I someone wanted to be part of a cool and hip internet feud as well, would they necessarily need to have opinions on Calvin or is that optional? Asking for a friend.
Actually laughed out loud when I read that. As a serious answer, I'm very interested in hearing other people's responses to this. As in, I'd like to hear explicitly what makes Arkham fun to others, and how they explore the game / why they interact with it the way they do. Clarifying that about myself was the real reason I made this video. It's what I tried to focus on, and I really don't want this to come off as dumb internet drama (even though I know to some degree it is). Obviously, opinions on Calvin are unnecessary.
@@RatherIncoherent i think it's perfectly fine for people to have different gameplay goals with Arkham. you're self-aware enough to know that you're a Spike, and being a spike is fine if that's how you like to have fun and your table is down with it. optimizing and minmaxing a deck is something you can do with a deckbuilder, just like someone choosing jank and low percentage combo decks may find that fun instead. I love your videos for how deep your thought process goes, and i love PBG videos for them just drafting decks with tons of restricions and saying 'let's fucking dive in and see what happens.' I think that some people fall in love with the concepts or themes of these more janky or 'complex' gators and end up unintentionally inflating their potential. the 'concept' of calvin having 4's or 5's in all his stats is super tempting, but the way you have to get there is so convuluted and puts extra strain on your table to carry you that it just doesn't seem worth it when you could pick any cluever or fighter or flex that is exponentially more effective from scenario 1. i really love the event focused gameplay and mechanics of the painted world in sefina, but every time i've played her i've just felt mediocre. she gets the job done but she doesn't have the highs of true mystics or other rogues. playing copies of events is fun, and then i turn around and see tony murdering an entire town of fish people, jacqueline cheating the token bag, and wini drawing half her deck in a single turn. some gators are janky and fun and not super strong and that's fine.
I for one celebrate getting one step closer to the inevitable Rather Incoherent/QL/PBG roundtable podcast. I really enjoy the content all of you make, especially when it challenges my own experience with X card or investigator, as it just kinda gives me a better-rounded and informed perspective of the game as a whole.
I’m much closer to QL’s style of play and deck building (I don’t optimize but I do like to win…I strive for an investigators theme to shine thru while functioning in a role) but I watch your stuff and appreciate the insight. I love how deep the game is and how it supports many play styles. I don’t always agree with all your takes but your tone is respectful and I think your recent re shuffling of your tier list to be gator vs gator other vs game was a wise move (hopefully anyone who looks at it understands how it’s contextualized)
As a Calvin-neutral new-ish player, I did find it funny that QL's tone was mainly what bothered you. Don't know about anyone else, but I watch both channels strictly to be condescended to!
Two videos I'd love to see from Rather Incoherent: - The theoretically best possible shotgun deck. - The theoretically best Lightning Gun deck. Would love to see his thought process for how to best play those decks if you had to, or wanted to. I'm personally struggling and would love to know how to at least play "the best yank" instead of playing bad jank.
Oh man, the theoretically best shotgun deck makes me so sad. I had that campaign a while back where I played Support Harvey for Maximum Greed Leo and still wasn't impressed by it. I think I'll definitely take a stab at something like this though, if nothing else as a platform for people to post their own ideas about it.
@RatherIncoherent awesome! 😎 Looking forward to it. My hot take on this: the main issue of shotgun decks is that it is too XP heavy to get it running. And a lot would change, if at least shot gun was 2xp instead of 4. Then you could at least invest into a little bit power that others just get early because they are already online. (Honestly, I believe that shotgun could be 0xp build around in the current card pool without any issues and it would be a cool alternative to other level 0 weapons.)
@@RatherIncoherent I know I've heard you talk about this at some point, but can't remember when, if it's before hemlock, then cleaning kit probably helps quite a bit with at least one weakness of the deck.
To answer the question "what makes Arkham fun to others, and how I explore the game / why I interact with it the way I do" in the comments, I *am* one of those people that kind of rolls my eyes every time Runic Axe comes up, but more in a "tell me something I don't know" way. If I wanted to just complete the campaign in a way I enjoy, I'd be running my favorite Winnifred Habbamock deck every time. When talking about individual investigators, I'd love to know how their strengths can be exploited (Shoutout to my Leo deck that ran Sled Dogs, Anna Kaslow, and two Stars, who frequently ended scenarios by just _walking_ to the exit while engaged with 2+ enemies) even at the cost of some efficiency. To go more in depth, we just finished a Carcosa game where we all got mental trauma. A *lot* of mental trauma. So I ran Ravenous Myconid, an incredibly overtuned card. Did it help? Majorly. Saved our ass multiple times. But it didn't *feel* good to use. Now if you want some REAL hot takes, I think Charon's Obol was a mistake of game design and I refuse to run it on principle.
I'm probably one of the biggest Obal stans out there and I heartily agree with everything you just said lol. I might soft ban it going forward and see how much of rogues feeling strong these days is just the bonus 25% exp their getting compared to most other classes.
@@RatherIncoherent Our table soft-bans it because we all have jobs, playing tired and late at night, so we're very permissive with take-backs and replays if we forgot or missed something. However, having a player whose stakes is "I literally have to roll a new guy if I die" makes playing optimally much more a requirement than a suggestion, and the mental load is just too much in a lot of cases. If I were fantasy flight I'd taboo it with "Can only be included on difficulties Hard or above" for the sake of new players following videos like yours. Sidenote: One (admittedly niche) thing I'd love to see included in your character videos is, when the decklist includes a common unique card like Leo De Luca, go over what could be done if he's not available. I don't need an entire alternate decklist, but we once did an all-rogues game and I had a hard time figuring out if I should try to make up for his absence or go in an entirely different direction with the character.
To whit (the video was playing in the background and it gave me a few more thoughts), I think the most useful segment you could include (Probably right before the deck segment) for newer players that would still be interesting to advanced players is the thought experiment of "I am being forced at gunpoint to play this investigator. How can I best be an asset to my team? What do I focus on? What do I admit I can't handle? What should scare me?" You're really good at explaining the deck you made for the investigator, but sometimes your reasoning to arrive at that or why you didn't go in other directions is obscured by the direct card by card analysis. For Calvin specifically, I was surprised not to see as much soak to survive at all 4s and all 5s instead of avoiding the damage with cards to dodge auto-fails.
As a big Calvin enjoyer who ranks him very highly, I think the truth is that people just rate certain things differently and thats ok. I only play on Standard 2-handed, and when I played Calvin he smashed the campaign easily and I came away thinking he was a monster. He was invincible and with recurring Ice Picks via Scavenging he easily handled any clue or enemy management he needed to. But having watched your videos, it's clear that you prioritise things that I don't and I've seen people talking about playing on Hard 3/4-man and it sounds like completely different game, forcing you to prioritise things Calvin might struggle to do. So I think perspective plays a huge factor. I've never seen a deck that convinced me Amina could be great, while I know Calvin can be so I rate him much higher than her. But maybe I'm just wrong. It's also kind of hard to rate investigators imo since the Taboo changes so often. My Calvin deck isn't valid anymore so I'd be shit out of luck if I tried to replicate it, lol.
