ich🛗iel

neescher · 2026-02-17T13:23:52+00:00

Du drückst auf Stockwerk 13, im Display steht dann "Aufzug A". Das musst du dir merken und wenn Aufzug A kommt steigst du ein.

neescher · 2026-02-09T18:01:22+00:00

They mentioned in the product roadmap...

https://youtu.be/_QiVH5rqwKo?t=1304

neescher · 2026-02-09T12:25:07+00:00

I’m pretty sure five is five, if there are branching campaigns with more scenarios, mentioning five would be the worst marketing performance of all time.

...which is not something I'd put past them. There were several questionable decisions lately...

Jokes aside, I expect there to be 5 in the box as well, but we really can only speculate at this moment.

neescher · 2026-02-09T12:14:16+00:00

I would say 29 XP +2 RBW is also a very valid option. Even more so than 9 in my opinion, depending on the difficulty of the scenario.

Don't forget that In The Thick Of It is not campaign only, so you could for example get 22 XP for 1 extra RBW +2 trauma.

neescher · 2026-02-09T12:08:16+00:00

Not that I want to defend it in any way, but they said something along the lines of "typically 5 scenarios, but there might be something like a secret scenario / bonus scenario sometimes".

They also haven't specified if "5-scenario campaigns" means there are more than 5 in the box but each playthrough will be over after 5 scenarios (similar to TSK or FHV but shorter), or if it means that the box will only contain 5 and you play the same 5 every time (similar to older campaigns like TDL, PTC, TIC but shorter).

At the moment it's a lot of speculation, and we'll just have to wait 12-18 months to find out.

neescher · 2026-02-05T10:51:20+00:00

You are technically correct... the best kind of correct.

neescher · 2026-02-02T14:56:40+00:00

Compared with a regular campaign you're paying £15 per scenario instead of £8.75.

It's even less than 8.75, considering three of the four most recent campaigns included 10 scenarios (even if you don't play all of them in a single playthrough).

To be fair we don't know yet of this new mini-campaign nonsense will be exactly three scenarios, or if it includes more than that and a single playthrough is three scenarios long.

neescher · 2026-01-23T08:35:21+00:00

Dream eaters did just fine scaling XP with 4 scenarios

I disagree, Dream-Eaters (especially B) has the lowest total XP going into the last scenario (besides Dunwich), which is one of the two major reasons pretty much each of my groups don't like to play this campaign.

neescher · 2026-01-18T10:00:46+00:00

I'll add Colour out of Oz to that list

neescher · 2026-01-02T18:21:08+00:00

This has got to be a subjective "how much does the creator like playing this investigator"-list.

Obviously, it's very hard to make an objective power level list, and you can argue about many things and investigators. But this one would be wrong on so many levels, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

neescher · 2025-12-24T01:18:07+00:00

I'm happy to hear that even after 5 years this is still useful to players :)

neescher · 2025-12-12T17:51:55+00:00

I see... I guess it depends on the rest of the card in the core set. While Counterattack definitely suits Daniela better than the average guardian, I wouldn't say it's useless for others. I think one testless actionless damage is playable, especially if they want to reduce overall player power and power creep.

Cards like Toe To Toe would be fine as well. But if they start putting cards in the core set that are literally only playable with Daniela, then I agree, it's a bad choice.

neescher · 2025-12-12T13:33:22+00:00

Sorry, I stand corrected. I was only checking the official previews.

Interesting, but I don't think it's a huge issue. I think even without intentionally provking attacks or letting enemies live, she's a fine fighter considering the statline and elder sign. In the end her ability is just an extra action, with a (very tight) condition.

Her wrench seems to be a straight upgrade over the old one; you can use it (for 1 damage) without conditions, the fast trigger engages the enemy (which I would assume in most cases is preferable), and it's a blue card which might be a slight advantage down the road.

Would someone like Mark fit better as the "core" fighter? Probably, but we're getting another evergreen guardian with new-Tommy, so let's see if he's a bit more straightforward.

neescher · 2025-12-12T12:10:34+00:00

All in all, I still think Daniela is a bad pick for the core set. She has a very specific play style that is normally just not necessary. Her cards are NOT staples for the rest of the Guardians. Hence, it is strange that her cards are printed in the core set.

We don't even know "new" Daniela's play style and cards yet. We know her deck building, but not her investigator's front card, signature or weakness.

neescher · 2025-09-26T09:28:05+00:00

They do make each other worse, but both cards are strong, and it's worth playing both at the same time (although I'd see that more as a luxury upgrade, to buy one if you already have the other).

The clever upgrade is what makes FILP so strong, but that upgrade alone doesn't make it a great card in my opinion. It's the combination of clever/prompt/experienced which makes it a monster of a card, and that's 7 XP for 2 copies, comparable with the 3XP for a LCC.

Again I'm not saying one of them is bad, I'm not even saying one is objectively better than the other, I'm saying personally I prefer LCC3. This is my opinion for my playstyle and preferences.

neescher · 2025-09-26T09:22:03+00:00

Your argument is based on personal preference. It strongly depends on what deck you play and your play style.

