Logical Reasoning

This seems like the horror-related alternative to Emergency Aid. It's 2 resources, a card, and an action to heal 2 horror instead of 2 damage. Both cards each have one extra use - Emergency Aid has the ability to heal allies and Logical Reasoning is able to remove a Terror. Logical Reasoning does also require a clue to use, but in my experience this has not been a largely prohibitive restriction.

I really like this card.

Part of it might be that I find horror to be more common than damage in the campaigns I have played (Night of the Zealot, The Dunwich Legacy, The Path to Carcosa) but I normally find the horror healing to be quite useful. In general, soaking horror is better than healing, but sometimes things go a little south and get a little crazier than you expected. In those moments, I am glad I have this card around.

A lot of non-Seeker investigators like this card:

  • Carolyn Fern naturally wants this to use her special ability. It was practically made for her!
  • Roland Banks has such low sanity that he's naturally going to want this card to get him through the more frightening Mythos adventures.
  • Finn Edwards would consider this card as one if his only ways to snap out of Frozen in Fear.
  • Marie Lambeau and other Mystic investigators might take this card to offset trauma taken from having multiple copies of Arcane Research.

Even if you don't want this card for yourself, take it for one of your friends if you're playing multiplayer! Your Guardian will thank you and will hopefully pay you back by keeping you protected from scary enemies.

Eventually this card is mostly outclassed by Moment of Respite, but that costs 1 more resource and 3 experience points! I usually just like to use this card and save the experience points for other, more powerful things.

As of The Depths of Yoth, I would say that this card is still a logical choice for many investigators!

I play seeker quite often in multiplayer, and almost always take this card. With two willpower icons on it, in addition to everything you just said, this has NEVER been a dead card in my hand! — cb42 12
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 90
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.

Can you name 1 way of Leo dealing with Poltergeist other than using this card?? Cause I can't think of any... — matt88 90
Timeworm Brand is a relic and amazing with Mr Anderson's strength 4 & willpower 4. — The_Wall 71
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 335
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 8
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 91
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 858
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 858