Jump to content



Photo

The Pod


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 livingEND

livingEND

    Member

  • Members
  • 52 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 02:24 PM

conq46.jpg



#2 -Istaril

-Istaril

    Member

  • Members
  • 795 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 06:06 PM

Adam talked circles around me on this one in the skype group.

 

The effect is worded like a Constant (not a passive), which creates a lasting (until end of round) effect. This puts it in the 'very odd' category. The distinction between being a constant or a passive matters a great deal for effects like Threat from the East, Ghost of High Heart, etc. 

 

However, this odd construction results in a pretty glaring issue: each card discarded counts, even if they're prior to Pod coming into play. That means that once your opponent has discarded 3 cards, regardless of when, they'll stay drawcapped until the end of the round (and the end of the next, etc).

 

I think we can all agree that the intent is for cards discarded *that* round to count against the drawcap, which could be worded in several ways (opponent's hand this round), (until the end of the round in which it was discarded), or potentially treat the effect like a passive triggered by discards. However, as written. it's a bit of a headache.



#3 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 06 May 2014 - 11:05 PM

I fail to see the issue.

 

It is a constant effect. Like any constant effect, it begins working the moment the card it's on enters play, and stops working when the card leaves play.

 

The constant effect creates a constantly checked condition. Whenever that condition is met (a card is discarded from an opponent's hand), a passive effect initiates during step 5 of the action window the card was discarded in. That passive effect creates the lasting effect of reducing the opponent's draw cap.

 

So, basically, a passive effect with a constantly checked condition. It's no different from cards like Fishwhiskers or Cat o' the Canals in that regard. "Whenever X is true" (constant) -> "Do Y" (passive).

 

Sure, it might have been worded "If a card is discarded (...), reduce (...)" for consistency with above mentioned cards, but I don't quite see how it could be interpreted any other way, especially not how it would work retroactively.



#4 -Istaril

-Istaril

    Member

  • Members
  • 795 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 06:41 AM

That passive effect creates the lasting effect of reducing the opponent's draw cap.

 

 

That would help, and obviously sits much better with the intent of the card as I perceive it. The difficulty I was seeing (and still nags at me) is that I saw Podrick as lasting effect modifying the draw cap, using "each card discarded" as the value by which to reduce it. That requires that it look back at previous discards to determine the value. If we treat it as a constant enabling the (passive) triggering of a (lasting) effect, the problem dissapears. I'm still very curious as to why it would be worded the way it is, given that if that were the intent wording it like a passive would be perfectly functional.

 

That said, the reason I made no connection with Fishwhiskers and Cat O' the Canals is that they refer to a specific time: the present. They don't say "If you controlled", while Podrick's wording leaves some ambiguity whether it refers to "a card previously discarded".


Edited by -Istaril, 07 May 2014 - 06:45 AM.


#5 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 08:09 AM

Fishwhiskers would kneel passively?  Wouldn't you need to wait for the moribund Warships to leave play since all you need to do is control at least one?  I mean, you still control the Warship even though it's moribund and there is no moribund state for control.



#6 Ratatoskr

Ratatoskr

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,565 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 08:29 AM

Fishwhiskers would kneel during step 5 of the first action window that occurs with no Warships in play, not the action window in which the last warship leaves play, for the reason you state.



#7 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 08:31 AM

Fishwhiskers would kneel during step 5 of the first action window that occurs with no Warships in play, not the action window in which the last warship leaves play, for the reason you state.

 

I'm on board with that.  That was my suspicion but it seemed a little quirky.



#8 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:37 AM

The difference between Fishwiskers and Pod is that there is a duration - something Fish does not have. FW only really becomes a constant simply because it reapplies itself.  In actuality, it is not a constant - although he does stay constantly knelt when the condition is met - he would still stand during the standing phase, only to kneel again if the condition is met.  Since he can still stand during the standing phase, it isn't a constant as I see it.  

 

 

Regardless - I'm curious how you guys think Pod interacts with Threat from the East, assuming the discard option was chosen first and the opponent has 3 cards to discard.


Edited by Slothgodfather, 07 May 2014 - 09:38 AM.


#9 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,674 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:07 PM

Fishwhiskers is not a continuous effect. He is an oddly worded passive. If Pod were worded as "Reduce a player's draw cap by 1 for each card discarded from his or her hand," Pod would also be an oddly worded passive. Pod is also oddly worded, but something we haven't really seen before. He is a conditional continuous effect with a explicit duration. It is the verb form "reduces" that makes him so weird.

 

We've seen other conditional continuous effects, just with implicit durations. Think of King's Pavilion: "Each character gets +3 STR while standing." That's a continuous effect (gets +3 STR) with a condition (while standing). The +3 STR is immediately applicable when the character stands -- no need to wait until you get to a "passive effects" step. There is also an implicit "end" or "duration" when the effect immediately stops being applicable, too: when the character kneels.

