Old Ben said:

Hi Old Ben,

it´s a copy/paste from the .pdf of the english card version I use to translate/supervise the transtalion of the cards from English into Spanish. We have been playing this "+1" as a gold penalty, but maybe an explanation of this would be helpful

fabest said:

Invierno said:

Actually, there is precedent. The Reign of Kings Iron Throne raised the cost to play characters and attachments by 1. But because it was not specifically called a gold penalty on the card, it was ruled to not, in fact, be considered a gold penalty (which meant there was no combo with Homeland Fiefdoms). The same would seem to hold true here - you have to pay an additional gold, but because the Agenda does not call it a gold penalty, you would not treat it as such. So you couldn't ignore this extra gold with a card like Under One Banner.

Thank you both of you Invierno and Ktom for your input. I thought from the wording that it wouldn´t be considered a gold penalty, but an additional cost. Now i know it´s true , i was of course looking at the under one banner card and homeland fiefdom. ;-)

Thank you very much ktom for the explanation

Got my cards today. I just had to post how much I like the look of the Shadows cards. The grey backgrounds make the colored house emblems really pop. Cool design.

Deathjester26 said:

Agreed. The artwork is, as usual, amazing. The artwork for Bound by Honor is the cover art from the Core Set box, which seems very appropriate.

After finally seeing and playing some of the new cards i must agree with others who already wrote before that the artwork is amazing, also the shadow crest design is stunning.

The cards from the new chapter pack seem to offer some real combo potential and the shadow mechanic works fine, but isn´t exaggeratedly strong judging from the card pool we have at the moment. The city of shadows agenda is like i expected cool and offers interesting game play. The best small combos i could work out in ten minutes or so deck building were:

Tywin Lannister (CS) + Shadow politics + any two claim plot. It was really scheming to let shadow politics come out of shadows at the beginning of the draw phase (it shoudl be mentioned that the opponent didn´t have any cards in hand before).

Kingswood trail + Hallowed ground are a nice Baratheon kneel combo.

Thanks for the spoilers!

Is it me or are the card´s just getting cooler and cooler with each edition?

But to voice some concerns: How is one in a torney supposed to prevent playing "non shadow" cards into the shadows? (Esp. with the Plot)

Right now it seems that in a MtG like environment you´d have to call a judge every time a card is placed in the shadows. ( but that shouldn`t really be an issue in the local playgroups)

Moneylender said:

This is something that occurred to me as well. Obviously, if someone lies and puts a non-Shadows card put into Shadows, they can never bring it out. They would be caught if they did. However, with cards like the Lannister location that gives characters +1 STR for each card the player has in Shadows or the Agenda that says you MUST have a card in Shadows in order to get unopposed power, there may be some value in paying 2 gold to throw away a dead card.

Until FFG comes up with a real sportsmanship ruling on this one, I would suggest that at the end of the game, all cards still in Shadows must be revealed. For tournament play, if the winner has a non-Shadows card in Shadows at this point, they automatically lose. In casual play, if the winner has a non-Shadows card in Shadows, they are open to ridicule, derision and eye-pokes.

ktom said:

I think that's how it's handled in MtG tournaments for cards that can be put into play face down due to a printed ability on that card.

LetsGoRed said:

Yup and it´s good that it´s treated this way. But i´m confident that it should be almost a non-issue with the regular AGOT player community, all people i know are playing fair and sportmanslike and if a game rule is broken in gameplay it´s always unwilling and by accident. That´s one of the things i like a lot about the AGOT community, the players are enjoying the game, which means games are for for fun and winning a game is just a bonus and not a necessarity to enjoy playing the game.

Old Ben said:

~ That said, losing sucks.

Old Ben said:

While likely true, I still suggest that everyone shuffle your opponent's decks quite well at World's. I'd hate for something similar to CoC last year happen to us.

Finite and I had a similar discussion, and I like Ktom's suggestions. I tend to agree that this shouldn't be a problem in the AGOT community, but the added deterrent is a good thing too. It only takes one or two stories of people pulling crap to dampen the trust and mood of the people that play. Perhaps ironic and paradoxical, the best way to keep people trusting of each other is to give them little reason to doubt their opponents.

And to be honest, if someone keeps a shadow card face-down the whole game, I'm going to be **** curious at the end (especially if I lose) to know what that card is and why they never revealed it!

~Because eyepokes are the ultimate way of ensuring an honest population. (not a winking smiley, I poked it in the eye for cheating)

Kennon said:

I don't play or follow CoC, but you've piqued my curiosity. What happened?

And I do think it would good form at the end of a game to reveal any yet-to-be revealed cards you have in Shadows to your opponent and will encourage that in our group.

Lars said:

so much for that idea. When i dreamt it up i didn't relaize that i'd have a gold penalty on top of the 1 gold for the agenda. So the GJ character and the Bara location (which is awesome btw) would end up costing me 3 extra gold when revlealed...no thnaks.

I tried the agenda anyway with 3x tyrion, 3x shadow politics, and 3x martell event (no events). It wasn't really productive. Right now i'm better off dropping the agenda and the plot and just running tyrion and shadow politics...

RE: Sportsmanship. we had this discussion too last night. I had a game where i kept a shadow politics in the shadows the whole game becuase i wanted to be able to claim for unopposed challenges. I like revleaing it at the end of the game. We were going to have a T/O check at the end of the game, but revelaing is simple and quicker.

Lars said:

I thought the same thing when I first read the card, but I was wrong.

From the Core Set Rules (some emphasis added):

"If, during marshalling, you wish to play a character, location, or attachment that is affiliated with a different House, the gold cost to play that card is increased by 2. This is called the gold penalty, and it is the price that must be paid for playing characters that are not loyal to your House. [...] Important Note: When a card is “put into play” by an effect, it bypasses all restrictions, including paying any gold cost or penalty."

When you bring a card out of Shadows, you are not playing that card from your hand during Marshalling. You are using a specific game-defined "put into play" effect. As such, the OOH gold penalty is not applied to the cost you need to pay to bring it out of Shadows. The Agenda makes you pay 1 extra gold, but the OOH does not apply to make things cost an extra 3.

so why do the Shadow rules talk about applicable gold penalties if there aren't any? see below.

"When the card is brought out of Shadows in this manner [flipping it from shadow area], the non-Shadows portion of its gold cost (the number after the printed "s" in the card's cost), as well as any applicable gold penalities, is paid, or the card cannot come out of shadows."

bold emphasis mine.

The answer is in the quote. It says to include any applicable gold penalties. According to the rules for OOH gold penalties, the OOH is not applicable to bringing cards out of Shadows. Essentially, the explanation for why the Agenda only makes OOH Shadow cards cost 1 extra instead of 3 is not at odds with the Shadows rule you quote because the penalty is not applicable.

Consider, for example, ITE-Aeron Damphair. He just says "cost 3" instead of "printed cost 3" for the Holy character he fetches. If I'm playing a GJ deck, can I use his ability to put CS-Selyse Baratheon or a Priestess of the Pyre into play? They are cost 2 and 3 respectively, but the gold penalties I would have to pay on them if I played them would make the cost 4 and 5 respectively. Well, since I am putting them into play rather than playing them, the OOH gold penalty doesn't apply, so I could. Coming out of Shadows is no different since it does not meet the definition for "playing" the card.

I'd say that part of the rules is there in case there are cards that would impose gold penalties on putting cards into play or coming out of Shadows. Who knows what else may be coming in the next 5 CPs? But unless the City of Shadows Agenda is meant to just completely suck, I think it's safe to say the OOH penalty is not one of the applicable gold penalties the rules refer to.

ok, thats how i thought it worked...ahd some diasgreement last night based on the bolded text. I'll forward any other discussion if it arises. Warf rats and Kingswood trail go back in the deck.

heh, got one already. DarthJeff's work stops him from viewing this site so i've included him via e-mail. I've forwarded it to Nate.

Darthjeff says:

I would argue that bringing a card out of shadows is considered “played” and not “put into play”. I am guessing this because they mention gold penalties. I would not be surprised if there is a ruling to that effect from Nate. Either way I would like to hear from Nate about if this is “played” or “put into play” and whether or not OOH applies. I am guessing it does or house affiliation means nothing unless partnered with house X only.

Lars said:

I understand his concern and don't fault him for wanting to hear form Nate. And rather than going into a discussion of the FAQ's definition of "play" and the distinction between the rules mentioning "gold penalties" as opposed to "OOH gold penalties," I'll simply say that it was Nate who set me straight on my own original misunderstanding.

Feel free to ask him again (I did warn him he'd be answering that question a lot), but I am pretty confident there will be no ruling that "comes out of Shadows" is the same as "played."

LetsGoRed said:

Are you familiar with the term mana weaving from M:tG? Essentially you take your lands and carefully space them out in the deck before giving them a shuffle to prevent all of your resources clumping up. Something similar was done at the CoC Worlds last year where a couple players were doing the same thing with their combo pieces in a combo deck. With the trusting nature of the community, little if any shuffling was done by their opponent's after the weaving player gave their deck a quick once through. I won't to to recount every little thing that happened with that, but let's just say there were several very unhappy people on each side.

Suffice to say, the difference between "legal" and "fair" came up....