Fortune or Fate

So for 16xp you can have two copies of this, two flares and two deja vu's.

Would you spend 16xp to block 2 doom and flare twice per game?

while blocking a doom isn't entirely the gold pocket watch its pretty close, and i think the gold pocket watch is amazing, so for the same price per doom block you get flare instead of skipping mytho's draws, I want to get this card and try that deck out so much.

Zerogrim · 296
The card says ‘Max 1 per game.’ So you can only lock 1 doom per game. Unlike limits, maximums are shared across all copies and instances of a card in the scenario. — Death by Chocolate · 1484
I ammm bliiind O well *shrug* — Zerogrim · 296
Good news! Thanks to Burn After Reading, your idea sort of applies again! It just changes to "would you spend 16 XP to block 2 doom and testlessly discover 4 clues per game?" If you want a bit more certainty of hitting usable cards, take 2 copies of this as well and fire one off occassionally. Perfect case scenario, you'd block 3 doom per mission, though that's an extra 2XP each time it happens. Since all involved cards are L2 or less though there's plenty of people with XP acceleration that could use it... Preston, Wendy, Yorick, Parallel Pete (via Let God Sort Them Out, heh) come to mind. Plus ALL survivors just got Pelt Shipment, giving XP boosting towards buying new cards, and re-purchasing an Exile card counts. — HanoverFist · 756
Elspeth Baudin

Question here on how the patrol keyword works on Elspeth. If there is a memory on her current location, does she stay there or move? The rules say that patrol enemies move to a connecting location toward the nearest qualifying location... Does that mean a move is mandatory, and if the nearest qualifying location is the current one, the shortest path is off and back...? That would seem strange... Clarity would be appreciated!

Since patrol seems to be a copy of hunter and the rules for patrol are copy pasted from hunter I believe there is simply an omission of "if the enemy is at a valid location it does not move", that would make it work inline with hunter and with warring. this is the way I play with patrol enemies and I think it is the intended approach. — Zerogrim · 296
Unrelenting

This might be an interesting skill for (traditional, not parallel) Agnes Baker, if she uses Jacqueline's set of Spell assets. On expert you would need at least one in the bag to trigger the "draw 2 cards", but otherwise you would just have to seal the tokens, you don't want to pull on these tests anyway.

I don't really like Jackie's "replacement spells" that much, Azure Flame is fine (and for Diana with twice Arcane Research clearly the better card than Shrivelling), but Clairvoyance costs one XP more (though 1 resource less) in the upgrade path than Rite of Seeking and free movement from Mists of R'lyeh is more often useful than extra damage from Ineffable Truth, if you go for evading. It also shares the extra XP cost. But card draw is one of the rare things, aren't really good with, mostly being limited to Arcane Initiate and Guts. For 1 XP that looks like a bargain for Agnes to gain two cards and protect from undesired spillover effects. And that's probably enough to give Clairvoyance and Ineffable Truth the edge, they need for me.

Susumu · 382
can be used either way to draw cards when your dominating the skill check or remove the top 3 meanest token to pass the test . Amanda can abuse this and draw 6 cards ;p — Susu · 36
Cryptic Grimoire

I'll leave my original review down below, but like pointed out by Thatwasademo, the recent FAQ actually proved wrong my understanding of Uses. (And that from the people, who told me, that I should not have action-free translated the Archaic Glyphs with Astounding Revelations, when I played Mandy.) I still think, that 5 secrets are a hard ask for an effect, that does not even trigger before knowing, which card you avoid, and is trounced by the effect from A Watchful Peace from class in the same cycle, at least in multiplayer. Text of the Elder Herald is likely the stronger card of the two, but I'm now actually interested in translating the damn thing. I will update the review, once I have actual played with these cards.

Original Review:

So now Seekers have their way to mitigate the encounter deck just like a Mystic, do they?

Let's compare that to the staple core set Mystic card for that cause, Ward of Protection. It costs 2 resources and an action more to play, and doesn't cost you a horror. And I think, it won't be likely usable more than once, even if you play the card early. There are no "Uses (X secrets)" on the card, so you can't fill it with Astounding Revelations, Eldritch Sophists and the like. You only get secrets on this card, if you (not any player) resolve -token(s) during a skill test. You can't cancel the token(s) drawn either, and likely fail the test or at least gain one clue less than otherwise. So to charge up this grimoire once, you likely loose 2 to 5 actions. (On top of what your fellow investigators might loose, when they draw a .) It won't help, if you draw a on some other occasion, like Daisy playing Voice of Ra. You are paying 3 resources, a card and an action upfront to possibly save yourself an encounter draw and replace your card with a delay. This seems really weak for an unconditioned level 0 card, let alone something that requires 4 XP and a "quest" fulfilled earlier in the campaign. We probably shouldn't tax the 2 to 5 lost actions, because there should be other incentives to put -tokens into the bag than this card. It's OK, that different classes don't excel at all tasks equally. That's part of there theme and diversifies game play. Mystic's Astral Travel ain't a Shortcut, and that's fine. At least, it does not cost 4 XP!

Compared to the other Cryptic Grimoire, the 5 -threshold also looks unfavourable. This one is more to compare with Chuck Fergus, who is more flexible, grants a bigger discount, gives some soak and will likely be activated much more often in any given game. But at least he costs 1 XP more. I think, you still must reliable put at least 6 secrets on that one to get some use of it, which is much easier to archive than 10! (With 4 you only trade 3 resources, an action and a card to 2 resources and 2 actions, so basically buying an action for a resource, a card and some upfront cost.) I'm not really impressed with either version. "Quest cards" should give you something amazing for the extra effort. In particular since this one isn't the easiest to fulfil. I'm not sure, if I would take this path, even in decks heavily investing in to get some extra mileage out of them.

