Tyrion Lannister vs. Dragon Skull

[chadwick537 0]

Hi,

Just wondering how the interaction between Tyrion Lannister (King's Landing) and cards such as Dragon Skull work. 

Tyrion Lannister
(s2) STR (3) Military Intrigue Power Shadows
[Lannister Character]
Lord.

House Lannister only. Stealth.
Response: After a card comes out of Shadows, Tyrion Lannister gets +2 STR and gains your choice of Deadly, Renown, No attachments, or Immune to Events until the end of the phase.

 

Dragon Skull
(s1) Shadows
[Targaryen Attachment]
Item.

House Targaryen only.
Attached character gets -2 STR and is killed if its STR is 0.
Response: After Dragon Skull comes out of Shadows, attach it to an opponent's character or discard it from play.

Let's say, for example, that a continuous effect (Dragonpit or Threat From the North) has Tyrion at strength 2.  What would happen?

 

Thanks!

[Boerta 7]

I'm guessing that Tyrion dies, since AFAIK the active player gets to completely resolve Dragon Skull before Tyrion can have his response.

But I'm not sure.

[Mathias Fricot 0]

Tyrion would become Moribound.

His strength would increase while he is moribound, but he can't be removed from the moribound state.

So he would still die.

Your responding to the dragon skull coming out of shadows, but the dragon skull's "response" text is replacing the normal way it comes out of shadows, not a response to it coming out of shadows the same way tyrion's ability is (even though it might seem that way). So even if your first player you cant fit your response in before dragon skull gives the -Str to tyrion because thats part of its coming out of shadows, and that has to happen before you can respond to it coming out of shadows. Its not a stack system like in magic. So it resolves, then you respond to it, but hes already been put in the moribound state.

Its irritating, I know. I love Targ Burn.

[FATMOUSE 0]

 If I'm not mistaken, Tyrion would actually survive if you use his ability.  The player to left of the player who takes a card out of the Shadows gets the first opportunity to make a Response to that card coming out of the Shadows.  In a Joust and for this specific situation, that would be the player who controls Tyrion, who could buff him with +2 STR and, more importantly, give him the No Attachments keyword to the end of the phase.  The player that brought out Dragon Skull would then be able to trigger the card's Response and attach is to another character or risk it simply falling off of Tyrion. 

[Rogue30 60]

The rules say "At the beginning of the any phase, a card that is in Shadows can come out of Shadows and into play..."

Ok, let's assume that, as ktom says, after a card comes out of Shadows it is in a limbo and waits for opponent's response.

Is Dragon Skull in play after it comes out and before it attaches thanks to response text?

Is it the same for events? I bring out some shadow event - did I just played it? Or must I wait for opponent to play his response and then I can use response text on my shadow event (which is part of playing restrictions)?

[Mathias Fricot 0]

I thought it was previously concluded that Dragon Skull's response replaces the normal coming out of shadows rules for attachments? So whether or not it goes into 'limbo' waiting for your opponent to respond wouldn't matter, since its ability would have to resolve with its coming out of shadows. There is no time when it is in play but hasn't triggered it's response. Tyrion doesn't interrupt the coming out of shadows, he responds to it. For Tyrion to respond to it coming out of shadows then Dragon Skulls response would have already happened. I don't know if I am explaining what I am trying to convey clearly or just saying "coming out of shadows" over and over and over.

[ktom 598]

Mathias Fricot said:

I thought it was previously concluded that Dragon Skull's response replaces the normal coming out of shadows rules for attachments?

It was, but in another thread, it came out that Rogue30 had a conversation with Nate by email that makes that unclear. (EDITORIAL COMMENT: Not particularly unclear since he's the only one who seems to have had such a conversation.)

Rogue30 said:

Is Dragon Skull in play after it comes out and before it attaches thanks to response text?

Is it the same for events? I bring out some shadow event - did I just played it? Or must I wait for opponent to play his response and then I can use response text on my shadow event (which is part of playing restrictions)?

You didn't just play such cards; you brought them out of Shadows. Now, you play Responses (because the Response certainly did not bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows). And, as the FAQ says:

"Who gets the first opportunity to play a
response?

If the response is to a player action, the player
to the left of the person who initiated the
action has the first opportunity to respond.
Response opportunity then passes clockwise
around the table. Note that responses to bringing
a card out of Shadows are handled in this
fashion, with the player to the left of the person
who brought a card out of Shadows having
the first response opportunity."

So Fatmouse has the right of it. If I bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows, the player to my left gets the first chance to trigger Responses to a card coming out of Shadows. Assuming Joust (and assuming I'm not trying to put Dragon Skull on my own Tyrion...), my opponent will have the opportunity to Respond first, bumping Tyrion's STR, before I can use the Response on Dragon Skull to kill him in the above scenario.

 

[Rogue30 60]

I'm not sure what that comment means. Is someone calling me a liar or just Nate's answers are totally unofficial? (and wrong?)

ktom said:

You didn't just play such cards; you brought them out of Shadows. Now, you play Responses (because the Response certainly did not bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows). And, as the FAQ says:

I know what FAQ says that's why I'm curious if Dragon Skull is in play (after it comes out of Shadows, but before using its response). If it's not in play and not attached to anything (which is weird for attachment), then its game text shouldn't be active.

And in case of event: I bring it out of Shadows and I must wait for opponent's response to resolve first. Only then I can "play from hand" my shadow event using its response, correct?

[Skowza 9]

Rogue30 said:

I know what FAQ says that's why I'm curious if Dragon Skull is in play (after it comes out of Shadows, but before using its response). If it's not in play and not attached to anything (which is weird for attachment), then its game text shouldn't be active.

And in case of event: I bring it out of Shadows and I must wait for opponent's response to resolve first. Only then I can "play from hand" my shadow event using its response, correct?

If that's the case, couldn't the Dragon Skull be discarded from play by an opponent's response before it's own response even happens?  I'm not disputing the rules interpretation, but that doesn't seem fair...  
And with Shadows of the South, opponent can play events as a response to it coming out of shadows, but then can't play events afterward?

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

I'm not sure what that comment means. Is someone calling me a liar or just Nate's answers are totally unofficial? (and wrong?)

The comment is simply that Nate seems to have told you something that he has not told anyone else when asked the same question. I'm not calling you a liar, and I'm not saying Nate's answers are "totally unofficial." What I am saying is that this sort of thing has happened before because Nate is human. There are rare occasions where he has told 9 people that X is the particular outcome, and the 10th that Y is the particular outcome (usually because he is not paying attention to some larger aspect of the game rules or some difference in wording on a particular card or rule). And that is what has happened here; he has told 90% of the people that the text on the card is the application of the Shadows rule to that particular attachment (meaning that the text on the card is the only instruction for attaching the card) and he has told 10% of the people that both the rule and the text are active, effectively representing 2 separate opportunities to attach the card.

Again, not calling you a liar. Simply saying that we have 2 conflicting answers from the same official source, while noting that considerably fewer people have come forth to say that they received one of those answers.

Rogue30 said:

I know what FAQ says that's why I'm curious if Dragon Skull is in play (after it comes out of Shadows, but before using its response). If it's not in play and not attached to anything (which is weird for attachment), then its game text shouldn't be active.

It would be "in play" when it is brought out of Shadows (since Shadows is an out-of-play area and bringing the card out of Shadows must put it into play). It is just that it isn't attached to anything yet.

Now, before you get into the "then the rules must apply instead of the Response or else the unattached attachment would be immediately discarded" comment you have waiting in the wings, keep in mind that the same thing is going to happen if you go by the rules. Since the rules say "attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows," you would create a conflict between the rule trying to attach it and the rule trying to discard the unattached card. So the First Player would get to decide whether you ever got the chance to attach it "with the rule" - at least without it being moribund - in the first place. So apparently, while resolving an effect or mechanic, attachments can be unattached to anything without being immediately discarded (think about Jousting Steed or Aesthetic Follower). It wouldn't be the first "it works because it works" deal.

Rogue30 said:

And in case of event: I bring it out of Shadows and I must wait for opponent's response to resolve first. Only then I can "play from hand" my shadow event using its response, correct?

Correct. Keep in mind that events that come out of Shadows are not actually "played from hand." It is "treated in the same manner." The difference being that it has to actually come out of Shadows (the mechanic) before it can be treated that way. After all, it is Responding to itself coming out of Shadows, meaning that that has to take place first, thus creating two separate mechanisms of action in their resolution - unlike traditional events which have one mechanism of action.

 

Skowza said:

If that's the case, couldn't the Dragon Skull be discarded from play by an opponent's response before it's own response even happens?  I'm not disputing the rules interpretation, but that doesn't seem fair...

And with Shadows of the South, opponent can play events as a response to it coming out of shadows, but then can't play events afterward?

Keep these in perspective. Which "after a card comes out of Shadows" Response effect is someone going to use to discard Dragon Skull before its own Response can be used? And even if there was one, how is that different enough from a "cancel" effect to truly be unfair? (And then we can get into the fact that you could still use it while it is in Moribund to attach and kill a 2-STR character.)

As for Shadow of the South, imagine that it was a Challenges event rather than a Shadow event. Would you find it unusual that someone could cancel it with, say, To Be a Kraken between its initiation and resolution? Bringing the event out of Shadows is not the same as resolving it's effect - just like bringing Tyrion out of Shadows and triggering his Response are totally different things. So yeah, your opponent gets the chance the chance to play one last event. But again, that chance doesn't amount to much since, at this time, there is no non-Shadows event that Responds to a card coming out of Shadows.

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

I'm not calling you a liar

Actually I though that comment was made by some moderator.

ktom said:

Nate is human

Believe me, I understand this and I have no problem with this. But this doesn't mean that people know how they should play Shadow mechanic. It's more than year since Shadow mechanic comes out and that should be in FAQ.

Did you ask him about this problem as I requested? I don't have a problem with "limbo" rule as long as it's official. And I never heard or read anything official about this, except email from Nate.

 

ktom said:

you would create a conflict between the rule trying to attach it and the rule trying to discard the unattached card.

I don't know what are you talking about. "Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows – if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded." This seems clear (no conflict) to me. Is there any other rule I'm missing?

Jousting Steed and Ascetic Follower become characters. Moreover Ascetic Follower works similar as "if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded". Their effects are not interrupted by opponent's response, so I don't know what you tried to say by these examples.

ktom said:

Keep in mind that events that come out of Shadows are not actually "played from hand." It is "treated in the same manner."

Yeah, that's why I used quotation marks. Again, I'm ok with it (if that's official), it's just strange to initiate an action, which can be then interrupted by opponent's response, to finally resolve it afterwards. I thought that played as from hand includes playing restrictions.

 

 

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

Did you ask him about this problem as I requested? I don't have a problem with "limbo" rule as long as it's official. And I never heard or read anything official about this, except email from Nate.

He's got it on his radar.

Rogue30 said:

I don't know what are you talking about. "Attachment cards attach to another card when they come out of Shadows – if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded." This seems clear (no conflict) to me. Is there any other rule I'm missing?

Yes. That there is another general rule/truth about attachment cards which is that if they are not attached to anything, they are discarded. That's why when something kills a character, it's attachments are discarded, too. So the conflict isn't within the one Shadows mechanic rule, it is potentially between the Shadows rule and the fact that attachments need to be attached to something. 

Rogue30 said:

Jousting Steed and Ascetic Follower become characters. Moreover Ascetic Follower works similar as "if there are no eligible cards to attach to, the attachment card is discarded". Their effects are not interrupted by opponent's response, so I don't know what you tried to say by these examples.

The idea was that if there was a moment between a Shadow attachment coming out of Shadows where it isn't attached to anything and should thus be discarded, why wouldn't there be a moment between the attachment being unattached (ie, attached to nothing) and it becoming a character - particularly with Jousting Steed and its "then" wording? The idea being that we have other effects/mechanics showing that there are indeed times when an attachment is attached to nothing but is not discarded as "unattached and illegal" due to the resolving effect. 

Rogue30 said:

Yeah, that's why I used quotation marks. Again, I'm ok with it (if that's official), it's just strange to initiate an action, which can be then interrupted by opponent's response, to finally resolve it afterwards. I thought that played as from hand includes playing restrictions.

The issue here - and in the rules - is that you have two completely separate "actions" here: 1) bringing a card out of Shadows, and 2) Responding to a card coming out of Shadows. When you bring an event out of Shadows, you are not initiating the Response effect on the card; you are using a game mechanic to bring a card (which happens to be an event) out of Shadows. There is no difference in the mechanic for bringing an event, character, location or any other type of card out of Shadows. It really isn't any stranger than my getting to Respond to your Arys Oakheart coming into play before you can use his own "comes into play" Response.

