Your Worst Nightmare

Your Worst Nightmare

A friend of mine had me ask MJ Newman if he could Mind Wipe this weakness to include it in solo. I said he’d probably have to find some way to play Mind Wipe during deckbuilding, but I asked MJ anyway. The response was “lul.”

Cagarron · 13
Play Mateo with one other investigator, than have this other investigator leave the campaign right away. Done — petercheungjr · 1
"Oh no! Anyway" - Kymani Jones — AlderSign · 416

Jake Williams

Jake Williams

In a game with lots of players, Jake's reaction ability becomes less consequential, but in a 2 player game, drawing an extra card nearly every turn and ignoring an AoO becomes extremely valuable. In some scenarios where there are location encounter cards, he's just nuts. He's definitely undervalued!

adjeprado · 6
When I used to play true solo Ursula, a lot, I definitely found Jake to be very useful. Good for enabling you to use Fieldwork to evade — Zinjanthropus · 231

Archaic Glyphs

Archaic Glyphs

If this is a prophecy foretold, the prophecy is “the time Rex got two actions at once.” Because tempo is vital in this game, and this costs you two bucks, 3xp, an upgrade, and an action to play… When seekers want to be getting clues all the time. Even the good Archaic glyphs are hard to find a time to put down, and they give you bonus clues. There’s an outside chance that Ursula might want this, but she would want any other version of the glyphs first. And Norman might like these with his low agility, but he can just take cheaper, easier to get mystic spells.

MrGoldbee · 1493
it's actually really good in solo Ursula, fwiw. being able to combine an investigate and an evade into one action (which could be Ursula's bonus action) is huge in solo (and most locations only have one clue anyway). — Zinjanthropus · 231
In solo, could be good. — MrGoldbee · 1493
Norman would like this...except that he can't take it as he's restricted to Seeker 0. — suika · 9506

Archaic Glyphs

Archaic Glyphs

The reddit forums seem to have conflicting opinions, so I turn to this community for the answer:

Can you put secrets on this card from effects like Astounding Revelation, Truth from Fiction? This would speed up the translation process.

VanyelAshke · 188
See the discussion on Eldritch Sophist -- you should be able to, but there's a possible interpretation of the rules on Uses that makes it not work, but I'm of the *strongly held* opinion that that interpretation is nonsense and it makes at least one card (Bounty Contracts) do literally nothing. — Thatwasademo · 58
I'd say go ahead and let those cards put secrets on at least any card with an effect that puts secrets on itself (regardless of whether that effect is the Uses keyword) — Thatwasademo · 58
(though actually even that restriction would make Bounty Contracts not work, since enemies not only don't have Uses(Bounties) but also don't have any effect that puts Bounties on themselves) — Thatwasademo · 58
Bounty Contracts work as intended as it uses the Golden Rule to move Bounties onto enemies, similar to how damage can be placed on Relentless despite having no health. As it stands, you could technically put secrets on Archaic Glyphs...and any other asset absent of Uses (X type) (for example, something like Well-Prepared). Although that does mechanically nothing, there's no rule that prevents you from doing that. — toastsushi · 74
But, I don't like this interpretation, and it can also be interpreted that you can only put secrets on assets with "Uses (Secrets)" and nothing else. Nothing really can be established from it until there's an official ruling or addendum to "Uses (X type)". — toastsushi · 74
(Note that the second interpretation of a "Uses (X type)" does not conflict with Archaic Glyphs' ability to put secrets on itself, cause once again: Golden Rule.) — toastsushi · 74
Neither Bounty Contracts nor Archaic Glyphs make the explicit contradiction you say they make in a way that Astounding Revelation doesn't, though — Thatwasademo · 58
so the Golden Rule can't be the reason they work — Thatwasademo · 58
Well, maybe you could argue Archaic Glyphs does since it specifically names a card that doesn't have Uses(Secrets), but Bounty Contracts simply says "an enemy" and Astounding Revelation simply says "an asset". It'd be one thing if Bounty Contracts said "on an enemy, even if it doesn't have Uses(Bounties)", but it doesn't — Thatwasademo · 58
er, "to that enemy, even if..." — Thatwasademo · 58
So because it's theoretically possible for an enemy to be printed with Uses(Bounties), Bounty Contracts' ability doesn't explicitly contradict "A card cannot bear uses of a type other than that established by its own "Uses (X type)" keyword." in the way that the Golden Rule requires (unless Astounding Revelation does too), leaving only the possibilities that it doesn't work at all (since, at present, no enemies happen to have been printed with Uses(Bounties)), or that that rule doesn't forbid putting uses on cards with no uses keyword, only on cards with a contradictory uses keyword — Thatwasademo · 58
Also, while this isn't a decisive point at all, "A card cannot bear uses of a type other than that established by its own "Uses (X type)" keyword." only applying to cards with Uses would make more sense from a rules-organizational perspective, since neither Archaic Glyphs nor Astounding Revelation even have the word "Uses" on them to cause you to look up "Uses" in the rules reference — Thatwasademo · 58
And, of course, the example next to that rule talks about "a card with Uses (4 Ammo)", not "a card without Uses (Charges)" or the like — Thatwasademo · 58
See? Easy answer! — MrGoldbee · 1493
Agreed with Thatwasademo: the interpretation consistent with Bounty Contracts is that the rules only forbid placing uses on a card with a different uses type. So following this line of thought, you can place secrets on Archaic Glyphs and Bounties on enemies (as long as the enemy doesn't already use some other type!). — suika · 9506
I see another benefit of running the Glyphs together with Astounding Revelation: If you draw the latter instead of finding it while searching, you can still feed the secret since it has an INT icon. — AlderSign · 416

Azure Flame

Azure Flame

Other reviewers have rightly pointed out how this is a good card, with the backlash effect being less likely to occur on hard/expert.

However, I can't say I like the card design. Mystic have traditionally been powerhouses when they got all their spells set up, but getting there is not always that easy. I think part of the "charm" of mystics is the somewhat swingy behavior.

Before the release of this card, if you wanted to supplement Shrivelling, you had to include situational or somewhat iffy cards like Song of the Dead, Shards of the Void, Wither or Storm of Spirits. Now you can just include this. It's the equivalent of having 4x Shrivelling in your deck, and Azure Flame has all of the upgrades too. I frankly don't like this.

flamebreak · 27
Eh, I see your point but I think it's balanced. It is only theoretically better on harder difficulties. Yes, the damage will trigger less often, but you will have to compensate for more punishing tokens. And not only that, symbol tokens often come with forced negative effects even if you succeed so the incentive to not risk tech like Dark Prophecy and Olive goes WAY up on hard/expert. Finally, Azure Flame's punishment is harsher than Shriveling since it deals damage and mystics don't have health like they do sanity. It's good for Jacqueline, Diana, and possibly Sister Mary, but it's really not a good pick for anyone else, especially not Mateo or Marie. — LaRoix · 1646
I understand that their swingy behavior was "charming" but as the card pool grows it was inevitable that new options for all of the classes would be printed, Mystics included. Consider that none of the situational or iffy cards you list were even in the core set. — Yenreb · 15
Yes, but my problem is that this card is so very similar to Shrivelling. Why not just reprint Shrivelling for the Jacqueline Fine instead? — flamebreak · 27