This is not a review so much as a response to the FAQ entry on the interaction between Mk 1 Grenades and Marksmanship. It ends with a statement that “the bonus +1 damage from Marksmanship would be dealt to the attacked enemy, and not to the other enemies at the location.” This is not necessarily true, it should be clear that the Grenades won’t deal ANY damage ‘to the other enemies at the location’ or even ‘the attacked enemy’ if you targeted an enemy at an adjacent location. Mk 1 Grenades damage ‘each enemy and each other investigator at YOUR location’ INSTEAD of its standard damage. Because it won’t deal any damage to the attacked enemy from the attack, it can’t deal additional damage for the same reason that Deduction can’t discover additional clues when used with Burglary or Unearth the Ancients.

If FFG wants the Mk 1 Grenades to work with Marksmanship, they would need to say ‘each enemy and each other investigator at the attacked enemy’s location.’ Or have Marksmanship work like Luke’s ability where you Fight as if you were there.

(If Marksmanship is used on an enemy at your location, of course the additional damage will apply if the condition is met.)

question: does this mean if I draw a -1 chaos token, and then a -2 with the additional chaos token, that these are summed together for a -3? Or does the "reveal and resolve" only apply to the effect of the additional chaos token, like drawing a tablet could cause you to take damage?

I am trying this card out in an evasion-focused Finn deck in multiplayer TFA (normal mode). It seems to be pulling its weight. This card seems a little easier to fit into decks than Improvised Weapon because most characters that will fight will want to trigger their Fight actions from an asset instead of from Improvised Weapon. You typically don't have an equivalent asset for evasions, unless you're using Stealth, which most players find only useful in solo mode.

The card also somewhat fits into "succeed by X" archetypes (in combination with Finn and Pickpocketing, etc.). Daring Maneuver paired with this card can help you occasionally evade another baddy and avoid annoying Alert keywords. It's not a mindblowing combo but can be helpful at lower XP.

I finally had a chance to try this card out yesterday on my blind run through the first Dream Eaters scenario. I'm playing Tony in a group that doesn't have a dedicated cluever so I'm running both Evidence! and Intel Report to help out on the clues side of things. This card really pulled its weight ! The ability to play an event that nets you clues while then attaching it to the Crystalliser and commit it again for 2 book pips on a subsequent test makes Tony into a pretty reliable clue-getter. Despite being the least clue-focused of our 3 player group I came out with more clues than anybody else while still breezing through the zoogs. Great card. Can recommend.

I do have a question about the interactions with a couple of cards though, which hopefully some of you more knowledgeable folk can clear up. Firstly, how would it interact with Ever Vigilant ? Could you play this as one of your assets after EV is played and then still attach EV to it afterwards or does the discarding of EV occur before the reaction effect comes into play ? Secondly, does the reaction effect only kick in immediately after you play the event ? For example, could you play Well-Maintained onto one of your guns and then a few turns later when it gets discarded attach WM or would that not be allowed ? Delay the Inevitable is another event that could be affected by this if it turns out to be a restriction. I'd assume that it would be fine, but the wording on the card is "after you play an event", which could be interpreted differently.

Seems like quite an interesting card with a lot of interactions and not totally clear rules for me, which I hope to clarify here. First of all, it's a Roguish version of Teamwork, but with some advantages. Disadvantages are also present, but they seem pretty minor to me. Let's talk about obvious advantages:

1. An awesome card in terms of action economy. 0-lvl, 0 cost. You trade one action, which is normally used to play one of your card, to play a card of your mate and to get two cards for the team. Unlike above mentioned Teamwork, it also gives something (two additional cards), not only provides distribution of already existed goodies among players.
2. Rogues are the richest faction, so it allows to save some resources for poorer mates, while providing the same benefit for the team. E.g. Guardian's Agency Backup: it may totally devastate a guardian, yet can relatively easily be played by many Rogues.
3. You can support your character's archetype with a card you normally cannot include in your deck. I haven't thought much about it, but Dark Horse for Leo Anderson or some cool weapon for Finn crossed my mind. And now regarding not very clear moments.
4. "To play a card under you control". Obviously, you cannot play a skill card, and it is clear with assets. But what does it mean to play an event card under your control? Just to apply its effect on yourself instead of the owner? It seems like this card allows to play events as well, doesn't it?
5. Attacks of opportunity. I read it as even though you're gonna play a card from your mate's hand which doesn't trigger an attack of opportunity (e.g. Dynamite Blast (2), you will get it because the initial event does provoke it and you apply an attack of opportunity before applying the effect of the card. If you play a card that also provokes an attack of opportunity, it will get you hit only once, as I understand, because you are doing one action (and it is the action that provoke attacks of opportunity) with several effects. There was also a question in comments whether you need to pay resource costs of the card you play. I decided to add the clarification to the review, since a friend of mine also asked the same: yes, you do.Tthe rules specifically say: "to play a card, an investigator must pay the card's resource cost and meet any applicable play restrictions and conditions." Sometimes cards allow to avoid paying the costs, then the wording "put into play" is used instead of simply "to play". Here are some examples: Sleight of Hand, Flare