Just wanted to check that if All In is used on another investigator’s skill test the owner of the card is the one that draws the cards?!

The wording of the card makes this a little ambiguous to me at least....

thinking of using it with my current Preston deck and might use a friend to help me get the best results out of it....

Thanks!

I believe if you use All In on another investigator's skill test then you get the cards, not the other investigator. In other words it behaves like Overpower, which is described in the FAQ at the top of page 9:

"Q: Who gets the effects/benefits of a skill card committed to another investigator’s skill test? If I commit Overpower to another investigator’s skill test, do I get to draw 1 card, or does the investigator performing the skill test get to draw 1 card?

A: Generally speaking, the player who committed the skill card gets the effects of any ability on that skill card. In your example, you would draw the 1 card, not the investigator performing the skill test. However, if a skill card changes or adds to the results of the skill test itself, the investigator performing the test receives the benefit of that ability. For example, if you committed Deduction to another investigator’s skill test, that investigator would be discovering the additional clue, not you, because you are altering the effects of his or her skill test."

The wording is pretty poor, since it specifies "for each point you succeed by..." and yet (as @Assussanni correctly states) the overall wording will always benefit the person who commits the card, regardless of who is performing the test.

By a very strict reading, if you commit it to someone else's test, you get nothing at all , since "you" would refer to the investigator committing the card (per RR, "You/Your") and "you" would not be succeeding at all. However, in lieu of a developer answer or FAQ entry, I think the most logical approach is simply to read it as "for each point this test succeeds by" instead, using everyone's favourite passive voice.

I might be wrong but I think Take Heart is a good example of a card that affects the tester and not card owner. Unless I’m wrong.

Good point @Allonym , I hadn't read the card carefully enough and it is less clear than I thought.

Other cards which say "if you succeed by x or more" (e.g. "Watch This!" , Opportunist) also bear the text "commit only to a skill test you are performing" while Quick Thinking says "if this skill test is successful by 2 or more".

So, I don't know what it does do but I'm pretty confident in saying that it doesn't give the other investigator performing the test any cards!

Edit: The more I think about it the more I wonder if it was intentional. It is a Rogue card after all and it seems entirely in line with the design philosophy of Rogues being selfish. You could commit it to your friend's test that they're struggling to pass as two wild icons but you paid 5xp for it, of course you want to keep it for yourself and use it on a trivial test that may have no direct impact on winning the scenario so that you get a load of cards.

Thanks guys this is my take too! The wording is bad but I think the intent is clear!

never used it before, but with Preston and my group I think I can use it quite well at any time... even early on to get 5 cards and if I can get them before my turn even better!!

@Assussanni As flavourful as that is, I would hope that if that was the intention, it was more explicit - something like "if this is a skill test you are performing..." rather than hiding the interaction in the minutiae of the rules text. Regardless, you are absolutely right that it definitely wouldn't give anything to another investigator.

@Soakman Take Heart and Eureka certainly affect the person taking the test, not (necessarily) the person committing the card, and Self-Sacrifice can do. They specify "the performing investigator" rather than "you".