Jump to content

ProfMoriarty

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. After a bit of googling, I have not found an answer, so thought I'd post here (just got the game last weekend). The basics of my question: The rules are not as clear as I'd like: Can the Federalist win if threat hits 25 by failing to meet demand in the 3rd demand round? My readings and sources of confusion - 1) Rules, Section 69 (Winning and Losing), intro paragraph: If the game ends during the 3rd Demand Round, the Federalist loses. 2) Rules, Section 69.3: If the game ends because threat reaches 25, all players .... except the Federalist loses the game (who then needs to have at least 25 capital to win). 3) Rules, Section 18 (Demand Round): ... the game ends immediately after the 3rd Demand Round. 4) Rules, Section 63 (Threat): If the threat token is moved to space “25” of the threat track, the game ends immediately. 5) Rules, Section 63.1: ... reads the same as Section 69.3. These rules are mostly consistent - Rule 69 applies for the 3rd Demand round, Rule 69.3 applies only to all points in the game prior to the 3rd Demand round. If threat reaches 25 during the 3rd Demand Round (when Demand is not met, for example), the Federalist still loses, since that's during the 3rd demand round. This also implies it's possible for all players to lose even if one is the Federalist. But then there's this other rule: Rule 28.2 (Federalist) The Federalist should remember that he will not get a chance to score his third investment unless threat reaches 25 as a result of the city failing to meet demand. The only way to get to the 3rd investment is.. by starting the 3rd Demand round, during which, the Federalist cannot win if they haven't already. ... why would the Federalist even care? They've already lost. The only game impact of the Federalist score on that final investment is to potentially cause their rival to lose.
  2. ... which is fine if borne out... but it frustrates me that they didn't just print "up to" in front of the "4" on RA.
  3. So, the ruling on False Lead is such that, if the runner cannot lose 2 clicks when that agenda is forfeited, the runner loses no clicks. This leads me to surmise that Reversed Accounts will work similarly: if the runner does not have at least 4 times the amount of advancements on Reversed Accounts when the corporation chooses to use it (i.e. click and trash it), the runner will lose ... no credits. Example: Runner has 7 credits, RA has 1 token: Runner loses 4 credits. But, if RA had 2 tokens, Runner doesn't lose 7, nor does the runner lose 4 - they lose 0. Practically this means either the runner burns a click to run and 3 credits to trash or the corp has a 8 or 12 credit body slam available to them, but I'm surprised I've not found this question elsewhere (or, perhaps, I'm just asking a dumb question). Unless, of course, the processing of something like RA is that you trigger one token at a time. Which seems ... somewhat ludicrous to me, since the state of the Asset is determined by the number of tokens on it, and not that each token can be individually sacrificed to force a loss of 4 credits. The only sticking point that makes me think I'm missing something is, that "if able". False Lead specifies "if able". Reversed Accounts does not - which makes me wonder if, in the general case, the use of "if able" means MUST BE EXACT, and the lack of "if able" means "up to and including". I hope not, as that will have other impacts I'm sure.
  4. I'm off on a totally different track from my esteemed colleagues. Kitsune's wording is "The Corp may choose a card from HQ. The runner accesses that card." It does not say "The runner now is considered to make a successful run on HQ", nor does it say "The runner accesses a card from HQ". Nor, to get even more semantic, does it say "The runner accesses a card from HQ that the corp may choose first." So, to my way of thinking, HQI, Nerve Agent - none of such things apply. It's not a HQ access. It's a forced access of a single card that corp chooses. The origin of that card happens to be HQ, but that's really irrelevant, mechanically, at least as far as how I read it. Which also neatly solves having to figure out which cards the runner gets to look at first - they don't have a choice, there's just the one. If i'm wrong, and it does count as a HQ card access, then I'd say the runner always chooses the sequence - either their bonus card(s) from HQ, or the one the corp chose, in whatever order they prefer. This still allows the corp to play mind games - perhaps the chosen card is the agenda and the hand contains the snare, perhaps not.
  5. I am disappointed - I am a fan of Netrunnerdb and the deckbuilder on that site - chiefly because it supports mobile devices much better than cardgamedb. I am hopeful negotiations will take place, as opposed to blanket orders. I can understand concerns over distribution of art - but that was a tiny, nearly useless part of the site, at least for me.
  6. Well to be fair, I mean none of the cards are "cards" in the game since there's no FAQ nor rule entry that lists the title of all the cards and states "these are to be considered cards for all game effects that target or involve the use of cards". So the game is broken, imho, and I suppose I should just toss all these expansion packs that aren't really expansion packs since the FAQ doesn't say they are legal, just the cards in them are, which clearly aren't cards.
  7. Take care to note that SC specifies "prevent". Prevent and Avoid are special keywords in A:NR that allow you to sort of 'break' the usual timing of things. Normally actions and effects resolve completely, these two keywords are the ones that allow an interruption. Actions and events which cannot be prevented - will actually say "cannot be prevented" (see http://netrunnerdb.com/find/?q=flare for an example). Take care also - if a COST of a paid ability specifies something be trashed, you CANNOT prevent it if you still want the benefits of the paid ability. The example for this (in the FAQ) discusses Cortez Chip, which has a special effect when you trash it. If you trash the chip but then prevent that trash by using SC, you haven't satisfied the cost and therefor the special effect doesn't happen.
  8. To touch on another topic from your post - this forum is no more "official" than Reddit, BGG, etc. The only official thing is the FAQ. Yes, that document doesn't cover everything, but it's the only "one true source" as it were. That said google around - there's also Lukas' (designer) twitter feed, which often includes rulings which, while also not "official" tend to carry a lot of weight in arguments with fellow players. And THAT said, 99% of the time, it seems the general consensus of the BGG/Reddit/this forum communities TEND to align fairly well. But, it never hurts to check 'em all.
  9. I am pleased to report that I finally understand how it can be read wrong. The post about "until" and where it fits is what nailed it. This is not the first thread on this subject and I recall last time scratching my head for a long time trying to figure out why folks were confused. Meanwhile I shudder to think how this card got translated. For my part I think what saved me from the cliff of reading it wrong was the use of "the" and "whenever". If I was to write this card such that the incorrect interpretation was correct, I'd write it as "Ignore this ability until the end of A turn IN WHICH the runner runs on a central server". Or perhaps During Which would be more correct.
  10. Quite. One of the reasons I LOVE Mushin No Shin. Tremendous action and credit economy.
  11. Thanks Grim. Best thing about these boards is the re-arranging of errors into facts in my head
  12. As per the news page on this particular card, yes, the 1 MU used by Overmind counts against itself (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4736). The check is made, it seems, AFTER Overmind is installed. As to your second question: there is no "overwriting" a program. If you have only 1 MU in use of your base 4, installing Overmind will not allow you to first trash the other program. You can only trash programs either due to a card effect or because you try to install something that goes beyond your current MU allowance. If you intend to install a program that would put you over your MU allowance, you can trash any number of currently installed programs as part of the install action. So, if you wanted Overmind to have 3 counters but you already have a program installed, you first have to fill up your MU with other programs, THEN install Overmind and as part of that install trash all your other programs.
  13. I'm curious how the rulings will suss out on this one. I can see both answers being correct, currently lean toward the "False Lead" mechanic - if you can't bypass both, you can't bypass either. Which then raises the follow up - what if there's only one piece of ice, can you just bypass one if two aren't present.
  14. Well I'm glad we're in agreement now to convince my fellow players.... Rules Lawyering is inevitable in a competitive game. I'm trying to head this one off at the pass because I think to NOT get a credit is, indeed, not in the spirit of the identity.
  15. Quite right on False Echo. Crescentus, however, is phrased in the [cost]:[effect] way: trash this card, do this affect. Then there's a caveat on WHEN you are allowed to pay that cost to achieve that effect. But, the False Echo part is what was tripping me up. My mind is still stuck in some mud, given that the ice was rezzed when passed, but becomes unrezzed only if it was passed (and Crescentus used), which seems like you can't use False Echo, because when you passed the ice it was rezzed and you broke all the subroutines. You didn't pass an unrezzed piece of ice, it became unrezzed AFTER it was passed.
×
×
  • Create New...