I don’t think the original one and the additional one are necessarily different in this regard. The corp has two BP total when playing the ASI. After removing one they still have one left. That’s still x + 1 additional from scandal, so x must be 0. If the current leaves play they’d be left with 0 BP.
Or looking at it in a different way, you remove the real BP.
(my interpretation, not necessarily correct of course)
Sound reasonable, but…
Say the corp didn’t have any bad pub before the runner played Corporate Scandal. Then the corp plays All-Seeing I, and the runner prevents it by removing bad pub. Then the corp rezzes Grim, and then Corporate Scandal gets trashed. How much bad pub does the corp have now?
Note that the wording on Corporate Scandal is different from, say, Breaking News.
One.
Agreed. Note that after ASI the corp also had one BP. And after rezzing Grim: two.
Wait what? o_O
Before the All-Seeing I the corp had 1 bad pub, and after the runner removed one bad to to prevent ASI, the corp still has 1 bp? How’s that possible??
I think a simpler question might be worth resolving first:
‘If Corporate Scandal is in play when the corporation plays All Seeing I, but the Corp has no Bad Publicity other than the one generated by Corporate Scandal, can the Runner choose to remove the (phantom) Bad Publicity to prevent resource trashing?’
Presumably if the answer is yes, the Corp still has 1 bad publicity while Corporate Scandal remains in play.
1-1=1 ?
Corporate Scandal : The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 0).
I’m not sure whether or not you can ‘remove’ it. If you can, the Corp would have 0 bad pub, and then would have 1, because they have 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 0).
It is possible if you don’t actually go by the wording on the card which is a single constant effect:
“The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 0).”
But instead perceive it as a constant effect and a triggered effect:
“The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity. Whenever the Corp has zero bad publicity, they have 1 additional bad publicity.”
The latter is how lots of people seem to be reading it.
That makes sense as a reading of the card. It could possibly be worded better (if that is in fact the meaning).
The corp gains 1 bad publicity.
When this current leaves play, the corp loses 1 bad publicity.
Seems to have functionally that effect. But is much clearer, to me at least.
This would also trigger Raymond Flint and Broadcast Square. In its current from, it doesn’t.
I seem to remember a conversation somewhere about this where it was stated that the intended meaning was that the Corp always had at least one bad publicity (through Lukas tweeting or Jakodrako’s inside information or something).
I would maintain that the actual meaning as written on the card must be that bad publicity can be removed down to zero while the current is in play or else you prevent bad publicity being removed at all. The simplest way to describe why would be to say that as the rule says:
“The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 0).”
one might equally validly rewrite that as:
“The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 3).”
or 7, or 13, or whatever number you choose, since the “even if” clause doesn’t note anything special about zero but just specifically includes it in the set of values of bad publicity for which the additional bad publicity will occur. Other values of bad publicity are already implicitly assumed to trigger the additional effect.
So that if the act of removing a bad publicity down to zero was ruled to result in the Corp gaining an additional bad publicity to have one again (whether that is classified as a constant effect, triggered effect or whatever) because “The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 0).” then it would stand to reason that the act of removing a bad publicity down to three must also result in the Corp gaining an additional bad publicity to have four again, since “The Corp has 1 additional bad publicity (even if they have 3).” is just as valid a statement.
The way it is currently worded there is nothing special about the number zero, rather it is simply included on an equal footing with all the rest of the possible bad publicity values and should therefore function the same.
That’s true, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
I see what you mean. I think asking whether we can remove this ‘additional bad publicity’ and what happens if we do so is a valid question. I don’t think the card is particularly clearly worded, so in my mind it needs clarification in an FAQ. I don’t think it’s obvious.
Th UFAQ already has three questions regarding Corporate Scandal.
FWIW, my understanding of the card is that either
(A) it should be treated sort of like Paparazzi, wherein the corp is in a state of always having +1 bad publicity - so if they have 0 BP when CS is played m, they now have 0+1 BP, and removing that BP keeps them at 0+1 BP (this is horrible and confusing)
or (B) it dhould be treated like Satellite Grid, wherein there is a missing “considered” that will be erratad in (or more likely Totally Not Errata ™ Lukas) - so the corp is considered to have an extra BP that they don’t physically have, and as such it can’t be removed.
If the intent is option B, would it be best to errata, sorry, clarify it to say that there is “considered” to be an additional bad publicity? Mightn’t that be equally confusing as to why it’s “considered” to exist for the purposes of Blackmail but not All-Seeing I? Would an alternative be to state that the Corp “has an additional bad publicity (may not be removed)” or some similar wording?
Appreciated, it might be slightly harder to pretend the errata isn’t an errata than sneaking in “considered”, but maybe more clear how it interacts with other cards?
I think simply adding that the corp is considered to have the bad pub is fully adequate. A considered value can be counted but not manipulated, e.g. Satellite Grid.
Virus counters on Hivemind are considered to be hosted on all other virus programs for the purposes of card effects (and can be spent as if on them).
This considered value can be manupulated only because the card explicitly says so?
Yes, some parentheticals are actual rule text, not reminder text. For some reason.
The first unofficial FAQ is here with the release of Kala Ghoda!
…any…subtype…? o.O