This is a curiosity that the FAQ leaves woefully unclear.

FAQ §1.42 "Additional attacks by an enemy":

When an enemy makes an additional attack, discard all of its previously dealt shadow cards before dealing it a new shadow card.

Note that this does not actually say to deal the enemy a shadow card for the new attack, only that you should discard any existing ones before the enemy makes its second attack. Nowhere else in the FAQ or core rulebook does it even mention multiple attacks by one enemy, much less any potential shadow cards dealt to them.

Also note that within the normal framework of the game, dealing shadow cards to engaged enemies is done only at the beginning of the combat phase (as per the core rulebook, and barring any specific card effects which instruct one to deal shadow cards).

Unfortunately, the card pool itself doesn't give any consideration or set any precedence for a specific answer.

Lord Alcaron specifically tells you to deal a new shadow card:

Forced: When Lord Alcaron is dealt a shadow card with no shadow effect, he makes an additional attack after this one (deal and resolve another shadow card).

But Old Orc-eyes (from Murder at the Prancing Pony) specifically tells you to not deal a new shadow card:

Forced: After an attack resolves in which Old Orc-eyes was dealt a shadow card with no shadow effect, he makes an additional attack against you. Do not deal Old Orc-eyes a shadow cad for this attack.

No other card in the existing card pool which contain the possibility for additional attacks (for example, Smaug the Magnificent, Angmar Captain, or the shadow effect of Lawless Ruffian, which spawned this question) specify either way.

EDIT:

FAQ §1.26 "Enemy attacks outside of the combat phase" could be seen as setting a precedence for all attacks being dealt a shadow card, but again, nothing is specific about "additional attack" text.

I always interpreted the "before dealing it a new shadow card" in that FAQ entry as an instruction that you should always deal them a new shadow card after discarding the old ones (unless specifically told not to do so by a card effect).

I agree with PocketWraith. I see the minor ambiguity you're pointing out, but I think it's due to the imprecision of the English language, specifically the word "before", rather than designer intent. If you DIDN'T have to deal/resolve a new shadow card, why would FAQ §1.42 exist at all? It would be likely simply be worded, "When an enemy makes an additional attack, discard all of its previously dealt shadow cards" in that case.

The designers haven't always been 100% consistent on clarification-type card text, so I don't think the fact that one enemy (Lord Alcaron) happens to explicitly mention the dealing and resolving a new shadow card should be taken as much evidence either way.

(You highlighted an odd numbering error in the FAQ I've never noticed before, which is that there are two FAQ § 1.26s! The one you mentioned should be labeled § 1.28, heh.)

The ambiguity is key though...if the developers had intended additional attacks to always receive shadow cards, they could have worded it as "When an enemy makes an additional attack, discard all of its previously dealt shadow cards then deal it a new shadow card." (bold indicates change). It's not really a minor one, after consideration...

And you're right about there being two § 1.26s; I never noticed that the one before it was § 1.27, since I was using the search function to find all instances of the word "attack" in the text...good find!

Your language is definitely more clear, but I do see this as a minor ambiguity, if only because in the history of the game I have never seen anyone seriously question whether Smaug the Magnificent is allowed to decimate your entire army through a series of unfortunate shadow cards (the fiend). The language is clear enough..

I dug this very old thread up with some interesting information about designer intent with shadow cards, from the thread at Cardgamedb here .

Shadow cards should be dealt during attacks made outside of the combat phase. The [rules, pg 18] reads, "when resolving enemy attacks, follow these four steps." The main issue I see with that interpretation is that it is conflating the resolution of an attack with the act itself, and making the jump to the conclusion that anything that does not happen during the resolution of an attack (such as the dealing of a Shadow card) is not a part of the attack.

The main reason that Shadow cards are dealt at the beginning of the combat phase is that they serve as a convenient means of portraying which enemies have yet to act when combat is being resolved. (If an enemy has a face down shadow card, it still needs to resolve its attack.) Of course, this breaks down when the encounter deck empties mid shadow phase, but in most cases it serves its purpose, particularly early in most players' games, when they are still learning the basic mechanics -- it amounts to one less "memory issue" and stumbling point in those early experiences.

That said, it is worth specifying that Shadow cards should be dealt for enemies that attack outside the combat phase, so thanks for bringing it up -- I'll put it on the FAQ list. And yes, if the game is "foolish" enough to launch an attack during staging and open up action windows, the players can take full advantage of those action windows as they see fit.

While I do think that enemies should be dealt a shadow card for additional attacks, I am not certain. Especially because of the situation below...

Isn't it true that if an enemy engages you from out of play while you are resolving the attacks from enemies currently engaged with you during the combat phase that the enemy that just engaged you would also make an attack? For this attack, would it be dealt a shadow card?

The only requirement for resolving enemies' attacks is that you resolve them one at a time.

Isn't it true that if an enemy engages you from out of play while you are resolving the attacks from enemies currently engaged with you during the combat phase that the enemy that just engaged you would also make an attack? For this attack, would it be dealt a shadow card?

