Underworld Support

An interesting card in Edge that was completely decimated by the release of Scarlet Keys.

The initial choice is whether you want to lower deck consistency to increase deck consistency. I'm not going to pretend to have run the numbers to see whether it's worth it for that, but Rogues' specialisation in Exceptional cards adds some amount of efficiency for finding those.

But then, rather than supporting the 'highlander' archetype a little more, Scarlet Keys came very close to destroying any reason to run this card at all.

A consistency tool like the similarly-named Underworld Market comes close to blowing it out of the water. It isn't hard to stack 8-10 weapons in that deck and focus on economy or niche cards in a fighter. It's a little harder to do so with investigation tools or evasion tools, but not impossible. And you can mix and match any of the three. The problem is that this is very hard to reconcile with Underworld Support, which would make your Market deck far, far less consistent.

Then we have the other Rogue consistency tool, Friends in Low Places. As a customisable, running a single copy makes it considerably less cost-efficient, costing 10 to fully upgrade one copy rather than two. On top of that the card itself benefits from running multiples of the cards you want to catch with it. As it only digs six (or nine) cards, if you can run two copies of what you're searching for, you're much more likely to hit it. Even in the best case of using it to dig through a smaller, Underworld Support deck, for exceptional items, you've still made it much less efficient to upgrade.

There's also the other two inefficient upgrades, Damning Testimony and Honed Instinct. While Damning Testimony isn't especially bad with Support beyond the inefficiency, using Support completely locks you out of what's probably Honed Instinct's best upgrade, letting you run it as a pseudo-myriad card.

On top of that, there isn't a single card in Scarlet Keys that makes you look twice at Underworld Support positively, except, perhaps, the limit-one Dirty Fighting, or wanting to quickly cycle Clean Sneak and not waste a whole 8xp on two copies. The only exceptional in the set is the Market itself. Even the high-cost ally is non-unique, so there's little reason not to buy two of him if you want him. Something like Embezzled Treasure is much better if you can manage to stack two copies.

It's especially a shame because the other permanents from this cycle got at least a small boost. Down the Rabbit Hole is great with customisables. Salvage is a pretty considerable boost to Short Supply decks. Guardians at least got a handful of interesting items which you can consider with Geared Up, and Vincent is an excellent new user of it regardless. Though there's little for Forced Learning decks, you can at least make the case that an extra investigate tool or a way of searching for your key cards can add some consistency to such a large deck.

I really would like to see a card or two boosting the 'highlander' archetype, perhaps even explicitly, in the next set. So here's hoping.

