Umôrdhoth

Umôrdhoth

Easy to kill if you have Butch with a sledgehammer on your team. Best paired with Aquinnah. She redirects the damage and the exhausts Umôrdhoth and (just) has to take 3 horror. And she has plenty ways to mitigate that.

In addition let her wield some Survival Knifes so she can counterstab once or twice.

GrueneLupenAufheben · 140
If you are playing with only core set cards, about the only weapon which can damage him reliably is Roland's custom .38, so try to fight him on a location with clues. Other investigators are going to need talents to pump their skills, testless damage, or a lot of good cards to commit. — tessarji · 1
Roland's .38 is only going to chip away at him, though. You can't afford to stall, since he hits like a truck. Shotgun, in my opinion, is probably the best from the Core Set, just make sure you have 2 or Extra Ammunition. — Tinkorn · 1

Forced Learning

Forced Learning

Here's a trick: you totally can discard weaknesses with this card! This is legal as long as you're not lactose intolerant.

Of course, you can't choose to discard weaknesses from hand. That's illegal and heretic and the Arkham Police will bust down your door and confiscate your collection. But the trick is, you're not discarding weaknesses from hand. You're discarding them from play or from your discard. Forced Learning never specified that you can only discard the cards you drew from hand!

See, when you draw Paranoia as one of your two cards over upkeep, you immediately resolve its revelation effect. It's then discarded and goes into your discard pile. You then choose paranoia as your card to discard from Forced Learning. Good thing it's already in your discard pile, so you keep the other card you drew.

Alternatively, you draw Internal Injury. Even better. You resolve the revelation effect of internal Injury and put it into play. Then you choose Internal Injury as the card you discard from Forced Learning, and discard it from your threat area. Hurrah, you just cleared that weakness without spending an action! This also works for enemy weaknesses!

Don't actually try this at your table unless you enjoy rule arguments.

suika · 9505
Obvious incoming FAQ on this aside, under this interpretation one presumably this means that a weakness that takes effect in your hand would not be valid, meaning that the rules weirdness for this card in Patrice, who already is weird with this card, just got 5% weirder. — dezzmont · 222
Patrice does not work with this card at all, because it says "Instead of drawing 1 card durring upkeep phase. And she does not draw 1 card, she draws 5. "Internal Injury" looks like a good catch to me. But Paranoia should definitely not work. It does not change the game state to discard a card from the discard pile into the discard pile. — Susumu · 381
@dezzmont: for all you know this could be completely intended behavior to compensate for the mediocrity of the card! — suika · 9505
@Susumu: perfectly legal as long as you apply Forced Learning before Patrice's ability. — suika · 9505
@susumu: Changing the game state is only required if we need to determine something with "must" word, play or trigger some ability, or we need to select a target with "choose" word. It seems that this case isn't included all condition, so that it seems be legal to select Paranoia to discard. — elkeinkrad · 500
@Suika I did think about it. Forced Learning basically shutting down Seeker's search power in exchange for heavily limiting how bad weaknesses could get might be fair for seekers who tend to run strong draw engines, but allowing anyone with seeker access to totally shut down their signature weaknesses probably won't fly, as seeker already has some extreme power level issues even outside of draw power. @Susumu: As has been stated, it is an order of opperations issue. This entire thread just goes to show this card is gunna need an FAQ or five because of how many different ways it could in theory apply (And, again, it tickles me that Patrice rubs up against how it works in one way, while in another being the only unambiguous case on discarding weaknesses). — dezzmont · 222
I don't want and I can't read this (English is not my native language), so can you tell me: can I discard weaknesses like Internal injury by Forced Learning? — Pawiu14 · 196
We do not know, and need an FAQ. It is not likely. — dezzmont · 222
It's possible case that we should draw cards, discard cards, and then resolve revelation effect. I agree that we don't know about this. — elkeinkrad · 500
@ suika: "When a player draws two or more cards as the result of a single ability or game step, those cards are drawn simultaneously." So, no. You can't apply "Forced Learning" after drawing the first and before drawing the second card from Patrice' ability, because all 5 will be drawn simultainiously. — Susumu · 381
@Susumu: That's not what you replace, you replace the card draw that Patrice would have replaced (with, I should note, exactly the same "instead of ..." text). — Thatwasademo · 58
That said, the rules aren't entirely clear about what happens when multiple replacement effects *from static abilities* try to change the same event, especially when both those replacement effects began the game in play — Thatwasademo · 58
If they were both from Forced abilities or both from reaction triggered abilities, you'd obviously get to choose which one to apply — Thatwasademo · 58
If you read the rules carefully than you know how Patrice works. Instead tells you that only the latest effect applies (so Patrice or Forced learning, which entered play later) as these happen at the same time first player chooses, but has to stick with it for the whole game. So unless FAQ-d you choose one at game start and stick with it. — vidinufi · 69
Until we get an FAQ to confirm, I think with how things intertwine... A weakness's discardability depends on the specific weakness. Weaknesses tend to discard themselves from play, so we know it's a valid mechanism. In addition, based on Amanda/Grisly Totem's ruling, it is likely that 'hanging effects with indefinite timing points' linger until a card leaves play - and a card being played does not cause it to leave play, while a card that goes into the discard does. So if a Weakness is a "Revelation - Put <x> into play" Weakness, it is still 'in play' and therefore is valid to be discarded. However, if it is a Weakness with a Revelation effect that will do something (Amnesia/Paranoia), it will do that thing and then be out of play (in the discard) and therefore no longer be valid to be chosen. In addition, cards with a "cannot leave play" option (Daisy's Necronomicon, Minh's King in Yellow) cannot be discarded from play and therefore cannot be chosen since it will not cause a change in the game state, so they will also force the other card to be discarded. And, of course, cards that remain in hand (Dark Pact, The Tower) cannot be chosen as the discard unless you happened to have drawn two of them. So Forced Learning is likely capable of dodging SOME weaknesses, but not all of them. Of course, since you need to have Forced Learning before you know what your weaknesses are, that's more of a useful fact if it helps you dodge a particularly nasty personal weakness. — Ruduen · 1015
"When a player is instructed to draw one or more cards, those cards are drawn from the top of his or her investigator deck and added to his or her hand." — NIEDZIOWIEDZ · 1
"A player may not optionally choose to discard a weakness card from hand, unless a card explicitly specifies otherwise." — NIEDZIOWIEDZ · 1