Dang I wish this video didn’t exist, but if you felt it needed to be made, then any frustrations / feelings you have are valid and I’m sorry you have any of those negative feelings. I watch you, Quick Learner, and PlayingBoardGames primarily (I do like commenting quite a bit !! ) but I poke around numerous other channels occasionally. I respect all of the Arkham creators and their opinions even if I don’t full-on agree with all of them because I’m just glad other people enjoy this game as much as I do and even sometimes more than that. Those being said, the frustration of being told that your idea of “fun isn’t really fun” is one I’m all too familiar with (you can have fun, but it has to be MY fun basically), but I don’t think that’s what QuickLearner was getting at with the Calvin video. I watched both as they came out and a connection between how you both play or how these were related did not occur to me (that doesn’t really mean anything from me, internet rando227, but just throwing that out there). You must get a lot of flack about how you view / play the game to have to make this video and express your feelings about it. Again, I’m sorry that happens. You have the most unique straightforward, die-hard Spike perspective of creators I watch and I love that because it’s tough to find that perspective when the people I play with don’t venture to that side of Arkham often (myself included). Hope you don’t let this slow you down!
I watched QL's video and while it was obviously at least somewhat inspired by yours, the target audience is quite clearly not somebody like yourself who is an experienced player but rather it's aimed at newer players who may be unduly influenced by content like yours which might dissuade them from trying out investigators like Calvin and the other 'bad' ones. If they do that then they're missing out, because Calvin is enormously fun to play. Does he suffer from a lack of action compression in his cardpool ? Sure. But he gives you a whole new perspective on trauma and his playstyle is completely different to anybody else. He also requires you to perform a tightrope act from mid campaign onwards where you have to keep judging how many risks you're willing to take to get the most out of his statline, which is easy to screw up but also a lot of fun. That won't chime with every player of course, but until you try him you can't know that and I do feel that an overly bombastic "this guy sucks because he's not as good as Yorick" approach is going to be misleading to new players and could put them off trying out a character that they'll have a blast with if they ever take the plunge. I like to min/max and optimise too, but I don't always love being so optimised that every scenario is a breeze. I think you'll find that an awful lot of other players are the same.
I agree with basically everything you just said. I say as much in the video. I'm responding because at no point does the video make it clear that it's targetted to newer players. I've heard people in comments and DMs say things like this directly to me or about me. It's also why I go out of my way to take fault for how I have contributed towards closed minded new players ruining their own fun.
I too saw QL's video and really enjoyed the alternative presentation. It shows how deep the game is and how different people can get different payoffs from the game depending on style and expectations. Long live getting two videos about the same character in the same week !
@@NegatorUK I'm glad most people are enjoying the content. I hate coming off like I've got issues with the guy because I feel entirely responsible for having the awful initial video, but I also take a lot of issue with how much of the community mistakenly talks about optimizers and felt the need to address it.
@@RatherIncoherent This is just the inevitable consequence of putting out tier list content I think. Not a criticism, I am enjoying the content, but you set it up in an adversarial format and you have a very combative style, so you're going to get those kind of comments. There's nothing wrong with optimising. I unashamedly do it too and have a reputation in my group for being that guy who has to min/max everything. I do tend to do that in the context of also beginning with a challenge concept though. The best cluever deck I ever built was with Marie using Astronomical Atlas, Ghastly Possession and Divination 4 that was disgustingly efficient. Currently running a Zoe deck through a campaign in which the goal was to see if I could make The Hungering Blade into a good card. That deck is so insanely strong that I've gotten bored of it by about scenario 5. Optimizing is fun and a big part of why many of us play the game. Where I think I would differ from you is that you seem to be veering into territory that comes across as "why would you play this investigator when this one does the same thing but better ?" which may be true but is also inherently self-limiting. You're inevitably going to see pushback from that.
One of the issues that Arkham has is having ways to progress the game beyond get-clue-kill-monster-survive. They have tried a lot of things, the concealed mechanic being a pretty generic way for someone with with high stats and actions to spend can help the team. Exploration, both the Forgotten Age mechanic but also just moving around the map uncovering locations, is another great way to that someone can help the team. The driving/boating mechanic is another way that a high state character can do stuff. I expect to see more stuff like this coming in future scenario. For that stuff Calvin can be great... in a 3-4 player game... the problem is that Wendy can do all of that but better with more actions and can take Lockpicks. You used to be able to say that Calvin can fight better than Wendy... but then British Bull Dog came out. But a few good spirit cards or some interesting exile cards could really turn the Calvin around.
yeah... i mean.... your analitic approach to arkham si the reason i watch your video in the first place. If someone tells me "calvin is good, but so is everyone else" i get no relevant information from it, i dont want to go out of my confort zone to play him. Comparison and ranking sparks discussion and give ppl new info to better understand. I recently found out how much i love winnifred thanks to you. she was the 3rd arkham product i ever bought and never played in 3 years.
>I didn't realize Calvin can open doors so I might move him up a spot or 2 CALVIN-CHADS UNITE. Today is a glorious victory. Once RatherInchoerent realizes that Survivors also have there own card pool then we're talking about B tier. Then when he finally realizes how good hunting jacket is. Phew. Straight to S tier. It's not even fair
I appreciate the self-reflection as many are unable to do it, especially in such a public forum. Kudos for that. I'm more of a flavor player than a power player but I enjoy the power-based analysis as it gives me some ideas that I may not have thought of on my own. I don't take the analysis as instructions, but I do find it interesting... otherwise I wouldn't be here. 😊
"I am a toxic, arrogant Spike" Me too, me too... My reddit comments history is fucking terrible holy hell... But that aside. When I play anything, I surrounded by notes, a calculator app ready, all that stuff. I'm often calculating probability and the like. I'm an optimizer through and through. And I still like playing weaker characters and can enjoy them, but same logic applies. I *will* try to optimize what I'm doing. And sometimes it annoys me that some characters just have inherent ceilings and are just crappy to play. It feels like going with rookies in xcom 2, or level 0s in Darkest Dungeon, but for the entire campaign. You're just not as functional as you could be, and it's annoying
I feel like the more flawed the character, the more interesting the game is. I love the feeling that my back is against the wall and I have to find a way to make the best of it.
I think it’s funny that if we did rank investigators based on how many campaigns they could beat, I think Patrice would be the only F tier because of Hemlock and maybe Dunwich
Calvin is very good at clearing scenario tests and is also a very strong player of First Watch/Scrounge for Supplies if you wanna meme on the encounter deck. I'm running him in a 4p right now and I am decisively playing a very strong game... in the encounter phase. My player phase is pretty weak, but he can do some very funny stuff off-turn and still be handy for scenario tests, enemy management, etc. I wouldn't rank him super highly but I'd put him ahead of a lot of the low tiers. In general, I rate encounter deck manipulation/nullification very highly, and Calvin is great at that as long as you have a plan for eating an autofail every so often. But I'm often playing 3 or 4 player games, and in those, a single Calvin First Watch does a similar amount of work as a couple Ward of Protections because I can lock people out of drawing treacheries that screw them specifically.
I recently found your channel after watching mostly PlayingBoardGames videos and it filled a spot I really felt I needed. Your videos help me understand the true nature of the game’s mechanics and have changed the way I think about the game. For example, the video about economy management was such a gem and I’m already super stoked to create my next deck
Your videos help me to see the strongest ways to play specific cards or investigators, even when you did fast comentaries on some cards o deep analysis, which is great (similar to Buscador de Arkham channel, from Spain). Although my playing style is closer to QL, he always makes points related to optimizing something not broken or weak. We need both of you on youtube. But I admit I was one of the few or many that didn't like your series about low tier investigators since it feels that you take out the fun part of the game, but it is normal to have fun in different ways. After seen QL Calvin video, I realize it was just that there are some things I'm not interested to hear from an investigator that is obviously low tier, but to focus on make it playable. You did great, and dont think it was necessary for you to clarify your style, but just want to let you know that your videos are a reference to me, not all of theme bc of my playing style, but useful many times.
I specifically come to your videos for the niche of spike analysis for veteran players. As you say, I don’t think many other content creators occupy that space.
