reactions may resolve. Geared Up has a forced effect and Backpack has a reaction. There is no ambiguity to this order. I don’t begrudge your choice to play it differently and to your own advantage. There is an obvious and frankly exploitative combo that players may find fun with Backpack (2) and Schoffner’s in some kind of ridiculous William Yorick deck. But it’s against the rules. — Eudaimonea · 6 1/28/22

Well, you yourself are supporting my view. The forced ability must be resolved before later abilities. However playing cards or entering on the game are abilities that finish before the forced one. — condedooku · 2 1/29/22

And it is you who are understanding the rules. The forced abilities must be resolved before reaction abilities when they refer at the same time point. However, for example Catalog do not refer at the beginning of your turn. — condedooku · 2 1/29/22

I think that the card it is not well redacted. But I really think that you are obviously wrong. — condedooku · 2 1/29/22

Respectfully, there is a Forced effect on this card and a reaction on Backpack. I’m deeply confused as to how we can agree that forced effects happen before reactions and somehow not be able to realize how to order these. As to Schoffner. And there is a basic sequence of “pay costs, then cards enter play.” — Eudaimonea · 6 1/30/22

Sorry, accidentally submitted before finishing the last comment. The rationale for Schoofner’s is slightly different and less obvious, but the “pay costs, then resolve effects” sequence for all of the Geared Up cards means none of the assets you wish to simultaneously play at the start of your first turn will be in play at the time you’re paying for them. I’ll say again that I don’t mean to criticize your choice to create house rules you find fun. The actual rules though, are pretty clear. — Eudaimonea · 6 1/30/22

I agree with you that the rules are pretty clear. ‘For any given timing point, all forced abilities initiated in reference to that timing point must resolve before any reaction abilities (see below) referencing the same timing point in the same manner may be initiated’. When the card enters into the play the force effect still lasts, so first you must resolve the reaction triggered ability. Also, your theory that the cards enter simultaneously in play is only based with Ever Vigilant which is an event and without any time period. The game rules only specify to simultaneously draw cards, however, for example, when you discard cards, you can put them one by one in the order that you want. And it makes sense, the idea of playing cards simultaneously is a very bad idea for a game. And, furthermore, maybe you did not notice it, but the forced ability also says: ’During this turn, you have 3 fewer actions to take’. So, are you saying that you cannot use the Daisy’s ability because the forced ability lasts until the end of your turn? Pretty obvious that it is not correct. Once again, the forced abilities have priority against reaction abilities when they take place at the same moment, and that is not the case. And please, be respectful as me, and try to debate with facts not only saying that the others are making house rules. — condedooku · 2 1/31/22

And I must say that this combo is not as good as it seems. You have to have the three cards and a lot of items. With a lot xp is easy but not at 0 xp. And with xp there are better options. — condedooku · 2 1/31/22

Respectfully, I don’t understand a lot of your concerns. The Daisy example, for instance, strikes me as strange. You have three fewer actions so I can’t think of why you would lose Daisy’s fourth. I don’t see the relationship between that and anything else we’ve discussed. You have an interesting theory that the “When the turn begins” forced effects “still lasts” for some indeterminate period of time, which you have not specified and for which there is no rule precedence. Meanwhile, the Backpack’s reaction is “after” the card enters play. “After” is another term that the rules are pretty clear about, and it means that the effect that precipitated it has fully resolved. In this case, the effect in reference is Geared Up. I hope you will not find it disrespectful for me to state, again, that the rules here are quite clear. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/1/22

Again, the second text of the forced ability of Gear UP take place during all turn. Are you saying that backpack take the cards in the second turn? And I am totally agree with the word after, however your idea only works if we assume that the cards are played simultaneously, but I do not find logical to think it. Reading the examples of priority rules and simultaneously effects I find more obvious to think the cards enter one by one, and then the 'after' takes place before the forced ability finish. — condedooku · 2 2/1/22

Okay. I don’t understand your question about the Backpack’s reaction occurring during the second turn, but I feel like a lot of this discussion is tangential. Really, our one big point of dispute is the idea that you just articulated. You believe that there is a fairly generous window of time during which you can play cards in a sequence of your choosing, let them fully enter play, take “after” reactions, then return to initiating more of the Geared Up effect. I believe you must simply perform Geared Up as it reads, fully resolving the first sentence of its Forced effect one time as it reads, then the second, then moving on to reactions and optional effects before finishing your shortened first turn. I find it interesting that you chose the word “logical” in the previous statement, because you don’t really state the grounds for your preferred reading. It seems to me that “preferable” would be a more accurate term. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/1/22

'The word "after" refers to the moment immediately after the specified timing point or triggering condition has fully resolved.' You said ' precipitated it has fully resolved' it is not correct, it says 'ability with a triggering condition beginning with the word "after..." may be used immediately after that triggering condition's impact upon the game state has resolved'. And the Daisy example was for the idea that first take place the forced ability and there is not space for anything else, or this was what I understand with your comments. — condedooku · 2 2/1/22

Well, I am sorry you are not able to understand my examples. Eudaimonea, all your point is based with simultaneous entering in game, and I couldn't disagree more. First, rules usually says the opposite in different cases, drawing cards is the only exception. Secondly, I prefer to think that the game is well structured, it is not as well as I would want, but the simultaneous thing is only for games with a poor structure. For my is all said, we are agree with our disagreement! Also I do not find that very relevant as I do not think it is a overpowered combo, even I pondered of using it I discarded the idea. — condedooku · 2 2/1/22

We’ve both made our case pretty fairly and I’m happy to move one. I’ll respond to your last points but to nothing else, and I’m happy to give you the last word. I would point out with regard to the “after” rule that the second sentence of the RR clarifies that the initiation must fully resolve: “ For example, an ability that reads "After you draw an enemy card" initiates immediately after resolving all of the steps for drawing an enemy – resolving its revelation ability, spawning it, etc.” This seems to me and to every credible rules expert I have heard from on the issue to mean that the Forced effect on Geared Up must fully resolve before the reaction on Backpack may occur. Secondly, I am glad to have clarified that I never said anything about Daisy losing her whole first turn. Thirdly, it is not true that drawing cards is the only example of multiple cards changing game location at once. Hallowed Mirror and Occult Lexicon move bonded cards from one location to others, as do several Act and Agenda flips. Perhaps you or I could decide that we find it “not logical” that the mirror’s Soothing Melodies get shuffled in or placed in hand at the same time and then we could invent a sequence we find preferable, interrupting with reactions that favor us. In this case, I think an onlooker would have every reason to question why we were staggering such an effect to our own benefit when there isn’t a word on the cards or in the rules allowing us to do such a thing. The posture that dropping three items at once creates a logic problem that needs fixing through an invented rule that happens to also allow a degenerate combo that we then go on to exploit is, to me, obviously pretextual. In other words, people who argue that this is timed in such a way to allow exploitation of Shoffner’s and Backpack seem to want that to be true. Personally, I don’t care one way or the other, except I like for the cards and rules to do what they say, and what this card says is clear. Beyond that, we can each play how we want and I wish you much fun and success, and very happy gaming. Cheers. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/2/22

Eudaimonea, your option would be trues true if a Forced ability and a Reaction Triggered ability are triggered by the same event. This, though, would be a nested sequence, and the reaction ability would interrupt the resolution of the Forced ability that triggered it. I am used to other games a little bit well structured, but the nested sequences rule, which was logical for me, is in the rules, lately added. With this there is the simultaneously discussion. At least, now I see that I was correct with the order. — condedooku · 2 2/2/22

As far as I can see from the rules reference, this case is pretty clear cut. Forced abilities resolve first, then you can take triggered or reactive abilities to that point in time afterwards. Ref: " For any given timing point, all forced abilities initiated in reference to that timing point must resolve before any "triggered or reactive" abilites referencing the same timing point in the same manner may be initiated." That's from pg.3 under Abilities. So the Forced ability: "Play any number of Item assets from your hand." resolves in its entirety. Then, you resolve your triggered abilities - referencing the timing points. So, I would say that you cannot use Backpack until after the Forced effect is fully resolve. Therefore, you cannot play more Items at a discount from it that turn. — Smands · 185 2/12/22

I think Euda is right here but it would be nice to have an official clarification. — CreatingControl · 2 2/12/22

So what about items with a Forced "after x enters play" effect, like "Nightmare Bauble" or "Occult Lexicon"? By your logic, they would abort the ability from "Geared Up", and you would be not allowed to play anything afterwards. — Susumu · 383 2/13/22

As I said, there is a rule about nested abilities. The question here is if the cards are played simultaneously or not. The insistence of the forced ability is already tiring. Read the nested abilities rule. — condedooku · 2 2/14/22

@Susumu They are only focused on the Forced abilities rules text. I tried before to explain that do not make sense. However, there is a rule for this: Nested Sequences and it is pretty clear. — condedooku · 2 2/14/22

Yes, I agree, and would also see it as a nested sequence. With "by your logic" I meant the other contributers to the discussion, like Eudaimonea and Smands. It is clear from the RR, that each playing of a card initiate a sequence, summarized in Appendix I. So it simply makes no sense, that multiple cards can be played simultainiously. — Susumu · 383 2/14/22

@Susumu I couldn't agree more! — condedooku · 2 2/15/22

"Forced Ability" states:For any given timing point, all forced abilities initiated in reference to that timing point must resolve before any abilities (see below) referencing the same timing point in the same manner may be initiated. — TKOK · 1 2/16/22

Doesen't Backback/Schoffners Catalog have an own timing point and therefor can interrupt the Geared Up as a nested sequence? — TKOK · 1 2/16/22

@Susumu, those "Forced" effects on Nightmare Bauble and Occult Lexicon will certainly occur. The "nested sequences" being debated will also certainly occur. All of them are explicitly timed as "After" the cards have entered play, which necessarily and obviously means after the "Geared Up" forced effect that puts them into play has concluded. I must not have been clear about something if anyone reads into this logic a canceling of the Blood-Rites going into the deck or an inability for nested sequences to occur. I mean, if you can think of a nested sequence that occurs "When" or "As," and if you can sneak a Backpack of Schoffner's into play in the middle of that sequence, you might have a different argument on your hands. Condedooku is right to say that the only thing we're really debating is whether the cards enter play simultaneously or whether players can have a broad, undefined window of time during which they play one card, then another, then another, then another, etc. until they decide they are bored. For those who think there is such a window, I would like to ask if they also think there is time for fast effects such as Scroll of Secrets that have been played by Geared Up to trigger and draw new cards that can then be played during Geared Up. Similarly, do I have time to insert a Cheat the System to get flush again, then go back to playing Geared Up cards, in your view? — Eudaimonea · 6 2/16/22

Well, by now, all have been arguing with sense and debating some points of view. Now, you have started to throw things with no sense. If you want to play with house rules, is your game I do not blame you for that. But stop with the forced ability thing. Is tiring. As the rules state, there is a rule for the nested sequences, that is a fact. Then, when the nested sequence start is mor debatable. In your opinion, Gear Up does not let you play the cards one by one, if we accept this, then the backpack ability des not activate until Gear Up finish. However, it is not in the rules and now in my opinion I reckon that the cards are played one by one, and then, yes you can use backpack or use the Catalog secrets. And please, stop annoying and trying to say always the same. I have red a lot of posts about this, and no one are sure about the simultaneously, but no one doubt about the nested sequence. There are people asking to the team, and soon or after there would be a faq or errata. But as I said, your opinion is not absolute and furthermore is the less probable. — condedooku · 2 2/16/22

@TKOK Only for the people who know how to read yes. There are people who do not understand. — condedooku · 2 2/16/22

