Excellent, so if i have this right an any phase (or set phase) ability that would bring a card out of shadows is NOT effected by shadows cost reduction or the gold penalty while the 1 card a the start of any phase (standard shadows) IS effected by reduction/penalty but any response that is triggered by a card coming out of shadows is done by either (the black cells or tower of the hand for example)?

ktom said:

I understand, however a fixed cost stated like in your example would reduce the amount of questions.

Meera Reed's ability says "by paying the rest of her cost" which leaves one to wonder if her cost is not always going to be 1 gold, then what else could it be?

I completely get it, but just wished the wording could be less open for interpretation.

Her cost would be 2 if OOH and running the agenda.

Underworld40k said:

I'm not talking about using the Shadow mechanic to bring her out. I'm talking about using her ability.

Her ability will always cost 1 gold, even if she is not of your house, so why make it ambiguous text that doesn't mean just that?

Bomb said:

I completely agree. All this "the rest of her gold cost" continues to cause much confusion, and "pay X gold to..." would have achieved the same thing unambiguously.

Bomb said:

I think you are overcomplicating this.

Her cost is 3. You already payed part of her cost (2) to play her into shadows, then your are paying the rest of her cost........period.

The ooh cost is to play the character from your hand(not shadow)....or to take it out of shadows via the normal way (i think cause of the agenda).

It wasn't confusing until this conversation started xS. I call it the AGOT literality sindrome, where you start to read between lines looking at every word and meaning behind meaning.....just cause this game can be so d**n literal sometimes.

It's a good way to keep the players coming to the forums though, cause cards can change the way they affect the game (case: Threat from the east debacle)

Cheers..... btw, don't stop, it's fun to read while avoiding work, and it's always interesting how people try to get their idea through....specially since not all of us are native english speakers/writers.

choco said:

The confusion and "over-complication" comes from using the wording "pay the remainder of the cost" on the abilities. It is fairly natural to want to apply character-cost modifiers to the "cost" specified here.

The trick, though, is that since you are actually paying an ability cost - not a Shadow cost or a character cost - when you use the ability, Shadow cost modifiers do not apply.

A commentator on AGOTcards (Ser Arthur Lannister) mentioned an interpretation of Meera's ability, one which apparently came from the French forum. The idea was that Meera's ability would be able to blank The Red Viper, as her ability came from an out-of-play area and TRV's immunity would not protect him. I doubt this is how Meera works, but I wanted to check with the board.

alpha5099 said:

Here's the problem, though. The blanking part is a "then" effect. That means the part before the "then" must be complete and successful before the part after the "then" can happen. In fact, we know that targets of a "post-then" effect are not even chosen until the "pre-then" part is resolved (otherwise, the target of a "post-then" part of an effect would be part of the required initiation of the "pre-then" effect - and we know from the FAQ that it is not). So, that means Meera is completely in play before the "Then choose 1 non-plot card (2 instead if it is Winter) and treat its printed text box as if it were blank until the end of the phase" part of her effect initiates and/or chooses its target.

Since the "pre-then" part of the effect is complete before the "post-then" part chooses its target (and blanks it), that means Meera is completely in play when the card to be blanked is chosen. So the "post-then" part of her effect does initiate from in-play, meaning that it does count as a character ability, and TRV's immunity is still going to laugh it off.

Nice try, though. Good beginning, but missing part of the follow-through.

What if the plot Fortified Position is revealed - would you resolve the blanked "Then..." effect?

An interesting question, and yet another example of why "then" effects need to be defined better than they are.

First, let's start with the basic facts. We know that the "then" effect on Meera:

1. Doesn't choose its target until the first part is resolved successfully - ie, Meera is completely in play
2. Does not have a separate opportunity to be canceled once the first part is resolved successfully (although the FAQ gives a special opportunity to save).

Those two statements are somewhat contradictory. #1 says that the part after the "then" does not initiate until Meera is in play (because choosing the target is part of initiation), #2 says it initiates - albeit conditionally - when the original effect is triggered (because otherwise, the initiation could be interrupted by a cancel effect separately from the first part of the effect).

So admittedly, the question about when exactly the "post then" part of the effect initiates cannot really be determined with certainty from what we already have. And, of course, it plays into any easy answer to your question about Fortified Position.

Honestly, the most analogous situation (although not perfectly so) is the "lasting passive effect." The classic CCG example is Moment of Glory, although cards like Longship Iron Victory do similar things. There is an immediate effect when you trigger the ability, and then there is a delayed, passive effect if certain conditions are met. We know, from cards like this, that the potential to resolve that passive effect exists at that later time regardless of what happens to the card that created it. (ie, Moment of Glory is long since in the discard pile and, if LIV leaves play before the challenge resolves, the GJ player may still get to draw a card.) It is important to note that event cards like MoG were considered to get around event immunity because it was the lasting effect, not the event, that was resolving at the later, delayed time.

This looks a lot like the "then" effect on something like Meera because she has an immediate effect (bringing her into play), followed by another effect if certain conditions are met (the success of the immediate effect). The big difference, though, is that even if you do decide to treat the "then" as a conditional delayed effect, it is still taking place as part of the resolution of the original effect. So unlike Moment of Glory, the delayed effect is still considered part of the original card's resolution.

So, looking at all of the existing rules for "then" effects and applying precedents - and differences - of delayed "lasting passive effects," I'd answer your question as follows:

• When Meera is triggered, out of play, the whole of her text is set in motion before she is "in-play" and subject to Fortified Position. So everything will need to be resolved because of the shared trigger part of the initiation.
• However, because the condition on the "then" part of the effect is not settled until she is in play, the full initiation of the "then" part of the effect - already started out of play - does not complete (by checking its final play restriction and choosing a target) until Meera is in play.
• This "extended initiation" of the "then effect has 2 implications in this setting:

1. The initiation has started, so Fortified Position cannot stop it.
2. The initiation completes when the card is in play (including the choice of target) within the resolution of Meera's triggered effect, while Meera is in play, so it is considered a character ability and cannot get around immunity - at least not as far as targeting is concerned.

Perhaps it is not a particularly satisfactory answer, but you have to remember that the timing of "then" effects is not well defined in the game's timing structure. (But then, neither is bringing cards out of Shadows and a couple of other examples.) This is how I see it, based on the information we do have.

I agree with the ruling you propose for Fortified Position, thanks for the clarification.

Another interesting point : can you kill Meera with Death by Payne?

The triggered effect is not a trigered character ability, but only the "Then..." part which do not have a cancel opportunity.

I would say that Death by Payne can kill Meera. Because when you check the play restriction of this event, it will find a triggered character ability. In other words, the whole effect type has changed from the time Meera has been in play. It seems consistent with the case of Moment of Glory you have explained.

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

Bolzano said:

So I would say Death By Payne cannot kill Meera, but it is a really technical thing. Eventually, someone is going to need to send the whole "technicalities of Meera" issue into FFG so that they can rule definitively.

This whole confusion reminds me of the evolution of Play vs. Put into Play from the CCG days. Up until a certain point, Play was a subset of Put into Play, and Enters Play/Comes into Play subsumed them both. Sometime after Crown of Suns that ruling was changed to make Put into Play a seperate entity under Enters/Comes into Play. (The fact that both of those terms mean the same thing is a different sort of templating that needs cleaning up)

"After [X] comes out of Shadows" is the standard construction for all of the Responses, as far as I can tell. The Shadows rules document and 7 current cards use the form "Bring [X] out of Shadows: City of Shadows, Hidden Chambers, City Watch, Mandon Moore, Meera Reed, Guardian Wolf and Jaqen H'ghar. The first 3 three all refer the beginning of the phase standard Shadows maneuver. (It might also be nice to see that added to the flow charts... especially since they happen before the Framework action that begins the phase).

It seems like the simplest way to remove any confusion is to create a distinct term to distinguish between the beginning of the phase "bring" from cards like the current four that have mid-phase abilities, just like the play/put into play. ("Play from Shadows" and "put into play from Shadows" would have been way to simplistic, and overly complicated in it's own way, to ask for.)

A) Either a new verb, or a clearer term for the Shadows "not-an-action/maneuver" that occurs at the beginning of the phase, correcting the Rules, agenda, and Hidden Chambers.

or

B) Codify the Hidden Chambers & City of Shadows rulings with a FAQ entry _and_ template new cards that apply to only the "normal" bringing out of shadows in a clear fashion.

(or C, let Hidden Chambers work as written, since it's a marginal card as is... As I say this I condemn myself to get rolled by a Shadows/Winter deck).

*Where X can be "a card", a card title or pronoun.

And Ktom, I certainly hope we remember to "bring" Meera up in conversation with Nate & Damon at the Even Center this weekend.

Maester_LUke said:

And Ktom, I certainly hope we remember to "bring" Meera up in conversation with Nate & Damon at the Even Center this weekend.

Not sure who "we" is since I won't be there....

Are you looking at the difference between "emerging" from Shadows at the beginning of the phase and "coming out" of Shadows by effect as a separate issue? I just ask because no matter how you define the process of coming out of Shadows, it won't change the underlying issue of how Meera's "then" effect is classified for purposes of "character ability" immunity.

ktom said:

With that in mind, I'd further expand that since the "then" part is not triggered while in play (and thus not a "triggered character ability"), it is resolved as part of a triggered effect (thus maintaining Joffrey's immunity).

Are you getting a feel for why I HATE having to explain the inexplicable full timing of "then" effects?

Solution: Flame Kissed.

ouf, what a hard subject.

