Colt Vest Pocket

This card seems like it needs other cards in order to work well. Here's a list of cards that it appears designed to integrate with:

This is a weapon you definitely only want to play when you really need it. Narrow Escape is nice, because you can wait until an enemy shows up, play this card, then use Narrow Escape to get +2 to the first attack. Sleight of Hand is nice to make this weapon fast and to make it last for more than 1 turn. Out-of-class, "Eat lead!" is the only way available to use all of that ammunition short of some serious shenanigans.

A lot of cards have anti-synergy with this weapon. It should go without saying that Custom Ammunition, Extra Ammunition, and Venturer shouldn't be used for it. It's just a waste!

The card's nearest in-faction comparison is the .41 Derringer. Do you want a good gun for one turn, or an okay gun that will last you for 3 shots? Overall, I think you might get slightly more mileage out of the .41 Derringer. However, the Colt Vest Pocket does have its uses. It's not a long-term combat solution, and you need cards to support it, but it can do some damage in a pinch.

You forgot Fence as a card that interacts with this card. — matt88 · 3210
Don't forget about Joey "the rat" Vigil! — Zinjanthropus · 230
Blood Eclipse

I haven't had a chance to use this card yet, and generally higher-level events are a smaller priority for me in deckbuilding since I tend to focus experience points on assets.

However, I can see people using this card as "Brother Xavier's Parting Gift" - you can play this card and take 3 damage on Brother Xavier for a potential 6 damage on an enemy. That's a powerful attack.

Still, it's something that requires 4 experience, 6 resources, and a few turns of setup in order to do. Is it worth it? Maybe in some situations, but I think usually experience is better invested elsewhere.

This card is a nice trick for Calvin. It's cheap in terms of resources, can deal nice amount of damage in one action, is flexible and lets him pump his stats pretty quickly. Luckily this card doesn't demand to put direct damage. And this theme... — KptMarchewa · 1
Blood Eclipse

Although 3 experience is pretty steep for a one-off attack, there are a couple investigators for whom this haymaker plugs a gap.

Carolyn Fern has lots of conditional ways to deal with enemies; her Mind over Matter is best with an otherwise-underwhelming Machete, Shrivelling needs several boosts to be reliable, "I've got a plan!" requires setup, Dynamite Blast is expensive, and Guard Dog or Beat Cop take the ally slot that she would prefer to be Peter Sylvestre. This ranks highly in that company, the self-damage being analogous to dynamite and it can be soaked or healed by usual tricks.

Likewise Marie Lambeau might find this a reasonable addition to her spell arsenal, especially since the damage can off a David Renfield to a doom-free grave.

Its worth pointing out that Leo Anderson has 4 and can take damage with low risk, but he has so many options for dealing with Poltergeist that he can safely ignore it.

The_Wall · 287
Can you name 1 way of Leo dealing with Poltergeist other than using this card?? Cause I can't think of any... — matt88 · 3210
Timeworm Brand is a relic and amazing with Mr Anderson's strength 4 & willpower 4. — The_Wall · 287
3 probably is a bit much for the effect. Zoey also has 4 willpower, though — Zinjanthropus · 230
Indebted

Fun fact - did you know this was the first card with the Permanent keyword that wasn't an asset? It's kind of weird when you consider that cards like the John Dee translation of the The Necronomicon are considered assets. Most other Permanent cards are assets, so it makes it a bit unusual in that regard.

Looking at the rules as written - seen here - could suggest that this card actually has no effect since it's classified as a treachery and not an asset. "When a treachery card is drawn by an investigator, that investigator must resolve its effects. Then, place the card in its discard pile unless otherwise instructed by the ability." You technically never draw it, so you never trigger the effect, right? I could see someone reading these rules and interpreting the card this way. However, I think it's pretty clear that's not how this card is meant to be interpreted.

A more devastating read of this card would be "you start each game with 2 fewer resources" reading that each game starts you with 2 resources less than the game before it, so that your progression could look like this:

  • Game 1: 3 resources
  • Game 2: 1 resource
  • Game 3+: 0 resources

Technically the wording is ambiguous enough that you can read it that way. Tough, right? Again, I don't think this is how the card was meant to be interpreted, but it could be read that way. (But it shouldn't be, because I am very sure it's just a flat -2 resources at the start of play.)


As for my actual thoughts on the card, I generally find it to be one of the more preferable weaknesses. It's one of the weaknesses that actually impacts my playing more, actually - with less weakness cards in the deck, I am more likely to draw more. The downside is that it does get you with its effect every game, but I believe that one of the keys to a good deck is consistency, so I like knowing exactly when a weakness is going to hit. It's something that you can take into account for your plan. It does slow your start a little bit, but it saves you that tempo hit later on in the scenario. Having 3 resources still gives you enough to play key cards like Machete and Shrivelling (and Dark Horse, of course!) to get you started. Is it possible that 2 resources could be the difference between winning and losing? Yes, but most of the time this is just a minor and predictable setback. I still think it's well balanced, though - annoying, but not completely negligible.

I don't think the RaW is in conflict here. Sure you don't draw the weakness as described, but it begins in play and has a constant effect. — Difrakt · 1319
I’m seconding @Difrakt that there is nothing in conflict with RAW. What gets triggered when a Treachery is drawn is its Revelation effects (which Indebted doesn’t have). Permanent cards start in play, and Indebted has ongoing effects. Regarding ‘fewer reasources’, by your logic they should still get 5 on the first game since there was no previous game to have 2 fewer than. — Death by Chocolate · 1489
I'm not sure I agree. Its a pretty bad weakness to get. You *always* draw it, it always hits you early (when you are most vulnerable), it prevents you getting setup (as you can't build your deck around it), and it pretty much always takes 2 actions to clear as you need that economy back. It's not the worst weakness, but its up there as one of The Really Bad Ones. I think it just feels good, as you feel safer drawing now its out of the way, but that's just your brain forgetting how much it really has hurt you already. — duke_loves_biscuits · 1278
I also think of this as one of the harsher weaknesses. It's not quite Overzealous, but it's pretty bad. Getting properly set up at the start of every scenario is just critical and this really does significantly impede that. — CaiusDrewart · 3183
Basically for me the really bad weaknesses are this, Overzealous, Amnesia, most of the monster weaknesses, and Doomed. (Though of course this does vary quite a bit by investigator.) — CaiusDrewart · 3183
Colt Vest Pocket

How does this work? It has 5 ammo. You spend one action and one ammo to fight. How is one meant to use up all 5 ammo in one round? I can think of Gold Pocket Watch or Ace in the Hole, but I am not a fan of cards needing other cards just to be serviceable.

deserter85 · 1
^ — Shakiko · 6
Leo de Luca, Skids' ability and Quick thinking (perhaps combined with double or nothing) come to mind easily. Also 3 ways to play it as Fast action. Also there was Eat lead that you might splash in some decks. — Shakiko · 6