Easy Mark

Easy Mark

I've played a few decks with this card in them. They have value in decks that run Crystallizer of Dreams or event recursion (Sefina Rousseau, Wendy's Amulet). But outside of that, I'm underwhelmed. Usually I am most strapped for cash at the start of the scenario, where I need 10+ resources to get set up. Getting 2 resources and a card draw feels mediocre. When I don't need the money, I can choose to sit on this card until I draw more or really need the cash, but then it just feels mediocre again.

Other options:

  • Hot Streak: has a larger instant effect, but it struggles with needing to have the 5 resources to play it. Useful in opening hand or needs a bit of resource management once you draw into it.

  • Pay Day: viable in Finn Edwards and Tony Morgan

  • Another Day, Another Dollar: this seems to address the problem of when you need money upfront to help setup. But it's only 2 resources for 3XP. THREE XP! Is it that worth it? I don't know. I haven't played with it yet because the xp cost is so high, in a faction that already struggles to afford its high xp upgrades.

  • Gregory Gry: takes up the valuable ally slot, which is usually preferred for an ally that supports the deck's purpose (Lonnie Ritter in Tony Morgan decks for the +1 Strength, Peter Sylvestre or Dr. Milan Christopher in Finn Edwards decks, etc).

  • Lone Wolf and Investments: good economy cards.

Maybe I'm playing this card inefficiently? Or maybe I'm expecting too much from it?
I see reviews from players that praise this card highly, making it sound like an almost auto-include for Rogues, and I'm not quite understanding the why. 2 resources and a card, vs 3 resources from Emergency Cache. If resources are what you need (which is what I usually need in my decks), then why is Easy Mark so "amazing"?

VanyelAshke · 188
This is an autoinclude for Rogues, or more specifically anyone with level 1 Rogue access, because it replaces itself and because it only costs 1 XP for all three copies. It is the most efficient economy card in Rogue. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
I also, for what it’s worth, do take Gry but never Investments or Lone Wolf (unless it’s a big money build). Hot Steak is fine for Sef. At level 0 econ you can take Faustian Bargain and Gry, but the appeal of Easy Mark is that it’s super action efficient because it replaces itself (and in an already draw heavy deck it becomes even better). Rogues have the second best draw of any class thanks to Lucky Cig Case. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
Oh, and I never take Pay Day, and I even wrote a review for it. Outside of a Borrowed Time deck, it’s very very bad. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
Agreed on Pay Day; Borrowed Time or some other shenanigans (Skids + Ace in the Hole) is the only place to consider Pay Day. For Easy Mark, I'll keep playing with it. Another "tender point" with the card is that it takes up 3 slots. Most decks are only 30 cards, and its hard enough pack everything you want into 30 cards. Now, you need to do the same in 29 cards. I am probably just under-evaluating Easy Mark. I'll keep playing it. — VanyelAshke · 188
Except it’s 3 slots that all replace themselves. You are making your deck tighter which is a major benefit. Mandy Thompson is considered incredibly powerful, but she gives you the deckbuilding choice of 30, 40, or 50 cards. All the most ridiculously OP Mandy decks opt for 30 cards because it makes it way easier to find your best cards sooner. Easy Mark is a small version of that, as is Three Aces from the same cycle. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
I don't follow why it is an autoinclude just because it replaces itself. You still need to spend an action to play it, so it feels like you need a deck that is able to reliably find more than 1 copy at a time. By that logic, wouldn't the whole set of Guts, Manual Dexterity, Perception and Overpower also be autoinclude since they replace themselves as well (with no action spent either)? — flamebreak · 27
@ flamebreak: I would say, the core cantrips are really strong, too. But you still need to pass a test with them. Still, I almost autoinclude "Guts" in mystics, "Perception" in seekers, and so on. "Easy Mark" replaces itself without a test. It also synergizes particularly well with the crystalliser and Chuck, who potentially makes the card fast even without the reaction trigger. (Unless you need his ability on another card this round.) — Susumu · 382
Weird comment. Investments is a garbage tier economy card. Easy Mark is very good. — CHA · 9

