Jump to content



Photo

Toshiyuki Sakai into Snare!


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Dydra

Dydra

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 06:34 AM

Hey guys, just a simple question. 


If I have Toshiyuki Sakai down with 2-3 advances on him, I can still swap him into a non-advance card like Snare! (or Shock) , right? It also keeps the tokens on it ...

The card says:
1) switch for an Asset or Agenda -> check
2) new card keeps advanced tokens  ( it nowhere says that you can't do that if card is non-advance)



Saw people on BGG answering that it's like that, but I felt like asking here too, to double-check.

Cheers



#2 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 06:47 AM

Yep, it's legit.

 

These boards are no more or less official than BGG.


Edited by Grimwalker, 15 March 2014 - 06:48 AM.


#3 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 514 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 08:41 AM

Card text wins in a rules conflict. So yes, whatever you drop keeps the tokens even if you can't normally advance it.

#4 ProfMoriarty

ProfMoriarty

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 20 March 2014 - 02:35 PM

There is (intended to be) a very clear distinction between the "Advance" action on the Corp action list card which is to spend a click and a credit to place an Advancement Token on a card which can be advanced, vs. the "Move this Token Around" feature of certain events and game effects.

 

Trick of Light, for example, is very clear in that it states the target of the moved counters must be a card that "can be advanced" - i.e., is a card that is a legal target for the "Advance" action on the Corp action list card.

 

So those words don't exist, there are no restrictions on where the tokens can be moved to.

Which means San San City can now be a storehouse for counters to be moved by Trick of Light.  So delish.



#5 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 21 March 2014 - 07:46 AM

Or screw up the runner's decision making. Toshi is not about simple mind games, he's about information.

The runner already decided to run on a card with 2 advancement counters on it--so he has already decided that the chance of hitting a Junebug/Overwriter/Fetal AI is worth the risk. He's made that decision based on a certain range of possibilities. Now, with Toshi, suddenly he has to reevaluate. It could be a Snare or Edge Of World or this f***ing horrifying piece of kit: http://www.netrunner...fit-Spoiler.png

Bottom line, if you're not leveraging the differential between what the runner expected with what he now has to consider, you're doing it wrong.
  • Khouri and CommissarFeesh like this

#6 kinglink

kinglink

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 03:41 AM

In a similar vein, I was wondering if a Toshiyuki Sakai card can be swapped for another Toshiyuki Sakai card? I know he is unique, but in the rules it says that that there can only be one active copy of a unique card in play. Is a card considered active only if it is in on the table?

 

This came up in friendly game recently and led to a loop where I was swapping the one in the server with the one in HQ for a couple of times before the runner gave up and jacked out. We let it slide at the time because it was a friendly game and it gave us a laugh, but we later thought that the Corp could use this to their advantage. They could loop the pair a few times until they think the runner will give up and then swap in an agenda (hopefully) just before the runner jacks out.



#7 Nerdmeister

Nerdmeister

    Member

  • Members
  • 639 posts

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:25 AM

Can´t see why you wouldn´t be able to swap in another copy of Toshiyuki-san. They are not rezzed at the same time.


  • etherial and kinglink like this

#8 Dydra

Dydra

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 March 2014 - 12:03 PM

In a similar vein, I was wondering if a Toshiyuki Sakai card can be swapped for another Toshiyuki Sakai card? I know he is unique, but in the rules it says that that there can only be one active copy of a unique card in play. Is a card considered active only if it is in on the table?

 

This came up in friendly game recently and led to a loop where I was swapping the one in the server with the one in HQ for a couple of times before the runner gave up and jacked out. We let it slide at the time because it was a friendly game and it gave us a laugh, but we later thought that the Corp could use this to their advantage. They could loop the pair a few times until they think the runner will give up and then swap in an agenda (hopefully) just before the runner jacks out.


That is a completely valid play and part of the mind games ... Since the corp has NO way to know, on WHICH attempt exactly the runner will jack out, putting down an Agenda after some looping is absolutely balls play ... and again , A VALID  move 

Also yes, the card is not rezzed at the same time, so swapping the 2 Sakai's is absolutely valid as well 


  • kinglink likes this

#9 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 07:32 AM

It's a deeply silly edge case, but I'm trying to think about ways it could be bluffed.

 

Infinite Loops

If an infinite loop is created, the player responsible for the loop must choose a number. The loop instantaneously resolves that many times, and then ends. The Runner is always responsible for ending a loop that occurs during a run by jacking out, unless a card ability prevents that from occurring. If so, then it is the Corp’s responsibility to end the loop by letting the Runner through to the server.

 

Theoretically, this applies. You install Sakai, Rez him, and now you install and rez another Sakai. The Loop has been demonstrated. The Corp can say he's executing this loop 673 times, or as many times as the runner chooses before jacking out. However, at the end of the loop, it's Toshi in the server, otherwise you're misrepresenting the game state.



#10 kinglink

kinglink

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 05 April 2014 - 05:32 PM

I would say that it is not an infinite loop as the Corp play could theoretically end the loop at any time by swapping in a different card at any point and choosing when to do it would be a really advanced play as you'd have to do it just as the runner gives up. Too soon could be a stolen agenda, too late means leaving a dud trap out on the table. I guess I'll find out if it comes up at the Chronos Protocol event I'm going to tomorrow.



#11 Khouri

Khouri

    Member

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 05 April 2014 - 08:01 PM

The rules for infinite loops are in the FAQ.

 

The main thing to bear in mind is that this could be used for, or perceived to be, stalling a game. Deliberate stalling of a game is always bad imho.



#12 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 06 April 2014 - 09:32 PM

The stalling of the game is why the infinite loop rule exists. It allows the corp player to demonstrate the loop, say "I can do this all day, how many times are we going to execute it?" And that's also why it's the runner's responsibility to break the standoff by jacking out. In chess, any repeated loop of the same move sequence three times is an automatic stalemate and the game ends.

#13 Nerdmeister

Nerdmeister

    Member

  • Members
  • 639 posts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 02:27 AM

The stalling of the game is why the infinite loop rule exists. It allows the corp player to demonstrate the loop, say "I can do this all day, how many times are we going to execute it?" And that's also why it's the runner's responsibility to break the standoff by jacking out. In chess, any repeated loop of the same move sequence three times is an automatic stalemate and the game ends.

This assumes that the runner is responsible for said loop. However the corp could just as easily end the loop at any time so I´m struggling a bit to figure out who is the responsible party.

I´m leaning towards it being the corp who must/should end the loop; mainly because the corp seems to me to be the main loop-starter but also because Toshiyuki otherwise becomes a safe parking spot for advancement tokens meant for Trick of Light, which seems a bit game-breaking to me.

 

Maybe a rules question is in order?


Edited by Nerdmeister, 07 April 2014 - 02:30 AM.


#14 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 05:11 AM

This assumes that the runner is responsible for said loop. However the corp could just as easily end the loop at any time so I´m struggling a bit to figure out who is the responsible party.

Maybe a rules question is in order?

No need. The rules are not at all ambiguous. The Runner is always responsible for ending a loop that occurs during a run by jacking out, unless a card ability prevents that from occurring.

Trick of light can't really win games on its own, I don't think this is all that powerful of a combo.

#15 Khouri

Khouri

    Member

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 12:10 PM

Actually on re-re-reading the wording on Infinite loops it would probably be both players responsibility for ending the loop as neither clause exactly applies.

 

At the point that the "Toshiyuki" loop goes infinite (card access, step 4.5, past the jack-out stage in step 4.2) both players have to be agreeing to keep the loop going (the runner doesn't have to jack out, as they are already in the server, and so the Corp cannot exactly stop the loop to let them into the server they are already accessing).

 

So if we drop the jacking out clause and say that the rules intend that if the runner can cause an infinite loops to end when they have priority, they must do so. An infinite "Toshiyuki" loop basically says stop accessing "Toshiyuki" (and his clone) resolve any other accesses and end the run (successfully).

 

Otherwise, the Corp has to pick a number, the loop resolves that many times and the Runner accesses "Toshiyuki" and moves on.

 

On the other hand it could be that the Runner has to pick a number, lets the loop run that many times and then stops accessing the card.

 

I suppose the question is, if the Runner has to pick a number presumably so can the Corp (a point at which they are changing the loop to be non-infinite and probably a trap, assuming they have one or just get bored).

 

Only if these numbers were the same could the Corp be permitted to have "Toshiyuki" swap out for something else. If the runner's number is higher than the Corp's they hit a trap (or just access) otherwise the runner simply stops accessing the card (which must be left as "Toshiyuki"), resolves any other accesses in that server and ends the run (successfully).

 

That pretty much boils down to the psi-mindgame but requires a lot more setup (and an infinite number of options) than just secretly spending X credits...

 

EDIT: edited for clarity.


Edited by Khouri, 07 April 2014 - 12:15 PM.

  • CommissarFeesh likes this

#16 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 514 posts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 01:12 PM

I was going to post something about that too, but yeah - Toshi isn't a simple 'infinite loop', as every time the Corp swaps a card, the runner has to make a new choice. It's not like hitting a Cell Portal with a Rez cost of 0 over and over again (the runner knows what he's getting into there). Every swap could be Toshi, or it could be ANY OTHER ASSET. This is hugely important.

 

Gonna submit this to Lukas.


  • Khouri likes this

#17 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 06:50 AM

That's kind of why I what I was getting at earlier--you'd have to be very very careful how you'd do it, and you could easily run afoul of the Misrepresentation clause of the code of conduct.

 

Strictly speaking, you could invoke the infinite loop, if you're willing to commit to installing Toshi as your final install: once the loop is demonstrated, you tell the runner to his face "I will keep installing Toshi for as long as you keep accessing. This is an infinite loop, therefore you must jack out." This is the equivalent to the improbable Cell Portal example. If you go that route, then you can't be a liar with the last card you leave in the server. On that level, it's not your responsibility to make a sub-optimal play just to break a loop that leaves the runner empty-handed.

 

Or, you could go the bluff route.
 

  1. Runner Accesses Toshi, you replace him with Toshi.
  2. Runner Accesses Toshi, you replace him with Toshi.
  3. Runner Accesses Toshi, you say "I can do this all day, are you really going to make this an infinite loop? Call a judge if you want." Then, when he looks to where the TO is, you grab a different card from your hand, and install a Ronin.
  4. Runner says "fine, be that way" and jacks out.

It could be played either way.



#18 Khouri

Khouri

    Member

  • Members
  • 261 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 11:56 AM

The point remains that the runner cannot jack out at the point that they are accessing cards.



#19 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 514 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 01:03 PM

The point remains that the runner cannot jack out at the point that they are accessing cards.

 

But they CAN choose not to access the card replacing Toshi.



#20 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 518 posts

Posted 08 April 2014 - 01:18 PM

 

The point remains that the runner cannot jack out at the point that they are accessing cards.

 

But they CAN choose not to access the card replacing Toshi.

 

 

And that is why ultimately the responsibility for ending the loop is with the runner.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS