GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 126.51
47.4% of Goal | left
We have dragged Reason from her Throne and set in her place the Empress of Dreams [liber Endvra]
Amor, sola lex
A couple fo weeks ago, a question about Evidence Destroyed was posted on BGG (link). Different opinions were shared about whether the card was able to target clues on the Fed track or not, and in the end, I asked dirrectly FFG for an official ruling.
Julia here with a rules question about Arkham Horror: the boardgame. The question relates to the card "Evidence Destroyed", released with the Innsmouth Horror expansion. The text on the card reads: "Mythos Ability: A massive conspiracy sets back the investigation. Discard all Clue tokens from the board". Is this intended to be that even clues on the Feds Raid Innsmouth track are discarded? The point is that usually when something happens interesting all boards, the keywords "In Arkham" are used, while in this case the card refers to explicitely "the board", thus it seems to refer to something of larger proportions. It's also true that the Feds track in Innsmouth is key to control the expansion board, and having a Mythos card removing all clues from the board (basically making a pain to gain the resources needed to win the game by sealing) should probably be enough of a penalty: discarding also clues from the Feds track means not only a huge delay on gaining clues to seal gates, but also that you don't have resources to protect yourself from the Deep One Raising track. Hence, the question: is the Feds track affected by this Mythos or not? And if not, in which way "from the board" differs from "from Arkham"?
Thanks for help, Julia
Yes, “Evidence Destroyed!” will purge the “Feds Raid Innsmouth” track of all its clues, as well as removing all other clues from the board. It’s a disaster, no doubt! At least no monsters move.
Note that clues that are on Mythos cards (such as Rumors) aren’t removed.
Enjoy the game!
Senior Game Developer
Normally I'd take any answer one way or the other with skepticism, but you were very clear in stating your concerns and consequences and interpretations. And this answer explains more than a simple "yes/no." Glad to have this cleared up.
Excellent. Thanks for following up on this. It looks like I played it right.