Lonnie Ritter

Lonnie Ritter

This card needs an FAQ.

Question 1: To be able to heal Lonnie Ritter, is it mandatory that you select an Item asset that has at least 1 damage on it? Or could you choose an Item like Lucky Cigarette case and get the 1 horror healing on Lonnie?

Question 2: same, but in reverse. Can you heal 1 damage from an asset that damage on it (ex: Leather Coat), even if Lonnie Ritter has no horror on her?

VanyelAshke · 180
Um not part of the cost, and no Then in the text. I think the answer to both is yes — NarkasisBroon · 10
That is interesting, I hadn't thought of that :-P — NarkasisBroon · 10
My instinct is that you would need an iten with damage on it, but LR would not necessarily need to have horror for the damage to be healed. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1075
I recall an FAQ, perhaps in Wini's pamphlet that came with her deck, that said it worked as you suggest; you can heal either without the other being damaged. — SGPrometheus · 829
If the effect may changes the target's state, you need to choose the target whose state could be changed; you may check rule at "target" section in RR. Thus, the answer of Q1 is no. — elkeinkrad · 500
oh, "no" is too ambiguous.. you need to select an item that has at least 1 damage on it. — elkeinkrad · 500
So then, to be crystal clear: — VanyelAshke · 180
So then, to be crystal clear: Question 1 answer is no. On page 20 of the Rules Reference guide, under "Target", it states that a target that is chosen must have their game state changed. So, Lonnie must choose an Item that has at least 1 point of damage on it. Can someone please confirm. — VanyelAshke · 180
What about Question 2: Can Lonnie choose to heal 1 damage from an item even if she has no horror to heal on herself? — VanyelAshke · 180
Yeah, I'd say healing an item with damage when there's no horror on LR is fine. That part isn't covered by the "target" rules, because it's the word "choose" that makes something a "target, so it seems to me that it just falls under the general "when resolving a triggered ability, you must resolve as much of that ability as you can". If LR can't heal horror, you can't resolve that part so you just don't. — bee123 · 31
Ok, so we agree that Lonnie can heal 1 damage from an item, even though she herself does not have any horror on herself to heal. But she cannot heal herself 1 without also healing 1 damage from an item, correct? To try to understand the ruling via flavour to make it more "logical": when Lonnie fixes something (heal 1 damage on Item), it restores her sanity (heal 1 sanity). She can't just heal horror on herself without fixing something. Am I understanding how Lonnie works now? — VanyelAshke · 180
Yep, that's how I'd say she works. If you want to think of it in flavour terms- it calms Lonnie down to fix something but she has to actually fix it. She doesn't find it relaxing in the same way to mess with something that isn't or can't be broken. But she can still fix stuff without needing to calm herself down in the process- it's her job , after all, and you're paying her a resource to do it :) — bee123 · 31
Rogues usually suffer with sanity issues, so it's unfortunate that she can't heal herself a horror. I've played a few scenarios with Lonnie + Item. It's finicky... you need to draw both cards and play them, and ideally you want to assemble the 2-card combo early. Then, you need to be able to take damage without dying. It happened to me where Tony Morgan assembled the combo 3/4 of the way into a scenario, and he still died, suffering a Mental trauma because the encounter deck kept beating him with horror, but there was no damage-taking opportunities present to be able to require mending for Lonnie. — VanyelAshke · 180
From a purely rules perspective I think that the answers to both are yes. This is because the only cost (what comes before the ":" ) is exhausting her and spending a resource. The rest is "resolve as much as possible", and since there is no "then" before the second sentence, she would resolve as much as possible. In the case of question 1 you couldn't heal the item but you could heal lonnie, and for question 2 you would just skip healing horror from lonnie. — jonklin · 515
Having no item to heal is still perfectly legal. Honestly, so many people are arguing whether or not it's legal based on whether the item is a valid target but they're ignoring the first bullet point in the rules reference. Target: "If an ability requires the choosing of a target, and there is no valid target (or not enough valid targets), the ability cannot be initiated." Nowhere does it say that choosing an item is required so it doesn't matter if it's a valid target or not, she'll still heal the horror. — Vultureneck · 74
The answer is 1: NO 2: YES. An item with no damage on it is not a valid target (game state won't change), and since there is the "choose" keyword, you cannot initiate the action ("target" rules). This is also on par with the flavour of the card : Lonnie will always be able to fix your stuff, but if there's nothing to fix, Lonnie won't gain sanity — NotSure · 22
@NotSure. I had to scroll back and forth multiple times, but (assuming I am getting your meaning) you are saying 1. YES, 2. NO — stm08007 · 1
The FAQ is clear. The people confidently sayin gyoud8nt need — Grahamers · 1
The FAQ is clear. The people confidently saying you don’t need a damaged item are just plain wrong. I had to come here and post this because multiple people are still arguing the alternative in real life. — Grahamers · 1

Blackjack

Blackjack

In Innsmouth engaging enemies is punishing - I've seen guardians get dangerously low just from that. This long ignored weapon might just be good there as a backup weapon to get those fish off your clue getters.

Erdjo · 327
Interesting! — MrGoldbee · 1483
Blackjack (2) has long been fantastic as a backup weapon for Fighters or a main weapon for Flex in 3&4 player games where enemies are just statistically more likely to be on a friend's face rather than your own. — Death by Chocolate · 1488
Nailed it. Cannot say enough good things about Blackjack (2) in Innsmouth. — EmmeBGG · 15

Combat Training

Combat Training

IMO this card is almost unrunnable. Between the fact that guardians have very little horror soak and the general fact that these composures are too fragile and the effect not good enough, I honestly don't see any deck that would want this. Compare it to Scrapper (a card that's not even considered to be very good), for 1xp more you could have a permanent one of these. You will miss the 1 horror soak, but it drastically outweighs the problem of having to find and then pay for this card, only for it to discard itself. The one investigator that might actually want this, William Yorick, can use Scrapper, which as I said above is much better.

jonklin · 515
I haven’t included this card in any recent decks and I agree that it’s probably not the best. Level 3 Scrapper really outclasses it in most areas, although level 3 Scrapper is limited on Taboo playthroughs at the time of this writing. I think that the saving grace of Combat Training is that it’s fast, meaning you can save it in your hand until you hit a big combat/evade test on your turn, then play it and use it. It’s not really intended to be a permanent thing. Diana Stanley doesn’t have access to Scrapper, but a money-focused Diana could combine this card and Arcane Studies to pay to boost all 4 stats, which is kind of nice. So, while this card has some niche uses, I don’t think it’s unplayable. Of the “condition” cards, I think “Grounded” is a bit worse than “Combat Training,” at least. — ArkhamInvestigator · 305
How many guardians even test agility regularly? I tend to think it's the stat as a guardian you can ignore. You deal with monsters — bee123 · 31
* by killing them or using spells or stray cats or whatever. And you're in the class best equipped to soak the odd agility treachery. So I don't think it's worth the deck slot for agility pay-to-win and in terms of what else it does, there are so many better ways available to soak horror or boost combat. It just seems so weak... — bee123 · 31
I think, Tommy may also want this. He could play repeatedly, since this card is shuffled in his deck instead of discarding. fast is also good. — elkeinkrad · 500
Tommy's probably pretty happy with it: fast, "free" horror soak on a low sanity gator is good. If you're in carcosa or tcu it's probably decent, but i think other campaigns the teddy is all you need. — SGPrometheus · 829

"Fool me once..."

"Fool me once..."

A beautiful synergy with Diana Stanley:

Her Twilight Blade allows her to re-play events and skills from under her - however the blade explicitly states that the card cannot then go back under Diana when "playing or committing a card in this way". However, the cancellation effect of "Fool me once..." does not happen during the play action - it happens at a later stage, when a subsequent copy of that treachery is drawn, meaning you can trigger Diana's again at this point!

This means you can infinitely recur this card in the following steps:

  1. You resolve the effects of a treachery.
  2. You play "Fool me once..." to put it into your play area.
  3. A copy of that treachery is drawn and therefore is cancelled, triggering Diana's effect. The card is placed under Diana and she gets a card and a resource.
  4. Later, you resolve the effects of another treachery.
  5. You exhaust Twilight Blade to play "Fool me once..." from under Diana, placing it in your play area.
  6. Repeat from step 3!

It took me playing three whole campaigns as Diana before I noticed this synergy. You could say... fool me thrice.

snacc · 1008
This is also true of Delay the Inevitable, which I find to be a better interaction. Drawing 4 or 6 of the same treachery in a game is not something that happens consistently, and for Diana it means forgoing the cancellation of any one of those draws with something that immediately cancels, like Ward. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
Well if you're playing 1 or 2 player then you're probably right. However at higher player counts (3 or 4), you'll definitely be seeing the same treachery multiple times in a game. — snacc · 1008
Regarding your second point about forgoing other cancels: you only have two copies of ward so you can't cancel every card in every mythos phase. Every other treachery that you do not cancel is an opportunity to play this card instead. — snacc · 1008
Right, but there are a lot of cancel options for Diana. You have to pick and choose which ones are worth running, and even in multiplayer Im not so certain this is worth it. Fool me once is actually a card I like more for keeping a card out of the deck permanently, and Diana’s function for it is different. In draw heavy decks, it can completely remove a weakness. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
In my Diana plays (and I played her more than any other investigator, even released my first decks now for her) I don't find the Twilight Blade early enough in many games, to make these kind of combos likely. They are sure great and fun, if they work, and "Fool me once" cheaper than "Delay the Inevitable", but I prefere more consistently reliable cancel or ignore cards. — Susumu · 381
If you're having trouble getting the Twilight Blade, i'd highly recommend using 2 copies of Backpack(2). It really helps to make Diana feel more consistent. — snacc · 1008
... or instead of two copies of Backpack, just try two copies of 0XP Prepared for the Worst. I find loads of dilemmas when spending XP for Diana. I don't often run many items or supply events. You don't tend to need the Twilight blade early on, it has much more benefit later in the game (once you've used up a bit of your deck and have a few cards under Diana's card). So finding one of the three cards (Blade, Prepared, Prepared) in the top half of your deck is quite likely, and 9 cards is sufficient searching when you have half a deck. this is more of a comment on Diana and not really to do with "fool me once" - Sorry ! :-) — Phoenixbadger · 199

Riot Whistle

Riot Whistle

I think Riot Whistle is a good item for Zoey Samaras.

And I have a question?

If Zoey Samaras equip Riot Whistle and use Spectral Razor.

Can Spectral Razor use Riot Whistle's action?

(not enough characters!!!)(not enough characters!!!)(not enough characters!!!) (not enough characters!!!)(not enough characters!!!)(not enough characters!!!) (not enough characters!!!)(not enough characters!!!)(not enough characters!!!)

LuckyCat · 1
The answer is no because Spectral Razor is a Fight action, not an engage action. It would work for any card that says bold "Engage". Whistle would not get you any savings there. It's also a card that I find tricky for Zoey because she wants either this, Rosary, Mirror, or her signature accessory. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
Yeah, even though Spectral Razor engages an enemy, it doesn't have the Engage action designator, and that's what Riot Whistle cares about. Contrast Righteous Hunt in the same set, which does have the Engage action designator and thus could be used with Riot Whistle's additional action. — Thatwasademo · 58
The thing that really hurts this is that accessory slot. Without that I guess it might be broken, but with it it's too expensive. — SGPrometheus · 829
The accessory slot isn't a huge deal, considering it's in Guardian -- its only real competition at level 0 in class is Hallowed Mirror. — Thatwasademo · 58
one sad thing is that zoey's cross is accessory. — elkeinkrad · 500
Zoey can be a Monster Hunter AND a Relic Hunter. Then run Backpack (2) to dig for your great accessories and weapons faster with a high item density. — Death by Chocolate · 1488
What about "Get Over Here"? It's "Engage. Fight." ... or is that not an "engage only" action? — omalleyp2883 · 1
I would think that it won't work with Get over here because of the fight part. — walawalo · 1
It doesn't matter that it also fights, as long as the action has the engage designator you can use Riot Whistle's action on it. — Thatwasademo · 58