Card Reviews · ArkhamDB

Shrewd Analysis

Sorry, but I don't see one question: "Anytime you upgrade a card with the (Unidentified) or (Untranslated) subtitle, you may upgrade a second copy of that card at no experience cost. If you do, the two upgraded versions are chosen at random from among the eligible options. (You must still meet all deckbuilding restrictions.)" let's say I have 2 strange solutions. Do you need to have identified both strange solution before making the upgrade in order to be able to upgrade both, or does the second strange solution have not only 0 XP cost but also does not need to be identified?

--EDIT 2021-09-08: Writing information in the campaign log is

Effective for the whole campaign
Valid for all investigators taking part into the campaign. This means that:
- Several investigator can upgrade the strange solution (or another), even if only one "Identify the solution"

--EDIT 2021-10-27: remved part about my false interpretation of XP spared by shrewd analysis

8/23/21

el_kloklo · 1

I answer my own question, actually you never need to identify the second strange solution, the note you have written "identified the strange solution" does not go away when you upgrade a strange solution, no matter shrewd analysis or not. — el_kloklo · 1 8/23/21

Sidenote since its a campaign log note only one player has to do it per campaign... I think. — Zerogrim · 303 8/23/21

It must be recorded once per campaign. So other players can also upgrade without identityng — Django · 5244 8/24/21

I would record ist under earned story assets in the campaign log. So in my opinion every investigator have to solve it on its own. — Tharzax · 1 8/24/21

Identified cards aren't story assets. They say to write it in the campaign log. All investigators use the same campaign log, so any investigator can upgrade so long as one has identified it. — zrayak · 87 8/25/21

But we are not talking about card. We are talking about a condition for the purchase. In my opinion this is some part of a story so I write it under the assets/weakness section for each investigator in the log. And at least in the German translation they have chosen the singular for you. — Tharzax · 1 8/25/21

The effect instructs you to record a particular text in the campaign log. To upgrade the card the requirement is that the campaign log contains that same text. Who logged it isn't recorded, either by player or character, and isn't material to the upgrade condition. The tense of 'you' within the bit of text is irrelevant because it's a log entry being transcribed verbatim and checked for verbatim. — Yenreb · 15 8/25/21

Contrast with Doomed, which does specify to record its bit of text in the story assets and weaknesses section for your investigator, not in the campaign log generally. — Yenreb · 15 8/25/21

I like the idea of a side quest with a proper bounty (and i would never share ist with my lazy seeker colleague). But since the text didn't say where you should write it in the log each group have to find their own way ;) — Tharzax · 1 8/25/21

No they don't. When a card or scenario instruction tells you to write something in the campaign log, you write it in the body of the campaign log. The campaign assets section is only there to help with bookkeeping, and is not a place to write anything you are instructed to write in the campaign log. — zrayak · 87 8/27/21

You mean bookkeeping like the information that I'm allowed to upgrade my elixir or book? The weakness doomed works in the same way: you check if the phrase is written in the log (under assets) and if the condition is fulfilled you upgrade the card. — Tharzax · 1 8/27/21

Bookkeeping as in who's deck contains which story assets (as in, the ones the campaign gave you, like Lita Chandler). Doomed is written in the main campaign log, because it is a campaign event that a something is checking against. Because there is only one copy of doomed, it wouldn't even affect another investigator, so there's no reason to write it somewhere else. — zrayak · 87 9/12/21

Actually looking at it again, Doomed does specify using the earned story assets/weaknesses section to record doom approaches. Since translating/identifying don't specify, that just further cements that they are to be recorded in the main campaign log for anyone to use — zrayak · 87 9/13/21

The Secret Name

Review for the scenario, not the reference card. Spoilers ahead. I need to do some more research to get real numbers to back up feelings (or refute them).

I'm pretty sure this scenario is up there for my least favorite in all of the games I've played (everything but TIC and some side-stories as of writing). Having just played through this with two other players again, here's my attempt at trying to find out why.

1) This scenario is too damn long! Looking at the numbers, we have 4 + 6 + 8 + 8 = 26 turns on the agenda deck (although this will probably be less considering doom on Nahab). This feels long to me, but I haven't taken the time to compare it to other agenda lengths. Edit: A quick scan up through TDE puts 26 on the high end, most being 16-20 turns. On the act side, we have 3 (Act 1) + 1 (To unlock Gilman's Room) + 5 (Act 2) + a minimum of 2 (Act 3) = A minimum of 11 clues to run through the act deck. Again, I haven't had time to compare to other scenarios offhand, but this seems big when also taking into account the movement needed to traverse the witch house and the extradimensional spaces. Usually by the time I advance to Act 2 I am just exhausted by this scenario and wish it would end there. My investigator is usually feeling the same with the accumulated damage/horror from the whole thing.

2) The encounter deck feels heavily weighted towards . I feel like the game taunts you with all of the hexes having the discard ability if there's an exhausted witch at the location because there's exactly 1 witch enemy, she doesn't show up until Agenda 3, and you'd much rather get her off the board than exhaust her (at least before Act 3) in order to keep doom in check. Each hex is a (3), which can be quite prohibitive for some investigators. Hope your has some buddies! The consequences of not getting rid of them range from fairly mild (like Wracked) to fairly debilitating (playing a or and drawing Bedeviled).

