In Defense of Shadows

By way of disclaimer, I began playing AGOT during the Secrets of Oldtown cycle of 1E, three cycles after the original release of the mechanic, and as such, until 2E began, I had never played in an environment without Shadows. That said, I will try to refrain where possible from arguments to nostalgia, and instead discuss its benefits and shortcomings as objectively as I can. It’s also worth noting that all of what I say here is subject to change once we have more information: At present, we have the introduction article, which appears to include all of the rules, but relatively few actual Shadows cards with which to base opinions and expectations.

As a first step, it might be instructive to explore the differences in the mechanic itself from 1E to 2E, based on what was given in the introductory article. In First Edition, Shadow cards could be set up into shadows for 2g, and marshaled into shadows for 2g as well.  Both of these facts remain true for Second Edition, although 2g doesn’t necessarily mean exactly the same thing across both editions.  While this investment in 1E was ⅖ of your setup, it’s now only ¼ of it. However, with a few notable exceptions (a Littlefinger who cost 2+10 but whose cost was reduced by your opponent’s power total, and a cycle of enormous Mercenary armies who rarely saw play), the costs for bringing the cards out of shadows was also generally only 1-2 gold at most, whereas we have already been shown with Ser Gerris Drinkwater that we can expect the shadow costs in 2E to more closely resemble the current gold curve.  This can be seen as somewhat of a nerf to the mechanic, as having an expensive “out of shadows” cost will require high gold counts, and prevent the use of reducers such as Great HallGreat Hall (GtR) Neutral Location Plot deck limit: 3. Westeros. Limited.
Marshaling Action: Kneel Great Hall to reduce the cost of the next unique character you marshal this phase by 1. (By 2 instead if that character’s printed cost is 6 or higher.) Guarding the Realm #38 and Kingsroad that often power the economy of many decks today.  Consequently, high gold plots may be required for decks that rely heavily on the mechanic.

However, this is offset by another interesting change to the mechanic: In 1E, the only way for a shadows card to enter play was to have it go through the Shadows zone. When combined with the framework action restriction (described below), this meant that even if you drew two Shadows characters as your draw for the turn, you would have at most one of them out in the Challenges phase. In the new edition, however, it appears that most shadows cards will have the option of being marshalled normally, with a separate “Shadows (X)” keyword as their “out of shadows” cost. It seems likely (based on Gerris) that when marshalled normally they will usually not get the full benefit of their text, but this again makes the 2E version more versatile, in that if you simply must have characters on the board, you can use reducers to put out Gerris or others and forego their text, essentially turning them into ‘split cards’ that allow you to strategically decide whether it’s more useful to have their text (and the accompanying surprise factor) or more useful to save your gold and marshal them normally using reducers.

Another major change to the mechanic involves timing and mechanism of the cards themselves. In 1E, there was a framework action at the beginning of every phase, wherein each player could pay the “out of shadows” cost of one card and bring it out of shadows. This meant that cards with 0 “out of shadows” cost were naturally more versatile, as they could be brought out at the beginning of any phase, allowing you to win dominance with a character that your opponent might not have been expecting, or hide them from claim or challenge-phase kill effects.  It will be interesting to see if we get similarly versatile shadows cards in 2E, but based on the cost discussion above, it frankly seems rather unlikely. The “Action:” timing of the new shadows mechanic, though, more than makes up for the lack of versatility due to costing- these cards are now true surprises, and can be brought into play at times that are even more beneficial than 0-cost Shadows cards in 1E were. They essentially dodge stealth from attackers, and since there is no once-per-phase restriction as the 1E rules gave in practice, multiple shadows characters can be used to blunt a reset such as VarysVarys (Core) Neutral Character Plot deck limit: 3. Lord. Small Council. Spy. Stealth.
Interrupt: When the dominance phase ends, remove Varys from the game to discard each character from play. Core Set #29 by staying hidden until the Standing phase when he’s already triggered.

The last change is not with Shadows, but with 2E itself: Reserve value. In 1E, Shadows cards were safe from intrigue claim, but in 2E, they are also not part of a player’s Reserve, which inherently increases their value. It’s interesting to me that the introductory article openly refers to the Shadows area as ‘a second hand,’ when this is one of the things that is brought up fairly often as a complaint.  It does add another zone to the game, and thus adds complexity that some may see as unnecessary. I do think that statements such as “Shadows devalues the intrigue challenge” are a bit hyperbolic, because most decks clearly will not be made up of anywhere close to 50% Shadows cards, even after they are fully released, but it is fair to say that it does lower the impact of the Reserve mechanic to a degree.

One of the most common criticisms that I’ve seen about Shadows is along the lines of this question: “Why do we need both Ambush and Shadows in the game?”  My off-the-cuff answer would be, “We probably don’t”- it is true that they often occupy the same design space. However, that doesn’t mean that this is a poor decision- after all, it’s not clear that Ambush is the better mechanic, just that it came first.  If pressed, I’d contend that Shadows is the more interesting of the two mechanics, and if only one were to survive to be evergreen, it is the one I’d choose.  However, this is clearly not the reality of the situation, and as we will have both going forward (at least for the span of a cycle, but hopefully longer), it’s a question worth asking. While the two are fairly similar on the surface, there are some key differences that make it worthwhile to introduce Shadows into an environment where Ambush already exists.

•Ambush is limited to the Challenges phase, whereas Shadows, as an Any Phase action, is significantly more versatile.  A simple example is this: As it currently stands, if you end the challenge phase with only one large character on the board, there are precious few cards that will prevent that character from being Marched to The WallMarched to the Wall Neutral Plot Income: 4. Initiative: 8. Claim: 1. Reserve: 5. Plot deck limit: 2. Edict. When Revealed: Each player chooses a character he or she controls (if able), and discards it from play (cannot be saved). Core Set #15 during the next plot phase.  With Shadows, however, you just might be able to save Tywin from joining the Watch (a fate worse than death, as we all know).

•Shadows allows for a more robust economic decision than ambush.  Being able to pay 2g either during setup or marshaling, and potentially save that card across multiple turns until the exact moment that it is most needed is quite powerful- essentially, it can be seen as a means of ‘investing’ some gold in a future board state.  It allows one to spread out the cost of a more expensive card such as Gerris, rather than having to find a way to acquire and then spend that gold all at once. Also, as shown by the spoiled event, Beneath the Bridge of Dream, it also allows for events to have a ‘cost’ to them, but still be triggered at times when a player would normally not have gold.

•The specific zones of play from which Ambush and Shadows occur is also an important distinction.  First, there is the obvious matter of cards in Shadows being immune to intrigue claim and reserve. The debate about whether this is a positive or a negative is ultimately rather subjective, and depends on one’s personal tastes, but for my money it’s generally a plus. While I can see why someone learning the mechanic for the first time might believe that it has the potential to get out of hand and devalue the intrigue challenge completely, I am unconvinced that this will be the reality of the situation.

A further difference is that ambush cards (and non-Shadows events, which share some similarities for the purposes of this topic), by nature of coming directly from one’s hand, are vulnerable to targeted hand destruction cards such as Seen in FlamesSeen In Flames House Baratheon Event Plot deck limit: 3. R'hllor. Play only if you control a R’hllor character.
Challenges Action: Choose an opponent, and look at his or her hand. Then, choose and discard 1 card from that hand. Core Set #64 or His Viper EyesHis Viper Eyes House Martell Event Plot deck limit: 3. Reaction: After you lose a or challenge as the defending player, look at the winning opponent’s hand. Then, choose and discard 1 card from that hand. Wolves of the North #32 .  While you may go first and be able to use an ambush card before these trigger, it will certainly force the action, rather than allowing you to bring them into play at an opportune moment.

Additionally, and somewhat paradoxically, if you are not running cards such as Seen in FlamesSeen In Flames House Baratheon Event Plot deck limit: 3. R'hllor. Play only if you control a R’hllor character.
Challenges Action: Choose an opponent, and look at his or her hand. Then, choose and discard 1 card from that hand. Core Set #64 , a card in Shadows can be LESS mysterious than a card in your opponent’s hand. Cards in an opponent’s hand can be essentially any card allowed by his or her house and agenda combination, whereas the subset of possible Shadows cards will be significantly smaller. This allows for more skillful decisions, rather than situations where an opponent might not be able to “play around everything” simply because the variety of possible holdings is so high.

•Shadows itself is a new zone that can be interacted with in a number of unique ways. In 1E, in addition to the Shadows cards themselves, there were also several popular (if, in some cases, hopelessly overpowered) cards that referred to the zone.  For example, this version of Robert Baratheon, with which Brett Zeiller won Worlds 2011, will only work if there are no cards in Shadows- often a risky proposition, but with big upside. As such, it’s reasonable to expect that this design space will be explored again, with triggers such as “While there are (x) cards in Shadows,” “While you control at least (y) cards in Shadows” and similar.  It also allows for designs that specifically target Shadows cards, as we see in Shadow City.

•The timing of “comes out of shadows” allows for very precise triggering conditions, potentially.  Beneath the Bridge of Dream, though imperfect since events often have unique triggers, is a decent example: Imagine if an effect like that were on a character, and said “Interrupt: When a plot would be revealed, bring X out of shadows to _____.”  These are the sort of things that Shadows can do, but Ambush cannot.

• How many current Ambush cards would have worked better as Shadows effects?

This is a fun question! The one that springs immediately to mind is one that was previously a Shadows card: Venomous BladeVenomous Blade House Martell Attachment Plot deck limit: 3. Weapon. character you control only. Ambush (3).
Attached character gets +1 STR.
Reaction: After Venomous Blade enters play, place a poison token on a character with printed STR 2 or lower. At the end of the phase, if that character still has that poison token, remove it and kill that character. Called to Arms #36 . In 1E, it also killed small characters as it does now, but it did so as a passive effect when it came out of shadows at the beginning of a phase.  While the card was quite potent (indeed, it spent much of its legal life on the Restricted list due to its ability to recur itself), it also removes the fiddliness of the ‘poison token’ that the new one possesses. It’s possible that due to the changes in the rules, 2E VenBlade would look very similar as a Shadows card, but it’s possible to template it so it doesn’t.  There are a few others that fit in this category for me, less for mechanical reasons and more for thematic reasons. The Queen’s Assassin is literally standing in a shadow, and while I understand the idea of him ‘setting an ambush’ for someone, it feels like he would do so in a very different way than, say, The HoundThe Hound (TtB) House Lannister Character Plot deck limit: 3. House Clegane. Ambush (4).
Forced Reaction: After you win a challenge in which The Hound is participating, you may discard 1 card at random from your hand. If you do not, return The Hound to your hand. Taking the Black #9 . Qaithe of the Shadows is another in this group for me, as it’s right there in her name.  In general, it feels like there is little differentiation in the Ambush keyword between actual attackers such as the City WatchCity Watch House Baratheon Character Plot deck limit: 3. Army. Ambush (6). No attachments except Weapon.
While you have more power on your faction card than an opponent, reduce the cost to ambush City Watch by 2. True Steel #108 , and people who are more likely just doing sneaky things, such as the Dornish SpyDornish Spy House Martell Character Plot deck limit: 3. Spy. Ambush (4).
Reaction: After Dornish Spy enters play, choose a character. Until the end of the phase, that character loses a challenge icon of your choice. The Brotherhood Without Banners #115 .

• Is it another tool for negating stealth?

Potentially, yes, although with Flea BottomFlea Bottom (OR) Neutral Location Plot deck limit: 3. King's Landing. Challenges Action: Pay 1 gold and kneel Flea Bottom to put a character with printed cost 3 or lower into play from your discard pile. At the end of the phase, if that card is still in play, place it on the bottom of your deck. Oberyn's Revenge #98 so commonplace it often feels like a keyword with little and less value these days anyway. The counterpoint, though, is that it can also introduce stealth into the challenge phase, in a way that is both thematic and powerful.  For example, if you go first, initiate some challenges, but leave back a blocker for an important challenge based on the characters that I have standing and on the board, I can potentially add a Stealth character to the board that you couldn’t have accounted for, via Shadows.

• Will Shadows increase or decrease the importance of challenges?

 I think that remains to be seen, and can’t be answered until we look back on the card pool as a whole once the cycle(s) with Shadows have been released.  In 1E there were certainly cases on both ends of the spectrum: One of the single best challenge characters of 1E was the Shadows version of Tyrion Lannister.  He had consistently high strength, and incredible versatility with his choice of keywords each turn.  On the other end of the spectrum was the Queen of Thorns, who was essentially the Mace TyrellMace Tyrell (ToJ) House Tyrell Character Plot deck limit: 40. Commander. Lord. Renown.
Action: Stand a participating Army character and remove it from the challenge to choose another participating character with equal or lower printed cost. Stand that character and remove it from the challenge. (Limit once per phase.) Tower of Joy Draft Set #201 of 1E.  She wasn’t quite as ubiquitous as Mace, but neither were the cards that might’ve been used to slow her down when she hit the table, like Milk of the PoppyMilk of the Poppy Neutral Attachment Plot deck limit: 3. Condition. Terminal.
Treat attached character’s printed text box as if it were blank (except for Traits). Core Set #35 .

• How big was the mystery element in 1E? When you played a shadows card, did your opponent basically know which card it was based on your house and agenda, or were there enough options to keep them guessing?

• How long will it take for the mechanic to enable any genuinely surprising plays? Even if each house gets a shadow card in each pack (which seems unlikely), it seems like it will be a long wait before things get interesting.

