Thermos

This card might see more play with the upcoming neutral permanent added in the edge of the earth expansion. In the thick of it (not yet added on the site), 3 Exp and two trauma's of your choice might turn this in a very efficient heal even at the first scenario.

problem is... it's still not good. it's way too expensive for the heals it provides regardless of trauma — Difrakt · 1313
I would have considered it for Agnes, if I didn't play her last before getting TFA. It has the same resource cost as a ".45 Automatic" for guardians, has 1 ammo less, but deals testless damage. (And also on a 2 damage per action ratio.) Problem is, now with upgraded "Sign Magick" spells like CoM or the new one from "Edge of the Earth" might be a better option for a healing Agnes. Beforehand the fact, that they use an arcane slot was much in favour to Thermos. However, for this combo, you don't need the new neutral permanent, as Agnes certainly rather take AR. — Susumu · 381
This card is great for Agnes. Think of it as a weapon that deals 6 testless damages that does not use up an arcane slot. And Agnes can easily pay for this using Forbidden Knowledge. — liwl0115 · 42
I do like that ITTOI "activates" half of the Thermos as of Mission 1, making this a 0XP card that heals 6d/h for 4 resources and 4 actions that anybody can take. In addition to Agnes, I'd say Bob Jenkins and Dexter Drake also may be fond of hot soup, as they can both situationally drop that cost down to 3 resources and 3 actions. They both love slotless assets, they both likely to want ITTOI for Obol or possibly even to Versatile in Geared Up, and if they pick up Haste later on, Thermos provides a flexible third "activate" action to be used whenever. — HanoverFist · 746
Flashlight

There is a lot of writing on how good flashlight is at what it does, but I think it is critical to understand why flashlight is so good in a 'meta' sense to really start to understand Arkham as a game.

As one of my friends put it, "Someone who isn't normally expected to get clues successfully getting 2-3 clues is the difference between winning and losing a scenario in multiplayer"

Arkham, at its core, all about efficiently getting through the act deck, and while there are combat or movement focused acts, the overwhelming majority of scenarios are advanced primarily through investigation: you are, after all, an investigator.

So while a strong, two handed gun, or a deck with every card focused for tackling enemies and threats, is going to be very good at clearing those threats you face out fast, you need to ask yourself why you are removing threats. In general, killing enemies is done specifically to allow you to safely go get more clues. So if your just... not assisting with clues at all, it doesn't matter that you kill enemies twice as fast. Who cares that you killed a 3 health enemy in 1 action instead of 2 because you got rid of your .45 really early in a campaign, if you are going to spend every turn sharpening your sword and polishing your gun rather than using that action to actually help win the scenario?

This doesn't mean every deck needs flashlight: Mystic, Seekers, and arguably Rogues don't really need it usually. Survivors have other tools but often want Flashlight as well. But I see so many guardians falling for the trap option of being 'pure combat' and trying to take that entire dimension of the game on alone, and abandoning all else, and that is a huge mistake.

So Flashlight teaches us this: Your deck needs plans for things to do that actually help your team win the scenario, rather than just endlessly handling threats. Yes, even in 4 player multiplayer. Yes, even if you are Mark.

Killing enemies super efficiently isn't the same as cluvering really efficiently. A seeker, mystic, or rogue just nomming up clues faster than normal is helping the entire team get through the scenario faster, reducing the amoung of encounters everyone faces, and freeing up others to explore other easier locations, regain resources, or explore because they are 'overkilling' a location and gathering faster than normal.

But a fighter like Guardians or Survivors killing the maybe the small handful of 3 health enemies they face early on in a campaign doesn't help anyone else. It just helps that fighter, because no one else really cares how fast the enemy dies, just that it isn't attacking them while they seek out clues. Outside of bosses (who, again, you spend a minority of your time fighting so being a bit less efficient at that early is totally ok), doing lots of damage very fast only helps the team if you can, after efficiently killing something, go on to do other helpful things! So have tools to do other helpful things!

