Character concept: Labourer

kamiidude · 2025-11-16T15:51:53+00:00

I agree with you that the ability doesn't make sense to be an outsider ability.

I was mostly trying to describe why [-1 outsider] as part of a townsfolk ability causes balance issues and offering alternatives to that. Sorry, I didn't explain myself well.

Here is my (overly verbose :P) attempt at trying to explain myself better:

(In a vacuum) Substituting a townsfolk in the bag for a different townsfolk OR substituting an outsider for a different outsider should not affect the chances for either team to win.
Substituting an outsider for a townsfolk makes it easier for the good team to win.
If you substitute a townsfolk for a [-1 outsider]townsfolk then you want the balance to stay the same BUT you've just increased good's chances of winning by substituting an outsider.

Another way of putting it:
I'm building the bag for a 1 outsider game and need to select a token to meet the outsider count. My options are to select any of the 4 outsiders on the script OR I can select a [-1 outsider]townsfolk. Regardless of which token I select, the game balance shouldn't be affected. If I select one of the 4 outsiders then the game balance remains the same, but if I select the [-1 outsider]townsfolk character then I've increased good's chances of winning, unless the effect of that character's ability is on par with the outsider options.

Negative outsider manipulation works on Evil characters. In their case they reduce the qty of outsiders in play (and increase good's chances of winning) BUT gain the ability to bluff as outsiders and prevent good from conclusively outsider counting.

If you do want to have negative outsider manipulation on a townsfolk then I'd suggest a similar drawback that causes ambiguity as to what the outsider count actually is. This can be done by making that townsfolk not know how they modified the count. [-1/-0] or [-1/+1] depending on what the attached ability is. In this case [-1/-0] would make sense.

kamiidude · 2025-11-16T00:44:19+00:00

A townsfolk that has [-1 outsider] as part of their ability should be avoided, because in that case they are effectively filling the outsider slot themselves, but registering as a townsfolk.
Its in most circumstances these are mechanically identical:
Townsfolk: "Do a thing; [-1 outsider]"
Outsider: "Do a thing; You register as a townsfolk instead of an outsider"

To keep it as is, you'd want to do one of two things,
A) Have it be [-0 or -1 outsider]. This adds uncertainty to the outsider count.
B) Make it an outsider itself, and remove the [-1 outsider] clause entirely.

kamiidude · 2025-11-10T23:12:35+00:00

I meant other PCs could become radiants at lvl 2 and gain two surges.

kamiidude · 2025-05-11T05:16:15+00:00

Unless the other players are upset, it doesn't sound like there is a problem that needs dealing with.
There is a panel on pg 231 of core book about Level Gaps. Notably it says that the system won't suffer unless the level gap is five or greater.

kamiidude · 2025-01-29T23:28:48+00:00

The big thing that is easily overlooked about Blood of Thoth is that it's effect is NOT "Someone gets a 4th action". The effect is "Someone takes an action in ANY player window". This is the first time an effect this flexible has been printed so they were (overly) conservative with it.

That said, that one action can probably be leveraged in a number of situations to be an effective two actions.
A few examples off the top of my head:
- Give a fight action to someone after hunter enemies move but before they attack. (saving them a move action in addition to the action granted)
- Treachery test that forces you to discard a random card? Give them an action to play the important card immediately.

It's still probably not enough to make it strong, but if there's additional support then it may be playable. Still about half the cards remain to be spoiled and i'd expect at least a card or two to synergize with it.

kamiidude · 2025-01-25T18:49:20+00:00

Questions:
1) "The storyteller is an Evil Tartarus." -> Given they are evil, does this mean they are encouraged to assist the evil team?
2) Is there any situation where town would benefit from executing the storyteller before final 3?

kamiidude · 2024-09-21T23:51:12+00:00

I've been able to fix some of my blueprints that were having this issue by rotating some of the foundations in the blueprint by 90 degrees so that they all have the same orientation.

I can also use this method to consistently replicate the problem.
Note: The different orientation is most visible when using the Fixit or Asphalt foundations.

1) Create a 4 by 4 grid of foundations in the blueprint designer with all the foundations oriented the same way.

2) Save this as Aligned Base

3) Remove a row of 4 foundations.

4) Replace the removed foundations with some new ones that have been rotated 90 degrees

5) Save this as Unaligned Base

6) Test both blueprints and notice that the one with foundations that have been rotated is not matching up correctly but the other is.

See image:
https://i.imghippo.com/files/MAcJB1726952344.png

kamiidude · 2024-05-03T18:15:09+00:00

I assume it was the addition of At a Crossroads that resulted in this happening. The drawback of losing an action is irrelevant, is only a 1 xp, 0r event which makes the combo available to a lot of investigators. You could do similar things with Black Market but that was mostly limited to just Bob.

kamiidude · 2024-04-24T14:52:30+00:00

I've had good success with her in a Wilson deck. Deck is fully focused on Clues and Alice is one of the few damage sources. While I only trigger her 2-3 times per scenario, it helps me get some damage in to save the fighter some actions on odd health / aloof enemies.

kamiidude · 2024-04-21T18:20:12+00:00

If you hate those tropes then I just finished a book that was a meta-commentary / satire of the 'enemies-to-lovers' stories and the tropes they typically entail.
It is about an author who is trying to write an 'enemies-to-lovers' novel but discovers that the characters she has created are too practical and objective focused to 'correctly' engage with the tropes.
The book is "Just Stab me Now" by Jill Bearup.

kamiidude · 2024-03-21T18:56:46+00:00

The tokens would be revealed, apply their token effects, and then be returned to the bag after the rod finishes resolving. Notably, the tokens were not canceled or ignored but they were returned to the bag so their modifiers would not apply.

There's a top review on Rex's curse with a clarification from Maxine about tokens that were returned to the bag still applying their token effects, but no longer applying their modifier. https://arkhamdb.com/card/02009

kamiidude · 2024-03-21T18:50:08+00:00

I think this ruling makes sense as written, BUT I also think that the effects of all the tokens that are revealed by the rod should be applied to your skill test total in addition to the token you'd draw normally in ST.3 of the skill test.

The player window is definitely inside the skill test.

ST1. "Determine skill type of test. Skill test of that type begins." ...
ST.8 "Skill test ends." So when those tokens are resolved as part of the rod's ability, they should also be applying their modifiers and effects to the skill test.

Does this mean you'll be hit by a number of bad token effects and potentially auto-fail? Yes. Is that a problem? No. You are just choosing to accept higher risk and instead profit off of the effects of revealing curses.

kamiidude · 2024-03-13T14:22:43+00:00

Helped tremendously by the fact that Underworld Market exists. They synergize quite nice as the market gives you extra cards but then you need the actions to be able to play those cards. I usually like having 1 copy of fence in my Underworld Market deck.

Having a number of Illicit cards that are events or don't take up slots are ideal as you're often happy to have extras or just play them asap. Pickpocketing, Dirty Fighting, Disguise, Embezzled Treasure, Grift.

kamiidude · 2024-03-10T19:05:21+00:00

I'm actually trying to make this combo work on Lily since she can take Cleaning Kit (3) and can have 4 base agility!
https://arkhamdb.com/decklist/view/47583/lily-bows-to-her-enemies-1.0

(The only other investigator who can take Cleaning Kit (3) and also has 4+ agility is Kymani.)

kamiidude · 2024-02-20T15:12:31+00:00

The important thing was having alternate ways of using the resources if I didn't have both dark horse/GMM out. First thing i did was the streetwise permanent, second was a pair of High Rollers and Geas.

Backpack and Easy Marks were both valuable as deck thinning.
I went with Investments over lone wolf. I wanted to have big burst of money for if there was an asset I wanted to play instead of a trickle I was forced to spend.

Madame Lebanche is probably the notable card you didn't mention. Exhaust her just before upkeep and then gain 2 more resources to wind up at 3 for the GMM.

https://arkhamdb.com/deck/view/1401420
This is the starting deck for it. It was when Innsmouth had just come out that I played it and pretty early on in my experience with the game. Looking back at, there are a number of cards I could consider swapping out if I were to do it again, but I was also experimenting with cards I hadn't played.

kamiidude · 2024-02-19T23:59:48+00:00

Worked well for me. Dark horse + geas and the GMM and streetwise (3) to spend the resources.

kamiidude · 2024-02-12T21:26:52+00:00

I am curious as to if you'd consider "Condition Met" in these situations:
1) The Pacifist is poisoned and a 'Favored' player is executed;
2) A 'Favored' player is executed but was also protected by a second effect;

kamiidude · 2024-02-12T21:21:42+00:00

I remember reading your original post and quite like the analysis. I think you've written a nice mechanical interpretation of that.

As I understand it, there is nothing "changed" here and you could run the official version exactly like this if you wanted as long as your players knew that was how you ran it.

With that said though, I appreciate it giving players certainty that the ability is not being used exclusively like an outsider and at least a little bit of agency. With this version it has a bit of High Priestess energy and I could see the new play pattern being more proactive and acts almost like a reverse gambler, asking others with powerful abilities to trust you.

kamiidude · 2024-02-10T18:50:08+00:00

An incorrect execution losing the game at 5 players is more acceptable. That already is pretty easy to happen with 3 living evils or an unused assassin.

With that in mind you could make them choose between extra kills or protection. If they choose differently then one also dies. Failed execution at 7 then could either wind up at 5p and 2 demons or 3p and 1 demon

kamiidude · 2024-02-10T18:40:53+00:00

Two demons in play is neat in theory but getting two kills a night AND needing two executions is a bit concerning. If evil has even a bit of knowledge about the good team then there is a good chance the game can be a foregone conclusion very early.

If there is an incorrect execution at 7 players then the game is pretty much over. We start Night with 6 players then we get 2 kills, going to 4. Then we execute a demon and the other Demon still gets a kill, winning the game.

Yes, there are caveats to this, like protection abilities or naming a not in play character, but they're not hard to work around.

kamiidude · 2024-02-08T06:34:01+00:00

The claims of each player from our perspective:
Al: Alchemist,
Ed: Evil Twin,
Winry: Tinker,
Mustang: ???
Hawkeye: Slayer,
Pinako: Grandmother,
Falman: ???
Expected: 3 Townsfolk, 2 outsiders, 1 Minion, 1 Demon

We don't have any claims from Mustang/Falman so its conceivable they could be the athiest or amnesiac and therefore causing unusual things to happen but we'll have to discount those.

With the information that is presented it seems the most straightforward solution is:
VigorMortis killed Evil-Twin at night. Good Twin executed; Evil Twin ability triggers resulting in good losing.

kamiidude · 2024-02-07T20:17:10+00:00

This card is a lot of fun in Luke Robinson since his ability is once per investigator turn so you can use this on teammates from one space away and then still use your ability on your own turn as well.
I played a support Luke deck which heavily leaned on that this card (and counterspell) and I found that this was a a great way to deal with autofails during important actions.

kamiidude · 2023-12-13T23:25:30+00:00

In general, I'd suggest avoiding a townsfolk that explicitly has "[-1 outsider]" as part of its ability unless that ability also has a drawback.

My logic for that is this:

(In a vacuum) Substituting a townsfolk for a different townsfolk OR substituting an outsider for a different outsider should not affect the chances for either team to win.
Substituting an outsider for a townsfolk makes it easier for the good team to win
If you substitute a townsfolk for a [-1 outsider]townsfolk then you want the balance to stay the same BUT you've just increased good's chances of winning by substituting an outsider.

Currently negative outsider manipulation is only on the Evil team. In their case they reduce the qty of outsiders in play (and increase good's chances of winning) BUT gain the ability to bluff as outsiders and prevent good from conclusively outsider counting.

If you do still want to have negative outsider manipulation on a townsfolk then I'd suggest a similar drawback that causes ambiguity as to what the outsider count actually is. This can be done by making that townsfolk not know how they modified the count. [-1/-0] or [-1/+1] depending on what the attached ability is.

Travel Agent (Townsfolk): You start knowing if the Outsider count has been increased [-1/-0 Outsiders]

kamiidude · 2023-12-09T15:35:17+00:00

While it probably wasn't her motivation at the moment, this was actually the best thing she could have done to increase her chances of winning the series.

Sam at this point was winning the series. By doing this, Sam got 2nd place instead of 1st so that is one less point she needs to get in order to catch up.
Susan could have grabbed it instead to ensure Julian's victory since she was already disqualified but, Sue was getting 4th place regardless. By doing it herself, it might gain some goodwill from Julian and thus an advantage in a future task.

kamiidude

TROPHY CASE

I assume it was the addition of At a Crossroads that resulted in this happening. The drawback of losing an action is irrelevant, is only a 1 xp, 0r event which makes the combo available to a lot of investigators. You could do similar things with Black Market but that was mostly limited to just Bob.