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

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:

RobotMartini said:

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.

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 said:

… weird … but good!

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.

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.

Ratatoskr said:

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

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.

ktom 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.

Ratatoskr said:

ktom said:

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.

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

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.

ktom 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?

mdc273 said:

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.