Look at it this way: you could bring Shadow Politics out of Shadows and choose not to trigger the Response, right? Unlike, say, Condemned by the Council whose Response you choose to trigger by playing it from your hand. That's because playing an event from your hand is part of the cost of initiating a standard events, but bringing the card out of Shadows doesn't initiate the Response; it only creates the opportunity (card comes out of Shadows) that allows the Response to be initiated. 

The "played from hand" bit for Shadow events is there to allow effects that cancel "events just played from hand" to be used on Shadow events after they come out of Shadows. It's there to meet the play restrictions on other cards by defining how the Shadow events should be treated once they are brought out of Shadows, not to define the way that they actually are brought out of Shadows.

 

[Mathias Fricot 0]

So, if Dragon Skull's response synchronous with its coming out of shadows, Tyrion will die. On the other hand, if there is a time before it is attached but after it has come out of shadows where it is not attached to anything and not discarded, Tyrion will respond first by raising his strength, and will thus not die.

[ktom 598]

Mathias Fricot said:

So, if Dragon Skull's response synchronous with its coming out of shadows, Tyrion will die. On the other hand, if there is a time before it is attached but after it has come out of shadows where it is not attached to anything and not discarded, Tyrion will respond first by raising his strength, and will thus not die.

Correct. In the first, the Response is not being triggered - and is not needed for the attachment. In the second, it is. Which is why we need the official answer on whether the Response on Dragon Skull is the "only" way it attaches, one of two ways it can attach, or redundant and never used. ("Response replaces/specifies action of rules", "Response and rules both active", and "rules only" arguments respectively.)

I have only ever heard it played as "Response replaces/specifies action of the rules," which would allow Tyrion to Respond first. But obviously, I don't hear about the way everyone plays things.

[FATMOUSE 0]

ktom said:

Mathias Fricot said:

So, if Dragon Skull's response synchronous with its coming out of shadows, Tyrion will die. On the other hand, if there is a time before it is attached but after it has come out of shadows where it is not attached to anything and not discarded, Tyrion will respond first by raising his strength, and will thus not die.

Correct. In the first, the Response is not being triggered - and is not needed for the attachment. In the second, it is. Which is why we need the official answer on whether the Response on Dragon Skull is the "only" way it attaches, one of two ways it can attach, or redundant and never used. ("Response replaces/specifies action of rules", "Response and rules both active", and "rules only" arguments respectively.)

 

I have only ever heard it played as "Response replaces/specifies action of the rules," which would allow Tyrion to Respond first. But obviously, I don't hear about the way everyone plays things.

Wouldn't the rules only/rules active argument ultimately "fail" (and I think you've pointed this out before) because then cards like Venomous Blade be dictated by the first player (i.e. Use the Shadows rule to attach Venomous to a character, then activate the passive effect, which is effectively fizzled)?  I guess it's not so much of a failure as it would be a major change in how we play the game.  As others have pointed out, the Shadow rules were poorly designed and need to be changed/clarified.

[ktom 598]

FATMOUSE said:

Wouldn't the rules only/rules active argument ultimately "fail" (and I think you've pointed this out before) because then cards like Venomous Blade be dictated by the first player (i.e. Use the Shadows rule to attach Venomous to a character, then activate the passive effect, which is effectively fizzled)?

A little more complicated than that, but yes, that's the gist of why the "rules + text" interpretation tends to make no sense. And, with the Response of Dragon Skull and Maellon's Tome defying explanation under a "rules only" interpretation, a good reason most people come to the "text only" conclusion on their own.

I'm sure that the complications of making sure there is one consistent rule regardless of whether the "attach" text is passive or a Response is one of the reasons Nate is taking his time to make a clear ruling just once.

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

So the conflict isn't within the one Shadows mechanic rule, it is potentially between the Shadows rule and the fact that attachments need to be attached to something.

I don't get it. Shadow rules says: attach or discard if you're not able. I'm probably too stupid for this game, because I don't see any conflict here. In your opinion the conflict is because of repetition of general rule?

ktom said:

why wouldn't there be a moment between the attachment being unattached (ie, attached to nothing) and it becoming a character - particularly with Jousting Steed and its "then" wording?

