I don’t have extensive experience with EoD, but I don’t think there is one. City actions are unique to each city.
I might be wrong, not very familiar with Riverwatch.

The product is only incomplete because in their heads people make it to be. It's the same thing where people say they have an, "incomplete" game because they don't have all the promo materials. Which, in any other context, would be absurd. It would be like saying you don't have a, "complete car" because you don't have the leather seats or the supercharged V8 engine that were offered as the premium additions. And so you won't be happy with the car at all. It's stupid.
A single core is marketed for 1-2 players. That is completely fair. You can play 2 players with 1 core. And the more fair way to think about it is that the entry point for the game is to buy 2 cores. So the, "base game" will cost you $65. Is that acceptable? Yes? Buy it. No? It's not. Then don't buy it.
You're getting extras because you're buying 2 copies of a game marketed to be for 1-2 players. So you want a 3-4 player version produced? Ok. It's not being made. Is this going to ruin your life? Is this worth months of deliberations? If you could buy the 3-4 player version for $50 would that make you infinitely happier? Is saving $10-$15 a monstrous wave of cash so you can afford an extra 1-month installment of the game?
People have made a big stink out of this. So other people feel entitled and justified to make a  big stick out of this. Even though the issue is silly, and the proffered arguments (waste of paper! deceptive marketing! only 1 leg of the pants!) are all specious talking points.

The product is only incomplete because in their heads people make it to be. It's the same thing where people say they have an, "incomplete" game because they don't have all the promo materials. Which, in any other context, would be absurd. It would be like saying you don't have a, "complete car" because you don't have the leather seats or the supercharged V8 engine that were offered as the premium additions. And so you won't be happy with the car at all. It's stupid.
A single core is marketed for 1-2 players. That is completely fair. You can play 2 players with 1 core. And the more fair way to think about it is that the entry point for the game is to buy 2 cores. So the, "base game" will cost you $65. Is that acceptable? Yes? Buy it. No? It's not. Then don't buy it.
You're getting extras because you're buying 2 copies of a game marketed to be for 1-2 players. So you want a 3-4 player version produced? Ok. It's not being made. Is this going to ruin your life? Is this worth months of deliberations? If you could buy the 3-4 player version for $50 would that make you infinitely happier? Is saving $10-$15 a monstrous wave of cash so you can afford an extra 1-month installment of the game?
People have made a big stink out of this. So other people feel entitled and justified to make a  big stick out of this. Even though the issue is silly, and the proffered arguments (waste of paper! deceptive marketing! only 1 leg of the pants!) are all specious talking points.

Agreed. Trading an xp for a resource seems like the weakest way to spend it. It is a very minor benefit towards actually winning the game and an always available option. Sure, it's nice that it's in the beginning. And sure, it helps Rogues get into their sometimes expensive setup. And sure, you're guaranteed to get it. But still. It's 2 resources. It's not crazy game breaking. Lockpicks help you win the game. Lola Santiago helps you win the game. Skeleton Key helps you win the game. Pocketwatch helps you win the game. Ace in the Hole helps you win the game. Sure Gamble helps you win the game. Charisma helps you win the game. And there's good utility in Pickpocketing, High Roller, Lucky Dice, etc. 
And Seekers have so many places to drop xp. So many. Studious has value later in the game once you've upgraded your deck with powerful cards that'll make a big impact. But it's in the last places I'd spend xp, not the first. If there's any Seeker cards which warrants an xp adjustment it's Pathfinder imo.
 

If anyone has a use for Calling in Favors it would be Leo. Allowing you to dig for Mitch Brown is a pretty good thing. Although would depend somewhat on how many Allies you have in your deck now, obviously.

I've got my reviews up as well.
I mostly agree with you except on the Scroll of Secrets (I don't think the Mystic version is worth 3 XP even with other scrying effects, and I feel the Seeker version is actually pretty good). I will say that we'll probably see more decks with the Rogue Thompson than the Guardian one, but only because the former has less competition.
And I love the "?/?" rating for Council's Coffer. I love that card just because I know we'll get stories about how it triggered at just the right time to save the campaign, right alongside stories of the party running into bad chaos draws and fiddling with the locks until world crashed down around their heads. I have no idea if it's worth it as an amortized sort of thing, but it's fun and thematic and absolutely perfect for the Lodge-themed pack.

