We played with a fighter Monterey Jack who handed most enemies and the occasional super high-shroud location (lockpicks). He played with Norman, who was the main cluever but handled the big scary enemies. it was a very unusual team, but they did shockingly well.
In our three-player Carcosa campaign, Minh with Analytical Mind played Dream Diary, and Essence of the Dream was insurance for Mark in the Mythos phase.
5:37 Deduction is absolutely NOT a "needed" card for the game. Seekers are innately the most tempo-positive class, since they require zero setup to be effective at the most-common mechanic of the game -- sure, they *can* do tempo-negative setup things, but unlike every other non-Duke class, they don't *have* to, as raw "5 book vs shroud" is still comparable-to-better-than what other classes regularly do *after* investing in setup. Furthermore, Seekers/cluevers have the most virtual tempo-advantage since the cluever gameplan will essentially never have a dead action in a turn (since move complements investigate in nearly every scenario, and "get clues" is the continually-active goal throughout nearly every scenario (a notable rare exception being The Gathering)). I happen to think that Deduction might be the worst-designed card in the game (yeah, even over all the nonsense designs, since Deduction does something more fundamentally and insidiously harmful). Its design commits (badumtish) two vital errors: firstly, it utterly fails to recognize how much more powerful and universally-relevant "more clue" is, in defiance of 99% of scenario design (remember that it was designed as a cycle not just with Vicious Blow, but Survival Instinct, Fearless (even considering Agnes, Fearless is still underwhelming, jump-through-hoops-y, and defensive like Vicious Blow), and lol Opportunist). Secondly, it combines "get extra clues" AND "be best at investigate tests" into the same class, instead of splitting up "good at the core mechanic of the game" more evenly among all the classes. E.g. instead of "the clue class", Seeker could've been the "slow-but-steady class" with other classes being primary in bonus clues (with greater risk or setup or conditions, quite like most non-Seeker bonus clue already), testless effects, etc. Flavorwise, steady-but-slow would even fit Seekers much better than their current design, as Seekers are the types of people who are compelled to learn every minute detail they can, no matter how extraneous or how much time will be spent doing so, whereas others only focus on whatever they think is "the good stuff." (As someone who will read every single Codex entry in a video game, and who read the dictionary for fun as a kid, I can confirm I am the former and it's as much a curse as a talent :P.) Anyway, clue acceleration is an important part of the game, but Deduction isn't the answer (from a game design standpoint) and Seekers don't need clue acceleration -- it's the *other* classes that need it in order to make up for the inherent tempo-disadvantage and unreliability of their strategies.
Okay, even if you don't want to use it with a Seeker investigator, doesn't Deduction have good value for other classes that can access Seeker cards? I have used it many times in off-class decks.
@@rickclemons4477 I don't think you understand my point. It's not that Deduction is a "bad card" (quite the opposite, the Deductions are quietly among the most efficient cards in the game) -- it's that Deduction is a bad *design*. From a "building the strongest deck" perspective, every Seeker/Seeker-adjacent-with-high-book wants to play Deduction for "good value", but that's a totally different discussion than what I'm talking about -- which is that from a "designing the best game" perspective, Deduction (and incidentally most fundamental-Seeker design) is something that should not have been created. FWIW, lots of Seeker cards become fairer when restricted to investigators who don't have classic-Seeker-statlines, e.g. Roland. Deduction is fairer at low book; Pathfinder has an extremely meaningful resource cost when you're trying to play it alongside all those expensive Guardian cards; even the hand-slot on Magnifying Glass (an absurdly efficient card that other stats can only dream of) begins to really matter as it restricts you from playing a whole swath of two-handed cards.
I think a reason seeker feels linear is because how underwhelming the combat mechanic can be at times. Seekers usually have low fist, but the enemy's in the game usually can just be engaged by a character more proficient than the seeker at dealing with them. Something like a frozen in fear giving seeker a -4 book test fist at end would be nice
I actually played Pocket Telescope in a Harvey deck in Edge of the Earth and the card was really good. During one of the scenarios I even had two out and was revealing everything lol. Great card.
I'm not really sold on Diviniation for seekers because when you consider you also need an action to play it, from an action-efficiency standpoint you only really get one extra clue out of it.
I think "if you succeed" is the most important text on the card. Preserving your charges can really add up when it comes to action economy. Pull a tentacle on a Right of Seeking or a Finger Print Kit and you might be wishing you had a Divination.
Understand there is a ridiculous difficulty level one can play that has some serious negatives (numbers, and side effects). Love how that Scroll of Secrets card allows you to put encounter cards into your hand. By default many games have the ruling (a golden rule) that cards trump rule books. So if the card allows, and the rule books don't, card takes priority. FFG you fooked up. XD The game has too many good assets for hand slots, and even if you manage to get a third hand somehow, its still not enough.
We played with a fighter Monterey Jack who handed most enemies and the occasional super high-shroud location (lockpicks). He played with Norman, who was the main cluever but handled the big scary enemies. it was a very unusual team, but they did shockingly well.
