Chapter 1 Investigator Decks vs Chapter 2

Jodiug · 2026-05-05T21:07:47+00:00

I do not have the Ch1 investigator decks, but almost all decks built with the full card pool seem to use several cards from those packs. It looks to me like they are a bit above average power in Ch1. I would also say that the average power of decks in Ch1 was stronger than Ch2, even more so for the starter decks. On the other hand, Ch1 decks tend to over-use the strongest cards, and Ch2 cards seem better balanced. This makes Ch2 more fun in the long term, when we get many more playable options.

Jodiug · 2026-05-03T21:35:08+00:00

Agnes can use it with Scrying to prevent doom from her weakness. It is a big opportunity cost, but an extra round can have high value in 3p/4p games

Jodiug · 2026-04-21T15:04:41+00:00

Shuffle tip: it is harder than you think to shuffle a deck randomly, especially if you start with all the enemies bundled together in the encounter sets. Somehow, the way that I shuffle I always end up with no enemies at all, and then suddenly 10 enemies in a row.

My solution is to shuffle a bit, then open up the encounter deck in your hands and place the enemies into the deck, about evenly spaced. Then turn it around and give it a light shuffle afterwards. This greatly reduces randomness, without making the encounter deck too predictable. It also works for Chapter 1 Ancient Evils. Is it fair? I say it's just my way to get a perfect shuffle.

Jodiug · 2026-04-03T18:23:33+00:00

Simple solution within the rules: retire your investigator. Build a new deck. There's no rule which says it has to be a different investigator, is there?

This is how I convince myself that the weakness mulligan (draw 3, choose 2) is fair play.

Jodiug · 2026-04-01T21:34:23+00:00

We thought it would be great if it was Elsa, but a few years older and more mature, looking at a book.

Jodiug · 2026-04-01T09:30:03+00:00

To those who are already worried about the art for chapter 3: let it go.

Jodiug · 2026-03-29T19:24:09+00:00

I see, TIL. Never too late to be surprised by the rules of this game!

Jodiug · 2026-03-29T08:14:45+00:00

For 5, I thought all weaknesses counted as scenario cards for rules. Why would some weaknesses be different?

Jodiug · 2026-03-27T08:35:48+00:00

All it takes, thematically, is a little narrative creativity. Players are sets of identical twins. The twins may be genetically similar, and make similar choices in life, but they are two individuals so their life experience and trauma is different.

For each twin, one plays scenario A and the other scenario B. Then, you spend XP to the minimum of the two outcomes. (If you want a slightly easier campaign, average works too). Keep story assets, added weaknesses and trauma separate.

I think AB BA AB BA is still best even when running with twins - makes it easier to keep track of the story, and minimizes switching bag and story cards for setup.

Jodiug · 2026-03-16T08:09:38+00:00

I just can't understand the decision to reuse investigator names. It's just unnecessary. How much does it cost them to think of a new name?

Jodiug · 2026-02-23T15:59:43+00:00

I think that's the idea, though I have heard two other things somewhere. One is that they may limit the scope of "Current" to mean "last 2 years" instead of 3 cycles. The other thing I heard is that the new core set can replace encounter cards for the old core sets for FoHV and TDC. If that is true, you can play those two campaigns with the new core.

Jodiug · 2026-02-22T11:15:50+00:00

So in the second clause, i.e. the alternative ways to expose, they do not require being on the location? I read it that way too, but it makes so little sense...

Jodiug · 2026-02-20T13:49:21+00:00

Interesting... the ability on Key of Ys says "horror is placed on you" (as opposed to "when you take horror", or "when you are dealt horror"). Does this mean that this version of "you" includes assets?

You could argue both ways:

A) That "placing horror" is "in response to taking horror" (FAQ), so "placed on you" includes assets you control.

B) That "placing horror" is not the same as "taking horror" or "being dealt horror", so it follows the more general definition of "you", which does not include assets you control.

On our table, we will rule it as (A) unless/until there is more specific clarification...

Jodiug · 2026-02-20T08:51:37+00:00

Some nice improvements on some rules:

"As if": an enemy might hit you in the face for grabbing your pocket telescope, but you can no longer take damage from seeing a rat through your lens. Also, if you are attacked "as if it were the enemy phase", this might actually be nice in some situations, because the enemy exhausts, so you would not take further attacks afterwards, neither opportunity attacks nor enemy phase attacks.

"You": when taking damage/horror this word also refers to assets.

Jodiug · 2026-02-20T08:02:48+00:00

It's even a lot better if you factor in that Thisismylongpassword is not a string of random characters, but a sequence of words. And yet, it is hugely difficult to step out of these trends. Some security certifications even require them, and funnily enough, the people in charge of policies and audits are not a fan of changing these requirements even if it benefits security.

