Blackmail File

Blackmail File

Important to note that this is only the second slotless Tome asset ever printed, the first being Schoffner's Catalogue, and that means it earns consideration in exactly one deck: Parallel Daisy Walker! With Daisy's Tote Bag down it's very possible to get up to 7 or 8 on Parallel Front, making this a pretty easy test on Standard and even on Hard for most enemies. And as the other reviews have stated, making an enemy aloof can be more useful than a conventional evade in multiplayer settings, especially on a gator like Daisy who would otherwise be forced into teching in options like Mind over Matter or "I've got a plan!" to enemy manage.

mniksa3 · 5
The main problem is, that you might rather want the original front due to the extra action for using books. — Tharzax · 1
very true, it's a tradeoff between higher willpower or more efficient action economy. and you could easily run fine clothes to make the Parley test easier to stomach with 3 base will. — mniksa3 · 5
While it’s generally true that standard Daisy’s face is better (just as standard Daisy’s back is better), this card is actually the strongest single argument for Parallel / Parallel, as the original review suggests.. I cannot see this finding room in any Standard / Parallel builds. — Eudaimonea · 5
My thoughts exactly! i've played || Daisy just before this card was revealed and I was really missing a rogue tome — Fedorwin · 15

Bianca "Die Katz"

Bianca "Die Katz"

Proof positive that Alessandra is an abusive partner:

TheMathDoc · 16
Plot Twist, Bianca will be the next investigator and Alessandra is her signature weakness — Valentin1331 · 74257
Another morally gray approach would be to get her killed in the playing window during the agility test after taking the 5 resources. That should interrupt the rest of the effect. Not worth the actions, though. — AlderSign · 309

Well Prepared

Well Prepared

Where does it say in the rules that the skill icons on the chosen asset must be of the same type of the skill test being performed? The way I read the card, it boosts your general skill value for whichever test you're performing by an X ammount, which is calculated from the matching skill icons on an asset. But it never says that the icons matching on the asset need to be the same as in the test.

Drakkions · 1
You seem to be ignoring the word “matching” on Well Prepared. What would one match these icons against beside the type of skill being tested? — Eudaimonea · 5
What do you think Matching means if not...'the same?' — MrGoldbee · 1471
It just says you get +X and X is the number of matching icons, it doesn't say X can't be 0. — Gsayer · 1
It is true that Well Prepared doesn't explicitly spell out that the icons have to match the test bring performed, which means that the linguistic rules of the English language could theoretically allow the card to be interpreted 'icons that match each other' rather than ‘icons that match the skill test.’ However, the rules also don't explicitly spell out that I can't spend painting supplies from my garage to pay for Streetwise (even though it is correct usage of the English language to describe my brushes and tools as ‘resources’). When the vagaries of the language you are using allow multiple interpretations of a card we should go with the one that is consistent with the rest of the rules of the game, meaning that Well Prepared is referencing icons that match the skill test being performed. — Pseudo Nymh · 61
The comparison to "spend painting supplies from my garage to pay for Streetwise" is quite ridiculous, as the card explicitly states "Exhaust Well Prepared: Choose an asset you control.", giving you an open choice to choose any asset you control, and not creating any reference to do something completely unrelated to the game. Not that it would change anything, you would just exhaust WP for nothing then. For me it isn't allowing any multiple interpretation, it is quite quite clear and obvious as it is. — Gsayer · 1
@Gsayer I think I agree with you that you can exhaust Well Prepared to get +0 to a skill test. What I am trying to suggest is that it would be contrary to rules precedent to add the three Combat icons on Chainsaw to an Intellect test (even though they can be considered 'matching icons' as they match each other). Perhaps my example was a bit fanciful. I am trying to suggest that any game quickly becomes absurd if we allow any rules interpretation that isn’t explicitly textually forbidden. That’s how you get golden retrievers playing basketball! :) — Pseudo Nymh · 61
Oh, looking at it again, it seems I misread the OP, now I understand the point of you guys in the comments. My point is that you could exhaust WP and choose any asset and X can be 0, but of course the "matching icons" refers to the skill test, you'd never be able to add a different icon (as in @PseudoNymph example of Combat icons to and Intellect test). Sorry about the confusion. — Gsayer · 1
For the record, you can't exhaust WP to choose an asset with 0 matching skill icons because in that case its effect wouldn't change the game state. — Thatwasademo · 58

Solemn Vow

Solemn Vow

Tommy Muldoon loves this. In a pinch, another investigator can free trigger this to heal some damage/horror, move it on to one of Tommy's allies to kill it, and Tommy can use his ability to take that damage as bullets for Becky. Even better if that ally is Tetsuo Mori, so you get bullets/resources, an item (maybe Becky or Bandolier if you already have Becky out), and your buddy got some healing, all without spending any resources or actions.

TartanLlama · 1

True Understanding

True Understanding

This is a top-tier card that continues to fly under the radar. For zero actions and zero resources this grants a clue. And in a game where every scenario is a race to advance the Act Deck via clues, it's hard to overstate how great that is!

Yes, you do have to pass a test on a "Scenario Card". But between location actions and treacheries I've never had this be a dead card.

If you're running Milan Christopher and have resources to burn, Working a Hunch with its $2 cost is just as good, but in decks without him I argue that True Understanding is the superior pick.

This should be a staple in every deck that runs Deduction, because it's essentially 2 more copies of Deduction. Happy hunting!!

An_Undecayed_Whately · 1265
While I will agree that this is a good card, it is often in my early picks, and always ends up being cut in profit of core elements to the build I am working on, or value cards (draw, resources). This card was better when it was published and now suffers from the overcrowdedness of the card pool, in my opinion. — Valentin1331 · 74257