Motley crewman - Any card effect that would cause a player to discard one or more cards from an opponent's deck, discard an additional card.

With Godswood attendant, after I win a challenge I get to look at the top card of a players deck, if i choose an opponent, and choose to discard that card do i then have to discard additional cards for each motley crewman?
Similarly with Seaside Urchin and Harbour Thug, do I discard additional cards and also will i only claim the power if it's an attachment/event/chararacter on the initial card or any of those discarded?

And assumedly these cards being discarded all stack with the Kraken Tattoo?

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

As for the Harbour/Urchin scenario, as much as I'd love to gain that amount of power so easily I read it as only the initial card from harbour/urchin is counted for claiming the power then additional cards are discarded due to the crewman. Purely because the both say 'if THAT card', unless of course the crewman allows for changing the text of another card, changing to THOSE.

As for the Godswood Attendant I believe that I can discard additional cards i just can't explain why. lol.

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

OK. Let's look at this a couple of different ways:

1. When discarding 2 cards for the Thug/Urchin because of the Crewman, which is "that card"? Is the "additional" card discarded first or second?

2. The text on the cards is written to refer to a single card. The Crewman changes that single card into two cards. Why wouldn't every reference to to the discarded "card" become plural? We assume that "discard the top card of the losing opponent's deck" effectively becomes "discard the top 2 cards of the losing opponent's deck," right? So why would "that card" not become "those cards"?

3. Even if you want to quibble about a singular pronoun referring to a plural object, remember that cards are discarded singularly, even when one effect discards multiple cards. That's why "discard 3 cards" lets you trigger Kraken Tattoo 3 different times. So even though Crewman has the Thug/Urchin discard 2 cards, each is discarded one-at-a-time, so the singular "that card" when checking the discarded cards for card type could actually be considered appropriate given the timing of the thing.

Mat_Not_Barlow said:

Send the question to FFG. They may have an explanation.

The technical timing explanation that Godswood Attendant does not discard an additional card when combined with the Crewman comes from the fact that play restrictions like the Crewman, which modify the way an effect is initiated (discard 2 instead of 1, etc.), must be applied during Step 1 of an action window. Since you don't know whether Godswood Attendant will discard the card from the deck until the player makes that choice in Step 3, you're too late to apply the modifier.

Or look at the potential paradox here. The first part of Godswood Attendant lets you "reveal" the top card of the player's deck. Since that has nothing to do with discarding, the Crewman doesn't apply and you only reveal the 1 card. But if you decide to discard the revealed card from the top of the opponent's deck and say that the Crewman lets you discard an additional card at this time, shouldn't that card have been revealed too? You are discarding 1 revealed card from the deck. Shouldn't you be discarding both cards from the top of the deck (arguably, see above) in the same revealed state? But you can't go backwards and apply the "additional card" modification to revealing the card in the first place. So what do you do? You cannot discard the "additional" card the same way you are discarding the initial card, so doesn't it make more sense that you cannot discard the "additional" card?

This does fall victim to some of the more confusing and subjective aspects of timing in "then" effects, so it's worth sending the question to FFG for an official answer.

Did anyone get an official response from FFG about how Motley Crewman interacts with Godswood Attendant, Seaside Urchin and Harbor Thug?

While I think it affects all of them, there is obviously some debate, so I was wondering if there was anything new to add to the discussion.

Firstly.....thanks for starting this thread since its kind of complex.

This is how I see this.

Motley Crewman: When a card effect discards x cards from the deck......discard 1 additional.

For me that means that after you discard a card for an effect you discard +X cards more (X being the number of crewmans).

But the problem comes with this:

If the effect that discards has a then conditioned as to what card you discarded (with its own effect), THAT should not apply to the extra discard.

1. You win the challenge (if thats the trigger for discarding)

2.You discard the card that was triggered from winning. See if the card is the type you need for the next part of that same response.

3.You discard the extra card...but the second part of the character effect does not apply.

And thats only one of the possible problems!!!!!!

Good luck playing and winning a discution with a greyjoy player.

Motley Crewman combined with Harbor Thug/Seaside Urchin is pretty straight forward. The number of cards increases. And since cards are considered to be discarded individually, they would all fit the "top of deck" limitation when it comes to potentially claiming power.

As choco says, it is more confusing when the discard is conditioned on something else. Godswood Attendant being a prime example. The thread already gets into why it is confusing, so there is no point in outlining it again. If anyone has sent the specific interaction to FFG, I have not heard the result.

So are you saying in this thread that Motley Crewmen is not a passive ability that is resolved in Step 4 of the Action Window?

I can actually see a case against Motley Crewmen working for Godswood Attendant.

