Stylish Coat

Not a review, but a question: Does this card work with player effects like Lone Wolf? Seems like it has immense potential. Would love to include it in big money decks. Has anyone found a lot of success with it?

Malgox · 20
yes, it should work with Lone Wolf. There are many places to ask questions about this game. Better places to ask questions about this game are the Arkham Horror LCG subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/arkhamhorrorlcg/ or the Mythos Busters discord: https://discord.gg/mythosbusters — PowLee · 20
Or, if you are not on reddit or discord, the Rules forum on BGG for "Arkham Horror LCG" is also quite active. Just be sure to ask in the forum for the original core set. "Revised Core Set" forum or that of any of the expansions are dead as a dodo. Note, that signature cards are also player cards for card effects. So this would also work with Preston daddy's money. — Susumu · 366
There's a very detailed discussion about it here, that i don't really understand: https://www.reddit.com/r/arkhamhorrorlcg/comments/y6wudo/interaction_question/ — dotPeddy · 1
Then, you can get offical answer from FFG the rule question. It's quite a long time to reply, but I think it's a good place you have some arguable problem and want to solve. https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/ — elkeinkrad · 492
At a Crossroads

The "The chosen investigator loses 1 action during their next turn, then draws 3 cards" option works particularly well with Geared Up. If you have a Revelation effect in your opening hand, after mulliganing you resolve it immediately (before your turn begins). With Geared Up, your first turn has no actions anyways, so: 1) You to draw 3 cards before triggering your Geared Up, which makes it even easier to hit 3+ Item assets. 2) You don't even lose an Action on that turn, unless you somehow have 4 actions on your first turn.

It also works well with Lola Hayes. The Revelation trigger is not an activated/triggered ability so it does not require Lola to be a "Survivor" to benefit from it.

Question: When exactly does the card draw occur? Is it you lose 1 action next turn and 3 cards now? Or are the cards only drawn on your next turn?

Daerthalus · 16
You draw cards on your next turn, and only if you lost 1 action. If you have no actions to loose, you do not draw — Adny · 1
Adny is correct. The reason for that can be found in the RR for "then": If the effect of an ability includes the word "then," the text preceding the word "then" must be successfully resolved in full before the remainder of the effect described after the word "then" can be resolved. — Susumu · 366
So you draw the cards after you finish your next turn with one less action? — Tharzax · 1
No, you just can't choose the second option for an investigator on his or her "Geared Up" turn. You have to choose another investigator or the first option. If the choosen investigator cannot loose an action, the part of the ability after the "then" cannot resolve either. — Susumu · 366
Geared Up doesn't make you lose the actions until your turn begins, though, nor is the rest of Geared Up's effect conditional on successfully losing 3 actions. — Thatwasademo · 58
So if At a Crossroads is in an investigator's opening hand, they should be able to choose the investigator with Geared Up, causing them to draw 3 cards and lose one of the three actions they still have. When it gets to that investigator's turn, the forced effect on Geared Up triggers, and they play assets and lose their remaining two actions. — Thatwasademo · 58
I agree @Thatwasademo's opinion, but one problem remains. At a Crossroads states **during their next turn**, so it may generate "lasting effect" instead of delayed effect. If it generate lasting effect about "during next turn", the triggering timing of Geared Up has time priority and we cannot draw 3 cards. Notice that this rule interpretation implies we should draw 3 cards at the next turn. I want to say that this is just one possibility. — elkeinkrad · 492
You cannot combo this with Geared Up, because as Geared Up states, on your first turn you have "3 fewer actions to take" And if you do not have an action to lose, you cannot pay the cost. — Rolandironfist · 35
losing action is an effect, and not a cost. The good effect of Geared Up works well even if remaining action is less than 3. — elkeinkrad · 492
The format of forced ability has no cost unlike reaction ability, so forced ability has a cost only if it states the additional cost such as "as an additional cost ..." or "must ... to". — elkeinkrad · 492
Looks like the FAQ which causes the draw 3 to occur immediately, and not on the turn of the player who loses the action, means that this should combo with Geared Up. — Rapshade · 1
Captivating Discovery

I think this isnt too good (especially for regular use).

