In a number of ways, this suffers from the same problems a number of assets do: the Hawk-Eye Folding Camera becomes a less useful investment for every turn the game lasts, because of the slow buildup.

If you have it fully powered up, it's not a bad package deal: +1 , +1 , and +1 sanity is about the same as St. Hubert's Key, at half the price.

But most seekers don't really benefit from said package deal. Between naturally high sanity pools, a surplus of allies with decent sanity soak like Dr. Milan Christopher, Charles Ross, Esq., Dr. William T. Maleson, and Mr. "Rook", and Higher Education, they can afford to take most tests on the chin, and spend their way past everything else. So, in practice, what they really want is that +1 .

How long does it take said +1 to come online? Well, to some extent, you can cheat around the condition. If you play it when a location has 1 clue on it, clear that clue, Pathfinder over to another location with 1 clue on it, then clear that location too, you could theoretically do it in three actions. However,this is both unlikely, and is discounting the prior effort involved in discovering clues at said location.

A more useful measure might be "how many investigate tests will this card help me with, if I play it the second I draw it?" The best measure for that would be the act deck. The number of clues needed in a given scenario tends to hover at around 5 to 6 clues. In turn, the minimum number of clues at a location is usually 1. That means if this is played in your opening hand, it will only help you for 2/3rds of the game. And if you draw it, say, halfway through, it'll only help you on the last 1 checks.

Let's compare with the venerable Magnifying Glass. Sure, you only get the +1 if investigating. But the list of things a raw boost helps with besides an investigate is actually pretty small, consisting of the following:

• "I've got a plan!".
• Hypnotic Therapy
• False Lead
• Lost Soul (sometimes)
• The occasional Parley option on enemies.

Most of these are rare enough that you can afford to commit to them instead, or pay your college debts to make them go away. And Magnifying Glass is fast, cheaper, and provides that key bonus to investigation attempts right away. Even if you draw it on turn 14, and there's two clues left to discover before the last act advances, it will still help you for those two clues.

For most seekers, the Magnifying Glass is a superior option, which competes for the same hand slots. In order to really make good use of this camera, that +1 boost needs to be meaningful, because it's the one that turns on first, and the one that offers a niche over other cards that would boost now instead of later. So, who wants it?

• Daisy Walker can use it for spells. But her hand slots are already highly contested by books and other tools, to the point where even Magnifying Glass doesn't always make the cut.
• Marie Lambeau has the right statline and cardpool to make use of it. But she also has in-class access to St. Hubert's Key, and with only 5 off-class cards to work, a card that duplicates benefits already available from other cards isn't high on the priority list.
• Carolyn Fern can also use it for spells, and likes the boost for Hypnotic Therapy. But she only has 3 base and no access to the 3+ XP spells or Spirit Athame. She's not going to be good enough at it, because she needs 3 or more boosting assets in play to have a reliable baseline.

Now, I'd say the one investigator who really likes this card is Norman Withers.

• His awkward card pool, with only 5 level 0 cards, sharply limits his access to the cards that would make this card redundant.
• His special ability heavily discourages skill cards in his deckbuilding, making him more reliant on consistent stat boosts.
• With his choice of XP cards being instead of , that +1 gets used for everything, instead of just treacheries.

In short, this card tends to be overshadowed by Magnifying Glass for pure seekers, while competing for highly contested slots in either deckbuilding or play area in other investigators.

So I haven't yet tried this card out. I'm planning on running it in a "Skids" O'Toole deck soon, and I definitely want to test it in Preston Fairmont since you can spend one FI resource on this card to turn into 10 resources later that skip Preston's ability by going directly to the resource pool (though I still debate the marginal benefit given that he gains so many resources a turn anyway). However, I am going to vouch for its usefulness given its rather polarized reception, and encourage you to test it out yourselves.