Sacred Covenant

Sacred Covenant

My initial analysis of this card wasn't great. Sure, it adds a lot of tokens to the bag, effectively, but I am still not really sold on the power of bless tokens. There are a few things worth noting here though, first, it triggers on a test at any location, as opposed to the other covenants. Second, Diana Stanley. Her ability places things below her as an effect, not a cost, and Sacred Covenant uses the word 'ignore'. This is notable, because though the explicit ruling is not that permanents can't be placed beneath investigators, every ruling thus far has been along the lines of "permanents can't leave play" and cards beneath investigators are not in play. So you should be able to trigger her ability, get the card and resource, and keep your covenant in play. This is silly, if you are doing some bless things. You could even double down on it with Dayana Esperence and Radiant Smite so that you get some good benefits out of the tokens, making a poor woman's Flamethrower.

h9uu · 31
Dang, yeah. I can't find any RAW reason that combo doesn't work. Hilarious! — Death by Chocolate · 1484
Also, I think ArkhamDB just let me like this review 13 times by accident? — Death by Chocolate · 1484
Please correct me if I'm wrong: if a card isn't actually placed beneath Diana, then she can't get the card/resource effect. At least, that's how I understand it. — snacc · 1021
@snacc Yes she can. Those are two independent effects - placing the card is neither a cost, nor a "then" situation, so you do everything you can and one part failing doesn't stop the other. Just like you could still place a card under Diana if something were to block her from drawing cards and gaining resources. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
I'm sure there will be a more explicit ruling/clarification about this card, but given that it obviously wasn't intended to work that way, I'd consider the specific wording on this card. You do not cancel the token, you cancel the modifier. Diana's power, which cancels game effects, has been clarified to include cancellation of tokens. This card explicitly does not cancel the token. — Time4Tiddy · 249
I think one other thing to mention if you are getting all rules lawyers about it is that this card doesn't use the word cancel or ignore. It says 'ignoring' which only exists on one other card and it's not one that Diana would usually have access to, so I think it's currently at least slightly questionable that this card effect does cancel or ignore — NarkasisBroon · 11
Thats decidedly untrue. Ignoring and ignore are the same verb, and apply under the same conditions. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
(v1.1) Rules Reference page 16, column 2, “Permanent” The fourth bullet point should read: “A card with the permanent keyword cannot leave play (except by elimination).” from the official FAQ. The whole putting the card under Diana Stanley would not work. — Atrael · 1
Visit Diana Stanley to read up. There was another FAQ stating that the cards beneath her are considered removed from play. — Atrael · 1
play., ignore my previous comments, my brain at 5am didn't see where the : was — Atrael · 1
@NarkasisBroon I'm not sure that the card explicitly has to contain the word "cancel" or "ignore" to trigger Diana's ability. I think that's just the easy way people use to find which cards would work with her. For example, if you played On the Hunt and spawned an enemy engaged with you, you'd be ignoring the "Spawn" text on that enemy, which in my opinion, would trigger Diana's ability, even though the card does not use the word "ignore". — snacc · 1021

"Ashcan" Pete

"Ashcan" Pete

I need some piloting tips for Ashcan. I played this deck in Return to Dunwich Legacy, on Standard. arkhamdb.com

I stopped playing after the WORST Miskatonic Museum experience I ever had. Duke could barely discover a clue because I kept pulling -3 and -4 tokens. When he managed to succeed, Ashcan needs to discard cards to try investigating again. Duke only gets 1 clue per Investigate.
When the Hunting Horror appeared, Duke's fight of 4 is not good enough.
It takes multiple rounds (6-10) to get Well Connected to give you a minimum +2 bonus, presuming you draw your Investments in your opening hand. After a few rounds, the skills in your hand are used up and you've got nearly no stat boosting effect.

Specifically about Ashcan Pete....
Even on Standard, a 4 investigate and a 4 fight does not good seem enough to get the core tasks of a scenario completed. The first 2 Dunwich scenarios went mostly well, and that's because he mostly drew 0 and -1 tokens. The general consensus in the community seems to be that testing at +2 on Standard is suggested. I disagree; my experience has shown that testing at -3 is significantly better. On Standard, you have one -3, one -4, auto-fail, and usually 1 BS token that is worth -3. That's 22-26% failure rating. Still too high for my liking.

So, is Dark Horse Pete the only way to play this investigator? The decks I tend to play have a commonality: play permanent boosts to get key stat(s) at 6, and then use cards that provide action compression and more boost. Ex: Beat Cop + Ace of Swords + .45 Automatic = fighting at 7-8 test value with +1 damage.

I must be missing something with Ashcan, because the consensus seems to support Tsuruki23's review on this page. He's beloved by many, and I cannot see why after playing a few scenarios with him. Your feedback is appreciated! :)

VanyelAshke · 188
It would be easier to divulge into if you posted your deck, but essentially you should never be relying on just a value of 4 to pass anything on standard. You should be committing or stacking. Magnifying Glass and Fieldwork (both of which enhance Duke's investigates) are common takes with Pete, but there's also simple skills like Perception and Overpower that I still run with him since he is so card hungry. You're also a Survivor, so at worse you move and fail an investigate, which ideally you can recover some of that opp cost with Rabbit's Foot. Fights you should never be entirely dependent on Duke to cover for you, you need another weapon just in case Duke fails or you need a second (or third) hit. Fire Axe is a typical go to because most of Ashcan's cards require very few resources to play- Fire Axe, Glimmer of Hope, Live and Learn, even Madame Labranche. None of that requires you run Dark Horse, and realistically Dark Horse itself is the least important card to make that deck work (Labranche is the most important). You could also opt for Meat Cleaver (with some boosts, like the Desperate skills) or even take advantage of his willpower and use Shrivelling. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
I can see you went with an Investments and Well Connected type of deck, which is not I don't think a good way to play him now that Faustian Bargain exists. The Investments interaction is really dubious anyway, as you're discarding a card to gain a resource, which is odd. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
I apologize by the way as you did post your deck, I just didn't notice that was a link at first. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
The deck's at the beginning of the post, I think. From what I can see , it's built around emptying investments as fast as you can in order to set-up using Pete's ability on Well-Connected twice/turn. The rest of it is Labrance , Meat Cleaver, Rabbit's Foot and various skills and events that you mention, plus the Improvised cards and some other things that don't mind being discarded. My instinct is that the Investments/ Well-Connected/ Pete's ability combo is the absolute core of the deck and you need to be absolutely focused on making that happen as fast as possible. Testing 2x/round at +4 seems a lot more achievable. Then you've got Winging It + Perception to keep making progress on low shroud locations , Improvised Weapon for little enemies, Glimmer of Hope, Live and learn, various misc skills for makeshift boosts while you assemble the combo and Labranche/Take Heart/Rabbit Foot to actually assemble it. But it's very very much a deck built around a specific group of cards, and I think you want to be prioritising that above all else. It does make me think Dunwich Legacy's a fairly harsh campaign for this deck tho. Losing combo pieces to the constant milling would be painful... — bee123 · 31
Thank you for the quick feedback! Yes, Dunwich's milling occasionally hurt when it hit core pieces. This deck has over 100 likes, so I thought I'd give it a try because I assumed it meant people have had good success with it. It does seem that this particular deck is quite combo-oriented, which requires a familiarity with the core plan. As a Magic:the Gathering player, I tend to avoid combo decks. I play Burn and linear "get the job quickly, efficiently, and as linearly as possible". Haha. I suspect this was a poor deck choice on my part, based on not knowing how to pilot it effectively. — VanyelAshke · 188
Regarding Ashcan specifically as an investigator, I recognize that it's important to boost Duke's investigation and fighting capacities. Magnifying Glass is a good card, yes. I guess Jessica Hyde to boost combat. The Survivor card pool doesn't seem to have as many permanent boosts or high-value items. Guardians get Beat Cop, Ace of Swords, Alice Luxley. Seekers get Mag Glass, Fingerprint Kits, Dr Milan, Death tarot. Each faction has a relevant Tarot to boost their significant stat, and items/allies that give permanent boosts. Survivors seem to have less of those. — VanyelAshke · 188
Yeahhhh, one of the big survivor gimmicks is around benefitting from failing tests and that obviously doesn't lend itself very well to permanent consistent boosts. So where they exist in the survivor pool, like say, Cornered , they do tend to be odder. That trick can be extended in some quite clever and powerful ways. Thinking for instance of Look What I Found in the Core Set, on a shroud 2 or lower location, you're sure to either succeed or to be able to play Look What I Found because you can't fail a difficulty 2 test by >2. And that's only scratching the surface , lol. Stella Clark is most built to function around fail-to-win, so if you're interested to how far the suite of fail-to-win cards can be pushed it might be worth looking at some Stella decks. For Pete in this deck tho, there's one fail-to-win card that's interesting and that's Drawing Thin. Did you consider spending xp on that? — bee123 · 31
Thank you StyxTBeuford for the breakdown on card selection in an Ashcan deck. Looking through a bunch of decks on ArkhamDB, the cards you listed are indeed in pretty much every Ashcan deck. Seems that the Fire Axe/Labranche/Dark Horse deck is almost unanimous as the most popular way to play (i.e. "best" way...?). There are some Yoatl skills decks, but there's less of those. Seems like Ashcan tends to run the same cards. — VanyelAshke · 188
Thanks bee123. Seems that Survivors are a faction that require a shift in perspective/play style. I do see that they have some neat design space; the fail-to-win concept is fascinating and sounds fun! Just may not be my personal playstyle. I compare decks to martial arts styles, in real life. Sure, you can learn 10 different martial art styles (decks). But you have personal strengths that make certain martial art styles (decks) intuitive and fitting your approach. :) Survivors are cool; they just may not be my style. Yorrick was a blast to play. Fairly straight forward; fight, recur items, repeat. — VanyelAshke · 188
You could do Drawing Thin, Rabbit's Foot, Take Heart, and Track Shoes- use that for draw to enable Pete's ability and Cornered if you want a boost. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
Is Drawing Thin worth the 6xp from Taboo? — VanyelAshke · 188
100% if you can't take rogue cards. — MrGoldbee · 1493
I like Mag Glass, Flashlight and Shovel in a Pete deck and then add either Jessica Hyde or Guiding Spirit (or both with Charisma) because taking a test at 4 is pretty risky. After that fill the deck with skill cards and Lucky/LiveLearn/LookWhatIFound. With all of those skill cards I like Grisly Totem but you probably want Relic Hunter so you can also take the Rabbit's Foot or the Teddy Bear. — The Lynx · 999
It’s worth noting that Legacy is actually the worst campaign of any released for Pete. — MrGoldbee · 1493
Also for future reference, I wouldnt ask for deckbuilding advice here. It’s not an efficient place to talk about it. Try the reddit or the Mythos Buster’s discord instead. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
Ok. I'll ask around to find someone who can teach me how to use reddit. Is there a specific page, or group...? Sorry for my lack of knowledge. I use Google and Facebook, and even Facebook confuses me sometimes. haha. Thanks. — VanyelAshke · 188
Why does everyone like putting allies in this deck? He doesn't have a spare ally slot without Charisma, does he? — qbeam2 · 1

