Much and More reads: "Any Phase: Reveal the top 4 cards of each players deck. Choose 1 revealed card owned by each player, and add it to it's owners hand. Shuffle all other cards back into their owners decks."

Since the wording is ambiguous, does "Shuffle all other cards back into their owners decks." as written mean that all other cards in play, discard pile, dead pile and in hand (Other than the chosen card) will be shuffled back into the deck??

I know this probably isn't the intention, I'm just reading the card as written. lol

potatoechip99 said:

No, it is referring to the "other cards" in the effect, those being the other 3 cards revealed.

KristoffStark said:

I completely agree this is that is the intention, however the wording does seem very ambiguous and other search/reveal/shuffle cards have more specific text in regard to this effect. If the last sentence is taken into account on it's own, it simply says "Shuffle all other cards back into their owners decks" Which could plausibly refer to cards other than "Much and More" OR cards other than the two just chosen for the effect OR the other cards you just drew. The un-specific wording here is whats killing me even though I know the way the card is intended to work.

So, you think that this card effect could possibly leave all players with no cards in play and only 1 card in their hand? You cannot assume that "other cards" would reference anything other than the cards that are mentioned and contained in the effect itself.

Card Effect Breakdown:

There is set of 4 elements identified. Do something to 1 element of this set. Do something else to "all other" elements.

There are only 3 other elements in this effect and they are the only ones affected.

Bomb said:

If we don't take into consideration how we "think" a card is intended to work then we just have to resolve each sentence as written. If the only sentence on this card said "Shuffle all other cards back into their owners decks." then would you agree that all cards in play/hand/discard/dead would be shuffled back? If so then you would have to agree that this sentence has a unique effect that would resolve on its own. How can you then assume that the previous effects of the card change this sentence in any way.

This whole discussion is a little tounge-in-cheek to be honest, but the syntax of the card does and should make a difference in the way it works. I just wish FFG would keep the verbiage on some of these cards more consistant and not leave anything like this ambiguous.

I completely disagree with that degree of pedantry. You do not resolve all sentences as separate independent effects. There are several effects in this game that have sentences with a dependency on previous sentences or results of effects and targets of previous sentences. "Then" effects are one primary dependency on previous sentences.

The Red Wedding: "The other claims 2 power." - The other what? The other of many characters that were not even involved with this effect?

You are suggesting that:

Ser Brynden's Guile is potential mass reset.
Maester Luwin is potential mass reset.
Harrenhal is a potential mass reset.

I don't see anything incorrect about the language used for this type of effect templating. Effects that are broken into more than 1 sentences have clear dependencies on previous sentences when they are required. I admit that some of the time the language could be much improved(especially on some of these newer cards), but this is one of those cases that I strongly disagree.

Bomb said:

In the Red Wedding example the sentence "The other claims two power" does not have a resolution in and of itself so the effect must refer to the other lord or lady chosen. In the other three examples the phrase "the other cards" is used which I'll agree is a direct reference to the cards searched for by each effect. My point with Much and More is just that the sentence "Shuffle all other cards back into their owners' decks." Could potentially resolve as it's own effect and is therefore ambiguous as to the target of it's effect as written.

I'm not trying to argue this is the intended effect, just that the wording here is ambiguous and could resolve as a global card effect depending on how you interpret the text.

If you wanted to take the text word for word and not infer that they wanted, wouldn't you then shuffle your house card, agenda and plots into 1 deck? I mean, they are "other cards." Heck, lets say I'm having a friendly game and I have some cards I put aside a few cards that happen to be on the table that originally came from the deck but I removed them before the game? Would I then shuffle those cards back into my deck because those happen to be "other cards" as well.

Stryphe said:

Well, no, because the Plot cards, House card, Agendas, etc are not "in play" and thus cannot be affected by anything. Nor can cards not present in the game.

KristoffStark said:

Let me be a little more clear on my point. I think it's ridiculous to take the card word for word. Besides, the card doesn't say shuffle all other cards "in play" into the deck. Therefore it would make any other cards legal targets by the taking the card word for word.

** face palm **

~ I think Stryphe is on the right track, but I think the text obviously means all card owned by each player. The "in play" rule doesn't apply because the card specifically says to shuffle *all* cards into the owner's deck, right? It's obviously specifically referring to all owned cards. Hope you can get home and back with your entire collection before time is called.

~ I ignore the clear meaning of "10 items or less" because of the bad syntax, too.

(Yes, that's an ad absurdum argument, but honestly, it's pretty absurd to begin with….)

I can definitely see that the way it's worded you could argue it means ALL other cards get shuffled back and I guess until there's an official ruling on how this card is supposed to work, you could play it that way. But I know that my buddies and I would all agree it just means the other 3 cards you looked at go back to the deck. But for now, we'll be playing it our way until the FAQ says otherwise. I mean, wouldn't you also shuffle your hand back into your deck minus that one card as well?

ktom said:

Hey Ktom! Hope your having fun at Gencon!!!

I completely agree that it's an absurd argument but only because we know how the card is intended to work based on context. I just have to face palm because we can't apply this same context and logic to all of the other poorly worded or misspelled cards without having to be told by an FAQ that there is no such trait as "Wilding" or that Castle Battlements doesn't actually create an infinite loop of immunity/non-immunity to itself or that Thundering Calvary won't ever trigger because there is no such card as a Thundering Cavalry etc…

I love the game FFG has created, I just wanted to bring this issue up as an example of how not having any wiggle room for interpretation and context can make for annoying arguments when I think we all know how these "broken" cards are intended to work with about 99.9% certainty in most cases. I understand we have to play by the letter of the law but waiting months or years for a new FAQ just to fix a simple typo that "breaks" a card also seems a bit ad absurdum.

potatoechip99 said:

It's a really bizarre thing that happened with the last FAQ. For the most part, up until the FAQ was posted, people treated things like "Wilding" and Castle Battlements as, "Hey, FFG, when you get around to it, please clean these up for clarification and try to be more careful next time. Until then, we'll trust the TOs and 'community-think' to determine how we'll play, even though official clarification would be nice."

But once the FAQ was posted, people suddenly swung to, "Since FAQs clarify and fix errors and typos, we cannot trust TOs and 'community-think' to determine how we'll play in the absence of official clarification."

I don't know. Maybe it was the fact that FFG consciously chose to take the "choose" out of Sorrowful Man and Shield Island Dromon, but not out of Penny. The conclusion seemed to be that the community is thus not qualified to decide anything for themselves - even the non-difference between "Calvary" and "Cavalry." But FFG explained in the article that accompanied the FAQ that both templates are viable and have a place in the game. I'm not sure what happened to the "when you get around to it, please clean it up; but until then, we'll be using our brains" approach.

potatoechip99 said:

I love the game FFG has created, I just wanted to bring this issue up as an example of how not having any wiggle room for interpretation and context can make for annoying arguments when I think we all know how these "broken" cards are intended to work with about 99.9% certainty in most cases. I understand we have to play by the letter of the law but waiting months or years for a new FAQ just to fix a simple typo that "breaks" a card also seems a bit ad absurdum.

For example, character text is only active while the character is in play, unless specifically stated otherwise. Army of the Faithful says "Lower the cost to play Army of the Faithful by 1 for each Asshai character you control." Khal Drogo says " Response: After you win a challenge, put Khal Drogo into play from your hand." Neither effect says that the character text is active or can be used while the card is in hand, so if there was truly no wiggle room for interpretation and context, the lack of "while XXX is in you hand…" should be fatal to its use. However, we use the context of the self-reference and the play/put-into-play execution of the effect to understand that the cards are specifically allowing themselves to be executed from hand despite the absence of any explicit wording. In fact, the FAQ uses Khal Drogo as an example (not a rule, an example) of understanding this to be a specific reference to text being actionable while out-of-play based on context rather than explicit wording.

So I think there is wiggle room and the ability to interpret based on context, making the reference to "other cards" while referring to a select set within the text of "Much and More" a pretty straightforward interpretation of the effect, despite the fact that it could, indeed, have been worded more explicitly.

potatoechip99 said:

Interesting. So this thread was kind of a jab at the pedants?

Bomb said:

Certainly, but also to address two concerns. What the community's response would be to this level of syntax dissection and to see if it's acceptable to use a reasonalble amount of context when reading these cards. In other words, do I really need to worry about this level of pedantry or can I assume that any good TO will use his/her best judgement to interpret these types of issues to their logical resolution within reason and context.

Also, with that being said, I do have concerns about syntax, spelling and fuzzy mechanics issues that seem to pop up more frequently than they should as the new cards and chapter packs roll out. Ktom makes a great point that we should be able to use our best judgement as a community as to how these cards should be played until FFG tells us otherwise with an official FAQ.

On AGOTcards there are people trying to argue that Maege Mormont's effect doesn't work with Rickon Stark because the "Search" part and the "Put Into Play" part are separate sentences. More specifically, they are saying that you can copy the search, but you cannot put the card into play due to it being a different part of the effect. They are basing the argument on the recent "Black Walls" controversy. I think the whole thing is stupid…When did the community become grammar snobs.

While that should be a different topic, I can see where they're coming from. It's a very Black Walls-like situation, made worse by the fact that the templating for all search your deck effects has been extremely consistent (see below), while Maege is phrased differently.

To be a Wolf "Search your deck for a card of a different type,reveal it,and put it into your hand."
At the Gates "search your deck for a Maester character of printed cost 3 or lower, and put it into play."
Winterfell Kennels "search your deck for a Direwolf card,reveal that card to all players,and put it into your hand."
Harried by Dragons "search your deck for a card named Harried by Dragons and put it into your hand."
Khal Drogo "search your deck for X Dothraki characters, reveal them, and put them into your hand."
Spending the winter stores "search your decks for an in-House attachment card, reveal it, and put it into your hands."
Take the White "search your deck for a Kingsguard character and put it into play."

While Maege is "search your deck for a location. Put that location into play knelt and shuffle your deck"

-Istaril said:

These people don't have a leg to stand on. They seem to think that the problem with Before the Black Walls was the period between the first and second sentence. The problem was in fact that the second sentence didn't set a duration for the effect, making it a constant effect. A constant plot effect affects the game state as long as the plot card in question is your revealed plot.

If Before the Black Walls had said "Until the end of the round, in order to declare any characters to attack or defend during challenges of that type, a player must declare all of his or her eligible characters", there wouldn't have been a problem. At least that's my understanding.

So, in short, this is not a Black Walls-like situation at all.

That said, is it just me or is the Black Walls erratum doing a pretty bad job fixing the card? I mean, there's still no duration. Basically it says "It works, because we say so" , right? We can only infer that the effect is active as long as the second River plot is the revealed plot card, but the FAQ doesn't tell us that. We have to infer it. Or am I reading too much into this?

I agree on both counts - I think the reason Maege works (and black wall didn't) is the timing; one is clearly a dependent on the other and has the same timing, while in the case of black walls one was when revealed and the other a passive with no end point. However, I'm not 100% confident on the precedents of subordinate clauses separated by periods in this game… and the consistent wording of all previous search effects also raises a few alarm bells. You'd think that the first thing a designer would do in creating a card is to see how the effects have been templated before, and that any change therefrom must be deliberate. *sigh*

As for the erratum, it doesn't change the card at all but simply tells us how it is intended to work. That's not that uncommon - see the erratum for Blood Crazed Screamer, Fear of Winter, Retreat and Regroup and even Grand Maester Pycelle. None of them list "should read" or add text to the cards, but all of them tell us how to use the card as intended.

-Istaril said:

Sure, but my point is that the erratum does a shabby job clarifying the card.

(v3.3) Before the Black Walls F40
"When revealed, name a challenge type.
In order to declare any characters to attack
or defend during challenges of that type, a
player must declare all of his or her eligible
characters." is all considered part of the "When
revealed" effect and is active while the plot is
revealed or when the "When revealed" effect
has been triggered by another River plot card..

So, that second sentence of BtBW is active when the "When revealed" effect has been triggered by another River plot card. But how long is it active? As long as that second plot is revealed? What happens if that second River plot is switched out before or during the challenge phase? Does the effect from BtBW stop working? Is the constant effect from BtBW the only constant plot effect in the game that is active while the plot card it's printed on isn't actually the revealed plot? I assume so, but the erratum doesn't really tell us, does it?

Or maybe I'm just being thick right now.

sWhiteboy said:

I was simply awestruck when it was suggested that it was an illegal move to use Rickon Stark to copy Maege Mormont's ability. A "then" effect is one thing(and identified in the FAQ), but to classify(in game terms) that all effects are multiple effects if they contain multiple sentences just makes my head explode.

Ratatoskr said:

I actually thought that all that was missing from BtBW was the duration of the lasting effect. If you reveal a new plot mid-turn when BtBW is currently revealed, wouldn't it still lose it's "constant" effect right now?

IMO, the errata should read "Until you reveal a new plot card" just like Fear of Winter (which doesn't even need it). Or "until the turn ends" or "during the next challenges phase".

Maege is easily distinguished from Black Walls as a triggered Response instead of a "When revealed" passive. When a triggered effect is copied, every effect associated with that single trigger is copied.

In fact, the Black Walls entry, saying that all the separate sentences are part of the "When Revealed" effect, and are therefore copied by the next River plot, argues that all separate sentences on Maege are part of the triggered Response effect, and are therefore copied.

And Rat is completely correct. There is no comparison to Maege and Black Walls isn't particularly good because the problem was the duration, not the separate effect wasn't copied. It was never so much that the next river plot did not copy "in order to declare…" effect; it was that as soon as it was copied, it's duration was technically over (so while it was copied, it was not copied to practical effect). This is a really far cry from the Maege situation.