5 minutes ago, Network57 said:

The strategy for Jim is to commit to only 1 over a test. Committing Jim 2 over a test, you're generally in the same boat as any other Investigator. But at 1 over, or even break even, you're in better shape. You have to be willing to play a little fast and loose with Jim to actually use his ability. Defiance just makes that even better. You stand even better odds of succeeding at 1 over, which with Jim you should be doing anyways.

To answer your question: with anyone else at 1 over, Defiance gives you ~53% chance of success. So yes, it's better with Jim in that regard.

Sorry, that's not quite what I was asking.

What's the difference between using Defiance on the test, and not using Defiance on the test? Because that seems to be the important question here, and it seems like the answer should be the same for any investigator. Defiance will change some number of tokens from "fail" to "pass", and that'll be the same for any investigator at the same over/under.

Just now, Buhallin said:

Sorry, that's not quite what I was asking.

What's the difference between using Defiance on the test, and not using Defiance on the test? Because that seems to be the important question here, and it seems like the answer should be the same for any investigator. Defiance will change some number of tokens from "fail" to "pass", and that'll be the same for any investigator at the same over/under.

Your correct in that Defiance will change the success results the same for each Investigator. My point was that Jim already has better odds when you're only winning by 1, or by 0, anyways, and this helps him even further. Independently of Jim's ability, you are correct in that is no better or worse for him. But taking his ability and strategy into account, this only helps him get better.

1 hour ago, Buhallin said:

Sorry, that's not quite what I was asking.

What's the difference between using Defiance on the test, and not using Defiance on the test? Because that seems to be the important question here, and it seems like the answer should be the same for any investigator. Defiance will change some number of tokens from "fail" to "pass", and that'll be the same for any investigator at the same over/under.

Changing the same number of tokens from fail to pass doesn't always have the same effect though.

Sure, 3 tokens is 3 tokens (for example). But changing a 1 in 16 chance to 4 in 16 is often significantly less effective than changing 10 in 16 to 13 in 16, because the chance of failure on the first suggests you're likely to waste the action regardless.

Because Jim already converts 2 tokens (generally) to 0s, converting additional tokens is potentially more useful, because Jim's ability encourages you to risk more marginal tests. This also makes Jim more likely to suffer the "if you fail" effects of other tokens, which Defiance can switch off if they present the risk of a significant negative impact on the game state.

He is also better able than most to leverage specific icon effects thanks to Grotesque Statue. And if you're running that, Defiance basically doubles your chance of drawing an icon that would otherwise be a failure and an additional punishment, which Defiance blanks and changes to success.

14 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

Changing the same number of tokens from fail to pass doesn't always have the same effect though.

Sure, 3 tokens is 3 tokens (for example). But changing a 1 in 16 chance to 4 in 16 is often significantly less effective than changing 10 in 16 to 13 in 16, because the chance of failure on the first suggests you're likely to waste the action regardless.

Because Jim already converts 2 tokens (generally) to 0s, converting additional tokens is potentially more useful, because Jim's ability encourages you to risk more marginal tests. This also makes Jim more likely to suffer the "if you fail" effects of other tokens, which Defiance can switch off if they present the risk of a significant negative impact on the game state.

He is also better able than most to leverage specific icon effects thanks to Grotesque Statue. And if you're running that, Defiance basically doubles your chance of drawing an icon that would otherwise be a failure and an additional punishment, which Defiance blanks and changes to success.

It's not doubling. Jim with the Grotesque Statue has the following chance of success in House Always Wins (no Broken Tablet), given where he starts in relation to the difficulty:

• -1: 25.71%
• 0: 61.90%
• +1: 81.90%
• +2: 94.29%

Add in Defiance, and those odds become:

• -1: 25.71%
• 0: 70.48%
• +1: 87.62%
• +2: 96.19%

It's not a straight doubling because Grotesque Statue already boosts your odds so much of finding a success token, that you're only adding 1/15 to each draw, essentially.

35 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

Sure, 3 tokens is 3 tokens (for example). But changing a 1 in 16 chance to 4 in 16 is often significantly less effective than changing 10 in 16 to 13 in 16, because the chance of failure on the first suggests you're likely to waste the action regardless.

I think this is flawed thinking, from a statistical standpoint. Regardless of what your initial chances are, Defiance will turn success to failure exactly as many times in each case. The difference arises entirely from the initial conditions, which Defiance won't change at all, and the decision to take that test or not will be decided by external conditions. The same thing goes with Grotesque Statue - the chance to redraw isn't any better with Defiance than it is with any other skill use that converts failure to success. In many cases it may be worse - if you're at -2, a standard +2 skill card will convert 5 tokens, while Defiance might convert 3.

As a way to pass tests, I agree with awp that it's not a good card. I think the usefulness comes in two places: avoiding the nasty effects (which can indeed be very, very nasty at higher difficulties), and removing that one potential for failure on an otherwise solid test (like countering a -5 from an Elder Thing). In pretty much every other case it's going to be inferior to a simple +2. And honestly even in those best cases, you're never going to be looking at any more than about a 15% chance of it doing anything at all. You're far more likely to watch it do nothing and then pull that Elder Thing on the next action.

Obviously that can depend on the bag a bit too - if a scenario or effect ends up with the bag stacked heavily for a specific token, then countering that token could have a greater effect. But generally it's a cool concept, but as far as probability goes it's a poor bet.

Edit: And that's kind of the real question. It's not just "Is this cool", but it's "When would I rather have Defiance than any other skill card?" The wild icon does help it here a bit, but not enough, IMHO.

12 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

And that's kind of the real question. It's not just "Is this cool", but it's "When would I rather have Defiance than any other skill card?" The wild icon does help it here a bit, but not enough, IMHO.

Interestingly, I think this highlights one of the disagreements floating around. In my opinion I wouldn't be thinking of this from the standpoint of "when would I rather have this than another skill card?". Like the icons all cards have to commit to a test, Defiance can be used to alter the probability of a test but that isn't what I'd look to it for.

I see it as disaster mitigation, even if the overwhelming odds tell me that I'm not likely to pull the one token that would end the game for the party, I'd keep Defiance in for that peace of mind. Sure you can use it to further modify odds, but if you're playing Jim you should already be doing that in other ways. That's my 2 cents anyway.

1 minute ago, VermillionDe said:

I see it as disaster mitigation, even if the overwhelming odds tell me that I'm not likely to pull the one token that would end the game for the party, I'd keep Defiance in for that peace of mind.

I'd agree with this, except that those overwhelming odds makes it a pretty awful way of mitigating that disaster If it were maybe a "Discard when..." asset I'd see it filling this role. But honestly, even if I were desperate to try and mitigate that disaster I see this as an ineffective way of doing so.

35 minutes ago, Network57 said:

It's not doubling. Jim with the Grotesque Statue has the following chance of success in House Always Wins (no Broken Tablet), given where he starts in relation to the difficulty:

• -1: 25.71%
• 0: 61.90%
• +1: 81.90%
• +2: 94.29%

Add in Defiance, and those odds become:

• -1: 25.71%
• 0: 70.48%
• +1: 87.62%
• +2: 96.19%

It's not a straight doubling because Grotesque Statue already boosts your odds so much of finding a success token, that you're only adding 1/15 to each draw, essentially.

I misspoke. I meant to say Grotesque basically doubles your chance of drawing a single, specific icon, from about 6% to about 12%

1 minute ago, Buhallin said:

I'd agree with this, except that those overwhelming odds makes it a pretty awful way of mitigating that disaster If it were maybe a "Discard when..." asset I'd see it filling this role. But honestly, even if I were desperate to try and mitigate that disaster I see this as an ineffective way of doing so.

Hey, you know Murphy's Law when I'm playing a deck meant to intentionally mess with the odds, im Definitely bringing insurance.

12 minutes ago, VermillionDe said:

I see it as disaster mitigation, even if the overwhelming odds tell me that I'm not likely to pull the one token that would end the game for the party, I'd keep Defiance in for that peace of mind. Sure you can use it to further modify odds, but if you're playing Jim you should already be doing that in other ways. That's my 2 cents anyway.

I think this is it exactly. It's a cool effect, but as far as Skill cards go, it's not any better than any other Skill card, and is in fact worse than the Neutral 2-pip skills. However, If you have messed up your Chaos Bag and have 2 Skulls, 2 Broken Tables, and 2 Elder Things floating around, this can save your bacon. In Essex County Express if you find yourself engaged with a Grappling Horror that you have to Evade, you certainly don't want that Cultist Token killing off your remaining 2 actions. There are cases where you want to mitigate the token effect, and even if as far as skill committals go, it isn't great, Defiance has a neat effect that some campaigns (and probably just some playstyles, like mine!) prefer.

4 minutes ago, VermillionDe said:

Hey, you know Murphy's Law when I'm playing a deck meant to intentionally mess with the odds, im Definitely bringing insurance.

This is like buying health insurance where you have to specify the month and year you'll get cancer, or it won't cover it

But to each their own, that's what keeps it interesting!

26 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

I think this is flawed thinking, from a statistical standpoint.

That's because the statistics, specifically the likelihood of success, isn't the only factor at play.

You also have to consider the consequences of success and failure, and other available effects both now and in the future, as well as the likelihood that conditions will change for better or worse as the game proceeds.

Just like with action economy, the odds of success are important to know and consider, but they don't outweigh every other consideration.

9 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

That's because the statistics, specifically the likelihood of success, isn't the only factor at play.

You also have to consider the consequences of success and failure, and other available effects both now and in the future, as well as the likelihood that conditions will change for better or worse as the game proceeds.

Just like with action economy, the odds of success are important to know and consider, but they don't outweigh every other consideration.

Exactly. It might be statistically flawed to commit to 4 over, but if I absolutely 100% need to pass this test, I'm going to take every step I can to ensure I do.

and I can see that... kinda. But you're going to run this card over another card in your deck? You only get 30 slots to fill, and you're going to occupy one or 2 of them on this card? Run other, better cards so that you don't get yourself into the situation where drawing one token from the chaos bag can wreck you up that badly.

Just now, awp832 said:

and I can see that... kinda. But you're going to run this card over another card in your deck? You only get 30 slots to fill, and you're going to occupy one or 2 of them on this card? Run other, better cards so that you don't get yourself into the situation where drawing one token from the chaos bag can wreck you up that badly.

On Hard/Expert? Hell yes. Some of those tokens, depending on the board state, will take you from being in great shape to a game loss in a single draw. In some cases, even regardless of success or failure.

Yes, that might be a 1 in 16 chance, and it often isn't worth it for failure alone. But if it's a 1 in 16 chance of outright game loss via agenda, that's well worth it.

At higher difficulties, you can't really count on controlling the board state so such insurance isn't necessary.

12 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

On Hard/Expert? Hell yes. Some of those tokens, depending on the board state, will take you from being in great shape to a game loss in a single draw. In some cases, even regardless of success or failure.

Yes, that might be a 1 in 16 chance, and it often isn't worth it for failure alone. But if it's a 1 in 16 chance of outright game loss via agenda, that's well worth it.

And if there were only one time during the game this would happen, it might be worth it. Well, honestly, I don't think so, but whatever.

But it's one test. Two if you consider both copies. Out of how many tests that could do that something very bad? If you take 30 tests during the game, and assume half of them could wreck you, you're got 2 chances in 15 for that 1 in 16 to save you from something - so it'll only matter around 1 game out of 100. So during a full campaign, you've only got about a 10% chance of it mattering at all. In all other cases, it's going to be strictly inferior to another skill card or asset.

It's not just a matter of what you want the card to do, it's that the card doesn't even do well what you want it to do.

Worse, it's a trap. You're going to sit on it until that super-critical draw, meaning it's a dead card for most of the game. And then when you use it, it's probably not going to do anything to help you anyway. I can see why people like the idea of it as a security blanket, but this is more like a scrap of dirty napkin.

Okay, let's make it simple. Defiance gives you a +1 to any test, and makes any icon a 0 and blanks the effect.

Unexpected Courage gives a +2, but doesn't blank icon effects.

In any situation where you have an equal number of a specific icon that would fail a test as you do number tokens that would fail the test by 2, Defiance is equal to Unexpected Courage.

If the icon token procs on failure, Defiance is better. Because -2s will fail, but not add doom or spawn an enemy or whatever. If the blanked token procs regardless of success, Defiance is better, because it makes the same number of tokens a success and blanks a token effect if that token comes up.

We're guaranteed bags with two skulls. We can have bags with 2 tablets, 2 tentacles, or both. Maybe worse in a little bit. And who knows what we'll get in future campaigns? To say nothing of standalone bags, which can start you with 3 skulls, or 2 cultists, or whatever.

I mean, unless you also think Unexpected Courage is a bad card, then we should find something else to compare Defiance with.

14 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

If the icon token procs on failure, Defiance is better...

We're guaranteed bags with two skulls. We can have bags with 2 tablets, 2 tentacles, or both. Maybe worse in a little bit. And who knows what we'll get in future campaigns? To say nothing of standalone bags, which can start you with 3 skulls, or 2 cultists, or whatever.

Yes, IF it procs, it is better. But it doesn't do it often. While some of the standalone bags do get to 3 of a single token this is an exception (Carnevale is the only one) and they have more other tokens. Best you're going to get in Rougarou is an 8% hit rate. Carnevale's is probably the best you're going to get, with a whole 16% if you call the skulls. But they also have a generally forgiving effect, so probably not the best use there. The actual nasty ones you're looking at about a 6% chance. So if you play Carnevale 10 times, on average it'll work once.

19 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

In any situation where you have an equal number of a specific icon that would fail a test as you do number tokens that would fail the test by 2, Defiance is equal to Unexpected Courage.

This is true, but it's also not all that common. For the standard +2 starting point, there are definitely some cases where it happens but they're the exception. Nothing in Night of the Zealot does this below Expert. Dunwich is hard to say because of the potential for added tokens, but the base bag is the same. If you're in the habit of making checks where you start down by 4 or 5 it'll have a bigger potential impact, and reach break-even with Unexpected Courage more often. But I'll also say that's not so common.

So IF you meet those conditions, you break even on the check, and have about a 10-12% chance of the effect mattering. But in most cases, you're going to be actually decreasing your chances of passing to give yourself that feel-good 10% insurance. If you like that, it's up to you - humans are both notoriously bad at probability and often risk-averse, so I can understand it. But there really isn't a broad, objective case to be made for this as a good card. A card you like, sure, a card that fits your style, fine, but objectively good it is not.

2 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Yes, IF it procs, it is better. But it doesn't do it often.

That's fine. In the situations described, it's as good (not worse) than Unexpected Courage if it doesn't proc, because both cards flip the same amount of tokens to successes. Blanking the icon is gravy, an added benefit that Unexpected Courage lacks in situations where they're otherwise equal. Oh, and Defiance isn't limited to one per test.

8 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Nothing in Night of the Zealot does this below Expert.

This is simply false. And as a side note, "the standard starting point," isn't +2 on Hard, and depends on the board state even on standard. And that's also assuming the board state cooperates with you, giving you the luxury of adjusting each of your skill tests to the point of diminishing returns.

There are plenty of circumstances in Zealot where it matters, even on standard, without even looking at situations where you have to gauge how important it is not to drop a clue if you fail, or similar (which can vary wildly).

On hard and expert, there are quite a lot more, which speaks to your main argument that there needs to be a "broad, objective" argument for a card to be "good."

The utility of many -- I would venture most -- cards depends on player count, difficulty, or both. And that's without considering the circumstances of specific scenarios. Or, for that matter, player skill, whether with a particular play style or in general.

There are no cards that are objectively good in all situations.

29 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

If you like that, it's up to you - humans are both notoriously bad at probability and often risk-averse, so I can understand it.

Don't be a jerk. No one's accusing you of being bad at overall analysis, of which the statistics are only a part of the puzzle. Do us the same courtesy of leaving this kind of thing out of the conversation.

53 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

This is simply false.

You're right - I was sliding the window the wrong way. As long as you only ever use it for skulls, you'll hit the break even point. Anything else, you're in the hole.

53 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

And as a side note, "the standard starting point," isn't +2 on Hard, and depends on the board state even on standard.

Of course it does, but we need some reference point for the discussion. And whether you consider the starting point for Hard to be +1, +2, or +3, giving up that extra icon has the same effect. Same for Expert, even, all the way up to the difference between +4 and +5.

56 minutes ago, BD Flory said:

There are plenty of circumstances in Zealot where it matters, even on standard, without even looking at situations where you have to gauge how important it is not to drop a clue if you fail, or similar (which can vary wildly).

On hard and expert, there are quite a lot more, which speaks to your main argument that there needs to be a "broad, objective" argument for a card to be "good."

Yes, these situations exist - which is why this is a bad card. The very fact that you have to mitigate these means a 10% chance to do it once or twice during a game is a poor strategy. And the more common the situations are, and the nastier the effects are, the worse Determination is as a means to mitigate them because it's both limited use and highly unreliable.

1 hour ago, BD Flory said:

No one's accusing you of being bad at overall analysis, of which the statistics are only a part of the puzzle. Do us the same courtesy of leaving this kind of thing out of the conversation.

Statistics are, however, the fundamental piece of the puzzle. You cannot properly evaluate the potential for the scenarios without considering the probabilities associated in their outcomes. Are there cases where the token effects can suck, and even cripple games? Of course. Are those situations variable? Well, duh. But none of that changes that Determination provides a 5-15% chance of handling those situations. If you think not wanting to rely on a card that gives me a 1 in 6 chance to do what I need it to do - AT BEST - makes me bad at overall analysis... well, we've obviously got enough differences of opinion already, one more's not going to hurt my feelings.

18 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Of course it does, but we need some reference point for the discussion. And whether you consider the starting point for Hard to be +1, +2, or +3, giving up that extra icon has the same effect. Same for Expert, even, all the way up to the difference between +4 and +5.

Again, you just can't generalize like this. The icon tokens have different modifiers and effects in literally every scenario, and the bag is different in every campaign, and altered by different things.

But let's limit the view to Zealot on hard, at which point the card gains a lot of utility over normal. Not coincidentally, I play Zealot primarily on Hard, which influences my view of the card.

In the first scenario, the circumstances where Defiance is better at achieving success are rare, I'll grant, partly because the token values are fixed. But if you are at +2 and need to flip a -4, you're better off with the +1 and zeroing the cultist rather than making the -4 a success with UC.

Bear in mind, too, that zeroing icons can trigger +2 success effects far more easily than UC). This applies across the board. UC is only a +1 versus Defiance, at best. Defiance turns tokens into 0s, proccing bonus effects that would be impossible for UC.

Still, in general, UC is probably more help here. On the other hand, it's probably the easiest of the three scenarios, so you need it less.

In Masks, things get rougher. Skulls can easily drop to -4s or -5s or worse when the cultist token adds doom to every cultist, and at that point, each of UC and Defiance are better at different starting bonuses, or often capture the same tokens.

In this scenario, however, any time UC would flip 1 more token to a success than Defiance, Defiance has an equal chance of preventing the addition of 1 doom per cultist to the game state. In either case, each card affects only 1 token the other card can't. At best, UC flips 2 more tokens than Defiance, or 3 if there's no doom and you're testing at -2 versus the difficulty.

However, by preventing the addition of doom, you're negating that -1 doom on skulls for each future test. If you have to make even one such test that flips skull tokens to failure because of the doom you didn't prevent, you've already lost the advantage you gained by playing UC over Defiance for short-term success.

You may say it isn't likely to hit the cultist, and you'd be right. But on any test where UC would flip 1 more token than Defiance, the odds of UC being successful when Defiance isn't are exactly the same.

And that's without even considering that the cultist could be a game-ending outcome if it adds doom you can't deal with to the board.

In Devourer, the tokens are fixed again, but the negatives are greater, and cultists and tablets each proc special effects if you fail.

On hard, versus skulls, UC and Defiance capture the same populations at +0, UC has the edge at +1 by capturing skulls and -3s where Defiance only captures skulls.

At +2 UC flips 1 token Defiance doesn't, but Defiance has the same chance of stopping 2 doom from being added to the board that UC can't.

At +3, you have a similar tradeoff. 1 damage and 1 horror is definitely less punishing, but you can also accept the -5 and the tablet (11% of the bag) as failures in exchange for blanking the cultist's doom effect, which is half as likely, but frequently more punishing than failure in a scenario where the agendas have low doom thresholds.

At +4, UC and Defiance each capture -5 and the tablet, but there is no -6 for UC to flip, while with Defiance, you can flip the -5 and the Elder Thing, or flip -5 and blank the cultist. At +5, Defiance is back to catching the same tokens as UC, but again has the option to sacrifice the 5.5% chance to flip the Elder Thing for a 5.5% chance to stop 2 doom or 1 damage and 1 horror.

The numbers are similar on expert, although it's worth noting that the additional -4 aligns with the cultist effect, so the tradeoff at +2 for flipping off the cultist for two failures at -4 is harsher. Likewise, because of the -6, you face the same choice at +4 and +6, while at +5 or +7 or above, Defiance flips the same tokens *and* prevents 2 doom.

Defiance gains a lot in the later stages of Zealot versus The Gathering, but that's also where things get tougher. I'd rather play a card that isn't as strong in the intro scenario, but better later, than the card that has the advantage in the tutorial, but loses it in more difficult scenarios.

2 hours ago, Buhallin said:

Yes, these situations exist - which is why this is a bad card.

So two things. The argument that a card is bad because the situations it addresses happen too often is a non-starter. That makes the card better, because if these situations come up frequently you have more opportunity to use it to best effect. Sure, you can only use it on two tests. But that's like saying you can only use UC on two tests, so why bother if you're just going to fail the next test. And like Defiance, you can't know in advance when UC will help.

Yes, on any given icon, Defiance only has a 5-15% chance of making a difference, and it's on the lower end for the worst effects. About the same chance that UC usually has to create success where Defiance wouldn't by flipping 1-3 tokens Defiance doesn't reach.

But the penalty for not blanking the cultist when it comes up is far worse in both Masks and Devourer than the vast majority of failed skill tests.

1 hour ago, BD Flory said:

But the penalty for not blanking the cultist when it comes up is far worse in both Masks and Devourer than the vast majority of failed skill tests.

Well, enjoy that one time every nine campaigns when it saves you, I suppose. I'm sure it'll be a story for the ages.

31 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Well, enjoy that one time every nine campaigns when it saves you, I suppose. I'm sure it'll be a story for the ages.