Raise the Stakes

Raise the Stakes

One of the O'Bannions approaches you...

"Want to play a game?" he says with a sinister grin.

You see through his ploys; this is a game you cannot win. You consider your options:

  • Accept the game, but cheat: you'll win the game, keep your money, but they'll know...
  • Accept the game, play by their rules: you'll lose, they keep your money, but will leave you alone for now...
  • Reject their offer: the O'Bannions won't like that you rejected their "generous" offer, and start wondering why you're even here. Their men will be ready to "kick you out"...
Nenananas · 271
Often best to keep $ low btwn turns and pick #2. — MrGoldbee · 1493
Real talk 2 and 3 are the only options; the universe will punish you heavily for cheating. — SGPrometheus · 847
@MrGoldbee My understanding is that if you do not have 5 resources you cannot pick that option. — Time4Tiddy · 249
NM - I see that's been clarified below, and wow we've been playing this much harder than we have to. — Time4Tiddy · 249
Thanks on the nice words on "Hypnotic Gaze". Really liked that one as well. — Susumu · 382

Winifred Habbamock

Winifred Habbamock

For those asking "what core investigator role is Winifred best suited for: Fighter or Cluever?", it appears that she is capable of being built as either one. Similar to Jenny Barnes and Finn Edwards, the Rogue card pool can make Wini into a Cluever (Lockpicks, Lola Santiago) or into a Fighter.