Needless to say, the comment above mine is both insulting and directly contradictory to the same writer's statement a sentence earlier. The writer first claims that "no one is sure about simultaneously" and then decides four minutes later that everyone who knows how to read is sure, but there are people who don't understand. Like so much else from this poster, these words are confusing, self-defeating and ridiculous, with the only vaguely comprehensible fact being that they're intended as an insult. Despite the troll, there appear to be reasonable people here actually trying to discern what the card does so I will make one more effort to talk around the sound and fury. Personally, I understand the rules of Arkham Horror very well and I have read Geared Up, the RR for "When / If / After", "Forced," "Reactions," "Timing," and "Nested Sequences." I feel confident I understand all of these, and it feels to me like certain writers use phrases like "Nested Sequences" as if they are verbal components for D&D spells intended to fire Magic Missiles at their opponents, rather than factual terms with denotative meaning. I do not see relevance to the nested sequence question since the sequence is nested "after" the cards enter play. The only conceivable rationale for nested sequences mattering to the Backpack / Schoffner's question is if you believe, as an ill-informed poster above does, that "the beginning of a turn is very wide, and unlike Magic, the investigator turn do not have steps, so in my opinion you can play cards from when your turn starts." To those who believe this in good faith, I wish to point out that in addition to the Geared Up forced effect at the start of the first turn, there is also a fast timing window at the exact same moment. I wish to know if anyone in the "more generous" camp believes that investigators can use the fast window that is occurring at the exact same timing point, mid-Geared Up. I ask this of anyone who wishes to discuss in good faith. I am not asking @condedooku. Thank you and happy gaming. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/16/22

@Eudaimonea I can totally understand your point of view and it is likely correct. But i am interested if you think that the assets enter play "too late" to trigger their effects during the Geared Up? Or do the triggers activate "after the whole forced effect" anyway? — TKOK · 1 2/16/22

@TKOK, this is a totally fair question and I see that I haven't been clear about it. Basically, the rules for most card effects is that you fully resolve the first sentence, then the second, then the third, etc. until you get to the end of the card. The rule for "After" is that you fully resolve the effect that put initiated the sequence, then you do the "after" reaction. So my interpretation, which I believe to be the prevailing one among rules experts but admittedly worth a clarification, is that all the cards get played (yes, simultaneously, as to my knowledge, no one has yet been able to produce an example of a potential rule or logic problem resulting from that) then the effect is over and the reactions can begin to trigger. If you chose to play during this time, say, an Occult Lexicon, a Hallowed Mirror, and a Backpack during your Geared Up, you now would have three simultaneous effects to resolve. The "Forced" ones would have to resolve first, so as with any simultaneous effects in Arkham Horror, you could choose to shuffle in the Blood-Rites first or the Soothing Melodies (in practice, you will no doubt shuffle them all in at once, of course), and only after all "Forced" effects resolve can you then trigger the reaction on the Backpack. This is very similar to if, say, two characters move to a location at once as a result of Safeguard (2) and they both have reactions to entering the new location. Lead investigator decides among simultaneous effects always, with the caveat that forced effects always occur before reactions. You definitely get to stay in the exact same timing window until you resolve all effects though. The point I've been laboring on is that none of these nested sequences, which might occur simultaneously, can possibly get "nested" into a timing window in the middle of the resolution of the first sentence of this card. I hope that clarifies my perspective and I acknowledge that it's intuitive to play the cards one-at-a-time, and that it can be quite rewarding to do so if you're doing cool combos. But I argue that careful reading of the cards and rules involved definitely leads one away from the "intuitive" reading to this reading, which I would call the "analytical" reading. Let's keep our finger crossed for an FAQ that renders this whole thing moot though. Happy gaming. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/16/22

There is one thing, I'm absolutely sure. Let's say for example you use "Geared Up" to play your Backpack followed by a "Nightmare Bauble". Assuming, you can't trigger the Backpack before playing the Bauble would render the play of the Backpack possible (it's a reaction trigger, so optional) but pointless. At that point the timing window to trigger the reaction ability has long expired, so the ability would wiff. "After Backpack enters play" means immediately after the condition has resolved, not some time later that round, after you have played tons of other stuff. There are also no hard rules, that cards can be played simultaneously, and since playing cards is a sequential process, this also would not make sense. Some people argue, that "Ever Vigilant" has the clarification "one at the time", and that this means, in the lack of this clarification, they should be played simultaneously. But without rules, how to play cards simultaneously, I don't see this as a valid argument. There are act cards (in "Essex County Express", "Threads of Fate" and "Beyond the Gates of Sleep"), that state "If x happens, immediately advance." By the same logic, people come with the "Ever Vigilant" argument, you could say: "If the Act object does not state, you have to advance immediately, you don't need to. Why would they otherwise write "immediately" on this card?" We know since "The Gathering" that this is wrong: Objective - If the Ghoul Priest is Defeated, advance. FAQ: The Objective ability is mandatory, it will trigger as soon as you defeat the Ghoul Priest, before any "After you defeat an enemy" reactions can be used. So no reason for me to believe, that "Ever Vigilant" can be taken as a reference, that cards can be played simultaneously, if not stated otherwise. — Susumu · 383 2/16/22

Respectfully, Susumu, I don't think the phrase "Backpack followed by Nightmare Bauble" makes any sense under the reasoning I outline. There is no "followed by" in my logic and so it's not rational to skip the timing window for the reaction. I am referencing a reading in which the cards are played at once, just as cards are drawn at once and, contrary to a statement above, discarded at once, and just as after several act flips, many locations leave play or enter play or change game state, all at once. You seem to me to be importing half of your one-at-a-time rationale and then pointing out it requires the import of the rest of that rationale, which I would agree with. This is why I simply argue for the items to be played at once, which is in accordance with a plain reading of the text, though admittedly different from most other effects. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/16/22

