Proving a Rule Issue

[JohannesdeSilentio 0]

In the past, the person I play with hasn't believed me that if a runner wishes to suffer all the consequences of an encountered ICE and none of its abilities end the run, the runner needs no ICEbreaker.  Nowhere I can find in the regular rule book states the answer clearly one way or the other.  Is there an official rules source I can use to end the rules dispute quickly?

[Devon Greatwolf 53]

Page 18 of the rule-book located here:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/android-netrunner/support/ADN01_Rules_ENG_Lo-Res.pdf

 

"Encountering Ice

 

When the Runner encounters a piece of ice, he has the 

opportunity to break any subroutines on that piece of ice. After 

the Runner finishes breaking any subroutines that he wishes 

to break, each unbroken subroutine on that ice triggers in the 

order as listed on the card. If a subroutine ends the run, then 

the run ends immediately and no further subroutines on that 

piece of ice trigger.

 

Breaking Subroutines– To break a subroutine, the 

Runner uses abilities on his installed icebreakers. The Runner 

can break the subroutines on the encountered ice in any order 

he chooses. There is no limit to the number of installed cards 

a Runner can use to interact with the encountered ice, but he 

generally only needs one icebreaker. Remember that before 

an icebreaker can interact with a piece of ice, the icebreaker’s 

strength must be equal to or higher than the encountered ice’s 

strength.

 

Note: Breaking all subroutines on a piece of ice does not mean 

the ice is trashed. A passed piece of ice remains installed and is 

approached during every subsequent run against the server it 

protects.

 

After the Runner breaks all of the ice’s subroutines and/or any 

effects from unbroken subroutines resolve without ending the 

run, he has passed that piece of ice. He then continues the run 

by either approaching the next piece of ice protecting the server 

or proceeding to the Access phase if there is no more ice to 

approach."

 

NOTE: Emphasis mine.

 

Edited for formatting.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Devon Greatwolf

[CommissarFeesh 458]

It's right there in the rules, and thanks to Devon Greatwolf to provide quotes.

However, this question comes up ALL THE TIME. This is surely an indication that this rule needs more attention in the rulebook or FAQ.

It's kind of funny, because this misconception almost certainly stems from people having played Magic: the Gathering or other similar games. Without that prior knowledge of how OTHER card games work, I don't think we'd see these kinds of questions.

The next time someone asks this question though, point to Neural Katana and Wall of Static. Ask them if Neural Katana could end the run just because you don't have a breaker, why does Wall of Static have to have it in a subroutine?

[frybender 56]

This is definitely on the same level of "I can make a run without any icebreakers in play? How is that possible?." I think if we werer to make a sticky on the rules board that would have all of the most common questions that would have to be the first 2 followed by "there is no stack in Netrunner."

[Saturnine 47]

It's just one of the many rules beginners tend to overlook in the rulebook, so I think the only attention the rule needs is by new players reading the rulebook more attentively. I'm wondering what people think the "end the run" subroutine is for if the run would end anyhow if no subroutines were broken.

I know people like to hate on FFGs rulebooks, and while they're not always the best, I thought the Android Netrunner one was pretty good, and most of the problems do stem from not reading it properly and inserting assumptions based on how other games work. This is, of course, a problem with rulebooks in general, whether they are from FFG or another hobby game company, and I've certainly misunderstood rules for other games. But like I said, most of the info you need is in the Netrunner rulebook, and I don't think its presented in a particularly occult manner.

[CommissarFeesh 458]

The info is there, but it's easily missed, as evidenced by how often this comes up. Sadly I think you HAVE to assume players will make mistakes based on preconceptions, which are themselves based on prior experience with other games. Players, on the other hand, should stop and examine rules issues like this when they arise, and learn not to make these assumptions. Two-way street.

[Khouri 96]

Generally I find the FFG rules to be very good. True some of them are a nightmare to understand at first, but once you understand them you can kind of see how they may have been written that way in the first place.

 

Perhaps the rules could have used a couple few more examples, or the transcript of an entire game being played to introduce all of the key concepts. In the end there will always be more special circumstances that need explanation, but at least FFG do run a FAQ to help aid with understanding (although why these apparently frequent issues are not already in there beats me).

[ProfMoriarty 11]

OP:  If the ice doesn't end the run, the run doesn't end.  Icebreakers are tools, not requirements, for running.

 

Others: I remain frustrated with FFG's continual use of new verbs for things that do tend to lead to confusion.  Strict "rules as written" is hard to enforce here.  I expect over time things will get straightened out, but the more they introduce cards which insert themselves at "unusual" places in the timing diagram, the worse it will be.

 

My BIGGEST frustration is the lack of a definitive, comprehensive, complete, consistent, and commonly referenced FFG-backed source for rulings.  The fact that we have to resort to this board, BGG, Reddit, and Lukas' twitter feed as sources, is not a sufficiently closed form solution for this process oriented individual

[Grimwalker 647]

My BIGGEST frustration is the lack of a definitive, comprehensive, complete, consistent, and commonly referenced FFG-backed source for rulings.  The fact that we have to resort to this board, BGG, Reddit, and Lukas' twitter feed as sources, is not a sufficiently closed form solution for this process oriented individual

 

I have not found the official FAQ to be anything short of the qualities you mentioned. I'm expecting them to release an updated version in all likelihood next week containing numerous issues that people have mailed in about.

 

As to whether the OP's question will be in there, I doubt it.  The very existence of cards that say End The Run should tell people that if it doesn't say that, then it doesn't do that.

[etherial 62]

 

My BIGGEST frustration is the lack of a definitive, comprehensive, complete, consistent, and commonly referenced FFG-backed source for rulings.  The fact that we have to resort to this board, BGG, Reddit, and Lukas' twitter feed as sources, is not a sufficiently closed form solution for this process oriented individual

 

I have not found the official FAQ to be anything short of the qualities you mentioned. I'm expecting them to release an updated version in all likelihood next week containing numerous issues that people have mailed in about.

 

As to whether the OP's question will be in there, I doubt it.  The very existence of cards that say End The Run should tell people that if it doesn't say that, then it doesn't do that.

 

There is a fundamental difference between a FAQ and a comprehensive rulings document. FFG has a very good instance of the former and steadfastly refuses to issue the latter.

[Grimwalker 647]

Speaking as someone who's been playing AGOT for several years (with its quite mature FAQ), the FAQ is their document for comprehensive rulings.

We aren't talking about anything that doesn't belong in Section 2: Rules Clarifications and Section 2: Card Clarifications.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Grimwalker

[Khouri 96]

There is a fundamental difference between a FAQ and a comprehensive rulings document. FFG has a very good instance of the former and steadfastly refuses to issue the latter.

 

While it would be interesting I'm not sure an Every Question Ever Asked document will be forthcoming.

 

Presumably this sort of info will be lying around somewhere, but getting it into a format that people would be happy with could be a lot of work (and arguably doesn't belong in a static PDF style document anyway).

 

That said: Appending any/all rulings to a card database wouldn't be a bad thing.

[etherial 62]

 

There is a fundamental difference between a FAQ and a comprehensive rulings document. FFG has a very good instance of the former and steadfastly refuses to issue the latter.

 

While it would be interesting I'm not sure an Every Question Ever Asked document will be forthcoming.

 

Presumably this sort of info will be lying around somewhere, but getting it into a format that people would be happy with could be a lot of work (and arguably doesn't belong in a static PDF style document anyway).

 

That said: Appending any/all rulings to a card database wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

Indeed, VTES has 20 years of rulings in a .txt document.

[etherial 62]

Speaking as someone who's been playing AGOT for several years (with its quite mature FAQ), the FAQ is their document for comprehensive rulings.

We aren't talking about anything that doesn't belong in Section 2: Rules Clarifications and Section 2: Card Clarifications.

Lukas has already removed things from the ADN FAQ because "they don't come up often enough".

[Grimwalker 647]

Interesting. Examples?

[Khouri 96]

 

Lukas has already removed things from the ADN FAQ because "they don't come up often enough".

 

Arguably that is fair, it is supposed to be a FAQ after all.

 

I can perhaps see why they would want to provide a streamlined view of the frequent rules questions without having a rules document that goes on and on...

[etherial 62]

 

 

Lukas has already removed things from the ADN FAQ because "they don't come up often enough".

 

Arguably that is fair, it is supposed to be a FAQ after all.

 

I can perhaps see why they would want to provide a streamlined view of the frequent rules questions without having a rules document that goes on and on...

 

Sure, but that is clear evidence he does not see it as a "comprehensive rules document". Which, yanno, it shouldn't be. A FAQ is to help new or returning players familiarize themselves with the most important rulings in the game. A Comprehensive Rules Document is to help Tournament Judges ensure consistent rulings for the less common but still important situations that come up.

[etherial 62]

Interesting. Examples?

Breaking News +AIZ+Archer.

[Grimwalker 647]

Breaking News +AIZ+Archer.

 

Interesting. But my point stands: the FAQ contains sections called "Card Clarifications" and "Rules Clarifications," and every example cited after the OP has fallen into one of those two categories. The OP is, I'm sorry to say, an RTFM problem.

You've said "that is clear evidence he does not see it as a "comprehensive rules document" but again I am sorry to contradict you, but I have every reason to think you're mistaken. 

I invite you to browse through the AGOT FAQ, now on its 4.2 revision and comprehensive at 31 pages, and you tell me if it isn't a comprehensive rulings document:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/agotlcg/support/FAQ-TR-updates/AGoT-FAQ.pdf

 

The fact of the matter is that Fantasy Flight has NEVER maintained a document of rulings separate from the FAQ.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Grimwalker

[etherial 62]

 

Breaking News +AIZ+Archer.

 

Interesting. But my point stands: the FAQ contains sections called "Card Clarifications" and "Rules Clarifications," and every example cited after the OP has fallen into one of those two categories. The OP is, I'm sorry to say, an RTFM problem.

You've said "that is clear evidence he does not see it as a "comprehensive rules document" but again I am sorry to contradict you, but I have every reason to think you're mistaken. 

I invite you to browse through the AGOT FAQ, now on its 4.2 revision and comprehensive at 31 pages, and you tell me if it isn't a comprehensive rulings document:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/agotlcg/support/FAQ-TR-updates/AGoT-FAQ.pdf

 

The fact of the matter is that Fantasy Flight has NEVER maintained a document of rulings separate from the FAQ.

 

There is a ruling not in the document. QED.

[CommissarFeesh 458]

Little off-topic, but the new FAQ just went live (page hasn't updated yet, but the link has).

[Grimwalker 647]

 

 

 

Breaking News +AIZ+Archer.

 

Interesting. But my point stands: the FAQ contains sections called "Card Clarifications" and "Rules Clarifications," and every example cited after the OP has fallen into one of those two categories. The OP is, I'm sorry to say, an RTFM problem.

You've said "that is clear evidence he does not see it as a "comprehensive rules document" but again I am sorry to contradict you, but I have every reason to think you're mistaken. 

I invite you to browse through the AGOT FAQ, now on its 4.2 revision and comprehensive at 31 pages, and you tell me if it isn't a comprehensive rulings document:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/agotlcg/support/FAQ-TR-updates/AGoT-FAQ.pdf
 

The fact of the matter is that Fantasy Flight has NEVER maintained a document of rulings separate from the FAQ.

 

There is a ruling not in the document. QED.

 

 

No, no, no. Not QED. FFG doesn't maintain separate documents for rules questions, and the fact that they decided a stupid corner case was a waste of space doesn't prove anything. You're wrong.

 

Hey look, there's a new FAQ out, and it contains Card Clarifications and Rules Clarifications aplenty.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Grimwalker

[BahnCalamari 138]

It's kind of funny, because this misconception almost certainly stems from people having played Magic: the Gathering or other similar games. Without that prior knowledge of how OTHER card games work, I don't think we'd see these kinds of questions.

 

Runners all have trample, Icebreakers are just enchantments that can pacifism their blockers for a turn...

*shrug*