As a Fighter, she can be built in two different ways:

Option 1 - Agility. Built similarly to Finn's fighting style, trying to leverage her Agility (Ornate Bow, Sneak Attack, Backstab).

Option 1 - Strength. Now with Lonnie Ritter and Delilah O'Rourke as part of the card pool, Wini could be a gun-wielding Fighter as well due to these allies bringing Wini's Strength to 5.

Sharpshooter is an interesting card that helps either of these two combat options. Wini now gets to attack using her Agility score instead (which would be 5, instead of attacking at 3 Strength).
Added to Option 1, any Agility boosters would make this even better (The Moon • XVIII, Lola Santiago, Cat Burglar).

If added to Option 2, with Lonnie and Delilah, then Wini would be at a base of 6 Agility, and attacking using that rather than her base Strength of 5. Sharpshooter would also give a +2 bonus from the two Strength boosts that each ally provides. So Wini would be shooting a gun with a combat skill of 8, plus the bonus from the weapon she is using. Pretty good! Checkout my review of Sharpshooter if you'd like to unpack the topic more.


So, what role is Winifred best suited for? I'm going to vote Fighter.
Fighting usually requires high skill tests, and you are rewarded more for over-committing to these tests than compared to clue gathering. Also, a lot of the Rogue weapons reward you for over-succeeding, so you might as well play Wini this way. Otherwise, why are you playing an over-succeed investigator? What's the payoff?

What do you think? Is Wini's "optimal" build to be a Fighter, or a Cluever?
Feel free to share details about strategies and cards that help bolster her "optimal" role.

VanyelAshke · 188
She's flex! — MrGoldbee · 1493
I think she is a cluegetter that packs a big punch with the Mauser (and then an upgrade), Lonnie/Delilah and Sharpshooter. She can still have one Lockpicks in the other hand and then some of the clue event cards. — The Lynx · 999
I used her in a 3p game as a cluever. She and Chuck scooped up clues with ease using Pilfer (3). Sometimes she helps out in support by doing a Sneak Attack (2) at the breakneck (haha) speed with her pal Chuck. — toastsushi · 74
She's a great flex gator, meaning she does fighting and clue getting well. She draws fast enough and has such great economy, and she's able to overcommit with significantly less opportunity cost, that her stats actually go much further than you'd think. Those 3's ast more like 4's or 5's in a normal gator since you're always committing 2 cards instead of 1. — StyxTBeuford · 13051
Wini is absolutely a generalist. Note that Lockpicks and Mauser both exhaust (though Mauser can ready itself on an oversuccess), which points her, like many Rogues, toward trying to use both each turn whenever possible. Sharpshooter, in her set, amplifies this by making both her investigates (with lockpicks) and her attacks add Agility, so load up her deck with the powerful Agility and Wild Rogue skills. — Thatwasademo · 58
(er, to clarify, you can't use Agility skills on Lockpick investigations, though you can on Sharpshooter attacks -- the Lockpicks give you the typical Lockpick-Rogue base of 8 though, so that's fine) — Thatwasademo · 58
Good catch, on the Mauser + Lockpicks single-use making her an Agility-oriented flex character. She could kill a 4 health enemy by over succeeding on the first Mauser shot, shooting again, then getting a clue on the third action. — VanyelAshke · 188
after all boosts you have how much attack? 5? and this is "good"? most part of fighters have 4-5 on start. If you play with bow, u shoot 1 time and after that what? AOO from enemy? Winny is bad fighter. — Rentgen · 1