It costs 1, an action to play the card, the card itself and require you to drop a clue (approximately an action). For all that effort you get to look at 6 cards and draw 2. So 3 action and 1 resource to get 2 cards.

Even at it's best, for 4-5 actions worth of stuff and 1 resource you can draw 6. You're probably better off just drawing cards unless your deck need specific cards or can HEAVILY leverage the dropping clues.

fates · 53
You get to search the top 6 before placing any clues. You can elect to place 0 clues if you find junk. — fiatluxia · 65
Why do you have junk in your deck? That's the worst possible outcome, spend a card, 1 resource and an action to do nothing. — fates · 53
Trigger Man

This is an interesting card, and some ramifications are not quite apparent at first glance.

First : the Illicit asset does not cost any ressource to put into play from your hand (nor any action either), but once it's attached to the Trigger Man, you have to pay 1 ressource per use. Most Illicit guns have a cost that is either the same or higher than the number of ammo it comes with. So a gun with 3 ammo that normally costs 3 ressources to put into play will cost you 3 ressources to fully use with the Trigger Man. With "more expensive" guns like the .45 Thompson, you can actually save a ressource, and in all cases you have the advantage of paying only for the ammo you actually use.

Of course, you have to factor in the (non-negligible) cost of the Trigger Man himself. But you get what you pay for : "fast" actions with a base value of 4. Interesting for a low-Fight rogue who wants to use weapons. The lower your stat, the better value you get from this, so Kymani, Trish and Sefina seem like good candidates. Alternately, a low-Int rogue could use Damning Testimony or, with less benefit, Lockpicks for this. And for our good mayor Charlie Kane and his horrendous stat line, it's even better, for fighting or investigating ! (It would have been awesome for Preston Fairmont, but you can't get any Illicit cards in his deck, so barring any "card-sharing shenanigans" with teammates, it doesn't work.)

Second : Nothing says you can't use the "activate" action on the asset yourself, even once it's attached to Trigger Man. So you could decide to use the gun (that you put into play for free) yourself, without paying the Trigger Man's 1 ressource. Probably not a good strategy by itself just to save money, but could be useful in a pinch, if you need to attack again.

Third : Nothing says the asset stops using slots, so you have to "share hands" with the guy, both of you holding stuff together. Weird, but OK

Which brings me to : other interesting assets that don't use hand slots.

Burglary : For 1 ressource, Investigate as a "fast" action with a base value of 4 to gain 3 ressources. It becomes a money engine, especially if you can boost your investigation with Magnifying Glass (Finn, Kymani, Trish)

Liquid Courage : Heal without spending you precious actions, at the cost of paying more. For rich rogues.

Disguise : Tony Morgan could reliably evade at 6, if necessary.

