Transmogrify

Transmogrify

Such a weird card that obviously rocks in Finn Edwards.

When to play it? Check if your location has enough clues (better in multiplayer, of course) and a higher shroud value than the enemy's evade value. That's it, you're good to go! Usually with Finn you are a bit better at evading that at investigating, anyway, so Transmogrify lets you gather clues with a higher chance of success and without spending an action.

Combine this with Bait and Switch or Gené Beauregard to milk the attached enemy even further by either moving clues to its location OR bringing it with you as you move to the next location yourself.

AlderSign · 435
Wait...with Transmogrify the enemy cannot move, so only clues can, even from or to the specific enemy's location!! — Piegura · 7
Corrected, thank you. — AlderSign · 435
;-) — Piegura · 7

Esoteric Method

Esoteric Method

Remember, you can't add more curse tokens to the curse bag if it's already full! Go full cursed/blursed, everyone can carry Dawn Star, Mystics can do silly things with Rod of Carnamagos and taboo'ed Ritual Candles, mitigate with Diabolical Luck, and throw around whatever else you want.

Wait... Amanda, what are you doing? Amanda, no.

Ruduen · 1026
Amanda has Promise of Power for 0xp. — MrGoldbee · 1502
Which forces her to eat horror if curses are out. Esoteric Method doesn't. — AlderSign · 435
There's a very much negligible chance that bag is full of 10 curses, and in that case you can just... not commit PoP to a test. — Gapaot · 1

Blackmail File

Blackmail File

Important to note that this is only the second slotless Tome asset ever printed, the first being Schoffner's Catalogue, and that means it earns consideration in exactly one deck: Parallel Daisy Walker! With Daisy's Tote Bag down it's very possible to get up to 7 or 8 on Parallel Front, making this a pretty easy test on Standard and even on Hard for most enemies. And as the other reviews have stated, making an enemy aloof can be more useful than a conventional evade in multiplayer settings, especially on a gator like Daisy who would otherwise be forced into teching in options like Mind over Matter or "I've got a plan!" to enemy manage.

mniksa3 · 5
The main problem is, that you might rather want the original front due to the extra action for using books. — Tharzax · 1
very true, it's a tradeoff between higher willpower or more efficient action economy. and you could easily run fine clothes to make the Parley test easier to stomach with 3 base will. — mniksa3 · 5
While it’s generally true that standard Daisy’s face is better (just as standard Daisy’s back is better), this card is actually the strongest single argument for Parallel / Parallel, as the original review suggests.. I cannot see this finding room in any Standard / Parallel builds. — Eudaimonea · 6
My thoughts exactly! i've played || Daisy just before this card was revealed and I was really missing a rogue tome — Fedorwin · 15

Bianca "Die Katz"

Bianca "Die Katz"

Proof positive that Alessandra is an abusive partner:

TheMathDoc · 22
Plot Twist, Bianca will be the next investigator and Alessandra is her signature weakness — Valentin1331 · 83181
Another morally gray approach would be to get her killed in the playing window during the agility test after taking the 5 resources. That should interrupt the rest of the effect. Not worth the actions, though. — AlderSign · 435

Well Prepared

Well Prepared

Where does it say in the rules that the skill icons on the chosen asset must be of the same type of the skill test being performed? The way I read the card, it boosts your general skill value for whichever test you're performing by an X ammount, which is calculated from the matching skill icons on an asset. But it never says that the icons matching on the asset need to be the same as in the test.

Drakkions · 1
You seem to be ignoring the word “matching” on Well Prepared. What would one match these icons against beside the type of skill being tested? — Eudaimonea · 6
What do you think Matching means if not...'the same?' — MrGoldbee · 1502
It just says you get +X and X is the number of matching icons, it doesn't say X can't be 0. — Gsayer · 1
It is true that Well Prepared doesn't explicitly spell out that the icons have to match the test bring performed, which means that the linguistic rules of the English language could theoretically allow the card to be interpreted 'icons that match each other' rather than ‘icons that match the skill test.’ However, the rules also don't explicitly spell out that I can't spend painting supplies from my garage to pay for Streetwise (even though it is correct usage of the English language to describe my brushes and tools as ‘resources’). When the vagaries of the language you are using allow multiple interpretations of a card we should go with the one that is consistent with the rest of the rules of the game, meaning that Well Prepared is referencing icons that match the skill test being performed. — Pseudo Nymh · 67
The comparison to "spend painting supplies from my garage to pay for Streetwise" is quite ridiculous, as the card explicitly states "Exhaust Well Prepared: Choose an asset you control.", giving you an open choice to choose any asset you control, and not creating any reference to do something completely unrelated to the game. Not that it would change anything, you would just exhaust WP for nothing then. For me it isn't allowing any multiple interpretation, it is quite quite clear and obvious as it is. — Gsayer · 1
@Gsayer I think I agree with you that you can exhaust Well Prepared to get +0 to a skill test. What I am trying to suggest is that it would be contrary to rules precedent to add the three Combat icons on Chainsaw to an Intellect test (even though they can be considered 'matching icons' as they match each other). Perhaps my example was a bit fanciful. I am trying to suggest that any game quickly becomes absurd if we allow any rules interpretation that isn’t explicitly textually forbidden. That’s how you get golden retrievers playing basketball! :) — Pseudo Nymh · 67
Oh, looking at it again, it seems I misread the OP, now I understand the point of you guys in the comments. My point is that you could exhaust WP and choose any asset and X can be 0, but of course the "matching icons" refers to the skill test, you'd never be able to add a different icon (as in @PseudoNymph example of Combat icons to and Intellect test). Sorry about the confusion. — Gsayer · 1
For the record, you can't exhaust WP to choose an asset with 0 matching skill icons because in that case its effect wouldn't change the game state. — Thatwasademo · 59