Extra Ammunition

The best guns in the game, things like Lightning Gun or Flamethrower, cost huge amounts of experience and have limited uses. Extra Ammunition is essentially buying 3rd and 4th copies of those guns for only 1xp and 2 resources. Guardians have access to cards like Stick to the Plan and Prepared for the Worst to thin out their decks and search for these big guns fairly reliably, and that makes it a straightforward inclusion to add Extra Ammunition to these decks as well.

With only 6 shots of lightning gun, you have to worry about how you're going to deal with the rest of the enemies in the game. With 12, you're feeling a lot more comfortable. This shouldn't be the first card you buy in a Big Guns Guardian deck, but it absolutely should be one of the cards you buy.

Don’t forget that since it’s a supply you can also get it with Backpack (especially the level 2 version) which will dig dee for your expensive guns, Emergency Cache’s to pay for them, and Extra Ammunitions to keep them full). — Death by Chocolate · 1488
Flare

Maybe this is not the worst card in the game. Maybe it is. Maybe it's genius. Selling your soul: 1xp per success is certainly in line with the ethos of this game. Tactically, you have to ask yourself: Are the benefits of this card worth 1XP per session? Maybe it is! Feels a little dirty doesn't it? That's Arkham.

Pro: It is a nice single use attack with sweet bonuses or around a 40% chance [depending on the size of your draw deck] to draw an ally - very tempting.

CON: It costs 1XP per success due to Exile.

EXILE - During campaign play, a card that has been exiled must be purchased again with experience points (between scenarios) if you wish to re-include it in your deck. If exiling 1 or more cards would reduce your deck below your investigator's deck size, when purchasing cards between scenarios, you must purchase cards so that a legal deck size is maintained (when purchasing cards in this manner, you may purchase level 0 cards for 0 experience cost until a legal deck size is reached).

Lotharun · 2
I don't think Flare is anywhere in contention for worst card in the game. It's pretty solid because searching for allies and not having to pay for them is very very strong, especially with higher level allies. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
With Deja Vu it doesn't cost anything (nearly). — bugiel_marek · 24
2$ for a friend's Leo de Luca OR a big attack? — MrGoldbee · 1484
@bugiel_marek Good point! But yeah - deja Vu itself is 5xp, so that's something else to consider for value. If you create an exile deck and build around Deja Vu, then I could see that working nicely. I think that's point with DeJa Vu. Me, I was looking for a way to get an Ally quickly into Agnes' hand and she does not have access to Deja Vu. — Lotharun · 2
Flare is easily the best of the exile set. If you want to look at maybe the worst card in the game, check out the fire extinguisher. — SSW · 216
Lotharun: You may already know this but since you said "draw" twice (once in your review & once in your reply), just in case you didn't realize: Flare says "Put into play". You're not just drawing! You search, draw, and put into play for NO additional cost, all as part of using the Flare. That's the beauty of it- you didn't only just find Leo De Luca or Agency Backup- you also got them into play for a cheap 2R. — HanoverFist · 746
Can I play Flare and refuse to take the ally I have drawn and just discard Flare? For example - I have 2 copies - Peter Sylvestre and 2 copies of Leo De Luca, and from the start I came and I played Peter Sylvestre, and now I'm looking for Leo De Luca using Flare, but I find the 2nd copy of Peter Sylvestre, so I have to take Peter and replace him, and expel Flare? I would like to skip the 2nd copy of the same ally so as not to exile Flare, and be able to play it another time. — LTT · 1
In case the question is still relevant, and you check it out here: in general you would have to resolve a target of your search, if you find one. For reference see Agnes Baker's "Dark Memory", which she has to take from a search with "Arcane Initiate", should she not find a second spell among the three cards. With unique (*) allies, like Peter, if they are already in play, the search would wiff. Because: "There can be no more than one instance of each unique card, by title, in play at any given time." A second Stray Cat or Beat Cop, you would need to take. — Susumu · 381
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

  1. Effective for the whole campaign
  2. 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

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
Sidenote since its a campaign log note only one player has to do it per campaign... I think. — Zerogrim · 295
It must be recorded once per campaign. So other players can also upgrade without identityng — Django · 5148
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

TheMathDoc · 16
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 · 267
Agreed. One of the worst scenarios in my experience, and I've played them all. — krifar · 25
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 · 5148
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.

ambiryan13 · 178
ok — MrGoldbee · 1484
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 · 216
"never played this card" and "this card is overpowered/useless" sadly sums up the arkham horror community. — Zerogrim · 295
Ah yes, the encounter deck simply does not exist when playing Gloria. — toastsushi · 74
Does not agree with that statement at all. You should probably play Gloria and rethink your review. — krifar · 25
Cool story, bro. Come back when you've tried her out. — Ensign53 · 3
… — Vicoforbes · 21