Here is an image of the two cards created by the two Arkham Nights 2017 Card Councils. These cards were created on Friday night in a loosely directed session with Arkham Horror designers Matt Newman (Player Card) & Nate French (Weakness Card) and then given away to all attendees as promos on Saturday of the event.

I was on the Card Council that created the Player card, and I think it is okay to post the pictures of the images here for open player discussion.

So what does everyone think of what was created?

Council's Coffer is interesting. But I find the lack of a specific skill makes it a bit generic. Also it is really expensive for it's ability. You pay 1 card, 3 resources, 7 actions, and 3 successful skill tests to get up to 4 cards and play them during a player's turn. Especially with it getting exiled and limited to once per campaign.

The 13th Vision is interesting, but is basically Haunted that affects each investigator. It is even more effective than Haunted cause you lose 0 tests. I think it is interesting that it hits each investigator, but it feels a bit much.

I was an attendee and hoped to be on the Council, but no luck (par for an Arkham Files event...).

Council's Coffer probably won't get much play because of the reasons mentioned by Radix2309 above. I do enjoy the "What's in the box?" nod to all the unboxing videos and reviews. Tom Vasel & Dice Tower, I'm looking at you...

Much more enchanted with The 13th Vision... note that it is a Basic Weakness, and technically everyone who owns the card should add it to their Basic Weakness pool... Not that hard to get rid of, but really annoying while it is in play.

In one of my Labyrinths of Lunacy games, one player lost twice to ties because they had hit this weakness.

He also got the Coffer out and we opened it (somehow it contained Peter Sylvestre, Leo De Luca, Dynamite & Book of Shadows - don't ask how that all fit in there or what they were doing with those things, it can't be good) and we were the only group to survive our game and with no investigators dying.

Generally agree with the above. Coffer is interesting, but very expensive.

I like the concept of 13th Vision affecting other investigators, but I'll again echo the above - comparing it to Haunted, it seems very out of line with the other Basic Weaknesses.

I generally think players design awful cards, but I'm curious to see what happens as these are refined.

The design of Coffers nearly went off the rails several times, and had to back up and alter course. A friend was in on the design of the weakness and he said they were creating an ally weakness all the way up until the end when they suddenly changed course as well.

The 13th vision is pretty poor. At least Haunted forces you to make an interesting decision. Do I need to spend my 2 actions to get rid of it now or are there more important things I need to do with my 2 actions this turn and take the -1? I feel that if you pull the 13th, the first thing anyone should do is spend 2 actions to get rid of it, no questions asked. Also, if you pull 13th Vision in the upkeep phase, the level of being messed up in the Mythos phase is huge, especially compared to Haunted. I do like the concept of a weakness that makes the other investigators not want to be in the same space as you in case you draw it and would like to see that mechanic again in less punishing form.

For the coffer, the ability to pull any card is very good and is basically unique. Also anyone notice you don't need to reshuffle your deck, so you do get to know what order the rest of your cards will come out in.

That being said, 2 xp, 3 resources, 1 card and 7 actions (plus three skill checks at a 5, thats got to cost more resources/cards to pass). While sometimes that one card at the right time will turn defeat into a victory, I have to believe that if the team spent all that doing something else, they wouldn't be in that position. Also, why isn't it exceptional? I mean no one would ever buy two since its a once per campaign ability and the exceptional drawback cost could make it activation cost less strenuous/skill test less high.

Also, while I get some cards are better at higher player counts than lower, this one is particularity bad. Its both easier to activate (you spend a lower % of total actions) and the benefit is bigger.

The Council's Offer seems like an amazing card for groups of 3-4 investigators. It seems very underwhelming for 1-2 investigators.

It's a bit of a multiplier card. The cost is static, but the benefit increases as you add investigators. Let's say you're playing with 4 players. I'm also assuming the players are going to search for a card that costs 3-5 resources. The benefit, then, is effectively as follows...

• Each player gets to pick a card from his/her deck.
• Each player gets 3-5 resources to play said card.
• Each player gets a free action to play said card.

Collectively, that's 4 cards, 12-20 resources, and 4 free actions. Given that the card costs 7 actions to unlock, but you're really getting 4 free actions as part of the benefit, it's almost as though it only costs 3 actions. One player could benefit without taking an action at all...

• Player #1 plays The Council's Offer.
• Player #1 unlocks a lock.
• Player #2 unlocks a lock and takes another action.
• Player #3 unlocks a lock and takes another action.
• All 4 players enjoy a new card in play.

I do think I'd limit it to non-Ally Assets. It doesn't make sense for a southern grifter to be crammed in a locked chest with a stray cat and the local high school's star football player. Limiting to non-Ally Asset cards might also allow the unlocking cost to come down a bit. 1 action to play and 6 actions to unlock seems high in a game where action economy is super important.