Cards are drawn at once, becasue the RR says so, they do: "When a player draws two or more cards as the result of a single ability or game step, those cards are drawn simultaneously." Playing cards is a more complex step, elaborated in "Appendix I: Initiation Sequence". Playing multiple cards at once would mean, declaring, that you want to play them all at once, checking play restrictions all at once, determine the cost (or costs) of all cards at once,... Honestly, this does not make sense for me. And I don't see hard facts in the RR, that something like that should be allowed. — Susumu · 383 2/16/22

I'm not saying your perspective is unreasonable, Susumu, but I do believe you're creating more problems than you're solving. I want to know what you do about Safeguard (2), which appears to allow two characters to move at the same time. Moving is another example of a complex step elaborated in "Appendix I: Initiation Sequence." Two investigators doing it at once requires exactly all of the same things you enumerate above. Do you house-rule that the Safeguard (2) investigators have to move one after the other? — Eudaimonea · 6 2/16/22

Safeguard (2) creates a lasting effect, this is completely unrelated to initiating a sequence. Playing a card always initiates a sequence. — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

And in addition to that, you don't really move simultaneously. The upgraded Safeguard gives you rather the option to choose, who moves first. For each movement for the remainder of the turn on it's own. If it was truly simultaneously, this would mean, that both investigators would be engaged, wouldn't it? But you can simply choose, whom it engages. You also have to decide before revealing the location. And only the first one entering has to face possible "After you reveal" effects. — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

I think it depends when the cards enter play. It is possible, that all cards are played in sequence, but enter play after the Geard Up effect has finished. If that's the case these are definatly not combo-able. Otherwise maybe they are. There is an argument to be made, that the process of bringing a card into play has to be finished (with all extra effects) before you can play another one. — TKOK · 1 2/17/22

Anyway this whole debate here will (hopefully) be solved once an official source states what the intention was when they designed the card. (Or maybe they get inspired by these discussions here and change their mind. Anyway a win for the rule clarification.) — TKOK · 1 2/17/22

Step 4 of Initiation Sequence: "The effects of the ability (if not canceled in step 3) complete their initiation, and resolve. The card is regarded as played (and PLACED IN PLAY, or in its owner's discard pile if it's an event), and the ability is considered resolved simultaneously with the completion of this step." (Emphasis mine.) This should at the very least clarify, that it is impossible to play a Backpack with "Geared Up", then play other items, then finally do the search from Backpack. — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

So, imho no: It is not possible, that all cards are played in sequence, but enter play after the Geard Up effect has finished. Because that is established as part of the initiation sequence. Of course, if the reaction trigger from Backpack would create a lasting effect like "at the end of the turn, when Backpack enters play: Search...", it would be different. But as written, it's now or never. — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

Personally, I do think, you should be fine treating it as a nested sequence. But I can see, that an official clarification would be desired. I wouldn't say, I'm hungry playing this card, even if the interaction with Backpack and Schoffner's being fully possible. I think, it's more of a trap card even then. — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

Respectfully, Susumu, the rationale you outline for Safeguard (2) is flatly false. Each time one investigator moves and one or more others Safeguard him or her, you have multiple simultaneous initiation sequences in which legality must be checked, costs paid, etc, just as you have with this card. In the case of Safeguard (2), we have all been allowing multiple initiation sequences to occur simultaneously since the card came out without any fuss. That card is actually the precedent that some players have said does not exist for simultaneous initiation sequences. The question of whether it is possible or precedent Ed for Geared Up to create simultaneous playing of cards is therefore conclusively answered. The only question that remains is whether this card is intended to have a “one-at-a-time” clause written somewhere on the card but it was just left off for some reason. That rationale strikes me as a stretch. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/17/22

If for example multiple people move due to the initiation of Safeguard (2) into an unrevealed location, from my understanding there can be only one investigator, who triggers "After you reveal" effects (on the location itself or cards like "Whitton Green") and engages enemies at that location. This also must be the same player. Of course, abilities that trigger "when you enter" or "when you leave" have to be dealt by all investigators. Unless they are on an attachment, that gets discarded on activation. Would you say, that if one investigator safeguards another one into "Dining Car" from ECC, they would both spawn a "Grappling Horror" and draw it? — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

I guess, why you are hanging your argument on Safeguard is the unusual, undefined (in the RR) use of "as", rather than "when". Has there been any official clarification, why this word precicely had been choosen? My guess would be, that it was rather sloppy wording in the vein of "immediately advance". But maybe, it's true, and MJ confirmed, that she choosed it to make a precedent for cards to be playable simultainously. But then I would ask: where did she state that? — Susumu · 383 2/17/22

@Susumu, of course you are right that when Safeguard (2) has multiple investigators moving to a location simultaneously, you do not need to duplicate or cancel any of the costs or effects attached to the movement. The world keeps spinning just fine and lead investigator decides how to handle (and sometimes, who handles) simultaneous effects. This is that. Geared Up allows multiple cards to be played at once just as Safeguard (2) allows multiple investigators to move at once. These cards may have costs just as moving may have costs (such as Arcane Barrier, Frozen in Fear, or Through the Ice create). They are paid simultaneously. This may lead to lots of forced effects or reactions. They are handled in the order decided by lead investigator. The rules are all already in place. There is no difference. In your most recent post you make the point that the Arkham Horror system doesn't have a lot of simultaneous effects like this and that it's unusual. I agree it's unusual and I would entertain arguments that cards like Geared Up and Safeguard (2) make players' brains hurt too much and so they shouldn't exist. But this card is like that card, except that there is a potentially awesome combo that could exploit this card if we changed its wording to "one-at-a-time" which seems to me to be partially responsible for players' desire to read something extra into this card that isn't there. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/17/22

As to why MJ used "as" rather than "when," I believe the answer is that "When" would create a situation in which the Safeguarding investigator would move before the Safeguarded, whereas "After" would lead to after. "As" makes the movement truly simultaneous, which I think we should assume is how MJ wanted it to work. That's what makes it such a good precedent for this card; it proves that simultaneous initiations of this sort are explicit choices of the designers, for which there is already a precedent. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/17/22