SSW · 193
The issue with Underworld support is that, while in theory you could sidegrade a bunch of stuff, in reality one of Rogue's best qualities is digging really fast using some specific tools (ex: Lucky Cig Case), so even if you were running heavy on exceptional cards you probably lost deck consistency. However, if anything, the existence of multiple consistency tools in SK *increases* the value of Underworld Support. Underworld market, for example, lets you very consistently get cards like Pickpocketing out, as well as getting weapons and clue tools *without* having to run 'second best' copies. It still isn't GOOD but I would actually consider running underworld support MORE post SK, rather than less, because 'more consistency tools' actually stack together, rather than conflict. — dezzmont · 168
But they don't stack together. They actively conflict. — SSW · 193
How do they actively conflict? Your deck goes down to 25 with underworld support. You then use underworld market, add 10 cards to your deck, and take those 10 cards (which, yes, need to be singletons, but that is fine), and shove them into underworld market. You still have a 25 card deck, you now just also have a 10 card side deck that lets you solve a major consistency problem for certain specialized draw tools (which, again, is the main weakness of Underworld support). — dezzmont · 168
The odds of drawing the specific card you want in a singleton underworld market deck isn't even that much worse: you see each card you desire 1 turn later than you would if you could run 2. That is a cost certainly, but that is a cost underworld support is applying to underworld market, not a cost underworld market is applying to underworld support. Underworld support is not made worse by underworld market, its just undeworld support's effect is almost always harmful to your deck in *every context* already anyway. — dezzmont · 168
You spelled out how they actively conflict, then pretended that that isn't an active conflict. — SSW · 193
They actively conflict in the exact same sense every single card in the game actively conflicts with Underworld support... yes... You have not specified why underworld market makes underworld support worse however. — dezzmont · 168
If you were intent on running an underworld support deck, underworld market *makes it better.* Your review is framed as if SK cards hurt underworld support, when literally the opposite happened. Underworld support was not decimated by the release of scarlet keys, it was *greatly enhanced.* — dezzmont · 168
I'll bite: I think dezzmont's take is correct, and also that I don't think Underworld Support is even trying to be good; it's a cute little restriction and reward for the class with the most Exceptional cards, and will likely not be a harbinger of a singleton archetype. — Hylianpuffball · 22
No, my point was that it's a shame that they printed consistency tools that further disincentivise Underworld Support rather than reward it, which they do. You seemed to read this as the reverse, somehow, that Underworld Market makes decks it's in worse? This obviously isn't true, but nobody ever made that point. Underworld Market is bad in Underworld Support decks because most of its benefits are massively reduced, so you would be better off spending the exp on something else - the same way almost all 'bad' cards are bad. You seem to understand why Market is significantly less efficient in Support decks, so I'm not even sure what point it is you're trying to make. — SSW · 193
The mistake your making is imagining the 1 extra turn it takes to draw a specific card in underworld support decks as a more significant cost than the time you gain in drawing it. In an underworld support deck, underworld market is actually BETTER in the way you care about: how much faster it gets you your cards, and in underworld support that effect is LARGER than in a standard deck, even though you get the card on average on turn 3 instead of turn 2. It also is better because its reduces the total copies of a capability you need, for example if you need a weapon as an evader you can just take a mauser and .25 in a market, while to get weapons consistently in a main deck still requires 2 more cards. — dezzmont · 168
For example in a standard deck where you can run 2 copies of pickpocketing or dirty fighting, you will find one 55% of the time in your mulligain, and on turn 4 on average if you didn't. Underworld market only gets you it 1.5 turns earlier, assuming only upkeep draw.In underworld support you will find your copy in 9 turns (and your ability to tutor and on turn draw is weaker). This means underworld market, far from being worse, swings your rate of finding it by MORE than 4 turns. The take that underworld market isn't worth taking in underworld support is just wrong, its literally one of the most impactful cards you can take. They quite literally were made for each other. — dezzmont · 168
I think a better argument would be that in term of consistency, it is market > both > support > none. In other words, yes adding market to a support deck make it better, but replacing support by market is even better. — MoiMagnus · 62
Darrell's Kodak

Darrell's Kodak is the only singular signature item bearing the investigator's name that is not unique. Is this difference from established precedent an oversight in development or is there a thematic reason?

luccros · 2
He actually has a total of 4 kodak's at home. He Just only brings one of them to each adventure. — PowLee · 13
Having a quick look, there have been some other signature item assets that aren't unique. "Tony's .38 Long Colt" isn't unique. Heck, he's got two of them! Also Joe Diamond has his "Detective's Colt 1911s". Jenny and Roland's firearms are unique, so go figure... — Yellow_Peril · 1
Adam Lynch

Minor spoilers for Miskatonic Museum...

If you resolve the scenario and Adam Lynch never leaves play, then you do not update the chaos bag.

If the player with Lynch resigns, then he does leave play and you do update the chaos bag.

None of the resolutions let you keep him in your deck for future adventures - nor would you want to, considering his forced text.

Rathrain · 3

I like this card! I'm using it in an old-school Dark Horse "Ashcan" Pete deck with Madame Labranche--all cards I'd run anyway. I'm happy to have it sit in my hand until a turn when I don't otherwise need the good lady's services, and that makes it essentially a "free," fast, slotless,1/1 heal on Duke. I'm also running Forced Learning and more often than not I choose Trusted when it appears in the upkeep phase. I also like that increasing an ally's max health and sanity can help get full value out of other healing cards (e.g., Bizarre Diagnosis). And buffing Duke is as good as healing Ashcan. Niche is not the same as bad.

PJFrigate · 175
The Black Cat

I ran the Black Cat with Charlie Kane and had some fantastic moments. The double Wilds give a +3 to any 1 test, possibly another with inspiring presence or Bonnie. Here are some more words to complete this review.

dlikos · 119
You could've at the very least explained one of those fantastic moments. — Nenananas · 224