DrOGM · 25
Yeah, I'm pretty sure RAI the attached card uses slots. Stops you having 2x2h big guns, for example. Sadly :) It is definitely an interesting card economy wise, but rogues are usually flush with cash? So it's the opportunity cost of using Trigger Man over another ally. Especially since he's XP3 and so locked from any off-class Rogues. I don't doubt he's cool and can do some cool things. — fiatluxia · 65
The asset is never played so it doesn't gain any "Uses" like ammor or lockpicks, so such assets can't be used outside trigger mans ability. Also does this mean lockpicks 1 is immediately discarded? — Django · 5078
Thx for the review. Wow, I was sure the attached asset doesn't take any slot, but you're definitely right, it does! — chrome · 57
@Django From rules: "When a card bearing [uses] keyword enters play, place a number of resource tokens equal to the value (X)..." I would assume that "enters play" is a word combination to cover all ways how the asset may happen to appear in your play area, including being played, being put into play and, most likely, being attached from hand to another asset upon the latter is played, etc. — chrome · 57
Quick fun fact: This card uses the art for Leo Anderson from Arkham Horror 2e. The fact that Leo can't take it is adding insult to injury! Great card though, excited to use it. — MiskatonicFrosh · 342
This card is so cool from a theme perspective, but really falls flat in execution. As noted above, you have to share the hand slot (if any) with the guy, you can still use it, basically holding hands with this dude to use it. And the art features Leo Anderson, who can’t even use the damn thing! And it would be really cool and thematic in Leo, too. So here’s my version of him I’m tempted to proxy: 1 cost, 2 xp. As an additional cost to play Trigger Man, play an Illicit Firearm asset from your hand and attach it to Trigger Man (it doesn’t take any slots and can only be activated with the below ability). Everything else about the card I’d leave unchanged. Cost reduced because now you have to pay for the weapon, and has to be a firearm because hiring a “trigger man”to hold your whiskey and pour it down your throat is too damn silly — rockmaninoff · 3
Hunter's Armor

Edit: Some mistakes. It's hard to review any customizable card because it's actually a multitude of cards all in one, with different interactions with all the folks of arkham, so lets fire my shot and see what I can work out.

So, in a vacuum, the base card is terrible, you probably should not ever include this thing in a deck. dont have 4 resources to spend on 2 health and 2 horror, that's a terrible deal at any level and never worth it beyond some very, VERY extraordinary campaign starts where you've dealt yourself some unusual pain with cards like In the Thick of It or Arcane Research and you NEED some soak to compensate.

This means then that we really are only looking at this card in the context of the upgrades. All of the upgrades are in the afforable 3 XP range or less which makes them available to off-class characters like William Yorick or Diana Stanley. So, lets have some fun!

First off, a baseline upgrade that by itself is invariably good: Hexdrinker.

  • Hexdrinker gets you a card everytime you take treachery damage. This right here is often going to be worth the 3xp investment and 4 resource cost, it'll easily draw you 2 cards, often net 3. 4 Resources to save 3-4 life and draw 3 cards is just extravagantly nice.

  • Hexdrinker + Protective runes = The 4 card draws become almost automatic, especially in a 4 player game.

Obviously the +2 health / Sanity upgrades combine very nicely with Hexdrinker+Protective runes to create almost absurd card draw but I'dd argue that, because of the exhust clause, you need to curb your thirst for cards just a bit and lean more into the tanking aspect.

Second up, the other card defining baseline upgrade: Armor of thorns.

  • Armor of thorns suddently slots Hunter's Armor into the passive damage archetype that rose to some prominence with William Yorick and his trusty doggos. Picture this: a Hunting Nightgaunt spawns on you when you have Guard Dog and Hunter's Armor out, instead of attacking it twice, you attack it once and then just move or investigate, triggering an AoO, killing it with retaliation damage. There's nothing to dislike about that for sure.

  • Armor of thorns + Protective runes is not the wondercombo that it is with Hexdrinker, because without the other "spike" damage triggers, dealing only 1 damage often isnt enough. Even so, every now and then you might be able to ask a friend to engage a Whippoorwill that can then be killed off easily.

Again, like hexdrinker, the +health/sanity upgrades also may not combo as nicely as you'dd like, because frankly, even if you're actively triggering enemy attacks, you're often just not going to be attacked 6-8 times in a game. So again this is less about retaliation damage but a bit more about actual tanking.

Third up, the last card defining upgrade: Protective runes.

  • Protective runes turns Hunter's Armor into a communal health pool, which is awesome. All of a suddent you can act as a living shield that moves around and covers harmed friends from danger, love it, like it.

  • Protective runes + Health/Sanity upgrades = Bigger health pools, love it.

When you add the other upgrades, Hexdrinker, Armor of thorns. Protective runes becomes a routine way to benefit off of the "mister tank" role or to burn down enemies slightly faster sometimes. Perhaps the most major downside to taking Protective runes is that off-class folks cannot afford the level cap to combine it with the other major upgrades.

  • A major point to worry about is that Armor of Thorns and Hexdrinker interfere with each other, both of them "cost" the armor's lifepool, both of them exhaust the card, IF you intend to take both, the upgrade path is then probably:

    • Hexdrinker/Thorns -> Health/Sanity/Protective -> Health/Sanity/Protective/Lightweight -> Hexdrinker/Thorns.

    • That said, I'dd like to argue that once you've spent 5 or 7 xp on it, you can probably just stop and be happy with it like that.

As a note on the unmentioned upgrades, Enchanted and lightweight, the former is primarily a choice of slots, which might seem superfluous but then you realise that it might interact interestingly with Dragon Pole. Lightweight meantime is less a priority upgrade than it is a capstone after you've gone for either Spikes or Cards.

To name some names, here´s some character that can seriously look at Hunter's Armor for nice builds:

Lastly, anbody who can take the Protective runes variant should legtimitately consider taking up the tank role, Carolyn Fern and Vincent Lee are both the kind of character that's trying to protect the team and this is a pre-emptive way to do so without taking any risky skill checks.

Tsuruki23 · 2535
Daniela can’t get much use out of this. Someone would have to give her a version with teamwork, since she can’t take guardian level one cards. — MrGoldbee · 1459
Neither can Vincent, since the card doesn't Heal Damage. — Lailah · 1
It's also worth pointing out that hunter's armor with lily gets ugly, because it'll start out eating level 0 guardian slots, and getting those back takes XP if you lose them. Can be worth of course. — Lailah · 1
Seems like it could be a Tommy card to me. — RichardPlunkett · 12
Vincent absolutely can take this card as he can take Guardian cards level 0-1, he could get 2 boxes worth of XP on it so he could get any of the 2 xp upgrades putting it to a level 1 guardian card essentially. Similarly with Lily, there's no reason starting with it in your deck would be "ugly", you'd just upgrade it with xp at which point it becomes a level x guardian card and you can backfill those empty slots with other level 0 guardian cards or mystic cards as you wish or you could not start with it in your deck and purchase it with the upgrades for XP into the campaign. — Gearmastery · 1
Addendum to my previous comment, of course you wouldn't be able to freely add level 0 cards to a Lily deck just because you upgraded Hunters armour but you're not "losing" anything, it's just slightly suboptimal. — Gearmastery · 1
You're losing the Experience. That's something, which I outright stated. And at 2 experience, you can't use the thing for any of the purposes laid out, hence 'vincent can't take it'. He can have the card in his deck, but since it's a shitty overcosted card without significant upgrades, it's probably just outright a waste on him. — Lailah · 1
Daniela still won't get much use out of it, MrGoldbee, because the customizations are tied to the character and not the card — brkndevil · 19
Enchanted also notably lets you have both copies of Hunter's Armor in play at the same time, so you could split damage or horror from a single treachery or enemy between them to fire Hexdrinker or Thorns twice. — Thatwasademo · 58
For Lily, the biggest problem is it just wouldn't be good lvl 0 for her. But there is nothing stopping you from spending xp to add it to your deck with Enchanted at a later date. For other investigators, only 2 Guardians have more than 6 sanity, so just having a 2 or 4 soak for sanity in an uncontested slot is useful. Add in the ability to turn failed treacheries into card draw (Most guardians big weakness) and this quickly becomes a card that covers for some Guardian failings. (And for Tommy it can be 3 resources now for 8 resources later.) — dkilkay · 4
Addendum to my previous comment: This is an easy add to lily, especially since it kinda sucks at 0 anyway. Spending a single XP on an upgrade box satisifes the requirement to spend experience on a card, so you can spend 2 XP on two seperate boxen and add it to your deck as a level 1 Guardian Card, overwriting a mystic card you were using prior — Lailah · 1
A _playset_ of a level 1 guardian card, I mean. Dammit me. — Lailah · 1