TheProfessor said:

You are right, there is generally an explicit statement as to what is being targeted. Terror of the tides lacks one, one way or the other.

I can see where the ultra literal reading potentially could be interpreted as anyone's terror of the tides, but the cost seems counter intuitive to do on other peoples characters. I still stand behind your own terror of the tides taking the 4 wounds however, and will continue to do so until official ruling is made either way. Very stubbornly in fact.

Suggesting to exhaust your opponent's 2 T character so that you can destroy another one of his characters with a 0 cost 2 steadfast card?

Seriously, think about that for a second. Does that sound like an even remotely reasonable way to interpret this ability and what implications such an interpretation would have for the game? Raised eyebrows should be expected with that interpretation.

I realize that this game could have tighter wording here and there but even Magic lacks perfect wording. There is a fine line between being literal and being the kind of person who take advantage of any sort of ambiguity in order to win a game. I feel this instance regarding Pulled Under an Terror of the Tides falls into the latter category.

One more thing. Is this how people play it in large tournaments? How do tournament judges rule this? Did somebody try to play that pulled under's or terror of the tides' can target an opponent's charater as part of the stipulation to play the card during Worlds at Gencon? How did Hata rule this?

Just to be clear on this debate....I totally support the "Wounds on Terror of the Tides must go on YOUR Terror of the Tides that you just laid out" - because that's just common-sense from reading the card ...all the other text refers to "that Terror in your hand that you are going to lay down by paying 3 ...." ....so naturally the following sentence about "give the Terror of the Tides 4-Wounds" - is also talking about that same Terror !

Pulled Under is one that is pretty vague though ...and much different, in my view, since there it looks like they PURPOSELY did NOT put "... you control ..." , when they COULD have ...and when they DO in many other cases, with many other cards. So I think there is much more going for the Pulled Under argument, using "rules as written" - logic - than for the Terror of the Tides wounds' concept.

Still...FFG should / must - clarify ....if all it needs is a simple Errata: "Pulled under....should read "...a character you control ..."

If that is the way they want us to play it ...then that's cool....but they should actually say so in a FAQ, so we aren't guessing on their main forum like this !

I also support the Terror of the Tides interpretation. It should have said "This Card", but in that absence should be treated that way.

The question keeps coming up about Pulled Under in tournaments. I have played some Regionals and a couple of Worlds events, but I have not experienced Pulled Under used in any of those, so have no answer to the question.

Chris Long raised a good point on BGG but I do think he might be mistaking AGoT rules for COC here.

www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/565260/pulled-under

He stated that:

"You can never pay costs with other players' cards. Therefore, you cannot exhaust another opponent's character in order to trigger an effect."

Unfortunately, I can find nowhere in the CoC rules or FAQ that supports this. It was however pointed out that it is stated in the AGoT FAQ. From what I understand, Chris plays a lot more AGoT nowadays so I imagine this is where the crossed wires occurred.

Hopefully he is right and he (or somebody else) responds with a citation as to where this is found within the relevant listing.

That thread you showed, Hellfury, was quite interesting. Long responded many times and made some solid points. I will take his input and just play Pulled Under that it must be MY guys getting exhausted (which is - I always felt - the intention of the card). He also makes an interesting point that FFG are very, very, very (he said it three times ) inconsistent at their wording / "templating" on many cards - and it causes unecessary confusion amongst the player base.

He was speaking about the difference between some cards saying ..."that you control"....and others not saying those words, when they otherwise should.

Good stuff though ! I'm glad he chimed in.

"You can never pay costs with other players' cards. Therefore, you cannot exhaust another opponent's character in order to trigger an effect."

This is what I have been saying all along. If you can pay for this cost with an opponent's Character then what is stopping you from doing same with Mr. S-Gug paying with an opponent's Domain? The game would break if you could do this.

For pulled under i got a french version that say

Action: déchargez un personnage que vous contrôlez et qui possède au moins 2 icônes (T) pour choisir et détruire un personnage déchargé.Celui-ci ne peut pas être un Grand ancien.

Quick traduction you must exhaust a character you control to do....

Hope that help

Great info, Joe. I suspect the French printers may have even asked FFG for clarification, prior to them creating the card/wording - or FFG did it themselves, then sent it out to French retailers (however the order is done). Pretty clear from that - plus all the other discussion - that you have to exhaust one of YOUR characters (or that you control) to do the effect.

Here's an interesting twist to it though..... what if it was your opponents' turn. He announces the start of the Story Phase. He says he has no Actions he wants to play, and starts to committ various characters, including one with 2-Terror Icons (say, Brood of Yig).... You (playing Hastur/Cthulhu) - announce an Action, and play Blind Submission - taking control of the 2-Skill Brood of Yig character, until the end of the Story Phase.

Meanwhile...he still has a few other guys committed to other stories. You then (in Control of him now, mind you) - EXHAUST the Brood of Yig (now sitting on your side of the table) ...and play Pulled Under...to target and destroy ANOTHER one of his characters, who are now exhausted from committing to the stories.

At the end of the Phase, the Brood of Yig is given back to the opponent (Blind Submission card's effect ends).

That would seem to be a valid way to use Pulled Under - while exhausting an opponents character - though you do have to have a combo with Hastur to pull it off, seemingly.

*** - Also - just a question, but when you "give back" at the end of the turn - a Character you controlled...do they go back to the opponent in the same condition they left your side on ? - IE - when you first take control of a character, committed to a story...the rules (FAQ) say they Refresh and uncommit, as they move over to your side of the table.....but if you then go on to Exhaust them (by using an effect they have or doing something like Pulled Under).. do they then return to the opponent's control - "Still Exhausted" - ?

