Jump to content



  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Paul Grogan

Paul Grogan


  • Members
  • 451 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 02:58 PM

I think this was discussed over on BGG, but I couldnt find anything posted here (bad search skills).


So... Pawn.  You play it.  You do not spend a click to put it on a piece of ice.  Then you run.  After the run, you trash pawn and install another caissa program?


The line break in the card text means that the lower effect is seperate, and it says move the pawn to the next piece of ice if able.  It you are not able to do this, then you trash it and install another caissa.  And because you havent yet hosted it on an ice, you cant do the first bit, therefore you trash it and get the effect.


I know this isnt the intention of the card, but I've got 2 local players building a deck with pawn and doing this with it, and I cant find anything official to say otherwise.

#2 frybender



  • Members
  • 183 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 03:30 PM

"Whenever you make a successful run, move Pawn to the piece of ice directly after the current ice hosting Pawn, if able; otherwise, trash Pawn instead and install a Caïssa program from your grip or heap, ignoring all costs."


If there is no current ice hosting pawn then the ability doesn't go off. Simple

Edited by frybender, 08 October 2013 - 03:32 PM.

#3 radiskull



  • Members
  • 1,360 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 04:18 PM

I think that Pawn needs an erratum ASAP, honestly. It's clear what the intention for the card was, and it's clear that the text as written has a big hole in it.

  • etherial likes this

#4 CommissarFeesh



  • Members
  • 933 posts

Posted 08 October 2013 - 05:09 PM

It's a weird one as written. It seems you can twist the text to fit either interpretation. You can argue that if Pawn isn't hosted on ICE then there can be no 'next' ICE because there is no 'current' ICE. So if it's not hosted, you are unable to move it to the next ICE, and it would trash.

This is clearly against the intent of the card, bit doesn't currently seem to go against the text as written. I would personally want to slap anyone who attempted to use it in this way, but rules as written don't seem to disallow the play... Does anyone know if this has been sent to FFG yet?