I just wanted to be sure I wasn't misinterpreting the card text in this case.

Rotten Bastard : Each player's draw cap is reduced from 3 additional cards per round to 2 additional cards per round.

Dolorous Edd : Increase your draw cap by 1 for each The North agenda you are running.

Normal Math would say 3 - 1 + X = 2 + X... I just wanted to be sure that because it indicates the change from 3 to 2 that you could still increase your cap, and that the Bastard didn't regret a card cap by having the printed 2. This, as opposed to the the ITE era promo Iron Throne : Each opponent's "draw cap" is reduced by 1.

Thanks in advance.

I would say that based on the working of Rotten Bastard, it's basically a -1, and should be treated as one mathematically.

Or else you run into a problem of logic: If Ed is in play, your draw cap isn't 3, thus cannot be lowered from 3.

Kristoff says it much more succinctly, but let me stretch the thought there for you, Luke.

Maester_LUke said:

I hear what you're saying about RB's specific use of the number 2 potentially not allowing any modification beyond that number (effectively trumping DE), but if you're going to point to the specific use of the number 2, I'm going to point to the specific use of the number 3 and say RB cannot be applied to a player whose draw cap has already been modified to something other than 3. If we go that round, the Rotten Bastard vs. Dolorous Edd situation will come down to First Player choice -- for conflicting continuous effects? Nah. That's not right; First Player is only supposed to settle conflicting passive effects. So the "normal math" interpretation looks a lot more appealing.

I'd look at RB as changing the base of the draw cap (from 3 to 2), which can then be modified from there.

So am I guessing then that if you have multiple RB's in play, the ability wouldn't stack? Because both would change it to 2, but then Ed would bump the 2 up to a four with your two The North Agendas, correct?

Staton said:

The way RB's ability is written doesn't imply that that it was meant to be cumulative, so I would say you are correct.

KristoffStark said:

I agree with all of this. I am sure that is exactly why it was worded as such. Otherwise it would be pretty insane to only rely on the Draw phase for drawing cards!

Look at KotS Stannis and despair, then.