No, not at all. I’m just saying that the rule @ulrikdan quoted doesn’t have anything to do with Clot’s timing.
One has to give a reasonable opportunity for reaction, no? Of course Clot doesn’t have a trigger, but everything to search for and recur it does.
This is the IRL result of use playing like we’re on OCTGN; we robots must adopt OCTGN policies. I, for one, will bring an f3 key and make annoying, slightly delayed sound effects whenever something happens.
1 Like
Yous should hear my psi-game jingle.
Maybe we should all start bringing chess clocks to tournaments. Press the button when you pass priority. That definitely won’t be annoying.
1 Like
I think it’s mostly covered in the shortcuts, though it’s unclear. Seems like the precedent is that if you rush through without your opponent’s explicit OK, you’re going to be asked to rewind.
1 Like
Alright, someone tell me where I’m missing it, I don’t see anything in Netrunner’s tournament rules or floor rules that prohibits conceding. At least, not for the scenario where you feel like you’ve already lost game one and want to get game two in before time hits.
Conceding to affect other people making the cut or receiving prizes is collusion. Conceding in exchange for money or prizes from the other player is bribery and gambling. Conceding the first game when your Replicating Perfection opponent has an established remote and a scored Nisei so you can play your stronger side without worrying about going to time is… not mentioned? In light of the floor rules, I would venture the “artificially manufacturing the results of a match” line in the tournament rules seems to have been specifically directed at collusion and bribery/gambling.
I picked up on this habit myself after losing a game at Regionals because after the Runner paid his way through all the ice on Archives (which he knew held the winning agenda for him after running and being unable to steal NAPD for the win on the prior turn), I failed to clarify if the Runner really wanted to access Archives before popping J-How. CVS in Archives would’ve wiped his 4 counter Darwin. Instead, he claimed I removed Jackson before he decided to access Archives, waltzed through R&D with his intact Darwin, and top-decked an agenda for the win. Never again. Dick move by that guy, but now I never fail to ask if people are accessing, even if it’s a turn one Maker’s Eye w/no ice installed.
7 Likes
Maybe I’m completely mistaken, but I assumed the rule about causing opponents to miss triggers refers to trigger conditions? “When a run is successful,” “when your turn begins,” and other similar trigger conditions?
2 Likes
Which means there’s nothing in there about Clot timing. That’s even worse.
2 Likes
If the missed trigger is not considered detrimental and it is still within the same turn as the
missed trigger, the opponent chooses whether the trigger resolves after the current click—and
any resulting triggers—is resolved completely or not at all.
So if you miss your PAD Campaign and remember after having already taken a click, I as the runner can say “Sorry, you missed it.” ?
Other scenario: I’m playing Hayley with Personal Workshop, with only a piece of hardware on it with a single counter (as in, it should come into play this turn and consume my Hayley ability). I have no hardware in hand, and don’t want to waste the Hayley ability, so I “miss” the trigger (on purpose, but no way to prove this) . I draw a card, then “realize” I’ve missed the trigger. My opponent can then decide if I get to resolve my Personal Workshop trigger AFTER my next click (as in, he would say “ok, you can resolve that trigger” and the rules say it resolves after the next click), so then I would draw, hoping to get another piece of hardware.
It’s a relatively minor “exploitable” rule, but it is exploitable nonetheless.
Can someone let me know if I’m interpreting the rule incorrectly? Specifically this part
the opponent chooses whether the trigger resolves after the current click—and
any resulting triggers—is resolved completely or not at all.
Note their use of “not considered detrimental”. Different rules apply on if the trigger is detrimental to the owner of the trigger or not. I can’t look at them right now but I think that detrimental triggers are resolved by a judge in some way, by rewinding the game state?
If it’s all within the same turn, most of the time you can rewind back.
But you can’t get the credit back after runner in the next turn took a click and decided to run something based on how much money you have to rez stuff.
Detrimental is defined as
A detrimental trigger is a trigger that is considered harmful for the controller of the trigger when
looked at in isolation, ignoring any game state that may exist.
I can see missing 1 credit being “harmful” to the controller. So that makes sense.
It does however make the Personal Workshop / Hayley exploit pretty consistent (as in, your opponent can’t deny you it). Would be possible to draw cards and then “realize” you have something on Workshop that should have entered play. Then you just draw another card and install your new Clone Chip from hand with the Workshop hardware.
Obviously, if your opponent is forgetting to Workshop every turn, you can as the Corp start pointing it out every turn to force them to take it. But by then they’ve gained at least a turn’s worth of Hayley ability efficiency.
You also then have this weird interaction where as the Corp, it isn’t your responsibility to call triggers for your opponent, and you “kinda” want them to miss it (since it puts you at an advantage).
Just to clarify, this is very much from a competitive, play to win, exploit the rules as much as we can for advantages, perspective. I’m not saying I would do this or that I encourage players to do this. That being said, I do think it’s important to look at what is “possible and legal” within the rules system so that we can be better at spotting this behavior and be proactive about protecting ourselves.
For this specific scenario, as a protective measure, I think it would be sufficient for the Corp to point out the Workshop trigger when it would result in the installation of a card.
Is it referring to missing the trigger being detrimental, or the trigger itself being detrimental? For example, forgetting to take the meat damage from NRE would be an example of the latter.
Now that I think about it some more, I think it only makes sense when considering the trigger itself.
Otherwise you could say: “I missed the brain damage from stimhack, missing that was non-detrimental”.
So to answer myself earlier, yes, you can deny someone their pad credit if they take an action.
Actually, reading the timing structure of a turn, you can deny someone their pad if they just perform their mandatory draw before taking pad money.
Good call. I think I was mistaken in my interpretation. Their example of a detrimental trigger is the bad pub on illicit ice. So the trigger itself determines detriment. NRE meat damage is detrimental, so that means if you forgot to take the damage, you would get a warning and take the damage after the current click resolves. So, a shitty player could install NRE on 1 card, immediately draw and say “Oops”. Judge is called, the player suffers the damage and doesn’t flatline but gets a warning for it? (Though that could fall under the fast play to obscure windows stuff).
In the case of the Hayley scenario, since the effect is not detrimental, the opponent gets to say if you can resolve the PW trigger. Thats a nice little game of chicken, deciding if you want to just give them the interface in the hopes that they don’t have another piece of hardware in hand.
Paid abilities fall under triggered abilities. Paying the cost is the trigger.
Yes, I just didn’t see any way to parse “cause an opponent to miss a trigger” as referring to paid abilities. Like, how can I make you “miss” paying for your stuff? Whereas it makes perfect sense to me referring to trigger conditions. I’ve already said it’s possible I’m completely mistaken and the rule is intended to include paid abilities, but if so I don’t think it explains itself clearly.
I’m curious as to how strict they will be with regard to outside information. I keep a copy of the FAQ timing chart in my deckbox for resolving edge cases and double checking if things are legal or not, is that considered notes?
I think the rules are always ok, right? It’s outside material that’s called out.
1 Like