Bolzano said:

Remember that duplicates are traitless, textless, and titleless. She entered play as a duplicate - never as "Meera Reed." So the part before the "then" is not actually successful because "Meera Reed" was not brought out of Shadows. Since it wasn't successful, the blanking part after the "then" does not get to go, either.

Right, thanks ktom

In this thread there was a intense discussion about the question right above, if a duplicate of Meera coming out of Shadows would allow the controlling player to trigger the blanking effect. Dobbler disagreed with the ktom's interpretation and insisted that bringing a copy of Meera out of Shadows while having another one in play allowed the controlling player to trigger the response. He reported that Nate had told him so in a personal conversation.

I have now sent the question to FFG and have received official clarification from Nate. A duplicate of Meera coming out of Shadows does NOT allow the blanking effect to resolve, for the reasons given by ktom above. I've also posted this in the other thread, but I thought all the relevant information regarding Meera should be collected here. So this is just FYI.

~The Rules Board has once again prevailed over the General Board! All hail the Rules Board morlocks!

Since Meera is a triggered effect, what happens when Meera is cancelled by To Be a Kraken or Seasick? Does she go back to shadows? Is the gold still paid? Is it even cancellable? This card really makes my head hurt..

Crevic said:

When you cancel something, the cost remains paid, but the effect never happens. With Meera, the cost is the gold, the effect is her coming out of Shadows and into play. So if she is canceled, the gold is gone and she never comes out of Shadows. If you have more gold, you can just trigger her again. (This is exactly the same as the "put into play from your hand" triggered character effects like Khal Drogo and Catelyn, btw.)

The question came up in a game last night in a game and we weren't sure what the cost actually was. We eventually settled on the correct ruling though. Thanks!

ktom said:

I'm sorry but this is bugging me, maybe I'm missing something.

The text of the agenda is clear: "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."

It seems to me that: A) "Whenever you brings" is NOT related to the framework reserved to shadows mechanic, but in every occasion that you bring something out of shadows that is OOH. The source of the "coming out" is irrelevant, either through an ability or with the standard procedure. Even with your proposed event. I don't see anywhere in this text a link to the standard, beginning-of-phase procedure here. Why do you assume so?

B) "pay 1 additional gold". This just states that in addition to all other things you have to do to bring the card out of shadows, just pay 1 gold in addition, independently from the source, an ability or the normal procedure. It does not modify cost, is not phrased that way. Aren't people reading too much in this card? Why can't it just be: pay 1 additional gold?

Thanks for any clarification?

From the FAQ:

"Can I use Hidden Chambers (City of Secrets F3) to reduce the cost of the triggered effect on Meera Reed (Tourney for the Hand F2) that brings her out of Shadows?

No. Hidden Chambers only reduces the cost to bring cards out of Shadows during a standard Shadows opportunity at the beginning of each phase. It cannot be used to reduce the cost of a triggered effect that brings a card out of Shadows."

So if Hidden Chambers only works to lower the cost when bringing a card out of Shadows at the standard framework opportunity, it seems pretty clear that the agenda, worded the same way, only works to increase the cost when bringing a card out of Shadows at the standard framework opportunity.

"Pay 1 additional gold" modifies the cost to bring the card out of Shadows because it is applied when you pay the cost. Otherwise, on an "s1" card, you'd be paying 1 gold as the cost and 1 gold as the ... (what? penalty? play restriction?) at exactly the same time. Certainly in practical terms. More to the point - the extra gold that the agenda adds is part of the cost and can therefore be reduced as part of the cost.

But in the end, this is a settled and ruled issue. Bringing a card out of Shadows by an effect is not the same as bringing a card out of Shadows for the standard framework opportunity. So unless a card affecting the cost to bring a card out of Shadows specifically says it works when triggering an effect, it does not.

Thanks for the explanation, I'm just not comfortable with it because it is not true that both are phrased the same way.

"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"

is not the same as:

"If it is Winter,reduce the cost to bring your cards out of Shadows by 1."

In the scond one it is clear that you have a cost that is modified, and can only be applied to the framework coming-out.

In the first one can simply be read as: if something comes out of shadows and is ooh, pay 1 additional gold. This addition is neither defined as a cost or a penalty, it just something more that you have to pay. Why must it be a cost or penalty? It can remain undefined, or so I think. It could be in addition to nothing, to no cost at all. It is paid in the same moment that the card comes out of shadows. On the other hand, Hidden chamber clearly stays the reduction to be a cost.

so if the only ruling comes from an allegedly "same wording" as hidden chambers, and is not an official position of FFG, then I still feel really umcomfortable.

SummerSeaCaptain said:

An explanation of how a card effect works that depends on "it is an addition to nothing" doesn't track with the rules or the timing structure. It has to be an addition to something. The closest thing you get to "addition to nothing" is imposing something that wasn't applicable before. The "pay 1 additional gold" on the agenda has to be a modifier (because the word "additional") to cost (because of the timing and conditions under which "additional" is applied).

But let's say it is not a cost. You are playing a Stark Shadows deck, it is Winter and you have Hidden Chambers out. You want to bring Venomous Blade out of Shadows. By the reasoning that the Agenda is "an addition to nothing," it's going to cost you 1 gold (s0, plus the "addition to nothing" = 1). But every tournament FFG has ever run has said it costs you 0 in that situation (s0 +1 from the Agenda -1 from Hidden Chambers = 0).

Hidden Chambers could not counter the Agenda unless it was also a modification to the cost of bringing things out of Shadows. And since we know for a fact that Hidden Chambers only modifies the cost to bring cards out of Shadows in the normal way - and not by card effect - the Agenda must word the same way.

So FFG has never come out and said officially that "the extra gold from the Agenda is a cost modifier" because the context on the card within the structure of the rules makes that the common (and necessary) interpretation. The fact that players have always played and interpreted the card this way, including the fact that the +1 from the Agenda is offset by the -1 from Hidden Chambers (and the fact that FFG has always accepted - and never contradicted - this interpretation in their officially supported events or the FAQ) is pretty clear support for the fact that the Agenda modifies costs. Everything else follows from that fact.

Ok now I am at peace. I misstep on the interpretation of "additional". I cannot thank you enough, Ktom! Not only for this but for every response that help all of us.

This is something like the inofficial Meera rules thread, so in the name of keeping all the info in one place, I post my question here instead of opening a new thread.

The general consensus is that Meera cannot blank agendas, since agendas are not in play, and card effects can only interact with oop cards if the effect specifically says so. So far, so good.

But then I wonder, why is the "non-plot cards" proviso even there? It's redundant, because plots are not in play either, right? Is it just there so people don't get any ideas? Much like the "cannot be saved" on cards like Borderland Keep, which is clearly redundant, because the rules preempt saves in the first place?

I'm just wondering why they would single out one type of oop but active cards as non-blankable (plots), but say nothing about the other (agendas). I'm a bit confused about this. What am I missing?

Ratatoskr said:

Just as likely, during the design process (and it's a champion card, so more designers than usual were probably involved), someone considered the possibility that she could blank plots, but not that she could blank Agendas, so one was specified and the other forgotten.

ktom said:

Makes sense. Thanks!

Since this other question comes up regularly: Meera Reed can blank House Cards since they are in play. But that will not make the player pay any gold penalty, he does not loose his House affiliation.

In the case of Neutral House, though, the text is lost.

Bolzano said:

Heck, the only think in the "text box" of the standard House cards is the order of the phases. Are people asking if there are no phases in the round if a House card is blank?

ktom said:

Actually somebody did ask this exact question ^^

Bolzano said: