Hi guys. Today I got a pack of the Terror of the Tides - AP from an Ebay win (yay !) ...and I got to look at the Terror of the Tides creature card, as well as Endless Interrogation x3 from The Thing from the Shore pack which also came in the mail at the same time.

Anyways...a few things immediately struck me, and I wanted to bring them up and see if I am "correct", or what you all think about them, in general.

Terror of the Tides: (Cthulhu) - Cost-6 // Terror - Combat - Combat // Toughness +5 - 4 Skill

Now...that is "okay" for what you get there.....I guess....though I find 6-cost a bit high, the fact he does have Toughness +5 makes him nigh-unkillable to standard damage-dealing methods....so, overall not too bad.

HOWEVER...his Special Ability // Card Text is:

Action: Pay 3 to put The Terror of the Tides into play from your hand. Then, give The Terror of the Tides 4 wounds.

Now this is the part I find a bit ludicrous / sneaky / amazing. Basically, you are able to pay HALF the cost to play the card directly from your hand as an Action...meaning you can use it as a surprise Defender after your opponent announces which of his characters he is committing to which stories. The only drawback to this way of putting him into play is you must give him 4-Wounds. However...if you think about it....since he's Toughness+5...he actually takes 5-Wounds...before the 6th one finishes him off. So giving him only 4-Wounds means he basically comes onto the board as a 3-cost character with Terror - 2-Combat Icons - Toughness+1 ...and 4-Skill !

That seems like a MASSIVE value for resources-paid ...and actually makes it (seemingly) stronger than if you payed the full 6-for it (most of the time). I was even more surprised when I realized that it was NOT Unique...meaning you can throw three in a deck, and have no worries about having multiples out at once !

Am I right in thinking he's a great card that would be good in most Cthulhu decks, if merely for the "SURPRISE" - committing ability he can have on Defense when played directly from your hand ?

---------

Endless Interrogation - Okay...so I finally read this card. Now...the simple and easy way to understand this is you suceed at the story...throw this card out and make your opponents discard a card...then pay 1 to put it back into your hand. And that's it. That seems the way "logic" would suggest you play it ...and the way that the card was "meant" to be played.....but the Errata FFG have put out seems to take the card to a ridiculous level of power. Now...upon winning the same story in the above "possible" example of playing it....you pay the same "0" cost...and cause them to discard a card...but since they say you can play it multiple times "in the same event window" - after it is returned to your hand...you essentially (with just the 3-starting domains open for use) - can make the foe drop 4-cards with a single Endless Interrogation in your hand (the last time you use it you just don't pay the 1-to get it back in hand, yet make the foes toss a final - 4th card - from their hands).

So....I ask....this card - ON ITS OWN - seems quite useful in most decks (well, has to be Hastur / Agency - pretty much - or just Hastur, I guess since it's a zero-cost and only needs 1-Hastur resource in play for your side to play the card).

But when coupled with the Magah Birds - Seventy Steps combo......how does the opponent survive ?

My Magah - 70-Steps deck has been crushing my other decks in solo playtesting (even with me trying hard against it with the opposing decks)....and now I am able to add Endless-Int. into the mix ?

Now...on the second turn...my opponents stuff will come into play Exhausted (assuming the Steps came out on my Turn-1, after the 3-Birds joined the action)....and I send in the three birds...taking 2-Success Tokens on each Story....THEN...I toss Endless Int....and do the above 4-card process...whereby my opponent is now down to probably ZERO cards in his hand....this assumes he drew his 2-cards on his Turn-1...giving him 7-cards in hand....put one down as a resource, then played 1-Character (Exhausted from the Steps) - from his hand....leaving him with 5-cards for when my turn rolls around...and I throw in the Birds and hit him with -5 Cards from the Endless Int.

How would any deck recover from that kind of abuse so early in the game ? (this is not counting all the other sneaky / powerful cards that I have like Victoria G. - Agoraphobia - The Sirens of Hell - Blind Submission - etc !)

Two points:

1. Terror of the Tides is an excellent card and I run x3 in my Yogthulhu Waves of Destruction deck. Strong yes, broken no.

2. What you are discussing is a totally broken archtype that should be fixed on several levels. It is tough to decide if the cards need to be delt with individually with errata or if a couple of bans would do the trick better. Assuming errata here would be my picks:

Endless: Add OPT clause or 1 cost.

Birds: "...enter play from your hand...." (you get 2 for 1 not 3)

Steps: Add at the beginning, "If this is not your first turn..." or add to the Action, "...any player may trigger this effect."

BTW, one thing you need to do in order to feel the full wrath is proxy up x8 Sledge Dogs and see how that ramps it up a bit more. To be clear, I do not think Sledge Dogs are a problem outside of this deck...

QUESTION: Does anyone know if FFG has this stuff on their radar at all??? Will they do anything about it? Will we ever see Gangsters Moll in the game again? (I had to sneak that one in...)

Sirens of Hell are a waste of space in the deck...

This is probably true....if I was solely going for the Steps - Birds - abuse - thing....but I was trying to make it not quite as cut-throat as it could be (IE - I'm not trying to copy the GenCon champs or French champs - Hastur / Agency - decks card for card - because that would be truly crazy good / overpowered / no fun for my opponent). This is why I threw in some lesser cards that would still be thematic for Hastur ....(like Sirens).

They cost zero...so it's not like (if the game went on for a bit) if I threw Victoria out...insaned' one of his guys ...then played a 0-cost Sirens to kill that guy - that I'd be losing all that much....and if the game is over before that due to Steps - Birds goofiness, than it doesn't matter anyways :-)

I was thinking about Endless Interrogation last night, wrote up a massive post, then decided not to post it as it was just me babbling about nothing.

But basically, the conclusion I came to was that using it multiple times in one story phase action block, or whatever it's called, isn't that big a deal as it is triggered. If you had multiple cards, all which triggered from the same thing, you would be able to use them all, one after the other. So I don't think Endless is overpowered, I think it's just part of a vicious combo with Birds and Steps. The "counter", if you will, for Endless is to not let your opponent win a story card. The counter to Magah - Steps on the first turn is to make a very sad face and hope the opponent feels bad for your pathetic self and says "Alright, I won't play that." So I would disagree that logic and the natural interpretation of Endless is that it would only be played once per story-win, otherwise it wouldn't have the "pay 1 to pick up" line in there, in my opinion.

Birds, definitely, "enters play from your hand." That just seems like an oversight to me on the part of card designers, Endless seems like it was made to do exactly what it does.

BTW, thanks for starting the great threads, Rosh.

Rosh87 said:

I wasn't talking about the powerlevel here (I really don't care about plevel, I refuse to put neutral cards in my decks for example). Sirens is just a bad card that's useless most of the time.

Some things that make this card bad:

1. It's steadfast 2H, which means even though it's free you still 2H resources attached to your domains to play it (can be relevant for 2-faction decks).

2. Why would you want to destroy a guy who went insane? You've put him out of the picture for a turn or two, that should be enough.

3. To be able to use this card you first need to drive someone insane, which can prove pretty hard at times.

My general idea when constructing a deck is to limit the number of cards that require other cards, or cards that require a specific situation to work to minimum (best option is to have none of those). If your card requires others/specific situation to work you will often (even involuntarily) attempt to force the situation where you can use such card and this really takes away a portion of your flexibility and puts you into schematic play and that's never good.

Terror of the Tides is one of the APs I skipped from the first cycle, but curious about something. In a Cthulhu vs Cthulhu match-up, if your opponent has Terror in play, can you use the Action: on your Terror and put 4 wounds on your opponent's Terror?

I don't think it should be possible. At least not in a fair play environment.

Yeah - I would definitely second that (can only wound your OWN Terror of the Tides in a head-to-head match with Cthulhu) - as it would be "Cheeky" to the extreme (as the brits might say) to play it otherwise.

Also - thanks HappyDD ! - for your kind compliment. I try to ask good questions (when I do ask questions) and enjoy discussing / reading about tactical approaches to games like this (or wargames - like Conflict of Heroes, Memoir 44' - etc) that I've played in the past. Having a big base of players here with a wide range of experience and insight makes it all the more interesting to talk about these things with each other.

- Lastly - on Sirens - (Manitou) - I did end up taking them out of my current iteration, and threw in a few other Agency cards and characters to balance things out. I think I had them in because I wanted to use them in conjunction with Hastur, Lord of Carcosa (awesome card !) - but I need a unified theme for that, and Hastur costs a lot to be in a "rush deck" like this, I concluded.

I would welcome ideas from you or others as to how you could do a Hastur deck - (not relying on the Birds / Steps combo) - which focused on ideally getting him out and dominating from that point on....(or winning earlier, if possible of course). I almost think you'd have to do Cthulhu // Hastur if you went for a "big creature" type approach, since you would need their direct damage // removal stuff to fend off small-char-rush decks for the first 4-turns or so, right ?

I'm still not quite sure. I mean, with the Emerging Deep One you can exhaust an opponent's Cthulhu character for his Forced.

The way I read it is that wounding TotT is part of the Action cost and you cannot pay costs with your opponent's cards.

Tokhuah said:

The latter part of the sentence has been a matter of debate in the Rules section, specifically if you can play Pulled Under to exhaust an opponent's character with TT to destroy one non-Ancient One character (presumably from the same opponent). I thought very much along your lines (can't pay costs with opponent's cards), but Professor mentioned not finding anything to back that up, nor could I when I looked.

Well....I would argue (from my position of limited game-experience, I admit !) - that Pulled Under is quite different in wording than the idea of wounding an opponents Terror of the Tides when Your own one enters play.

Pulled Under states, at its only prerequisite, that you must exhaust a character with 2-Terror Icons....to choose and destroy an exhausted non-Ancient One character (pretty clear that the target of the destruction effect must be someone OTHER than the person who had the 2-Terror Icons, whom you just exhausted as part of playing the card).

Thus, it seems fairly intuitive that you could exhaust an opponents card - if the 2-Terror Icons were present (this is something FFG will have to clarify in Errata, I would think, because I can just as easily see them saying "Pulled Under; (Errata) - "Exhaust a character you control to..." - the next time they print up a FAQ). But for now, we have nothing to go on but the base wording and the way similiar cards work - so Pulled Under seems viable when used in this fashion.

Terror of the Tides seems different, to me, since it is a Character Card - for one thing (not an Event / Spell) - and furthermore, just reading it's actual rules text: Action: Pay 3 to put The Terror of the Tides into play from your hand. Then, give The Terror of the Tides 4 wounds.

...we can see it's very clear that it's talking about THIS exact Terror of the Tides card you are holding in your hand at that moment. If you pay the cost, you get to put THIS (the one you are holding) Terror of the Tides (card) into play .... THEN (when - oh, AFTER you put that card from your hand into play)....give..(give what ?) The Terror of the Tides 4 wounds (whose ? which ? - well...unless you are purposely being dumb - the one you just put down from your hand, that we (the writers of this card text !) have been referencing for the past sentence !!!

So...Terror of the Tides would require you to be "extremely gamey / cheap" - and try and make the argument that everything on the card's text is referring to YOUR copy of Terror of the Tides that you have in your hand.....EXCEPT for the last part when it comes to giving wounds out....then THAT section can refer to ANY copy of Terror.... that's pretty weak, by any standard of logic / argument ....and is much different than the clearly open wording for Pulled Under, IMHO.

This is my view, at least.

(also - let's not forget, as others have mentioned - Terror of the Tides is a brutally awesome card as is...especially when you DO play it from your hand - for what you are paying (3) - you get a really nice card, with Toughness+1 ....that can come in and surprise a foe who was on the attack and didn't expect another strong enemy monster could be in his way. If we actually felt that it could (in rare cases, admittedly) - be even FURTHER ridiculous, by killing off enemy Terrors just because it entered play after them....well....I think that would be "A Bridge Too Far". . .)