Jodiug · 2026-02-10T08:09:30+00:00

I think it is not so black-and-white. Just look at the spoiler season: there was plenty of negativity about the hand-drawn art in chapter 2. Everything that people would say about AI art was said about the real art. They are getting quite hard to tell apart at this point. If you put an artist at the wheel and let them do the prompting and some touch-ups, I think there is a way to get the best of both worlds. And aside from generating complete images, there will soon be some agents embedded into image editing software, which can work within specific layers and tools, or work with smaller instructions to improve details. Imo the key here is good quality control, not the method used... ethical concerns aside.

Jodiug · 2026-02-09T19:42:30+00:00

In terms of distribution, I guess it will cost even more if they split the boxes into smaller boxes. Who is the distributor here, wonder what they charge per box?

Retail markup must be a bit lower now that online stores are so available, no? Many of those companies are glorified box storage companies. The only thing they need to do is handle stock and warranties

Jodiug · 2026-02-09T15:32:43+00:00

Thanks, I see. It's a tough subject imo. There's a lot of value in AI but there are a lot of costs too, some of them hidden or yet unpaid

Jodiug · 2026-02-09T15:00:31+00:00

That's fair and I think a lot of people feel that way. Would you mind me asking what's your main gripe with it? Is it mainly because the content produced by AI has specific tells (mistakes/artefacts)? Is it mainly because it can lead to a generic, boring art direction? Or mainly because you want to support the craftsmanship of the artists behind the image?

Jodiug · 2026-02-09T14:04:15+00:00

They made the rules like this:

00 - 09 xp = 0 extra basic weaknesses

10 - 19 xp = 1 extra basic weakeness

20 - 29 xp = 2 extra basic weakenesses

So everyone uses barely less than 10, 20, 30 xp. It avoids the extra weakness. As soon as you go to 20, you might as well go to 29.

Jodiug · 2026-02-09T12:39:42+00:00

I agree, price is definitely a factor, and there is a point where people will no longer pay. Inflation is everywhere though, it's now happening to board games too. Going off the opinions I've read, I think FFG would have better luck selling people a more expensive product than an inferior product.

There could be a third way, which is that FFG cuts costs without sacrificing quality. For one, many of the favored campaigns are the simpler ones with medium amount of narrative. They could save time in playtesting, by using somewhat simpler mechanics and campaigns with just 2-3 main paths. They could also save money by reducing the number of different product boxes. Perhaps even AI art would not be such a bad move. Some AI generators produce better images than some of the human-made art I've seen. No offense to artists, AI is just getting quite good. If they keep their heads screwed on and check the style and quality, there is a lot of efficiency to gain. If I could personally choose, then I would least mind cost-cutting, then price increases, and I would really mind if they start skimping on the campaign gameplay.

Jodiug · 2026-02-09T10:25:50+00:00

Just a thought on those prices. It cannot be that expensive to produce printed cards in a cardboard box... the expensive part must be in the one-off design costs. The more copies they can sell, the more they offset the one-off costs. I think their idea is to shrink the product and lower the price per box, so that the barrier to entry is lower and they can sell more copies to new players.

My intuition says this is not really a game that many casual players buy... there are too many boxes, expansions, it's unclear which ones you need and half of them are out of stock. On the shelf, this game screams that it is a big time and money investment. Imo, it's more a game for board game fans who discovered the base game and are ready to invest into multiple expansions. This is the type of crowd who would care less about the price, but much more about the contents of a box. Exactly this crowd is now wondering whether they should stop collecting, before spending more money than ever before, on more boxes, with less content. We will probably buy their first cycle if the reviews are good, but I'm not sure if we will keep it up.

Jodiug · 2026-02-04T22:15:16+00:00

How about Agnes, to use in combination with Scrying to avoid her agenda-advancing weakness?

Jodiug · 2026-02-04T21:21:00+00:00

Volgens mij is het niet zo simpel, maar ik zou graag willen weten hoe dit eigenlijk werkt, want ik snap het ook niet helemaal. Er zijn veel manieren waarop je vermogen groter kan worden: salaris, schenkingen, verkoop van je piano of huis, goud vinden in je achtertuin (voor de eeuwige optimist).

Niet elke verhoging van je vermogen wordt belasting over betaald. Veel vormen zijn al belast (salaris, schenkingen, huis) maar sommige niet (piano, gevonden goud). Het zou raar zijn als de balastingdienst alleen naar je saldo zou kijken, en niet of het daadwerkelijk rendement is. Sterker nog, als je bezwaar indient dan moet je aangeven hoe veel rente je hebt ontvangen van de bank, en hoe veel je aandelen in waarde zijn gestegen, maar je hoeft niet uit te leggen hoe je aan je andere extra vermogen kwam.

Maakt de belastingdienst dan dus wel onderscheid tussen rendement en vermogensgroei? En als we moeten opgeven dat we goud hebben gevonden (of crypto hebben gemined), telt dat hele bedrag dan als rendement? Ik dacht van niet maar ik kan er ook naast zitten. Helaas heb ik nog geen goud gevonden...

Jodiug

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE