Mandy Thompson

I have a mistake that I write a review in wrong card. I delete the details and write review in another card. sorry about making meaningless thread. (placeholding text for 200 words placeholding text for 200 wordsplaceholding text for 200 words)

elkeinkrad · 500
Newest taboo is 50 cards mandatory decksize...so no more choosing...any thoughts? — xarathornx · 1
Delusory Evils

This card is regularly considered rather a joke replacement for Ancient Evils. And in general, it really is. Except for Minh Thi Phan, for whom it is kind of Kryptonite.

If she has The King in Yellow out, she really should consider to rather take the doom. And even if not, it will get really painful, if she doesn't get rid of this treachery, before she draws the tome. (I've been there!) As a peril card no can protect her from it. Should have probably considered A Test of Will to mitigate this card. But paying for exile cards is harsh, if your main class is and the level 0 version is also not great, if you have to commit 3 cards to it. And it would even whiff, if you succeed by 3 or more.

Susumu · 381
I love the idea of this card sooo much, it pits you with decisions! — Therealestize · 74
Nathaniel Cho

Nathaniel Cho is fun and unique to play with a fighting style unlike any other investigator. However, at my tables Nathaniel Cho has also earned a reputation as one of the most fragile guardians, being very vulnerable to the many treacheries that discard your hand and resources.

Other guardians are still capable of effective combat even after losing their entire hand and all their resources if they've their weapons out. But Nathaniel Cho's reliance on fight events means that if those events are randomly discarded by a treachery, or if he no longer has the resources to play that "Get over here!" or One-Two Punch, he might become unable to effectively fight at all. And if your teammates happened to draw enemies on the same turn, you'll end up in a bad board state.

It's not that this can't happen to other guardians — running out of ammo with a Extra Ammunition in hand, for example — but it's far more likely to happen for poor Cho. Make sure your team is able to make up for it by packing evasion or supplementary fighting tools, or when they have to make the choice on Syzygy. The new Brand of Cthugha serves as an excellent slotless backup weapon.

suika · 9505
As an update to this 2 year old comment: Prophetic (and potentially Sleuth) mostly eliminate concerns about having resources available for playing event/skill cards. If they aren’t needed to pay the costs, they can give you bonuses to checks instead. — Ironman_MK11 · 17
The Devil • XV

I don't like this card, it is such a tempo lost depending on when you draw it, it is just as bad as the big brother,The Tower. I am running a 3 player RTTCU and Rex was unfortunate enough to draw this card. So far, we are on wages of sin, and he has drawn the devil in his starting hand everygame. It is such a hit in a starting set up. It, thankfully,doesn't cost 4, but that's basically still money for an ally, or asset that I just lost. Not to mention the action, and a card i can mulligan off. If you pull this at the end, that would be fine. Most cards are on the field, and I can just commit cards, and play events. I hate seeing this card and if that was the idea then good job.

I want to run a skill heavy deck and get devil, and an asset heavy deck and get tower, but thats never going to happen is it? — Zerogrim · 295
Compared to a lot of weaknesses -3 resources is, relatively, very little. — fiatluxia · 68
It's also an action to play. Still, I think, it really depends on the investigator. I had "The Tower" in Minh, and would have rather choosen "The Devil" over it, if I could. — Susumu · 381
Still, compared to any of the "2 actions to discard" weaknesses, this sure stings more everytime. Skidds can take an extra action for two resources, and that is considered not cheap. "The Devil" is rather 3 resources, compared to the second action. Of course, if drawn late, it doesn't really matter (except in Patrice for the handsize), because you likely won't play any more assets. "The Tower" can still be a pain then. — Susumu · 381
I remember I pulled tower while playing wini :( not fun. — Therealestize · 74
Ugh just drew this with my Bob Jenkins deck... — normsherman · 66
Does anyone know why this cards come with 2 copies instead of 1 as other basic weaknesses? — rav · 1
Tbh..... so you have another chance of getting it :/ — Therealestize · 74
Is there any way to get rid of this after you've played it? Or does occupying the Tarot slot mean that any other Tarot assets are unplayable after you play The Devil? — szwanger · 2
If you play another Tarot, it would replace this. Same with all assets slots. — nckjnsn · 1
Can this be played at the same time as another asset with Ever Vigilant for a discount? — nckjnsn · 1
Ah, I guess the answer is yes since it says play assets “one at a time” — nckjnsn · 1
Moonstone

What about Bob Jenkins?

If you have Moonstone in your hand and Bob Jenkins is another player using his additional action to play an asset from your hand, is he "you"?

It reads "At any time, an investigator at your location may reveal to you the Item assets in their hand. You may take an additional action during your turn, which can only be used to play an Item asset from the hand of an investigator at your location, under their control. (Both investigators may spend resources to pay its cost)."

What do you say? Can Bob Jenkins play Moonstone from your hand?

Yes. See — suika · 9505
See — suika · 9505
Bah, keep hitting enter. Anyway. It's not clear how you are supposed to interprete "You" here. But it doesn't matter. If you interprete "You" to mean Bob Jenkins, he can play the card because Moonstone is not in his hand. If you interprete "You" to mean the card's controller, Bob Jenkins can play the card because the restriction doesn't apply to him. — suika · 9505
The logic displayed above is exquisite — NarkasisBroon · 11