Those tools don't have to be Flashlight, and eventually you may need to leave it behind to get tools to deal with escalating threats, but you need to do more than slap two Evidence! or Look what I found into your deck and calling it a day even once you leave Flashlight behind. Almost every investigator has good options for replacing it, even if it as simple as getting a 'resources for stat boost' card that can boost your investigates.

dezzmont · 222
Hard disagree. Your role in a team depends on team composition, but in general specialization at higher player counts as a guardian is more effective than trying to also be able to flex investigate. You can contribute to clues, but your contribution should stop at Evidence! or Grete (3) rather than to keep a Flashlight and use a 1h weapon, or god forbid getting Keen Eye. If there isn't a threat on the board, fill your hand to get more commits, get more resources to play that Extra Ammunition, or play some Soothing Melodies to support your team. Trying to investigate by boosting Int on a Guardian is generally a poor use of actions and resources. — suika · 9498
And course it matters how fast the enemy dies. It means that, if you miss (because you inevitably will), you have another swing at it instead of having your Seeker waste their turn with a monster on them. It means that on a bad mythos and three enemies spawn, you can kill two with vicious blows while the rogue engages and evades the last one. It means that you have spare actions to follow your team around instead of lagging behind because it took you three actions to kill a monster. It means that if a monster spawns on your teamate 2 locations away, you can move x2 and kill it in a single round. This is why two-handed weapons are generally favored. — suika · 9498
Hawkeye is trash, and most guardians will either run Flashlight or some cross class stuff. — dezzmont · 222
Accidently hit enter: However, spending your entire game just building up ammo and drawing smashing blows makes you a huge dead weight in most scenarios. It is FAR PREFERABLE for you to invest time and resources into ending the scenario sooner than prepping for it to go longer. Yes, if you use a .45 or enchanted blade for scenario 2 you are gunna sometimes have to toss in an extra attack, or the seeker or rogue will have to use their combat tool to finish something off because you missed once in maybe 16 or, if your really struggling, one in 8 attacks. However, a seeker losing 1/8th an action in exchange for not having to spend TURNS going to a low shroud location to clear that out as well. By all means, don't feel obligated to stick to Timeworn Brand if the scenarios start tossing high HP at you, and for the love of god don't get hawkeye, but strongly consider skill boosts like Lucky! or Live and Learn on Tommy or Yorick, or using flashlight for the first few scenarios on Mark (who is, in fact, top tier specifically BECAUSE of his investigative power weirdly enough). People who are ONLY "Hitters" tend to be consistently be dead weight, and the difference between a good and bad guardian is being able to find the opening to snipe 3 clues to save a Seeker a 4 move tax. — dezzmont · 222
This difference only increases with XP. "Wasting" an action or two drawing cards when there's no enemies around doesn't cost you the game. On the other hand, enemies spawning on your teammates while you're split up from them and unable to get to them in time because you want to investigate another location can waste their entire turn, and considering how a typical seeker approximately 2x-3x as effective as getting clues as a guardian will be with, that will make a far greater difference. Arkham is a game of risk mitigation. The downside of the risk of having a monster spawn that you can't deal with far outweighs the downside of wasting a few actions when no enemies are around. — suika · 9498
It's not that you can't investigate or get clues as a guardian. Flashlight at 0xp is fine, and if needed you can use Evidence for its icons, Grete (3) is also a great card. However, that doesn't change the overall point that specialization as a guardian is more effective in the majority of 3-4 player teams, simply because of the power differential between 1h and 2h weapons. — suika · 9498
and the inability to effectively add action compression for investigate actions as a guardian. — suika · 9498
I had mainly played with 4 players on normal and in my experience every player should take some tools to get clues. With 4 players there are man 8 clues/ 2 shroud locations in every scenario and seekers are surpringly bad at getting more than one clue/action. So I think on lower difficulties it's always fine to help your seeker. — Tharzax · 1
I lean towards Suika on this one. I think the review dismisses way too easily the importance of enemy and encounter mitigation in multiplayer. First off, 2-3 clues is very rarely the difference between winning and losing in multiplayer because the doom clock is looser in higher counts, your Seeker/Cluever can spend the time getting the clues as long as they have an open path to do so. The challenge in high counts isn't action efficiency, it's encounter survival. As a fighter, you care very much about spending time "sharpening your weapons" because you don't want a potential draw of 4 enemies in a single round to end one of your investigators. The goal is momentum, not steamrolling. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
I mean even just looking at it from an efficiency standpoint, a Flashlight is at best 3 clues for 4 actions assuming all those actions succeed (which in fairness they typically do). Very good in solo where most locations only have one clue, and obviously for low in gators especially who don't investigate so well with Mag Glass. But 3 clues is at best 3/4 of a location's worth of clues in 4 player, or a full location in 3 player, with many locations being double that number of clues. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
I also agree with Suika here. I have played many 4-player campaigns with friends, and after all this time the best resolution was making highly specialized cluever-fighter pairs, where cluever was able to consistently investigate at least 4 clues per turn (not counting movement) and fighter was able to deal (also consistently) 6+ damage per turn. In my opinion, ideally, there is no place for any clue cards for fighters in multi. — error · 34
Geared Up

Of the six deck creation talents, this one feels the swingiest and therefore the weakest.