I think you are nitpicking. Steed works without interruption - it's one, fluent effect. BTW nothing in this world works immediately, even the light as you know. So it's ok to unattach and THEN immediately (in game term) become character. How the hell you want it to become character otherwise? By magic?

And if I remember correctly you used to use argument that there is no such moment between moving attachment with Compelled by the rock.

ktom said:

When you bring an event out of Shadows, you are not initiating the Response effect on the card; you are using a game mechanic to bring a card (which happens to be an event) out of Shadows.

Yes, that's why I keep asking, because it's weird for me. So generally it's like this:

Player A - Ok guys I come out of Shadows. I'm gonna play The Shadow of the Isles. This event is in play now and you can see it, but I cannot play it yet. It waits in the limbo.
Player B - Ok, so I better use my Black cells now, before I have to discard it.
Player C - Ok, I use Alchemist's Guild Hall one last time.
Player A - Ok, now I can play The Shadow of the Isles. Wait, maybe I don't want to? But should I discard it then? Hmm, interesting question, nothing in the rules about that, I better ask on the forum...

If that's the way it supposed to be, then ok. If there will be a card which says: "Response: After a card comes out of Shadows, choose 1 S card in play. Return that card to Shadows." then I'll be able to return such event before it is played, right?

ktom said:

There is no difference in the mechanic for bringing an event, character, location or any other type of card out of Shadows. It really isn't any stranger than my getting to Respond to your Arys Oakheart coming into play before you can use his own "comes into play" Response.

I'm sorry but it is strange for me. So far only save/cancel responses could work between something and now we developed the limbo concept. There is no problem with characters or locations, because they are (immediately) put into play as normal (correct me if I'm wrong). Attachments and events (in play but never played) in limbo are strange. Maybe it's just me.

 

[Mathias Fricot 0]

Rogue30 said:

Yes, that's why I keep asking, because it's weird for me. So generally it's like this:

Player A - Ok guys I come out of Shadows. I'm gonna play The Shadow of the Isles. This event is in play now and you can see it, but I cannot play it yet. It waits in the limbo.
Player B - Ok, so I better use my Black cells now, before I have to discard it.
Player C - Ok, I use Alchemist's Guild Hall one last time.
Player A - Ok, now I can play The Shadow of the Isles. Wait, maybe I don't want to? But should I discard it then? Hmm, interesting question, nothing in the rules about that, I better ask on the forum...

If that's the way it supposed to be, then ok. If there will be a card which says: "Response: After a card comes out of Shadows, choose 1 S card in play. Return that card to Shadows." then I'll be able to return such event before it is played, right?

...

I'm sorry but it is strange for me. So far only save/cancel responses could work between something and now we developed the limbo concept. There is no problem with characters or locations, because they are (immediately) put into play as normal (correct me if I'm wrong). Attachments and events (in play but never played) in limbo are strange. Maybe it's just me.

 

We could apply this limbo thing to all shadows cards, that way there is consistency with the mechanic. I don't see why there would be a limbo state before events/attachments come into play and not characters/locations. But then they get to play "Response" events after my Barristan Selmy comes out of shadows before his effect? I know its not quite the same thing; Dragon Skull's debate is more about it attaching per normal shadows rules vs. it attaching according to it's "Response" ability, Barristan Selmy just comes into play and then his reponse will go off wafter the player to your left gets to respond and every one else around the table. The good thing is that we know which way it will work when it gets ruled on.

Perhaps I have just had a revelation: can't we just ignore the Response on Dragon Skull if we want to? Wouldn't that clear anything up? No synchronous response+coming out of shadows, just plain old shadows mechanic when its attached to a character immediately? This would give two scenarios:

1) I bring Dragon Skull out of shadows attaching it to my opponent's Tyrion Lannister. There is no limbo, the same way something leaving your hand doesn't have limbo. So no limbo, because the entire limbo idea was a result of us trying to find a way to get to use Dragon Skull's response to attach it to something, instead of the normal shadows rules for attaching something. The normal shadows rules don't have limbo, and so it is Out-of-shadows-and-on-to-Tyrion in one swift kick before any responses can happen. As per the "everything gets to resolve (unless saved/cancelled)" deal, if you have a mystical event that says "cancel a card coming out of shadows. put that card in the discard pile." you can use it now. But you don't, because that doesn't exist.