That situation is indeed legit. Note however that there is an Action window after and before each commit step, so there is no "starts committing", at least not in a way that you can take Actions in between. Active Player Commits and Passive Player Commits are both "green boxes", no Actions can interrupt them. They return in the state they were in when the turn/phase ended.

SenseiJoe said:

Sigh... Why put different details on the same card in different languages!? It is frustrating! Assuming that the French cards were produced after the English cards, it may in fact be a correction on the part of FFG. But why not put in the FAQ?

Oversight?

That how I view the whole issue regardless of foreign language proof. Just a simple oversight.

This would support what Chris Long said over on BGG - then....that FFG (this game in particular) have often been lax in "proofreading" / - I forget the specific word he used - ie: sloppy - in terms of making sure their descriptions, etc- on cards are consistent and easy to understand.

- To Dam: So....a "gain control of enemy character" - effect can be doubly powerful...if used on their turn. Example...say they have a Guardian Pillar in play on their side...and an Agency Groundskeeper. They go to send in 2 other characters to attack a given story. You say...in reaction to that...

*** Dam - please check again on Page-15 of rulebook - cause I think we are saying the same thing, but I said it in different wording... basically...after Active Player Commits....there is an "Actions May be Played" - box. That is what I mean when I say "in reaction to" - I mean, you (the Defending player) are playing something at that point, but before you actually announce which of your characters will be committed in defense (if any) ***

.... (continued from above) ... you say, "I'll play this Blind Submission" card on your Agency Groundskeeper. He comes over to your side of the table. Until the end of the Story Phase, then, you have control of that character. After you have played that card...you ask if the opponent has any Actions they wish to play...they say "NO" and grumble that you took their Groundskeeper. You then announce (still in the same Action's May Be Played" window) - that you will EXHAUST your "just gotten" Agency Groundskeeper...to target and destroy their Location: Guardian Pillar !!!

Now you proceed with the Story Phase / Icon Struggles. At the end of this process, your opponent gets his Groundskeeper back....but here's the best part, from what we are saying here - he gets returned to them as he last was when you had him....in Exhausted state !

So not only have you destroyed their own Location card....but they have 1-less character available to defend on your upcoming attack, when your turn begins !

Blind Submission (and other similiar cards) =

Rosh87 said:

Yes, but you can't use Blind Submisson + Pulled Under on your opponent's Brood of Yig as defender anymore, BiY is attacker and has been committed to the story, thus exhausted. From the way you worded it, I got the impression you were playing with the following sequence:

#1: Attacker announces which characters to commit (specifically, you used the phrase: "starts to commit various characters")

#2: Defender plays Blind Submission + PU on Brood of Yig (exhaust BoY and destroys another character)

#3: Attacker finally commits, exhausting characters

#1 and 3 happen inside the green box, so defender doesn't have the option of doing #2 at that point.

Or are you referring to the point that the attacker plays too fast and goes into the Active Player commits step before the defender has the chance to say "hey, wait, I have an Action to play"? The Action Window before Active Player commits is open until both players pass on taking Action, only after that can the Active player commit characters.

Let me be clear....(sound familiar ? lol)

What I was saying would be fun / sneaky to do in terms of Pulled Under ....would be the following sequence:

5.) Story Phase

Actions may be taken - neither player has any actions they wise to play at this point

(Active Player - Attacker) - Commits characters to stories. // Let's say he sends in Brood of Yig on one story, and a Hideous Guardian on the other one.

- Actions may be taken - (pg-15, Rulebook) - At THIS point...he has nothing further to play...but you say that you do....you (Defender) play Blind Submission, taking control of the Brood of Yig. The Rules // FAQ clarify that when you take control of a character "during the Story Phase" - they become UN-committed and "Refreshed" - and they are placed on "your side of the table" - so to speak, for you to control. Blind Submission allows this effect to last until "the end of the phase" - the Story Phase in this case.

Now...we are still in that same "Actions May Be Taken" - window. The opponent (Attacker) has nothing he wants to play in response to your taking control of the Brood of Yig...so the "do you want to take an action ?" - bounces back to us (the Defender).

At this point, we announce that...yes...we DO want to play another Action...and lay down Pulled Under....we pay for the cost of the card by exhausting the 2-Terror Iconed - Brood of Yig (whom we now control)....and aim the "Destruction effect" of the Pulled Under at the attacking Hideous Guardian.

The Hideous Guardian is destroyed.

- We (Defender) have no characters we need/want to commit to any stories, so there are no further Icon Struggles, and the Story Phase ends. A

- At the end of the Story Phase, we hand back the "still Exhausted" Brood of Yig character to our opponent. Now the opponent has no "ready" characters with which to oppose our attacks in our turn. So we not only thwarted his attacks on the stories....and destroyed one of his characters....but now we likely get to score unopposed Success Tokens on our attacking turn ! Yay !

-

Hopefully I described it better there, Dam ! :-)

Rosh87 said:

This is where your misreading comes in:

"When you gain control of a card, that
card’s status does not change. Thus,
if you gain control of an insane or
exhausted character, they remain insane
or exhausted." (FAQ, p. 8)

BoY is committed already and thus exhausted, you gain control, it leaves the story but remains exhausted.

I read the FAQ differently... you are quite right.

I think I was confusing this with Cavern of Flame -for some reason - which repels the character affected from a story - AND Readies them.... for some reason, my mind thought it applied in general to gaining control of something during a story.

That does put a damper on the shenanigans you can do with Pulled Under during a story...though you could still use it in their Ops-Phase...and hopefully target a character that has exhausted to produce some effect (card draw or something).

Easiest way....just use it on your 2-Terror Iconed' creatures....like FFG intended ;-)

But thanks for pointing out my mental error here, Dam.