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!
* * * - -

The Dunwich Horror

The Dunwich Horror

The Dunwich Horror

Bigger 'n a barn...
Type: Character Faction: Yog-Sothoth
Cost: 4 Skill: 4 Icons: (T)(T)(C)(C)
Game Text:
Action: Choose an opponent. That opponent gains control of The Dunwich Horror, if able. If control changes, choose and destroy another character or a support card that player controls. This ability cannot be canceled or disrupted.
Set: DD
Number: 72
Illustrator: Scott Altmann


It's worded confusingly, but I take it the player losing control of the Horror suffers the card destruction specified in the action. Wouldn't it affect the player who initially played the card when first transferring control to someone else? Okay...I guess I see how this ability can be useful in combination with Sentinel Hill. Is there another way to make it play?
No, the player gaining control of the Dunwich Horror loses a character. From the rest of the post I guess this what was you was trying to say anyway, would be pointless to destroy your own characters.
Okay, that makes better sense. Now I can see it being just awesome with Sentinel Hill. If you take the action after the opponents' characters are committed, and the Horror is not committed, then you get to take out an opponent's committed character (even an Ancient One!) just like that. And Sentinel Hill can bring the Horror back to your hand right away.
Yes, it is a powerful combo with Sentinel Hill, the problem is to afford it, since the Horror is quite pricey at four cost. Your best bet would probably be Twilight Gate, which is a fine card in itself. If you have the new Peaslee in there as well you could build part of your deck around Sentinel Hill actually.
    • Carthoris likes this
Ooh. Sentinel Hill and new Peaslee, great idea. I can get a domain to four if I know that's the plan. The problem I see is that these are all unique cards, and I don't like to clutter my deck with multiple copies of uniques, so I need a more diverse set of strategies. That's okay. I can still picture Peaslee showing up at my Whateley Family Reunion now.
You can always resource the multiple copies of uniques so playing several shouldn't be so bad. Since you really want Sentinel Hill if you play with both Peaslee and the Dunwich Horror I would recommend protecting it with something like Guardian of the Key as well.
Yeah, I know you can resource "extra" uniques; it's just not my style. I never like my resourcing choices to be obvious. I luxuriate in the agony of having to resource a card I really want to keep and play. Good point on Guardian of the Key, though.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. Peaslee himself can retrieve the Horror, in the absence of Sentinel Hill. But I have a misgiving. Does retrieving the Horror with Peaslee or the Hill mean that one of my characters is destroyed? The card is worded in that weird passive way: "If control changes..."
It doesn't. The "if control changes" is part of the effects of the action, so irrelevant if the action is not triggered. And since it's an action and not a forced response, it isn't triggered if another effect changes the Horror's controller
    • Carthoris and RichardPlunkett like this

I think the Peaslee/Horror/Hill deck sounds very intriguing and very clever, but it wouldn't suit my tastes.  That's just me, and I know not everyone would agree with me.  I just think I'd play it a few times, and then I wouldn't want to play it anymore because the mechanic seems kind of repetitive and annoying.  I'd be bored, and my opponent would be annoyed.  Doesn't really make for a good gaming time, IMO.

I think it's less repetitive and annoying that any number of standards, like, say, Khopesh of the Abyss. But to each his own.


I know that when I built a characterless mill deck, I quickly retired it after winning a couple of games with it. It was basically a stunt, to see if it could work, but not so much fun for me to play. (There's a recreational reason to build decks around characters.) 

    • Track8 likes this

Your second paragraph is the same point I was trying to make.  Some people might like to play a characterless mill deck, but for you (and me too), it's not really that fun.  "Stunt" is a good word for it.  I agree that Khopesh has the potential to be the same way.


Like you said, everybody has different tastes, and that's what creates an exciting and dynamic gaming environment because there's so much variety to how people choose to play the game.  I probably have some decks that you'd hate playing, but that I really enjoy.  Just so long as you have fun playing your own decks, that's all that matters.

Call of Cthulhu: The Card Game, Living Card Game, the Living Card Game logo, Fantasy Flight Games, and the FFG logo are trademarks of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.