It goes to the bottom fo the deck. Remember the golden rule, when a card effect directly contradicts the rulebook the card effect takes precedent.

Zephyr is correct. driving a character you control insane is a cost, if you did not drive a character you control insane you did not pay the cost. A disrupt halts the resolution of an effect, in this case driving Ward insane and replaces that with another effect. When the disrupt is resolved we go back to the original effect and discover we have failed to pay the cost of the effect since we did not drive a character we control insane. The effect does not resolve since its cost was not paid.

I would hardly call it telepathic. I read the rules and FAQ a lot. I've played Damon and discussed the game with him at cons/events but every once in a while he catches me with his rulings. I have yet to see something that after he explains it doesn't make sense, but sometimes it requires him to draw a map for me to follow. I bow down to his rules-fu.

Sounds like a great project for an enthusiastic fan. I would be happy to help with rulings, but I do not have the coding chops to do that, nor the time to do every card and how it interacts with every other card.

The difference between Walk the Path and Canopic Jar is that one copies the effect of a card the other triggers that cards effect. Copying the effect is just that it ignores restrictions to trigger that copied cards effect because you are not triggering it at all. Triggering a cards effect, even by another card, still forces the players to follow all restrictions and unless otherwise stated, pay all costs.

Wall has been replaced with barrier. By all appearances it is a completely cosmetic change.

Buy about 1 million dollars or euros of product more than you do now. I'm sure at that point FFG will have the money to devote to resources like this. Personally I just do a word search on the pdf of the FAQ and read the rules closely. That answers about 96% of the questions I have. Now this might sound a little snarky, but I agree that it would be very nice to have something like that, but the amount of man hours it would take for a company as small as FFG or a game as niche as Call of Cthulhu is no doubt prohibitive. Canceling the wound is different than canceling the effect. You can cancel a wound to a single character and the other character is still wounded, so yes you can "bodyguard" someone and protect them from the khopesh.

Yes it can. Committing is the game process to commit to stories. A card effect could cause a character to be committed outside of the regular game mechanics, in the same way a card can enter play insane even if the card cannot be made insane otherwise.

Hypothetically, someone at FFG who is not Damon may have issues with posting correspondence from Damon on the board. Hypothetically, private correspondence (despite the use of the official rules link) is 'prohibited' from being posted. If such a thing happened and someone decided to censor a post, completely deleting it, and then sent the poster an email defined in the email as "personal correspondence" so one could not even discuss the fact that they had been told not to post personal correspondence on the forums, how would you react? Me, hypothetically speaking, would not post at all for fear of getting banned. Then I would review the terms I agreed to when I registered here as well as the forums guidelines stickied at the top of every forum. Then if there was no violation by word or spirit I would say that this hypothetical situation is BS. And I'd post within the guidelines written, but under no circumstances would I agree to follow some byzantine policy that apparently only applies to one person. Then I might consider ending with a rude statement bordering on a personal insult… but that would be in violation and my mother would not approve so I would wisely refrain. Of course no such correspondence was sent. The gist of the post that was deleted is Damon specifically said I was not the cause. I did not originate the thread. I was not the first person to have an issue with scouting, and I never even asked him about it until ridiculous statements were made about this being because of me.

In the FAQ under "Most Recent Printing" I believe is what sets the precedent here. As a TO I would definitely enforce the cards as being the same card. As a player I would ridicule any other player that tried to so obviously rules lawyer this card with an argument that the lack ellipsis makes them different cards.

$90 for two $30 expansions? You get ripped off my friend. Should have waited for the month or two it will take for those to be in stores again.

Is that saying, the squeaky wheel drowns out the interesting conversation in favor of a rehash of a well worn one? Regarding Dormouse's Martell Icon manipulation deck. That was a beast. Not exactly what I'd call tier 1, but a serious tier 1.5. He smashed all but my rush and Lanni kneel decks with it on multiple occasions. Ser Axel Rose's deck had me split between laughing with glee at how innovative it was and rage quitting. Still a game that I laugh at while wishing I could set fire to his cards. Dormouse's Greyjoy mill deck was by far the one I hated the most of his. Four turns I'm deck, the board has been reset two times. I can't really imagine either of them saying if you can't mulligan into your win condition you are doing it wrong with anything other than cheekiness (unless they did mean you should have representative cards of your rush or control or counter rush or counter control in your hand). They certainly could have changed, but when I played Damon in March he was playing a Targ Army deck and talking about a Bara rush deck he was having good results with. I'm pretty sure neither of those decks uses locks for first turn control/win. Anywho, I like where the game is at balance wise, though the speed of the game and competitive play style seems to be a little off. I can't quite put my finger on why.

I am saying that you posted what you did the way you did because of emotion, not because of facts. That you thought there was an understanding between you and the various people who owned the rights to Netrunner and apparently they had a different opinion on the relationship. That Trace/Link being removed was speculation on your part based on a single card that tagged a runner without running a trace and that is not a logical assumption to make given how little information we have about the game. Emotional reactions to things the we care deeply about are understandable and unavoidable. Posting about them is avoidable though. I think the time you've taken off has hopefully allowed you to get some perspective and distance. It is fine if you have opinions on how you would have preferred things to have gone, but they didn't go that way. It is better for everyone, and for both games, if we all learn to accept this is the reality of things and move on from there. I'm sure FFG is aware of all the opinions being expressed too some amount and will do what they can to get the largest audience possible for this game. That is almost certainly going to mean disappointing some of the older players. For some of them no changes are acceptable and any version that does not allow their old cards to be used will be panned. It is sad but true. From a business perspective FFG should not even attempt to interact or cater to these players. Some of the older players will be happy with the game if it is just loosely based on the game they remember and loved because there will be leagues of new players and new cards coming out on a regular basis that will be easily available for a reasonable price. From a business perspective FFG has no reason to not try to make the largest most attractive game for these fans as possible. Somewhere in between are people who would love this game with any and all changes but will be instantly unhappy and suspicious of any changes or updates to the game. They won't let go of "their" netrunner. They will constantly harp about how the old game did things and always view the original game as the superior game. FFG may reach out to these players in an attempt to show how great this game is, personally I think most of them will be so locked into their mindset it will only dawn on them a year or two later that perhaps this game is a worthy successor to the original Netrunner, and maybe a couple years after that maybe even come to realize that some of the changes made in the system are improvements (considering the track record FFG has with LCG's and the 16 years of evolution and development of the customizable card game genre I think it is fair to say there is a decent chance there will be actual improvements to the game). I can't help but wonder how many of their playtesters are old Netrunner players and how many of their feedback began and ended with "This isn't the way Netrunner did it," filled with "You're ruining my game" in between. Me I can't wait to get my paws on the cards and see what changes have been made. Muy list of changes that would be seen as immediate improvements are as follows: Get rid of dice. (It is a card game. I just can't love a card game that requires me to use dice anymore) Simplify Trace/Link. I liked it, didn't love it, Teaching it I never saw anyone who did love it. The game within a game actually bogged the system down in my opinion. Strict card limits. I've ranted about this here and there and everywhere. The reason why Netrunner was SO popular in sealed was because you didn't have to deal with this. That is pretty much it. As a fan of the old game I'll view every other change with suspicion and fear. Okay, that is lie. Factions intrigue me… but I still kind of fear them. They have been handled in their other games marvelously well… so I have a kernel of hope I am nursing, but I really want more info about how they are going to be intergrated. I am about half way through the first novel in the Android universe. It is very cool. It is a murder mystery with deep philosophical questions poised that I have a feeling are never going to be sufficiently answered in this book. I hope the factions come across well and add to the games theme rather than detract from the games mechanics.

Without a deck list it is hard to say. A wicked combo that can't fit into a tier 1 deck is not really in need of an errata or restriction unless it creates an utter NPE in social games. If it is wrecking shop at the tournament level and winning with significant numbers then that is another thing entirely.

There won't even be booster packs. If there are blinks they won't be the old ones.

Buhallin said: My counterargument was that the money is more a function of design choices than simply unlimited card counts, and both Surreal and I provided evidence of other games where unlimited card counts weren't the primary driver of the cost of a deck - rarity of the card was. And that is unchanged whether you're in a CCG or LCG environment. But the two by the very nature of rarity and card counts go hand in hand. They literally cannot be separated and retain any meaningful connection to the reality of the game. That is after all why there are so many threads about what the distribution is in the Core Set. That I only need four or five of a rare in a game that lets me put 30 in my deck if I choose is not an improvement. Probability dictates that there will be cards of a rarity (or that will at least due to the randomness of booster packs and boxes in the CCG model) that will be needed X amount of times in a deck and in my collection Y times. This is what drives the purchase of additional packs and the secondary market. Probability also suggests that it is likely at some point that a card of a certain rarity is going to be part of a top deck that will be required in a high amount to make it work. Again I already demonstrated in one game where this was the case. Design mistakes happen, because the games will not receive enough testing to balance everything perfectly and remain profitable for the company and interesting for the consumer. You can theorycraft all you want, but every ccg/lcg that I've seen make it to print bears this out ::cough::Defensive Shields::cough::.

