Adam Lynch

Adam Lynch

Spoilers for Miskatonic Museum abound, but you probably knew that already!

I've been considering the two different helpers in Miskatonic (Harold Walsted being the other) as I consider an optimal playthrough type run.

I think that Adam is pretty much inferior across the board, with a couple caveats:

  1. If you're trying to get through the scenario as fast as possible.
  2. If your primary clue gathering mechanic is not based on investigating using .

In either of those cases, Adam will be marginally more useful - he'll allow you to skip over most of the exhibit halls other than doing the bare minimum to get clues, saving you 1 per (using the Security Office as a single rather than , or as compared to just sending your clue-sweeper in to each Exhibit Hall, with the possible consequences of revealing them.

Here's my thoughts:

Both Allies have the same 1/1 statline and the same "Oops, I let an innocent die, take a bad token" penalty. So you're looking at the bonuses they give.

Harold Walsted is a +2 investigate in all Miskatonic locations (which is going to be every location in the scenario). Whoever you're playing, a +2 investigate boost is going to be useful. For Rex Murphy you're significantly more likely to double up on clues. For anyone else, the ability to forgo throwing cards or resources or actions at your investigate checks (The majority of the locations are Shroud 2 or 3, so a +2 on top of the 4 or 5 you're bringing puts you easily at +2 or +3 for your tests), especially in a scenario like MM, that is often timed by the number of cards remaining before you take 10 damage, is huge! And for most seasoned players, clearing clues off all the locations is going to be key, because that's where the sweet XP lives!

On top of that, Harold comes from the Breaking and Entering side of the Act, rather than the Night at the Museum side. For investigators that are trying to maximize clue gathering, breaking down the door is going to be the method of choice anyway, to keep those 2 starting clues for immediate use in the Museum Halls.

The Security Office has two possible options - to search your deck and draw or to look at Exhibit Halls. If you're clearing all the halls, knowing which is which is helpful, but not worth the actions it would take. So if you get the right Security Office, Adam lets you spend 1 less action to search and draw. Which, to be clear, is pretty neat! But he costs you two clues, which are the key resource to discovering what's going on! So 50% of the time he'll save you 1-3 actions, depending on what you're digging for in your deck.

Harold, on the other hand, is going to trigger repeatedly during the game, since you're looking to clear 5-6 clues to open all the halls, and then clear out the Exhibit Hall

The only real upside Adam has is that's the most trope-y of individuals, being the completely new security guard at the haunted museum who is definitely going to get eaten by the monstrous horror at some point in time!

Ergonomic Cat · 50
My group usually clears all locations of clues for victory X and don't use actions to spy on them, before entering. It costs 2-3 actions to move to sec office and look. So he's useless to us as well. — Django · 5093

Armor of Ardennes

Armor of Ardennes

This card is essential for one thing, and that's if you're going for an "indestructible" build. Where you're playing a , let's say Mark Harrigan because it works best on him, (though Tommy Muldoon might find himself slightly interested in this as well, possibly Zoey Samaras since she tends to take aggressive cards like Taunt and On the Hunt) and you're near 49 exp: You're just to the nines with Kerosene, Brother Xavier, Enchanted Blade, maybe First Aid, and what have you, alongside all the EXP horror/damage mitigation you took at EXP 0 (Hallowed Mirror, Dodge, Emergency Aid, Second Wind, The Home Front) which you can use to utilize Sophie consistently whenever you need her. Maybe, if you're freaky, you're running cards like Blood Eclipse. It's really unclear to me if that sort of build is optimal, but it doesn't feel bad.

LordHamshire · 822
It seems to me that running all those other expensive tank cards would make Armor of Ardennes rather redundant and less valuable for its XP cost, not better. — CaiusDrewart · 3168

The Red-Gloved Man

The Red-Gloved Man

I think if you're a survivor you can get The Red-Gloved Man to appear five times, if in your hand you have at least one of him, 2 copies of A Chance Encounter and 2 copies of Resourceful.

Like so:

Play The Red-Gloved Man.

Discard him at the end of the Mythos Phase.

Next turn: Play A Chance Encounter and put The Red-Gloved Man into play.

Commit Resourceful to a skill test, and win. Retrieve A Chance Encounter from your discard pile.

End of round: Discard The Red-Gloved Man

Next turn:

Play A Chance Encounter and put The Red-Gloved Man into play.

Commit Resourceful to a skill test, and win. Retrieve A Chance Encounter from your discard pile.

End of round: Discard The Red-Gloved Man

Next turn:

Play A Chance Encounter and put The Red-Gloved Man into play.

End of round: Discard The Red-Gloved Man

Next turn:

Play A Chance Encounter and put The Red-Gloved Man into play.

End of round: Discard The Red-Gloved Man

I'm sure some other deck techers have stumbled onto this awesome combo. That said, I don't see why it wouldn't work with other allies.