Susumu · 382
If want to control the encounter deck in seeker, use seeker scroll of secrets (3). Draw the last 3 cards of the enc dey, maybe discard one and put them on top in any order. Use Eldritch sophist, Adrianes twin,... to recharge it. Or versatile scavenge it. — Django · 5164
Sry for double post. I think both of these grimoires are good to generate secrets and move them with eldritch sophist to old book of lore 2, rook, scroll of secrets 3,...; Seeker has some ways to generate curses (Deep Knowledge, Stirrin up trouble) and their covenent allows them to ignore the modifier. — Django · 5164
I'm pretty sure you can use secret manipulation to get more secrets on this - the rules about uses only forbid putting uses on a card with a different uses(x) type, but they don't forbid putting them on a card that doesn't have uses(x) at all. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
If your intent for these cards is just to generate some secrets for other cards, you can sure get them for half the XP using "Shrewd Analysis", as it really doesn't matter which one you get for this. This might actually be worth it in a curse deck. "Astounding Revelation" taxes a secret roughly like 2 resources. So you would need at least 3 secrets to be put onto the card to come slightly above breaking even. Still, that's not the use I want for a quest card, that wastes actions on early scenarios. — Susumu · 382
@ TheNameWasTaken: the RR defines "Uses" as the keyword ability. Since the Grimoires don't bear the keyword, the rule for transfering uses onto the card does not aply. It's the same with the untranslated "Archaic Glyphs". You can't place secrets on them by any other means than the action on the card. — Susumu · 382
I think looking at this card in a vacuum is the wrong approach, sure in a vacuum 5 curse tokens are crippling, but throw in seeker covenant and instantly it turns from "fail five tests" to "exhaust a permanent five times". Out there right now is the potential for a curse cycling deck that never draws encounter cards and one day soon it will exist, but for now maybe the all curse build is still too far away. — Zerogrim · 296
Sure, the seeker covenant will help you pass the test, and even put the curses back into the bag, so you won't decrease the odds of drawing them again. Still, I doubt it would helf you a lot, to resolve 10 or 15 tokens. And 3 resources, 4 XP and a quest are to much to call for an asset, that has the "once per game" option to draw a card from the own deck instead of the encounter deck. This card would need despertly some support (like the keyword "Uses (0 secrets)." to get somewhere around being decent. — Susumu · 382
@Susumu That's the point - you *can* use secret manipulation effects on the lv0 glyphs, and you can use them here. If you can't, then Tony's bounty contracts don't work at all - enemies don't have "uses(bounties)" in their text boxes, after all. So either you can put bounties on enemies and secrets on cards without uses(secrets), or you can't do either and we have an investigator whose personal permanent is blank. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
@TheNameWasTaken It's just specific beats general. If a card specifically tells you to put a secret/bounty without "Uses", you can do so. — Nils · 1
*on a card without "Uses" — Nils · 1
Yeah, I think the fact, that "Bounty Contract" specifies to move them on enemies (not just cards) makes it apply the "Golden Rule", that a card text may contradict a general rule. When I was playing Mandy, I translated the Glyphs using the reaction trigger of "Astounding Revelation". And I was later taught, this was cheating. — Susumu · 382
But Bounty Contracts doesn't say ".. an enemy, even if it doesn't have Uses(Bounties)". It just says "an enemy". So why wouldn't the same apply for Astounding Revelation? — TheNameWasTaken · 3
That is a good point. Perhaps we need a collection of "Uses". Basically everything that is denoted as "Uses" on any single card is restricted. Everything else, like "Bounties", is not "Uses" and therefore doesn't follow its rules? I don't know... — Nils · 1
Check the recent FAQ on Enraptured if you're still confused about this point — Thatwasademo · 58
Official FAQ answer (see Enraptured) "You can technically add secrets to a card that doesn’t have uses, there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from doing that. Normally this won’t help you at all—if you add a secret to a machete, it won’t do anything for you whatsoever—but there exist cards that use secrets even without the uses keyword, such as the untranslated Archaic Glyphs and enraptured will surely combo with them!" — Mataza · 19
Olive McBride

Mary + Olive mcbride + Blessed Blade

Shockingly consistent support fighter who routinely just handles enemies that by all rights she has no business beating, throw in blessing of Isis, Paradox covenant or any other "when you draw an X" card and just watch the fireworks.

And even if that all fails, you are still just flooding the bag with blessing for your team anyway.

Blessing turn Olives weird probability of success into an autowin magnet, outside of Mary's style combining Olive and ancient covenant is a scary combo.

Zerogrim · 296
Hard to setup, tho. $5 and you still gotta fill the bag. — MrGoldbee · 1494
That’s what right of sanctification is for! I tried this build in war of the outer gods and it worked pretty well. That being said I think it’s pretty setup-dependent and I got quite lucky with my mulligan — Difrakt · 1327
5 dollars seems like a lot, but it's a weapon and an ally. 2 is pretty cheap for an ally and 3 is about average for a weapon. I'd say it's on the cheap side really — NarkasisBroon · 11
You’re paying 5r for a weapon that (still inconsistently!) deals +1 damage once a turn, and much less consistently can shoot for +1 other times. It’s definitely not a good deal if your goal isn’t bless-focused. — Difrakt · 1327
0xp, 5 resources, infinite blessing generation and once per turn massive boost to tests, seems pretty cheap to me, I dunno maybe I'm just crazy. — Zerogrim · 296
I'll see this and raise: Olive McBride + .35 Winchester. If 2 damage is good, 3 damage is better. I'm currently running this with my Charlie Kane deck, and it's working. https://arkhamdb.com/decklist/view/40432/chuck-kane-reverened-warlord-of-the-apocalypse-1.6 — MrWeasely · 42