I am surprised that design did not learn their lesson from the Ritual cards in Eldrich Edition (See: Dream Summoning, etc.). Powerful zero (0) cost cards that pop back into a player's hand at a minimum drain cost are ridiculous. What can be worse than relativly free or low cost hand obliteration to create a completely dominant card that has the potential to make even casual envrionments NFE? The "requirement" is not enough to balance out the card because succeeding at a story is a relatively common thing to do at some point in a game even if your deck is jank. GenCon should be the file nail...

How should the errata suficiently nerf Endless Interrogation without completly burying it into uselessness? Give it a base cost of 1? Change the text to "Drain a Domain with at least 2 resources"? Something else? Of course banning is always an altenative solution becasue then there is an option to bring the card back in tact later on.

Ban. That is all. Anything else you do would make it vanish from sight, so you might as well ban it.

Chevee

You think if it cost 1 it would be completely useless?

Cost 1 means I would have to train 2 domains to play it the first time and lose it the second time. So it cuts the card advantage in half. I waste a turn to gain a 1 card advantage. That is vastly different than wasting a turn to gain a 3 card advantage. I could see people playing it for a single discard, but I would not. That's just me I suppose.

Chevee

Well, you did hit me with it three times last week (round 3 by the way). That was hurtful. Lost a Binding and Beneath the Surface.

If it cost one, and was less powerful, then it COULD still be used, but wouldn't be so dominant. And if the cards were less dominant then individual player skill would play a greater role, perhaps. Don't get me wrong - player skill is currently very important.

TheProfessor said:

Oh, no, I agree with you. Cost 1 means it is still theoretically playable and severely limits the speed issue. For me though, I'd choose Clover Club Executive as a better 3 cost discard 2. What I meant to say was that if it was cost 1, it would likely be an unwise addition to a competitive deck. Maybe not though, I've been wrong many times before.

Chevee

Only two times you can use it, right? Story one free and story two perhaps cost 1 for two cards randomly discarded from hand. How was it so abused to cause this discussion? Byakhee Attack.

Johnny,

The ruling is that you can play it, return it to your hand and play it again as many times as you like during one response window. So you only need to win a single story and you can play it as many times as you like.

Chevee

I've given this some thought....

Pick one:

1. Ban it - The easy way out. Banned cards suck though.
2. Cost 1 - Adjusting printed cost is usually taboo. Otherwise, ok.
3. Pay 3 to return- 2 is not enough of a restriction. Still lets me nab 3 cards on turn 2 which is still to much. However, paying 3 is likely to send it to crapville.
4. Returns at the end of the phase. My standard suggestion for all ritual-like effects. It keeps it's re-useablility and original flavor of the card without letting it break the game.

Of course, I recommend option #4.

Sigh...

I also wants FFG to choose the #4 possibility, as this card need'nt disappear totally.

Changing something in the rule to play the rituals differently would be far better : It would also create the possibility to create new cards that would bypass this restriction (imagine a Yog cost 5 character or something else to generate a big combo !

I agree on possibility #4, with a buyback cost of 2 as backup.

What about a card that deals with the problem. Rituals once per turn, or no ritual this turn, or sacrifice to play a ritual, raise the cost this turn, etc. Sounds like a too card-specific solution. But if it hits hard, you might think twice about packing Endless Interrogation.

Decipher used to boast that they had no banned cards in the Star Wars CCG. Inevitably, that led to broken cards being made, and then a "silver bullet" would have to be made in the next set to combat the previous meta. In short, it sucked. Having to decide to include a card or not guessing that your opponent was going to play a certain style of deck was horrible. Granted, some of these cards were powerful enough on their own, but overall I would have much rather seen banned cards.

Chevee

But what if this "silver bullet" addresses a general game dynamic we typically see? Granted, the old reducer rituals are now phased out. But with Endless Interrogation we see the same one turn loop. Perhaps those don't have to all be teetering on the edge of broken. I think MU could use such power, thematically, for that factions poor health, to give it dark horse status, and to fight power with risk. Disrupting a loop could allow for more powerful loop cards to emerge. Cthulhu faction, after all, excels at chomping itself when offering up something big.

He had overcome the Magah Birds and Victoria herself. He'd after all had her in class before, this. He had climbed those damnable steps. Singed in the cavern. But the dogs were on him. Not for the buckshot in his leg, he'd have welcomed the feeble safety of police interrogation. But this. He had promised not to say those awful words. He had seen the vile creature and would never now escape it. He could not bear to have it near, but near it would inevitably come anyway. He looked up at the puny detective with his ratty little eyes, and felt resolved. He had been through that sewer. Tracking it. And now, this sniveling agent, with two stories won and four success tokens on all three stories in play, wants my last three cards. All of them. Now. Have mercy on my tortured soul. What say you to this little problem. <crafting of some elder sign here, smoke, parallel universe, etc..> Take That!

The point #4 need to add subtype Ritual to Endless Interrogation.
A good alternative is also to pass cost to 1 (not a 0-cost card). You pay 1 to play it, you pay 1 to return it in your hand. its means with 3 domains you play the card up 2 times and can discard up to 2 cards. (point #2 is good for me)

I think I understand how the card works in practice, however, I am baffled as to how the FaQ ruling has been reached at. I simply don't get how the "use it multiple times because it's all one response 'window' " has been reasoned out. Surely in any other situation you can't play multiple responses to one trigger. Why is this not the same situation?

If I'm missing something here, please feel free to smack me down but I don't get it.

Magnus' option 4 seems like an obvious and relatively easy fix to the problem, and better than the first three. However, wouldn't this just weaken the card to non-competitive, or at best barely-competitive, status?

How about simply reworking the FaQ ruling to something like:

EI can be played once per story success, and on each occasion returned to hand for cost 1.

This would allow only one card discard on one story - you can commit to several to achieve up to three card discards per turn, but that would require at least three characters, all committed to different stories, as well as draining three domains. Retains the ability to be very good, but requires a greater commitment of effort / resources to achieve.