Hey, I just noticed that it seems like Hidden Chambers sets a precedent for City of Shadows with respect to Meera and Guardian Wolf. Am I correct in thinking that both Meera Reed and Guardian Wolf can ignore the gold penalty from City of Shadows when using their ability to bring them out of shadows?

I don't think it allows you to ignore their gold penalty. If it did, the text should say "Pay the printed gold cost..." and not "by paying the rest of the gold cost..." or similar. Printed gold cost would be the key text to consider otherwise.

WolfgangSenff said:

I concur with this conclusion.

Bomb said:

I have to disagree for the reason cited, i.e. if Hidden Chambers does not reduce the cost of those cards, then City of Shadows should not increase the cost.

WolfgangSenff said:

I don't think so.

City of Shadows reads:

"Whenever you bring any card with a 'House X only' restriction that does not match your House card out of Shadows, pay 1 additional gold."

The way it's worded, the additional gold you have to pay is not part of the cost to bring a card out of Shadows. If we had an effect that said "Whenever you play an event card from your hand, pay one gold to the treasury", that wouldn't give the event a gold cost, making it immune to Paper Shield, would it?

Hidden Chambers reduces "the cost to bring your cards out of Shadows", and that, as Nate tells us, only encompasses cards brought out of shadows via the game mechanism, not via a card effect.

CoS on the other hand doesn't talk about "cost", it just tells us, you bring a House X only card outta Shadows that don't match your house card, no matter how, you gotta pay one extra gold, Mister.

I think there's a difference there.

Ratatoskr said:

I think I'd rather see an official ruling on this, although I appreciate the sentiment, and it makes some sense. I think the argument can be made both ways right now, and we need an official clarification. (I personally think that, anyway.)

Ratatoskr said:

But it is. The agenda modifies the cost to bring a card out of Shadows, just like Hidden Chambers does. Reference here

Right, lets see if ive got this.

(play order will be picked for example only, so no laughing at thh woeful decision making Laughing if i get the scenario wrong is totally ok )
Set up is

City of shadows agenda

Guardian wolf, venomous blade tyrion lannister and meera reed in shadows.

Hidden chambers in play.

Marshalling i bring out Meera at start, hidden chambers reduces to 0, response triggers on Meera.

Challenges i bring out tyrion at start, hidden chambers reduces to one, OOH penalty is applied, net result is tyrion plays for 2, response triggers on Tyrion.

Challenges i bring out guardian wolf, hidden chambers does not apply as it is not out of shadows via standard mechanic, pay 1 gold, useful deadly for tyrion and tyrions response triggers again.

Dominance i bring out venomous blade, hidden chambers applies, cost stays 0, OOH penalty is applied, cost is 1 response on venomous blade triggers.

The example with Meera in marshalling can be swapped with guardian wolf for all intents and purposes.

How close am i?

Underworld40k said:

You were so close to getting everything right, but what the hell is this?

Cost to bring VB out of Shadows (with Hidden Chambers in play while it is Winter): 0 + 1 (agenda) -1 (Hidden Chambers) = 0.

Also, you make it sound as if the responses on those card trigger automatically, which is of course not true. You choose to trigger them, like any other response. But maybe that was just bad wording on your part.

Underworld40k said:

Also, the cost modifer on the agenda is not an OOH penalty. Well, it effectively acts like one, but the term OOH penalty is reserved for the standard 2 gold penalty to play OOH cards

Does that mean you can't trigger Responses to cards being brought out of shadows if they are done so with abilities since it's not the mechanic but an ability?

I can understand why Hidden Chambers can't modify the cost of an ability. I read the Agenda like it's created a constant that has made all house restricted(besides yours of course) shadow cards +1 to the overall cost.

Also, why not have the text say "pay the rest of the printed gold cost" and then this will never be a question. There are several cards that reference "printed cost" to pay for the ability(see Iron Lore for example), and that is hardly disputable.

The unfortunate thing is that I believe the cost would be considered a cost of the *agenda* and not the card itself. This is why I want an official ruling though.

Bomb said:

No, that's not what it means. A response that responds to a card coming out of Shadows is akin to a response that responds to a card "coming into play" (in which case it doesn't matter if it was played or put into play).

WolfgangSenff said:

Eh? That doesn't make sense. You're not paying for the agenda. You are paying for the Shadows cards.

Bomb said:

That doesn't quite work, because the Shadows rules tells us that when we are to determine the "printed" cost of a card with the Shadows crest, we add the cost to play it into Shadows and the cost to bring it out of Shadows. So you would end up paying 2 gold more.

But I agree, the templating on Meera et al would be better if it simply say "Bring <card title> out of Shadows by paying <X> gold:" Would be shorter, too.

Saturnine said:

Mandon Moore and Guardian Wolf and Meera Reed are not lowered by Hidden Chambers.

Their effects are thus not effected by the Agenda which increases the cost in the same way. (MM is neutral, so this doesn't work for him)

Now, in terms of bringing cards out of shadows. Black Cells and the like refer to cards coming out of shadows. It doesn't matter if its through Meera Reed or Guardian Wolf's ability, or bringing something out at the start of a phase. A card coming out of shadows is a card coming out of shadows. It happens, and Black Cells can respond.

Underworld40k said:

Yeah.

Mathias Fricot said:

Underworld40k said:

He's talking about bringing them out of Shadows via their ability, I'm sure.

Saturnine is correct. I was referring strictly to the use of their ability. Hidden Chambers will still reduce the cost of bringing them out of Shadows at the start of each phase, if you choose to do so and it is Winter.

Sorry to come to this late, but I want to confirm that when you bring a card out of Shadows by an ability, rather than the standard mechanic, neither Hidden Chambers reduction nor the Agenda's penalty will apply.

Think of it this way: say that you have an event that said "pay 1 gold to choose a card in Shadows; bring that card out of Shadows." Would either Hidden Chambers or the Agenda apply to the cost of that event? Same deal bringing a card out of Shadows by its own ability.

The earlier note that a Response "after a card comes out of Shadows" doesn't care how it made it into play - any more than an "after it comes into play" Response doesn't care if the card was played or put into play.

So with Meera reed even if you bring her out of shadows via the standard mechanic you wont get her any phase trigger with the gold reduction from hidden chambers as that is not a standard shadow mechanic?

If you bring her out of shadows at the start of a phase, you'll get the reduction from Hidden Chambers (if it's winter) and the penalty from Ciry of Shadows, but you won't get the effect of her ability, since it wasn't triggered. If you bring her out of shadows with her ability, you'll get the effect, but not the reduction or penalty, since they apply only for the start-of-phase opportunities.

Underworld40k said: