If you didn't already have Leo De Luca, its only 1xp more to take Charisma and 2x Leo (1) over 2x Haste.

Leo costs 2 more resources but also more than pays off that difference by generating more bonus actions reliably as well as being a 2/2 soak. And it's not like anyone who has access to rogue 2 will have problems with paying 5 upfront.

Baring edge cases like having 3 other allies already, I don't think there's any investigators without Leo who would want to take this. While Dexter Drake certainly likes having more spells, he also has better things to do with his arcane slots.

suika · 6
It makes the bow viable for Wini. — MrGoldbee · 93
Why not both? =) — Wastekase · 7
There are people with Rogue 2 who don't take Leo De Luca? — NarkasisBroon · 1
Sure, lots of people. Dexter doesn't always take Leo because Arcane Initiate and David Renfield are probably better for him. Leo Anderson might prefer Grete, Guard Dog, or even Gregory Gry. Heck, most Rogues I play don't take Leo because he's too expensive for set up and other allies do more for them- Finn likes Peter Sylvestre, Sefina likes Arcane Initiate, original Skids prefers Gregory, and some Wini, Tony, and Trish builds would likely prefer Greg as well depending on their set up. All of that said, I don't like Haste very much. It turns out even getting three arrows in a row is tough. I tried it in Sefina with the Bow- noting that her ability, Bow, AND Suggestion all have arrows- and it was incredibly rare that it was worthwhile to chain three of those together. You could shoot bow, reload, shoot, but you'd have to evade first to avoid the attack of opportunity- and too often it was more efficient for the scenario to evade and then move away to do something else. Often you want to evade, investigate, and move. And the evades only chain into bow if you have Suggestion out. It's just too much set up to work enough times in a scenario to pay off in my opinion. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
You aren’t suggesting that you’d play 2 Leos for 5 actions are you? Because Leo is Unique. Other than that, I agree with Styx — there are a lot of reasons to not take Leo even if you can, and I haven’t figured out how to make Haste work. I tried it out in Dexter, and it was... meh. Didn’t trigger enough for an Arcane slot that could hold any — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
Number of things. — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
Haste and Leo are both amazing in Tony. With his free fight action he frequently has enough actions to chain two of the same type together, and having Leo in play makes it even easier. Haste is pretty much only viable if you're operating with base 4 actions, because that makes it much easier to put two of the same type on a row. When that's happening, you're taking 5 and 6 action turns regularly. Haste is awesome, if you're already taking a lot of actions. — SGPrometheus · 253
Of course they aren’t suggesting playing 2 Leos. The point of Charisma is to draw a comparison with Haste. You buy two copies of Haste (even though you can only have one in play) for increased reliability and it goes in a relatively uncontested slot. Likewise, you get two Leo’s and Charisma for both reliability and an uncontested (previously nonexistent) slot. — Death by Chocolate · 58
The problem with Haste I found in Tony is you need to have enough enemies to fight. That sounds a bit dumb, sure, but I mean realistically Tony can already chain together 5 fight actions in a row. It's rare he needs a 6th. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Which is to say, there are situations where it's worthwhile, but generally it's a bit of a waste I think. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Night Terrors

Ugh. This thing. It’s just high enough difficulty to eat your skill icons, and the effect is immensely punishing. Losing 10% of your deck is no fun, and the “draw each weakness” is just icing on the cake. Screw you, Merging Realities!

Is it tho? Unless you’re a heavy draw/search deck, most decks don’t hit every card in their deck during a scenario, so losing three cards is often functionally the same is those cards just being in the bottom of their deck. Take it on the nose and save your icons. — Death by Chocolate · 58
Agreed with DbC, losing your deck is fundamentally not a big deal unless your deck is heavily dependent on a few cards. It's no different realistically than just having a different shuffle of your deck where those three cards ended up at the bottom- in fact, its a bit better than that since it's like you got to see those 3 cards on the bottom (ie you know not to expect them, which is helpful). It could even hit a weakness. Since getting rid of the card doesn't require that you pass the test, I say it's a bad card to commit to. Eat the action, learn a little more about your deck in the process, and then move on. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Losing your cards* — StyxTBeuford · 2081
I should clarify that it hitting a weakness is generally a good thing, as it means you didn't waste a draw on it. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Just sayin’, it always eats something important. That’s Arkham. — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
Sure, but so do most treacheries. Whatever cards it eats are no different than just never seeing those cards because they shuffled low. It costs 1 action, with the slight potential that the action is kind of refunded if it hits a weakness (that is in the top 3 so you most likely would've lost a draw to it), makes this an incredibly tame treachery relatively speaking. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
I also think it's pretty mild cause other investigators can resolve this card but don't have to discard from their deck if they fail, see rules Triggered Abilities. — crayne · 3
@crayne Other players can't activate it; it's not in their threat area (as per the text after the action icon). — SGPrometheus · 253
Maybe this is just a personal thing -- damage, horror, resources, and even polayed cards come and go, and I'm OK with it; it's nothing personal, just Arkham. For some reason, however, milling my deck just seems... rude. — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
Much like the autofail, it’s the kind of thing that feels much worse than it actually is. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Yeah, it's a common thing with a lot of card games that milling always, *always* feels worse than it actually is, and it takes almost everyone a long time to adjust to this fact. — Thatwasademo · 26
The scariest thing about this card is how it combines with swarm to make you shuffle/horror more often than expected. Otherwise nbd. — Yenreb · 9
Voice of Ra

The other review for this card is completely accurate, but I just want to give some statistics to help people decide if they want to use this. Using the standard difficulty Night of the Zealot chaos token pool, here are your odds:

  1. 29% - no indicated symbols - 1 resource
  2. 49% - 1 indicated symbol - 3 resources
  3. 17% - 2 indicated symbols - 5 resources
  4. 2% - 3 indicated symbols - 7 resources

Average: 2.75 resources.

This is slightly less than Emergency Cache, and more random. But it does have the willpower skill icon. Also, the odds are altered when the chaos token pool is different from NotZ, or (as noted in the other review, when you use effects to reveal more tokens (like Jacqueline Fine, Olive McBride, etc).

jmmeye3 · 328
I'm sorry but this stat looks like total 16 total tokens with 6 proper tokens. NotZ has only 5 proper token (elder_sign does not work with VoR). — elkeinkrad · 13
Thank you, error corrected. I thought there was a "monster token" in the NotZ pool. — jmmeye3 · 328
There is, but only after setup of scenario 3. — Thatwasademo · 26
A Test of Will

I wanted to write something up about this card, because I've left some negative impressions on it in a different review and I want to clarify some things. I still think, for a LOT of investigators, this card is just worse than A Test of Will 1. Let's actually just break all 3 of them down for a second:

A Test of Will - Pay a card and a resource for the chance to cancel a revelation on a treachery.

A Test of Will 1 - Pay a card, a resource, and an experience point (proactively) to cancel a revelation on a treachery.

A Test of Will 2 - Pay a card to cancel a revelation on a treachery, with some chance that you will have to spend 2 XP after the scenario if you want to use it again.

The breakdown for me is pretty simple: most investigators who want this version will want to upgrade to the level 2 version. Investigators who want the level 1 version DO NOT AT ALL want this version or the level 2 version. This is almost centrally an issue of Willpower. Low will investigators can't pass these tests but are still personally crippled by encounter cards (think Preston Fairmont or Tony Morgan or Finn Edwards), and they will therefore take the level 1 version, probably later in the campaign, for some personal defense. Investigators who can consistently pass the will check have high will and are therefore less inclined to needing to cancel a treachery, so this becomes more of a support card at higher counts. Consistently being able to pass the check means that there's not much value in spending the 1 XP to guarantee the check passes, but it may be worth 2 XP for both the 1 resource savings and the insurance it provides you in cancelling one treachery you otherwise would've failed (the 1 XP version might do this if it so happens you purchase it right before the scenario you would have failed the check, but most of the time this wont be true). Obviously, by scenario 8, the level 1 iteration is almost strictly better than the level 2.

I say almost because there's one very easy to overlook side to this card, which is that, unlike Test of Will 1, it offers a test. That matters in Survivor because failing tests often means you get things. If you Take Heart a Test of Will test, you're usually happy regardless if it passes or fails. If you're Stella Clark in particular, Test of Will level 0 basically reads "1 card, 1 resource. On standard: 50/50 you either cancel the treachery or take an extra action this turn (and draw a card probably because Rabbit's Foot)". You could even intentionally Draw Thin to increase the odds of failure and make some extra cash (with DT and Rabbit's Foot, you recoup the cost of Test of Will and make back a resource). Now, this is all a bit less helpful in solo where you're less likely to encounter a treachery that doesn't already have a test most rounds, but in a group setting you could more quickly find a target, letting you either support a teammate, or at least profit for trying. These investigators are probably best off sticking to the level 0 version, as failing is not something you want to gamble 2 XP on.

All of that is to say, I think Test of Will level 0 is a pretty niche card. There are certainly some investigators that could use it for support, but it's very inconsistent support that isn't really recouped even with Rabbit's Foot out. I could see some versions of Agnes Baker or Patrice Hathaway running it as group support, sure. I think Stella Clark is by far the best home for it.