I don’t want to speculate on a timeframe, because that depends quite a bit on how many total Shadows cards are released, and how they are distributed throughout the cycle.  I will say, though, that the Banner mechanic makes it more likely that surprises will occur in 2E than it did in 1E.  All non-neutral Shadows cards in 1E had the text “House X Only” on them, which was essentially the 1E version of “Loyal.”  While we haven’t seen any examples yet, it’s reasonable to assume that not all Shadows cards in 2E will retain such loyalty, and so it naturally increases the possibilities for surprise from a given Shadows card.

• As somebody who’s (perhaps cautiously) optimistic about shadows, here’s my question/concern: how likely is it that the mechanic will be used to sneak in some powerful effects that would’ve have been printed another way? For reference, my understanding of Prized is that it essentially enabled some ‘broken’ or extremely powerful cards to be printed because they had a theoretical drawback that in practice was not hard to play around. Should I be worried shadows may end up enabling similar effects?

You are absolutely correct about the way that Prized played out, but I don’t think a comparison to Shadows is particularly fair.  Shadows is more an alternate cost/marshaling, and less of a ‘theoretical drawback.’ There were some Shadows cards that could be considered over the curve, but there were also cards (see the Robert Baratheon mentioned above) that were broken and were anti-Shadows.  There were only three Shadows cards that made it to the Restricted List; one was a Champ card, and one was released near the end of the game when the power level of ALL cards was being pushed. As usual, it’s likely that we will have to evaluate each card on its own merits.

• With shadows coming I think my biggest worry is how difficult will it make the game for new people. Because if the game doesn’t get new people it is only losing people.

While Shadows does add a new zone, I don’t think that it’s a mechanic that is particularly unintuitive or difficult to figure out.  It certainly wasn’t the most complicated thing about 1E, and I daresay that there are already deck types (Builders or Combo) and rulings (Varys’s RiddleVarys's Riddle Neutral Plot Income: 5. Initiative: 6. Claim: 1. Reserve: 7. Plot deck limit: 2. Riddle. Scheme. When Revealed: Initiate the when revealed ability on a revealed non-Riddle plot card as if you had just revealed it. Across the Seven Kingdoms #20 vs Summer HarvestSummer Harvest Neutral Plot Initiative: 4. Claim: 1. Reserve: 6. Plot deck limit: 2. Summer. When Revealed: Choose an opponent. X is 2 higher than the printed gold value on that player’s revealed plot card. Called to Arms #39 ) in 2E that will confuse or dishearten a new player more than “facedown for 2, faceup as an action for the Shadow cost.”

• I’m interested whether imbalances between the houses can/will be mitigated. – Will some houses get their cards earlier and benefit more (like with the 2cost economy locations last cycle)? – will every house get the same amount/quality of cards or is it likely shadows will become a subtheme of one faction/a few factions? – Finally: will it be fleshed out enough to be relevant?

As above, there are some questions in here that probably can’t be answered until we see the full breadth of the card pool, or even speculated on until we see the full contents of the first couple of packs.  However, we can look back at 1E for some examples of what might be done with each house thematically.  In 1E, the six houses were often divided into sets of two when it came to giving out mechanics.  Seasons is a good example: Greyjoy and Stark had cards that liked when it was Winter, Martell and Targaryen had cards that liked when it was Summer, and Baratheon and Lannister had a mix of both, or some that could switch back and forth.  Shadows was divided less neatly, but generally speaking Baratheon and Greyjoy had a good amount of effects that either prevented Shadows or worked better when nobody was lurking in them: For example, The King’s Law, Knight of Flowers and Distinguished Boatswain.  Lannister had many cards that enjoyed having Shadows cards, such as Cersei Lannister and Littlefinger. And Stark had some of each, from the same family no less: Catelyn Stark and Sansa Stark. That said, there were certainly powerful Shadows options for even the “anti-Shadows” houses, so everyone will get a chance to make use of the mechanic, and in some exciting and diverse ways.  As for relevance, I expect that FFG will want to showcase such a mechanic enough that we will see the cards pretty regularly. It’s also important to note that based on the 2E model we’ve gotten so far, we will get twice as many chances at useful Shadows effects, as there was only one cycle initially that had Shadows in 1E, and then another that semi-featured it (along with some other returning mechanics) near the end of the game.