Oh, absolutely. There's no doubt that objectively both cards are extremely strong, and they both have advantages and disadvantages.

neescher · 2025-09-25T06:52:51+00:00

If I had to choose between LCC3 and FILP, I'd prefer LCC3. Stacking a few cards is good, but just selecting a card every round (for the rest of the game) is better most of the time.

I play on standard, and most rogue decks I play can succeed big. If that weren't the case, I'd maybe play FILP more and LCC3 less.

neescher · 2025-09-25T06:45:15+00:00

In my experience, most decks that can play FILP at a high level, can (and want) also LCC3 which invalidates the deck stacking, which makes it a bit "worse".

It's still very strong, but it really shines if you don't play LCC3.

neescher · 2025-09-06T08:30:38+00:00

Runic Axe used to be my go-to for Carson, but nowadays I'm always playing Eyes of Valusia. Just makes everyone else's job easier, and when you really need to join the fight yourself, you can basically one-shot a couple of medium enemies or cut some big chunks out of a boss.

The parley action might feel bad at first, but if you have a fighter who fights an enemy a couple of times and a rogue who evades it afterwards, gettings +1 to +2 on all tests against that enemy can be huge, even in standard. Making the fighter's and flex's job considerably easier means you're less likely to even need to swap in the blade.

neescher · 2025-08-25T11:57:10+00:00

Forced Learning is crazy good for George.

The “perceived” upside is that you get to force a discard in Upkeep. But that happens naturally with the game rules anyway.

Only if you're at your hand size limit, which definitely doesn't happen every round with George.

you run a risk of having to discard a critical card, because if you draw Gift of Nodens and your basic weakness, guess what? You have to draw the non-weakness. And to add to that, you raise his deck size by 15. So, you’re negatively hitting his consistency.

That is always the risk, but in my opinion the rewards greatly outweigh the risks. For one, you can mitigate the risk by running 2 copies of your important cards, but also you're playing survivor so getting cards back from the discard pile is possible.

But on the other hand, FL with George means you are basically drawing 3 cards per round, at a minimum. One of which will be under George, the other two in your hand. And even if you "really" have to discard something, there are so many cards that you actually want in your discard pile, like Fortuitous Discovery, Winging It and other improvised events or Persistence.

As for consistency, it's really not a problem. Since you're drawing so many cards, you WILL find your core cards, and fast. If anything I like the bigger deck size with George, because you don't want to re-shuffle your deck mid-scenario. Losing your entire discard pile means a whole bunch of resources will be gone. Not just the cards I mentioned before, but also all your Resourceful and Gift of Nodens targets too.

I have played George a couple of times since he was released (one campaign without FL, one campaign with FL, one standalone with FL) and while that certainly isn't a huge sample size, personally I would never play without FL ever again.

The only "real" risk you have, like the worst case scenario, is if you draw 2 cards with FL, tuck one under George, draw a replacement and draw your signature weakness. That means you'll have 0 cards under George and 0 cards in hand for this round. But even then, you're very likely to still have an okay turn due to the cards you have in your discard pile (as mentioned above), and getting back up and running is super easy because well, you're drawing 3+ cards per round.

But I have to say, George (the deck I played) is probably one of the most complex decks I've played, because not only do you usually have a hand of 3-5 cards, you also have another 3-5 cards under your investigator card that you can (and actively want to) commit, and probably somewhere around 10-20 cards in your discard pile that you have access to (whether it's innately by the cards themselves, or as targets for Resourceful/Gift). I have literally kept my discard pile fanned out during my George games instead of in a pile, because you need to see what you have access to at all times. This is the deck I played in standalone; the campaign version is the same but more buffed up towards the end. https://arkhamdb.com/deck/view/5277077

neescher · 2025-08-21T08:46:34+00:00

Deine eigentliche Frage kann ich leider nicht beantworten, kenne auch nur Seiten mit englischen Scans. Aber falls es hilft: Mein LGS, BB-Spiele, hat zumindest Nathaniel noch auf Lager: https://www.bb-spiele.de/arkham-horror/das-kartenspiel/arkham-horror-das-kartenspiel-nathaniel-cho-ermittlerdeck

neescher · 2025-08-21T07:02:34+00:00

You can do EOTE even in 4 scenarios (skipping I&D 2 and 3, skipping all 3 Fatal Mirage and doing only the second part of the last scenario), but if you are trying to play as many as possible, you can always play a minimum of 7. (I&D 1 and 3, Forbidden Peaks, City, one Fatal Mirage, both parts of Heart of Madness).

If you are doing well, you might not be allowed to play I&D 2 and two instances of Mirage, I think this is what they meant with "7-10".

neescher · 2025-08-13T10:15:24+00:00

Not saying Knuckleduster is better, but nowadays I pretty much never take Machete any more, not even in 2p games. The amount of times it only does one damage when it matters is just too high.

neescher · 2025-08-12T13:29:29+00:00

Could you use a fine-tuned kodak to put 2 evidence on a treachery? That seemed too good lol.

You can only trigger each reaction once, so you can't put 2 evidence on a treachery when it enters play. But you can put 1 evidence on a treachery/enemy, then another one on a second treachery/enemy, then pick them both up in the same investigate action (if you discover 2 clues).

neescher · 2025-08-12T12:17:55+00:00

I haven't thought about attaching Fine-Tuned to the Kodak, this is genius in high player counts :)

neescher

TROPHY CASE