Hi,

in italian forum there is this doubt.

I'm first player and before challenge phase, I put out from the shadows KL Assassin. My opponent has in play Margaery "blank after a card come out from shadows".

Both of them are response activating after a card come out from shadows. We think that first player resolve its response at first cause it is a framework window.

Some of us say that maybe putting a card out of shadow is a "action" so first response is due to the left neighbor of the "shadow card owner", like in player action window.

Could you please clarify us this doubt?

thx

Gualdo said:

I think this is correct. It can't be a player action window, since you are not allowed to do some action (e.g. any phase).

Gualdo said:

Bringing cards out of Shadows is something of a hybrid. The timing is something like a modified and restricted player action window. The Shadows rules read:

"When more than one player want to bring a card out of Shadows at the
beginning of a phase, the players do so one at a time, starting with the
first player and proceeding clockwise. This happens before any other
“beginning of the phase” effects occur. Each player has one chance to
bring a card out of Shadows each phase. If this opportunity is passed,
it is lost until the beginning of the next phase. Each card that comes out
of Shadows is treated as a separate action, and must be fully resolved
(including all responses) before the next card is brought out of Shadows."

So, this tells us a couple of things:

1. Each card brought out of Shadows is considered an action.
2. Each card brought out of Shadows happens in its own window since Responses to card #1 are complete before card #2 comes out of Shadows.
3. Players choose whether or not to bring cards out of Shadows.

So I'd say that the player to the left of the person choosing to bring the card out of Shadows actually gets first Response. While bringing a card out of Shadows is not really a Framework Action Window or a Player Action Window as the rules have defined them, it is more like a Player Action Window (happens because a player specifically chooses to activate the optional action of bringing a card out of Shadows), even though the "window" is restricted to a single chance to bring a card out of Shadows for each player.

ktom said:

Well, initiating a challenge is also optional and it is a framework action.

BTW word "action" is used in both "player action window" and "framework action window", so this also cannot be proove.

"Each card that comes out of Shadows is treated as a separate action"

The word "action" here could be used simply as "separate act, separate operation" - there is no word "player".

Rules technicalities aside, at first I thought that it feels more accurate to let the opponent react first, but Shadow cards was designed to work that way - coming out of Shadows = acting - card which comes out of Shadows actually do something, if you want to prevent that, use cancel like Jeyne Poole.

Rogue30 said:

Yes and no. The framework window in question opens whether the player chooses to initiate a challenge or not. The player's choice to initiate the challenge does not open the window - the window opening gives the player the option to initiate the challenge. Big difference. Similarly, if the attacker chooses not to assign stealth and the defender chooses not to declare defending characters, the "stealth/defenders" framework action window still opens, right?

There is no indication that the "option to bring a card out of Shadows" window opens if the player doesn't want to take the action. In fact, since that whole section in the rules starts with "when more than one player want to bring a card out of Shadows..." it implies that when the players don't want to bring a card out of Shadows, there is no action window. That is certainly more like a Player Action Window than a Framework Action Window.

Rogue30 said:

Right... but when two players have "separate acts, separate operations" in windows that are distinct from each other, is that more like a Player Action Window or a Framework Action Window? Framework windows often have all players acting in concert (drawing cards, resolving challenges, counting dominance, etc.), Player windows never do. So the context again makes this look more like a Player window again.

Rogue30 said:

Then why make a distinction between "after this card comes out of Shadows" passive effects and Responses? When a card comes out of Shadows = putting a card into play = acting. That the card does something other than enter play is additional to that action (like playing the Castellan from your hand). If coming out of Shadows was supposed to be equivalent to activating its "out of Shadows" effect, all of them would be passive - like Varys - instead of Responses. So I don't buy the "I'm bringing it out of Shadows for the effect, not for the card" argument. Anyway, this is more of an argument for the person bringing the card out of Shadows getting first Response, not that bringing cards out of Shadows is more of a framework action - so the First Player always gets first Response.