Having a first turn of Ever Vigilant, in theory, sounds amazing. And ANY number of assets? Holy cow!

...but two things give me pause.

One: if, even after your mulligan, you have very few assets in your hand, then this really is just a worse Ever Vigilant that you're FORCED to use. At least with Ever Vigilant, you can keep it in hand until you're able to slam down some assets.

Two: you lose your first turn. If that was going to be a turn of just putting down stuff, then I guess you've broken even, or even won out depending on if you have three or more items in hand (and, of course, the cash to pay for them). But if you're putting down only one or two assets, then that's a whole turn gone that you could have also used moving forward and potentially picking up clues. And that just feels... really, REALLY bad.

So I think personally I'm gonna reach for any of the other talents before this one. Maybe go for the Neutral one instead? That way you can spend the immediate XP on Ever Vigilant and just have that in your deck in Scenario 1.

supertoasty · 40
Agreed, this one looks garbage. The worst restriction is, that you can only play items. It doesn't help, that Ever Vigilant can be put on "Stick to the Plan", and will likely safe at least as much actions and resources, unless you fill up your deck with mediocre slotless stuff like "First Aid". Also, not every scenario grants the Guardian the traditional setup turn in the first round. I'm actually planning to take the neutral permanent for Nathaniel. To become a versatile Rabbit Hole Delver! I think, this might be a good combo for him. — Susumu · 381
Whoopsy. Mixed up "First Aid" with "Painkillers"/ "Smoking Pipe". — Susumu · 381
Question: If one of these 0XP Permanents are added to a deck, and no higher-XP version for the card exists, is there any way to intentionally remove or replace them from a deck later in a campaign? I could almost see this as a high-risk kickstart on the way to SttP + Ever Vigilant, but not at the cost of being stuck with it forever. — HanoverFist · 746
Afaik there is no way to voluntarily remove a Permanent. "Charon's Obol" will be temporarily removed before "City of Archives". And if Duke was a Permanent (he is not), he could be still sacrificed on the altar. But these are special rules dictated by the scenario setup or resolution. By yourself, you cannot remove them. Neither can you remove any other card, that does not count to your deck size, like weaknesses or story assets you might have choosen to add and then found less useful. — Susumu · 381
Is everyone just missing how good this can be with Backpack? You want to mulligan for your items/backpack. If you run a backpack you will probably play it at 2 cost in the opening turn just for the option to play another item as well. Now your backpack costs 1 as well as any item it draws. — BjoBro · 1
CAN be good with Backpack, right. But you won't find it in every game in your starting hand, even if you hard mulligan for it alone. (Mulligan away even weapons, which would be dumb anyway for most guardians.) Also Backpack does not fix the issues of this card, like that you still can't play other assets like talents and in particular allies. And lets say, you get your first Backpack, and attach the second Backpack and some Supply-event to it. You then have the choice to either discard the Supply, if you want to play the second Backpack, or not playing the second Backpack in your setup "turn" at all. — Susumu · 381
It is debatable, at best, that this card works with Backpack. This card does not say “One at a time,” so as currently worded you must play all items at once. It would need an errata to read like Ever Vigilant if you wanted to take advantage of Backpack and Shoffner’s. — Eudaimonea · 5
There is no errata needed. Not playing one at a time simply doesn't make as much sense. — Scythe · 1
Ancient Stone

With Return to Forgotten Age, this is a great Stone upgrade for Ursula Downs, especially if you can get Dr. Elli Horowitz to hold it for you. With one of the worst weaknesses in the game this Stone offers great protection, and if you are also running Veda Whitsley with Charisma, you have a lot of double-chances with the encounter deck during the mythos phase. Throw in Truth from Fiction at level 0 or 2 and maybe Astounding Revelation and you are in great shape.

Krysmopompas · 366
Astounding revelation requires some search effects. You can also add scavenging with versatile to your deck and recycle the empty stone — Django · 5148
I don't quite get, what makes her weakness so bad with "Return to Forgotten Age"? — Susumu · 381
The Enchanted Path

Just played this scenario for the first time and we stayed on the path as instructed. Big mistake. Found out afterwards the designer assumed no one would listen to the instructions and everyone would leave the path. This was an enjoyable scenario that was ruined by a joke that has a huge negative impact on gameplay.

thericker3 · 6
Dreamlands is a disordered place. Don't trust so easily. — MrGoldbee · 1484
Such a genuine surprise that people would spend (15*the number of investigator) actions to place clues on an 8-shroud location and try to discover said clues. In addition to that, deliberately avoiding unrevealed locations on a blind run for potential victory points. — toastsushi · 74
@toast TDE could well be your first campaign, so you might not know that. Also in the design space of Arkham, it's entirely possible that an agenda flip or resolution would reward you for not exploring. But that's a design problem inherent to blind plays of Arkham, where it sometimes turns into a game of "guess the designer's intention". It can be a bad experience if you guess wrong. — suika · 9498
to be fair, the card Text strongly suggests that staying there is possibly not the right thing to do. — PowLee · 15
Ditto what @PowLee says. Also, in a 2-player game, after spending 30 actions (with no time to deal with enemies), and then finding 10 clues on a 8 shroud location? Sure, technically not impossible, but on your first playthrough without being prepared for this location? Highly likely you misplayed something. — Nenananas · 267
I'm afraid, my friend, that you'll not find much sympathy here. On the other hand, if you don't want the game to be mean to you, this is maybe not the best game for you? — SGPrometheus · 841
The card explicitly says "but you feel you are missing something"... It's an 8 shroud location that requires three actions per clue just to place the clues, that you need to collect a ton of clues from, that even tells you that you are missing something. It's obvious that you aren't intended to attempt this ridiculous task on scenario 1. You can only blame yourself for this one. — Soul_Turtle · 493
One can call it obvious, but that doesn't really make sense considering that Arkham is a game about narratives and using the information in the narrative to navigate scenarios. The scenario plays up that you shouldn't leave the path, it is heavily established early and Arkham is a game where certain choices have long term consequences. You can't say "I didn't expect anyone to listen to what I told them to do" as a game designer, especially because this is literally playing on real world myths and fairy tales and it feels very much like it is tempting you to leave the path, rather than it being legitimate. It violates the normal rules of "Establish, Payoff" pretty heavily, and the capstone of why this 'tehehe' wink and nod moment didn't work is that Arkham is a NARRATIVE game, and it stands to reason that having the narrative say one thing and the mechanics try to tell you to do another isn't going to work out for many players. It is a suuuuuuper common pain point in dream eater playthroughs for a reason. — dezzmont · 222
It is not “obvious”. My blind run of this campaign was in three player. I was Patrice and I had built a deck packed with skill icons. I suggested to my group that I generate the clues and commit what I had to their tests and we aced it. Naturally, we later discovered how damaging this was, but in previous campaigns, you were generally awarded something regardless of the path you chose. You can burn down your house and get Lita and trauma, or you can forgo Lita for the house in next scenario and bonus XP. That’s how an RPG should run. This dream eater scenario definitely breeches some player trust because they rightfully and conditionally assume a “pure” avoidance of the woods will grant them a story path (not unlike doubt/conviction or circle undone allegiances). — LaRoix · 1646
I really think it's pretty obvious. There isn't a scenario 1 in any other campaign in the entire game that presents even an optional challenge anywhere close to "spend 3*5*playercount actions, then investigate an 8 shroud location 5*playercount times". On a card that says "but you feel that you are missing something". Did you not get even the slightest meta sense of "the requirements to do this task seem really overtuned for the first scenario in a campaign, and the card says we're missing something, if we do this we won't even see half of the locations in the scenario, maybe we aren't supposed to be doing this?" I'm not sure how it could be any more obvious, besides being outright impossible. Though to counter the handful of people who actually stayed on the path despite all of this, it probably would have been smarter design to just make it impossible outright. — Soul_Turtle · 493
As for Arkham being a narrative game, staying on the path does tell a narrative: the investigators were too scared to leave the path and didn't experience anything in the whole scenario, hence they gained no experience. Terrible gameplay? Sure. But it certainly does tell a narrative where you made a choice that has long-term consequences. — Soul_Turtle · 493
Well MJ has said that there was an alarming number of people who did not stray from the path. In a blind run, there’s a human tendency to not really absorb all the text coming at you. I don’t think it should have been made impossible; I think the designers put this option in, they should have rewarded the players who don’t stray (like give them scenario advantages in the next two scenarios since they won’t have XP). My problem isn’t that there’s no story different, but that there’s no incentive to take the road less traveled, so to speak. — LaRoix · 1646