Cover Up

Just in case it may be useful for someone. I've reached out FFG to clarify the following rules question: "My location has exactly one clue. I'm Roland Banks and Cover Up weaknes is in my threat area with three clues on it.

  1. If I use basic investigate action with Deduction commited to it, can I remove two clues from Cover Up in case of success?
  2. Can Daisy Walker with Research Notes asset in play, 4 uses (evidence) on it, remove all three clues from Cover Up and the clue from the location if she succeeds Research Notes' action test by 4 (she is in the same location with Roland and exactly one clue on it)?"


  1. No. Deduction doesn’t allow you to discover clues that aren’t at that location. If your location has 1 clue at it, you can only discover 1 clue at most when you investigate it.
  2. No. Like above, Research Notes won’t allow Daisy to discover clues that aren’t already on the location. But, Daisy could discover 1 clue with Research Notes to help with Cover Up.
chrome · 42
Hello! Can you share and forward the official ruling email (including questions and answers) you received to This is the mailbox of Frank, the official FAQ maintainer, and he will update the verdict you received into ArkhamDB! — Jacksonsu · 1
sent — chrome · 42
Tool Belt

I was trying really hard to find a neat combo with Kymani Jones's deckbuilding options and Tool Belt, since the last expansion (maybe the previous ones too, but I haven't played the game too much prior to The Scarlet Keys) seems to have hard-to-find interactions that are both quite strong and very fun to discover and play (e.g. demolishing enemies with Gray's Anatomy, Ancient Stone and Empirical Hypothesis, you can look this up in my review of Gray's Anatomy), and I think I've found something interesting. It is not necessarily tied to Kymani at all, but I think it works especially well in some of her builds.

The idea is all about the interaction between Tool Belt and Pocket Multi Tool that allows to bypass the "Limit 1 per investigator" text on the latter. First we play one of our Pocket Multi Tools and Tool Belt, then, when we have our second Pocket Multi Tool in hand, we attach the first one to Tool Belt and play the second one, which as far as I understand becomes possible because the text on the first copy is blanked, including the "Limit 1 per investigator" line. Then we can activate the first Multi Tool in our hand and once it exhausts switch it with the Multi Tool attached to the Tool Belt to get another activation during the same round. It also works with the Spring-Loaded upgrade, but you won't be able to use both Multi Tools during the same test. This neat trick, given that we have some upgrades on the Multi Tool, lets us get two Unexpected Courages every turn (or even two free copies of Lucky!). As I've mentioned, this works very well in a Kymani Jones deck that aims to utilize Chuck Fergus, Crafty and Pilfer to grab 3 clues for one action every turn, because two instances of +2 to skill value from two copies of Pocket Multi Tool should be more than sufficient to succeed by 2 on the Pilfer test to get it back at the end of the turn. Another reason why it is very good in Kymani is how Pry Bar upgrade can single-handedly protect them from nasty treacheries, bringing their already above average (for a rogue, naturally) to a confident 5 or even 7, if necessary.

There are definitely a lot of investigators that benefit greatly from having two Pocket Multi Tools in play, and I'm sure other deckbuilding enthusiasts will mention the most interesting combinations in the comments. I'll just say that interactions like this is what makes Arkham deckbuilding discoveries so exciting.

EDIT: As it was noted in the comments, this trick does not actually work :( I'll still leave the post here, hopefully to spark the spirit of discovery to find another way to get around that pesky "Limit 1 per investigator" line.

adogface · 4
It's great idea, but I think it does not work. It is because the second copy still has "limit 1 per investigator" and the first copy is still in play. It means the restriction of second copy, "limit 1 per investigator", is not satisfied. — elkeinkrad · 429
That is similar as the question if Daisy can add The Necronomicon: Petrus de Dacia Translation in her deck due to her signature weakness. That was resolved with additional rule from FAQ about signature card. — elkeinkrad · 429
But the Necronomicon issue is tied to card name which always stays the same, regardless of the textbox, and "Limit 1 per investigator" shouldn't apply if the textbox is blanked. It's not like we're messing with some core rules of the game by having two copies of a unique asset in play. It's basically as if we had two Lockpicks, or two .45 Automatics - nothing restricts us from doing that. Same thing for Pocket Multi Tool, if we can blank that first line in the textbox, and that's what the Tool Belt does. — adogface · 4
Ohh, wait, now I get it, damn, you must be right. That's tragic :( — adogface · 4
Lucid Dreaming

A copy of a card is defined by title. A second copy of a card is any other card that shares the same title, regardless of cardtype, text, artwork, or any other differing characteristics between the cards.

If Daisy has the bad Necronomicon in play, she can use this to search her deck for the good Necronomicon. Pretty neat!

Superstar · 4
Crisis of Identity

Lola Hayes' weakness has long been part of the reason she is never played. Not only is it bad, by nature of how Lola works she is almost always her own weakness. Until multiclass came out she st any given point in time could not use half her assets, but she's still bound to the same slot pressure of everyone else.

With multiclass cards being introduced and with her weakness being substantially nerfed in latest taboo, Lola may actually soon be a viable investigator.

drjones87 · 134
Preposterous Sketches

While usually Arkham Horror LCG is pretty good at avoiding power creep overall, or keep it at a minimum, this card has been hit full strenght by it: you cannot really justify using this in place of Deep Knowledge, when that cards costs zero and can also allow others investigators at your location to "take" your draws to draw cards from their deck instead, making that card even more versatile than Preposterous Sketches. And it doesn't even need for your location to have a clue, mind you!

This card is completely worthless if you have Innsmouth Cospiracy in your collection: about the only investigator who would run this in place of Deep Knowledge is Joe Diamond, who can reduce the cost to 0 by putting it in his hunch deck and play it without adding curses as long as he is somewhere with a clue

Even the upgrade isn't worth it, for 2 exp you reduce the cost of the card to zero: that is it. No extra skill icon, no removal of the clue clause, no extra effect: nothing. The fact you do not add curses is not worth the sheer versatility of allowing other investigators to draw, unless you are playing solo

About the only reason why I see anyone taking Preposterous Sketches over Deep Knowledge is because your team generates so many curses, you are not likely to be able to play this consistently (as you need to have 2 "free spaces" to put two curses in the Chaos Bag to pay the cost of playing the card, if you have 9 or 10 in the game you cannot play Deep Knowledge), which is honestly fairly unlikely even if you have a 4 members party all using curse-adding cards, as the high number of players means the curses will get flushed out at a quicker pace too.

So yeah, dead card: shame

"This card is completely worthless", immediately followed by "here's someone who can use it". You know, it's fine for cards to be niche. You also might not want to deal with curses, or have a none-Joe way of making this card free. — SSW · 196
Yes, one seeker out of ten wants it: surely that does save the card from being completely outclassed in every way. And mind you, Joe has to contend with the fact has to randomly draw it from his hunch deck first too, and is unable to hold the card for when he wants to use it. So while it has a niche, it's not a good one, nor one that saves the card from irrelevancy. Also getting 2 curses in the chaos bag is a significantly better deal than spending 2 resources in essentially every difficulty, especially if you are not making use of other curse-adding cards, as they may, worst case scenario, cost you 2 skill checks, or may not. A loss in resources means you can play less cards. The real only reason you would actually pick Preposterous Sketches over Deep Knowledge is because you are not playing with curses at all, which means you can't pay the cost and use the card at all — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15
A none-Joe way of making this card free, as mentioned by SSW, would be "Crafty". — Susumu · 302
It's true, but Crafty costs 3 exp, Deep Knowledge zero: it's already bad when a level 0 card outperforms another level 0 card of the same class, the fact it is also better than its level 2 upgrade in most cases is ludicrous. I'm honestly starting to consider Deep Knowledge should get taboo to be chained 3 exp — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15
I get what you mean Susumu: you are not just saying "get Crafty to play Preposterous Sketches", that would be ludicrously inneficent given you need to find both cards first. You are saying "you might as well include Preposterous Sketches instead of Deep Knowledge if you are planning to use Crafty, so you get zero downside for the draw", and it's a sound reasoning... But I disagree: because those two resources that replenish each turn could be played on another insight or tool on top of the draw from Deep Knowledge: in fact Deep Knowledge might help you draw another card you can play through Crafty in the same turn! That's especially likely if you are also planning to use Farsight too — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15
My group is honestly not a fan of curses, so this still has it's place. Failing a Pilfer play just because someone put in curses earlier feels bad man. — Nenananas · 228
I agree broadly, but I do think you're understating the cost of deep knowledge's curses a bit. Sure , there's lots of curse-mitigation cards available but they do cost deck slots and xp that could be used for other things. And you can't entirely control who draws the added curses and when- you could end up paying significantly more than 2 resources for your two failed checks! Equally because it won't necessarily be *you* that draws the curses, other players may end up paying that cost for you. Some people are OK with that dynamic but not everyone is lol. Either way, it's a card that expects other players to account for its costs in their decision-making way more than the "typical" card. So while it's definitely more efficient than the sketches, absolutely no doubt there, it's worth bearing in mind when you play deep knowledge that you don't know exactly what its full cost is gonna be or who will end up paying it .. — bee123 · 25
Norman can play it for 1, still more than 0 but less than 2. — bugiel_marek · 2
I really don't think comparing 1 vs 1 is a good idea. Nothing is forcing you to pick only one. Get them both as I did in my Joe deck. — bugiel_marek · 2
"you are not just saying "get Crafty to play Preposterous Sketches", that would be ludicrously inneficent given you need to find both cards first. You are saying "you might as well include Preposterous Sketches instead of Deep Knowledge if you are planning to use Crafty[...]"" You are right, that was exactly what I was saying. And, yes, that does not mean, you have to take "Preposterous Sketches" in every Seeker-Crafty-deck. But there can be reasons to do so, either to avoid the Curses, or to have additional draw, if you want that. It's far from an auto include, but not "completely worthless", either. There are reasonable decks, that still might want it. — Susumu · 302
@bugiel_marek Norman does deserve an honourable mention given paying 1 resource is around the same opportunity cost of adding 2 curses, but I think adding 2 curses is way better than paying 2 resources. I think using one Sketches in the hunch deck and one Knowledge in the main one isn't a terrible idea, but putting a copy for both might be overkill. However, because these two cards have such a similiar effect, they can be used to "go over" the limit of two copies per deck, which is relevant in Seeker "Big Hands" (especially those using Forced Learning) builds which care more about drawing and holdings lots of card than what those cards are — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15
@bee123 Looks mate, that's a good point you are making: no one likes to deal with the bad choices of another player, but the way I personally see it in my game group is that we take every chance to win, if possible: if we end up making things harder for each other, that is fine, as long as the payout is worth it. We just warn people ahead if we are doing something that could put other investigators at risk. I still do hold the idea though, on a pure value stand point, adding curses is better than spending resources, because the latter is a guranteed cost, the former may or may not be a cost. Sure sometimes it causes you to fail a treachery test you really don't want to or trigger a retaliate or alert and that sucks: but two curses are few enough you may not draw them at all during the scenario, and like any player worth its salt will overcommit or raise their stats in other ways if there are curses around during an important skill check — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15
And rogues specifically can very cheaply nullify most risk with False Covenant if curses are actually a problem — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15
Sheer mathematical efficiency isn’t the only way to evaluate a card. There are many valid reasons to put Sketches in a deck. For instance, some groups may prefer to play without curse tokens, or players may prefer Sketches because it’s a better thematic fit for their deck, or maybe a deck that has plenty of resource generation prefers not to risk the curse tokens. I would like it if reviews wouldn’t label a card dead or useless, but rather just explained the reasons why they aren’t playing the card anymore. — Pseudo Nymh · 4
@Pseudo Nymh Well, I did kinda explain why I think this card is dead, didn't I? Whether you agree or disagree is another story. Beside I refuse to get into the reasoning of building lore-friendly decks: that is a completely different beast based on subjective opinions. Makes sense putting Relentless on Nathaniel, but that doesn't make the card good — HeroesOfTomorrow · 15