First off, this card is not Emergency Cache. The cards are both economy cards, sure, but they intend to do very different things. E-Cache is all about resources now to help you buy something now. It's a tripled resource gain action, which is very efficient. Investments is about resources later, and not all decks care about having resources later. Do you have expensive allies like Agency Backup or resource hungry ones like Lola Santiago? Do you have resource sinks like Streetwise, Higher Education, or Skids' action ability? These are things that Investments helps with.

Second off, I don't agree that E-Cache is a less useless late game draw than Investments. You either draw this early on and have significant late game sustain, OR you commit it late game for an on an investigate test, which is something that is, for the most part, relevant all scenario long. How often do you really need those extra three resources late game anyway? The majority of economy cards (Lone Wolf, Drawing Thin, Dr. Milan Christopher, etc) are best drawn turn 1, but you will still run them and will still play them mid game (I'd argue that's true for Milan even if he didn't have the +1 boost).

Lastly let's talk about the opportunity cost of this card- again, in regards to its most comparable replacement, Emergency Cache. E-Cache is 1 action for 3 resources. Investments costs an action and 1 resource, and doesn't pay off net the way E-Cache does until you hit 5 resources (5 - 1, and another -1 for the extra action), and that takes 5 turns. Yes, it's slow. But again, it's not about raw power or efficiency, it's about flexibility. If you're reluctant to take the resources off this thing just because it feels bad to make a play that is objectively less efficient than just having played E-Cache, you're not using the card right and giving in to sunk cost fallacy. Let's think about this card at every resource quantity, and what it actually provides you given that you're willing to trigger it at any point, from a piloting standpoint:

• 1 Resource - You will never do this because it's objectively worse than a 'gain a resource' action.

• 2 Resources - You probably wont do this unless you really need two resources right now. Most people are willing to wait an extra turn if they can't get all their resources now.

• 3 Resources - This is now an interesting card. From this point forward you have at least an E-Cache on demand for the rest of the game, similar to having an E-Cache in your hand, except it gets stronger if you do choose to wait. Yes, you already spent 1 action to get this here and you could have drawn E-Cache instead, but ignore the sunk cost. If you need those 3 resources, crack it. Don't be afraid. You would just as well have played E-Cache if you needed to, don't be reluctant to crack this.

• 4 Resources - This is where I personally believe the card gets good. Again, ignore the sunk cost, this card now lets you afford just about any card in the game for 1 action (given that you got a resource last turn as well). 4 turns into the future isn't even necessarily bad late game, but if it isn't worth the net 3 resources, go and throw this onto an investigate test.

• 5 Resources - Net 4 is now more potential than E-Cache. You still spent two actions to get them, fair enough. But you spent that extra action for the flexibility of cracking it earlier or later than this if you need to.

• 6 Resources - I think this is where a lot of players feel the card becomes "worth it", in that its raw power or efficiency beats playing E-Cache. Mathematically this is probably true, but again, don't wait 'till 6 to crack this just because it feels more efficient. If you need it at 5, or 4, or 3, go for it. That extra action you paid allows you flexibility, that's what you're paying for.

• 7+ Resources - The question at these quantities becomes what you can even spend these on. Obviously if you have resource sinks you don't have to worry about that- again, something I think you need in your deck to run this card well. The question of whether sinking 7 now vs 10 late (or something in between) depends heavily on the scenario, the deck, and the amount of time you think you have left. How much is that one extra resource later worth? How much is impacting the board state now worth? Do you need to pop out a Lightning Gun and take care of a monster now, or do you need those resources to invest into Lola Santiago later?

So in summary, I think people are understandably reluctant to run Investments because, for a lot of decks, it will just be a worse choice than Emergency Cache. But as I said at the the top, the cards function differently. Anyone who can take advantage of waiting for these resources to accrue will run this over E-Cache ten times out of ten. Investments is a terrifically powerful card, but it demands to be used in a very particular kind of deck. I am personally excited to try it out with a couple of Rogue decks I'm brewing, but if you need some current proof of its usefulness, jamjams32 swears by it for his Leo Anderson deck: arkhamdb.com

If nothing else, Rogues have never been afraid of trying 'iffy' cards just to see if they work (this is the faction with Double or Nothing after all). I say if you're on the fence to give it a go and see what happens.

Note that the taboo'd version now adds "Max once per round." to this card if you're playing with those.

200 characters 200 characters 200 characters 200 characters 200 characters 200 characters 200 characters

The worst card of the service series (Intel Report, Decoy, Small Favor).

To start, the big problem with Small Favor is the lack of bold text, playing this provokes an attack of opportunity. Then there's the fact that it won't hurt elites. These points combined makes the card near-unplayable solo.

So, the unique abilities.

• Dealing 1 damage to an enemy can be done with regular fight actions. This card allows you to secure a 1 damage hit (for 1 action, 1 card, 2 resources), but unless you've spent another action to evade then you're gonna get punched. The usefulness of this shoots up when you need to guarantee a hit on something but the non-elite rule might get in your way in a big way in these cases. Slightly better in multiplayer.

• 2 damage is much more impressive, still the opportunity attack issue persists. Most of the time you play this like an over costed Sneak Attack. The vast majority of characters will prefer using this money for a weapon.

• The range potential is the saving grace for this card, and even then it's undercut by the non-elite moniker. The actions saved by sniping a 2hp enemy 2 locations away can be tremendous. Great for enemies who behave like an Acolyte or Whippoorwill.

The best case scenario for Small Favor is a multiplayer game in scenarios where enemies tend to spawn at a distance, you play it to kill or finish enemies who spawn around your buddies or enemies who play hard-to-get. This card is very expensive for what it does, 2 damage is something you do in one action with just about any common weapon, sure the range aspect is nice but you really pay through the nose here.

All in all, A weapon will probably serve you better than Small Favor.

I cannot help but think that Small Favor should have broken ranks and had different costs or even dealt a maximum of 3 damage somehow. The other service cards are both pretty useful for their ability to give you a "double success", evading 2 enemies in one action is a useful rarity and discovering 2 clues in one action is desirable in any class, dealing 2 damage in one action is something every single class can muster with ease (except ), this means that the 1-2 damage you deal for 2-6 resources is just incredibly inefficient.

Obviously, 2-6 resources are no big deal to Preston Fairmont, I'll struggle to justify it for anyone else.

Mr. "Rook" flew under my radar until I tried to use it and realized how strong he is.

You basically get 3 uses of a better No Stone Unturned for 3 resources, this is just great. And, as other reviews put it, drawing your weakness early is actually often an upside. On top of that, you still get to draw a card even when you find your weakness, when normally drawing your weakness would rob you of one card. In the rare situations that you really do not want to risk drawing your weakness and thus can't use Mr. Rook's ability, or when he's out of charges, he still makes a more than decent meat shield with a 2/2 body, the additional health being of a particular note for a Seeker ally.

To further develop on the review analyzing each basic weakness, let's analyze more in depth each investigator's signature weakness and see how using Rook will affect this investigator in this context: how bad (or good) it is to draw your weakness, and (where appropriate) what could you fish in your deck to reduce the severity of your weakness. The review will thus not focus on whether Rook is worth the deck slot and should be selected instead of other cards (like a Dunwich investigator's wild slot) as this would make for a much larger review and would depend too much on deckbuilding.

Seeker

• Daisy Walker - The Necronomicon - Though Daisy's weakness would rob her of one of hands, maybe at the worst possible moment, her capabilities often largely ofset this issue. WIth a 5 , she does not rely on Magnifying Glass and isn't really using her hands for anything but books. Besides, as she gets only 1 free action per turn for using books, she tends not to run 2 in her decks, so in the end losing a hand is never really an issue. On top of that, her ability is nice but not great, and changing it into an token does not significantly decrease your chance of passing tests. Drawn early, you will probably have time to clear the The Necronomicon should you wish to do so, and drawn late your chances are high that it will not make you fail any test. My experience with Daisy is that she will often run two Old Book of Lore (or sometimes Encyclopedia) and no other hand asset, making her weakness moot and she will simply ignore it if she draws it. Considering the very low impact of this weakness, drawing it never really is an issue and you can be free to use Mr. "Rook" without fear. Should you wish to try so, Rook may even open alternatives deckbuilding strategies. Indeed, you could run other hand assets without risking of losing them as you would draw The Necronomicon earlier in scenarios and would just have to clean it and be rid of it, or you could search for Daisy's Tote Bag (a card that you can't really rely on when playing without Rook and most often ending up being committed for its icons) to solve any potential issue.
• Joe Diamond - Unsolved Case - Great news, Joe has one less weakness than everyone in his deck as Unsolved Case is part of his hunch deck. You can use and abuse Rook with very little drawback!
• Minh Thi Phan - The King in Yellow - Make sure you can ace a test and have 3 cards to spare, and fish for your weakness. Though you'll probably have to do some set up before being able to use Rook's ability with impunity.
• Norman Withers - Vengeful Hound - Like Min, you may have to do some set up to make sure that you are ready to fight your weakness, but when you are you will be free to use Rook's ability.
• Rex Murphy - Rex's Curse - Nope, you absolutely don't want Rook in a deck where the weakness is recursive!
• Ursula Downs - Call of the Unknown - Same as Rex - don't use Rook when you have a recursive weakness.

Survivors

• "Ashcan" Pete - Wracked by Nightmares. Play your first action exhausting Duke, search your deck with Mr. "Rook" and draw Wracked by Nightmares, and use your final two actions to get rid of it. Voila.

Mystics

• Jim Culver - Final Rhapsody - Jim's weakness if often not worse drawn early than late. If drawn early, at least you'll know exactly with how many damages you have to deal with, while if you have not drawn it you can never be sure of how many sanity/health points you really have left.
• Marie Lambeau - Baron Samedi - On one hand, when fatality count is high, you wouldn't be able to use Rook's ability. On the other hand, and much more interestingly, when fatality count is low, you could safely draw the Baron and get rid of it, while maybe fishing for Mystifying Song to give you even a little bit more time. This actually makes Marie's weakness more manageable.

Guardians

• Carolyn Fern - Rational Thought – Drawn early, Carolyn’s weakness may drop your set up to a slug, while when drawn late it’s impact on the scenario is often negligible. Sure, Rook, can you help finding your horror healing cards, but you won’t be able to pile on resources and even getting rid of Rational Thought when drawn too early may prove difficult.
• Roland Banks - Cover Up – Roland’s weakness is MUCH better drawn early as it will be a lot easier to get rid of it. Getting this weakness near the end of a Scenario is nearly a guaranteed trauma. Thus, Rook would be an excellent pick early, but his ability could be useless when the end of the scenario comes closer, though Roland decks sometimes mitigate their weakness with Forewarned, Quick Study or Dr. William T. Maleson.
• Zoey Samaras - Smite the Wicked - same as Roland, Zoey's weakness is a lot more manageable when drawn early, but is awful late. Rook is thus excellent early, but his ability will probably not be unusable late if you haven't seen your weakness yet. The weakness can be mitigated through Elusive, which Rook can help you to find.

Rogues

• Finn Edwards - Caught Red-Handed - though Finn's weakness is only "semi" recursive, the risk is high that it hits you several times in a scenario (by readying non-hunter enemies or a hunter enemy at your location and thus still returning into the deck). Though when no ennemy are around, Rook can be used with impunity! Still, I really dislike using Rook when I have a recursive weaknesses.
• Jenny Barnes - Searching for Izzie - Like Roland and Zoey, Jenny's weakness is a lot easier to deal with if you draw it early, but disastrous late, though here again fishing Elusive can be of great help.

Neutrals

• Lola Hayes - Crisis of Identity - Not only is Lola's weakness a real nightmare, drawing it with Rook means that you are in a role and will immediately have to discard related assets, including Mr. "Rook". It may also greatly mess up your plans depending on which role you intended to spend your round on. Contrary to the other review, I believe Rook definitly does not fit in a Lola deck, the tempo hit is way too heavy.