Long time lurker first time commentator. One thing people forget about optimization. "Weak" things can be the greatest temptation for optimizers because they are a puzzle. They are screaming at you 'MAKE ME THE BEST I CAN BE :) '. Yet that appeal has to be something UNIQUE in a way, because if you put in seventeen extra hours to make something that is weak into another thing yet much weaker... well, you really didn't do much. There has to be a unique cosmetic, thematic or even mechanical appeal for that underdog. There's a JOY to conquering a major hurdle with something unique and a joy to make it consistent so it isn't just a fluke. Sometimes in a card game there is a card you ADORE you LOVE that card with all of your heart because of how it thematically appeals to you or just does something so mechanically unique you want to make a deck around it. So you will bleed your hands out trying to make it work. On the other hand if you love something yet it makes the game too easy then... what's the point of optimizing it? There's no challenge there. I always tell folks there is a difference between 'Try-Harding' and 'Sweat Lording'. Try-Harding is optimizing, doing your best to win but STILL having fun. You are trying-hard to WIN with what you WANT to play. Sweat Lording is eliminating all but the (what the sweat lord thinks are) the BEST things because screw you for trying to have fun. Your videos never come off as sweat lordy to me, which is what I appreciate. ANYWAY! Take this huge ramble with a grain of salt as this is my own perspective on optimization inspired from the video topic.
I love your videos, thanks for making them. Optimizing is not how I interact with AHLCG, but it’s very interesting to hear about the game from that perspective.
A well made video, I think you supported your point well. Unfortunately this argument will not be going to the victory display, so it will be returning in a later act.
Sorry, I have to make another comment, as this video speaks to me: I really see your videos often as a resource to check out what presumably is bad, and what theoretical strategies or weaknesses are, and then try to built decks myself based on your hot takes, a little bit to prove you wrong, but knowing I'll never be able to. But still happy to have recently built and played a Calvin Deck that was built with your video in mind. Trying to squeeze out the best that was possible in the team of characters that we were playing. (We actually played low stats run, playing the 4 lowest stat characters in the game. And we are loving how janky it is.😂❤) So just to say it: thanks for making these snide videos. I love them.
Thank you for creating a channel that focuses on optimising the game. I love to optimise as well, but sometimes I want to indulge in certain obsessions and/or build around a particular interaction with a certain investigator (Down the Rabbit Hole Joe Diamond with all even cost cards). It's okay to focus on optimisation, but sometimes you might want to play something weaker, whilst recognising it is weaker, that's fine! Also, as someone who watches all your investigator videos, you have definitely clarified multiple times that all investigate can beat the game 😅
Johnny's need input for good deck-building ideas so we can use some of the bones and then make a less optimal but (in our own mind) more interesting deck. Even if not everyone wants to optimize because some of us want to reinvent our own wheel, it's helpful to glance at other people's blueprints.
Honestly, I think you are doing a great job. Many arkham content creators just want to say everything is good. But if everything is good, then nothing is good. I dont really learn much from video. Actually analyzing cards and probabilities are much better insight into the game which I cannot get from other channels.
Something I always felt that Calvin, and to an extent, all survivors suffer from, is that the survivor card pool is simply uninteresting at a higher experience level outside a few events that exile themselves. It feels there's no payoff for...well..surviving for so long. I have always felt that at high experience, survivors should be able to aquire permanent character buffs that alter how you play. I personally really enjoy playing dark horse, and I would like to see similar mechanics explored. As an example, you will be able to choose between certain mutations such as lycanthropy, vampirism, chosen, etc... as a payoff for surviving against the mythos for so long. If guardians/rogues get bigger guns, mystics get better spells, survivors need something to distinguish them from the other classes uniquely to them.
I personally look at this differently. I am constantly interested in the survivor card pool. The bigger/flashier things that you get from the other classes just seem boring to me. Surviving IS the payoff. Not a big gun.
I feel like, we need some more official content. Hopefully Spoiler Season is coming soon. Would be funny, if new cards in Drowned City would break Calvin wide open. I think the “new” design team are doing a great job enabling these “bad” investigators, however someone defines bad. I tried some of your decks. Cluever Carolyn for example. I didn’t like them for how I like to play the game. I also not having much fun playing Rogues. I’m still on the path to find out what kind of play style I enjoy the most. I also don’t play that much Arkham Horror LCG (played every campaign once). But I love to WATCH other people (like you) play the stuff I don’t like to play the game. It helps me to understand how my friends at the table view the game. And I also enjoy the talks from you and dumping on some investigator. This stuff keeps my brain busy and I like to think about the game. And I like thinking about the arguments and perspectives. The arguing over one investigator also shows that the game is not dead.
Keep doing you man! I like listening to someone talking about the spectrum of power in Arkham and contrasting with what i’m trying. I think it’s fine that there’s a spectrum of arkham players who don’t power game but that’s not your audience, nor is that me. I was overjoyed when you returned to content creation as you’re right, you are filling a hole in Arkham content creation where you aim to push for power in the game. I hope this doesn’t spiral into some drama, what’s the moral of this video for everyone is that last bit where everyone enjoys the game in their own way, and to understand each other’s perspectives on the game and not looking down upon them.
One thing that i love about this game, is that people can truly get what they want out of it. For me, flawed builds are much more interesting. If runic axe is clearly the correct choice, then im more likely to build around trench knife. I enjoy finding creative ways to make up for flaws. I dont think that there is a wrong way to play.
While it'd be very funny to make a "X is Bad, and That's Okay" video every time someone makes the opposite, this is really just to explain how I view the game and clarify some stuff involving what I'm measuring when I talk about characters. I wouldn't bother making this video just to shit on Calvin some more. I think I've done that enough.
@RatherIncoherent to be fair, it wasn't going to be a video saying your video was invalid or bad. I love playing Roland and a lot of people think he is bad and it boggles my mind. He's a Guardian that has access to half the Seeker card pool. That's crazy good.
Not really related to the main point but I do find it interesting that you enjoy playing a variety of different investigators even ones that are "low tier" or "sub optimal" but dont feel it nessicary in the same way about the card pool. I think for me and alot of other people we like trying to get the most out of sub optimal cards like lightning gun in the same way you might enjoy building the best calvin deck you can. And I know I'd get bored playing runic axe over and over in the same way you might get bored playing rex or mark over and over. Its neat to see how different people balance variety vs optimization.
Frankly I became more interested in playing calvin and jim after the videos. I'm a newer player. I've played Mark, now I'm looking to the suicide squad for my kicks.
I like meta discussions. They are good, feel free to keep up with them if you find them interesting to talk about. My take: one goal with reviewing the weaker characters could be to focus the discussion on finding their best build. I thought you did a great job with that for Wilson (and interestingly, you ended up with a higher view of Wilson than the commenters). On the topic of Calvin: I wonder if you're supposed to start out with a test at 0 archetype, then upgrade to an archetype that wants you to succeed with a natural stat block. Does make me wonder if some of the compression you're supposed to take advantage of is the 1 level survival skills like Sharp Vision, and the ability to immediately start doing "stuff", which is the mark of a good survivor.
Poopoo McPeePants is Bad, and That's Okay You mentioned something a few videos back as well about implied subjectivity. You speak in concrete terms, and that is absolutely the proper way to speak and argue your case. Peppering with throat clears about how it's "just your opinion" is unnecessary and weakens your argument's flow and impact. I wonder if QL interpreted that video, and your method of delivery, as you issuing an edict for how folks should enjoy the game. When it was really just an exploration of how you enjoy the game. Anywho, fellow Spike here. I feel as though my enjoyment of the game has been unhindered by my Spikeness. Which is, I admit, a pretty Spike thing to say.
Woah, someone's upest. Look, Incoherent, "Duke" Harrist (head designer) recently commented that the Arkham team's design philosophy was aimed at satisfying a broad range of gamer mindsets, from those who enjoy a more fun, playful narrative experience, through to power gamers, and those who like to challenge themselves with baroque decks and creative niche exploits. It's okay to be you, but you have to be ready to let others be themselves too. Now breath. P.s. Apples do prevent scurvy. 😂
Literally looked it up after saying it because I doubted it. Apples, at least in remotely similar quantities, are not sufficient to prevent scurvy. I am not telling people that they cannot have fun in their own way. If that is your takeaway from this video, then nothing I can say matters because you clearly aren't listening. This entire video is about clarifying what fun is to me, because Quick Learner and many others don't seem to understand that. It's also an admission of fault and a statement that I don't like how I've potentially mislead players, especially new players, in the past. And yes, I am irritated. I am irritated because " It's okay to be you, but you have to be ready to let others be themselves too." is essentially the point of Quick Learner's video, something I agree with and spend this entire video talking about. Instead of ever saying that though, he did mental gymnastics that effectively made the case that his sense of fun was the only way to enjoy the game, and that optimizers are ruining their own fun rather than attempting to understand what fun is for others.
@@RatherIncoherentAs an outsider, that watches both of your content, and appreciates a wide array of Arkham content, I feel like this whole thing really just boils down to individual players and their archetypes if we wanna continue to use the MTG names of Spike, Timmy, and Johnny, and how these 3 usually do not see the games they play with similar eyes. This is quite evident in the differing approaches and the self reflection you've both voiced as to which of these MTG archetypes you yourselves believe you belong to. He, to the best of my recollection, regards himself as a Johnny, you as a "toxic Spike" (almost as if that were a badge of honour? Don't wanna assume anything here) In 25+ years of card game playing, I've played with and lived with card game playing friends who came from all 3 of those archetypes and individuals who clearly couldn't be clearly shoehorned into these 3 labelled boxes, much like real life men and women, we are complex souls. Sometimes this has led to heated arguments. Being largely a Johnny myself, with perhaps a sprinkle of Timmy, I'd say I honestly see the game of Arkham with a very different outlook and perspective than a generalist Spike would and likewise a Timmy would. I feel you make it generally clear that you're not telling people to not play Calvin, but when you make videos to just bag on how much of a dumpster fire the investigator is, then upload that, it's like going to the town square and getting up on your soap box yelling he's a shit character, and then simultaneously not expecting some people, at least, to take that as advice not to play him. That may be the wrong conclusion to draw from your videos but when I have to remind myself to try out these investigators I've not played yet, after they get shafted to the bottom of somebody's tier list, I'm one of those people that will argue against such tier lists, for such an effect they can have. I ended up playing Lola Hayes for example, as my first ever gator in a full campaign, which was EotE in 2p, with my friend playing Arkham his first full campaign (we'd both done notz+ guardians of the abyss with other characters) as Monterrey Jack. We were both he to Arkham, yet but novice card gamers. We had an absolute blast, and I distinctly remember picking to play Lola after watching Playing Board Games' many videos, and reading so much on the forums about how absolute shit Lola Hayes was. I've got a soft spot for the rejects of society you could say, so I was immediately drawn to the challenge, and remember the probably hundreds of hours poured over the carpool with Lola Hayes massive deck building options, tweaking and theorising, trying to find that Johnny BBQ special sauce, which also includes much optimisation of many iterations of a deck before even playing it. As an old school RPG player beginning in adnd 2nd edition blue book, I tend to lean heavily into the investigators backstory, their bio, their lore from other Arkham Files games, etc. and view Arkham as a cross RPG with a co-op card game shell, which is what drew me to the game in the first place. The fact that Lola Hayes was "the Actor" also peaked my interest, as I've never like acting or theatre in real life, but was up to try roleplay each role, when shifting roles each turn, and creating backstories for each of the 3 main, and 1 minor character she acted out, due to her cards chosen in her deck, with full backstory of why she was in the Antarctic Ice shelf. This is one huge appeal to me, and why some investigators are still waiting to be played and may never get played just due to lack of time in real life, and that their bio on their card can literally determine whether I'll play them or not, just as much or more than their stats, and or their abilities. I relished the challenge of playing the worst ranked gator and because she was my first and we had a huge climactic finish narrowly hearing the campaign, but several times hanging in by the sheer grit, and determination to not resign a single scenario but to go for the win, with what meager told we had, only added to the scope and feel of being in the Antarctic Ice with Monterrey Jack the archaeologist and Lola the actress. It's still one of the best times I've had in any card games, and to me this is what Arkham is all about, it about the stories that are told by us the players, and the mix of gator team composition, which campaign etc. To some, the Spikes and even you the "toxic Spike", Lola Hayes might be an absolute waste of time. That's fine. I still think her insane card pool is her greatest strength, and I'm not either saying she's super strong compared to the Rex Murphys and Glorias but she's very high on my non existing tier list, and I have to push myself not to make more Lola Hayes lists, and play all the other investigators I haven't played yet instead of playing her again. Quick Learner to Playing Board Games and their 3 diverging players who clearly enjoy differing aspects of the game, to all the other Arkham Horror Lcg content creators in YT, all have wide and often contesting views of what is worthwhile playing, what is strong, op etc. All these terms are largely subjective so comparisons of how we should even evaluate the game could go on forever without any resolution. We all have voices and to those who put out content, I will stand by my position, that when you post anything in the largest website in existence YT, you are effectively going to the digital commons, the town square of you will, and if you don't want to deal with the potential fallout and responsibility of what that comes with and what it entails, don't post stuff online, or disable the comments section. You can't both expect to go about yelling in the town square (posting any content here) and not expect a response from the townspeople sometimes haha... I appreciate all the content. Some I'll definitely agree more with based on my own preferences, biases etc, and so would l expect most others would likewise view my beliefs. I do look forward to seeing more content on the less loved investigators or less played perhaps is better fitting here, as I am generally not interested in devastating the campaign. I want the campaign to be a success but if it's a super hard slog, I'm down for it, and love to see the weaker ones rise to success.
@@WayOfHaQodesh I appreciate the detailed response. When I refer to myself as a toxic spike, I'm not saying I try to be toxic. I'm acknowledging that I am a Spike to such an extreme behavior that it can easily come off as negative when I don't mean to be.
Apples do in theory prevent scurvy, in a way that is far far less effcient and effective than an orange. Sort of in a way a very low tier investigator vs a high tier investigator could clear a full campaign optimally, I think.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
I someone wanted to be part of a cool and hip internet feud as well, would they necessarily need to have opinions on Calvin or is that optional? Asking for a friend.
Actually laughed out loud when I read that. As a serious answer, I'm very interested in hearing other people's responses to this. As in, I'd like to hear explicitly what makes Arkham fun to others, and how they explore the game / why they interact with it the way they do. Clarifying that about myself was the real reason I made this video. It's what I tried to focus on, and I really don't want this to come off as dumb internet drama (even though I know to some degree it is). Obviously, opinions on Calvin are unnecessary.
"Is this a private fight or can anyone join in?"
Love your site (blog?), especially the deep dives.
@@RatherIncoherent i think it's perfectly fine for people to have different gameplay goals with Arkham. you're self-aware enough to know that you're a Spike, and being a spike is fine if that's how you like to have fun and your table is down with it. optimizing and minmaxing a deck is something you can do with a deckbuilder, just like someone choosing jank and low percentage combo decks may find that fun instead. I love your videos for how deep your thought process goes, and i love PBG videos for them just drafting decks with tons of restricions and saying 'let's fucking dive in and see what happens.'
