Empath is ambiguous:

• Is it usable if any kind of negotiate is played?
• Can it turn an attack into any kind of negotiate?
• If the second answer is yes, does the reward deck have to be in the game if you want to turn the attack into a Crooked Deal?

In other words, which of the following was intended:

1. As a main player, after either main player reveals a normal Negotiate card and the other main player reveals an attack card, you may use this power to change the revealed attack card into a normal Negotiate card.
2. As a main player, after either main player reveals any kind of negotiate card and the other main player reveals an attack card, you may use this power to change the revealed attack card into a normal Negotiate card.
3. As a main player, after either main player reveals any kind of negotiate card and the other main player reveals an attack card, you may use this power to change the revealed attack card into any kind of negotiate card.
4. As a main player, after either main player reveals any kind of negotiate card and the other main player reveals an attack card, you may use this power to change the revealed attack card into any kind of negotiate card that exists in the current game .
5. As a main player, after either main player reveals any kind of negotiate card and the other main player reveals an attack card, you may use this power to change the revealed attack card into a copy of that negotiate card .

Also, ... is it too late to adjust the text before the aliens go on press?

My guess: Option 2.

Reading into this the ability to choose the type of negotiate the opponent's card becomes is just looking for trouble. Otherwise, we'd have to bring emotion control into question, too, a card that has existed for decades without confusion.

And as for whether you can use your power if crooked deal is played or not, well, it's still a negotiate. And since Empath historically has simply turned any non-negotiate into a negotiate (like an emotion control), I see no reason for that to change without having it explicitly stated.

I know this interpretation relies on the perceived intent of the card and comparisons to previous editions without paralell card sets and rules, but it seems the most sensible. Still, it certainly seems worth addressing in the next FAQ.

Just_a_Bill said:

Empath is not ambiguous on this point. If I play a Crooked Deal card, could you argue that I did not play a Negotiate? It's true that the term 'Negotiate' is ambiguous, as it refers both to a type of card and to an instance of that class. Hence the ambiguity in point # 2. But the first point is clear cut to me.

Emotion Control has "existed for decades without confusion" because for decades there was only one Compromise/Negotiate card. The question raised by Ethic is, technically, a valid question for Emotion Control as well; it's just that the answer was more obvious because Emotion Control isn't "copying" an existing negotiate (whereas Empath conceptually is), nor was there the inconsistency of interpreting "a negotiate" in two opposite ways in the same sentence.

I think everyone agrees that the first part is a no-brainer (yes, any negotiate triggers the power). I listed it as a separate bullet point because good analysis requires breaking things down into their component parts, and to point out that the downside of interpretation #2 is the inconsistency of saying "the first use of the phrase 'a negotiate' includes Crooked Deals, but the second use of that same phrase (in the same sentence and with the same formatting) excludes them." I suspect that #2 is the right answer, but I want to be thorough. (And a small part of my brain keeps trying to get me to reconsider #5.)

I don't think it's accurate to say that "Empath historically has simply turned any non-negotiate into a negotiate (like an emotion control)". Empath has historically turned only an Attack card played by the opponent into a negotiate, and in a context that's different from Emotion Control. Unlike Emotion Control, Empath requires there to already be a negotiate in the encounter as a "seed" for changing the other player's card to match. What we're discussing is how specific that match should be.

I know there was no other option then, but in the absence of any clarification, I'd personally assume that it still creates the exact same effect, causing the same ol' Negotiate card to be created, like Emotion Control does.

I brought up Emotion Control because if you open Empath to interpretation, you open Emotion Control to interpretation, too, as it doesn't specify which meaning of "negotiate" was intended, either. But I don't think anyone would question how Emotion Control works despite the addition of Crooked Deal.

I think everyone agrees how the power works entirely, actually. I've seen no support for any option but 2, unless you've posted this some place other than here and BGG.

I agree that the wording is vague though. Perhaps a simpler way of wording the power without being too ambiguous or too convoluted would have been to say that, if you play a negotiate and your opponent does not, you may turn your opponent's card into a copy of your encounter card. Not exactly the same, I know, but it'd be clearer while staying close to the intention.

Crooked Deals are special, thats why you can only get them in a reward deck. If anything says "turned into a negotiate" or wording similar then its always a plain old negotiate, I don't see where the confusion comes in.

It would have been nice if in the base game, Negotiate was a crad type (printed on top) but the card itself was called compromise . The we'd have two negotiates - compromise and crooked deal, without confusion.

As for the current dilemma, it's easy to guess the intent. Imagine a power that turn a negotiate (when opposed by an attack card) into an attack card. Or a power that let you play an artifact as a kicker. These would be a very awkward powers as the type of attack or kicker is not specified. I think we can assume that Emotion Control and Empath were not intended to be so confusing and wakward, hence most likely they meant 'negotiate' as a specific card, not a card type .

I agree with you that inferring the designer's intent is a poor way to resolve ambiguity, but sometimes it's all we have. The Cosmic FAQ is far from perfect, but as far as board games go FFG is one of the best in the business for product support. I remember the old days before the information super highway when all one could do was try to infer designer intent or possibly write to the company, if it was still in business. Yes, I'd like to see this addressed in a FAQ update, but Really don't think it's a big problem.