Case File #2: The Limits of Sixth Sense

The phrase "as if" is an interesting one to see in card text. It instructs us to take something that is not true and pretend it is true for the purpose of the game. For example, when Stubborn Detective or Mind Wipe tells us to treat a text box "as if" it was blank, we pretend that text box is devoid of all rules text. For all purposes (and this part is important). This is the most common way the phrase "as if" is used in Arkham Horror: The Card Game - and also the clearest way.

    

The same phrase can be a lot less clear when we are instructed to treat something "as if" it was true for a specific purpose only. It is easy to be unclear on where the specified purpose starts and ends. This is the central question behind the case of Sixth Sense.

The Question

When investigating "as if" one was at a location (by Sixth Sense's ability), for what purposes are one at that location?

Discussions

This question was discussed on the Arkham Horror LCG subreddit, the MythosBuster discord server, and the Arkham Horror: The Card Game Facebook group.

Interpretations

The following interpretations are not mutually exclusive:

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of...

1. Determining the difficulty of the investigation (if they so choose).
2. Determining where the clue is discovered on success.
3. Determining which cards can be committed.
4. Resolving Chaos Token abilities.
5. Initiating and resolving abilities triggered by events that are a part of the investigation.
6. Everything, until the end of the investigation.

Investigation

There is a lot to unpack here. Let us start with the least controversial one: 

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of determining the difficulty of the investigation (if they so choose).

Since the card itself explicitly states that the player may use the shroud value of either location, we surmise that the player may use the shroud value of either location. However, it is unclear if the player would be able to use the chosen location's shroud if it was not explicitly permitted.

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of determining where the clue is discovered on success.

While it seems like the intention of Sixth Sense is to allow players to discover a clue at the chosen location, I take the unpopular stance that the player should not be able to as written. This is because all Sixth Sense's ability does is change your location for the purpose of the investigation. It does not change which location you are investigating. This is in contrast to In The Know, which indicates that you are actually investigating another location.

  

Changing your location during an investigation (for the purpose of the investigation only or otherwise) is more akin to playing Shortcut in the middle of an investigation. To that matter, a query from a previous player yielded the following response:

"You can play this card during a skill test. This will not interfere with the test in any way, the 'target' of a test is determined and locked at the very beginning of the test." - ArkhamDB FAQ

By the same logic, I extrapolate that the 'target' of Sixth Sense's investigation is determined and locked at the very beginning of the test and therefore is not changed by the ability, which only changes a player's effective location for this investigation.

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of determining which cards can be committed. 

It might seem weird that this is being discussed, since by the time Sixth Sense's ability triggers, the time for committing cards is long past. However, it is possible to construe an (incredibly twisted) situation where this interpretation creates a distinction. For instance, consider the scenario where Silas Marsh is playing The Labyrinths of Lunacy and is given Sixth Sense by Paradox Effect. He uses Sixth Sense to investigate his location (which does not have a clue), drawing a Skull that forces him to draw another Elder Sign token. He chooses a connecting location which has a clue for Sixth Sense's ability. Would he be able to use his Elder Sign ability to commit a copy of Inquiring Mind from his discard pile?

My interpretation is yes. Committing cards to a skill test is a part of the investigation attempt. Therefore, if a player is investigating as if they are at a location with a clue, they should be allowed to commit Inquiring Mind to that skill test. However, an equally valid argument can be made that Silas' Elder Sign ability is not a part of the investigation attempt, therefore he should not be allowed.

This has ramifications for In The Know as well. For instance, whether or not another investigator at the location targeted by In The Know can commit a card to the skill test. Those ramifications are better discussed in another article.

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of resolving Chaos Token abilities.

I admittedly have no idea whether or not this is true. Any interpretation of the above requires drawing a line on where the investigation ends and the rest of the game begins. An extremely conservative view might draw the line at "determining difficulty and discovering clue". However, determining the difficulty of the test is the first step of a skill test, and discovering the clue one of the last. If the first and last steps are treated as if the player is at the new location, is difficult to argue that the intervening steps (including the committing of cards and resolution of chaos token abilities) are not treated to be at the new location. For a concrete example of this, refer to the poll in the follow up section below.

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of initiating and resolving abilities triggered by events that are a part of the investigation.

Similar to the statement above it, the interpretation of this statement depends on where the investigation ends and the rest of the game begins. The difference is that this statement seems much less likely as it is a lot harder to justify that triggered abilities on cards completely unrelated to the investigation are a part of the investigation. However, if we take this to be false, we are once again faced with the unenviable task of drawing the aforementioned line. With nested sequences, drawing a line here can create weird situations where the player is treated to be at the chosen location, then not, then at the chosen location again. For a concrete example of this, again refer to the poll below.

The player is at the chosen location for the purpose of everything, until the end of the investigation.

Finally, this statement serves as a counterpoint to the extremely broad view. Unfortunately, this also appears to be the only way to avoid an interpretation where a player can be treated as being at the chosen location during parts of the investigation and not during others. If the player is at the chosen location for all purposes, it means that the player engages enemies at the chosen location. It means the player may move from the chosen location. Indeed if the player is able to inject actions into the investigation, it means that they may do battle against enemies at the chosen location - all the while still remaining at their current location. It is my opinion that this cannot be true, yet it is difficult for me to decide where the line must be drawn before this.

Limitations

The foremost limitation when it comes to interpreting Sixth Sense's ability is the lack of precedence or relevant FAQ/rules entries. It is difficult to surmise the intention when there are no other cards that do the same thing to point to.

Additionally, many interactions are not covered here. For example, if you choose Serpent's Haven for Sixth Sense's ability, would you take a damage if you are poisoned? What about Orne Library, would you spend an additional action? Does it matter which shroud you choose for the above cases?

Finally, conducting a poll for this was difficult. In the end, I concocted a contrived scenario that covered most but not all of the interpretations discussed above and questioned the outcome. Even then, the poll was not conducted well - the discussions surrounding the poll indicated some major misunderstandings that will be noted below.

Follow up

A few days ago, I posted the following image to the Arkham Horror: The Card Game community at large (link to large version).

The results from the Arkham Horror: The Card Game Facebook group and the Arkham Horror LCG subreddit can be found here. The results from the MythosBusters discord server here. The results are congregated below, with a mental note to conduct a single poll for all three sources in the future.

At the time of writing, "1, She can investigate Cellar against a difficulty of 1 and pick up a clue there" had 63 votes for and 4 votes against.

• This is perhaps unsurprising, despite my personal interpretation to the contrary discussed above. It appears to be the intended way to use Sixth Sense.

At the time of writing, "3, She can investigate Hallway against a difficulty of 1 and pick up a clue there" had 45 votes for and 12 votes against.

• This statement was likely unclear. It seemed that many members of the community interpreted this to mean that Agnes does not have to choose to use Sixth Sense's ability. The question was intended to ask whether or not Agnes can investigate the Hallway despite having already chosen Cellar for Sixth Sense's ability. Perhaps a better way to ask this is whether or not Agnes would be able to use Sixth Sense in the Cellar, choose Hallway, then discover a clue in the Cellar with Hallway's shroud.

At the time of writing, with regards to the question of "Would Agnes take damage and horror from the tablet token" had 39 votes for she would not, 12 votes for she would, and 7 votes for she may choose whether or not she takes the damage and horror.

• At least some who responded "She may choose..." likely meant that Agnes may choose not to take the damage and horror if she does not choose Cellar for Sixth Sense, where the question is intended to ask about what would happen if she already chose the Cellar. Nevertheless, a sizable minority seems to consider the resolution of the Tablet token a part of the investigation.

At the time of writing, "8, Upon taking 1 damage and 1 horror from the Tablet token, she can use her reaction ability to deal the Ghoul Minion 1 damage." had 12 votes for.

• An option was not provided to the contrary. That was likely a mistake.
• This represents a majority of respondents who indicated that Agnes can at least choose to take the damage and horror. This result suggests that most who consider the resolution of the Tablet token a part of the investigation also consider any abilities triggered by Tablet token to be a part of the same.

Finally, at the time of writing "9, 'As if' is a clear way to represent Sixth Sense's ability" had 40 votes for and 24 votes against.

• This is the question I am most interested in - how many players think Sixth Sense's ability is communicated clearly. To that end, this question could be worded better. It is possible that some players found Sixth Sense's ability unclear, but did not think the phrase "as if" is responsible for it.
• While the majority of respondents found the phrase "as if" to be a clear way to represent Sixth Sense's ability, a large minority did not. It is my belief that rules text must be clear to at least 90% of the players and ideally more - a bar which Sixth Sense fails to meet.

Case File #1: Trains and Tracks

The Case Files is a place for diving deeply into specific rules questions. In each case file, I will look at different interpretations for a single question - including any precedence before them, any arguments supporting them, and any ramifications that follow them.

This has its limitations. While I endeavour to find and understand all of the different interpretations and represent them fairly, this is not always possible. Similarly, though I try to be unbiased, I often have one or more interpretations I personally favour, so take any endorsements of interpretations with a grain of salt. Finally, the interpretations presented here are not the official rules of the game, nor is this blog intended to supersede the official rules. It is simply a reference point for discussions before an official ruling is established.

With that out of the way, let us delve into our first case.

Of Trains and Tracks

Joe Diamond takes a swig from his trusty flask - he'll need the rest of it before the night is done. The case is laid out before him in a mess of notes, newspaper clippings, photographs, and other evidences. "The answer is in here somewhere", he thinks to himself, but nothing seems to make sense. He takes another swig. "Maybe I should start from the beginning, see what I've missed".

It all began when a man walked into a train car, wearing steel studded shoes.

The Question

Does Track Shoes' [react] ability resolve before an ability with "Forced - After you enter a location", such as the one on Passenger Car?

Discussions

This question was discussed on the Arkham Horror LCG subreddit, the MythosBuster discord server, and the Arkham Horror: The Card Game Facebook group.

Interpretations

1. Yes, Track Shoes' ability resolves before abilities with "Forced - After you enter..."
2. No, Track Shoes' ability resolve after abilities with "Forced - After you enter..."

Investigation

On the surface, this interaction appears clear enough. Thanks to the following rule:

For any given timing point, all forced abilities initiated in reference to that timing point must resolve before any [react] abilities (see below) referencing the same timing point in the same manner may be initiated. - Rules Reference

It seems clear that since Track Shoes' ability must trigger after Passenger Car's, since Passenger Car's  ability is Forced.

But are the two abilities initiated in reference to same timing point? Passenger Car refers to "After you enter..." whereas Track Shoes refer to "After you move...". Are these the same timing point, or is one before the other?

To that end, the most relevant rules entry seems to be:

Any time an entity moves, it is considered to leave the previous location, and to enter the new location, simultaneously. - Rules Reference

This does not conclusively answer our question, but seems to hint that a "move" is composed of leaving and entering at the same time, so after the move is the same time as after you enter.

However, even if "After you enter..." and "After you move..." are the same timing point, Track Shoes actually refers "After you move, but before enemies at your new location engages you..", which is either a different timing point entirely or at least a different manner of referring to the same timing point. So we still need to determine which one happens first.

Since Track Shoes' ability resolve before enemies engage, we can use this as a reference point. If we can find when Passenger Car's ability trigger in relation to enemy engagement, we may be able to use it to determine when that ability trigger in relation to Track Shoes'.

For this, we turn to Graveyard. While there are no Rules Reference or FAQ entries on this, a question submitted by a community member yielded the following answer:

If there are any ready enemies in the Graveyard when you move there, they will engage you even before the Forced ability resolves. So if you fail the test and choose to move to Rivertown, they will move with you. - ArkhamDB FAQ

  

Extrapolating from this, it seems that "Forced - After you enter" abilities do resolve after enemy engagement. Since Track Shoes' ability resolve before enemy engagement, I conclude that Yes, Track Shoes' ability resolves before abilities with "Forced - After you enter...".

Limitations

It bears repeating that my conclusion is one of two (or more) interpretations that I personally favour. It is not an official ruling. It is not a community consensus. It is the conclusion of one investigator who spent too much time reading into the question and the discussions surrounding it.

In particular, my conclusion hinges on "After you enter" and "After you move" being the same timing point. It could very well be that since entering a location is a part of moving, a player enters a location before they finish moving. If this is the case, any abilities with the timing point "After you enter" may resolve before any abilities with "After you move".

Ramifications

Track Shoes' ability resolving before abilities with "Forced - After you enter" has a few interesting implications on some card interactions. Namely:

• With the original example of Passenger Car, it means an investigator with Track Shoes may enter Passenger Car, activate Track Shoes, then use some effects (perhaps Drawing Thin) to find relevant icons before having to discard or take horror from Passenger Car's ability.
• Fieldwork would not be able to provide a bonus to Track Shoes' skill test.
• Track Shoes would allow an investigator to enter Le Marais and leave it before its Forced ability resolves.

Follow Up

The question is put to a vote in the MythosBuster discord server, which at the time of writing had:

• 11 votes for Yes, Track Shoes' ability resolves before abilities with "Forced - After you enter..."
• 3 votes for No, Track Shoes' ability resolves after abilities with "Forced - After you enter..."

The same vote was conducted in the Arkham Horror: The Card Game facebook group, which at the time of writing had:

• 8 votes for Yes, Track Shoes' ability resolves before abilities with "Forced - After you enter..."
• 34 votes for No, Track Shoes' ability resolves after abilities with "Forced - After you enter..."

The question was submitted via the Fantasy Flight Rules Questions form by the Discord user dr00 on the 25th of August, 2019.

Preamble

The purpose of this blog is to document the discussions surrounding rules questions in Arkham Horror: The Card Game. It seeks to record various interpretations, the reasons behind those interpretations, any queries submitted, any conclusions drawn, and any consensus reached.

But why?

The first deluxe expansion for Arkham Horror: The Card Game - The Dunwich Legacy - was released in January of 2017. With it came the Rogue skill pictured above, Double or Nothing.

What this card is meant to do was clear enough - it lets players gamble by raising the difficulty of the test in exchange for a bigger impact. Instead of discovering one clue, you can discover two! Instead of dealing one damage on an attack, you can deal two! It is a wonderfully thematic card, playing into both the Rogue faction's go-big-or-go-home identity and the back of a restaurant card room theme of The House Always Wins, one of the scenarios that came with The Dunwich Legacy.

Then the rules questions started

Those rules questions deserve their own post, but Double or Nothing still holds the reputation to date as one of the most problematic cards. Nevertheless, it got its own entry in the February 2017 update of the FAQ. A few rules questions still remain, but the FAQ entry was mostly effective and prompt.

Yet many more questions remain unanswered. Are story assets player cards or encounter cards? Where are event cards while they are resolving? Can you activate Fieldwork when moving with Duke's Investigate ability and immediately get the bonus? If Diana Stanley shoots an enemy with .45 Automatic (2), when can she trigger her ability to put the weapon under her card (and does it matter if that enemy has Retaliate or if the attack succeeds)? How does Double, Double work? Most recently, does Track Shoes' ability activate before or after Passenger Car's? The list goes on and on.

Most of those questions have been submitted through the Fantasy Flight Rules Questions form, some of them many times. However, a conclusive answer eludes us still. These questions surface from time to time, often to much debate. Each time they are debated, duplicate queries are submitted and little progress made, leaving the players frustrated and the game's staff swamped.

That is the motivation behind this blog. By documenting the prominent discussions surrounding oft repeated rules questions, I hope to  provide a starting point for future debate, or at least an accessible reference to past arguments. By documenting the conclusions drawn and consensus reached (if any), I seek to provide a suggestion for how the rule can be interpreted in the absence of official ruling. Finally, by documenting any queries submitted and who submitted them, I aim to reduce the load on the game's developers and hasten official responses to those queries.

Welcome to Crack the Case.