Safeguard

Safeguard

Should I run Safeguard, you ask? Well, would you run a 2-cost, slotless Leo De Luca?

OK, so maybe that comparison is a little bit flippant, but I do think this card is quite pushed and is probably the best level 0 Guardian card we've seen since the Core Set. This thing does a very respectable Pathfinder imitation, while being cheaper and not costing XP.

Note all the tricks you can do with this card and enemies. You can still activate Safeguard if you have an enemy on you. This allows you to drag enemies across locations without attacks of opportunity. This has cool applications for investigators like Roland and cards like Grete Wagner. Even outside of that, I've found that this comes in handy surprisingly often. For example, does your location have some nasty text that makes it unpleasant to stay and fight there? Just Safeguard your way to a nicer spot, action-free. With Safeguard II my Guardians have found themselves dragging enemies across the map in frankly ridiculous fashion.

Note that, unlike with Safeguard II, if another investigator moves into a location with an enemy, this version of Safeguard does not allow you to swoop in to preemptively engage that enemy (since you move "after" the other investigator). This is one of several reasons why I would recommend Safeguard II as a strong upgrade to an already great card.

Another benefit you'll notice from Safeguard, beyond the obvious one of saving you a ton of actions, is that you'll much more often be able to end your turn at the same location as the rest of the team. This is usually a really good thing. Investigators will more often be able to support each other with commits during the Mythos phase, for example.

Finally, Safeguard gets even better if other investigators are running the movement cards of their own faction. It's so strong with another investigator's Pathfinder or Shortcut. If you haven't tried a multiplayer group where one player takes two Pathfinders and everyone else takes two Safeguard IIs, well, you really should. It's pretty sweet.

CaiusDrewart · 3188
I played it in Nathaniel and am currently playing it in Carolyn, who doesn't really care about engaging the enemies herself, and I agree, this is a great card in everybody, who can take it. — Susumu · 381
Safeguard also combos nicely with Scene of the Crime, helping you position yourself to scoop those free clues. — Mordenlordgrandison · 462
Yeah, I don't think you have to be a fighter to want this card. It ends up being good for pretty much any investigator. This makes it one of relatively few level 0 Guardian cards that have appeal for investigators who aren't trying to fight with Combat. — CaiusDrewart · 3188
Safeguard basically an auto-include in anything beyond solo, no combos needed. It'll be easier to describe the situations where you don't want Safeguard! — suika · 9497
Is your teammate moving into an unrevealed location that turns out to be horrid, its cool safeguard (0) has you covered, just don't trigger it. Honestly the only thing this is missing to just be the best card ever is a wild icon. — Zerogrim · 295

Spiritual Resolve

Spiritual Resolve

IMO this is a great card for the battle version of Sister Mary, so she can have her Body slot free for Bandolier and hands for a Rifle or two....her squishy factor drops considerably with 3 copies of this sucker at the ready in her deck.

Krysmopompas · 366
It worked really well in my Sister Mary: Boxing Nun deck. — Snakesfighting · 94

Dark Memory

Dark Memory

This card would be perfect if it did not cause the agenda to advance. You would have to take 2 horrors every turn untill the agenda is about to advance and then play this card to avoid the extra doom. Playing this weakness also costs one action and 2 resources. If you play Agnes solo this is okay weakness, but it is absolutely brutal on 4 player games, making Agnes unplayable.

Averu · 80
You're right that this is one of the worst weaknesses ever printed, and I agree that your suggested alternative would be more in line with the other weaknesses in the game. I would not agree, however, that this makes Agnes unplayable in high-count games. She's still a popular pick in my group. 1 Doom is bad but not the end of the world, and if you draw it late-scenario (even mid-scenario if you have Peter II out), you can realistically just tank this. — CaiusDrewart · 3188
I agree with CaiusDrewart: Agnes has a very bad weakness, a sig card, that only committs to skill tests and a meh Elder Sign effect, but she is still a reliable power house. Her ability, 5 willpower and Survivor off class gives her so much to shine, that her disadvantages seem to be somewhat to balance this out. — Susumu · 381
Also a team with Agnes might be at a doom disadvantage against a team with another mystic. But although it is my favourite class, I would not say, that a 4 player team without mystic, and therefore without a chance to cancel AE with WoP is unplayable. — Susumu · 381
Definitely not unplayable. But I do really feel it if I attempt a 3-4 player party without a Mystic. It's just so nice that their Wards of Protection can shut down Ancient Evils -> encounter deck reshuffle -> Ancient Evils nonsense. And, of course, no Mystic means no Delves, which is sad for everybody. So while you certainly can get by regardless, my multiplayer groups rarely leave home without one. — CaiusDrewart · 3188
Gotta disagree with your first post there @CaiusDrewart; sometimes 1 doom IS the end of the world. :3 Of course in that case, you just don't play it, unless you're feeling salty. I definitely agree that Agnes is playable at any player count, despite her punishing weakness. — SGPrometheus · 841
Haha that's a fair point! I say that this weakness is not the end of the world, but now that I think about it, the last time someone played Agnes in my group, Dark Memory very nearly torpedoed the finale of TCU... — CaiusDrewart · 3188
Yes, on second thought, I have to agree. I have a 3 to 4 player group, who plays on standard, and the only campaign I lost at that count was TFA blind run (mostly) without a Mystic. Akachi succumbed to the Doom of Etzli, because our vengence was to high and replaced with Calvin, then Mateo made a cameo in last scenario, after Leo payed the obol to Caron, because 5 XP seemed better then 0 XP for the final. — Susumu · 381
So in total, a big group without Mystic is on a severe disadvantage hence AE, and the advantage with Agnes is slighly below other Mystics, because she comes with her own AE, which she might or might not be able to dodge. But she can cancel the regular AE like any other mystic, and is in general powerful enough to make up for that disadvantage. It can happen, that her weakness is campaign-loosing, but that is not unique either. Think about any character, who is overzealous. Even Nate's Tommy Maloy, while in general a below par signature weakness, might arive at a time, when the boxer can't dance around a mindless dancer, ultimately loosing the campaign because of that. So it's always a question of circumstances. — Susumu · 381

Cryptic Writings

Cryptic Writings

Cryptic Writing, Crack the Case, and Burning the Midnight Oil all fulfill very similar roles: actionlessly turning cards into resources.

Of the three, Crack the Case has the highest resource potential and the ability to support your allies, at the cost of not being always available when you need it. Burning the Midnight Oil is more reliable and only asks that you be able to make a basic investigate action, which any Seeker should be able to do. Where does that leave Cryptic Writings?

Cryptic Writings will far less reliably give resources actionlessly (especially at lower XP), but it does have icons. This means if you don't need the resources, you can simply treat it as a skill card , and it makes for good Crystallizer of Dreams fodder for Ursula and Trish. With a bit of XP, seekers will draw far more cards on their turns than during Upkeep so its reliability in coughing up resources will improve. It also has a slight edge in speed over Crack the Case or Burning the Midnight Oil it'll due to not having to wait for the right timing, again assuming you can reliably draw it on your turn.

If you're running Higher Education, you'll most likely be looking at one or both of the other cards. If you're running a heavy card draw or cycle engine, Cryptic Writings could merit a second glance, although most likely Astounding Revelation would be all the resource you need unless you're hoarding cash for some reason or have really good resource sinks not named Higher Education.

suika · 9497
I've tried to like and enjoy Cryptic Writings, but every time I've put it in a deck, it's been disappointing. I find Crack the Case to be far the best of the three because there's always one location that has a good shroud, and if not, a free action to get 3 resources (or even just 2) is pretty good. — acotgreave · 887
Cryptic Writing's only advantage is if you cycle your deck faster than you investigate, it generates cash a lot faster than Crack the Case, which becomes dead cards in your hand. — suika · 9497
It also has better icons, which is especially relevant for Amanda. You could also run both- CTC to share resources, Writing to inject cash into your own engine. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
The L2 has felt pretty wildly efficient the few times I've taken it, but I think Crack the Case is more than efficient enough, and probably has fewer feel-bad moments. — Zinjanthropus · 229

Money Talks

Money Talks

EDIT: I was wrong about that, see the comments below. I leave the review still unaltered.

I wonder, if the first bullet point of the FAQs on this site is still relevant, or if it had been ruled otherwise in the mean time. It reads:

Q: Can skill icons be committed to a resource skill test as triggered by Money Talks? A: It appears that icons can be committed to any skill test, regardless of which skill is being tested, and regardless of whether or not a skill is even being tested whatsoever. From the RR, Skill Test Timing, ST2: "An appropriate skill icon is either one that matches the skill being tested, or a wild icon. The investigator performing this test gets +1 to his or her skill value during this test for each appropriate skill icon that is committed to this test."

This reason seems to make RAW sense and the RR has not been altered, however there is a paragraph in recent versions of the FAQ, added in 'Game Play', point 1.9 and quoted in the online version of the RR on ArkhamDB, which in my opinion absolutely contradicts it:
A Wild (?) skill icon on a player card may be used to match any other skill icon for the purposes of both card abilities and counting how many matching icons are committed to a skill test. When using Wild icons for the purpose of resolving a card ability, a player must state which icon the Wild is matching at the time the card is used.

Wild icons committed to a skill test are considered "matching" icons for the purposes of card abilities. (Bold emphasise mine).

How could you state the wild matching a "resource icon", as there clearly is not such a thing in the game? And if you state it to be any other icon, it ceases to be a matching icon. It sounds to me, this paragraph had been added to address the weird situation of wilds "matching" a resource test. But then, the ST2 definition probably should have been reworded as well?

Susumu · 381
My thought is that the skill test is not the purpose of resolving a card ability; thus, a player don't need to state which icon the Wild is matching. During the skill test, the wild icon is just "matching icon" or "appropriate icons" stated in ST2 & ST5. As I know, bold emphasised state is for the ability that requires icons directly, such as Passage Car or Jerome. — elkeinkrad · 500
That might be the reason behind it, but abilities are what make cards interact with the game, so in my understanding an event like "Money Talks" should also have a constant ability, that makes it possible to test resources instead of the tested skill. (While the card is in play, so during the test.) — Susumu · 381
“For the purposes of both card abilities and counting matching icons”. Nothing about Money Talks depends on you committing wilds for its ability. Therefore no declaration is required. — StyxTBeuford · 13043
The quoted sentence is about when a card ability *directly* asks you to count the skill icons on a card (usually one it's making you discard, but not always). Committing cards to a skill test is committing them to a skill test and not using them for a card ability, regardless of whether the test was initiated by a card ability by a basic action (those two things being the only way skill tests can be initiated), or even if the test was modified in some way by another card ability (like Money Talks changing the skill used to "resource"). — Thatwasademo · 58
In short, when you commit cards to a skill test, the thing you are actually using the icons for is *always* the framework steps ST.2 (to show that the card is legal to commit) and ST.5 (to add to your skill value), not the ability initiating the test or any abilities modifying the test in any way. — Thatwasademo · 58
Thank you both. That all makes sense. — Susumu · 381
Does "Grit your teeth" ("You get +1 to each of your skills for the remainder of the round.") count for Money Talks? — Miroque · 25