Whatever else is being discussed on this thread around machete etc. I must say I would tend to agree with this, on the face of it Drawing Thin seems to be a go to card that has some ridiculous potential... so it seems interesting that the taboo list is released at almost exactly the same time as a new card that feels like it should almost immediately be part of that list....

Edit to remove phote

https://imgur.com/gallery/zBFD7sJ

So Return to Carcosa has been announced with an upgraded .32 Colt for 2xp. There's a number of reasons to buy that over a 2xp Machete which now gets diminished even further.

There's a flip side here. Which is that Rogues can't choose the 1 resource for 1 stat bump.  On Standard, being +2 to the test is where we aim for as a balance between cost and probability of success. So if they're already +1 and would rather spend 1 resource for a 1 bump, they can't. Instead they have to spend 2 resources and overshoot where they'd ideally be. And then maybe lack the resource to try to efficiently try that test twice. So sure, it's more efficient in some ways. But it's actually less efficient in others. And that tradeoff gets routinely ignored.
Higher Ed's restriction also gets continually glossed over. There's certainly some scenarios that will mill your hand. And maybe you want to keep playing cards that you want in play. Now, Seekers are in a decent position to solve this with cards that give you card draw. But that restriction isn't nothing.
Oddly, surprisingly?, I didn't read any post in the 4 pages that I agreed with as much as the OP; although there were definitely a number that I agreed with some. The Mutated list all makes sense and I have no problem with any of the changes. All of them bring down the power of the cards into a way that are still usable and in line with many others. All of the Limited List is garbage with the possible exception of Elusive which is a sneaky great card. 
Machete - Lots of people use it. Great. That isn't necessarily a problem. Every kitchen in America contains eggs & flour. Does that mean that they're overpowered in recipes? Or that they're just a nice, basic starting point. If the favorite default weapon was from Seeker then that would be a problem. But having something that allows a class to reliably, but not amazingly, do their job is a very sensible and reasonable starting point. It's not like it creates a situation where Guardians then ignore future weapons. Buying new weapons is pretty much the first thing they spend xp on. Because they don't want to settle just making a simple flour & egg batter. They want to go buy the steak. And frankly Enchanted Blade already replaces Machete in some decks. Machete is a very good 0xp weapon. I can't see many people spending 4xp to get 2 copies in their decks in the future. I would spend the 1 extra xp on Timeworn Brand and then rely on Guardian's various weapon seeking cards to pull it. Or 2 more xp on Stick to the Plan and largely solve the trade-off on the bigger guns by putting in Custom Ammo, Extra Ammo, or upgraded Emergency Cache to overload the guns which are supposed to be balanced by limited uses.
Switchblade - This seems just fine as is. It's not fantastic. It relies on the Rogues over-success to be really useful. And they're not the class that is set to consistently over succeed on combat. Frankly it's a marginal add at even 2xp.
Higher Ed - Obviously this has been talked about forever as being one of the best cards in the game. So nerf'ing it somehow makes sense and would be expected. But changing Milan to once per turn weakens it significantly just on its own. Seekers aren't resource generators, other than Milan. And the 5-card restriction does come into play with some regularity. If you wanted to bring it down making it cost an exorbitant amount of xp is both ham-handed and  unwieldy. Seekers already have a smorgasbord of things to spend xp on. In TFA I used Ursula and granted she has access to some expensive relics, but I finished with something like 67 xp and still had another 10-15xp that I could have productively used. Putting it at 8xp doesn't fix it at all; it just makes it really expensive. Even off the cuff fixes could have been using it max once per test or unlimited in one test but only one test per turn in exchange for removing the 5-card restriction would've been totally fine, especially once you tweak Milan and Rex.
Streetwise - See above. Sure, it's more efficient in giving you +3 to a test. But less efficient in giving you +1. And I agree with the person earlier who said that gaining resources is one of the strongest class identifies for Rogues. And making this less attainable weakens that entire class of cards. And even then I find the idea that Rogues have a limitless bank account to be specious. Sure, Preston has a lot of money. But that's who he is. Jenny gets an extra resource per turn. But that just lets her improve a test per turn, without having anything leftover to play new cards. Moreover it doesn't obviate Hard Knocks as Hard Knocks lets you increase combat; Streetwise doesn't. 3xp seems fine. If you want to bump it to 4 then, well, ok. But 8 is just silly. That's the same as the Pocket Watch which is amazing.
Scrapper - Eh. I guess increasing to 4 or 5 is ok. It is pretty good and can make a big difference in the game. But as someone else said above, is this really worth being the place that FFG breaks the 3xp ceiling for Survivors? That was both a frustrating but thematically amusing restriction and class definition. It's a pity and bit of a shame to break that mold just for something they already had.