I think that some people fall in love with the concepts or themes of these more janky or 'complex' gators and end up unintentionally inflating their potential. the 'concept' of calvin having 4's or 5's in all his stats is super tempting, but the way you have to get there is so convuluted and puts extra strain on your table to carry you that it just doesn't seem worth it when you could pick any cluever or fighter or flex that is exponentially more effective from scenario 1. i really love the event focused gameplay and mechanics of the painted world in sefina, but every time i've played her i've just felt mediocre. she gets the job done but she doesn't have the highs of true mystics or other rogues. playing copies of events is fun, and then i turn around and see tony murdering an entire town of fish people, jacqueline cheating the token bag, and wini drawing half her deck in a single turn. some gators are janky and fun and not super strong and that's fine.
I'm enjoying the optimization journey, but i think most of my playgroup prefers playing a flavorful deck to a powerful one.
I for one celebrate getting one step closer to the inevitable Rather Incoherent/QL/PBG roundtable podcast. I really enjoy the content all of you make, especially when it challenges my own experience with X card or investigator, as it just kinda gives me a better-rounded and informed perspective of the game as a whole.
I’m much closer to QL’s style of play and deck building (I don’t optimize but I do like to win…I strive for an investigators theme to shine thru while functioning in a role) but I watch your stuff and appreciate the insight. I love how deep the game is and how it supports many play styles. I don’t always agree with all your takes but your tone is respectful and I think your recent re shuffling of your tier list to be gator vs gator other vs game was a wise move (hopefully anyone who looks at it understands how it’s contextualized)
The plot thickens
As a Calvin-neutral new-ish player, I did find it funny that QL's tone was mainly what bothered you. Don't know about anyone else, but I watch both channels strictly to be condescended to!
Two videos I'd love to see from Rather Incoherent:
- The theoretically best possible shotgun deck.
- The theoretically best Lightning Gun deck.
Would love to see his thought process for how to best play those decks if you had to, or wanted to. I'm personally struggling and would love to know how to at least play "the best yank" instead of playing bad jank.
Oh man, the theoretically best shotgun deck makes me so sad. I had that campaign a while back where I played Support Harvey for Maximum Greed Leo and still wasn't impressed by it. I think I'll definitely take a stab at something like this though, if nothing else as a platform for people to post their own ideas about it.
@RatherIncoherent awesome! 😎 Looking forward to it. My hot take on this: the main issue of shotgun decks is that it is too XP heavy to get it running. And a lot would change, if at least shot gun was 2xp instead of 4. Then you could at least invest into a little bit power that others just get early because they are already online. (Honestly, I believe that shotgun could be 0xp build around in the current card pool without any issues and it would be a cool alternative to other level 0 weapons.)
@@RatherIncoherent I know I've heard you talk about this at some point, but can't remember when, if it's before hemlock, then cleaning kit probably helps quite a bit with at least one weakness of the deck.
To answer the question "what makes Arkham fun to others, and how I explore the game / why I interact with it the way I do" in the comments, I *am* one of those people that kind of rolls my eyes every time Runic Axe comes up, but more in a "tell me something I don't know" way. If I wanted to just complete the campaign in a way I enjoy, I'd be running my favorite Winnifred Habbamock deck every time. When talking about individual investigators, I'd love to know how their strengths can be exploited (Shoutout to my Leo deck that ran Sled Dogs, Anna Kaslow, and two Stars, who frequently ended scenarios by just _walking_ to the exit while engaged with 2+ enemies) even at the cost of some efficiency. To go more in depth, we just finished a Carcosa game where we all got mental trauma. A *lot* of mental trauma. So I ran Ravenous Myconid, an incredibly overtuned card. Did it help? Majorly. Saved our ass multiple times. But it didn't *feel* good to use.
Now if you want some REAL hot takes, I think Charon's Obol was a mistake of game design and I refuse to run it on principle.
I'm probably one of the biggest Obal stans out there and I heartily agree with everything you just said lol. I might soft ban it going forward and see how much of rogues feeling strong these days is just the bonus 25% exp their getting compared to most other classes.
@@RatherIncoherent Our table soft-bans it because we all have jobs, playing tired and late at night, so we're very permissive with take-backs and replays if we forgot or missed something. However, having a player whose stakes is "I literally have to roll a new guy if I die" makes playing optimally much more a requirement than a suggestion, and the mental load is just too much in a lot of cases. If I were fantasy flight I'd taboo it with "Can only be included on difficulties Hard or above" for the sake of new players following videos like yours.
Sidenote: One (admittedly niche) thing I'd love to see included in your character videos is, when the decklist includes a common unique card like Leo De Luca, go over what could be done if he's not available. I don't need an entire alternate decklist, but we once did an all-rogues game and I had a hard time figuring out if I should try to make up for his absence or go in an entirely different direction with the character.
To whit (the video was playing in the background and it gave me a few more thoughts), I think the most useful segment you could include (Probably right before the deck segment) for newer players that would still be interesting to advanced players is the thought experiment of "I am being forced at gunpoint to play this investigator. How can I best be an asset to my team? What do I focus on? What do I admit I can't handle? What should scare me?" You're really good at explaining the deck you made for the investigator, but sometimes your reasoning to arrive at that or why you didn't go in other directions is obscured by the direct card by card analysis. For Calvin specifically, I was surprised not to see as much soak to survive at all 4s and all 5s instead of avoiding the damage with cards to dodge auto-fails.
As a big Calvin enjoyer who ranks him very highly, I think the truth is that people just rate certain things differently and thats ok. I only play on Standard 2-handed, and when I played Calvin he smashed the campaign easily and I came away thinking he was a monster. He was invincible and with recurring Ice Picks via Scavenging he easily handled any clue or enemy management he needed to.
But having watched your videos, it's clear that you prioritise things that I don't and I've seen people talking about playing on Hard 3/4-man and it sounds like completely different game, forcing you to prioritise things Calvin might struggle to do. So I think perspective plays a huge factor. I've never seen a deck that convinced me Amina could be great, while I know Calvin can be so I rate him much higher than her. But maybe I'm just wrong. It's also kind of hard to rate investigators imo since the Taboo changes so often. My Calvin deck isn't valid anymore so I'd be shit out of luck if I tried to replicate it, lol.
Dang I wish this video didn’t exist, but if you felt it needed to be made, then any frustrations / feelings you have are valid and I’m sorry you have any of those negative feelings.
I watch you, Quick Learner, and PlayingBoardGames primarily (I do like commenting quite a bit !! ) but I poke around numerous other channels occasionally. I respect all of the Arkham creators and their opinions even if I don’t full-on agree with all of them because I’m just glad other people enjoy this game as much as I do and even sometimes more than that.
Those being said, the frustration of being told that your idea of “fun isn’t really fun” is one I’m all too familiar with (you can have fun, but it has to be MY fun basically), but I don’t think that’s what QuickLearner was getting at with the Calvin video. I watched both as they came out and a connection between how you both play or how these were related did not occur to me (that doesn’t really mean anything from me, internet rando227, but just throwing that out there).
You must get a lot of flack about how you view / play the game to have to make this video and express your feelings about it. Again, I’m sorry that happens. You have the most unique straightforward, die-hard Spike perspective of creators I watch and I love that because it’s tough to find that perspective when the people I play with don’t venture to that side of Arkham often (myself included). Hope you don’t let this slow you down!
Just wanna say that I appreciate you taking the time to say all that.
