Cyclopean Hammer

Cyclopean Hammer

Probably my most hated card so far. (just started new with eotd and tdl) Seen it before but just had first hand experience with Zoey Samaras an that is a moment of shameful when I upgraded this card (Its just my self judgement tho) here are my opinions.

  • it is too good. Hard to not take this hammer when you build logically. Could say this single card kill other builds indirectly.
  • personally, multi faction card should be a bit weaker than main faction card.design wise, most are fine but this hammer definitely outlaw.
  • it is off designed. Mystic card should have some chance of negativity . Look at the art again and tell me this weapon does not looks evil. Literally untranslateable runes particle falling of it. Yet still such a constantly boring and safe weapon.
  • Suggestion : Should be taboo version which add some Mystic style negativity. Maybe something like

"If you reveal (well ,you see the runes on and hammer) you take 2 direct damage and autofail" (yes,damage since it is half card and it grew evily heavier so you hurt yourself in the process)

Pawley · 34
Lots of people seem eager to suggest a taboo that adds multiple lines of text to a card that's already very cramped. Personally I think it's fine, and very hard to rework in a way that's more complex than chaining it up an exp or two. — SSW · 218
I do like the added flare of gaining negative effects! — Therealestize · 79
Yeah, just an idea. I do realised about the text and I'm not a fan of wall of ant text either. I have already edit several time to make it as short as possible. — Pawley · 34
If I wanted to add a spooky mystic tax to this card, with a simple, short effect, I would add "remove a random card in your hand from the game" or "take 1 damage or horror" to the ability cost. — Death by Chocolate · 1510
Eh, I dunno. It's expensive in XP, resources, and slots. If you are playing 4-player with a dedicated monster hunter, maybe you'll always want it, but there are a lot of great pricy weapons out there. *shrug* I'm gearing up for a campaign where Lily is probably going to upgrade into this, but, after that, it will likely sit in the box for a long while, because there are a lot of other investigators I want to play, and only a small number of them would even consider this card. — LivefromBenefitSt · 1102
Perhaps the taboo should be "when you attack you can use yor willpower instead of your strenght" — LordWolfen · 1
One idea I've heard is changing it from "may move it" to "move it", basically preventing you from spamming it on big non-Elites. — NightgauntTaxiService · 467

Taunt

Taunt

Pretty obvious choice for Zoey Samaras along with ["Get behind me!"] (/card/08021) Very similiar card which work a bit differntly in multiplayer. I think Taunt will comes into play when you want to play as first investigator.

A question please just to make sure. The already engaged enemy does not count into this ,right?

Pawley · 34
To my understanding, no, because you're not reengaging it, it is already engaged with you. — DjMiniboss · 44

Empower Self

Empower Self

I know it´s a bit pricy, but for what I understand the effect to exhaust triggers with any copy of Empower Self so if u have all the 3 copies in play you could exhaust all 3 of them to get +6 to any skill test other than .

You just have to be able to generate resources failry quickly with Alchemical Transmutation, Forbidden Knowledge and/or Sacrifice.

I think it´s other way to deal with the treacherys and/or Scenario cards test other than .

Fenrirgarm · 11
Treacheries don't require you to use willpower instead of other stats. Cards like Shrivelling, Rite of Seeking, etc. do. And (at least with the current card pool) they just replace one other stat. If they would ever create a mystic card, that let you do a test on an encounter card with willpower instead, there would be a certain scenario in TCU, where you might use multiples of this. But I can't think of any other possibility. — Susumu · 385
That's... not how this card works. _None_ of the cards boost willpower, so there is no way to increase that stat. Each flavor of this card has its own different stat boost, so you can only rarely combine them when you're doing a test that uses multiple stats, like Lockpicks. Third, as Susumu says, the ability to choose the stat you test with only applies to certain player cards right now, and lets you use the default stat (so you can boost it with this card) instead of willpower (which Empower Self can not boost.) — Hylianpuffball · 29
...or perhaps this is what we misunderstood: you can only bring a single copy of each flavor in a deck, so you get one copy each for three stats. You can't stack up and bring 3 Empower Self: Stamina cards to give yourself +6 fight on a single test. — Hylianpuffball · 29
To clarify Hylianpuffball's final point I'm regards to Fenrirgarm's misunderstanding of the card: see the RRG entry for 'self-referential text'. "When a card's ability text refers to its own title, it is referring to itself only, and not to other copies (by title) of the card." This is why you can't get the +6 to any non-Will test. — Death by Chocolate · 1510
Ohhhhh, thanks DeathByChocolate, that was the problem. Yeah, you can't pay for the cost of ES: Stamina by exhausting other cards, even if they are also named Empower Self. — Hylianpuffball · 29
How would it be written if you could exhaust other copies of ES as well? — Nenananas · 273
Ok, my bad. The text of the card where the limitation of one copy is stablished sais "Limit 1 Empower Self (Stamina) — Fenrirgarm · 11
But later in the fast effect sais "Exhaust Empower Self:" without clarifig — Fenrirgarm · 11
Even after the limit of the Empower self clarify it sais "...3 Empower Self cards(again here doesnt clarify wich titles and it's not self ref only)" — Fenrirgarm · 11
I understand the point of hylianpuffball but i dont think that rules apply to this card. They have diferent subtitles and clearly inthe effect text clarify whent the effect reffers to this card and the other copies, basicly by specificly clarifying it. And there's also the Golden Rule, in wich if the text of a card directly contradicts the text of either learn to play or reference book, the card tales precedence. — Fenrirgarm · 11
While the stuff I said is true, you really only need to look at the rule DeathByChocolate referenced. Cards that mention themselves always refer to ONLY themselves, and not any other card. Empower Self doesn't contradict this rule. — Hylianpuffball · 29
Though honestly, I understand how it could be confusing, since some cards in Arkham DO use "this card" to reference themselves, which is treated the same by the rules, but is much clearer. I think the makers prefer to use the card name when it fits for flavor and immersion reasons. — Hylianpuffball · 29
@Nenananas I don't know if any current cards that care about cards with a certain name in Arkham, but I imagine it would be something like "exhaust a card named 'Empower Self': Do thing." — Hylianpuffball · 29
Actually, I guess it would work like some treacheries do, so it would probably say "exhaust a copy of Empower Self". — Hylianpuffball · 29
Found one, Mind's Eye actually does work this way, and it uses the "copy of" language. — Hylianpuffball · 29
They could´ve written the effect " Exhaust this Empower Self card..." like you said Hylian. Because it´s a little ambiguous. First they use the entire name of the card, then they use just the "Empower Self" to refer to all copies with different names, and at the end they use the same name just to refer the card with the power. They fixed many other anbiguous text in the FAQ, taboo & mutated cards but not this one? — Fenrirgarm · 11
Minds Eye has the same name in every copy, its not exactly the same situation. But I guess they could have added "copy of Empower Self" too. It would be nice they at least address this issue for the return. — Fenrirgarm · 11
The triggered ability doesn't include the subtitle because it doesn't need to to work as self-referential text. The deckbuilding limitation does use the subtitle because it would be mechanically different (and nullify Myriad) to not include it. (See Precious Momento for similar templating.) Personally, I wouldn't mind if they taboo mutated Empower Self to change the ability to "exhaust a copy of Empower Self" because it is currently SO expensive at 3 resources' each and inconsistent at 1 each per version. Being able to exhaust each other would make it much more compelling to include them all, while still being VERY expensive to play them all (9 resources and 3 actions). I don't think it would be over-powered and maybe open up some interesting new Mystic builds. — Death by Chocolate · 1510

Cyclopean Hammer

Cyclopean Hammer

I'm pretty sure everyone one has tear this thing in apart, and it is quite a formidable weapon by itself, when we add in supports cards, it does become ridiculous. It should be taboo, but I don't think it should be forbidden.

I think double or nothing was forbidden because while it was interesting to use, if you tech your deck right. It can destroy scenarios because the effects are doubled, and hell if you combine that card with the hammer, it would make Leo or Dexter quite deadly, Leo more specifically. Because he has access to reliable(1). But the very nature of double or nothing was to be combo with other cards, obviously because it's a skill card. The hammer is a asset.(a powerful one at that. ) that I think we should try to limit it. We should try to encourage other builds but limiting the uses it has. I got some ideas for that.

  1. It gains exceptional.- that's exactly what happen to the key of ys, and it definitely dropped from being an auto include. It will make guardian or mystic really try and build around utilizing and getting this card.
  2. It gains an arcane slot.- I don't know why it doesn't already have an arcane slot. This will definitely limit mystic a bit. Guardian have some arcane assets that are of value, but not many.
  3. Limit 1 attachment.- this will make you choose what attachments you build for and will also limit how much boost it gets from reliable(1).
  4. (Edit)-Exhaust its ability- maybe if we give it a flat boast, like +2 strength for +1 damage,then Exhaust it to add will for +2 damage. A thought.

I think we could taboo reliable(1) to where it only gives +1 period. Which I'm sure that was the intention. But I think we should focus on the hammer. You could also not use it.... but that's just as bad as making it forbidden. I'm not sure.

Hell of a card tho.

Therealestize · 79
making it exceptional also means that you can only get one copy of it--that's the right move I think — liwl0115 · 52
The thing is, Exceptional doesn't really solve the problem the hammer has. If we use Timeworn Brand as our base, then the hammer takes an extra hand, gives an extra +2 or so, and — most importantly — can do a full extra point of damage above the Brand. Having just a single copy won't slow down most 'gators, same with an extra 5xp. I feel like the best fix is actually to just remove the "succeed by 3" ability, which makes it a more-reliable Brand that can push enemies, but takes an additional hand and is faction-locked. — Hylianpuffball · 29
I would agree, but the brand is a neutral, that allows anyone with a good strength score to pick it up. Really the hammer is lv5 g/m because it wants fighters from both of these classes to weld it — Therealestize · 79
Class cards shouldn't be straight upgrades to good neutral cards. Neutral cards exist to solve broad problems that every class needs solved. — dezzmont · 226
I agree with dezz, also Hylian you gave we an idea, what if it gets like a +2 to Strength for two damage, then once per round you could exhaust it to add your will and do the 3 damage if you succeed. That would slow it down I think. — Therealestize · 79
I'm a big fan of making the card take up two hands and two arcane slots. super simple taboo, strongly restricts it's utility without reducing power in a mystic deck, and somewhat limits it's utility in a guardian deck. — Death by Chocolate · 1510
The core issue with hammer is most melee that can hit 3 can't do it on demand with no downside or deck support. It really just needs to cap at 2 damage more than anything so it leans more on the 'secondary' effect which is also strong but sees no use because the damage is so bonkers that landing free evades on non-elites is redundant. — dezzmont · 226
2 hands + 2 arcane is basically not a taboo at all for Guardians and kills the card in Mystic. Guardians are the main class abusing Hammer right now anyway (since so many of them hit 8 or higher combined Combat + Will and Reliable), so I don't think a 2x Arcane taboo really solves the problem. — Soul_Turtle · 512
I agree. The core issue is that repeatable 3 damage needs to come with hooks or caveats and 'success by 2' is far too trivial for guardians compared to 'run bless,' 'only once per scenario,' or 'draw twice as many chaos tokens.' The core idea of this reaching 3 damage is a bad one. — dezzmont · 226
Another possibility : Exhaust the hammer each time you use it. And add another Action to ready it (like the Ornate Bow). — Emmental · 158

First Watch

First Watch

The natural competitor for this card is On the hunt. I think this card is far superior, for several reasons.

-On the hunt can whiff. If that happens you basically wasted a resource and a card slot.

-On the Hunt can succeed and you end up drawing a monster you normally wouldn't have (remember enemies are the worst thing that can be drawn from the encounter deck).

-This card eliminates one of the game's main advantages: randomness. Say your current investigator order has your guardian drawing ancient Evils and your Mystic drawing a Spawn of Hali. This is an awful, random situation. The guardian has no counters for evil and the mystic has nothing up for damage or evasion. The game hence eats a turn, and probably two since you're going to be using this turn to deal with the spawn (guardian pulls it off for an action and then takes two to kill it at least). Play this card though and you simply switch the order to where the guardian draws the spawn and the mystic draws the Evils. Mystic cancels with Ward of Protection and guardian nets an action they wouldn't have otherwise had.

-Guardians tend to be very tanks and have expendable assets. That venturer out of ammo and you drew a grasping hands and Crypt chill? Take both. Lessen the impact of the damage hit with the venturer and discard him with crypt chill. Guardians have many ways to heal (especially heal damage) and funneling those treacheries into their hands keeps other party members protected.

The only time I think On The Hunt wins is in single player, and even then you may be better off filling the spot with other cards.

Overall, very powerful card and almost an auto include in multi-player decks.

drjones87 · 213
Probably you want to dig for an enemy since the guardian card has many cards which work on defeating enemies — Tharzax · 1
Enemies are not always the worst thing in the deck - just as an example, they still use Ancient Evils in a lot of scenarios. On the Hunt will never draw an Ancient Evils.In case, for once, you're not running as many copies of Ward of Protection (2) in your part as possible, you can still use First Watch to distribute those AEs to people with less powerful / more restrictive wards (the Nine of Rods for example). — axefby · 1