For a solo player, you'd be effectively spending 7 actions to get 3-5 resources and a card of your choice. That's not great.

Non-Ally was not added because of limited card space. Matt was amazed he got as much of the text we wanted on the card in the end.

53 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Given that the card costs 7 actions to unlock

This is assuming you pass all the tests. A 5 target is never going to be easy, even at an investigator's best skill. It's going to require cards invested to the test as well, and the bag doing what the bag does is going to be very painful.

To the broader point that it's a static cost for a variable reward, I agree entirely.

1 hour ago, Jobu said:

Also anyone notice you don't need to reshuffle your deck, so you do get to know what order the rest of your cards will come out in.

I can't imagine this lasting to the final product.

32 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

This is assuming you pass all the tests. A 5 target is never going to be easy, even at an investigator's best skill. It's going to require cards invested to the test as well, and the bag doing what the bag does is going to be very painful.

To the broader point that it's a static cost for a variable reward, I agree entirely.

I can't imagine this lasting to the final product.

A friend of mine pulled it off solely in one round with Skids, Police Badge, Red-Gloved Man. It was actually super useful because it put Leo into play for him early on and I was able to pull the elder sign amulet to keep me from dying (Played Harrigan and auto-failed a will 3 check first encounter card, took 3 horror). It's fun in standalone scenario, probably not going to put it in our decks for campaign play.

2 hours ago, KrisWall said:

The Council's Offer seems like an amazing card for groups of 3-4 investigators. It seems very underwhelming for 1-2 investigators.

It's a bit of a multiplier card. The cost is static, but the benefit increases as you add investigators. Let's say you're playing with 4 players. I'm also assuming the players are going to search for a card that costs 3-5 resources. The benefit, then, is effectively as follows...

• Each player gets to pick a card from his/her deck.
• Each player gets 3-5 resources to play said card.
• Each player gets a free action to play said card.

Collectively, that's 4 cards, 12-20 resources, and 4 free actions. Given that the card costs 7 actions to unlock, but you're really getting 4 free actions as part of the benefit, it's almost as though it only costs 3 actions. One player could benefit without taking an action at all...

• Player #1 plays The Council's Offer.
• Player #1 unlocks a lock.
• Player #2 unlocks a lock and takes another action.
• Player #3 unlocks a lock and takes another action.
• All 4 players enjoy a new card in play.

I do think I'd limit it to non-Ally Assets. It doesn't make sense for a southern grifter to be crammed in a locked chest with a stray cat and the local high school's star football player. Limiting to non-Ally Asset cards might also allow the unlocking cost to come down a bit. 1 action to play and 6 actions to unlock seems high in a game where action economy is super important.

For a solo player, you'd be effectively spending 7 actions to get 3-5 resources and a card of your choice. That's not great.

Thats a good way of looking at it that I haven't thought of before.

I think your analysis is missing the part where you need to spend 2 actions to make a skill check at target 5. Since you are spending 2 actions to do this, you will want a very high probability of success. I could argue whether you want a +2 or a +4 here, but the key point is you will also be spending additional resources/cards to get to a 7-9 (I usually play normal). That is also part of the cost.

25 minutes ago, Jobu said:

Thats a good way of looking at it that I haven't thought of before.

I think your analysis is missing the part where you need to spend 2 actions to make a skill check at target 5. Since you are spending 2 actions to do this, you will want a very high probability of success. I could argue whether you want a +2 or a +4 here, but the key point is you will also be spending additional resources/cards to get to a 7-9 (I usually play normal). That is also part of the cost.

That's fair. I still think it's a good trade off though.

21 hours ago, KrisWall said:

That's fair. I still think it's a good trade off though.

I am willing to concede that I may be to harsh on the card. Not sure I would use it, but I wouldn't discourage others from doing so.

I think something about the Council of Coffers should be based on the number of players though. Maybe 1 lock per player, or you can play up to 3 cards in any combination from any players deck, etc. I mostly play 2 player, and I don't think this would be worth the cost in 2 player.

20 hours ago, monorico said:

I think something about the Council of Coffers should be based on the number of players though. Maybe 1 lock per player, or you can play up to 3 cards in any combination from any players deck, etc. I mostly play 2 player, and I don't think this would be worth the cost in 2 player.

It's definitely a card that rewards more players. Fixed cost, but benefit scales with more players. I agree that it wouldn't see much play for solo or 2 player games.

On 10/17/2017 at 7:13 AM, Jobu said:

For the coffer, the ability to pull any card is very good and is basically unique. Also anyone notice you don't need to reshuffle your deck, so you do get to know what order the rest of your cards will come out in.

You always shuffle your deck after a full (as in, not limited by number of cards) deck search,