I watched QL's video and while it was obviously at least somewhat inspired by yours, the target audience is quite clearly not somebody like yourself who is an experienced player but rather it's aimed at newer players who may be unduly influenced by content like yours which might dissuade them from trying out investigators like Calvin and the other 'bad' ones. If they do that then they're missing out, because Calvin is enormously fun to play. Does he suffer from a lack of action compression in his cardpool ? Sure. But he gives you a whole new perspective on trauma and his playstyle is completely different to anybody else. He also requires you to perform a tightrope act from mid campaign onwards where you have to keep judging how many risks you're willing to take to get the most out of his statline, which is easy to screw up but also a lot of fun. That won't chime with every player of course, but until you try him you can't know that and I do feel that an overly bombastic "this guy sucks because he's not as good as Yorick" approach is going to be misleading to new players and could put them off trying out a character that they'll have a blast with if they ever take the plunge.
I like to min/max and optimise too, but I don't always love being so optimised that every scenario is a breeze. I think you'll find that an awful lot of other players are the same.
I agree with basically everything you just said. I say as much in the video. I'm responding because at no point does the video make it clear that it's targetted to newer players. I've heard people in comments and DMs say things like this directly to me or about me. It's also why I go out of my way to take fault for how I have contributed towards closed minded new players ruining their own fun.
I too saw QL's video and really enjoyed the alternative presentation. It shows how deep the game is and how different people can get different payoffs from the game depending on style and expectations. Long live getting two videos about the same character in the same week !
@@NegatorUK I'm glad most people are enjoying the content. I hate coming off like I've got issues with the guy because I feel entirely responsible for having the awful initial video, but I also take a lot of issue with how much of the community mistakenly talks about optimizers and felt the need to address it.
@@RatherIncoherent This is just the inevitable consequence of putting out tier list content I think. Not a criticism, I am enjoying the content, but you set it up in an adversarial format and you have a very combative style, so you're going to get those kind of comments.
There's nothing wrong with optimising. I unashamedly do it too and have a reputation in my group for being that guy who has to min/max everything. I do tend to do that in the context of also beginning with a challenge concept though. The best cluever deck I ever built was with Marie using Astronomical Atlas, Ghastly Possession and Divination 4 that was disgustingly efficient. Currently running a Zoe deck through a campaign in which the goal was to see if I could make The Hungering Blade into a good card. That deck is so insanely strong that I've gotten bored of it by about scenario 5. Optimizing is fun and a big part of why many of us play the game. Where I think I would differ from you is that you seem to be veering into territory that comes across as "why would you play this investigator when this one does the same thing but better ?" which may be true but is also inherently self-limiting. You're inevitably going to see pushback from that.
One of the issues that Arkham has is having ways to progress the game beyond get-clue-kill-monster-survive. They have tried a lot of things, the concealed mechanic being a pretty generic way for someone with with high stats and actions to spend can help the team. Exploration, both the Forgotten Age mechanic but also just moving around the map uncovering locations, is another great way to that someone can help the team. The driving/boating mechanic is another way that a high state character can do stuff. I expect to see more stuff like this coming in future scenario. For that stuff Calvin can be great... in a 3-4 player game... the problem is that Wendy can do all of that but better with more actions and can take Lockpicks. You used to be able to say that Calvin can fight better than Wendy... but then British Bull Dog came out.
But a few good spirit cards or some interesting exile cards could really turn the Calvin around.
"I'm just adverse to be obtusely shit" is a great quote
yeah... i mean.... your analitic approach to arkham si the reason i watch your video in the first place. If someone tells me "calvin is good, but so is everyone else" i get no relevant information from it, i dont want to go out of my confort zone to play him. Comparison and ranking sparks discussion and give ppl new info to better understand. I recently found out how much i love winnifred thanks to you. she was the 3rd arkham product i ever bought and never played in 3 years.
"Most people do not keep a tierlist of heroes for their own enjoyment"
I do... I have a Notion table with tags, priorities, checkboxes...
>I didn't realize Calvin can open doors so I might move him up a spot or 2
CALVIN-CHADS UNITE. Today is a glorious victory. Once RatherInchoerent realizes that Survivors also have there own card pool then we're talking about B tier.
Then when he finally realizes how good hunting jacket is. Phew. Straight to S tier. It's not even fair
Hunting Jacket is such a peak card though for real
I appreciate the self-reflection as many are unable to do it, especially in such a public forum. Kudos for that. I'm more of a flavor player than a power player but I enjoy the power-based analysis as it gives me some ideas that I may not have thought of on my own. I don't take the analysis as instructions, but I do find it interesting... otherwise I wouldn't be here. 😊
"I am a toxic, arrogant Spike"
Me too, me too... My reddit comments history is fucking terrible holy hell...
But that aside. When I play anything, I surrounded by notes, a calculator app ready, all that stuff. I'm often calculating probability and the like. I'm an optimizer through and through.
And I still like playing weaker characters and can enjoy them, but same logic applies. I *will* try to optimize what I'm doing.
And sometimes it annoys me that some characters just have inherent ceilings and are just crappy to play. It feels like going with rookies in xcom 2, or level 0s in Darkest Dungeon, but for the entire campaign. You're just not as functional as you could be, and it's annoying
I feel like the more flawed the character, the more interesting the game is. I love the feeling that my back is against the wall and I have to find a way to make the best of it.
I think it’s funny that if we did rank investigators based on how many campaigns they could beat, I think Patrice would be the only F tier because of Hemlock and maybe Dunwich
Calvin is very good at clearing scenario tests and is also a very strong player of First Watch/Scrounge for Supplies if you wanna meme on the encounter deck. I'm running him in a 4p right now and I am decisively playing a very strong game... in the encounter phase. My player phase is pretty weak, but he can do some very funny stuff off-turn and still be handy for scenario tests, enemy management, etc.
I wouldn't rank him super highly but I'd put him ahead of a lot of the low tiers.
In general, I rate encounter deck manipulation/nullification very highly, and Calvin is great at that as long as you have a plan for eating an autofail every so often. But I'm often playing 3 or 4 player games, and in those, a single Calvin First Watch does a similar amount of work as a couple Ward of Protections because I can lock people out of drawing treacheries that screw them specifically.
I recently found your channel after watching mostly PlayingBoardGames videos and it filled a spot I really felt I needed. Your videos help me understand the true nature of the game’s mechanics and have changed the way I think about the game. For example, the video about economy management was such a gem and I’m already super stoked to create my next deck
Your videos help me to see the strongest ways to play specific cards or investigators, even when you did fast comentaries on some cards o deep analysis, which is great (similar to Buscador de Arkham channel, from Spain). Although my playing style is closer to QL, he always makes points related to optimizing something not broken or weak. We need both of you on youtube. But I admit I was one of the few or many that didn't like your series about low tier investigators since it feels that you take out the fun part of the game, but it is normal to have fun in different ways. After seen QL Calvin video, I realize it was just that there are some things I'm not interested to hear from an investigator that is obviously low tier, but to focus on make it playable. You did great, and dont think it was necessary for you to clarify your style, but just want to let you know that your videos are a reference to me, not all of theme bc of my playing style, but useful many times.
I specifically come to your videos for the niche of spike analysis for veteran players. As you say, I don’t think many other content creators occupy that space.
We need both of you to play a game with Calvin to test your hypothesis :D
Long time lurker first time commentator. One thing people forget about optimization. "Weak" things can be the greatest temptation for optimizers because they are a puzzle. They are screaming at you 'MAKE ME THE BEST I CAN BE :) '. Yet that appeal has to be something UNIQUE in a way, because if you put in seventeen extra hours to make something that is weak into another thing yet much weaker... well, you really didn't do much. There has to be a unique cosmetic, thematic or even mechanical appeal for that underdog.
There's a JOY to conquering a major hurdle with something unique and a joy to make it consistent so it isn't just a fluke. Sometimes in a card game there is a card you ADORE you LOVE that card with all of your heart because of how it thematically appeals to you or just does something so mechanically unique you want to make a deck around it. So you will bleed your hands out trying to make it work. On the other hand if you love something yet it makes the game too easy then... what's the point of optimizing it? There's no challenge there.
I always tell folks there is a difference between 'Try-Harding' and 'Sweat Lording'. Try-Harding is optimizing, doing your best to win but STILL having fun. You are trying-hard to WIN with what you WANT to play. Sweat Lording is eliminating all but the (what the sweat lord thinks are) the BEST things because screw you for trying to have fun.
Your videos never come off as sweat lordy to me, which is what I appreciate. ANYWAY! Take this huge ramble with a grain of salt as this is my own perspective on optimization inspired from the video topic.
I love your videos, thanks for making them. Optimizing is not how I interact with AHLCG, but it’s very interesting to hear about the game from that perspective.
As one of your critics, I greatly appreciate this video. It’s perfectly okay to disagree on deck choices and play styles.
A well made video, I think you supported your point well. Unfortunately this argument will not be going to the victory display, so it will be returning in a later act.
Sorry, I have to make another comment, as this video speaks to me: I really see your videos often as a resource to check out what presumably is bad, and what theoretical strategies or weaknesses are, and then try to built decks myself based on your hot takes, a little bit to prove you wrong, but knowing I'll never be able to. But still happy to have recently built and played a Calvin Deck that was built with your video in mind. Trying to squeeze out the best that was possible in the team of characters that we were playing. (We actually played low stats run, playing the 4 lowest stat characters in the game. And we are loving how janky it is.😂❤)
So just to say it: thanks for making these snide videos. I love them.
Thank you for creating a channel that focuses on optimising the game.
I love to optimise as well, but sometimes I want to indulge in certain obsessions and/or build around a particular interaction with a certain investigator (Down the Rabbit Hole Joe Diamond with all even cost cards). It's okay to focus on optimisation, but sometimes you might want to play something weaker, whilst recognising it is weaker, that's fine!
Also, as someone who watches all your investigator videos, you have definitely clarified multiple times that all investigate can beat the game 😅
Johnny's need input for good deck-building ideas so we can use some of the bones and then make a less optimal but (in our own mind) more interesting deck. Even if not everyone wants to optimize because some of us want to reinvent our own wheel, it's helpful to glance at other people's blueprints.
Honestly, I think you are doing a great job. Many arkham content creators just want to say everything is good. But if everything is good, then nothing is good. I dont really learn much from video. Actually analyzing cards and probabilities are much better insight into the game which I cannot get from other channels.
Something I always felt that Calvin, and to an extent, all survivors suffer from, is that the survivor card pool is simply uninteresting at a higher experience level outside a few events that exile themselves. It feels there's no payoff for...well..surviving for so long.
I have always felt that at high experience, survivors should be able to aquire permanent character buffs that alter how you play. I personally really enjoy playing dark horse, and I would like to see similar mechanics explored. As an example, you will be able to choose between certain mutations such as lycanthropy, vampirism, chosen, etc... as a payoff for surviving against the mythos for so long.
If guardians/rogues get bigger guns, mystics get better spells, survivors need something to distinguish them from the other classes uniquely to them.
I personally look at this differently. I am constantly interested in the survivor card pool. The bigger/flashier things that you get from the other classes just seem boring to me. Surviving IS the payoff. Not a big gun.
I feel like, we need some more official content. Hopefully Spoiler Season is coming soon.
Would be funny, if new cards in Drowned City would break Calvin wide open. I think the “new” design team are doing a great job enabling these “bad” investigators, however someone defines bad.
I tried some of your decks. Cluever Carolyn for example. I didn’t like them for how I like to play the game. I also not having much fun playing Rogues. I’m still on the path to find out what kind of play style I enjoy the most. I also don’t play that much Arkham Horror LCG (played every campaign once).
But I love to WATCH other people (like you) play the stuff I don’t like to play the game. It helps me to understand how my friends at the table view the game. And I also enjoy the talks from you and dumping on some investigator. This stuff keeps my brain busy and I like to think about the game. And I like thinking about the arguments and perspectives.
The arguing over one investigator also shows that the game is not dead.
Also can I just say i enjoy listening to philosophical waxing about arkham
Gotta just love this game and the community. Even the drama is respectfull and productive
Well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Keep doing you man! I like listening to someone talking about the spectrum of power in Arkham and contrasting with what i’m trying.
I think it’s fine that there’s a spectrum of arkham players who don’t power game but that’s not your audience, nor is that me.
I was overjoyed when you returned to content creation as you’re right, you are filling a hole in Arkham content creation where you aim to push for power in the game.
I hope this doesn’t spiral into some drama, what’s the moral of this video for everyone is that last bit where everyone enjoys the game in their own way, and to understand each other’s perspectives on the game and not looking down upon them.
Love your decks and How you approach building them.... So just keep doing what you're doing 👍👍👍
One thing that i love about this game, is that people can truly get what they want out of it. For me, flawed builds are much more interesting. If runic axe is clearly the correct choice, then im more likely to build around trench knife. I enjoy finding creative ways to make up for flaws. I dont think that there is a wrong way to play.
I was going to make a video called In Defense of Roland Banks and his video popped up right after I made that decision
While it'd be very funny to make a "X is Bad, and That's Okay" video every time someone makes the opposite, this is really just to explain how I view the game and clarify some stuff involving what I'm measuring when I talk about characters. I wouldn't bother making this video just to shit on Calvin some more. I think I've done that enough.
@@RatherIncoherentBut Calvin bad tho
@RatherIncoherent to be fair, it wasn't going to be a video saying your video was invalid or bad. I love playing Roland and a lot of people think he is bad and it boggles my mind. He's a Guardian that has access to half the Seeker card pool. That's crazy good.
Not really related to the main point but I do find it interesting that you enjoy playing a variety of different investigators even ones that are "low tier" or "sub optimal" but dont feel it nessicary in the same way about the card pool. I think for me and alot of other people we like trying to get the most out of sub optimal cards like lightning gun in the same way you might enjoy building the best calvin deck you can. And I know I'd get bored playing runic axe over and over in the same way you might get bored playing rex or mark over and over. Its neat to see how different people balance variety vs optimization.
Wdym apples to oranges, apple won't prevent scurvy. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, so it definitely will
This slogan brought to you by Big Apple™ . No seriously, that's where it came from. It's hilarious.
Came here just to say that apple will prevent scurvy! Don't buy the propaganda from Big Orange.
Frankly I became more interested in playing calvin and jim after the videos. I'm a newer player. I've played Mark, now I'm looking to the suicide squad for my kicks.
I like meta discussions. They are good, feel free to keep up with them if you find them interesting to talk about. My take: one goal with reviewing the weaker characters could be to focus the discussion on finding their best build. I thought you did a great job with that for Wilson (and interestingly, you ended up with a higher view of Wilson than the commenters).
On the topic of Calvin:
I wonder if you're supposed to start out with a test at 0 archetype, then upgrade to an archetype that wants you to succeed with a natural stat block. Does make me wonder if some of the compression you're supposed to take advantage of is the 1 level survival skills like Sharp Vision, and the ability to immediately start doing "stuff", which is the mark of a good survivor.
He is in that video, and he doesn't like it. 😅😅😅 Love where this is going. And I'm already waiting for the video where they play a game together.😊
Oh yes please make it happen!! :D
Did you just call an abstract Lola Hayes Poopoo McPee Pants?