Buhallin said: And claiming hypocrisy just REALLY shows that you don't understand empiricism. Actually no, no it doesn't. But it is evident that you do enjoy holding up a double standard about what is and is not acceptable uses of specific kinds of information, anecdotal evidence, and personal philosophy, and hard facts. Congrats on that. You don't want to be part of the conversation, just walk away. Every point I made in that post about powerful cards becoming commons rather than rares is 100% true. That you chose to conflate it to mean something else is on you. I choose to ignore that strawman you so kindly set up for me to tilt at. I've already pointed out in Netrunner a problem, you refuted with what boils down to 'they did it wrong.' Then you claimed Star Wars as an example where it was done right, and I pointed, rightly that they took a feature of the game and then used three features of the game to minimize said feature. When you point to a system where they had to design three times as many elements to keep one in check your argument is so heavily weakened as to be able to be safely ignored.

Magnus Arcanis said: Troll much? In any case. Scouting is officially against the rules now. Scouting doesn't have a set general definition. So… I see no problem with people for asking where the line is. As for your questions directed at me. No, that wasn't me in the controversial game(s). Yes, I was in the video of the champsionhip game which I've stated time and time again that I lost fair and square. However, as I've stated before, the 'event' happened in the first/second round. Scott and his friend were stacking their deck by using a technique nick named "mana-weaving." Rules are good. However, vague rules open to a very wide array of intreptration is bad. So again, I see no problem asking where the line is. Especially TOs and Judges. But really, I expect common sense to win the day on this one. As honestly, I think this whole thing has gotten way out of hand. With a couple of exceptions, people who play this game in my experience have/should have earned the reputation of the most genuine, kind, honest, and good people who bother to play a game. I'm honored and humbled to be apart of a community of such awesome people. So I imagine this whole scouting thing will end up being either removed or defined as such that it won't affect how we currently play (likely the latter). I don't troll much. I am honestly surprised that people seem unable or unwilling to use common sense and common definitions and follow the number one guideline that FFG has always had on tournaments, it is at the TO's discretion. And to be clear, I wasn't accusing you of having cheated, I just heard you were somehow involved in the incident in a non-perp sort of way. I assumed it was done by an opponent to you. I don't expect it to be defined much at all, if at all. The rules don't define shuffling, or deck, or hand, etc, or any other dozen or two words with a definition general or specific enough that it gets the concept across.

You must announce your plays, you do not need to read all text on a card. I play a character, the proper thing to do is drain an domain with the proper resources, and announce the character by name that I am playing. If my opponent wants more information it is his duty to ask. If bringing the card into play causes some sort of change in the game state beyond that character entering play (say it had a force response or a passive) then it is my duty to announce the change in game state along with that I am playing the character. I find most of the stuff is really easy just by remembering this is a game, and no matter how competitive it is supposed to be about the fun. Translation, don't be a ****** and don't let your opponent be a ****** to you. Everything else should be like a walk in a meadow of spring flowers.

Correct.

Can't we just use the dictiopnary definition and as TO's our best estimation when it is being done? Scouting scout·ing   [skou-ting] noun 1. an act or instance of reconnoitering; reconnaissance. Reconnoiter re·con·noi·ter   [ree-kuh-noi-ter, rek-uh-] verb (used with object) 1. to inspect, observe, or survey (the enemy, the enemy's strength or position, a region, etc.) in order to gain information for military purposes. Reconnaissance re·con·nais·sance   [ri-kon-uh-suhns, -zuhns] noun 1. the act of reconnoitering.

So a player comes to you and say that there opponent is doing slow play… what do you do? How do you determine whether or not it qualifies as slow play? IWhat happens if you and the accusing player disagree? What happens if you and the accused player disagrees?

Look, the TO gets to make the decisions. They have ALWAYS made the decision. I don't get why people are getting up in arms about this. You don't like it and you are a TO don't enforce it. If you are a player try not to be a ******. How hard is it to get that? Does there need to be a rule? Yes. BEcause it wouldn't have been a topic here for a couple of weeks, or something they enacted unless there was real concern or it was happening somewhere. Hey Manus, tell us about that touch of controversy at Gencon a few years ago… that was you in the questionable game wasn't it? What did the opponent do? We have rules on stalling/slow play, we have rules on all sorts of things that are difficult to prove and impossible to enforce prior to the infraction… does that mean we should just throw them all out, or is by writing them down, does it encourage us to all be non-douchey to each other?

Or TO's could have been in contact with the design team or organized play person and ask about such things. I specifically recall having heard more than once from Damon in regards to CoC that the document would be updated because as TO I had a dozen questions for him about stuff. I didn't specifically ask about whether or not new packs would be made legal and that was as much my bad as it was whoever is in charge of OP. An email in either direction could have solved this. I have a hard time placing all the blame on them when I couldn't be bothered to check on something that has been a regular occurrence for a few years now.

I get the "late notice" bit, and the TO I believe always has last word on such things. I was really questioning the statement about it being bad for the card pool to change during a tournament season.