2) My opponent forces me to bring Dragon Skull out of shadows (by some ability). He has no characters. I attach it to my own character, maybe killing it. If not, we all go around the table responding as per the usual response order to Dragon Skull's coming out of shadows, and when it gets to my turn I activate Dragon Skull's response to its own coming out of shadows. Since it is attached to my character and not my opponent, it is discarded according to it's response.

That might be completely wrong, but it might be a way to use it.

And can someone tell me who this mystical "Nate" figure it? I hear people talk about him but is he like a designer or something?

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

So the conflict isn't within the one Shadows mechanic rule, it is potentially between the Shadows rule and the fact that attachments need to be attached to something.

 

I don't get it. Shadow rules says: attach or discard if you're not able. I'm probably too stupid for this game, because I don't see any conflict here. In your opinion the conflict is because of repetition of general rule?

The conflict is that the Shadow rule does not replace the general rule for discarding unattached cards, so one could argue that the rule for unattached cards kicks in first and discards the card before the Shadows rule kicks in and does its "attach or discard" check. The point being that the First Player could potentially use one rule to discard your attachment before you ever get a chance to use the other to attach it.

Rogue30 said:

So it's ok to unattach and THEN immediately (in game term) become character. How the hell you want it to become character otherwise? By magic?

And if I remember correctly you used to use argument that there is no such moment between moving attachment with Compelled by the rock.

You are misunderstanding me here. I am arguing against the possibility of such a thing. I am saying that if there was a chance for the general discard rule to kick in and discard Shadows attachment before you had a chance to attach it (either by rule or by text), then it should also kick in and discard things that become unattached, like the Steed, in the process of turning it into a character. We know that this doesn't happen with the Steed, so it would be inconsistent and a little weird to insist that it happens with Shadow attachments.

Rogue30 said:

Yes, that's why I keep asking, because it's weird for me. So generally it's like this:

Player A - Ok guys I come out of Shadows. I'm gonna play The Shadow of the Isles. This event is in play now and you can see it, but I cannot play it yet. It waits in the limbo.
Player B - Ok, so I better use my Black cells now, before I have to discard it.
Player C - Ok, I use Alchemist's Guild Hall one last time.
Player A - Ok, now I can play The Shadow of the Isles. Wait, maybe I don't want to? But should I discard it then? Hmm, interesting question, nothing in the rules about that, I better ask on the forum...

If that's the way it supposed to be, then ok. If there will be a card which says: "Response: After a card comes out of Shadows, choose 1 S card in play. Return that card to Shadows." then I'll be able to return such event before it is played, right?

Before we get into this, let's say I bring Abandoned Forge out of Shadows. I can trigger its Response to it coming out of Shadows, but not until the player to my left has a chance to trigger his own Response to a card coming out of Shadows. That part is clear, right? So the order of Responses when a card comes into play is not the confusing part here, right?

But we need to clean up some terminology. When you bring Shadow of the Isles out of Shadows, you are not "playing" the event. Events are "played from your hand for their text effect." You didn't do that here. You brought the event out of Shadows. The fact that "[a]fter an event card comes out of Shadows, it is treated in the same manner as a non-Shadows event card played from a player’s hand" does not change your action from "bringing a card out of Shadows" to "playing a card from hand." So it is inappropriate to speak about "playing" the event here - at least in the sense that you "played (it) from your hand for (its) text effect." It is more appropriate to think about it the same way as if you had brought a character or location out of Shadows (and put it into play), at least as far as the activation of Responses goes. However, the fact that you should now treat the card in the "same manner as events played from hand" tells you the status of the event card now that it is out of Shadows what to do with it because we have the following from the FAQ (pg. 16). 

"Moribund State For Events
When an event card is played during steps 1,
2, or 5 of an action window, it enters a moribund
state and is only actually moved to the
discard or dead pile in step 6 of the action
window in which it is played."

Since the rules say that the event that has come out of Shadows is treated the same as a card played from your hand, this entry applies, the event enters a moribund state and would be discarded in Step 6 of the action window. So the "But should I discard it then?" question posed by Player A is, in fact, addressed in the rules.

Rogue30 said:

ktom said:

There is no difference in the mechanic for bringing an event, character, location or any other type of card out of Shadows. It really isn't any stranger than my getting to Respond to your Arys Oakheart coming into play before you can use his own "comes into play" Response.

I'm sorry but it is strange for me. So far only save/cancel responses could work between something and now we developed the limbo concept. There is no problem with characters or locations, because they are (immediately) put into play as normal (correct me if I'm wrong). Attachments and events (in play but never played) in limbo are strange. Maybe it's just me.

The events being brought out of Shadows, but not played for their effect, may seem strange because when you initiate an event in your hand, you are really initiating its text effect. That isn't what you are doing with a Shadows event. When you bring it out of Shadows, you are not initiating its text effect directly. It's not what we're used to when we think of initiating an event and that part may seem strange, but the rest of it - the event coming into play and entering moribund, not to be removed from the table until Step 6 - is actually the way that playing events from your hand works, too. The only difference is what happens in Step 1 (or 2.I, or 5.I, etc.). So there really is no "limbo state" for the event. It is simply moribund and acts like any other moribund card - including being able to use its Response. This make the situation of bringing a Shadow event out of Shadows exactly analogous to playing characters and locations because the event is put into play - the only difference being that the event enters play "in moribund" while characters and locations do not.

So there is no new "limbo" state for Shadow events. They are simply moribund through the action window - the old "limbo" state.

This discussion as it relates to attachments is more complicated. Whether you go by the "rules" or "text" interpretation of bringing attachments out of Shadows, the Shadow attachment does not enter play attached to another card - as pretty much every other effect or mechanic that plays attachments or puts them into play has them do. Shadow attachments enter play, then attach in either Step 4 (passive - "rules" or "text-passives" interpretations) or Step 5 ("text-Response" interpretation) of the action window. The earlier discussion (through counterexample) about unattached attachments being "viable" through the resolution of a continuous effect - and the extension of this idea through the entire resolution of the mechanic for bringing a card out of Shadows - was a way of arguing that Shadow attachments don't go through any special "limbo" state either; just a prolonged mechanic for putting them into play.

[Rogue30 60]

ktom said:

so one could argue that the rule for unattached cards kicks in first and discards the card before the Shadows rule kicks in

Nonsense. Come on, be serious - so, I cannot play any attachment, because the moment I reveal it from my hand it's immediately discarded by general rule.
Oh, and first player does not say how the game works, he only chooses which passive card effect triggers first (and decides about destination of moribund cards) while there is a conflict.

ktom said:

When you bring Shadow of the Isles out of Shadows, you are not "playing" the event.

Well, it's convenient to say "you didn't play it" and at the same time "you played it" when it suits you. How can people know when it's appropriate, since rules say only: "it is treated in the same manner"? There might be different interpretation here. I'm not native speaker but "treated" is different from "considered", right?
And shadow event is not played during steps 1, 2 or 5 as you said. Unless during "phase begins" step 4 we introduce new action window - one for each shadow card? So far we didn't need to be so precise with Shadow mechanic. ~See what you've done?

 

 

[ktom 598]

Rogue30 said:

Well, it's convenient to say "you didn't play it" and at the same time "you played it" when it suits you. How can people know when it's appropriate, since rules say only: "it is treated in the same manner"? There might be different interpretation here. I'm not native speaker but "treated" is different from "considered", right?

I am not saying "you played it." I am saying you put it into play through the Shadows mechanic - just like any other card type. (And, of course, when an event comes into play, it does so moribund.) Because of the rule, other effects and rules that deal with "after an event is played from your hand" will be applicable, but that doesn't mean you "played" the card by any definition of the word "play" in this game. If it did, wouldn't that replace the fact that you brought the card out of Shadows? Meaning that the Response on the event itself is inapplicable?

"Treated" and "considered" tend to be synonyms in context. Both mean "to regard or think of in a specified way." Whether I treat you as a king or consider you to be a king, I am behaving in the same way. And neither one actually make you a king.

Rogue30 said:

And shadow event is not played during steps 1, 2 or 5 as you said. Unless during "phase begins" step 4 we introduce new action window - one for each shadow card? So far we didn't need to be so precise with Shadow mechanic. ~See what you've done?

Are you sure about that? The action windows for bringing cards out of Shadows have never actually been defined on a flowchart, but there is every indication that they are not actually happening in Step 4 of the "phase begins" framework window because:

"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."

Passive effects, by cards or rules, are not actions. And if each card was coming out of Shadows in Step 4, all cards would come out of Shadows before any Responses to any of them could be played. Shadow events may not come out of Shadows (they are not  played!) during steps 1, 2 or 5, but there is every indication from the rules that they don't come out of Shadows in step 4, either.

Interesting that you want to read the rules of "moribund states for events" so literally that "during steps 1, 2 or 5" does not translate to "when an event comes into play." Let's say Viserys Targaryen is killed for Deadly in Step 4. His controller uses his ability to save him in Step 4.II. The opponent uses Drinking the Sea (in what essentially becomes Step 4.II.2) to cancel the save. Is Drinking the Sea not subject to this rule for moribund states because it was played during Step 4 instead of steps 1, 2 or 5? 

~ And don't lay this on me. You're the one asking for the precise definition of the mechanic and its timing. It's your question that is dissatisfied with "it works because it works."

[Skowza 9]

Rogue30 said:

If that's the way it supposed to be, then ok. If there will be a card which says: "Response: After a card comes out of Shadows, choose 1 S card in play. Return that card to Shadows." then I'll be able to return such event before it is played, right?

 

 

Ok, so can Sister of Truth basically cancel the response of a Dragon Skull or Dragon Assassin or any Shadows event before it occurs?  I have always used that card for recursing my own Shadows cards and activating Black Cells, standing King's Landing, etc and had never really thought about the possibility of it shutting down Shadows burn.

[ktom 598]

Skowza said:

Ok, so can Sister of Truth basically cancel the response of a Dragon Skull or Dragon Assassin or any Shadows event before it occurs?  I have always used that card for recursing my own Shadows cards and activating Black Cells, standing King's Landing, etc and had never really thought about the possibility of it shutting down Shadows burn.

No, for a couple of reasons.

 

First, Sister of Truth can only trigger her ability when she herself comes out of Shadows. She is not like Tyrion who can Respond to any card coming out of Shadows. So if I bring Dragon Skull out of Shadows, it's not like you'll have the opportunity to use Sister of Truth because her play restrictions is not met.

But even if she did Respond to any card coming out of Shadows (instead of just herself), it wouldn't "cancel" Dragon Skull or the Assassin. It would return the cards to Shadows, but the they would become moribund first, not physically returning to Shadows until the end of the action window. You'd still be able to trigger the Response on the Skull or the Assassin while it is in moribund, getting the "burn" effect "on the way out."

[Skowza 9]

Oh stupid question, forgot what the wording on Sister was (should really be checking the card text more often before posting).  But you answered the basic query behind my question anyway, thanks.

[Twn2dn 1]

Wow, I thought I understood the shadows rules, but now I'm pretty confused. So you're telling me that my opponent gets to use a Black Cells/Guild Hall one last time before my shadows discard-location event goes off? That strikes me as odd/counter intuitive, even if it is the way the rules "technically function." Also, I would definitely like clarification on the Dragon Skull ruling. A couple weeks ago, I let someone cancel the response with a He Calls It Thinking. It would be nice to know if I can just avoid that type of thing by attaching the Dragon Skull without the response. (Also, I find it very strange that my opponent may be able to boost Tyrion's STR before I attach Dragon Skull, but whatever...guess that's another reason to run Flame-Kissed instead.)

Given the number of shadow cards that respond to themselves coming out of shadows, maybe the shadows rules should be FAQ'd to say "the player who controls the card that comes out of shadows may take the first response to the card coming out of shadows" or "printed responses on a card that just came out of shadows must be resolved before players may trigger other responses to the card coming out of shadows" (or something like that...I know the text isn't quite right, but you get the idea).

Separately, if my opponent steals a card of mine and then it goes back into shadows, does it go back to the original owner's shadows area, or the new controller's shadows area? My guess is that it goes back to the owner, since it left play (just as a stolen character would go to the owner's dead pile after it died). But if that's the case, then cards like King's Landing Balon get confusing, unless his text allows for an exception to the rule.

Thanks!