Here they are: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/9/24/install-new-security-measures/
9 Likes
Finally!
I just skimmed through the floor rules. The most interesting ruling: Illegally Installing Facedown Cards -> Game Loss. Most of the other mental errors look to lead to warnings or cautions. This makes sense since it’s quite hard to rewind a run on server that has an asset and an agenda!
2 Likes
Also if you accidentally access an extra card from RD or HQ at a premier event (aka worlds), you get a game loss:
If it is impossible to return the game state to a legal state and it is a premier-level tournament, the
penalty should be upgraded to a game loss. For example, if the Runner completes a successful
run on HQ and accesses two cards instead of one. There was no legal method for the Runner to
access two cards, and so the game state has become illegal.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s definitely a more common mistake than illegal facedown cards.
I feel it should depend on whether a run was made there.
I feel like that’s irrelevant: if the corp installs a card, the runner has to make a decision to respond or not. Not running it is a decision that gives the corp information.
I’m thinking more of a case of installing a card in an otherwise empty server. Like, if you have a server with nothing in it protected by an ice and put an illegal card in it, when there is a legal target in your hand, it feels like the punishment should depend at least in part whether your mistake had any bearing on the game.
Well, a game loss if you’ve moved to a different turn. If the corp catches it before the end of their turn, the game state rewinds to where it was before the illegal install took place.
I think that one might be a little harsh. Sure, you now have information that you shouldn’t have, but it is possible that the information was already known or doesn’t matter. Like, if I accidentally access two cards out of HQ and they were Grail ICE the opponent already revealed. There’s no game state change, and we can just continue forward as though it didn’t happen. No big.
I’m also surprised that there’s really no leeway on most of these for an opponent to say “Whatever; it’s cool.” and continue playing. I think I’ve done that for people in almost every event I’ve been to, and I guess that means I’ve broken several rules. Seems to me that FFG is telling me I need to be more of a dick. 
3 Likes
I like this document a lot. I find it pretty philosophically consistent. I think they’ve done quite a good job for their first crack at it.
11 Likes
No doubt. They obviously put a lot of thought into it. But we must pick nits. 
1 Like
As a TO it is always very hard to give a game loss because you don’t want to be a “dick” even if you should give it in many situations. This document makes judging easier and looks very good being a first version. I don’t think giving a game loss for accessing extra card form HQ is harsh at all. It is a clear mistake which is impossible to rewind back. I don’t see so big difference between these kind of mistakes and flatlining to some stupid play mistake.
How do you accidentally access multiple cards from HQ?
Like, when you pluck one out of the corp’s hand and it tugs an extra one with it due to friction and it falls onto the table?
Because we really need to move away from picking from a fanned hand of cards if accidents lead to game loss.
6 Likes
if spectator at worlds decides to tell me a card in my opponents hand I get the game loss if I don’t know the person?
4 Likes
That would be exactly how it happens. You’re right, though. Easiest way to avoid this is to drop the cards on the table and have them chose from there.
Also, @bluebird503, that appears to be correct. Although it looks like they would receive a DQ and/or be removed from the venue.
I’d assume that (since you have no way to verify) the spectator would be kicked out and the match continues.
Time to lay them in the table.
6 Likes
I guess it’s time to make sure any spectators are quiet! Yowza.
Most definitely.
On the whole, this is a good looking document right here.
My biggest nitpick is the fact that IDs and concessions are apparently cheating. Intentional draws I can sort of see as potential cheating, but in reality, if you and your opponent are in a position where you can agree to mutually ID and both be in the cut, then I believe that you have both sufficiently demonstrated your skills.
Now concessions? That’s just absurd, and is in direct contradiction to attempting to have multiple game swiss rounds not go to time. There are gamestates in Netrunner where a player could be 10, 15, 20 minutes away from winning, but the game is already essentially decided. Why shouldn’t the player who knows they have virtually no chance to win get to concede and move on into game 2 to try to get the match to not go to time?
Also, what exactly is “intentionally losing?” There are no examples given in the document as to what that might be. If I run a mushin-ed facedown card against PE with no cards in hand, is that considered intentionally losing? What if I leave that card alone and end my turn with 0 cards in hand, when the card is an agenda they score the next turn, is that intentional then? If I faceplate into a fatal NEXT Gold I should have seen coming, is that intentional? What if I had exposed it a few turns ago, but said that I forgot about it…is that intentional? As the corporation, if I play in a stupid fashion (just installing unprotected agendas all over the place when that is not how my deck works usually), and I lose, is that intentional? What if I say I was trying to bluff the runner?
Basically, given how complex the game of Netrunner is, it is trivially easy to lose a game intentionally due to nothing but play errors, or even making risky lines that don’t work out. How are judges supposed to accurately determine that the one guy who faceplanted a facedown card and died was just making a risky play, and the other guy who did the same thing was cheating and trying to lose?
7 Likes