I only needed to read the first sentence. Learn to read , please. I only assuming the nested sequences as a true fact, I am not sure about the simultaneously thing, even though I find it more logical. And as I said, this is too much tiring a repetitive. And if you be respected, respect first. Because by the first day are insulting all that not think like you. — condedooku · 2 2/17/22

And to finish this too long post. I think that there are not enough rules to be sure that the cards enter simultaneously. But most of the games do not let this to avoid problems. For example, what happens if you play two allies or four hand slots, which one enter first? And which one is the last one is the last? You can use the revelation abilities of all of them? I think it does not make sense playing simultaneously and it can carry more problems. This is why other games rules states that the cards are played one by one. Card games copied by Arkham Horror LCG btw. — condedooku · 2 2/17/22

believes that investigators can use the fast window that is occurring at the exact same timing point, mid-Geared Up. Well, this is a good question, I think rules do not considered this case, but I cannot find any rule against playing fast cards, before, after or during. I reckon that during is not logical, and maybe I am wrong as I only fast checked the rules, but I do not think it make sense. Opposite to a revelation card played with Gear Up, the fast card is not a consequence or reaction of playing a card with Gear Up. — condedooku · 2 2/17/22

Not relevant here, but we have already events with modified cost based on your hand size. How should these even work, if you take "playing them simultainiously" into account? What, if they release item assets, that work like that, as well? They might as well errata "Ever Vigilant", like they did with "Laboratory Assistant", to remove the imho clearly unneeded clarification. But then again, they never did that with "immediately advance" act cards, and even released both flavours of the same thing in a single product (TDE deluxe box), years after they established the series. I still see no hard proof, that they ever intended to allow simultainious play of cards. But imagine, you do all the work necessary to build a wonder-deck, that with a half decent consistency nets you an advantage out of this card at the start of most games and still doesn't suck because of all off the plunder, you had to include instead of more useful cards. (I don't think, this is even possible without the use of cards like Backpack or Schoffner's.) Then you draw "The Devil • XV" as your random weakness. I think, I would resign the investigator after the first scenario and start from scratch. This weakness would not only make you loose your first turn, if it should come up before the mulligan. It would also cripple your mulligan. So how bad can a card be designed? It's clearly off limits in TFA, because of "The City of Archives" special rules. It can help you fall off the train in Dunwich. Or have a turn 3 "Masked Hunter" in "Midnight Masks", if you are the one to deal with Acolytes on turn 1 in a multiplayer game. So we clearly need a ruling to devalue the one thing, this card is good for. /Sarcasm off. — Susumu · 383 2/18/22

Well, I do not get some of the points Eudaimonea made.... — Scythe · 1 2/18/22

Coming to your example of Safeguard (2): You are telling me, that Safeguard happens simultaneously, right? But the Investigator may choose whom to give the one and only monster that might spawn during to a phrase like: After you reveal this location... Why cant the Investigator choose whos card is played first, since this happens simultaneously too? Else I do not understand your example. If Safeguard happens one after the other and you might choose the order, then this is no example of simultaneasly happening stuff but effects that happen at the same time and therefore can be ordered in the invastigators favor. If it is truely simultaneously, then Investigators would not choose the order but execute both investigators revealing the location. Therefor spawn two Monsters (Or sometimes two Locations) Safeguard seemes quite a bad example to me. — Scythe · 1 2/18/22

Furthermore, you said that playing cards simultaneously does not break the game. playing items simultaneously might not. But what happens when I play "I'm outta here!" and "see you in hell!" at the same time? Making it even more fun with Delve Too Deep? Since everything happens at the same time, I may not choose the order. Am I deafeted, get one Victory point (but do not draw an encounter card? maybe?) and even might win and lose the Szenario, since I can reach differend endings while doing so? Am I getting both endings or only the first one that comes up? So printing a card that makes you play events "simultaneously" would actually break the game. If playing a card is always a sequence, then I can always choose the order and therefore create a nested sequence while executing the first cards effect. There is one "But" though: If you are telling me that you are talking about "simultaneously" but the invastigator can still choose the order (and your example of safeguard makes some sense to me). If this is the case would you execute the complete ability on a card (wich playes events simultaneously) first before ending the game? (Imagine that playing being alone) If Yes, then I do not understand how "I'm outta here!" and I'll see you in hell interact. If no, then, since there are cards that have forced effects when the game end, there should be time for the full effect of all played events to resolve. In that case I again do not understand how these cards interact. As I imagine how the game works (and im not a professional) One plays the cards always one after the other. Therefore not beeing able to play other cards after one played "I'm outta here!" or "see you in hell!". — Scythe · 1 2/18/22

My thoughts exactly: if it was a true simultaneously move, all triggers from revealing the location should happen to all investigators. E.g. in case of moving to the Dining Car in ECC, both investigators should draw a Grasping Horror. (Unless of course, there is already one on the board, in which case searching the encounter deck and discard would wiff.) I think, the intention of "as", rather then "when" was, that "when" would automatically lead to the guardian going first, while with "as" you have an individual choice on each move. Regardless, there is no "as" on "Geared up" anyway. By the way, I believe, the reason, that they made an errata for "Laboratory Assistant" and not the "immediately advance" act cards is, that with the LA the meaning is self explanory. You only ever check the hand size in the upkeep phase and can go well above any time else anyway. So the "clarification" means nothing. If they would errata the "immediately advance" acts on the other hand, people might guess, that in absence of that, people may choose to not advance immediately, which would be not only superfluous, but downright wrong. In that vein, an errata on "Ever Vigilant" could as well missleading people to thinking, that now "playing cards simmultainiously" nonsense applies to this card, too. So my guess would be, that in this case, they will hopefully release a FAQ clarification at some point, but likely not errata either of them. — Susumu · 383 2/18/22

BTW any one knows what happens if you play two allies or four hand slots? Because if you have all the slots filled you can play assets unless you discard them simultaneously. But, if we accept that the card with Gear Up are played simultaneously, you can play 4 hand items or 2 allies and you are not breaking the rules. Or am I missing something? — condedooku · 2 2/18/22

@Scythe, it is absolutely the case that the Safeguard (2) investigators move simultaneously. I believe that if you consider how you play the card, you will realize that you are already playing it that way. It's uncontroversial that the Safeguarding investigator may engage the enemies at the new location, right? So there is no way the Guardian is moving second--he is either going first or at the same time. So far, we're kosher, I hope? So let's explore the possibility that the Guardian goes first: this would mean he would need to take all the Forced effects and punishments and "as you reveals" at the new location. It would also mean that if a location has a cost such as an Arcane Barrier attached to it, the Guardian would have to pay these first and move first, opening the real possibility of the original moving investigator failing the test or not being able to pay costs and therefore not moving at all--using the Safeguard to effectively shortcut the guardian foreward. Do you play it that way? Because I haven't met or seen anyone play it that way. Finally, as to your question of simultaneous events, I agree that would get trickier. Perhaps that is why there isn't an effect in the game that allows simultaneous events to be played. I don't believe it will clarify our discussion of this card to conflate it with such a hypothetical. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/18/22

>> to your question of simultaneous events, I agree that would get trickier. Perhaps that is why there isn't an effect in the game that allows simultaneous events to be played. << As far, as I'm concerened, there also is noconfirmed effect in the game that allows simultaneouse assets to be played. You claim, that "Geared Up" is the first instance, where this is granted. But neither proofs the RR, that something like that is intendeded to happen, nor does the card itself gives a reason, why it should behave so out of place. The only argument you give to found this claim, is that another card would have been worded differently (without a seemingly unnecessary clarification). But seemingly unnecessary clarifications have been given on other cards before, whithout breaking the general rules for all other cards without this clarification. — Susumu · 383 2/18/22

Eudaimonea is right with the Safeguard (II), the cars says 'as' and the word entails simultaneity. Despite the fact of that I do not think there are any similarity with Gear Up. I have already explained the main problem that I see, which is playing more slot items than available ones. — condedooku · 2 2/18/22

Well, Susumu, we might be at a place where we've all made our case and can agree to each play it our own way, though I would gently remind you that the "Grim Rule" requires players to play ambiguous effects according to whichever interpretation is least charitable to players, barring official clarification, which would certainly mean my interpretation should be preferred in the interim. I would also point out that my reference to Safeguard (2) was in response to your initial argument that because playing an item entails an initiation sequence, it was not logical or possible for two to be played at once. You said you did not see hard facts "that something like (simultaneous initiation sequences) should be allowed." I have therefore provided you a hard fact of simultaneous initiation sequences being allowed. Your new argument appears to be that you don't care because this is the simultaneous initiation of playing items and we so far only have simultaneous initiations of other types of things. Okay, fine. I will concede to one of your important points though: I admit that the absence of the "One at a time" clause does not definitively preclude the possibility that MJ will say, "Actually, I meant for this to be 'one at a time.'" Maybe that's the case. Until we have such a confirmation, I will play with the cards and rules as written. Judging from this thread so far, others will do differently. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/18/22

Well even by the grim rule, I'm in doubt if ignoring the "after x enters play" timing point, because of some so called simultainiously play of multiple cards, could be called the least favourable interpretation. What ever. — Susumu · 383 2/18/22

I understand Eudaimoneas "simultaneously" as something different then my "at the same time", even though it sounds quite the same. If the timing of effects is at the same time, these effects do not occur simultaneously but instead the investigator or the game chooses what goes first. I am understanding "as" as "when". The Investigator with safeguard moves after the other one but before the impact of the game state resolves. They are moving at the same time. In my point of view, it does not happen "simultaneously", since when you do not care who goes first, two player reveal a location and therefore trigger stuff. Eudaimoneas stated that only one can trigger the effect, so yes. we agree on how we rule these things but we do not agree on terms we use. Coming to Arcane Barrier: It ads a cost to your move so it is always the investigator without safguard who pays this cost. Additionally, if the cost cannot be payed because of a failed test, the safeguard investigator does not innitiate the move. I already found an example for game breaking mechanics when using simultaneous-play-possibilitys. You asked for an example and now it is not close enough to reality and therefore irrelevant. Alright. But what about the following thought: If the cards are getting played simultaneously and you cant interfer, then one breaks the game at the point of paying for the cost. First Check play restrictions, determine cost and whether it can be played. Then pay costs (says the rulebook). So we check for every card at once meaning we have 5 Ressources each time checking and can buy everything that costs 6 or less (-1 costs because of geared up). Then we Apply any modifiers and then we might not be able to pay the 2nd or 3rd card if we checked for two 5 cost cards. What happens now? we were never introduced to calculating the costs of all cards together and Appendix I strictly speaks of one singular card and even includes multiple costs on one singular card. What about cards like Small Favor? Can't you use their reaction ability in that case? So even item cards might never get effects that change their costs? Next thought: Why would someone play every card simultaneously and then execute each cards effect in a specific order? doesn't it make more sense to first think about the order and then play and execute the effects? You cleary never asked us to execute every item cards effect at the same (you even execute geared up one sentence by another). But do you use Appendix I to check for every card first and then start card by card to complete steps 1-4 or do you start with step 1 for every card and follow up by step 2? This brings the following situation to my mind with the card On Your Own. Yes it is no item but this is at least an asset. If playing simultaneously, can I play it with another ally that takes up a slot and keep On your Own in play until I resolve its effect at the very last? On Your Own only discards itself automatically after being in play (I use "after" since you tell us, that we cannot use any ability until our forced effect is over, so this discard effect has to take place some time later, if I understand you correctly). This means that at first Chuck Fergus, Lockpicks(1) and Laboratory Assistant (we have charisma, no problem there) could be in play simultaniously until we reach the point of following the instruction on On Your Own. Timingwise I am at the point that the forced ability that made us play these four assets is done( not quite over) and we are done with Chuck Fergus effect but Laboratory Assistant now lets us draw two cards. The effect of On your Own and Lockpicks did not happen so far. Now we draw our weakness wich happens to be Overzealous. We continue by drawing the encouter card and get an enemy. We play Fend Off(3). Can we exhaust On Your Own at this point to reduce that event's cost by 2? I mean we did not even look at that card before. But we did play it.... Since it is in play, should its effect work? but if it works then shouldn't it discard itself first? Would a forced ability on a card work at this time, even though we never got to activate their effect? we have not even been to the point where the effect of On your Own happend, so I have no clue at all about what should happen. But step 4 of Appendix I talks about ability still being usable after a card leaves play during the sequence... For everyone wonderung what chuck and the Lockpicks have to do with this: What happens if the second encountercard is a skill test? we clearly have a player window now and might play some tactic or trick card with chuck (At least I hope you will allow me to use him since I already played him with all his effects). we might even play Quick Thinking to immediatly take an action in order to get this player window. Could we use Lockpicks in that case despite Lockpicks not even being executed and therefore not having supplies? There are no supplies on lockpicks because besides being played, it was simultaniously with our other cards and we still try to complete other nested effects... but hey it takes some time. What happens when we use Act of Desperation with chuck or our additional action (there is an enemy at our location) and choose our lovely Lockpicks to be discarded? Can we even choose a card that did not even took place? And if so, do we execute the full effect of the card now or do we discard it without any effect, since it has no supplies or can we just not target this card even though it is in play? All these questions will come up if you make me play Assets simultaniously. — Scythe · 1 2/19/22