Godswood Attendant says "After you win a challenge in which Godswood Attendant participated, look at the top card of any player's deck. Then, you may discard that card or put it back on top of its owner's deck."

Motley Crewmen says "Any effect that discards 1 or more cards from an opponent's deck discards an additional card."

The key being the player chooses to discard the card or put it on top of its owners deck. The effect does not do the discarding, the player is choosing to do so or not.

That does not convince me on the other effects that have a fixed final result of discarding the card where the origin of this card is the deck at the beginning the the player action phase.

Bomb said:

It would be very bad if that were the case and MC was a passive ability that was doing its own discarding. If it were, imagine that you had 2 in play. Then you play Desperate Looters and trigger its Response, discarding 1 card from the top of an opponent's deck. If MC were passive, MC #1 would activate and discard 1 more card. Then MC #2 would activate because MC #1 discarded a card, discarding 1 more. Then, since MC #2's effect discarded a card, MC #1 would activate for MC #2. Then MC #2 would activate for the second one from MC #1. Then MC #1 would activate for the second one from MC #2, and so on until the opponent's deck was gone.

Pretty safe to say that Motley Crewman modifies the original discard to X+1....

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

I did talk to FFG about this. "They" (aka, Damon) says that MC is a constant effect that modifies any "discard from deck" effect to discard X+1 cards instead of the usual/defined X. So essentially, any "discard the top card of a player's deck" effect becomes "discard the top 2 cards of a player's deck." When you look at Godswood attendant, there will be no interaction with the "reveal" part, but as soon as the player chooses to discard the 1 (revealed) card from the top of the deck, 2 will end up being discarded.

ktom said:

OK. Good, that was what I was trying to get at since I read and believed the discard is technically from the deck for all those effects that do not discard as the only part of the event or ability.

I was simply trying to say that based on what I deduced from Godswood Attendant didn't mean I was convinced on the other debated events/abilities that have discarding from the deck as the effect with the addition of "revealing" or "looking at" the card(s) first.

Either way we have our answer.

The good thing with the FFG response is that we were playing it right.....the bad thing is that I am not the one playing with greyjoy.

Thenks for comunictaing with them.

I like how FFG acknowledged this issue in the wording of the new Euron.

Response: after an opponent declares a challenge against you, discard the top card of each opponent's deck. Then, draw 1 card for each location discarded in this way.

If Sea Urchin was worded this way there would never have been an issue.

at the end FFG means godswood attendant with MC will discard 2cards?

db123456 said:

So, in the case of Raiding the Reach:

Response: After you win an unopposed challenge, reveal the top 5 cards of the losing opponent's deck. Choose and discard 2 cards (3 cards instead if it is Winter) and put the rest back on top of the deck in any order.

Would I choose and discard and additional card for each Motley Crewman out?

Mantaeus said:

Kind of. You would discard 2 (3 if it was winter) then put the cards back on the deck and discard as many from the top of the deck as you have Crewman in play. Insofar as you can order the cards when you replace them, yes, you can choose which ones get discarded, but it isn't done from the revealed state.

Mantaeus said:

Based on precedent, here is how I imagine the scenario would play out.

1. Reveal the top 5 cards of the deck

2. Discard 2 of the revealed cards (assuming its not winter)

3. Discard X cards from the top of the loser's deck without revealing them, where X is the number of crewman in play.

4. Put the 3 remaining revealed cards back in any order.

dh098017 said:

Interesting. I would have thought the entire effect, including putting the cards on the top of the deck, resolves before Motley Crewman kicks in, but as it is a constant effect you might well be right.

dh098017 said:

If you want to get really technical, here'e what happens:

1. Reveal cards 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 of the deck. (They are still cards 1-5 of the deck)
2. Choose and discard 2 (or 3) of them. Note that the others are still technically in the same "deck order" in which they were revealed.
3. Discard X cards from the top of the deck for the Crewmen, starting with the 2-3 remaining revealed cards.
4. If there are any revealed cards left, reorder them and return them to the "unrevealed" rest of the deck.

What it comes down to is that the 5 revealed cards are still considered part of your deck. They are not in some "unattached" temporary play area just because they are revealed. If you had an effect that said "play with the top card of your deck revealed" (and yes, that card has existed in the past), that card is still considered to be part of your deck.

ktom said:

Sorry to get off-topic, but how did draw work with that card? The Shield Islands it seems it was. When I go to draw two cards, do I take the revealed card and then the next, unrevealed card in the deck, or was there a point after drawing the first card the next one had to be revealed before it was drawn?

Since cards are drawn individually (ie, "draw 2 cards" creates 2 separate "after you draw a card" Response opportunities), there is a moment when the second card is the top card of the deck and therefore becomes revealed.