 

Pod works similarly, except that the end/duration of his conditional continuous effect is stated, not implicit. In the end, he works pretty much as Rat describes. The continuous effect's condition is met when a card is discarded from an opponent's hand, making the reduction in draw cap immediately applicable. It remains applicable until the end of the round, when it immediately stops being applicable.

 

No real puzzle here.

 

The fact that it is a (conditional) continuos effect -- even though it could have been worded as a perfectly functional passive effect -- means that the reduction in draw cap cannot be canceled, and that "discard, then draw" effects will be blocked by Pod (if he were passive, they would not because the "then" would happen before the passive initiated).

 

And, by the way, as a conditional constant (that required Pod to be in play), cards discarded from hand before Pod enters play will not meet the condition of the effect. You cannot meet the condition for an effect that is not "in-play," and Pod does not retroactively check for things that satisfied his condition. Similar to the fact that you do not retroactively add 1 to the number of cards discarded by effects before Motley Crewman entered play.

 

Regardless - I'm curious how you guys think Pod interacts with Threat from the East, assuming the discard option was chosen first and the opponent has 3 cards to discard.

 

Because he is a conditional continuous effect (with explicit duration), he will apply immediately when a card is discarded. That means he will kill your draw cap (leaving you unable to draw) if you choose the "Discard. Draw." order for Threat from the East.



#10 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:28 PM

At least Rat and I were both wrong.

 

Maybe we can go hang out sometime.



#11 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:39 PM

Thanks for the answer ktom.   Pod + Threat seem scary now, but Pod in general is scary.   



#12 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,674 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:45 PM

At least Rat and I were both wrong.

 

I don't see you guys as wrong here. You got the practical functionality of everything in the discussion correct. Harping on the terminology doesn't matter all that much in the end.

 

(~Except when someone is arguing with me, of course. Then the correct terminology is a matter of life and death.)



#13 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:46 PM

At least Threat from the East is restricted, so maybe the combo is well earned in that sense.

 

The other thing is that a lot of drawing is done before you normally get to a point where you can discard multiple cards from an opponent's hand.  So, a lot abuse with him may be attempted with specific cards pre-Challenges phase (which means the rest of your deck may take a hit just to try and pull that off).  I think that my biggest fear may be some Rule by Decree crap because that can potentially drain your hand of even more cards.

 

Here's to hoping no one breaks the game with him and plots like they did with Maesters and Bran Stark.



#14 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:50 PM

 

At least Rat and I were both wrong.

 

I don't see you guys as wrong here. You got the practical functionality of everything in the discussion correct. Harping on the terminology doesn't matter all that much in the end.

 

(~Except when someone is arguing with me, of course. Then the correct terminology is a matter of life and death.)

 

 

Well, you actually missed the entire Skype chat I had with Alex and others where I was arguing it resolved passively (we had a lot of good arguments back and forth which led to this thread being created).  Since it reduces the draw cap immediately as a constant effect(or continuous), I was totally wrong that it would happen passively.

 

If this game ever gets rebooted, I really hope that they explicitly label effects on cards as triggered(like they do now), passive, and constant(or if it's not labeled, it's constant).  I think that would help players out a lot as I think players mix Passives and Constants up for a number of effects.

 

Also, this thread allows Rat and I to hang out now.


Edited by Bomb, 07 May 2014 - 12:52 PM.


#15 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,674 posts

Posted 07 May 2014 - 01:01 PM

 I think that my biggest fear may be some Rule by Decree crap because that can potentially drain your hand of even more cards.

 

Well, let's not forget that he's a 2-STR character with Prized. Even without his ability, that turns him into a huge ol' target. 2-STR characters are usually considered pretty vulnerable to all sorts of targeted kill/removal.

 

~Heck, if he had the "Ally" trait, people would probably be calling him nigh-unplayable despite his effect.



#16 mdc273

mdc273

    Member

  • Members
  • 975 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:02 AM

They really should not have used "until the end of the round here." This was a good opportunity to create a new phrase that clearly delineates it like "during the current round" or "for the duration of the current round."



#17 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 08 May 2014 - 11:25 AM

What is wrong with "until the end of the round"?



#18 Bomb

Bomb

    Cool Person Club

  • Members
  • 1,766 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:15 PM

"Until the end of the round" would only be necessary for resetting the "cards discarded from opponent's hand" check.  Otherwise it's redundant with the draw cap rules where it resets at the end of each round anyway.



#19 ktom

ktom

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,674 posts

Posted 09 May 2014 - 12:25 PM

What is wrong with "until the end of the round"?

 

I think the objection is that it sounds too much like a lasting effect, which implies triggered or passive effect on the front end instead of a continuous effect. 

 

There's nothing wrong with it per se, but it can invoke a context that invites people to misunderstand this ability.



#20 Slothgodfather

Slothgodfather

    Member

  • Members
  • 369 posts

Posted 11 May 2014 - 12:45 AM

fair enough.  That is indeed why I thought it would be considered a passive creating a lasting effect.   






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS