Good luck ever winning that argument.
So, it turns out that 3/15 ppl want to play by the book with no take-backs allowed whatsoever. The remaining ppl are willing to allow for take-backs in tournament contexts. Has any of you ever asked his/her opponent which policy on the take-backs is to be adopted before starting the match? Maybe this is the safest attitude: allowing take-backs by effect of home-rules might piss-off the no take-backs people and bring, again, unnecessary frustration in the community.
I think I could enjoy a match with no take-backs allowed if this attitude was agreed at the beginning of the match â and probably I would even think my moves through a bit more than usual.
The vast majority of takebacks are initiated by the runner, simply because running tends to be the more compressed and urgent game experience. Also the runner tends to be operating with a less information than the corp.
Personally, I adhere to a simple rule with takebacks: theyâre perfectly fine as long as no relevant action could have been taken in the meantime. That means Iâll let an opponent take back an entire turn so long as no new information has been gained AND I couldnât have interrupted anything. Iâll also allow for misspent credits to be recovered so long as the realization is made prior to the start of the subsequent turn (such as someone making a run and paying to trash a PAD Campaign, then draw, draw, pass turn, I do my mandatory draw and they go: âCRAP, forgot about the bad pub!â - they gain credit so long as they catch it before Iâve taken my first click (or done any pre-turn rezzing)).
Itâs a little trickier with mid-run take-backs, but if itâs just a series of end-the-run subs and the runner miscalculated (perhaps due to Gagarin, etc), Iâm fine with them taking the click back even in a tournament setting. However that does not apply if I rez a card, trigger a paid ability or initiate a trace during that run. Again, that is relevant information that the runner has gained and so the action stands.
The takeaway is this: youâve got to be a lot more careful with your actions once a paid ability/unrezzed card option is on the table, because that dramatically raises the bar for takebacks. Just something to be aware of.
Nathan 0
2 Likes
Itâs interesting that among the âveteransâ of my local group weâve expressly forbade ourselves using take-backs. Not in a bad manner either; thereâll be instances of âah crapâ but theyâre always followed up with "no, I goofed. I need to learn to remember ". We figure it helps sharpen the tournament skills (such as they are).
With the newer players weâre all about the take-backs 
4 Likes
This is exactly why I didnât go to worlds. Until I the community gets their shit together, manners up, and gets lets serious, I have no interest.
I am too emotionally invested in each game to get over something like that Multithreader incident.
1 Like
I guess that the problem of take-backs hardly ever shows up at the level of local (i.e small) community because, after few games, you find out who allows take-backs and who doesnât so the next games will be played accordingly.
When playing outside of your community there is simply no way to know, so, perhaps, the safest attitude is to ask your opponent about his take-back policy while shuffling the deck.
Then, of course, should your opponent believe that netrunner is a professional sport or the tournament grant eternal prestige and an infinite set of virgins to the winner, expect to have no fun in the process.
Take-backs are not allowed in our gaming group.
Why?
Itâs the most efficient way for someone to never make that mistake again.
2 Likes
Also the most efficient way to have games go to time.
3 Likes
Itâs obviously better to break the game rules, so that you can circumvent the tournament rules? I fail to see your argument there.
In an environment where playing slowly is basically unpoliceable, I think itâs good to have the expectation that people can go back if no information was revealed. This lets people play at a reasonable pace. If an opponent wonât so much as let me unclick for a credit, then Iâm gonna have to waste a lot of time.
The clock is actually a huge issue in the game, imo.
6 Likes
Chesssss clocksssss. Chessss clocksssss!
You canât have a tournament game without a time limit, and as long as time wasted is a shared responsibility it will always be a problem.
1 Like
So true. This is why there are no accidents in countries with traffic laws: once people know that a particular mistake is against a rule they will never ever break it under any circumstance.
[quote=âgroober, post:30, topic:6610â]
In an environment where playing slowly is basically unpoliceable, I think itâs good to have the expectation that people can go back if no information was revealed. This lets people play at a reasonable pace. If an opponent wonât so much as let me unclick for a credit, then Iâm gonna have to waste a lot of time.
[/quote]emphasis added for additional agreement. If youâre nitpicking a takeback that involved no new information, then youâre just being a dick.
[quote=âulrikdan, post:31, topic:6610â]
Chesssss clocksssss. Chessss clocksssss!
You canât have a tournament game without a time limit, and as long as time wasted is a shared responsibility it will always be a problem.
[/quote]I agree with the sentiment, but as has been explored many (many) times, this is pretty impractical if youâre expecting it to result in timely play⌠in a single run with two ice and a defensive upgrade, the clock will need to be hit about 15 times times per player, assuming there are no fired subroutines that require a choice to be made or fired traces - each of these adds another one or two clock uses. Even at absolute minimum (no runs) each runner turn passes priority 13 times by my count.
7 Likes
I agree that itâs clunky and may not be a workable solution - but how much time does it add? (You might wear out the clock, of course.)
Itâs an old debate, but you donât need to hit the clock every time - but it could be a good way to mark a change in priority, when needed. You could still combine it with quick play: â9 credits and 2 sucker tokens for architect, tollbooth and eli, agree?â *runner hits clock * âYes.â *corp hits clock *
Iâve edited to show another possible version of events, based on experience from timed chess tournaments.
If weâre doing the whole âindividual responsibility for timeâ thing (not a bad goal, ideally) then that means full points for a time-out win (otherwise the responsibility is still shared, and the chess clocks are a pointless nuisance,) which means itâs strategically irresponsible to 1) help your opponent remember their clock, or 2) continue play while your opponents clock is running down.
Now in reality? Yes, probably most netrunner players would simply mention the clock to their opponent and get on with the (now much more tedious) game. But I think itâs a bit naive to think that no one would use the clock system to their advantage at the expense of actually playing the game - a significant portion of games would be decided on the clock and not in the servers.
4 Likes
âItâs a game designed by Richard Garfield, so itâs like Magic The Gathering. But thereâs a lot of hidden information, which allows bluffs and reading your opponent, a bit like poker. Also, we use clocks, just like in Chess!â
2 Likes
I agree that chess clocks would mostly add another opportunity for gamesmanship rather than improve the game in a significant way. Also, I think the only way to use the clock properly would be to very properly pass priority at each timing window, since one could easily complain about an opponent skipping many timing windows (as in the example above) and passing the clock arbitrarily and without notice.
The goal is a good one, but chess clocks are not a good implementation. I donât have a better implementation, but I see chess clocks as more likely to make the game slower and less fun.
1 Like
MagicChessPoker the Game!
1 Like
âOoh, is that why there are these cool chess piece cards?â
âDonât touch those. Theyâre shit.â
8 Likes
Complete tangent, but I would have dearly loved those pieces to be amazing. If you bring chess pieces along for them, itâs so much fun moving your pieces around the corporations ice (until you inevitably lose, because youâre trying to use those bad chess piecesâŚ).
My (probably equally unrealistic) angle for removing shared time responsibility is to film every game, then have judges review games from players that had timed draws, but otherwise enough prestige to make the cut, and assign responsibility for the timeout based on the time spent. Theyâd be able to rewind, see all the priority passes, and tick everything up. Itâd be tedious, but at a huge tournament like worlds maybe youâd be willing to pay the extra registration fee for the cameras and manpower to ensure you donât miss top 16 on basis of a time draw where you played like lightning?