Got another one: Imagine there is an enemy at your location at the start of the game (This can happen since enemys might spawn at start of the game). We Gear up with Lucky Cigarette Case, Sword Cane and Necronomicon(5) in that order (its simultanious, I know but at some point we will need to choose the effects to occur in any order. While handling Sword Cane we can fight our enemy. Thus making a skill check and using Quick Thinking. We pass the test and draw a card with Lucky Cigarette Case (Its effect was ordered first). Drawing Overzealous. Now all the questions I asked before can occur. Can you use Necronomicon besides not being filled with secrets? Can Act of Desperation choose to discard Necronomicon after our Sword Cane effect as the free action from Quick Thinking? It is already possible to mess up the game, if we play cards simultaniously. — Scythe · 1 2/19/22

Scythe, at this point we should probably just agree to disagree. I’m extremely confused as to how you’re using this card to play Laboratory Assistants, Chick Ferguson, On Your Own, or the other wild array of non-item cards in the above examples. The only example in there I found in any way pertinent to the discussion was the Sword Cane + Lucky Cigarette Case leads to Quick Thinking and potentially a whole nested sequence of goodness. But that one is super easy to answer because the Sword Cane’s reaction is “after” so you’re well out of the Geared Up forced effects. I respectfully think you’re still failing to think through how you play Safeguard (2). If you want to treat “as” as “when,” then your Guardian needs to move after the original mover has paid costs but before he or she has moved, meaning the Guardian must, must, must take all of the “Forced” effects and “after this location is revealed” effects at the new location, as well as engaging all the enemies. You may not choose. If that’s how you play it, I will respectfully opine that you’re the only one who does so. Again, we’ve made our case and I’m happy to let you have the last word. Happy gaming! — Eudaimonea · 6 2/19/22

So what you are saying: Only a card like "Geared Up", that only allows to play Item assets, allows simultainious play of cards. But that caps your only "reasoning", why cards can be played simultainously. Because "Ever Vigilant" allows any asset to be played. So, by your logic, the clarification on that card would be still unnecessary. (What we could agree on. But I would say, the fact, that "Geared Up" only allows playing Items does not change a thing, regarding the general rules. "Traits have no inherent effect on the game", as the RR says. — Susumu · 383 2/20/22

I was not using geared up but any (not included yet) card to play assets simultaniously. But lets concentrate in the last example.You still do not understand the point. You think that just because stuff happens after the effect of the forced geared up (wich I think is wrong) it is going to be alright. Please explain me in that given example how to resolve the effects. Playing lucky cigarette case, sword Cane and necronomicon(5) simultaniously. First execute lucky cigarette case then sword cane creating a nested sequence due to an enemy and quick thinking. With that action I can play Act of Desperation and choose an item to discord to attack. Afterwards I execute Necronomicon. At wich point may I use Necronomicons effect or the card as a target? From the time I played it simultaniously?(Since I do execute in specific order, there are no secrets on Necronomicon at that point) So may I boost my skilltest from sword cane with it? Additionaly, may I choose to discard Necronomicon with Act of Desperation or did I chose the wrong order, when I dicided to execute sword cane first? Just adding pantalone to the Combo as last piece: at what point of time exactly do I draw cards? before attacking, while attacking, after executing it's effect and therefor after attacking? You suggest it to be after geared up ends. But when afterwards? Is it my choice and do I have to choose before executing sword cane? — Scythe · 1 2/20/22

Okay, Scythe. I will try to summarize how a Geared Up play of Necronomicon, Sword Cane, and Lucky Cigarette Case would resolve in a theoretical first turn during which you have an enemy engaged with you. First, you resolve the “forced” effect on Geared Up, paying the cost of all three items, then placing them into play simultaneously. Now that they have fully entered play, the “forced” effect of Geared Up has entered. (They do not have to be “executed,” which is an important term in the sequencing provided above, but which does not appear in the rules or on the cards.) At this point, all of the cards are in play. The Necronomicon has secrets on it and the Sword Cane has a reaction that can now be triggered to initiate a fight. You have no actions this turn but if you take the Sword Cane reaction and swing at the enemy on you, committing a Quick Thinking to the test and succeeding by 2 or more, you can take a bonus action and can draw a card from your Lucky Cigarette Case. If you want, that bonus action can now be to play Act of Desperation with your Necronomicon. If you spent all its secrets during these two attacks or during the free trigger windows that were provided, that may be an attractive option. No part of this is remotely controversial, as far as I can tell. Finally, if you choose add a Pantalone to the original mix of Geared Up items, you have two simultaneous reactions to optionally trigger: the one on Pantalone and the one on Sword Cane. As with all simultaneous reactions, lead investigator may decide. We are discussing, in short, nested sequences, which can get complicated because they allow timing windows to be held open for multiple game effects, but the sheer volume of effects does not in any way change the principle, which remains basic and consistent. I hope this sequencing makes sense to you. Happy gaming. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/20/22

*forced effect of Geared Up has ended*, not “has entered,” sorry. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/20/22

Alright. My very thanks. Now I finally got what you want to tell me. I always thought that there has to be an order. Because they are played simultaniously you instandly have in play every effect. Only some effects (the reaktion trigger of these cards) happen in a chosen order. Hence events still make no sense to me(you called it trickier). Additionally, if there is a forced effect(or maybe play restriction) what happens then? Someone playing black market and you get another hallowed mirrow to play. Can you play both copies (with relic hunter) since playing each on is own is legal and the forced effect on the card will trigger, when gear up has already endet? Since you choose the order of the two forced effects, there could potentially be a third forced one causing a nested sequence (like forced card draw) that makes you discard one of the mirrows. Then having played the second one is totally possible and legit and should not be forbidden beforehand. But if it does not happen (I think with todays cards it cannot) then the second time the hallowed mirrors forced effect happens, it has no valid targets and therefor should not be playable. Am I right? — Scythe · 1 2/20/22

And am I right that I may play hallowed mirror if and only if there exists a chance of me being allowed to play the second one? Well I am still unsure what to do in case it doesn't happen — Scythe · 1 2/21/22

Ohh, I Just had the thought that my question makes no sense with hallowed mirror. Can we change it into Nightmare Bauble? — Scythe · 1 2/21/22

No problem, Scythe. You’re right that I can imagine some simultaneous game effects creating huge problems, but so far we have simultaneous movements and with this card, apparently simultaneous items. This seems to me manageable, and I think we’re in agreement that simultaneous events would probably be bad for the game. As for potential “forced” effects on items from Geared Up, they would occur before reactions on those items but after the cards enter play. So in your hypothetical example where you want to play both your own Nightmare Bauble and your teammate’s (acquired via Black Market), you can definitely install both simultaneously. They will each create a “forced” effect to search for 3 bonded Dream Parasites. You can resolve whichever “forced” effect you want first, but it’s worth noting that because you only have 3 Dream Parasites in your set-aside bonded cards, only the first Nightmare Bauble will actually get attachments. The second will be a blank, useless card taking up your accessory slot, since you aren’t instructed to search your teammate’s bonded region. Finally, you may discover that you have too many accessories for the slot and need to discard one, in which case zip would recommend discarding the blank one, which it was pretty rude of you to install in the first place, considering your partner spent 3 XP on it and it would actually work for him unlike for you. In short, you basically had it right except that you spoke of not being able to play the card, whereas it’s more accurate to say you can play but not use it. — Eudaimonea · 6 2/21/22

Well, no one seems to know what happens if you play 4 items. — condedooku · 2 2/21/22

And it is annoying to debate with this guy. Let him house rule if he wants. Happy gaming. — condedooku · 2 2/21/22

Well, I really thought that you may only play Nightmare Bauble, if you have Bondet cards to attach, since it is a forced effect. In the future there might be more items, maybe even some with crazy costs or simular effects to events. That is why I will stay with my rules regardless of whether they get called house rules. I now understand how you want this effect to happen but I still do not understand the benefit besides making geared up worse. For me the risk of changing back to my solution due to new items is to high. For Safeguard(2) I feel something simular. Even though I do not know of any problem with walking simultaneously I do not understand the benefit of it. Whereas doing it in specific order(considering "as" as when) keeps my head clean. Then I know that always the active player pays costs and extra costs. The safeguarding player is only moving afterwards but before any effect happens and therefore is at the specific location to engage enemys first (if he chooses to and it has no prey). But in case of Safeguard it seemes to make no difference so it might not be that important whether you interpret like "when" or simultaniously. — Scythe · 1 2/21/22

Fair enough. Happy gaming! — Eudaimonea · 6 2/21/22

I think this has to top the arkhamDB rankings for "most comments under one review" — snacc · 1037 3/1/22

Two months after and we still do not have an official response. — condedooku · 2 4/19/22

Well, it seems clear now. @Eudaimonea obviously was wrong. — condedooku · 2 5/18/22

Is this the AHLCG equivalent of bodybuilders arguing over the number of days in a week? — Soul_Turtle · 506 5/20/22

(aforementioned argument for those who haven't had the fortune of seeing it yet: https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=107926751) — Soul_Turtle · 506 5/20/22

What kind of trolling is this? — condedooku · 2 5/24/22

What is clear now is that in addition to being more polite, clear and having a better grasp of English, Eudaimonea was also right. In order to have it be interpreted the way some players wanted the wording needed to be changed. Notably an eventuality he predicted himself! — gustafusus · 1 8/27/22

@gustafusus NO. First, Eudaimonea was not polite. And the card ruling was obvious. The errata is needed for people who do not play card games and cannot understand how they work or for people who thought it was a powerful mechanic, spoiler: it is not. Anyways, you can’t please everybody. — condedooku · 2 9/14/22

I lost three actions just scrolling down here. — DerBK · 2389 9/15/22

@DerBK lmao — CreatingControl · 2 1/7/23

DerBK, I love you and your wonderful website. — Eudaimonea · 6 6/2/23

@gustafusus, thank you for the gracious words. — Eudaimonea · 6 6/3/23