2C1C interviewed Michael Horvath at Worlds, who dropped a lot of very interesting hints.

We can reasonably expect:

• Conquest sized box.
• No Melee Figurines
• Split Rulebook
• Shadows may not be re-implemented. (it was mentioned in the same breath as Influence on things that would be difficult to phase out through rotation alone)
• Deck Size remains 60
• Constructing a full sized mono-faction deck will not be possible with one core set.
• House Card front: House Lannister. House Card back: Agenda - Support of House Lannister
• Splashing OOF without the agenda will not be allowed.
• No mention of any matchups excluded from cross-faction alliances. (no "alliance wheel.")
• Rules refer to Factions, not Houses. "For reasons."
• current playtest version retains all seven phases.
• the identities of the eight factions will be released before Gen Con.

Also, discussing might-have-beens, rotation rather than reboot would have entailed a new Core Set. But the pains of losing much of the card pool related to Seasons was cited as a big problem, as well as presenting a barrier to the templating and rules cleanup that they needed. Phasing out Influence or Shadows would have taken six years if they just stopped printing anything related to it.

I guess I missed the info on shadows may not be making a come back. Was that part of the interview or an article?

Or is that because it hasn't actually been confirmed?

I think it's Grim reading too much into something Micheal said. I listened to the same interview and I didn't get the same idea.

The Agot² blurp even mentions:

You may lead the armies of the north with Robb Stark, or scheme in the shadows with Tyrion Lannister.

To be fair, issuing an Intrigue Challenge with Tyrion Lannister could be considered "scheming in the shadows."

To be fair, issuing an Intrigue Challenge with Tyrion Lannister could be considered "scheming in the shadows."

~So could asking a question. I'm sure all the characters have asked questions in the book.

Like I said in the OP, it was only mentioned offhandedly in conjunction with a mechanic we know they do want to phase out. That's why I said "may" not be reimplemented. Mig el Pig is very right, he did not come right out and say it.

I was most interested to hear how much he praised Conquest's core set design, that decks were staying at 60 cards, and that one core set is not enough to build a single-Faction deck.

The writings on the wall: expect to buy 2 core sets, if not 3.

The writings on the wall: expect to buy 2 core sets, if not 3.

I didn't expect so either but this interview sheds light on many other threads in various places. Some people always complain about buying multiple core sets.

Yeah, that was a great podcast. Loved all the info on 2ed. Good job guys.

Thanks! We'll be sure to have Mike on again once it gets closer to release time.

As for shadows, I really hope that it isn't dropped completely. I think it's my favorite mechanic that 1ED added in all the last 12 years or so.

I've been reviewing the "what we know" thread, and I'm still thinking that Shadows just may not come back.

Reasoning: every Chapter Pack had to include a rules insert detailing the mechanic, and the rules had to be printed in the FAQ. I supsect since there is such an emphasis on making the game accessible for new players, that they wouldn't want to have rules supplements scattered in other locations.

(Of course, one could also make the case that this is a null factor, as having extraneous rules which don't appear in the core set card pool would also confuse new players, and thus "expansion rules" might be a preferred solution. I don't know, time will tell.)

They could come at it from a middle-ground, and have Shadows make its return in a deluxe expansion and mini-rules booklet...an expansion which would probably not be named "Between the Shadows."

EDIT: Nvm, this is a stupid idea.

It could be part of the core rules. Although I would like the simplification of being able to bring a card out of shadows at any time like Meera Reed. (and abolishing the shadow pre-phase)

I seem to recall an interview with Nate where they said that being able to bring a card out of Shadows was OP when they were first playtesting the mechanics. The limit 1 per phase and restricting it to start of phase were game balance nerfs.

That was our interview with Nate (The "Beyond the Wall" podcast) - in which he went over some of the initial design goals of Shadows in AGOT1.0, and how it evolved through testing. Grimwalker's right - one iteration allowed you to take cards out of shadows as any-phase, and it caused serious problems (and didn't mesh with the shadows vision). People would just amass a bunch of shadows, Valar, then pull everything out at once (every thing was functionally "s1" back then)

I was most interested to hear how much he praised Conquest's core set design,

Didn't listen to the podcast, just started reading this thread. This caught my attention. I'm wondering if they are going to build the house faction alliances similar to what they did for 40k Conquest.

I would not detest a wheel similar to this. I'd just prefer that they not lump all of Essos into House Targaryen again....I mean, some of those guys really seem to hate Dany. So make Night's Watch, Wildlings, and Free Cities all separate from the wheel please.

The Free Cities' gameplay theme could vary from subgroup to subgroup, but could generally revolve around negation, to reflect both their rejection of the uncivilized nature of the Westerosi, as well as their physical distance from the main conflict. Their "crest" could be the Iron Coin.

I believe Mike had mentioned that any of the houses could pair with anyone, so no faction wheel in AGOT as I understand it.

On the other hand, and Essos or Free Cities faction would actually be pretty awesome!