If something says “must”, you have to do it to resolve the event listed. Additional costs, however, can always be refused. IE: not forced to steal NAPD, but don’t steal it if you don’t pay the costs.
If something says “either/or”, you have the option to do one or the other. You have to do the “or” if you cannot or do not do the “either” (and vica versa).
If doing both of the things in “either/or” is impossible, then the game continues.
And, on the note of the squaring, paying trash costs is not trashing, just like paying rez costs is not rezzing.
You could look at almost everything in Netrunner as a process of paying costs and then doing the event, but in most cases the costs are free. If costs aren’t paid, event doesn’t happen; if they are, it does.
IE: stealing a 2 advancement GFI is free usually, but stealing it while there’s a Utopia scored would result in an additional cost of 4c on top of the normal costs.
OK, this makes sense. I’d got confused earlier by the endless Slums/CtM stuff and forgotten which one was the correct answer. More generally, I think I was confused by the FAQ about ‘additional’: additional costs probably are constant abilities, but constant abilities which cause a required conditional ability that occurs simultaneously with ‘paying the cost’.
(I could grumble a bit to the use of ‘must’ in additional costs though, when it doesn’t mean the same thing it does elsewhere in the game. This is part of what bamboozled me - it seems to me that additional costs could have been written as ‘The [runner/corp] may not X unless they pay Y as an additional cost’, which would have been functionally identical to how they do act, and would have been clearer.)
Anyway, I’m convinced that we consider only fundamental game state and constant abilities when evaluating whether ‘must’ conditions are possible. The discussion has definitely helped clarify things for me, so thanks for that!
I still have a couple of possible mental models for how exactly the resolution of ‘must’ works on a fundamental level, and specifically when and how we figure out which options are possible. I’m going to use label the models A and 1. “The compelled player” always refers to the player under the ‘must’ condition.
Model 1
Model A
I suspect that model A is actually closer to what’s going on (even though it’s arguably more clumsy). Consider cases like Blackguard/Archer: it makes more sense that we determine whether additional costs will be paid as a fundamental part of the choice (we can choose the “it’s impossible” option instead), rather than having to ask at step 1.1 of model 1 whether we are willing to pay additional costs, before we actually have a chance to pay them.
In conclusion: I probably thought about this too much.
Honestly, you’ve considered this interaction on a more fine-grained level than I have, so I can’t really state with certainty, but your models seem plausible to me.
If I was writing Jinteki 2.0 (more likely 0.8 if I’m the one actually writing it), I would use a logical flow akin to the following for handling this:
Either/Or Flow
So pretty much exactly your Model 1, now that I’ve had a chance to think about it.
With consideration for the Blackguard/Archer interaction, my Jinteki 0.8 would contain the following:
General Event Flow
Blackguard ability
Confirm Flow
Initiate Flow
Under this model, I believe the BG/Archer interaction is handled. But I haven’t thought about this too much, so it might be insufficient on some level.
Thinking about this gives you a deep appreciation for the authors of programs that automate stuff like this (Jinteki, OCTGN plugin).
Interesting note here:
Also, from his doppleganger/Data Breach ruling, you either get your Dopple run, or your R&D run. It can then be extrapolated, due to similar wording, that you don’t give back credits and take brain damage with doppleganger/stimhack.
Unsure that follows. With Doppelganger/DB, I see it as:
Alternatively, they might both succeed, but one overwrites the other (no precedent to discern currently). You can’t run two places at once, and there’s no deferring in Netrunner (outside the cascading rule).
As opposed to Doppel/Stim:
Basically, nothing is preventing Stim from being repaid, but Doppel is preventing DB.
Possible I’m wrong on this, but that’s how I see it currently.
I’m guessing he’s using a similar rationale for his Encore ruling. After playing two encores:
Kind of like how “make a run” from doppel puts you into a new run, preventing DB from doing the same; “take another turn” from Encore #1 is starting you on a new turn, preventing Encore #2 from doing the same.
It’s not like other games where effects are placed onto a delayed stack/queue.
You can defer triggers, Jak Sinclair allows you to make a run before collecting money from daily casts if you choose to resolve triggers that way.
That isn’t deferring (or at least not in the context of my point). You choose to Jak Sinclair, initiating a run, and then you choose to Daily Casts, but you do not progress beyond “when your turn begins” until both are fully resolved.
Note that “make a run” just triggers a run initiation. You do not complete (or even meaningfully progress on) Jak Sinclair’s run before grabbing DC money.