I could have been talking about anybody.
@RatherIncoherent That's why it's an abstract Lola Hayes!
Poopoo McPeePants is Bad, and That's Okay
You mentioned something a few videos back as well about implied subjectivity. You speak in concrete terms, and that is absolutely the proper way to speak and argue your case. Peppering with throat clears about how it's "just your opinion" is unnecessary and weakens your argument's flow and impact.
I wonder if QL interpreted that video, and your method of delivery, as you issuing an edict for how folks should enjoy the game. When it was really just an exploration of how you enjoy the game.
Anywho, fellow Spike here. I feel as though my enjoyment of the game has been unhindered by my Spikeness. Which is, I admit, a pretty Spike thing to say.
Who lives in Tier Z of Doo Doo Land? 💩
I learned, that I am the perfect audience, which is nice…
This ain't it, man.
Woah, someone's upest. Look, Incoherent, "Duke" Harrist (head designer) recently commented that the Arkham team's design philosophy was aimed at satisfying a broad range of gamer mindsets, from those who enjoy a more fun, playful narrative experience, through to power gamers, and those who like to challenge themselves with baroque decks and creative niche exploits. It's okay to be you, but you have to be ready to let others be themselves too. Now breath.
P.s. Apples do prevent scurvy. 😂
Literally looked it up after saying it because I doubted it. Apples, at least in remotely similar quantities, are not sufficient to prevent scurvy.
I am not telling people that they cannot have fun in their own way. If that is your takeaway from this video, then nothing I can say matters because you clearly aren't listening. This entire video is about clarifying what fun is to me, because Quick Learner and many others don't seem to understand that. It's also an admission of fault and a statement that I don't like how I've potentially mislead players, especially new players, in the past.
And yes, I am irritated. I am irritated because " It's okay to be you, but you have to be ready to let others be themselves too." is essentially the point of Quick Learner's video, something I agree with and spend this entire video talking about. Instead of ever saying that though, he did mental gymnastics that effectively made the case that his sense of fun was the only way to enjoy the game, and that optimizers are ruining their own fun rather than attempting to understand what fun is for others.
@RatherIncoherent Fruits of all kinds are good for lowering blood pressure too. 🤣 But seriously, don't go changing.
@@RatherIncoherentAs an outsider, that watches both of your content, and appreciates a wide array of Arkham content, I feel like this whole thing really just boils down to individual players and their archetypes if we wanna continue to use the MTG names of Spike, Timmy, and Johnny, and how these 3 usually do not see the games they play with similar eyes. This is quite evident in the differing approaches and the self reflection you've both voiced as to which of these MTG archetypes you yourselves believe you belong to. He, to the best of my recollection, regards himself as a Johnny, you as a "toxic Spike" (almost as if that were a badge of honour? Don't wanna assume anything here)
In 25+ years of card game playing, I've played with and lived with card game playing friends who came from all 3 of those archetypes and individuals who clearly couldn't be clearly shoehorned into these 3 labelled boxes, much like real life men and women, we are complex souls. Sometimes this has led to heated arguments.
Being largely a Johnny myself, with perhaps a sprinkle of Timmy, I'd say I honestly see the game of Arkham with a very different outlook and perspective than a generalist Spike would and likewise a Timmy would. I feel you make it generally clear that you're not telling people to not play Calvin, but when you make videos to just bag on how much of a dumpster fire the investigator is, then upload that, it's like going to the town square and getting up on your soap box yelling he's a shit character, and then simultaneously not expecting some people, at least, to take that as advice not to play him. That may be the wrong conclusion to draw from your videos but when I have to remind myself to try out these investigators I've not played yet, after they get shafted to the bottom of somebody's tier list, I'm one of those people that will argue against such tier lists, for such an effect they can have.
I ended up playing Lola Hayes for example, as my first ever gator in a full campaign, which was EotE in 2p, with my friend playing Arkham his first full campaign (we'd both done notz+ guardians of the abyss with other characters) as Monterrey Jack. We were both he to Arkham, yet but novice card gamers. We had an absolute blast, and I distinctly remember picking to play Lola after watching Playing Board Games' many videos, and reading so much on the forums about how absolute shit Lola Hayes was. I've got a soft spot for the rejects of society you could say, so I was immediately drawn to the challenge, and remember the probably hundreds of hours poured over the carpool with Lola Hayes massive deck building options, tweaking and theorising, trying to find that Johnny BBQ special sauce, which also includes much optimisation of many iterations of a deck before even playing it.
As an old school RPG player beginning in adnd 2nd edition blue book, I tend to lean heavily into the investigators backstory, their bio, their lore from other Arkham Files games, etc. and view Arkham as a cross RPG with a co-op card game shell, which is what drew me to the game in the first place.
The fact that Lola Hayes was "the Actor" also peaked my interest, as I've never like acting or theatre in real life, but was up to try roleplay each role, when shifting roles each turn, and creating backstories for each of the 3 main, and 1 minor character she acted out, due to her cards chosen in her deck, with full backstory of why she was in the Antarctic Ice shelf. This is one huge appeal to me, and why some investigators are still waiting to be played and may never get played just due to lack of time in real life, and that their bio on their card can literally determine whether I'll play them or not, just as much or more than their stats, and or their abilities. I relished the challenge of playing the worst ranked gator and because she was my first and we had a huge climactic finish narrowly hearing the campaign, but several times hanging in by the sheer grit, and determination to not resign a single scenario but to go for the win, with what meager told we had, only added to the scope and feel of being in the Antarctic Ice with Monterrey Jack the archaeologist and Lola the actress. It's still one of the best times I've had in any card games, and to me this is what Arkham is all about, it about the stories that are told by us the players, and the mix of gator team composition, which campaign etc.
To some, the Spikes and even you the "toxic Spike", Lola Hayes might be an absolute waste of time. That's fine. I still think her insane card pool is her greatest strength, and I'm not either saying she's super strong compared to the Rex Murphys and Glorias but she's very high on my non existing tier list, and I have to push myself not to make more Lola Hayes lists, and play all the other investigators I haven't played yet instead of playing her again.
Quick Learner to Playing Board Games and their 3 diverging players who clearly enjoy differing aspects of the game, to all the other Arkham Horror Lcg content creators in YT, all have wide and often contesting views of what is worthwhile playing, what is strong, op etc. All these terms are largely subjective so comparisons of how we should even evaluate the game could go on forever without any resolution.
We all have voices and to those who put out content, I will stand by my position, that when you post anything in the largest website in existence YT, you are effectively going to the digital commons, the town square of you will, and if you don't want to deal with the potential fallout and responsibility of what that comes with and what it entails, don't post stuff online, or disable the comments section. You can't both expect to go about yelling in the town square (posting any content here) and not expect a response from the townspeople sometimes haha...
I appreciate all the content. Some I'll definitely agree more with based on my own preferences, biases etc, and so would l expect most others would likewise view my beliefs.
I do look forward to seeing more content on the less loved investigators or less played perhaps is better fitting here, as I am generally not interested in devastating the campaign. I want the campaign to be a success but if it's a super hard slog, I'm down for it, and love to see the weaker ones rise to success.
@@WayOfHaQodesh I appreciate the detailed response. When I refer to myself as a toxic spike, I'm not saying I try to be toxic. I'm acknowledging that I am a Spike to such an extreme behavior that it can easily come off as negative when I don't mean to be.
Apples do in theory prevent scurvy, in a way that is far far less effcient and effective than an orange.
Sort of in a way a very low tier investigator vs a high tier investigator could clear a full campaign optimally, I think.