Jessica Hyde

First review!

This card seems made for Tommy Muldoon:

  1. expendable ally;
  2. boost to useful stat;
  3. preexisting damage is not bad at all because for Tommy that damage means resources, so he can play a “fast” Jessica Hyde for net 1 resource, or keep a “slow” one for the soak and boost. Cards with several “roles” are really nice to have in this game since you can tactically adjust to situation.
  4. immediate fodder for Rookie Mistake.
  5. [meta] right cycle, so the designers probably planned it.

Poor girl. Seems like she’ll be sacrificed by Tommy a lot. At least empirically in my game, Tommy (played by my partner) has sacrificed more people than all the “bad guys” combined...

krzhang · 7
She seems tailor-made for Calvin to me. Static boost to combat plus the ability to regulate damage for the rest of the game once she hits the table ? That's very powerful. Team her up with Peter Sylvestre and he becomes almost invulnerable. — Sassenach · 189
I think Calvin and Yorick like her best. Calvin with Jessica + Sylvestre is ridiculously strong. Yorick would love to play 4 Beat Cops if he could, but Jessica is a close second. — StyxTBeuford · 13053
I think those combos are good too. I do like my reason (5) though, if we are trying to read the minds of the designers =D — krzhang · 7
The stat's good for Tommy, but I don't think she's actually a great option for Tommy. Tommy wants to have allies that he constantly cycles through, so he can recoup the resource cost after getting some benefit. Jessica, on the hand, is someone that's meant to say out, using the constant Health regen for staying power. I think Tommy would prefer the guardian suffer-for-benefit cards (Beat Cop (2), Guard Dog, Brother Xavier, Grete Wagner, and Agency Backup). — Ruduen · 1026
Taunt

Does this card have a place in a deck that isn't Zoey's? Yes, in one very specific case, which I'll get to in the last paragraph:

Taunt shares a theme with certain other fast cards; Shortcut, Working a Hunch, and Sleight of Hand, come to mind. Cards that involve a fast version of a basic action that any investigator can do, such as moving, discovering a clue, playing an item card, or engaging an enemy, as the above examples provide.

Thing is, some basic actions are more valuable, and needed more often, than others. Take the humble move action; every investigator is going to be moving between locations, in every scenario, from start to finish, regardless of class, role, or objective. It guarantees the usefulness of Shortcut, made even better when it's use can be applied to any investigator at your location, nor just the card holder. Same with discovering a clue, same with playing a item asset.

Engaging an enemy just isn't one of those actions. For an engage action to be taken, there must be an enemy at your location that's either exhausted, or engaged with another player. Even then, only the latter really calls for an engage action to be taken, and EVEN THEN it's completely optional, as all engagement does is eliminate the risk of the other investigator taking damage, either by your hand, or the enemy's. It makes justifying a card slot solely to be able to taunt faster very difficult, as it doesn't actually help perform a guardian's primary role, and non-guardians will be more likely to want to AVOID enemies, not Taunt them. So then why, other than being Zoey Samaras, would you want to include Taunt in your deck?:

To eliminate the downside of Flamethrower... yeah that's pretty much it. Flamethrower harshens the downside of not being engaged with an enemy, which makes engage actions more valuable, which makes Taunt more valuable. If you're running Flamethrower, consider running Taunt.

Lucaxiom · 4561
How many players there are in your party probably makes a difference. I ran this with Zoey and one other investigator and I never used it and swapped it out after a few missions. Four players though means more enemies, so maybe more useful? Also, being Fast means you avoid an attack of opportunity engaging a monster when you're already engaged (I think that's right?) which can be helpful. However, I don't think either of those really change much, and I agree that this card generally just doesn't cut it. — Octo · 105
Well, sometimes if you engage an enemy, it does more then just eliminating the risk of the other investigator taking damage. If you swing machete, it's +1 damage for every attack. Sometimes you just need the action to engage to kill the enemy and can't do it without Taunt. Of course you don't see machete as much as before taboo... Another thing is, if you are not sure, whether you are able to kill the enemy with your, let's say, last action, then engaging the enemy will also enable your seeker to use his/her turn instead of having to run away and fail with it. So I think it really depends on your group composition. — trazoM · 9
Small remark: one case of use was forgotten: aloof enemies. So in some scenarios, taunt is quite useful tanks to that — MoiMagnus · 63
Mk 1 Grenades

This is not a review so much as a response to the FAQ entry on the interaction between Mk 1 Grenades and Marksmanship. It ends with a statement that “the bonus +1 damage from Marksmanship would be dealt to the attacked enemy, and not to the other enemies at the location.” This is not necessarily true, it should be clear that the Grenades won’t deal ANY damage ‘to the other enemies at the location’ or even ‘the attacked enemy’ if you targeted an enemy at an adjacent location. Mk 1 Grenades damage ‘each enemy and each other investigator at YOUR location’ INSTEAD of its standard damage. Because it won’t deal any damage to the attacked enemy from the attack, it can’t deal additional damage for the same reason that Deduction can’t discover additional clues when used with Burglary or Unearth the Ancients.

If FFG wants the Mk 1 Grenades to work with Marksmanship, they would need to say ‘each enemy and each other investigator at the attacked enemy’s location.’ Or have Marksmanship work like Luke’s ability where you Fight as if you were there.

(If Marksmanship is used on an enemy at your location, of course the additional damage will apply if the condition is met.)

It does not make sense to differentiate between different locations. The standard damage effect is replaced in both cases, so I would say that the additional damage should not apply in both cases, if there is no (any additional damage is dealt to the attack enemy) clause. But there is. So it is what it is. — ak45 · 469
This looks as a completely unintended consequence of the wording. The FAQ implicitly answer that the interaction should work as expected (damages can be done at another location), and not as written (which would be "damage only work at your location"). Within the text of Grenades, "your location" and "the enemy location" are synonymous, hence interchangeable. While I agree that for interactions purposes, it would have been better to write "at the enemy location", I think it would have been more confusing as a wording than "at your location" — MoiMagnus · 63
I asked this question via the Rules Questions form on FFG. MJ's response: "Sadly, I think the two abilities as printed would be incompatible. Marksmanship allows you to target an enemy at a connecting location with its attack, but Mk 1 Grenades clearly states: “instead of its standard damage, this attack deals 2 damage to each enemy and each other investigator at your location (any additional damage is dealt to the attacked enemy).” It’s awkward, but I can’t really see any way around it; if you targeted an enemy at a connecting location with the grenades, only any additional/bonus damage would get dealt to the targeted enemy, and the rest of the damage would get dealt to each enemy and other investigator at your location, as it states. Sorry for the confusion! (I don’t think it would be particularly broken if you house-ruled it to work the way that makes more sense thematically though. I certainly wouldn’t slap the card out of your hand.)" — magistrix · 906
Arkham Woods

question: does this mean if I draw a -1 chaos token, and then a -2 with the additional chaos token, that these are summed together for a -3? Or does the "reveal and resolve" only apply to the effect of the additional chaos token, like drawing a tablet could cause you to take damage?

raigunn · 1
I believe you get the -3 — Weirdmarine · 3
You get -3. All special tokens effects are applied too. — jd9000 · 77
Impromptu Barrier

I am trying this card out in an evasion-focused Finn deck in multiplayer TFA (normal mode). It seems to be pulling its weight. This card seems a little easier to fit into decks than Improvised Weapon because most characters that will fight will want to trigger their Fight actions from an asset instead of from Improvised Weapon. You typically don't have an equivalent asset for evasions, unless you're using Stealth, which most players find only useful in solo mode.

The card also somewhat fits into "succeed by X" archetypes (in combination with Finn and Pickpocketing, etc.). Daring Maneuver paired with this card can help you occasionally evade another baddy and avoid annoying Alert keywords. It's not a mindblowing combo but can be helpful at lower XP.

iceysnowman · 164
Does the play from discard pile effect for the second evade require an evasion test? This does not say automatically evade like Cunning Distraction. — luccros · 66
You may be confused by the fact that "Evade" is both an action and an effect. Compare it to "Fight" an "deal damage" or "Investigate" and "discovre clues" which are clearly distinguishable. However generally when a card is talking about the action of Evading unless it's an action designator it says "Evasion attempt". "Evade" for anything that isn't an action designator always refers to the effect of a successful Evasion attempt, in other words it means "disengage from an enemy and exhaust it" directly. — Killbray · 12853
Late coming back here but thanks for the response! Still I am a little confused why Silas Net uses the phrase "automatically evade" whereas Impromptu Barrier does not. (Cunning Distraction may have been a bad initial example because it indicates the Evade action is being taken, but no skill test occurs - it is automatically succesful)). Silas Net and Barrier are very similar in that there is an initial Evade action taken with its respective skill test, then based on X an additional evade may occur. If evade is just an effect in this case, why does Silas Net need the phrase automatically evade? — luccros · 66