Forced Learning

Forced Learning

One problem not covered by dezzmont's otherwise exhaustive analysis is the fact that you're forced to choose your Weaknesses. You're more likely to hit them from the get-go (~2/22.5 versus the normal ~2/30), and this relative drawback only gets magnified as the campaign progresses and more weaknesses get added to your deck.

This might be slightly better in Norman Withers than elsewhere, since he at least pops weaknesses off the top of his deck for free (i.e. he's only half as likely to get his upkeep draw nuked, compared to other investigators).

VinnyB · 178
How could I forget to mention that? It was literally on my mind as part of why I considered it fairly 'meh!' as I was doing all that math! — dezzmont · 222
Not only does this mean you hit your weaknesses more often, but on those turns you will be forced to discard the non-weakness card even if it's something you desperately need. — OrionJA · 1
Oddly, it's not FORCED. — MrGoldbee · 1485

Jewel of Aureolus

Jewel of Aureolus

TBH I'm just getting into Mystics, they always seemed expensive and tricky for my small mind, but this seems like a natural with Jacqueline Fine, even if you're running a Relic Hunter to add this on to a Will boost accessory like Holy Rosary or Crystal Pendulum. Set Jacqui up with herself, her signature, and Olive McBride - not to mention other event cards like Dark Prophecy - and this seems like you'd be swimming in cash and draw for the majority of the game.

Krysmopompas · 366
The big issue is that while Mystics can struggle with cash their cardpool uses cash more for initial setup, meaning long term cash assets are less valuable and they bias towards 'burst' economy, and they have other really great draw solutions. Maybe this little combo would enable a more event focused Jacqueline though! — dezzmont · 222

Charon's Obol

Charon's Obol

I think, the review by CaiusDrewart holds really well over the years, showcasing how bad this card really is. However, there had been two cards released in the meantime, that invite me to compare them to this card, just based on the XP earned from them (not taking into consideration other facts, like that you tend to play timid and therefore bad with it): Arcane Research and In the Thick of It.

It's no surprise, that Arcane Research beats the crap out of "Charon's Obol". It gives the same 2 XP per scenario two scenarios earlier, for a much lesser price. But at least the Obol should be much better than In the Thick of It? I mean, it's a class card vs. a neutral card. Class cards have to be better? And the neutral gives you just 3 XP, the Obol so much more, right?

Wrong!

To compare these cards, you have to put into account, that XP earned early in a campaign provide you with better cards for more scenarios, than if you get them later. XP earned in the sixth scenario are double the value than XP earned in the seventh, because you net profit from them in two scenarios, rather than just one. Therefore, XP earned after the first scenario is worth 7 times as much as after the seventh, and XP from the start of the campaign even 8 times. If we take this into account, the XP*scenario value you gain from these cards are the following (assuming a standard 8 scenario campaign without any side quests):

  • (Double) Arcane Research: 14+12+10+8+6+4+2=56
  • In the Thick of It: 3*8=24
  • Charon's Obol: 10+8+6+4+2-2=28

You have to consider, that "In the Thick of It" gives you the 3 XP for 8 scenarios. While "Charon's Obol" delays your other purchases after the first scenario by 2 XP, which would be actually worth 14. Sure, you get them back a scenario later. That's why I count them only as -2. Hence, from a strict mathematical point, the XP you gain from the Obol are only slightly more than the ones from "In the Thick of It", at a much higher risk. So go for the Obol, if you think, the game is boring without it. To raise the stake and gain some thrill out of it. But never ever buy this for the gain in XP instead of "In the Thick of It". You are much better served with the neutral card in that case!

Another option would be taking "In the Thick of It" to purchase the Obol at the start of the campaign. This is of course the highest stake, but at least it offsets the XP cost of the Obol. The XP*scenario value gained from this combo is 64 (assuming, you get to the last scenario with this investigator), the same as from "Arcane Research" plus 8 times the spare point from "In the Thick of It". This indeed looks much better. But it also increases the risk of succumbing to the Obol, starting with 2 traumata from the beginning and making being defeated in the first scenario relevant. I still think, it's bad, for the reasons mentioned by CaiusDrewart.

Susumu · 381
doesn't this all kind of assume XP earning power in levels in infinite?, the reason earning early XP would be more valuable than later is if you earn more XP/rewards because of it, but that isn't always true, you can max out on VP and rewards on levels with or without high level cards in a lot of cases. — Zerogrim · 295
You say this, but in lets me afford Golden Pocketwatch...which saves the party 4 encounters and 1 doom. Rogues love risk & XP. — MrGoldbee · 1485
I played Rogue characters with GPW without the Obol. I get, that it is a spot on theme card for Rogues, but it makes them too much of a liability. Consider a three player party in a scenario without resign space. The rogue has already played his or her YHTO, and there is one card of Rotting Remains left in the 20 size encounter deck. On a 5% chance, that the Rogue would get a mental trauma, the Mystic will likely play the D2D. On a 5% chance, that he or she pays the obol, likely not. So yeah, the Rogue gets 2 XP more, but the team gets 3 XP less because of that. In our group, players picked up the obol twice. And both times, it was worth a very cinematic narative, but very unfavorable for the group. One player as Leo was killed, because we only made it to the forth level on "Depths of Yoth", and I as Trish didn't made it out of the temple in "Return to The Doom of Eztli". But that's not the point of this review. It is rather about delaying XP to later scenarios is hardly worth it. It's the fact, that you first have to pay 2 XP to get a boost in XP from 2 scenarios later onwards, which makes the card obnoxiously bad. And even ItToI a comparably better card. — Susumu · 381
Use In the Thick of it to buy the Obol. What are you even here for if you don't want the risks. — Lailah · 1
That's an option, I already wrote about in the last paragraph. It sure offsets the cost of initial XP to pay for the Obol, and Rogues have good use for the spare XP in a Lockpick or 3 Easy Marks. But it makes the investigator more fragile, and changes nothing on the fact, that ItToI provides almost as much as the obol on it's own at a much lower cost. 2 traumata are nothing compared to risk of resuming with a new character or tanking a scenario fur the group, because you have to resign too early. — Susumu · 381
Easy, just take the Obol and don't lose. — suika · 9505