Now, maybe it's not AS good as the mentioned Steward of Gondor from The Lord of the Rings LCG, because the cost is certainly high on it, and Steward Basically pays for itself.

The point i think, is that if you're running a Rogue, you should be running de Luca for the action advantage it gives you. If it were in any other main faction, i would say the 6 cost is a hindrance, and the argument is stronger...but rogue certainly has the resource acceleration in their corner. . Should all Rogue decks include De Luca? it's feels like an obvious auto-include.

Well he certainly looks like a great card.

Is it auto-include, it depends.

The cost is high and you have to play him early to get most out of him.

You need a way to quickly get your resources back, if you also get burglary or hot streak in opening hand, he is for sure great.

It some scenarios you might not have that luxury or might not get right cards. Or there might be no good location for Burglary. Or scenario might be just too short.

When playing solo with Skids and Wendy, in scenario 3, I always wished that Leo was a Cat Burglar instead.

It's also important to remember the opportunity cost of the ally slot (as Reid mentions with the Cat Burglar). He's certainly great, but there's a lot of other utility that can go in that slot.

The heavy slot restrictions are, I think, going to keep any particular asset from being as auto-include as Steward.

Don't forget he's unique. You have to decide which one investigator gets to have him. Prepare for fights with your friends, especially when the Dunwich investigators are out which can all use him.

So yeah, it's a lot like Steward.

It's also important to remember the opportunity cost of the ally slot (as Reid mentions with the Cat Burglar). He's certainly great, but there's a lot of other utility that can go in that slot.

The heavy slot restrictions are, I think, going to keep any particular asset from being as auto-include as Steward.

we do know that "Charisma" is coming out soon. Which allows you to have an additional Ally. .so, especially with the extra action advantage, i still don't see a Rogue deck running without de Luca.

Of course, by the time Charisma comes out, we'll likely have additional expensive Rogue allies competing for his slot and resources.

The thing with Steward of Gondor is that it was essentially free. It literally pays for itself as soon as you play it, and its only restriction is that you can only have one copy in play. The only cost is the card draw and deck space you need to get it into your hand. Leo is quite good, but he's not a complete no-brainer like that: Even for Rogues, it'll take a couple of turns of Burglary for him to recoup his cost, and that's not always a luxury you can afford.

Take the third scenario, for instance:

I think that the action advantage is not as great because (at least so far) the rouge characters are lacking in stats that other allies would help with. Cat Burglar can give you a bonus agility, beat cop a bonus fist, Lita can be a free fist and possibly damage for everyone. Experienced beat cop can be extra damage without taking an action or skill check, letting you deal with enemies more reliably than a 2nd attack might.

I was intrigued by this ally at first, but it's cost is heavy... This would be like - if Steward of Gondor were restricted and cost 6 resources to play.

I do think that if you find yourself rolling in the resources, such as you have burglary with hard knocks and another player has Lita out (assuming core set quest here) then that ally could be pretty useful.

I think my experience is that extra actions mean a lot less than consistent bonuses to stats. This game does not pull punches on the skill checks.

we do know that "Charisma" is coming out soon. Which allows you to have an additional Ally. .so, especially with the extra action advantage, i still don't see a Rogue deck running without de Luca.

True enough - but that's also not free. 3 XP is a pretty hefty upgrade... and as mentioned, we don't know what else will be competing for the spot over time. Rogues definitely seem to be heavy on allies, so I suspect it'll never be an easy choice even with two slots.

I have theory crafted quite a bit on this card and tried the campaign 2 times with Skids with it in the deck, in the start i was very "autoinclude" about this card, but as i have played i am getting more and more lukewarm, my observations are as follows. Havent played LotRLCG so cannot comment on Steward

1. Leo De Luca costs 6 resources to play, is a card to draw and costs an action to play, therefore he needs to be down for 8 turns to pay his cost back, so someone might say, well if you have more than 8 turns then hes a good card.
2. The problem is that if you play him in the first turn you will have a hard time playing other cards since he will take up all your starting resources. Therefore your first couple of turns might have another action, but then again, will the 4 actions be as effective as 3 actions with cards with more utility. You will be more exposed to treacheries and monsters, and will have a harder time investigating, than a player that starts out with say a Machete and a Flashlight. So suddenly the first 2-3 turns you will actually be quite weak, compared to a deck where you run without Leo. Cat Burglar or Beat Cop is also expensive, but they dont require you to play them early to be good. In theory you could say that each time you fail a test that you could have completed with another card from your hand, had it been in play. Or each time you only deal 1 damage because you dont have a weapon in play. Leo De Luca is indirectly at fault and you can therefore add 1 more action to his cost.
3. Leo only got 1 book as a commit effect, this makes it a close to useless card if you dont get him in your starting hand or the first 1-2 turns.

4. As mentioned by others he takes a valuable Ally slot, that might be occupied by Lita Chantler, Cat Burglar, Beat Cop or Guard Dog

1. Leo De Luca costs 6 resources to play, is a card to draw and costs an action to play, therefore he needs to be down for 8 turns to pay his cost back, so someone might say, well if you have more than 8 turns then hes a good card.

The trouble with these sort of, I dunno, reductionist views is that you seem to only want to view cards as some sort of Platonic ideal, floating serenely in card-space, and not deal with the fact that the main value of cards is how they interact with the board state. Leo's a great one to look at that.

Leo needs 8 turns to pay his cost back? Really? I suppose if you believe that all actions are equal to draw one card or get one resource, but that's a very limiting view of a card that does a lot more. There's another fundamental metric to the game beyond the game currencies players have to spend (cards, actions, resources), and that's your turn. Leo's a 33% turn extender starting on the turn you play him, and that's a benefit that can't just be quantified by counting his six cost and waiting six turns until you claim he's paid his worth.

With one additional action per turn, you can clear a room out of clues that much faster; shaving time off the eternal race of Agenda vs. Act can be worth far more than 1 resource in some circumstances. If there's an important fight or evade that must be made, Leo gives you one additional try if your first two draws were both Red Tentacle. If the map is large (like Arkham in Scenario 2), Leo gives you one more step to get to where you need to go and Parlay with the cultist before midnight strikes. Leo allows you to engage a foe on Daisy, evade-stun them, and then Sneak Attack for a kill while giving you a backup draw on the evasion, or an additional action to do *whatever is best* if the evasion worked the first time.

If you truly believe the freedom to get an additional action to get another chance to perform a vital failed test or to increase pressure against the Agenda is only worth a card or a resource each turn, then I don't think you're valuing Leo correctly. By giving you more time, you're also giving your party more time to take care of whatever they have to deal with, be it fighting, investigating, scrying, or whatever. The ability to shave an additional turn (or rarely even more) off when the Act is "supposed" to advance vs. the Agenda by increasing the overall action pool of the party is just not a metric that maps to one resource a turn when you look at Leo in a vacuum. Because if all your actions you perform every turn are only equal to a one resource or one card gain apiece, I don't think you're approaching the game mechanics from a useful position.

Is Leo the best Ally? No. No Ally is the best Ally. Pick the one(s) that work for your build and playstyle, but don't be afraid to experiment with ones you aren't fond of first off. But you can't just write off any card's effects with a pure view of how many actions/resources they cost you vs. the card's cost without seeing the effect the card has on the board state -- and in the case of an Asset, what that does to the board state over a period of turns.

My thoughts on (or perhaps just experience with) Leo, in no particular order..

As mentioned, high cost. Getting him out early feels like a must, since it's easy to consider him an investment that you want to pay for itself as quickly as possible. You might argue that the card is otherwise a waste if, say, you only get two extra free actions from him. I think that can be true, but I also think there's a valid argument that no matter how late you get him out, simply having four actions between mythos phases is an enormous benefit (or can be). Tons more versatility, opening up many extra strategic options, even if that versatility is short-lived. But yes, the card is much much much stronger if he's out early.

So, getting him out early. If there's a single copy in your deck, you can hard-hard mulligan for the card (ignoring everything else) with a 32.3% expectation of success (plus, if unsuccessful in your mulligan, a draw action when you start your first turn for another 3.6% chance, allowing you to click second, play Leo third, get your free action). With two copies in your deck, those percentages become hard mulligan with a 54.9% chance of drawing into him, then 7.1% on your first turn's first action. See this thread. However, we've established both that Leo is expensive and a card you want out as early as possible. With that in mind, I think you have to be extremely wary of the card Crypt Chill. If the Chilling Cold encounter cards are in your scenario, I think it prudent to consider Crypt Chill a 'when' card, not an 'if' card. I go to great efforts (arguably too much) to ensure that my critically important / high cost assets are in play alongside something much more disposable - a knife, a leather coat, an empty flashlight, etc.

I do like the card. And in the campaign that I'm playing at the moment, Wendy has been fortunate enough to see him early both in scenario 1 (drew straight into him when establishing opening hand, yay) and I made a beeline immediately in scenario 2 straight to Southside to see if Ma's Boarding House was in play. Luckily it was and both Roland and Wendy were able to deliberately tutor up the exact Ally they wanted on turn 2. I'm doing pretty well in the campaign and I genuinely think that these early Leo's have been crucial to that good showing. Wendy has been a machine, not just in terms of just getting tons of stuff done over each whole game, but also - referencing that early point I went into - she's been able to do some really fun, effective combinations in just any given single turn. Some real game changers. Leo I think is just a strong option for Wendy, due in large part to her special ability. It means that she can safely go a little heavier into situational tech cards because, even if she draws into a tech include and that card's situation hasn't occurred, or playing it would no longer be efficient, any card is always still a valuable re-reveal for the chaos bag. For Skids (and future rogue-types most likely)... Leo is back to being a pretty risky draw, maybe, perhaps. And for Skids specifically, getting Leo late in the game is arguably less useful for him than some other future Rogues perhaps, because if Skids just needs a turn or two with four actions to Make Some Stuff Happen, he has that functionality built in with his own special ability.

@Gaffa

True you cannot make it into pure cost 8 turns to play. you have to look at synergy. That is why the point you use your whole post to pin down, is only 1 of 4 points why hes not an auto include. Im not saying hes useless, hell ive used him in all Wendy/Skids decks ive played so far. Im just saying hes not as good as he might first seem.

When it comes to Skids - I would say Leo is an auto-pass. Skids can already pay 2 resources to gain an extra action. Skids can buy 3 extra turns before that cost eclipses Leo's investment. This is 3 extra turns - if you need them - with the investment flexibility of taking a turn + knife or other such combinations. I would much prefer a turn 1 Burglary with a low shroud location than a turn 1 Leo play.

Wendy may benefit from Leo much more though - I was thinking about this earlier - Wendy has a very strong advantage with her built in ability to draw a second Chaos token. I would consider this ability one of the most valuable in the game, which often means she can maximize on actions, and needs less skill bonuses. She can benefit more from an extra action each turn to draw cards to feed into her ability without slowing her down.

Wendy and Skids can both access Burglary which can go a great distance in mitigating the cost of Leo if you can invest 1-2 actions burgling successfully. They both have a low Lore skill though, which means Skids may actually lose actions failing this test, or have to burn cards to get resources. Meanwhile Wendy gets the double Chaos token ability again to help overcome the skill check so she can also more reliably recoup the expense.

Right now that is where I stand - Skids should pass on Leo, but Wendy can certainly make good use of him, especially if she gets an early burglary with it. She can also make more use out of it, where Skids should probably stick to his own ability to buy turns.

i think this is a great discussion, and just the fact that his strengths and weaknesses are debatable is a testament to him not being an overpowered ally. i certainly think the initial view of the character when you see him appears stronger than in practice. the cost, the action to draw, the action to play (which you do get back), are a heavy toll on De Luca, even at 5 cost with his upgrade.

still, two of in the deck certainly almost guarantees allowing you to see him in your opening hand or subsequent turns, making him a more reliable opener, but now we've turned our entire starting turn into nothing more than assuring ourselves De Luca gets out, which i believe to be an actual weakness and hindrance.

i do agree.. certain investigators will make much more use out of him than others, and in practice over the last few days i think i'm inclined to believe he is certainly not as strong as he initially appears to be.

He's good for sure, I like him a lot, gives me options. But I'm not ready to make a judgement call just yet. We'll see in a few years if he becomes ubiquitous staple like Steward is for LotR (much to the game's detriment IMO, it's too ubiquitous, sprinkled everywhere it can even in non-Leadership decks thanks to A Good Harvest. I swear, people are addicted to Steward like it's cocaine, can't live without it). I doubt Leo will have a negative impact on the game's meta like Steward will, but I feel it will be a strong Rogue card going forward.

Forgive me if someone beat me to this; I've not read the whole thread - but you CANNOT simply equate a resource to an action in determining cost. It ignores both the free resource you get every turn, AND any additional resource acceleration your deck contains (such as Hot Streak, Burglary, Emergency Cache, Sure Gamble etc.).

Not to mention tempo, which is REALLY hard to quantify (as was mentioned above).