I don't know that Ancient Evils is a mistake per se, it's just not very interesting. It does not offer any choices or player agency other than canceling it. There are other encounter cards you could say similar things about it, but yes, it also can be a bit swingy depending on player count and the number of cards in the encounter deck. 
The issue is that it is one of the sets in the core, which means it is likely to be reused in additional campaigns since all campaign stand alone and will only draw from the core or their own included encounter cards. So instead of taking encounter cards in the deluxe expansion (which is a design space that I assume is limited) to alter the card to that campaign and tweak it (but effectively have it do the same thing, advance doom), it's probably fine to leave it as it is and then update the set in Return to Boxes specific to the cycle. 

So Return to Carcosa has been announced with an upgraded .32 Colt for 2xp. There's a number of reasons to buy that over a 2xp Machete which now gets diminished even further.

There's a flip side here. Which is that Rogues can't choose the 1 resource for 1 stat bump.  On Standard, being +2 to the test is where we aim for as a balance between cost and probability of success. So if they're already +1 and would rather spend 1 resource for a 1 bump, they can't. Instead they have to spend 2 resources and overshoot where they'd ideally be. And then maybe lack the resource to try to efficiently try that test twice. So sure, it's more efficient in some ways. But it's actually less efficient in others. And that tradeoff gets routinely ignored.
Higher Ed's restriction also gets continually glossed over. There's certainly some scenarios that will mill your hand. And maybe you want to keep playing cards that you want in play. Now, Seekers are in a decent position to solve this with cards that give you card draw. But that restriction isn't nothing.
Oddly, surprisingly?, I didn't read any post in the 4 pages that I agreed with as much as the OP; although there were definitely a number that I agreed with some. The Mutated list all makes sense and I have no problem with any of the changes. All of them bring down the power of the cards into a way that are still usable and in line with many others. All of the Limited List is garbage with the possible exception of Elusive which is a sneaky great card. 
Machete - Lots of people use it. Great. That isn't necessarily a problem. Every kitchen in America contains eggs & flour. Does that mean that they're overpowered in recipes? Or that they're just a nice, basic starting point. If the favorite default weapon was from Seeker then that would be a problem. But having something that allows a class to reliably, but not amazingly, do their job is a very sensible and reasonable starting point. It's not like it creates a situation where Guardians then ignore future weapons. Buying new weapons is pretty much the first thing they spend xp on. Because they don't want to settle just making a simple flour & egg batter. They want to go buy the steak. And frankly Enchanted Blade already replaces Machete in some decks. Machete is a very good 0xp weapon. I can't see many people spending 4xp to get 2 copies in their decks in the future. I would spend the 1 extra xp on Timeworn Brand and then rely on Guardian's various weapon seeking cards to pull it. Or 2 more xp on Stick to the Plan and largely solve the trade-off on the bigger guns by putting in Custom Ammo, Extra Ammo, or upgraded Emergency Cache to overload the guns which are supposed to be balanced by limited uses.
Switchblade - This seems just fine as is. It's not fantastic. It relies on the Rogues over-success to be really useful. And they're not the class that is set to consistently over succeed on combat. Frankly it's a marginal add at even 2xp.
Higher Ed - Obviously this has been talked about forever as being one of the best cards in the game. So nerf'ing it somehow makes sense and would be expected. But changing Milan to once per turn weakens it significantly just on its own. Seekers aren't resource generators, other than Milan. And the 5-card restriction does come into play with some regularity. If you wanted to bring it down making it cost an exorbitant amount of xp is both ham-handed and  unwieldy. Seekers already have a smorgasbord of things to spend xp on. In TFA I used Ursula and granted she has access to some expensive relics, but I finished with something like 67 xp and still had another 10-15xp that I could have productively used. Putting it at 8xp doesn't fix it at all; it just makes it really expensive. Even off the cuff fixes could have been using it max once per test or unlimited in one test but only one test per turn in exchange for removing the 5-card restriction would've been totally fine, especially once you tweak Milan and Rex.
Streetwise - See above. Sure, it's more efficient in giving you +3 to a test. But less efficient in giving you +1. And I agree with the person earlier who said that gaining resources is one of the strongest class identifies for Rogues. And making this less attainable weakens that entire class of cards. And even then I find the idea that Rogues have a limitless bank account to be specious. Sure, Preston has a lot of money. But that's who he is. Jenny gets an extra resource per turn. But that just lets her improve a test per turn, without having anything leftover to play new cards. Moreover it doesn't obviate Hard Knocks as Hard Knocks lets you increase combat; Streetwise doesn't. 3xp seems fine. If you want to bump it to 4 then, well, ok. But 8 is just silly. That's the same as the Pocket Watch which is amazing.
Scrapper - Eh. I guess increasing to 4 or 5 is ok. It is pretty good and can make a big difference in the game. But as someone else said above, is this really worth being the place that FFG breaks the 3xp ceiling for Survivors? That was both a frustrating but thematically amusing restriction and class definition. It's a pity and bit of a shame to break that mold just for something they already had.

I keep finding myself agreeing partially with everyone.
I've played Stick to the Plan rather routinely with my Guardians, in particular with my all Guardian team. And it tends to be my first upgrade. Even with nothing else it can store a pair of Emergency Caches and cut deck size by 2 making it easier to draw and afford starting weapons. With a few more xp a Prepared for the Worst, Extra Ammunition, and Custom Ammunition go in, making upgrading past a simple .45 (0) almost unnecessary, particularly if you manage to draw a Reliable, and now a Well-Maintained, early enough. Depending on the campaign, it would probably be my first upgrade if it cost 8 xp, and maybe even at a dizzying 10 xp. I find it is just that good, that often - for my style of play.
As for the Bonus Slots versus Permanent Talents, I don't use Relic Hunter, but Charisma is the only card that can displace Stick to the Plan for Leo. Having used them, I find there is a "combo requirement" for both types.
Yes, you have to draw and play the Allies (or Relics) for Bonus Slots to work, but presumably you are stacking your deck to begin with. When you have 2 copies each of 5 Allies in a Leo deck, that's a full third of your deck. You have to be all kinds of stupidly unlucky not to have 1 in your hand for at least half the game. With Leo's ability, he always has an action to play them, and with the discount, he almost always has the resources. Other investigators have to work a bit more, but it is far from impossible. I've "used" Charisma almost every scenario I've had it with an Investigator with an Ally deck. Conversely, having just Peter Sylvestre and Leo De Luca in your deck and counting on both to show up all the time is a great way to waste 3 xp on Charisma.
For the Skill Cards, you still have to get the resources, and for Higher Education the cards in hands. Doing that requires actions that are often not directed at winning the game - gathering clues and killing enemies. Getting rich doesn't win scenarios. If a Rogue spends 2 actions every turn to get rich enough to Investigate or Fight once, that's not going to win long term. That includes spending the first 3 turns stocking up and then cruising. The Encounter Deck may have left you in the dust by the time you are ready to start playing. As for sitting on cards to fuel Higher Education, it seems it works about half the time for me. Either I get the 2-3 cards (like Death and good old Milan) in my starting hand and never have to play another so I can sit on everything I draw after that, or I don't, and I'm dropping cards left and right to skill checks all game, wondering if I will get to use Higher Education in the next scenario. While I have started taking it as a "mandatory" upgrade, I always find myself looking at Arcane Insight and Guiding Stones and wondering if I should have bought one of those instead. I can easily understand passing on Higher Education for some more of those sweet, expensive Seeker spells and Task upgrades, or leaving Streetwise to grab Skeleton Key first, and then Ace in the Hole and The Gold Pocket Watch are staring at me.
Everything that cost resources has an action cost associated with it, and unless you play an all Skill deck, every card has a cost associated with it that impacts using Talents. That pushes the "value" of most cards back to being dependent on play style over card text.
 

Soakman:  Well... Relic Hunter is REALLY good.   Especially on Mystics.    But part of the whole Rogue THING  is being able to leverage resources into doing stuff.   This is why I guess Streetwise is particularly concerning to me.   It's like a cornerstone of making the entire rogue class work.   That's where the advantage of the rogue lies,   they have money.  They might not have as good of stats in combat or investigation as other classes, but they are supposed to be able to make up for that with their resources.   Streetwise Limited list just seems like putting an XP tax on what the rogue is supposed to be doing.

Alloymn:   You're right,   I have never seen a rogue regularly rocking 30+ resources they can spend on streetwise.  Ever.     I have a feeling that this is going to be a "well if you're playing Preston and you commit Watch This  with a double-or-nothing and etc, etc, etc....  and then you're pinning all of the blame on Streetwise.   I don't really think that's fair.   

Similarly I dont really think it's fair to compare your pretty ho-hum Minh investigator with a Daisy who has 10+ resources banked, with Pathfinder, Pnakotic Manuscripts, Milan, Deduction (2) Higher Ed and Guiding Stones.   Your minh has...  3 xp, and the XP she does have isn't  really relevant to the goal (finding clues)  your example sets up.   Where Daisy has 14 xp on the table and 10+ resources banked, and all of that is geared towards clue finding.   And again,  you're blaming that all on Higher Education where Higher Education is clearly only one cog in the machine.  

Do you feel the same for other permanents?   Such as:  Stick to the Plan, but also Relic Hunter and Charisma?   None of these made it on to the Limited list.  

I dunno,  I just can't quite agree on Higher Ed and Streetwise getting their massive XP cost increase.   In particular I feel that both Relic Hunter and Charisma are far more powerful cards that Streetwise,  and about as powerful as Higher Education.   It's super rare that a character deck I build doesnt pick up at least 1 of either Relic Hunter or Charisma eventually, and more often than not I consider it a priority when spending XP for the first couple of scenarios.  

Sure, the Permanent talents are permanent (duh..)  and they can give good bonuses.   But they still cost resources to use and you still have to spend them every time you want to use your card. 

I think deck-building and what a player prioritizes (in terms of actual game strategy, not theme) still varies quite a bit.
I personally build for flexibility and not consistency, which I know is not how MANY players build. I am the guy that has like 2 copies of 8 or so cards and then 14 singles because I just want more options. I want to be able to change my strategy to fit the situation, and that's something you lose when you pack a deck full of 2 of every card.
That being said, those 14 or so singles often have similar core functions but can reward play for different circumstances, and more often that not, if those situations do not arise, you can still commit them.

My priorities are also usually based around the team composition, so if we have 3 investigators that can adequately get clues, (even if I'm a seeker) I may not worry about that and pick up cards that may be less reliable than a clue-getting card on a seeker would be, but may help deal with other areas (Charles Ross for instance). I also am not really a big fan of Higher Education because of my playstyle. I don't like to lock myself into one strategy, and I like being able to play and commit cards without locking myself out of boosts. I know that Higher Education is great! Especially if you build good card draw, and use laboratory assistants etc, and that can be fun too, but I think the card pool is big enough (and balanced enough) to accommodate different playstyles without automatically making one deck feel inferior due to balancing problems.
But this desire for flexibilty often has me playing as a Rogue, Seeker, or Mystic. I feel that Guardian and Seeker are where most of the 'OP' cards seem to end up simply because they have very defined roles and straight-forward goals in mind when building those types of decks. It's hard to see other options when there is an obvious one right in front of you, but it doesn't mean the other options are inherently worse.
EDIT: The biggest 'issue' with higer ed for me, is that is permanent, which makes card choice less meaningful because you CAN include it in every seeker deck with no real reason not to. Even then, though, I still would not in someone like Minh, opting instead for something more interesting. 

I definitely acknowledge that there was thought about the lists and also a purpose to them. But (in my eyes) cards that are dominating are not necessarily cards that are imbalanced. Everyone recognizes that the main priorities of the game are getting clues and dealing with monsters. Cards that do these things are nearly always going to be played more frequently in decks than cards with more flexibility that do oddball things, I would think. Machete is a great card, Rex, Higher Ed, and key of Ys all let you do one or multiple of the core priorities of the game more reliably (sometimes better than other cards) but they are 2 cards in your deck at max. You may never even draw them, or you might be forced to play around them, etc.  
I'm very happy that the metagame is on Matt's priorities. I trust him to make the hard calls. 

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2019/4/23/the-black-book/  if you want to read it for yourself.

Some clarifications, minor adjustments to scenarios (including the fix to Scenario 2 of Circle Undone),  but 2 major things that struck me.

1.  Dunwich Investigators now have full access to "gold" cards.  I like this a lot, Zoey is no longer unfairly screwed out of taking the .45 thompson,  and this could have big implications for the Dunwich set and future "gold" cards.  I'm very glad they changed this,  so yay!

2a.  The limited list.   Well,  frankly I probably won't play with these.  I suppose they are trying to address things that some people have been asking for (though I dont really hear the complaints too loudly myself) about certain cards being too powerful.  But I think they went a bit overboard here, at least in some cases, while leaving other cases untouched.   I mean,  they're making higher education cost 8?   That's crazy town.   Once you go beyond the 5 XP mark, you're talking a card that you can't pay for after getting through a single scenario most of the time,   so you have to save up, and that makes a huge difference.  Don't get me wrong, Higher Ed is a good card,  but it's not an 8 xp card.   That's too much.   5 for scrapper?  also crazy town, survivors are already hurting,  do we really need to damage one of their few good cards?   Also,   NOW is the time you decided to break the "3xp max for survivor cards" rule?   For this?  .  And do we really need to hurt the level-2 switchblade by making it cost an extra experience?  really?  

2b.  Mutated list.   These I actually really like.    It's like night and day here.   The limited list seems just wrong on so many levels to me,  while the mutated list seems entirely reasonable in every case.   Love these optional changes.

The individual scenarios in TFA were, by and large, good with a few that felt, "Oh, c'mon!!" Its weaknesses and frustrations were what they did between them.

The campaign log carries over from scenario to scenario.  That's how you would know from the rules.  It's like Doubt and Conviction from the Carcosa cycle.
Also Yig is a jerk.  If your snakes would stop biting me then I'd stop punching them in the face.  They started it.

Ah, that was it misread that part and did the swap block as well.
While I definitely liked it overall, the design on FA is REALLY big on contextless choices that have pretty major impacts later down the line.  Supplies are easily the worst offender, but we (should have) lost out on the extra scenario because we tried to be nice to Ichtaca and didn't tie her down and interrogate her?  Pfft.

Especially with regards to the Camera, but also to Henry (whose range is admittedly much smaller) I think we're reaching a point in the game where card analysis is going to have to start looking past just "good" or "bad", or "Good for Seekers", or even "Good for Daisy".  The card pool is big enough now that most major needs are covered.  If the only analysis left is "What helps Seekers get clues better" then the range of interesting cards is going to be very narrow, and the only thing available is power creep.
Instead it feels like we're starting to get cards that bring wider flexibility, but with a cost.  That cost won't be paying for all decks, even within the same investigator.  A clue gatherer/support Daisy won't want the Camera.  A spell slinging Daisy is another matter entirely.  Is it worth it for Mystics?  Probably not, but a Dark Horse Jim build, possibly.  This is a very good thing for the game, as it will enable a much broader and more interesting set of deck options.  I've seen this myself - Protective Incantation is generally considered awful, but in a bag control Norman build with Milan to fund it, it's incredible (hence my thoughts of what Henry could do paired with someone like that).
If the only thing we care about when we look at a card is how well it supports the very one-dimensional Seeker/Guardian play, it's going to miss a lot of what's coming.
 

The Camera seems to be pretty solidly aimed at Mystic/Seeker hybrids. As far as I can find it's the only hand slot that gives a willpower boost, and it still covers the intellect boost you could normally get from the slot (which is universal rather than just for investigation at that). Especially if you can afford the setup time, I can see a number of decks getting use out of it.