Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Aumakua and Indexing

Does looking at cards with Indexing boost Aumakua?

No. You’re not exposing or accessing with Indexing.


Wouldn’t have thought so - Aumakua triggers on “expose or access”, whereas Indexing allows you to “look” at the top 5 cards.

Expose and access are two very specific terms in Netrunner with rules implications.

If a card says anything other than expose or access, you are not exposing or accessing. Reveal, look, turn face up… None of those are expose or access.

I fully understand this is esoteric because the game uses other terms interchangeably, like grip and hand, but them’s the rules.


Does Driveby trigger Aumakua? I think there was a ruling on Driveby that says the expose happens first then the trash…so not simultaneous, which makes me think Aumakua gets a virus counter before the trash occurs. ??

1 Like

I don’t think so if you trash the card that you expose. If you don’t trash, sure, this works.

I didn’t think so either, but I wanted to be sure. Thanks!

I’m not sure. Given the wording on Aumakua “whenever you expose a card or access cards and do not steal or trash any of them…” It seems like the “do not…” Clause only applies to the access part, so I think drive-by could be cool.

This is a clause that is not easy to parse. It has four verbs and it is not clear how they relate to each other. I do not think the word “them” settles the issue as you would have to use “them” in this case whether you intended the “do not steal or trash” to apply only to accessing or to apply to both accessing and exposing.

If it wasn’t settling the issue, then all mono accesses wouldnt pump viruses counters.
Mono accesses pumps. So “them” applies to a singular card too.

Nah that wasn’t my point, I know the second part does include single access (since cards can include only one) I was just trying to divine the intent of the designers. I guess my point is that if I were intending that the trash/steal clause applied to both I would have written “Whenever you expose or access cards and do not…”

TBH I also think it’s ambiguous, but I think there’s a solid argument to be made about their intentions due to the way it’s worded.

1 Like

it looks to me (admittedly not a Netrunner pro) that the wording parses as:

expose a card
access one or more cards and do not trash or steal any of them

Normally there is no way to trash or steal an exposed card.

The fact that expose is singular (a card) while access (cards…them) is plural also implies two separate clauses.

Or it implies bad templating…

In theory, the way it is written, if there was a card which said “expose all cards in a server” then the turtle would trigger multiple times.

Probably it comes down to what the designers think is meant to happen at this point.

1 Like

The text on Aumakua is :
“Whenever you expose a card or access cards and do not steal or trash any of them”

If you parse like that, then you have :
Whenever :

  • you expose a card
  • XOR access cards and do not steal or trash any of them

Then here, you see “cards” and “them”.

In that case, there is no place for any singular version of cards.

So, when I asked “does Turtle pumps on single access” and replied “yup”, then it should indicate that this should settle the problem and that you should parse like that :

Whenever :

  • you expose a card or access cards
  • AND do not steal or trash any of them

I’m pretty confident this work like that but I agree on bad parsing + asking someone.

I guess the issue for me is less about the phrasing of Aumakua (which is ambiguous, but I think has an apparent default interpretation) and more about the timing of triggers on Driveby. I think Drive by triggers are sequential and not simultaneous. Thus the exposure could happen, triggering Aumakua prior to the second sentence on Driveby. If the Driveby triggers were connected with an “and” rather than a period, then Aumakua would definitely not be triggered IMO.

1 Like

I think one of the problems is there have been rulings in the past which indicate that “cards” can be a term for a number of cards which also includes “one card”. I’m sure someone else will remind me the context of such previous rulings, but either way the templating of Netrunner cards is such that there is often room for interpretation, so rulings are required to clarify.

Drive By absolutely triggers Aumakua. This isn’t ambiguous in the slightest.

Even then it would be ambiguous, because we’re both faced with a nested trigger situation, and must look at the parsing of the Aumakua text. The reference to trashing on Aumakua almost certainly refers to trashing during the access step, however.

By default, programming syntaxs’ AND operators commonly have higher precedence than OR operators when there is no other precedence specified. I don’t think English grammar specifies precedence as sequential does it? My natural way of reading it is (expose OR access) AND NOT(trash OR Steal) which corresponds to the precedence program above. But simply by virtue of your disagreement, you’ve demonstrated that the reading isn’t as obvious as I thought.

So it’s been a long time since my English grammar classes, so I don’t remember the exact definitions of these things but I think that the “or” in the sentence combined with different verbs on either side (expose/access) indicates that the expose is separate from the access and do not delete part. For it to implicate both surely it would need to instead by formatted as “if you access or expose any cards and do not trash or score any of them” or something similar?

1 Like

But there is no option to trash during an expose step! (I don’t think any card in the whole game does this.)