Dark Pact

Dark Pact

"Hey kid... wanna buy a human sacrifice? Only two resources!" - Matt Newman, How to make a terrible deal in AH: LCG

This card is a fantastic example of excruciating decisions that AH LCG is capable of producing using only two cards. It should never be looked at by itself, but rather in conjunction with its "upgrade" as well - The Price of Failure. Let's examine what this duo does in practice.

Basic weakness itself seems rather straight-forward: pay two resources to deal two damage to an investigator at your location (reminder: it can be assigned to assets). It can be you or one of your teammates - your choice (or is it? we'll get back to that later). This effect might seem similar to Dark Memory of Agnes, but the cost in here seems to be less steep. With Agnes's weakness however, it is possible to just hold it - as long as you are capable of staying sane, nothing happens. With Dark Pact situation is somewhat different: if you hold it till the end of the scenario, you have to exchange it for The Price of Failure going forward - and this is where fun begins.

This card is never in the vacuum of its own effect - it always poses the question: "are we in good enough situation to do it?". The question is also never static, the answer to it will shift with every play. After all, The Price of Failure is quite nasty in its effect, which is partially group-wide (the doom aspect of it). You might find yourself in the situation when you KNOW FOR A FACT that your next scenario is the one you can't afford to risk having The Price of Failure as a potential draw, but at the moment, both you and your partners sit on 2 health points left... Are you going to willingly diminish your own chances of success now by offing yourself or your partner, to not face the cost of insubordination in the future...?

At times, the answer might be easy, with everyone healthy and the board state relatively safe (or in the last scenario, when the future doesn't matter). But this is Arkham: how often will that be the case? Especially since the Dark Pact robs you of two resources as well, potentially impairing your other actions. But hey... decision is yours. (is it really...?)

Because here's my only pet peeve with this card: why doesn't it say Peril anywhere on the card? That one keyword would change so much about it, making it a very personal decision by design. Because as it stands, it is perfectly possible to make it a group decision, something that happens just because everyone at the table agreed upon such turn of events. But if only one person had to make a call (who should take damage, and when, if at all), that would change so much about their actions. They would be faced with the duty of postponing potential future disaster, but the only judgement they'd have would be their own. How exciting and crushing at the same time it would be...? (my internal "lovecraftian fun" calculator says it would be 2.3 times much more fun) It also wouldn't be out of ordinary, since Carcosa cycle already introduced cards that hamper player communication with the Peril keyword, forcing players to make their own mind and searching for their own solutions in cooperative environment. Making Dark Pact such a card would be the natural progress of this already known mechanism.

As it stands though, the card in and of itself is still good, and by by "good" I mean "bad"; it does what it was supposed to do very well. Cards that create interesting choices are always welcomed in my book, and by "book" I mean "binder".

Still, two resources for self-inflicted harm? That's a bad deal, Matt! Not economically sustainable at all! And by "not economically sustainable" I mean "fun". Quite fun.

Skid_the_Drifter · 147
Peril is currently only found on encounter cards, which Dark Pact is not. I can see how it'd possibly be more fun if this card had Peril, but that would bring in some nontrivial rules changing with it. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
Since you took your time to state the obvious, could you go further and propose what rules would have to be changed to make this card work in the same way that 4 cards from Carcosa expansion (all flavors of "Whispers In Your Head")? Because as it stands, it would appear that adding keywords "Peril" and "Hidden" would work effectively the same without changing any rules. I'd even argue that this would work even better, since no one would be able to tell if you have this card in your hand, as opposed to Carcosa's hidden perils. If your only line of argument is "Peril can be only on encounter cards" I'd say it's not something that can't be changed, and most certainly it wouldn't require "nontrivial rules change". Rules are set in place. Peril and Hidden are already established keywords. — Skid_the_Drifter · 147
It wouldn't require any rule changes at all; weaknesses in your deck ARE encounter cards. They have encounter card types and behave exactly as if drawn from the encounter deck. Adding Peril to this card would require literally just that: putting the text on. — SGPrometheus · 847
@SGPrometheus Dark Pact does not have an encounter card type, it's an event. That makes it not an encounter card. And it's by far not the only weakness with a player card type. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
@Skid_the_Drifter Well, at minimum the rules for what the Peril keyword means would have to be expanded. As currently written, Peril only triggers when an encounter card with it is drawn. I guess modifying the definition for the Hidden keyword and putting Hidden on Dark Pact could do it (I forgot about Hidden when writing my first comment). — TheNameWasTaken · 3
With all due rispect, all things you've listed seem rather trivial, as oposed to earlier "nontrivial rules change" argument. Nonetheless, it's all wishful thinking, cause the end product is what we have at hand. Any future developments are yet to be seen. — Skid_the_Drifter · 147
Let me clarify by what I mean by expanding the Peril rules. This being a cooperative game, the part where players discuss among themselves how to best take their turns is essential. To place a Peril-like ability on a player card would mean to either shut down all such communication while someone has Dark Pact in hand or only forbid the holder to discuss that card, or something in between. The hidden cards have an easy out here because they have different backs and all have the same cost to get rid of. So you can just say "I'll need to get rid of this thing this turn", and that's all the discussion you need. And even with this easy out, the Hidden rules don't actually forbid communication about the hidden cards, they only discourage it. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
What you're describing isn't that different than section called "Table talk" in "Learn to play" booklet, page 12: "The game’s areas of hidden information (the cards in a player’s hand and deck) exist to maintain the feeling that each investigator is a unique individual in the game world, and makes his or her decisions without complete and perfect knowledge of what everyone else knows or is thinking. A good means of maintaining this illusion is to not name, read off, or allude to individual cards that are hidden information (i.e., in a player’s hand or deck)." In the following example game creators give a proper hint as to how communication should be approached. Adding "peril" and "hidden" keywords would suffice without breaking the existing rules. I think your personal prefference is taking over what is and what isn't in the boundaries of the rules, however it is clearly visible designers intended for communication to be vague, and not clear information that you're trying to say is vital to the game. If you're already in open discussion mode and you don't care about that aspect of the game, I would conclude with saying that adding peril or hidden properties wouldn't really impact your experience, since you're already playing your own way. — Skid_the_Drifter · 147
Strapped for cards, make Dark Pact work for you. Add Decorated skull to your hand, kill a useless Ally you have (Art Student for example) take a damage, draw a card, gain a resource.), — bern1106 · 2

Mind Wipe

Mind Wipe

  • This card seems really useful in forgotten age, as it removes "Vengeance X" from non-elite Monsters plus some other terrifying effects they have (retaliate, alert,...)

  • However with more players, there's a chance such a card is drawn again after shuffling the encounter deck

  • As a spell, it can also be searched with Arcane Initiate
Django · 5155

Arcane Initiate

Arcane Initiate

Compare to its base version, Arcane Initiate(0), this upgraded card is too expensive for what extra benefit it gives. The option to add 2 horrors instead of 1 doom, and 1 extra sanity on it, along with being 1 resource cheaper.

The doom aspect can be easily mitigated by playing this card when the agenda would advance on the next round anyway, as the advancing agenda will take all dooms in play along with it (something I didnt realised ontil the 3rd playthrough...). If you choose to place 2 horrors on it instead, the extra horror soak is meaningless.

True, its more flexible when you choose to play it during mid agenda progress, but your hard earn exp is better spent else where.

Euruzilys · 14
A few thoughts: 1. 0-cost helps with an Agnes or Jim Dark Horse Build. 2. The option to take horror instead of doom means you don't have to wait to play it. And the horror can be easily healed (Carolyn+Agnes, anyone?) 3. As more spells become available, Arcane Initiate--in either version--becomes better and better. 4. Still not sure it's worth the XP cost, though. — Herumen · 1741
"The doom aspect can be easily mitigated by playing this card when the agenda would advance on the next round anyway" - problem with that is that you could easily lose 4+ turns of card draw waiting like that. Each turn you have your initiate out is a card draw, so having to wait for the Witching Hour is like throwing away 4+ cards. When you consider the average number of turns you'd waste waiting as 1 card apeice, this 3xp version basically comes with a cryptic research attached. Starts to look a lot more appealing when you consider the true cost of waiting. — Low_Chance · 13
As rule of thumb, I always include Moonlight Ritual as either version of Arcane Initiate is a must in mystic decks. — bern1106 · 2
@Low_Chance: If you're going to be losing 4+ draws by not playing Arcane Initiate--i.e., if the Agenda isn't advancing for 4+ turns--in that situation, you just play the level 0 Initiate right away. Then you have plenty of time to kill it off before the agenda advances. — CaiusDrewart · 3185
Anyway, I'd agree with Euruzilys that this card costs too much XP for what it does. Sure, it's nice to have, but Mystic XP has so many other far more powerful uses. Getting a somewhat more convenient Arcane Initiate doesn't feel worth it when you could put your XP into super-power upgraded Shrivellings and Rite of Seekings and so forth. — CaiusDrewart · 3185
I don't like this version of Arcane Initiate either. It should really cost 2 XP instead of 3. Then it would be much more useful and it would be usable by more Investigators (like Sefina). — matt88 · 3210
1 XP for 1 resource is a fair deal. The other 2 XP you spend either for 1-4 extra cards or 1 extra sanity, also fair. — Senji975310 · 1

Unearth the Ancients

Unearth the Ancients

Sure, the other reviews are mostly focused on how this card works as an economy card, and I agree that using it to summon Dr. Milan Christopher makes it the equivalent of a fast Emergency Cache which I think is quite good, but I would like to focus my attention on a very important word in this card's ability: Investigate

This card is an investigate action - and one that lets you control the difficulty. Declare a Magnifying Glass and you are making a difficulty 0 Investigate check. "Okay, but why is that useful?" I hear you ask. "You've just paid a resource, a card, and an action to play a free, fast card!"

Yeah, that would be pretty dumb. But here's the thing. Let's say you're Rex Murphy and commit a Deduction. Now you just need a 2 (-4 or better) to pick up 3 clues from that action.

If you want to be even greedier, have your rogue buddy Double or Nothing. It's still difficulty 0, but now the Deduction offers 4 clues in an action. All sorts of silly shenanigans open up when you can Double or Nothing a difficulty 0 test such as Quick Thinking, but sadly not "Watch this!".

But this isn't just about the action compression, the best part is that you control the difficulty, even on a high shroud location, which could reach 5, or even 6 with an encounter card.

Still don't feel like you need this in a pure seeker? You'd rather just pay for Higher Education and Archaic Glyphs Understandable. This is a low enough level combo that it can still be used by secondary - or even tertiary seekers. Roland Banks can struggle to pick up a bunch of clues off a high shroud location without enemies to take advantage of. Even if you're still using Deduction, you succeed with a -2 to Unearth an Art Student and grab two clues.

Is it still a pretty finicky card? Definitely. Do I think you should auto-include it? Probably not. But open your mind to the possibilities, and keep an eye on this card in the future as more synergies become available. I expect this card to eventually be the center of some pretty silly combos.

Death by Chocolate · 1489
That's a really interesting angle I hadn't considered. Using this to "cheat" clues using deduction and similar effects does make this card into a sort of very convoluted "working a hunch" type card... I don't ever see it being really worth it with the current cardpool, but it's not nothing! — Low_Chance · 13
Doesn't work with Deduction, sadly - Deduction discovers *additional* clues, and thus doesn't combine with effects which replace discovering clues with something else. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
@TheNameWasTaken Hmm, looking at the FAQ entry for Deduction, it appears that you are correct. A pity. It does still work for Rex, and I still think we'll be seeing this card reappear with a silly combo one or two expansion cycles down the line. — Death by Chocolate · 1489
Worth noting that Ursula's reaction ability lets her play this as a fast action. Especially good with its relic synergy. — SGPrometheus · 847
@TheNameWasTaken I disagree. The Investigate action on this card discovered 0 clues. With deduction, you're discovering an additional clue on top of the zero clues discovered. After all, the addition of 1 to 0 equals 1. — GregoryZamuza · 7
Unfortunately, the FAQ for Deduction implies otherwise; base investigation would discover 1 clue, Deduction adds an additional clue to make 2, _then_ Unearth says "ok, instead of discovering those two clues, you're putting an asset into play". Note Unearth's wording of "instead of discovering *clues*", plural. — Tamsk · 1

Unearth the Ancients

Unearth the Ancients

What does this card really do...

For 1 resource, and a sucessful Investigate (X) action you get to play a Seeker asset of cost X for free. If the Seeker asset has the Relic trait you draw a card too.

There are only 3 Seeker asset at this time with the Relic trait.

  • Tooth of Eztli: Mortal Reminder, Cost: 3
  • Ancient Stone: Unidentified (1), Cost: 1
  • Disc of Itzamna: Protective Amulet (2), Cost 3

Assuming you choose a 3 cost Seeker Relic.

  • If you suceed the Investigate (3) check you end up saving two resources.
  • If you fail the Investigate (3) check you lose a resource, an action and a card.

Doesn't seem worth it, unless you are playing on Easy.

Additional Synergies:

  • Having Dr. Christopher Milan out. (+1 Resource and his +1 Book passive bonus helps with the test)
  • Playing Rex Murphy. (Suceed by 2+ to get a clue too)
  • Playing Ursula Downs. (Free investigate action after moving.)
Daerthalus · 16
Most seeker assets are pretty cheap (you don't have to play a relic with it), so it's not really usefull. And there's a chance of failing the test. However it may be useful for expensive off faction cards, like shotgun (roland) or leo de luca (rex murphy), when combined with Higher education, where you basically half the cost. — Django · 5155
This card may have some strange interactions with "comes into play abilities", as it adds a test where cards can be commited. If you play this card naming an "art student" and a "double or nothing" is commited, do you get 2 clues? — Django · 5155
the card can be used only to play seeker assets. the clue from art student is not the effect of the test, and you cannot put the same asset into play twice, since it is not in your hand anymore. — Adny · 1
True, forgot about "seeker assets" only. The card should work for lola if she changes from seeker to another class mid test, as the wording of the asset is "put into play". — Django · 5155
I can't say I'm too impressed with the interactions right now. But maybe there's a Rex/Scavenging/Disc of Itzamna deck to be made here. Probably not. — CaiusDrewart · 3185
I feel like this card and Markings of Isis are almost good, but not quite. The weakness of this one is that it can only play seeker assets, while Markings of Isis requires you to oversucceed by a lot for it to be useful. I suppose having to take a test is kind of inherently bad, but there are a lot of ways to boost yourself to where you have a good chance of succeeding in standard, even without wasting skill cards. Still, probably only useful with Ursula (free investigate action) or Rex (possibility to still get a clue). — Zinjanthropus · 230