In our three-player Carcosa campaign, Minh with Analytical Mind played Dream Diary, and Essence of the Dream was insurance for Mark in the Mythos phase.
Pocket Telescope's fast action is so good. Even if you don't have Innsmouth type maps, blind playthroughs are just a tad easier with it.
5:37 Deduction is absolutely NOT a "needed" card for the game. Seekers are innately the most tempo-positive class, since they require zero setup to be effective at the most-common mechanic of the game -- sure, they *can* do tempo-negative setup things, but unlike every other non-Duke class, they don't *have* to, as raw "5 book vs shroud" is still comparable-to-better-than what other classes regularly do *after* investing in setup. Furthermore, Seekers/cluevers have the most virtual tempo-advantage since the cluever gameplan will essentially never have a dead action in a turn (since move complements investigate in nearly every scenario, and "get clues" is the continually-active goal throughout nearly every scenario (a notable rare exception being The Gathering)).
I happen to think that Deduction might be the worst-designed card in the game (yeah, even over all the nonsense designs, since Deduction does something more fundamentally and insidiously harmful). Its design commits (badumtish) two vital errors: firstly, it utterly fails to recognize how much more powerful and universally-relevant "more clue" is, in defiance of 99% of scenario design (remember that it was designed as a cycle not just with Vicious Blow, but Survival Instinct, Fearless (even considering Agnes, Fearless is still underwhelming, jump-through-hoops-y, and defensive like Vicious Blow), and lol Opportunist). Secondly, it combines "get extra clues" AND "be best at investigate tests" into the same class, instead of splitting up "good at the core mechanic of the game" more evenly among all the classes. E.g. instead of "the clue class", Seeker could've been the "slow-but-steady class" with other classes being primary in bonus clues (with greater risk or setup or conditions, quite like most non-Seeker bonus clue already), testless effects, etc.
Flavorwise, steady-but-slow would even fit Seekers much better than their current design, as Seekers are the types of people who are compelled to learn every minute detail they can, no matter how extraneous or how much time will be spent doing so, whereas others only focus on whatever they think is "the good stuff." (As someone who will read every single Codex entry in a video game, and who read the dictionary for fun as a kid, I can confirm I am the former and it's as much a curse as a talent :P.)
Anyway, clue acceleration is an important part of the game, but Deduction isn't the answer (from a game design standpoint) and Seekers don't need clue acceleration -- it's the *other* classes that need it in order to make up for the inherent tempo-disadvantage and unreliability of their strategies.
Okay, even if you don't want to use it with a Seeker investigator, doesn't Deduction have good value for other classes that can access Seeker cards? I have used it many times in off-class decks.
@@rickclemons4477 I don't think you understand my point. It's not that Deduction is a "bad card" (quite the opposite, the Deductions are quietly among the most efficient cards in the game) -- it's that Deduction is a bad *design*. From a "building the strongest deck" perspective, every Seeker/Seeker-adjacent-with-high-book wants to play Deduction for "good value", but that's a totally different discussion than what I'm talking about -- which is that from a "designing the best game" perspective, Deduction (and incidentally most fundamental-Seeker design) is something that should not have been created.
FWIW, lots of Seeker cards become fairer when restricted to investigators who don't have classic-Seeker-statlines, e.g. Roland. Deduction is fairer at low book; Pathfinder has an extremely meaningful resource cost when you're trying to play it alongside all those expensive Guardian cards; even the hand-slot on Magnifying Glass (an absurdly efficient card that other stats can only dream of) begins to really matter as it restricts you from playing a whole swath of two-handed cards.
I think a reason seeker feels linear is because how underwhelming the combat mechanic can be at times. Seekers usually have low fist, but the enemy's in the game usually can just be engaged by a character more proficient than the seeker at dealing with them. Something like a frozen in fear giving seeker a -4 book test fist at end would be nice
Divination - in many of my mystic decks!! So handy!
I actually played Pocket Telescope in a Harvey deck in Edge of the Earth and the card was really good. During one of the scenarios I even had two out and was revealing everything lol. Great card.
I'm not really sold on Diviniation for seekers because when you consider you also need an action to play it, from an action-efficiency standpoint you only really get one extra clue out of it.
True, but getting 4 clues by passing 2 tests instead of 4 definitely matters
I think "if you succeed" is the most important text on the card. Preserving your charges can really add up when it comes to action economy. Pull a tentacle on a Right of Seeking or a Finger Print Kit and you might be wishing you had a Divination.
For a second I read ‘pulling a tentacle’ as a variation pulling someone’s (or rather something’s) finger.
Cthulhu: "pull my tentacle."
Understand there is a ridiculous difficulty level one can play that has some serious negatives (numbers, and side effects).
Love how that Scroll of Secrets card allows you to put encounter cards into your hand. By default many games have the ruling (a golden rule) that cards trump rule books. So if the card allows, and the rule books don't, card takes priority. FFG you fooked up. XD
The game has too many good assets for hand slots, and even if you manage to get a third hand somehow, its still not enough.