I don't really finish to understand why meera's effect of going out of shadows it's not a character ability. I think we are discussing it as a "character effect", not a character ability. (Or I am wrong? I'm quite lost with this girl)

(3.7) Card Abilities
"Card abilities" (i.e. "Character ability,"
"Location ability," or "Attachment ability")
refers to anything in a card's text box, except
for traits, keywords, and flavor text. "Card
abilities" also refers to any abilities (again,
keywords and traits are excluded) gained by
card effects

I always have thought that if we play Khal Drogo from hand, for example, we are triggering a character ability. That the out-of-play state of the card doesn't affect the status of his effect.

People are calling it a "triggered effect" for being triggered when Meera is not in play because of the entry in the FAQ right above the one you quote:

(3.6) Triggered Effects?
Any effect that a player chooses to execute is?
considered a "triggered effect." Thus any effect
that begins with a "Phase:" or "Response:"
is a triggered effect. Also note that playing
an event card is thus considered a triggered?
effect. A "triggered ability" is a triggered effect?
printed on a card already in play.

matamagos said:

That possibility has been pointed out with Meera before, too. She can be considered a "character ability," even though the use of it would be defined as a "triggered effect" because it is triggered when she is not in play.

Ok, thanks a lot Ktom. I didn't notice this last sentence.

ktom said:

Maester_LUke said:

And Ktom, I certainly hope we remember to "bring" Meera up in conversation with Nate & Damon at the Even Center this weekend.

Not sure who "we" is since I won't be there....

Are you looking at the difference between "emerging" from Shadows at the beginning of the phase and "coming out" of Shadows by effect as a separate issue? I just ask because no matter how you define the process of coming out of Shadows, it won't change the underlying issue of how Meera's "then" effect is classified for purposes of "character ability" immunity.

"We" being either me in the royal sense, or anyone else who reads this and reminds me to ask them.

And as far as I can tell the real rules issue would be the Fortified Position & Death by Payne issues... which I agree with your rulings, but suspect we should have confirmation lest Ser Arthur quote you against yourself.

Maester_LUke said:

In order to set all this before Stahleck I have sent the following questions to FFG:

1) Meera's "Any phase" ability to go out of the shadows is a character ability and is a triggered effect. Because it is triggered from out-of-play, it is however not a trigered character ability but only a triggered effect (FAQ 3.6). As a consequence, a card such as Bloodrider cannot cancel Meera's ability.

2) If the plot "Fortified position" is in play, Meera's "Then..." blank effect will still be executed because its trigered by Meera's first already initiated effect (going out of the shadows)

3) Meera's "Then..." blank effect is considered a character ability eventhough it has been trigerred by a triggered - non ability - effect. The reason for this is that Meera is in play when the "Then..." effect resolves.
So when The Red Viper's checks what type of effect it is, it will find character ability because we are now in step 3) of action window where Meera is in play. However for the purpose of cancelling Meera's ability in step 2), she is not yet in play so her effect is not considered an ability.

4) Death By Payne : can it kill Meera? Death By Payne kills a character that has just triggered its ability. However when Meera triggered her ability it was not a triggered ability (as per 1)). Also the "Then..." effect that initiates in step 3) is not a triggered effect. So what should we considered : Death By Payne can kill Meera because in step 4) when we check the type of the effect that has just resolved in step 3)) (going out of the Shadows AND blanking) we find a triggered ability since Meera is in play? Or do we find that Meera's going out of the shadows is not a triggered ability (see 1)) and that her "Then..." effect is not a triggered effect (so Meera could be killed)?

5) Meera can blank Joffrey despite his Immunity to triggered effect. As a matter of fact, the "Then..." blank effect is not a triggered effect but just a character ability. It can however be argued that te "Then..." effect is part of the whole Meera's triggered effect and that Joffrey is thus Immune to Meera.

To which Nate French has answered :

She initiates as a triggered effect, not in play. Thus, she cannot be canceled by Bloodriders. (1)

Her effect does initiate before she is blanked by Fortified Position, and the then effect will continue to resolve. (2)

When she chooses targets for her "then" effect, Meera is completely in play, and this aspect of her effect resolves as an ability. Viper is immune to her "then" effect. (3)

Death by Payne responds to the entire triggering of Meera's effect, not only the "then" aspect of it. Since the effect was not triggered as a character ability, the card Death by Payne cannot be played in response to her. (4)

The "then" aspect of Meera's effect was still triggered (it is part of a bold Any Phase trigger) so Joffrey is immune. (5)

Just for information, it has been ruled in another post that City of Shadows and Hidden Chambers do not apply to Meera's effect, but only when she is brought out of the shadows through the normal process.

If I have Meera Reed in play AND in the Shadows, and I use her ability to bring her out of the Shadows.

So when her "The..." effect initiate, she is a duplicate.

So the duplicate can blank The Red Viper, right?