To me, both are costs related to playing the card for its effect. So if one is okay, then the other should be as well. Or neither.

Rosh87 said:

My son has this theory (which sounds reasonable to me):

You can think of it like this. Whenever the card says The Terror of the Tides, it really means this card. Other wise it would say a card named The Terror of the Tides. Never in the text is there any option to pick another character.

I think he inherits this logic from other games (like MtG) but it seems to make sense here as well.

I agree. Every card should be read and used with the unwritten "good will" rule, which would mean no trying to look to gain an edge at all costs.

That includes cards like Pulled Under, TTotT and so on.

Dam said:

Is Professor saying you can pay the cost on a card with opponent's resources? He must be a Slavering Gug in disguise... LOL

If you refer to the "Paying Costs" section in the FAQ the text on Pulled Under clearly falls under Cost: Exhaust To: do something. Cost:To is defined clearly enough in the FAQ though not always templated in the best way on the cards. SEE PAGE 9 OF THE FAQ FOR DETAILS.

Regarding Terror of the Tides please check the FAQ under: Multiple Effects and the Word "Then". Even though this might not be as clear as the example above it does set a precedent for a clause that includes a self referential cause and effect.

Tokhuah said:

I think I must be missing something? I just re-read page 9 of FAQ 1.2 in the section Paying Costs (v1.1) and I don't see anything about exhausting characters, or that the payment for a trigger can only be performed on the active player's card or the like.

Some things, like "Sacrifice" are clearly defined (in the rule book) to mean only character controlled by the player; Paying resource points are well defined as using your own domains.

What am I missing here? I am getting old and increasingly prone to error!

You have to admit that the Exhausting of the card is a cost requirement by definition. In terms of a more global application we are talking about "Pay X to do Y".

I admit there is something missing in the FAQ/Rules. However, the game would break completly if you could pay the cost of cards with your opponent's cards/resources except for when sacrificing.

Actully, I am shocked that this simple game mechanic rule is not somewhere in the FAQ (it is not of course).

Tokhuah said:

Quoted for truthery and great justice.

I might shoot a message over to Board Game Geek (Chris Long) - and ask him since he's played in many tournaments and is a past champion - how he's seen Pulled Under (and similiar effects like we are talking about here) - played in formal FFG-organized settings. That would at least give a semi-definitive ruling - absent a FAQ entry (which, as you both noted - SHOULD be there - considering how significant a change in the game it would make if you could / or could not - perform certain actions like we are referencing).

To be honest, I never even considered using somebody elses card as part of a payment required to play a card. Perhaps its assumption on my part considering past experience with Magic, but it seems obvious (to me) that it is intended to be a detriment to your own card in this instance.

I honestly doubt Cannon (Chris Long) would disagree. Frankly though, the only remotely semi offical response you will get is if Hata or Lang or some other designer decides to chime in.

Action: Pay 3 to put The Terror of the Tides into play from your hand. Then, give The Terror of the Tides 4 wounds.

Is significantly different than other 'come into play' abilities such as victoria glasser:

Forced Response: After Victoria Glasser enters play, choose a character. That character goes insane.

You do not choose a Terror of Tides. The terror of the tides effect refers to itself.

I think there is a clear understanding of "Pay" - this comes from the active player's resources. But if there is no language restriction (exhaust one of your characters; exhaust an opponent's character...) why would it be limited to your own?

When an action says "Choose a character." Does this have to be one of your own? It is part of the cost...

If not, why is "Choose a character" different than "Exhaust a character"?

A Call for Help says "Exhaust a character you control...." Why put in "...you control..." if it is already required by the rules?

Yeah, I have to admit - Professor has a point there.....why include certain quantifying words in SOME cards - but not in others - if we are to assume that ALL of them have (in invisible words !) - those same quantifiers ?

Like...if they wanted Pulled Under to be ONLY your guys....why wouldn't they just have added the words, "Exhaust a character you control, with 2-Terror Icons to..." ?