Dominance: Kneel Archmaester Marwyn to choose 3 cards in your discard pile. Your opponent places one on the bottom of your deck, adds one to your hand, and returns the last to the top og your discard pile.

I guess it should be choose an opponent or your opponent to the left? since the way it is worded who would be the target in a melee game?

In a two-player game, the reference to "opponent" is pretty clear.

In a multi-player game, it probably should say "choose," but until an actual errata is set out, you're probably safest having the First Player (or the player to the left if the First Player is Marwyn's controller) be the "opponent."

Or since no single opponent can be determined, it just fizzles (like the power claiming part in The Red Wedding fizzles if neither character can be killed).

Khudzlin said:

I really don't think there is a justification for having the effect fizzle when you have multiple opponents because you are not instructed to choose one. By that reasoning, Breaking and Entering should fizzle each time you pull an attachment since there is no instruction as to which character the attachment should go on.

And what about making the First Player choose who is the opponent? I am thinking along the lines of the responsibility of the First Player to decide the order of passive abbilities.

nikotina said:

The First Player doesn't get to choose between multiple options when they exist. Again, think of the "attach to a character" example. If there are multiple characters the attachment could go on, the First Player doesn't get to choose where it goes.

This is more of a "who gets to act first?" question than a "they conflict - what do we do?" question. So the First Player should be the "opponent." The other "default" that would make a lot of sense would be that the player to the left of the person who triggered Marywn (you know, they player that would always get the first response to Marwyn) would be the "opponent" referred to in the text.