AbsolutZer0 · 19
Okay, but the RGM is a lot less powerful when he takes an action to play and doesn’t buffer your stats during the next Mythos phase. He also doesn’t protect very well against AoO because playing ACE provokes an AoO while he isn’t there to soak. If your goal is just to have multiple turns at a high base stat, Trial by Fire (recursed with Resourceful) may be more effective in many situations and 0xp. — Death by Chocolate · 1473
Agreed, just use Resourceful and Trial by Fire. Using Ace on RGM is a pretty big waste. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Just play William, talk your seeker friend into giving you the No Stone Unturned LV5 search so you always get this guy, and recur him every time you kill something. — TheNameWasTaken · 3
Yorick + RGM is always a solid way to go. The question these days is whether there's enough XP to go around. Yorick really loves Timeworn Brand. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Ah see, I don't have The Circle Undone cycle yet, so I didn't know of Trial By Fire's existence. Anyway, I thought it was a neat combo. — AbsolutZer0 · 19
Calling in favors to return RGM to you hand after you had A Chance Encounter with him? — Django · 5093
No AOE on Fast. — MrGoldbee · 1468

Prepared for the Worst

Prepared for the Worst

I'm am firmly in the camp that this card is a must-add to literally every deck, (ok, not Carolyn.) Tutors like this are just so efficient and smooth out clunkiness. It isn't a splashy or fun card, but you'd rather run this than a less apt weapon for your deck. Run 3 to 4 weapons and a playset of this card. Yes, you can run it with 3 weapons just fine, you'll hit a weapon a vast majority of the time and you're not building your deck fretting over 5% ~ 10% chances. It makes upgrading into better expensive weapons like Flamethrower better at every stage of the game. It helps you fetch any character-specific weapons. If you're playing at higher difficulties, it really is necessary.

LordHamshire · 822
Every Guardian deck? Even Carolyn? — StyxTBeuford · 13028
I’m not a big fan of this in a starting deck if I can just run 6 level 0 weapons. Certainly as you pour xp into weapons and ou want to increase your odds of getting your better weapons, it’s good, but the power difference of lvl 0 weapons isn’t enough to justify the extra resource and action to play this. Especially on Leo, Skids, and Jenny who can easily pick up a copy later in the campaign through Adaptable. Okay, the other two aren’t Guardians, but can certainly be played as them. — Death by Chocolate · 1473
The fundamental question is whether the 3rd level 0 weapon is equal to or better than a machete or a .45. If yes, then this card is just a 1 resource tax. If not, then this card wins out (save for the fact that it is possible to completely wiff). I'm way behind on new tech, so I don't know if there's a third valid weapon option for most guardians. — Ergonomic Cat · 50
I strongly disagree that 3 weapons + 2 PftW is a good idea. That leaves you with a very high chance of PftW completely missing. The odds are NOT "5% or 10%." That is just untrue. They are actually about 30%. That's really high! — CaiusDrewart · 3168
Now, I do think this card has a good niche in the mid-to-late campaign, when you have 1-2 high-XP superweapons plus 3-4 backup weapons in your deck. PftW will then increase your odds of hitting your superweapon (not guaranteeing it, but still, it helps), while being very likely to hit something. It's nice on Stick to the Plan, too. — CaiusDrewart · 3168
But yeah, I agree with Death by Chocolate that this is actually a rather poor card in a level 0 deck. If you're playing without the Taboo list, the Machete is enough better than the other level 0 weapons which provides some reason to play this. But if you're playing with the list, running 6 level 0 weapons is a lot better even than 4 weapons + 2 PftW. Just drawing a weapon is better and more efficient than PftW -> playing a weapon, and just running 6 weapons also reduces the risk that you end up weaponless (because you don't have to deal with the possibility, however slim, of PftW missing.) That said, I could see including 1 in a level 0 deck, because it will become good later in the campaign. — CaiusDrewart · 3168
Well let's assume you hard mulligan for a weapon: You have about a 70% chance of getting one of your three weapons in that opening hand. So given that you land on that 30% and you have Prepared for the Worst on Stick to the Plan (the best place for it), then using it you have an 80% chance of drawing into your weapon (since SttP cuts your deck size by 3, so it bumps the odds here). So altogether with 3 weapons, Stick to the Plan, and a single copy of Prepared for the Worst, the chances of drawing your weapon within the first turn is .7 + .3(.8), or about 94%. So a single copy with SttP is good, but I wouldn't run SttP just for Prepared for the Worst. There has to be other tactics or supplies that you want, like Custom/Extra ammunition. And without SttP you shouldn't fall into the trap of hard mulligan-ing for Prepared for the Worst OR your weapons, because a 30% chance of whiffing while losing a resource, an action, and a card is too high risk. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Yes, that's right. And the synergy is nice here, because Stick to the Plan + Prepared for the Worst + Extra Ammo + a high-XP weapon (preferably Flamethrower) all combine for a really nice, synergistic build. I just think this card is mediocre in a level 0 deck. Granted, if I'm planning on that aforementioned build, I will take a copy right away rather than spend 1 XP for one later. — CaiusDrewart · 3168
And in fairness it has two very relevant icons, so it’s not the worst lvl 0 card. — StyxTBeuford · 13028
Sure. I'd call it mediocre rather than bad in the early going, but then a very nice one-of in the later campaign once you have enough XP support. I do think that cutting two weapons from your starting deck and replacing them with two of these is a big trap, though. — CaiusDrewart · 3168
It’s also more than just a one resource tax - it also taxes an action which is a pretty big deal. As far as other viable level 0 weapons, Enchanted Blade is solid, and Survival Knife is a reasonable 3rd weapon. Leo can get away with rogue weapons, since he probably runs beat cops. Roland and Tommy have a signature gun. The .45 Thompson is usable too. Mark can get away with the .32 Colt. Tommy can also run Meat Cleaver. — Death by Chocolate · 1473

"I'll see you in hell!"

"I'll see you in hell!"

This card actually has a very specific space where a single copy is strong add, one that you're not even likely to cut when upgrading: playing an investigator in multiplayer who uses a playset of Taunt (like Zoey Samaras or possibly other in 3 to 4 player games) on Expert difficulty. Outside of that, the card isn't amazing. It's never as terrible as it seems, but it's probably not as good as building for survivability and consistent damage.

LordHamshire · 822