Negotiations at the Great Sep…

[RobotMartini 10]

Per the conversation on AGoTcards, Negotiations at the Great Sept is either bonkers or another failure of proofreading. Since my own meta's regional is not far out, and this card will be legal for it, can we get an official errata / ruling before hand?

" Intrigue Gambit, City. If you have no other City plots in your used pile, choose an opponent.  You and that opponent may each choose to shuffle your hands of at least 1 card into your decks, and replace them with the top 5 cards of the same deck"

1. This has to be missing "When revealed" or "Any Phase" because, at face value, a player could infinitely activate this effect during the round. (essentially reading: if you have 1 card in your hand, shuffle it and then put any cards into play that you can afford, then keep a hand of 5 cards, at least 1 of which you want) true or false?

2. Assuming #1 is a mistake, "if you have no other City plots" statement must also be questioned. At face value, the wording implies that NaTGS's effect could possibly be duplicated by city of spiders. true false?

thanks

[ktom 598]

There is no way to play this card as written because there is no timing indication of when you could use a player action to choose the other player and "activate" the shuffle/replace effect.

RobotMartini said:

1. This has to be missing "When revealed" or "Any Phase" because, at face value, a player could infinitely activate this effect during the round. (essentially reading: if you have 1 card in your hand, shuffle it and then put any cards into play that you can afford, then keep a hand of 5 cards, at least 1 of which you want) true or false?

Yes, it is missing a passive initiation or triggered effect. It needs official errata, but until that comes out, I would say to play it as "when revealed." There is no reason to think that this plot effect would be triggered instead of passive/"when revealed." (There are what, three plots with triggered effects? Not particularly likely.)

RobotMartini said:

2. Assuming #1 is a mistake, "if you have no other City plots" statement must also be questioned. At face value, the wording implies that NaTGS's effect could possibly be duplicated by city of spiders. true false?

If your ruling pending official FAQ errata is to treat it as a "when revealed" plot, then it follows that City of Spiders could trigger it. What this has to do with the "if you have no other City plots" statement has to do with that, I'm not sure.

Because there is no way to play this card as written, you are free to come up with your own "house rule" for how to play it, pending the official errata. Personally, I would say this card should be treated as City of Lies, At the Gates, or Manning the City Walls.

[-Istaril 157]

Ktom, I believe the "no other city plots" part of that question was referring to the fact that City of Lies copying "At the Gates" or "Manning… " would be useless (Although possible), since you'd have that plot in your used pile. In the case of "Negotiations at the Great Sept", it specifies having "No *other* city plots in your used pile", so it appears you could trigger it with City of Lies, assuming Negotiations was the only City plot in your used pile.

The same would be true of Torrhen's Square, except it's not a when-revealed card.

[Bomb 66]

Rumor has it that the printed card indeed has a "when revealed" on it.

[RobotMartini 10]

Bomb said:

Rumor has it that the printed card indeed has a "when revealed" on it.

… weird … but good!

[Ratatoskr 34]

It's not rumor, it is fact. And it is not weird, it is just what happens when people divulge non-finalized drafts of cards.

[kr4ng 11]

We really need to have an official ruling on this card pre-regionals--as it is probably the most meta-changing card in the new packs--on whether or not it can be duplicated because of the word "other" in the card text.

That little word could have massive impact on entire deck designs.

[Bomb 66]

Ratatoskr said:

It's not rumor, it is fact. And it is not weird, it is just what happens when people divulge non-finalized drafts of cards.

Yeah, sorry!  I was just relaying the message you guys were posting in agotcards.org. 

[ktom 598]

Assuming it is "when revealed" (and how could it not be?), and assuming its text really says "no other City plots in your used pile," then it would not count itself if you used something like City of Spiders to initiate its effect. You don't need a ruling for that. It's simply reading comprehension.

(Not sure how great a plan it is to copy this with City of Spiders, though. If your card advantage is suffering so much that you're willing to risk giving an opponent 5 fresh cards, too, I'm not sure that "1" income on City of Spiders is going to make you particularly happy once you get those new cards.)

But, if Bomb is right and the spoiled text is not completely accurate, it might be worth waiting to see the ink on the card before demanding official rulings on cards that have not hit the streets yet.

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

But, if Bomb is right and the spoiled text is not completely accurate, it might be worth waiting to see the ink on the card before demanding official rulings on cards that have not hit the streets yet.

Guys, read it from my lips. I've seen the ink on the card. The spoiled text is not accurate. The printed card has "When revealed". This thread and the 50+ agitated comments on agotcards are pointless.  An un-finalized draft got spoiled, is what happened.

[ktom 598]

Ratatoskr said:

Guys, read it from my lips. I've seen the ink on the card. The spoiled text is not accurate. The printed card has "When revealed". This thread and the 50+ agitated comments on agotcards are pointless.  An un-finalized draft got spoiled, is what happened.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that since it was spoiled without "when revealed," what else might be inaccurate (considering that "other City plots in your used pile" would be unique templating)?

[Ratatoskr 34]

ktom said:

I understand that. What I'm saying is that since it was spoiled without "when revealed," what else might be inaccurate (considering that "other City plots in your used pile" would be unique templating)?

 

Right. Yesterday I double checked my copy, and besides the "When revealed", the spoiled text matches the text on the card - unless I overlooked something, which I consider unlikely, because I took extra care to get it right.

But I agree 100% with you that we should just wait until the card is widely available before we all get our panties in a twist.

[kr4ng 11]

So Ratatoskr/ktom, what is your opinion on the word 'other'? Just curious really.--my panties are in a twist!

[ktom 598]

As I said above:

"Assuming its text really says 'no other City plots in your used pile,' then it would not count itself if you used something like City of Spiders to initiate its effect. You don't need a ruling for that. It's simply reading comprehension."

If this is the only City plot in your used pile when you play City of Spiders, its effect would resolve. That's what the card says, so that is what you do. If that's not what FFG wants it to do, they can issue errata (like the whole Sorrowful Man thing), but until then, you follow the text.

[mdc273 29]

ktom said:

As I said above:

"Assuming its text really says 'no other City plots in your used pile,' then it would not count itself if you used something like City of Spiders to initiate its effect. You don't need a ruling for that. It's simply reading comprehension."

If this is the only City plot in your used pile when you play City of Spiders, its effect would resolve. That's what the card says, so that is what you do. If that's not what FFG wants it to do, they can issue errata (like the whole Sorrowful Man thing), but until then, you follow the text.

If City of Spiders is copying the effect, why does the other not refer to another City plot besides City of Spiders? If the other is self-referential text, doesn't it refer to City of Spiders now?

[Ivanstone 0]

mdc273 said:

If City of Spiders is copying the effect, why does the other not refer to another City plot besides City of Spiders? If the other is self-referential text, doesn't it refer to City of Spiders now?

The currently revealed plot is in not considered to be in your used pile. So yes you can effectively double tap with City of Spiders assuming you've used no other City cards.

[Vaapad 7]

mdc273 said:

ktom said:

 

As I said above:

"Assuming its text really says 'no other City plots in your used pile,' then it would not count itself if you used something like City of Spiders to initiate its effect. You don't need a ruling for that. It's simply reading comprehension."

If this is the only City plot in your used pile when you play City of Spiders, its effect would resolve. That's what the card says, so that is what you do. If that's not what FFG wants it to do, they can issue errata (like the whole Sorrowful Man thing), but until then, you follow the text.

 

 

If City of Spiders is copying the effect, why does the other not refer to another City plot besides City of Spiders? If the other is self-referential text, doesn't it refer to City of Spiders now?

Matt, CoS doesn't "copy" anything - it lets you trigger the WR of a plot in your used pile.  So you play CoS, trigger Sept, and sept finds no "other" city plots -- just itself

[Bomb 66]

mdc273 said:

If City of Spiders is copying the effect, why does the other not refer to another City plot besides City of Spiders? If the other is self-referential text, doesn't it refer to City of Spiders now?

That's because City of Spiders is not a copy effect.  It tells you to trigger a used City plot which means the effect is new and independent coming from the used City plot.

When you trigger an effect, the origin of that effect is still from the card that the text is on. Therefore when it is checking for "other City plots in your used pile", it is checking for this play restriction when you are initiating the independent effect. 

When you copy an effect, and then trigger that copy, the origin of that effect is coming from the card that copies it, and it's play restrictions have already been checked at the point of it's own initiation.  Copied effects do not initiate independently, so you don't copy costs and play restrictions.  The cost and play restriction comes only from the card that does the copying.

Rickon Stark copying Maege Mormont is a prime example of copy.  You don't pay the same cost to copy Maege's search effect with Rickon because the cost to copy is kneeling him.  If. instead, Rickon said "trigger that search effect", you wouldn't be able to because you won't be able to pay the cost use Maege Mormont again because she will be moribund.

I hope this makes sense.

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

If City of Spiders is copying the effect, why does the other not refer to another City plot besides City of Spiders? If the other is self-referential text, doesn't it refer to City of Spiders now?

Read it again. City of Spiders does not copy the text/effect. You trigger the "when revealed" text of a City plot in your used pile.

[mdc273 29]

So… When Revealed, is not actually part of the effect? It is a special grouping of words that indicates an effect that triggers upon reveal of a card? Why don't they bold these things…

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

So… When Revealed, is not actually part of the effect? It is a special grouping of words that indicates an effect that triggers upon reveal of a card? Why don't they bold these things…

No, "when revealed" is the play restriction for the effect that lets you know when it initiates (not "triggers" - that means something else in this game). So it is part of the effect in that if it is not true, the effect does not initiate.

But the effect of City of Spiders tells you to initiate the effect on the plot in your used pile even though the "when revealed" play restriction is not true. 

[mdc273 29]

ktom said:

mdc273 said:

So… When Revealed, is not actually part of the effect? It is a special grouping of words that indicates an effect that triggers upon reveal of a card? Why don't they bold these things…

No, "when revealed" is the play restriction for the effect that lets you know when it initiates (not "triggers" - that means something else in this game). So it is part of the effect in that if it is not true, the effect does not initiate.

 

But the effect of City of Spiders tells you to initiate the effect on the plot in your used pile even though the "when revealed" play restriction is not true. 

Okay, what is a "When revealed" effect then? An effect that begins with the phrase "When revealed,"? I have never heard of a "When revealed" effect formally. I have only seen cards with an effect with the words "When revealed," at the beginning of them.

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

Okay, what is a "When revealed" effect then? An effect that begins with the phrase "When revealed,"?

That would be it. A passive effect that starts with the phrase "when revealed."

mdc273 said:

I have never heard of a "When revealed" effect formally. I have only seen cards with an effect with the words "When revealed," at the beginning of them.

Not everything needs to be "formal." It's not like you've ever heard of a "draw" effect formally either, I bet.

[mdc273 29]

ktom said:

mdc273 said:

Okay, what is a "When revealed" effect then? An effect that begins with the phrase "When revealed,"?

That would be it. A passive effect that starts with the phrase "when revealed."

 

…

Okay, so how does triggering the effect in the used plots pile resolve succesfully? That plot wasn't just revealed. If I'm literally triggering its effect from the used plot pile, wouldn't it do nothing as it wasn't just revealed?

[ktom 598]

mdc273 said:

Okay, so how does triggering the effect in the used plots pile resolve succesfully? That plot wasn't just revealed. If I'm literally triggering its effect from the used plot pile, wouldn't it do nothing as it wasn't just revealed?

I know you've had trouble visualizing this concept before, but here it is:

When you reveal a plot card with the text "when revealed," the effect initiates because the play restriction "when revealed" is true. That's what passive effects do: they initiate when their timing play restricitions are met.

Where you seem to be getting confused on is that the plot effect does not initiate and then check the plot was just revealed. Rather, the plot initiates because "when revealed" is true, just like Golden Tooth Mines initiates because you revealed a plot card. And there is nothing in "when revealed" that requires the plot to be your revealed plot (other than the the plot text is only independently active when it is your revealed plot). 

So what is going on is that, rather than being initiated because "when revealed" is true, the plot initiates because City of Spiders tells you to. You do not "check" to see if it is the revealed plot because the "when revealed" timing play restriction on the plot in your used pile has been bypassed by the effect of City of Spiders.

Said another way, "when revealed" is the timing restriction that determines when the effect can initiate on its own. If it is initiated by another effect, you don't "retroactively" un-initiate the effect because the bypassed play restriction is not true.