Jump to content



Photo

Rook/Djinn


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Carist

Carist

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 05:16 PM

If Rook is installed onto Djinn, is it ever able to get off? Rook is already hosted and there is no valid ice to move to since it is not on a server.

#2 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 06 October 2013 - 08:00 PM

As written, it cannot get off Djinn.  I wouldn't be surprised to see an erratum saying "Click: .... If already hosted on a piece of ice, ..."


Edited by radiskull, 06 October 2013 - 08:00 PM.


#3 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 01:58 AM

Yeah, that's what I noticed as well. I send a question to Lukas when the Caissa were first spoiled on the website, but I never got a reply. Really ought to try again.



#4 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:27 AM

I'm not sure I can imagine a situation where you'd even want to host a Caissa on Djinn though. You don't get any benefit to having it there, and assuming you could move it off you need the MU available anyway. As far as I understand, you can't trash a program to re-host a card, only as part of an install action, or because your total MU wad lowered (due to hardware trashing for example).

#5 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 07 October 2013 - 07:30 AM


I'm not sure I can imagine a situation where you'd even want to host a Caissa on Djinn though. 

Perhaps because you haven't found Deep Red yet (or are playing a different console), got no free MU, but want to get the program out so it's ready next round in case the corp trashes an ice hosting a Caissa and installs a new ice, or to not let Sahasrara credits go to waste.


Edited by Saturnine, 07 October 2013 - 07:30 AM.


#6 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 10:11 AM

I could certainly see an instance like Saturnine describes, where you'd want to get it out of your hand but don't have the MU.

I suspect they will rule that you can rehost Caissa regardless of where they are currently hosted. We've had Scherezade spoiled, which reads (translated from German):

 

Scheherazade can host any number of programs.
Whenever you install a program on Scheherazade, gain one [credit].

 

This would seem to be tailor-made for Caissa, so that they have a place to land, get you a credit, and then they're sent out into the net. Otherwise you're just begging for a single program trash to nuke your whole rig, for no benefit other than a paltry handful of credits.



#7 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:32 AM

I've sent this question in to FFG twice now (once when the Caissa were first spoiled, and a couple of weeks ago), but have not received an answer. My guess would be that they're still trying to figure out internally how to best deal with this (possible errata or what have you).

 

As Grimwalker says, Scheherazade is practically made for use with Caissa, so it appears they need to find some sort of solution to the unfortunate wording on the cards.


Edited by Saturnine, 28 October 2013 - 11:33 AM.


#8 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:39 PM

I agree, I expect an errata, although interestingly, so far only Rook needs one. All other Caissa are capable of moving off another hosted location currently, as they don't specify where they can move in relation to where they are; they specify where they can't move in relation to where they are.

 

This is a crucial difference, but for Bishop, for example, neither restriction reads as true, so Bishop isn't restricted as to where it can move.



#9 Saturnine

Saturnine

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:25 PM

That's a thought I hadn't considered about Bishop, though I think you could argue that its ability offers two possible moves, both of which are predicated on it being hosted on a piece of ice, making either move invalid. Either way, Rook and Knight are clearly problematic.


Edited by Saturnine, 28 October 2013 - 05:25 PM.


#10 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:51 PM

Hmm, yeah I misremembered Knight. It actually specifically refers to the ICE Knight is currently hosted on (as does Rook).
 
Bishop I'm pretty sure you can get away with anyway, if you break it down:

If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server (if it isn't then restriction doesn't apply)

or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server (if it isn't, restriction doesn't apply).

I'm still expecting to see all Caissa get the same errata as Pawn though.

Edited by CommissarFeesh, 28 October 2013 - 05:52 PM.


#11 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:20 PM

I don't really understand the confusion.

 

When you install Caissa programs, you install them as any other program - on your rig.

 

Then you spend a click to move it on an ICE. That is why there is the <click> cost. Are you guys not paying the initial <click> cost to host the Caissa program on an ICE by installing it directly on ICE ???

 

Caissa programs DO NOT have a wording like Parasite (Install Parasite only on a rezzed piece of ice.)

 

If they need to be installed on ICE the cards would say so.

 

 

edit: Referenced Parasite for clarity.


Edited by ValeS, 24 November 2013 - 04:24 PM.


#12 radiskull

radiskull

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:51 PM

I don't really understand the confusion.

Yeah, I don't think you do.

 

The confusion stems from how Caissa programs move OFF of something like Djinn or Scheherazade. Their texts say things like "If not already hosted" when they should probably say "If not already hosted on a piece of ice" so that they can move around as intended.



#13 ValeS

ValeS

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 02:59 AM

So they need a FAQ clarification same as the Pawn got, that's all. I don't think this kills gameplay with Caissas :P



#14 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 25 November 2013 - 03:36 AM

So they need a FAQ clarification same as the Pawn got, that's all. I don't think this kills gameplay with Caissas :P

 

Of course it doesn't; it's just an unfortunate oversight. Scheherezade appears to be excellent for Caissa until you realise this drawback. I expect we will get the same errata, but until we do, we have to play the rules-as-written.



#15 Talism

Talism

    Member

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 05 December 2013 - 03:06 AM

Has there been any official response to these, really annoying as i cant make the deck i want to till they fix this

 



#16 Carist

Carist

    Member

  • Members
  • 131 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 10:44 AM

Someone got a response to this from Lukas, only Pawn can be moved off a non ICE host.

 

http://boardgamegeek...nd-scheherazade



#17 CommissarFeesh

CommissarFeesh

    Member

  • Members
  • 569 posts

Posted 13 December 2013 - 11:37 AM

That was me; forgot to update in here. Makes me sadfaec :(



#18 Maliseraph

Maliseraph

    Member

  • Members
  • 40 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 12:20 PM

I guess that is what the wording implies, but I feel it is a bad ruling that serves no good purpose. I think the Caissas would be better read as saying "if currently hosted on a piece of ICE..." and ignoring the rules text for getting them switched around in play if they are currently hosted on non-ice.

Right now this precludes them from being used with:
Omni Drive (free MU only until hosted on ICE and having an active effect)
Djinn (free MU only until hosted on ICE and having an active effect)
Scheherazade (free credit before sending it into position)

2/3 are other Anarch cards that would otherwise have great synergy with them.
I hope they reconsider.

#19 Grimwalker

Grimwalker

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 31 December 2013 - 03:08 PM

You're right about the implications of the ruling--it might be beneficial to have the Caissa have a layover on another card to save MU or make a quick buck, but the ruling precludes that.

 

There's two ways to read this:

  • Hosting on Runner-side cards is inherently conceived as a permanent until-trash-do-us-part relationship, so the clarification is to preserve that concept.
  • The intention is that they could, but the RTFC interpretation is what it is and FFG is not about to start cavalierly splashing errata around through individual emails, so they're playing it as it lies.

I could see it going either way; we'll know when the next FAQ hits. I have a small side bet on the latter, and we'll see an errata, but not much riding on it.






© 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