Um, that is needlessly complicated and more than a little pointless.

Why is the FAQ entry different from the very clear and elegant, and trouble free Core Set Rules?

Sending it off to Nate now.

Nate knows about it. Has known about it for awhile. It's actually been there for well over a year and was brought to his attention within hours of the first FAQ with it being posted. In fact, it goes all the way back to a time when VED was legal because Art of Seduction was a major problem for this ruling - which I think was actually written into the 5KE rules for ending the round after Standing (before there was a Taxation). Whether he meant to take it out for the LCG or not, I don't know, but it was there - with him knowing about it - for several CCG FAQ iterations.

ktom said:

That´s of course the treatment for the situation which comes to mind and makes sense. I also thought about some more (very constructed) examples which are possibly only an issue for the legacy format. Another interesting question which comes to mind if you take the "no revelaed claim value = O claim value" scenario is can the claim value be modified or replaced. Most of the cards either have the "Challenges:" requirement and/or refer to the revealed plot card (lile King Robb from AROK), but some like Manticore venom (ITE) just say they replace the "nomal claim effects" - so can you also assume that "no revealed claim value = the normal claim value"?

Like i said it´s a very constructed example and is more nitpicking than anything else, but such situations at least my occur and i thought it maybe an interesting rules question.

Old Ben said:

Modification is unlikely because the effects either tend to be "Challenges" effect or, as you say, specifically modify the claim value on your plot card and are thus inapplicable. On the other hand, there should be no more problem with claim replacement than there would be with an actual 0-claim plot card.

You know, in theory I really like the Shadows mechanic. Now comes the test of seeing if it was implemented right. Doomed seemed really awesome, in theory, when I first heard about it. I think its safe to say that it didn't quite work out that well. I do really like the fact that Nate made it impossible to put a non shadows card into the shadows. That would've gotten really confusing for some people I'm sure. Also, between Ambush and Shadows, Targ should be really annoying. Or really awesome. depends on what house you play I guess! I think I'll start a thread about cards that would make sense being in the shadows.

I have to say I like the idea of shadow events... when I first heard of it I was thinking characters and an ambush like ability... which I guess in its own way is a bit true... but the implications of it not being considered "in play" or "in hand" are kind of awesome... What is one of Stark's two biggest weaknesses? Intrigue... well this could effectively bypass the danger of intrigue challenges for some of their cards... those which apparently will have some pretty good come into play effects.

So if we can have what are essentially pay with gold events in Shadows I'm guessing attachments and locations are equally fare game. I have to say that ratherprospect has me thinking of the one idea out of Yu-Gi-Oh I thought was pretty cool, trap cards. Admittedly it was not a game I ever played, but the idea of being able to play a card face down which has strategic and/or tactical implications. Is it something that will help me this turn in the challenge phase? Is it something that will hurt you later? IS it something that will change the board conditions? So much potential and unless you have a card which can reveal a card in Shadows you don't know what it is, which means you end each phase in a state of ignorance, whether your actions this phase to enact your plans in the next are going to be upset by that one face down card just sitting there.

I love it. I also think it is going to be difficult for any mechanic to be done as poorly as Doomed. The problem there was the alternate loss condition was not enough to account for some of the overpowered cards, and there were not enough cards that made it risky to play with too many cards doomed cards in your deadpile. I don't see that kind of glaring whole here. Only being able to bring 1 card out at a time, every card costing a minimum of two gold, the mere existence of a card in Shadows potentially powering up your opponents cards or powering down your own... I think balance of the mechanic itself isn't going to be the problem. I think what has the crest, distribution through the houses, and how well the mechnaic is supported (hopefully if it is a good mechanic we'll continue to get a few cards that support the mechnic through multiple cycles.

We've seen or been hinted at Shadowy Arya, Tywin, Tyrion, maybe a King's Landing or Red Keep card (unless that was just a turn of phrase in Nate's spoiler and not an oblique reference that has me reaching). Anything else? Start your thread already Staton I wanna see some speculatin'.

Oh I read right over the part about only have one card in the shadows at a time. Also, I made that thread under the title of Hiding in the Shadows.

Staton said:

Huh? I read it as having as many cards in Shadows as you like, but only being allowed to bring one card out of Shadows each phase.

ktom said:

That's what I read. Any number 'in shadows', but you can only ever bring one out and into play once per phase.

I'd like to see an actual rules summary at the end of the article. Like what I imagine they'll print with the CP's. So we can have the rules right there as written, instead of spread out throughout the article and not clearly defined.

I'd also still like to see some real previews, and an actual release date for the 1st KLE pack.

Yeah, after actually going and reading it, I concur. As many in the shadows as you want, but only 1 comes out of the shadows at a time. Which makes sense, you can't very well have a ton of guys running out of an alley and not have someone notice.

can a charcater in shadows be used for claim before he comes out? he would be revealed on the way to the deadpile so you can't 'lie' about it.

I highly doubt it. The article seems to imply pretty clearly that in Shadows is not considered "in play" ad you could no more fulfill military claim with a character i your dead pile, discard pile, hand, or your collection of cards in the binder beside you. So no, as long as Shadow is not considered "in play" there is no way to fulifll any claim with a card there.

Now Nate was not enitrely specific that in Shadows was not absolutely considered in play, but for it to be considered in play that opens it up to be effected by every targeting card and that is going to cause some design space issues. I'd say we can probaly bet with 96% certainty that it is not considered in play.

dormouse said:

I highly doubt it. The article seems to imply pretty clearly that in Shadows is not considered "in play" ad you could no more fulfill military claim with a character i your dead pile, discard pile, hand, or your collection of cards in the binder beside you. So no, as long as Shadow is not considered "in play" there is no way to fulifll any claim with a card there.

Now Nate was not enitrely specific that in Shadows was not absolutely considered in play, but for it to be considered in play that opens it up to be effected by every targeting card and that is going to cause some design space issues. I'd say we can probaly bet with 96% certainty that it is not considered in play.

I would have to concur. Granted, we have not seen the actual rules yet, but it sounds like cards in Shadows are not "in play," so would therefore not be actionable by anything unless it specifically references cards "in Shadows." If a card in Shadows can be used for claim (besides being a very poor choice thematically), it could be targeted by direct kill and other effects. But what do you do with something like Icy Catapult if you chose a card in Shadows and it wasn't a character. Plus, if you could use them for claim, they'd also be hit by things like Valar, Wildfire and Westeros Bleeds, which seems entirely against the point.