Do you mean "if an enemy engages you while you are resolving the attacks from the enemies that were engaged with you at the beginning of the combat phase"? Like, if, during the combat phase, you Westfold Outrider'ed an enemy in the staging area into engaging you?

I believe from reading various interviews and rulings the intention of the designers is that

a) Enemies engaged with a player receive a shadow card at the beginning of the combat phase

b) Enemies that engage you after the combat phase has begun do not receive a shadow card

c) Enemies that engage you after the combat phase has begun but before the "enemy attacks" subphase has finished will attack, but will not receive a shadow card for this attack

d) Enemies that engage you after the "enemy attacks" subphase has finished will not attack

e) Enemies that attack you because of card effects receive a shadow card for this attack unless otherwise mentioned.

That is, shadow cards are dealt i) at the start of the combat phase and ii) immediately before any non-framework attack but not iii) immediately before any framework attack.

I believe from reading various interviews and rulings the intention of the designers is that

a) Enemies engaged with a player receive a shadow card at the beginning of the combat phase

b) Enemies that engage you after the combat phase has begun do not receive a shadow card

c) Enemies that engage you after the combat phase has begun but before the "enemy attacks" subphase has finished will attack, but will not receive a shadow card for this attack

d) Enemies that engage you after the "enemy attacks" subphase has finished will not attack

e) Enemies that attack you because of card effects receive a shadow card for this attack unless otherwise mentioned.

That is, shadow cards are dealt i) at the start of the combat phase and ii) immediately before any non-framework attack but not iii) immediately before any framework attack.

Okay, thanks, this was my interpretation of the various rulings too. You made it much more clear and succinct than I ever could haha

One more thing that should be mentioned, but if an enemy attacks player 1 and then it engages player 2 before player 2 has resolved his attacks, didn't the developers say that that enemy does not attack again unless specifically directed to?

If the answer to the question directly above is "Yes", then we should add f) Each enemy only attacks once per combat phase unless otherwise directed

I found confirmation on what I suspected to be true:

FAQ

Q: When an enemy that has already made an attack engages a new player during the combat phase, does it make another attack?
A: Not unless it is directed to by card effect.

NathanH's framework is correct for all but the last one, since all but the last one (see below) are evident by the framework written into the core rules and the FAQ. The only time enemies receive shadow cards according to the rules as written is if they're engaged at the beginning of the Combat Phase (core rules), make an out-of phase attack (FAQ §1.28), or a card effect grants them a shadow card (core framework).

Any attacks made by an enemy during the combat phase, additional or prompted by a card effect (if I recall correctly there is a shadow effect that "turns into an enemy" and attacks that player), are by definition not out-of-phase attacks, as per FAQ §1.28. Thus these types of attacks never receive shadow cards unless a card effect grants them one.

The last one is not clear though; it remains supposition and guesswork. Nowhere in the rules documents does it clearly resolve this issue. Even GrandSpleen's wonderful, albeit irrelevant, post doesn't even touch it (that anecdote is about out-of-phase attacks, which clearly are granted shadow cards as per FAQ §1.28).

I've found another card that specifies to deal a shadow card on an additional attack: the shadow text of Northern Wargs (The Wastes of Eriador):

Shadow: After this attack, attacking enemy engages the next player, then makes an immediate attack (deal a new shadow card for that attack).

Curiously, I've found one more card that specifies it gets a shadow card on additional attacks, though in a screwy way: the Forced text on Dol Guldur Beastmaster :

Forced: When Dol Guldur Beastmaster attacks, deal it 1 additional shadow card.

This relies on zero being a defined "number" in the game's rules, which I've not yet found in LotR (they've had to do this for ANR though). Granted, there's no way for enemies to make additional attacks from the Core Set [AFAIK] so it's mostly irrelevant.

Anyways...

Isn't it true that if an enemy engages you from out of play while you are resolving the attacks from enemies currently engaged with you during the combat phase that the enemy that just engaged you would also make an attack? For this attack, would it be dealt a shadow card?

As per the core rules, yes that enemy would attack you, since it is engaged with you during step 1 of the "Resolving Enemy Attacks" step of the Combat Phase. However, because that enemy was not engaged with you at the start of the Combat Phase, it would not receive a shadow card, since that is a step prior to "Resolving Enemy Attacks."

This is a curiosity that the FAQ leaves woefully unclear.

FAQ §1.42 "Additional attacks by an enemy":

When an enemy makes an additional attack, discard all of its previously dealt shadow cards before dealing it a new shadow card.

Note that this does not actually say to deal the enemy a shadow card for the new attack, only that you should discard any existing ones before the enemy makes its second attack. Nowhere else in the FAQ or core rulebook does it even mention multiple attacks by one enemy, much less any potential shadow cards dealt to them.

I see what you're saying, but doesn't it also follow that if an enemy makes an additional attack (and it does not specify whether or not to deal it another shadow card) that you would not discard previously dealt shadow cards since you have to do that "before dealing it a new shadow card". And since you have not been instructed to deal it a new shadow card you cannot do anything before it...so its shadow cards would just sit there?

Also, based on your current argument, if an enemy made an out-of-phase attack and its shadow card said "Attacking enemy makes an additional attack. Deal it a shadow card for the attack" it would be dealt two shadow cards for the next attack. One shadow card for the additional out-of-phase attack (1.28), and one shadow card because of the shadow card directing it to receive a shadow card. Then, because of 1.42 using the word "When" we can be unsure if the shadow card dealt as a result of the shadow card effect from the previous attack is dealt before, after, or simultaneously with the shadow card that is dealt because of making the out-of-phase attack. If it is simultaneous (or before still works here), technically the players can choose the order, so you could choose to deal the shadow card from the shadow card effect first, then "discard all of its previously dealt shadow cards, before dealing it a new shadow card" to satisfy 1.42. This would allow you to discard the one face down shadow card that was supposed to be dealt for the second attack. Or, if you were feeling particularly confident, you could choose to deal that shadow card after 1.42 requirement so you would get to deal with two shadow cards.

Above and beyond the rules as written, let's call it our 'bible,' we have the accepted interpretation of that 'bible.' That interpretation is just as important as the rules themselves.

As far as I know, it is very well accepted that enemies getting additional attacks are dealt new shadow cards. That is backed up by any number of play sessions that players have had with developers, such as GenCon. Surely if that were not the intent, someone would have said something by now?

About that Nate quote-- it is about attacks outside of the combat phase, but it's not irrelevant. It's a rare window into the intent behind game framework effects-- why indeed do we deal shadow cards out at the beginning of the combat phase? Why not just deal them when we resolve the attack? The way we do it now, Feint wastes a card. It was done that way simply to help players remember which attacks had not yet resolved. It seems the intent is that every enemy for every attack gets a shadow card.

As the game has evolved, we've had rulings that have gone the opposite way (such as enemies engaging after shadow cards were dealt during the combat phase). So there's that. But I do think the language "...before you dealing it a new shadow card" supports that interpretation that you are intended to deal it a new card very much, just as if I said "buckle your seat belt before turning on the car." I get that the language is not crystal clear, but if it was meant to say "buckle your seat belt before turning on the (if indeed someone has told you to turn on the car)," I think it would say that.

It was done that way simply to help players remember which attacks had not yet resolved.

Out-of-phase attacks happen immediately, they do not "need a reminder," but the FAQ specifies that they receive a card.

Additional attacks also happen immediately, and also do not "need a reminder." The FAQ is fuzzy on that though.

"buckle your seat belt before turning on the car."

The problem with this, and the interpretation of the FAQ entry, is that you are assuming the intent is to turn on the car itself. If no one has instructed you to turn on the car, then there is no need to buckle up.

The statement is not a command, it's a conditional; if the new attack is to be dealt a shadow card, discard any old ones before dealing new ones. As cmbar002 has so rightly pointed out, since they used the word "before," if there is no new shadow card, you can't do anything before it. Again, word choice in rules is specific: "before", "during", "when", and "after" all have very specific trigger timings, as do "if, then" conditional statements. Until such a time as they update the wording on the FAQ (it's been over ten months, so we're not likely to see this any time soon), or a developer intervenes with a corrected statement, treating §1.42 as if it said "then" instead of "before" is nothing more than personal interpretation, rather than a factual statement.

No developer will intervene unless you submit a rules question.

Well,we've reached the familiar point of internet forum-dom where everyone is unconvinced by everyone else.

Go ahead and send an official question to the developers if that is of interest to you. I recommend that when you play, you deal a new shadow card when enemies make additional attacks. Otherwise when that ruling comes down, you are going to feel that your wins have been invalidated!

Honestly? I've been dealing them shadow cards since I began back in the Mirkwood Cycle...a recent rules issue prompted by the Murder at the Prancing Pony scenario forced me to peruse the FAQ again, which is when I came across §1.42. The text is ambiguous, which lead to the possibility of having done it incorrectly for a long time. Our group has had similar revelations before, most recently in the Guarded keyword (we never realized it had an in-born "Surge"-like effect). Thus, when I found no rulings online, and no definitive discussions on it in these forums, I figured I'd ask. Since no one responded with a definitive answer, instead with RAI-based rhetoric, I figured I'd argue the opposite, such that some form of acceptable truth would surface. Instead, it opened up other worm cans, and the discovery of more ambiguities and inconsistencies within the FAQ/Core Rules regarding the treatment of shadow cards.

It makes me sad to think that we haven't seen a new FAQ in over ten months, considering how the game has changed since then. It's a shame that the devs don't seem to lurk in these forums, since they could easily pick up on what needs to be addressed. We can't bug Caleb about every little thing...

It's not common to see devs moving quickly on issues like this, as they can't just say what 1 card's rule is without answering a dozen others. I do hope they release an answer for this, and a few other cards that should be clarified in the FAQ