I'm convinced that put a card out of shadows is more similar to a player action than a framework one.

But the last sentence put me in confusion.

- so the First Player always gets first Response

In Player actions player to the left of the one that initiated an action should have first response (son in my example Margarey). Only in framework actions first player trigger first response.

First Actions and Responses
The first player always takes the first action at
the beginning of every "Player Actions" segment
(refer to the game flow charts at the end
of section III of this document).
Within any action window (see “The Action
Window in Detail," on page 18), t he player to
the left of the player who initiated the action
always has the option to initiate the first
response (normal and/or save/cancel responses).
The first player always has the option
to initiate the first response in a framework
action window.
Action/response options always continue
clockwise in this fashion until all players consecutively
pass.

Have I missed something???

So, in this example, who will win?

-A: If bringing out a card out of the shadow is a player action (or similar to), Margaery wins and the assassin cannot assign the str penalty (I suppose he would be the blanked character...), right?

-B: If it is a framework action, the assassin goes first and so he can try to kill someone before that little girl could stop him, right?

If I understood correctly, the answar is "A". Am I right?

Gualdo said:

Just a little context. The position I thought Rogue30 was taking is that bringing cards out of Shadows is like a framework window, and if it is like a framework window, the First Player would get first Response. The "Shadows cards are brought out for their effect, so the effect is the action" argument doesn't support that in my opinion because it pretty much says the person bringing the card out of Shadows gets the first Response (not the First Player). So that last sentence was more about pointing out the inconsistency between the argument and what I thought was the original position.

As I have pointed out, I think bringing cards out of Shadows acts like a Player Action Window, so the person to the left of the player bringing the card out of Shadows should get the first Response - just like in the text you quote.

thorin_81 said:

Yes, if I bring an Assassin (or another Response-based Shadows character) out of Shadows and you have Margaery in play, you will get a chance to blank my Assassin before I have a chance to use it. It doesn't matter who the First Player is; when I bring a card out of Shadows, you will always have a chance to Respond to it before I do.

Margaery is an anti-Shadows card. People seem to miss that.

Thx Ktom now it is clear!

Truth is, FFG made a very poor Shadow rules or cards. But that's ok, it can happen. What is wrong though that we cannot get official answer (at least I can't) or FAQ update. I just wish I could play properly without arguing about rules.

I made an argument with "Shadows cards are brought out for their effect, so the effect is the action" because of Dragon Skull case.

If it works just like Nate (supposedly) said at some tournament, then response is integral part of card coming out of Shadows, i.e. you cannot attach it without triggering this response. Of course it's silly, because responses should be optional.

If it do not work like above, then I can attach Dragon Skull to any character. I can kill my own character which is wrong. I can kill some character and then use response to attach it to another. I can use its response only after it successfullly attach to a card, right? Otherwise what's the status of Dragon Skull? In play but not attached to anything?

I checked with Nate and responses to Shadows cards work the way that ktom described (person to the left gets first response).

Regarding Dragon Skull, I agree that I don't like the way it was printed. I'd prefer that all Shadows attachments attach passively like Venomous Blade (because otherwise I don't know what Dragon Skull is doing in play between being brought out of Shadows and its Response being triggered). I guess Nate's "ruling" regarding Dragon Skull indicates that he does not feel the same way.

Am I missing something? The burn effect is a passive, contingent on Dragon Skull being attached to the character. The response attaches it. I bring it out of Shadows and you get a chance to respond in some fashion that may prevent the card from attaching, or otherwise killing your character (or any other response effect you'd like to trigger). Is there a ruling from Nate otherwise?

dormouse said:

Essentially. The only thing you can Respond to at that point, really, is a card coming out of Shadows. The point is that if I bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows, you get the first Response.

The objection/conceptual difficulty people are having here is that there is an extended period of time wherein the attachment is in play, but not actually attached to anything.