• Anything that makes the game more like 1.0 is worrisome to me because of how I am told the game was played…Decks were just full of board clears and the challenge phase was mostly irrelevant. Games were won and lost on the backs of 1-2 cost chumps. I bought into the game for the IP, less so the mechanics, so a world where nobody plays any of the Uniques is uninviting for me. It’s just a signpost that design is really just catering to what 1.0 players want and maybe making less-good decisions.

This seems to be a prevailing sentiment, and it is unfortunate that several of the commenters mentioned specifically that they were against Shadows expressly because the players who claimed that 1E was better near the beginning of 2E enjoyed the mechanic.  It’s fine to dislike others’ opinions, or how the are presented, but I’m hoping that everyone is at least willing to judge 2E Shadows on its own merits once it is released, and not be colored by the (perhaps overly aggressive) opinions of those who remember it fondly from 1E.

With that out of the way, the description given for 1E is pretty overblown.  It has been perpetrated throughout the community, and there were certainly times when it was more true than false, but to say that “1E was ____” (any given environment specifically) is unfair.  The fallibility of duplicates (they did not have ‘cannot be canceled,’ though there were still not a huge amount of effects that did cancel them) did cause people to build their decks in different ways, with a wider variety of unique characters rather than the 3x Asha, 3x Euron, 3x Victarion that we see in today’s Greyjoy deck.  But there are also other reasons for such deckbuilding differences: Setups were far less forgiving, the economy was different, diversity of theme, powerful agenda effects, etc. There were times when decks with lots of unique characters were very powerful, and times when they were less powerful. There were times when combo decks (Zeiller’s Maesters, the King Viserys Attachments deck) won the day, times when rush (Martell Maesters, Bara Noble Cause) was on top and times when a solidly-built midrange deck with the all-star characters from your house (Lannister PBTT, Martell Quentyn character agenda)  was the best there was. There were even a few dark times where a winning deck might not have any character cards at all. But none of these periods was prolonged enough to say that it ‘described’ 1E in one broad stroke. And so far, 2E is following that path as well- we had Big Guy decks, we’ve had Combo decks, we’ve had Wall decks, which all look pretty different. Yes, there are people who have said “1E was better,” but importantly, 2E is already better than its past self! No longer does a flopped Tywin spell automatic doom for the opponent. And I and many others feel that the depth and flavor that the Shadows mechanic provides will serve to enrich the game on several levels.

I hope you’ve all enjoyed this discussion, and I welcome any comments or further questions that might come out of it.  Before you all leave, though, I have a special treat for you thanks to Evan Johnson of FFG. I’d like to introduce you to a little friend of mine: the Nefarious Acolyte!

The Annals of Castle Black

A Game of ThronesA Game of Thrones Neutral Plot Income: 4. Initiative: 2. Claim: 1. Reserve: 6. Plot deck limit: 1. Scheme. A player cannot initiate a or challenge unless he or she has won an challenge that phase. Core Set #3

BesiegedBesieged Neutral Plot Income: 5. Initiative: 6. Claim: 1. Reserve: 5. Plot deck limit: 2. Siege. War. At least one character must be declared as a defender in each challenge, if able. House of Thorns #47

Blood of the DragonBlood of the Dragon House Targaryen Plot Income: 2. Initiative: 2. Claim: 1. Reserve: 5. Plot deck limit: 1. Legacy. Each non-Dragon character gets -1 STR and is killed if its STR is 0. No Middle Ground #75

Late Summer FeastLate Summer Feast Neutral Plot Income: 9. Claim: 1. Reserve: 5. Plot deck limit: 2. Kingdom. Summer. Forced Reaction: After you win a challenge, the losing opponent may draw 1 card. All Men Are Fools #20 (Your own!)

Forgotten PlansForgotten Plans Neutral Plot Income: 4. Initiative: 2. Claim: 1. Reserve: 6. Plot deck limit: 1. Scheme. While it is not the plot phase, treat the text box of each revealed non-Scheme plot card as if it were blank (except for Traits). True Steel #119 (Whose plans are forgotten now, huh?!)

For the Watch!For the Watch! The Night's Watch Plot Income: 4. Initiative: 6. Claim: 1. Reserve: 6. Plot deck limit: 1. Siege. You cannot lose (and your opponent cannot win) the first challenge initiated against you each phase. No Middle Ground #67

The Red WeddingThe Red Wedding Neutral Plot Income: 4. Reserve: 4. Plot deck limit: 1. House Frey. Scheme. Interrupt: When you win a challenge as the attacking player, choose and kill a Lord or Lady character controlled by the losing opponent. (Any player may initiate this ability.) The Red Wedding #80

Wardens (ALL OF THEM! Muhahaha!)

Let me know if I missed your favorite in the comments!