Stirring Up Trouble

Stirring Up Trouble

I think this card is a fair sight more powerful than existing reviews give it credit for.

There are not many cards that grant two clues without demanding a skill test. The best examples in each faction as far as I'm concerned are Scene of the Crime, Connect the Dots, Intel Report, Drawn to the Flame, and "Look what I found!", but all of these are somewhat conditional or costly. Yet, despite their limitations, these are all great cards, well worth taking in decks that can support or set them up. Getting two clues without a test is fantastic, with the notable exception of playing solo where many locations have only 1 per investigator clues.

Excepting Drawn to the Flame, Stirring Up Trouble blows all of the above out the water when it comes to set-up cost. It's zero resources, and you must have Curse tokens available equal to your location's shroud. This is absolutely trivial. No enemies, no skill test, and completely resource free. If you ask me, this is a phenomenal advantage over its in-faction competition, Connect the Dots. I think this advantage is even strong enough to make up for the fact you have to spend experience to include Stirring Up Trouble in your deck. Level one cards tend to be fairly easy to purchase between scenarios unless you absolutely must save experience for a super weapon or Exceptional card.

Let's compare Stirring Up Trouble more closely to Drawn to the Flame. Both are free and zero set up save for the moderately costly punishment you take for playing them. The big difference is that even four Curse tokens is generally a much milder punishment than drawing an encounter card. Treacheries and enemies can take the better part of entire turns to deal with, or even cost an entire game round - and even drawing an additional mild treachery puts you closer to drawing the next awful one than you would have been had you not played Drawn to the Flame. After playing Stirring Up Trouble, you might not even draw all the Curse tokens you added before the scenario ends. Nothing bad happens to you at the moment you play Stirring Up Trouble - all the cost is deferred to future skill tests, of which there will be very few if you use Stirring Up Trouble to clear an objective location at the end of a scenario.

The other big point in Stirring Up Trouble's favor is that you might actively want at least some Curse tokens in the chaos bag, making its only cost into an upside. In particular, Curse tokens enable the additional effects of the cycle of Mystic spells in the same pack - Armageddon, Eye of Chaos, and Shroud of Shadows, and I think this will be a strong pick for Luke Robinson along with Blasphemous Covenant to make your first Curse token each round into an actually positive pull. This might be a narrower enabler than a card like Deep Knowledge, but it is likely a more powerful one. I think most decks reaching for Stirring Up Trouble will have some play for Curse tokens, but I actually don't think the tokens are so awful as to necessitate that. At least some of the times you draw a Curse token are during tests you would have failed or you end up succeeding anyway. And if not, well that feels bad, but just suck it up and be happy with your testless clues!

I'm not about to swap Working a Hunch for this, but then Stirring Up Trouble is quite a different beast. Working a Hunch is particularly good to finish off a location you were able to investigate once already, whereas Strinning Up Trouble will let you grab some clues even when you're not set up to investigate, or doing so would be prohibitively costly for some reason. This means it could also see play in the other present "off-class" Seeker Roland Banks, who appreciates this card's zero resource cost a lot. Finally, it is worth noting that this card does get a little weaker the more teammates you have past the first; more players means more future skill tests even toward the end of a scenario, and the two clues you discover will be a smaller proportion of those you need to clear a location or complete a clue-related objective. In big games, I might stick to other options without the endorsement of my teammates and some good Curse mitigation.

Trinity_ · 204
I prever gather clues the normal way over adding 4+ curse tokens, that will likely make future tests fail and waste actions (and time). You're a lot less likely to fail a test you initiated purposly because you're prepared for the difficutly than being "ambushed" by curses. Or it can get very expensive you prepare for curses as well. — crayne · 3
I kinda agree with crayne. The comparison with Drawn to the Flame is a bit misleading that card is in mystic. This card is in seeker. Seekers can get clues without cursing the team must if the time. — Nils · 1
Testless clue tech is particular good for high shroud locations e.g. due to effects like Obscuring Fog or Serpent Guardian. Stirring Up Trouble can't even handle locations with more than 5 shroud even if you were inclined to pay the cost, and becomes effectly a Dread Curse weakness when using on a 2-3 shroud location — a location that any team should be able to trivially handle. There are edge cases such as low-shroud locations requiring additional costs to investigate, Haunted, etc. but that's what Seeking Answer's for. — suika · 9506
It's a combo card. I agree with other reviewers that it's not a great use of deck space in a straightforward seeker, but all it takes in lower player counts is a Blasphemous or False Covenant to completely mitigate the curse tokens. In higher player counts, the interactions with Rogue and Mystic curse tech are piling up with some big reveals still to come. For the Seeker themselves, it can power up Grimoires and Gazes of Ouraxsh. Additionally, there is a slowly but steadily building set of cards like Farsight and the Grimoire that let Seekers play events without spending actions. In a Farsight deck with Blasphemous Covenant, SUT can be 0 actions, 0 resources, and 1 card for two testless clues while improving the Chaos bag, and charging up Gaze. It's pretty darn good even if you only manage some of those conditionals, and a happy 1xp spend for the combo potential. The card may be niche, but only in the way that makes Arkham deckbuilding so much fun. — housh · 171
I like this card. Goes great with Skeleton Key. Sometimes you need to hoover up clues to complete a scenario and won't have many tests after. Sometimes there's a low shroud location with an effect that punishes failed investigates, like in TFA, or a nasty haunted effect in TCU — Bloodw4ke · 82
The cost of a curse is deceptive, because you aren't just paying for uncertainty, but lost efficiency in losing on actions you 'should' win. — dezzmont · 222
Just tried it with Luke, alongside Blasphemous Covenant, Deep Research and Promise of Power. That card is amazing and probably a staple in Luke. Don't be greedy with it. Gain 2 free clues on an adjacent 2, 3 or 4 shroud location. The consequences are probably going to amount to nothing with the covenant, contrary to drawn to the flame that can get out of hand. And there's no test: Read the signs does not avoid the autofail or attached treacheries. Fantastic, fantastic action compression in Luke. Of course not as good in pure seekers as others have said. — Oriflam · 207

Pet Oozeling

Pet Oozeling

Currently playing return to forgotten age with William and Trish. We played the blob after the second scenario and William got the small blob. I must say, it's totally OP!

Not being eaten (avoiding autofail)

Making it smaller (Remove ressources on it)

Other combos

Side note, Calvin likes trauma so does he like being eaten by it?

Django · 5163
Also side note: it doesn't take an Ally slot, so you can take it with the permanent On Your Own to help pay for Flare and A Chance Encounter. — Death by Chocolate · 1484
Can also be used in conjunction with a Pocket Telescope for some cheeky blobbing from one location away, during the investigation test, same as the 3xp Dynamite Blast ;) — Quantallar · 8

Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

I've been looking at the "Big Guns" that Rogues have available in their class. There are currently 4:
1) .45 Thompson
2) Chicago Typewriter
3) Beretta M1918
4) Sawed-Off Shotgun

Big Guns are useful to kill bosses and mini-bosses.
After reading through the reviews on this website for each of these 4 cards, it appears that the summary is:
The .45 Thompson and the Chicago Typewriter are better served in the hands of investigators with a naturally high Strength. Sharpshooter is helpful, but not a "must include".

The Beretta M1918 and the Sawed-Off Shotgun are probably better served in the hands of investigators with a naturally high Agility. Sharpshooter is very helpful, quite possibly a major contributor to the success of these guns.


Let me explain:
.45 Thompson and Chicago Typewriter
Neither of these two guns have a "succeed by" motif, so you don't need to aim exceptionally high. Assuming a 3 Strength Rogue with Lonnie Ritter and Delilah O'Rourke in play, they are already at a 5 base fight. If they are fighting a 4 Fight enemy, and the worst modifier in the bag is -5, then they need to be testing at a difficulty of 9. That means they are missing 4 more skill to beat the test. That can be garnered in different ways: Hard Knocks, Well Connected, High Roller, skill cards, etc.

Beretta M1918 and Sawed-Off Shotgun
These guns have a "succeed by" motif. The Beretta wants to over succeed by 4, and the Sawed-Off Shotgun wants to over succeed by at least 4, but ideally 6 for maximum value. Keeping with the same math as above (3 Strength Rogue, vs 4 Fight enemy, worst modifier is -5), then testing at a difficulty of 9, if you pull the -5 token, gives you an over success of 0. So, the Beretta wants you to test at 13, whereas the Sawed-Off Shotgun wants you to test at 15. WOW! Those are BIG NUMBERS!

Sharpshooter can help in these instances. Of course, cards like Well Connected, High Roller and Hard Knocks are helpful. But Sharpshooter can have a bigger impact, in just one card.

So right there, Sharpshooter is giving a bonus of +4 to +5, depending on the investigator.

Sharpshooter is capable of giving even more bonuses than that.

  • your attack now uses Agility instead. Rogue cards have a lot of Agility icons, more than Strength icons. This means you are more likely to have cards with Agility pips to commit to boost the test. There are a handful of double-Agility icon cards in Rogue.
  • you can choose to use the enemy's Evade value rather than their Fight value. I have not done a thorough search through bosses and mini-bosses stats, but I will estimate that enemies generally have equal or lower Evade values, compared to their Fight values. So Sharpshooter can possibly give extra bonuses from this difference in values.

TLDR: Sharpshooter can be a very strong card for a Big Guns Rogue who wants to be able to effectively kill bosses. If equipping the Beretta M1918 or Sawed-Off Shotgun, then Sharpshooter is a strong enabler to land those over-succeed by targets.

VanyelAshke · 188
Sharpshooter works decently well for a big gun rogue as a low priority upgrade after your Deliahs, your Sure Gambles, and Swift Reloads. The problem is that in almost every situation, a big gun rogue is less effective than a big gun guardian. — suika · 9506
...with the obvious exception of Tony, who can't effectively use Sharpshooter — suika · 9506
Tony could still benefit from the second effect of the card. How often do you see an enemies evade value higher than its fight? With that question in mind, would depend on the campaign for sure. — gmmster2345 · 2

Reliable

Reliable

I noticed that in the comments section, a few people have asked/speculated whether 2 copies of Reliable can be attached to one item (ex: a Weapon + Reliable + Reliable). I figured I would ask the question in the Reviews section, so that it's clear for future readers.

Can you double-stack Reliable on one item?

VanyelAshke · 188
Nothing prevents you from attaching more than 1 copy of Reliable to an Item asset. I've frequently attached 2 copies to Joe's Detective's Colts to get him up to 7 combat. — iceysnowman · 164
Two for Becky! — MrGoldbee · 1493
Note that some upgrade assets, such as Custom Ammunition specify "Limit 1 per asset." This card has no such clause. — Death by Chocolate · 1484

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 · 188
Um not part of the cost, and no Then in the text. I think the answer to both is yes — NarkasisBroon · 11
That is interesting, I hadn't thought of that :-P — NarkasisBroon · 11
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 · 1091
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 · 847
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 · 497
oh, "no" is too ambiguous.. you need to select an item that has at least 1 damage on it. — elkeinkrad · 497
So then, to be crystal clear: — VanyelAshke · 188
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 · 188
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 · 188
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 · 188
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 · 188
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