Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Pervasive Toxemia + Mi-Go Warrior = Story Lock?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
100 replies to this topic

#1
HomerJ

HomerJ

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 349 posts

Pervasive Toxemia:

While this conspiracy is in play, each player must choose and wound a character he controls in order to commit characters to stories.

 

Mi-Go Warrior

Disrupt: Exhaust to cancel 1 wound to a character.

 

Based on the August Lindquist ruling, if you purposely cancel the wound an opposing player attempts to put on his/her character due to Pervasive Toxemia, then you have effectively prevented them from committing to stories, right?  Two (or a way to ready one each turn) is almost a lock.  Unless I'm missing something?

 

 

 

August Lindquist

Disrupt: If August Lindquist would be wounded, instead choose another character to be wounded. Then, place a success token on August Lindquist.


  • NuFenix, Carthoris and GrahamM like this

#2
NuFenix

NuFenix

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1261 posts

That is amazing!



#3
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 331 posts

Hmm.

 

HMMMMMMM...

 

 

There are some differences between August and Warrior so... there could be a different ruling. However... I'm not expecting one. 



#4
Daevar

Daevar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

That is nasty, but it feels succinct. Hm.



#5
GrahamM

GrahamM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 246 posts

boom.



#6
Danigral

Danigral

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 1358 posts

Did CoC just implode?



#7
Yipe

Yipe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 748 posts

We'll soon find out as I submitted this question to FFG.


  • Obtuse likes this

#8
Obtuse

Obtuse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
I really hope they rule against this, but I have my doubts that they will. This is such a tough choke to get around.

#9
dboeren

dboeren

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2834 posts

I already asked Brad this question at Gencon and he said that no, it doesn't work.  That is, you can cancel the wound, but your opponent can just choose and wound someone else to pay the cost.

 

However, it would be good to get a more official written answer.


  • crackotage likes this

#10
Yipe

Yipe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 748 posts

I already asked Brad this question at Gencon and he said that no, it doesn't work.  That is, you can cancel the wound, but your opponent can just choose and wound someone else to pay the cost.

 

However, it would be good to get a more official written answer.

 

That was my thought as well, or at least how I believed FFG would rule in this case.  The other option is they errata Mi-Go Warrior to only cancel wounds on characters you control, but I don't see that happening.  Either way, I'm certain FFG won't allow any card interactions that so easily and completely shut out 1 player from the story phase.



#11
washme

washme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
Well, FFG allows people to be completely locked out of their Operations Phase, so why not allow people to be locked out of the Story Phase?

#12
Obtuse

Obtuse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts
I don't understand the argument that they could just wound someone else right after. Assuming this to be true, you could just keep redirecting wounds from August Lindquist over and over until his fated gave out, then just wound another character of your choice.
  • HomerJ likes this

#13
Obtuse

Obtuse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Well, FFG allows people to be completely locked out of their Operations Phase, so why not allow people to be locked out of the Story Phase?


Aw man, did you play Tut and his cthulhu/silver twilight nonsense at Gencon? If so, sorry about that...I pioneered that deck locally and it can make the game no fun if it goes off.

#14
washme

washme

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
It went off right off the bat and I conceded the game and considered selling my CoC collection right after that. It's not worth my time to play a game where people do that and it's legal. Still unsure of my future with the game due to that and this current thread.

#15
Obtuse

Obtuse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts

It went off right off the bat and I conceded the game and considered selling my CoC collection right after that. It's not worth my time to play a game where people do that and it's legal. Still unsure of my future with the game due to that and this current thread.


Unfortunate you feel that way. Competitive tournaments for every game are pretty cutthroat and CoC is no different. Players can and should come into a competitive environment to win. The deck in question has about a 50% win rate if that tells you anything about its reliability and is a big reason I scrapped the deck idea for myself.

This interaction with the migo and toxemia is another loophole that may be able to be exploited and is a pretty gnarly lock. Can't say I'll be real enthusiastic about it if it's legal but you adapt and adjust.

#16
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 331 posts

See, I was betting that they'd use something like...

 

Since the wounding is part of a passive effect it can't be canceled. 

 

@washme - I'll echo Obtuse here a bit. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, these things are apart of the game and have been for a long long time. It's understandable that you don't find certain game aspects appealing. We all have our likes and dislikes. Such is your right and perhaps you'd be better off in a greener pasture. I hope you'll decide against it of course (for many reasons), but if you think all "non-typical" decks/strategies are going to disappear completely from this game... I've got some bad news. Cthulhu, in many ways, goes out of it's way to create soft locks, combos, and other "non-typical" styles. I doesn't like anything game breaking of course as you can tell by the FAQ updates, but some will exist. My main desire is to see you, and those around you, be happy. If you wish, we can discuss this further as I would like to help in anyway that I can, but sounds like it's time for some soul searching.



#17
Obtuse

Obtuse

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 601 posts

See, I was betting that they'd use something like...

 

Since the wounding is part of a passive effect it can't be canceled. 

 

 

 

This! But there's some weird issues with that too aren't there?

 

I already asked Brad this question at Gencon and he said that no, it doesn't work.  That is, you can cancel the wound, but your opponent can just choose and wound someone else to pay the cost.

 

However, it would be good to get a more official written answer.

 

If it were like this then the August combo with Toxemia is arguably better than being able to just redirect the wound and then go to stories. Since you can just wound another character if the wound is disrupted August could disrupt as many wounds as the fated allows (or indefinitely if that yog card that removes keywords were played on him) and then just dump the wound on whatever other patsy character you have on your board. Brutal. Also I think whoever told you this is flat wrong.

 

Also it's not just the Migo that would need the errata if this were in need of fixing. There are several cards out there that disrupt and cancel a wound from "a character".



#18
Greynomad38

Greynomad38

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Blanking, bouncing, targeted wounding.  Don't really see this being an issue.  A challenge, yes, but not game breaking.

 

Trying to figure out Tut's combo.  It involved Urobourus, Ritual of Summoning, and Unscrupulous Acquisitionist?  If so, how did it work?



#19
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 331 posts

This! But there's some weird issues with that too aren't there?


Probably, but we're never in normal territory with these things. I'm still back at the camp where people thought August could resurrect and still commit.lol

Not to mention that Worker's wording is a bit weird.

#20
MagnusArcanis

MagnusArcanis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 331 posts

Blanking, bouncing, targeted wounding. Don't really see this being an issue. A challenge, yes, but not game breaking.

Trying to figure out Tut's combo. It involved Urobourus, Ritual of Summoning, and Unscrupulous Acquisitionist? If so, how did it work?

Add HOST and a clear board and you have an opponent that needs to drain all their domains its operations phase. Thus creating a soft lock. Several ways to do that... But the easiest by far was just (mistakenly imho) released off of the restricted list...