Thought it did. Know it does if you do it and there’s at least one Ice behind Crick, but am pretty sure the new ice that hasn’t been approached yet counts as there being unapproached ice still protecting the server.
Am 99% certain it works if Crick is the second ice and you trash both, am only 70% certain it works if Crick is in the last spot on the server, but I’d assume it would due to how The Twins let you fire Caprice multiple times in a run.
Don’t see anything in the FAQ or on ANCUR, don’t have twitter or I’d go ask Lukas about it. Feel like I read a ruling somewhere but if it’s not in either of those I could be wrong.
I misremembered, but the results seem clear enough, if not necessarily the reasoning. I was right on one and wrong on the other. If you trash Crick and other things to install an ice closer to the server than Crick is/was, it’ll still be approached/encountered. if the run continues because it’s closer. If you trash Crick and put something in the same spot, the runner is already past that “spot”. If you trash something behind Crick to put something in front, the runner proceeds from Crick itself rather than encountering Crick already.
Lukas’ explanation is muddy, as usual, but the overall ruling seems at least able to be consistently and clearly applied, even if it doesn’t make the most sense.
Now to find out what happens if an Orion mimics Crick to trash itself mid-resolution of subroutines. You have to do them all, but it’s not there anymore to do them. I’m guessing it means the ETR is ignored, but would be nice to have it clarified.
Thanks for the link, as noted I tried looking for it on ANCUR but didn’t see it, but was pretty sure I’d seen something on the topic. Good to have it cleared up.
With all of the Eater decks out right now, Turing plays a little stronger than you might think. If they are running Eater/Cutlery then it can all but shutdown HQ/R&D access. And you are never sad to see ABT pop it out mid game to go at the top of your scoring server. That being said, it is susceptible to parasite on centrals though.
Criminal is a bit weaker than normal at the moment, but I can’t help wondering whether one downside with Meru that people haven’t mentioned is that it’s going to make your HQ ice more predictable.
Andy/Leela/Gabe may well be tempted to just throw down an early Corroder and blind Siphon against Weyland, given that it’s significantly more likely to connect (next-level mind games here aside).
While a potentially decent play, there’s a strong chance they might not have seen a Meru Mati in their opener and put a Quandary or Enigma there instead. If they happen to have a Destroyer there that isn’t horribly convoluted to rez (requiring an agenda forfeit or giving Bad Pub in some Blue Sun lists), it could reaaally hurt to lose that same Corroder so early, particularly if you’re low on backups.
Also requires the runner to have the Corroder in hand, because you can’t Special Order it and Siphon the same turn without risking a horrible death, at which point the standard “facecheck, if rez Special Order to Siphon next turn, if no rez get Faerie and another breaker maybe down and try anyway” procedure seems to remain the best.
[quote=“Slakker, post:44, topic:3817”]
With all of the Eater decks out right now, Turing plays a little stronger than you might think.
[/quote]Eh. I get that this is true in a general sense, but I also feel like if a deck relies on hitting only one server then either doing it just once each turn will still be okay or the deck wasn’t great anyway. The Eater decks I’m more worried about tend to run backups, though admittedly it’s rare they run an extra Yog or other Decoder, which feels like a mistake to me for basically this reason. If they don’t even run Mimic, then also for Swordsman.
You see eater without mimic often? I hardly see any non mimic breakers anymore online.
I think Turing is way underrated here, it’s more than a one of. It’s best in hb because of the influence, and there’s a great number of ways to punish spending those 3 clicks, or making it impossible to surpass. A str 5 code gate is gear check, tax, and this particular one is bluff bait. Think about it, do you really want to spend 3 clicks on Turing? I’m adding 3 of Turing to a lot of hb decks because of ais, it really hurts without d4v1d, it’s not overly expensive to protect upgrades and assets, and if you have more than one, it lets you keep an Adonis or Eve in that server a long time, and you simply need an answer to all that code gate.
Maybe it’s that half the local folks play Anarch with 2+ D4V1Ds that it doesn’t seem super worth it. I suppose I can see how stacking them can be useful, but the price still seems rough in comparison to the others. Be happy to be proven wrong.
Infrequently see Eater without any Mimics, but often Eater with limited Mimics. Not usually a major issue, as I said the complete lack of decoders tends to be a potential problem, yeah. Same with lists (again, infrequent as they might be) that don’t run a Corroder to deal with Wraparound.
hahhaha well, I was wrong. I played a bunch of games where it didn’t fire in a row, and a couple of games where I drew it early with nothing in the bin and I couldn’t reasonably rez it when they ran. Played some more, fired it a few times, and generally saw people never run archives anymore.
I tried to make up a new way of reviewing cards that would take into account more than just how good the card is. Here is what I’ve got so far.
Power
4 - A very powerful card, or a card played consistently in a number of top decks.
3 - A card that might be played in at least one top deck at least 10% of the time that deck is played.
2 - Any card than can be played unironically.
1 - Jank.
Depth
4 - You could spend weeks discovering new ways to play and play against this card.
3 - This card can be used in a number of different ways and in different strategies.
2 - A simple card with a minor twist.
1 - This card only does one thing.
Uniqueness
4 - This card can’t be compared to any other card.
3 - This card has some quite unusual abilities.
2 - This card has at least one different feature or combination of features worth noticing.
1 - Nothing differentiates this card from most cards of the same type.
Emotion
4 - This card makes someone get off their seat the first time it happens in a game.
3 - Thinking about this card makes people amused or frightened.
2 - You might cock an eyebrow at this card.
4 - Zzzz.
“Need” is a funny word to use. Everyone has their own opinions on cards, and time will always tell which are the best; we read and write reviews because we like doing it, not because they need to exist.
But do we need a comprehensive numerical scale by which to codify our card assessments? Tacking on numerical scales to something that’s very fluid and subjective seems unnecessary, even if card reviews are not themselves moral imperatives.
Everyone that does reviews will do their own, it’ll be fine if that continues. If you do them, you can do them as complexly or simply as best suits you. Standardizing things isn’t so easy as it seems (see also: how different people differentiate “tiers” of decks).
