It’s like they heard me or something
If Valencia Estevez is playing against GRNDL, how much bad publicity does the Corp start with?
The Corp starts with 1 bad publicity.
I also couldn’t understand this one. People argued back and forth about it, I never saw the argument personally.
Didn’t Lukas just state on Twitter a few weeks ago that Sec. Testing fires before Siphon if Testing is on HQ? Odd that it hasn’t been updated in the FAQ (or is now reverted back to what it was)
The Valencia vs GRNDL ruling is THE dumbest ruling I’ve ever seen.
I understand the justification: they both say BP=1 not BP+=1. But I think it’s crazy to rule on such literal grounds in a game where you have things like Imp “just working” rather than actually making sense within the rules. It also means that if GRNDL gave you 10 BP then you would still start with 1 BP against Valencia.
I really want to get this ruling reversed.
"False Lead cannot be forfeited unless the Runner can lose 2 clicks."
What? Why? What was wrong with the way it worked before (you can forfeit it if the runner has 1 click, but it doesn’t do anything)
"If the first operation Edward Kim accesses is in Archives, then he cannot trash another operation with his ability that turn"
This is pretty funny
"When the Runner makes a run on a server with Crisium Grid,
the run is still successful but it is seen as neither successful or
unsuccessful for the purposes of card abilities. Security Testing
does not see that a successful run occurred. If the Runner
trashes the Crisium Grid and then successfully runs Archives
for a second time, the Security Testing triggers because it
believes the first run was not successful or unsuccessful."
Victory! Security Testing not working on the subsequent run after trashing Crisium Grid never made sense to me
edit: though it’s weird that there is nothing about Security Testing + Account Siphon or Desperado + Sneakdoor Beta vs Crisium Grid on HQ
According to a literal interpretation of this FAQ, you can’t feed false lead to an archer in such a scenario either.
This ruling bothers me more than the val/grndl one. It’s like he woke up one morning and decided it was a prevention effect like deus X. Prevent the runner from having their last two clicks! For consistency you would also have to rule that self destruct cannot be used whatsoever with an architect protecting it. (And it’s not like it would never matter; you might want to add an ETR to a hive.)
It also makes no sense that double false lead skips over start-of-turn triggers.
“The Corp can forfeit 2 copies of False Lead at 1.1 to force the
Runner to lose 4 clicks. The turn advances to the Runner’s
discard phase after 1.2 resolves and the Runner has no clicks.”
edit: but it looks like it worked the way you said in the previous FAQ. At least they switched the nonsense ruling to the one that doesn’t matter!
edit edit: my best guess is that they want forfeiting False Lead to be an illegal action so that if somebody who doesn’t know the rule tries to do it they effectively get to take it back
Oh oops. I remembered that being the dumb way the previous time around, but this was even in blue text. Guess I’m just too eager to criticize
Heh. I actually knew about this some time back (though it was yet to enter the FAQ). From a common sense perspective, it seems fairly nonsensical; from a flavour perspective, however, I picture it something like this:
GRNDL: "Hi, I’m GRNDL - I’m bad"
Val: "I’m Valencia, I expose your badness to the public"
GRNDL: "Already got my badness on display. Flaunt it, in fact. Didn’t need your help, girl. "
Furthermore, in defense of the ruling - c’mon, GRNDL needs all the help it can get. Starting the game with 5 less influence and TWO bad publicity? Shit is tragic.
Hey, if nothing else they made Q-Coherence Chip less unplayable.
edit: Incubator forcing you to obsolete your own Hivemind sure is hilarious, though
If you have both Incubator and Hivemind on the table, and use your Incubator on anything other than the Hivemind, then you deserve to have an empty Hivemind.
This seems to me to be based on an idea that you cannot pay costs for things if their effects will do nothing. This has been codified in Thrones and Star Wars (in Thrones it’s known as ‘the Janos Slynt ruling’). Essentially the idea is that it prevents you from trivially paying costs that may be beneficial to you.
In this case, the obvious example is vs Iain Stirling. Say Iain has 2 points and you have False Lead scored. On your turn you score a 2-pointer, but you don’t want him to get his 2 creds at the start of his turn. Without this ruling you could just throw away False Lead at the end of your turn for no effect, but still gain a benefit for doing so.
Having this kind of ruling in place is good for FFG because a) it does seem strange that you should be able to ‘pay’ costs for no effect, and this kind of ruling keeps the focus on the effects of cards, which is good because b) it allows FFG to try more interesting things when designing effects with costs, without having to worry about those costs being abused.
I’ve not followed the history of Netrunner rulings closely enough to know if this is being consistently applied though. If not, we can legitimately complain here. I’d like to see a Janos Slynt-type ruling codified as in the other LCGs but it could be a while until that happens.
Please take a look at @spags his post. As stated, it also prevents you from rezzing your archer(or any other forfeiting action). That’s just , wrong
What about the tollbooth “boost corroder twice so i have 2 cr and end the run”. That’s still benificial for the runner, and it is allowed. I don’t see your point of these kind of rulings being “good”
Agreed about the Archer interaction - that is silly and was probably just missed when this ruling was written. Somebody should get in touch with Lukas about it.
Notice that in the Corroder example something actually happens as a result of paying the cost - Corroder’s strength increases. The effect can be resolved when the cost is paid, so its fine. The ruling in other games, and the False Lead ruling, apply to cases where the effect cannot resolve.
“Advancement tokens are removed from an agenda whenever it is scored or stolen.” Finally cleared that up.
Am i just being dense or does the Housekeeping ruling not make a lot of sense? As in the wording on the card is “he or she must trash 1 card from his or her grip”. Emphasis mine, but i would of thought that means that if you are unable to trash a card from your grip, you are unable to install a card.
It’s not an additional cost. It’s an effect that’s triggered by the install.
Yeah, I think almost everyone knew exactly how Housekeeping worked, this was just a clarification for the few that were confused.
ahhhhh ok, thanks that really clears it up.