StyxTBeuford · 2081
I've been playing Stella (partnered by Nathaniel) in a TCU runthrough, and I have found this card pretty useful. We are palying in standard, so it isn't hard to boost to success, and there are enough nasty treacheries that willpower doesn't help with (e.g. Fate of All Fools, some of the Hexes) that this card has proved to be a workhorse. I might eventually upgrade to level 2, but I am busy spending XP on "Look What I Found," allies, and similar cards to do that yet. In lower-willpower Survivors, I more or less agree with your analysis, but I don't think this card is bad. — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
Like I said, I think Stella is easily the best home for it, and I agree the card is very good with her. You're happy with either function of the card in her case- action on failure or cancel on success. I think for everyone else it is a lot harder to justify. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
I dunno. There are a lot of 3-4 willpower Survivors, and a lot of them run Peter Silvertre, whose level-2 form gives a static boost. It — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
It's not that hard for a lot of survivoirs to pass a willpower (3) test. I guess a lot depends on how you feel about Exiles, and how much you want to gamble with XP vs blocking a nasty treachery. TL;DR -- I don't think you're wrong, but there is a lot of variation in deck design and risk management; a lot depends on the specific investiagtor/player. — LivefromBenefitSt · 94
Rita, Silas, Calvin, and Wendy are the Survivors I would take Peter 2 with (Yorick wants to recur allies with limited uses, Patrice and Aschan are much better with Labranche). Calvin's an odd choice since the card probably is okay later in a scenario but near useless earlier, even with some trauma and Peter getting in play consistently. Wendy would have 5 will which is really good, but I think her deck is a bit crowded out by more directly impactful events. Rita is just at 4 with very few will icons typically in her deck (usually it's full of combat and agility). Silas would just be at 3 which is nowhere near enough to be consistently worthwhile. I think again Agnes is a potential choice since she actually would also take Peter 2, but Ward 2 is still a MUCH better card for her than any of these. — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Also note that this card can be used on other investigators on your location. I'm pretty sure someone with will 1 or 2 appreciates it if he doesn't lose his hand to diabolic voices. — crayne · 3
Hence why we were discussing it as a support card for people with high will (as treacheries are already less of a problem for them anyway). — StyxTBeuford · 2081
Holy Rosary

Given the ever-increasing card pool which can overwhelm new players, I thought it would be helpful to write a review of this core set card, which is mentioned in nearly every review for other accessories (and many non- accessories!). Those just starting out with their collection ought to understand how good this card still is, and why it's used as a standard against which all its challengers are measured.

First of all, new players need to understand just how valuable constant skill buffs are, even if they're just a +1. On a close skill test on Standard difficulty--say if you're 1 below, matching, or 1 above--a +1 can swing your chances by roughly 20-30%. Aim higher and the bonus gradually becomes less significant, but still provides safety until you hit the ceiling. 2 above is usually considered the sweet spot in Standard, and seasoned players will commit cards (or spend resources if they have a talent out) to hit it. Every time you make a test that you're getting a constant +1 buff to, that buff gains incremental value--one less card you have to throw away, or one less resource spent, to attain an optimal chance of success. It becomes even better when the bonus is unconditional, as it is for Holy Rosary (compare to Magnifying Glass, which gives you +1 , but only if you're doing a specific action).

And as far as constant unconditional buffs go, Holy Rosary is a bargain at 2 resources--not just because that's cheap compared to other buffing assets, but also because it has increased value in its home faction. If you've at least skimmed the card pool, you may have noticed a couple themes. First, their main stat is and they have a whole bunch of cards that allow them to use willpower for actions that would normally test other skills. And that's the main appeal of Mystics for many players: using only one stat and a handful of spells, you can do anything the other factions can do. So for a fully kitted Mystic, +1 is near equivalent to a +1 in everything.

The other theme you may have noticed is that Mystics like to take risks and make sacrifices in exchange for their power. While they tend to have high sanity, and high willpower to guard that sanity, you'll probably end up taking your fair share of horror [semi-]voluntarily using things like Shrivelling, Clairvoyance, Ward of Protection, Forbidden Knowledge, Agnes Baker's ability, or even Arcane Research. So that's where Holy Rosary's other effect comes in: having assets you can assign horror to is especially valuable in this faction. Mind the rosary will only be able to take 1 horror if you want to keep it in play, so you should only hit it for 2 if you're in danger of being defeated.

All that's really left to convince you of the value of this card is to see how some other accessories measure up. There are a lot, and there are only bound to be more, so I'll just stick with the other two level 0 accessories we have so far, as they're the most direct competitors.

St. Hubert's Key: Also boosts , has a somewhat complex sanity interaction that is essentially equal to +2 sanity, but is double the cost, and you have less control over when it's discarded. It's also unique, which usually won't matter unless someone else has a copy or you're wanting to double up with Relic Hunter for some reason (sorry, no -4 sanity for you).

Crystal Pendulum: Nearly identical, except instead of 2 sanity you have a chance to draw an extra card once per round. Getting the card draw requires math and luck, so it's a much more complex and much less consistent secondary property, unless you also have cards in your deck that manipulate the chaos bag, which lots of the newer Mystic cards can do.

Beyond that, I'll briefly say this: almost every other accessory a Mystic can take is fantastic, for specific deck archetypes or combos, while Holy Rosary is going to be good no matter what kind of Mystic deck you build. It's a cheap straightforward go-to for anyone who can take it.