3) The enemies. We've got 3 rats and a Brown Jenkin to start, with Nahab to follow later. Everything is fine and dandy until the agenda starts ticking up and you suddenly have ROUS (Rodents of Unusual Size) with 2, 3, 4, and finally 5 health. The rats are tanky! To be fair, they hit for just 1 damage, but given the scenario length, it adds up. I'm not sure what to make of Brown Jenkin. Do you take the time to kill him? On the one hand, he doesn't actively do anything, just make you cycle through your deck faster and boost his friends with +2 fight. On the other, he'll make sure you draw your weaknesses pretty quickly, and he's worth clues and experience. That said, nothing feels worse than taking the 2-3 actions to engage and kill the familiar just to have him come right back with Meddlesome Familiar. Similarly, defeating Nahab and immediately drawing Ghostly Presence feels terrible. The duo also come back regardless when you advance the agenda and act decks. Maybe you're expected to consistently evade Nahab?

4) This scenario feels like it was designed for investigators to lose in act 3. If you don't have a consistent means of evading Nahab, you're stuck tanking damage while trying to kill her decently sized health pool. For each turn you leave her up, that's another 1 clues you need to grab (likely off the 4 shroud Site of the Sacrifice). All the time, Jenkin is making sure you draw your weaknesses. Oh, I hope you didn't draw Pulled by the Stars!

5) Special mentions.

Strange Geometry: For some investigators, e.g. your dedicated fighter, this often effectively reads "You cannot move this turn. Take 1 damage and 1 horror." Rough.

Ghostly Presence: I had a bit of a perfect storm hit here which I feel the need to share. Obviously, this isn't typical so take it with a grain of salt. We had all 3 investigators at the same extradimensional location. Our encounter deck was low (~4-5 cards) and we just advanced to Agenda 3. And so we get the following events:

Agenda advances to 3, Nahab spawns in her room.
Encounter draw 1: Ghostly presence. Nahab moves to the location with all investigators. Everyone takes 1 damage and 2 horror.
Encounter draw 2: Ghostly presence. Everyone takes 1 damage and 2 horror.
Survive solely due to Tetsuo, cry a little on the inside while the digs for answers.

All this to say, I'm hoping for some serious revisions in the "Return To" version.

8/22/21

TheMathDoc · 26

Yeah this one is too long and Ghostly Presence is so painful I think it at least should've come with a test. Unfortunately the Return to version barely changes it: just some new locations for variation. — Nenananas · 277 8/23/21

Agreed. One of the worst scenarios in my experience, and I've played them all. — krifar · 25 8/24/21

Remember that other investigators can resolve treacheries that require an action to resolve. Your guardian with holy rosary 2 can resolve them to add some bless tokens to the bag. — Django · 5244 8/24/21

Gloria Goldberg

This is the least exciting investigator by far released for AH LCG.

The thematic encouragement to, yes, write your own story by removing one interesting part of the game is so disappointing that I cringe every time I remember that this card exists.

Don't get me wrong. I love this game so freaking much the hole inside of me fills up with little feathers of hope.

Dealing with monsters is an integral part of the puzzle. I don't want it simply removed. Just going around and investigating. I'd rather play a who-done-it game, that just mechanically simulate doing it. This is the case, where the power is so godlike, I have zero connection with the character. You are basically a god because you write the story.

When superman became too powerful the writers invented kryptonite.

Might as well make an investigator with 6-6-0-0. - or a dead one. Huge misfire. I will never play this gator. Ever. It's dead to me.

If the designers wanted to make a showpiece of a card, kudos to them.

8/21/21

ambiryan13 · 179

ok — MrGoldbee · 1559 8/21/21

You seem to be under the impression that a character with an ability that has no inherent game effect can completely control the encounter deck just by existing. If you played her, you would realise this is a mistaken assumption. — SSW · 219 8/22/21

"never played this card" and "this card is overpowered/useless" sadly sums up the arkham horror community. — Zerogrim · 303 8/22/21

Ah yes, the encounter deck simply does not exist when playing Gloria. — toastsushi · 69 8/23/21

Does not agree with that statement at all. You should probably play Gloria and rethink your review. — krifar · 25 8/24/21

Cool story, bro. Come back when you've tried her out. — Ensign53 · 3 12/9/21

… — Vicoforbes · 21 12/22/21

Sixth Sense

This card is bonkers. I really wish there were more ways to enable this card other than just Olive McBride. Oh well, I guess maybe then it would simply become too strong. Still... I can't unsee the potential of this card in the hands of Jacqueline.

8/20/21

darkseid · 4

Pair with Eldritch Inspiration. — MrGoldbee · 1559 8/21/21

Welcome to your yearly reminder that Curse of Aeons exists. — Zerogrim · 303 8/21/21

The First Oath

Thomas Dawson is really really strong. Like REALLY strong. So strong in fact, that he is able to go forward in time by 60 years and get his hands on a Glock 9mm. Isn't this supposed to be set in the 20's? How did nobody at FFG notice this?

8/20/21

snacc · 1063

I think they've overlooked it due to rule of cool; the Glock is a handsome gun. Diegetically though, there's plenty of ways it could have gotten to the past; the real trick is finding rounds that fit the chamber. — SGPrometheus · 867 8/20/21

He invented it — MrGoldbee · 1559 8/20/21

yea, he should have been holding a lightning gun for real historical accuracy. — Zerogrim · 303 8/22/21

It feels kinda weird to me that that the Colt 1911 has been for sale like 10-15 years already in this setting, while the Glock is 60 years away into the future. They look equally modern to a total weapon-noob such as myself. — olahren · 3788 8/23/21