Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
livingEND

The Pod

23 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a quick question...

 

Golden Tooth Mines has the text: "Each time you reveal a plot card, draw a card.". 

 

Compared to Podrick Payne's text: "Each card discarded from an opponent's hand reduces his or her draw cap by 1 (to a minimum of 0) until the end of the round."

 

If GTM's effect is passive, how is it different than Podrick Payne's effect?

Edited by Bomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're concentrating too much on the word "each."

Beyond the fact that "each time" functions about the same as "when," but "each card discarded" does not, the real difference is between the verb forms of "draw" and "reduces." The first denotes a one-time, initiated act; the second denotes a continuing state.

If Pod were worded as "each time a card is discarded from an opponent's had, reduce his or her draw cap by one (minimum of 0)," THEN the wording would be comparable to GTM - and passive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0