EDIT: The point I made here is likely incorrect. See below.
I’m having trouble squaring the Doppel/Data Breach ruling with the Doppel/DRT ruling. I don’t see why making a run negates only particular pending triggers.
Though, on further consideration, my previous interpretation doesn’t jive with being able to use multiple OotA in a single turn. If you can use multiple OotA in one turn, I can’t fathom why you wouldn’t be able to use DB + Doppel, and my explanation for why multiple Encores doesn’t work loses some credibility.
The UFAQ states that you can make multiple OotA runs:
Question: Can the Runner use more than one copy of Out of the Ashes when their turn begins?
Answer: Yes, each Out of the Ashes triggers separately from each other. Each copy is finished resolving only after the run has ended, at which time the Runner can resolve another copy (or any other “when your turn begins” abilities).
Don’t think I understand. Previously in this thread, we said that “make a run” only initiates a run. If “make a run” sees a run through to completion, then HSJ and DL do not work (as I said previously).
(Link to previous discussion: Official Rules Question Thread - #3246 by ironcache)
To make multiple OotA runs cohere with our discussion about HSJ/DL, you would need to interpret it in a manner that card effects that “make a run” inject a run into the game state (deferring other “when begins” effects), but within the card effect itself, “make a run” just means to initiate a run (from which you can then proceed to the next step in the card effect). This likely means my comment above about Jak Sinclair is incorrect.
But, even if you do take this interpretation (which seems odd to me), I don’t see how you end up in a position where multiple OotA does work, but DB into Doppel into DB doesn’t work.
Maybe something to do with the fact that OotA depends on “when your turn begins” (which we haven’t necessarily progressed beyond) vs. DB/Doppel depending on when this run ends (which we have progressed beyond)? Could be a similar situation for Encore in that regard (IE: activate 1 Encore, take another turn, activate second encore, already progressed beyond last turn ending, so fails)?
But this would mean that Doppel/Stim would let you get away with no repercussions on Stim (as previously mentioned). This cannot be correct.
Do we have confirmation anywhere that Damon actually made that Doppel/DB ruling? I’ve only seen reference to it here, and it seems to contradict known interactions.
Anyway, I’m confused; I’ll have to bow out until someone with a better understanding than me can explain it.
Yeah, I have no idea what you were trying to argue. You wait for one trigger to resolve before doing the next if they have the same trigger condition. It’s always been like that.
DB into Doppel into DB works. Why wouldn’t it? I’m not sure I follow. Are you saying you want to interrupt the first successful run with Doppel and then complete the DB trigger?
It’s not me that wants anything; it was mentioned all of 8 posts up that this was ruled by Damon…
I merely tried to come up with a way to make that cohere with the rest of Netrunner (which I couldn’t, so I’m suspecting it wasn’t actually ruled).
You seem to be of the same mindset, so I’m confused about what’s confusing to you.
Is THIS what you’re referring to? because I don’t see this as a ruling that affects Data Breach or Doppelganger in any way whatsoever.
What I’m seeing is verbiage in this discussion that is attempting to cause more harm to the rules than to help elucidate their application. The Encore ruling has nothing to do with Doppelganger or Data Breach.
The language is what gives it away:
Encore reads “take an extra turn”
Data breach reads “make another run”
Doppelganger reads “make another run”
They’re not the same, at all.
Where is this mysterious ruling? You just linked to someone stating that there was one. Call me skeptical, but people do that all the time: they think that there’s a ruling when there’s not.
So, yeah, I’m calling bullshit on this “ruling.” What you CAN’T do is interrupt Data Breach with a Doppelganger run and then get the second Data Breach run. What you CAN do is finish the Data Breach and THEN trigger the Doppelganger run, because it’s up to you when to use it.
So, if people are trying to be intentionally dense by making plays that are illegal when there are perfectly legal plays available that have the exact same result as the illegal play, the problem is with the player.
He’s saying the same thing as you with his comment (at least that’s my interpretation; nobody would contest that you can do DB - DB - Doppel).
How can you justify being able to do multiple OotA in one turn, but not DB - Doppel - DB?
Doing DB - DB - Doppel is not the same as DB - Doppel - DB… say I have 1 click left and 8 credits. Takes me 5 to break into R&D. DB - Doppel - DB lets me run ST in between and get my money to get two successful DB runs. DB - DB - Doppel would result in the second DB run failing (or, more likely, not being taken).
Because