My understanding is that this document goes into effect when a judge is called, or if it’s the final rounds and the judge is just sitting there. Unless I missed something, it’s still your decision to call a judge or not. And the game loss bit only applies at regionals and up.
any rule that is impossible to enforce should not be a rule (intentional splitting)
I don’t think that’s true at all. In a 5 round tournament, you could very easily win the first two rounds then if you ID the next three you get a pretty impressive 7-3 record, which is almost always enough to get in a top 8 cut at around 30 players. We can both agree that’s pretty darn stupid, you played less rounds of Netrunner than you didn’t play, and you shouldn’t be rewarded for that. This also means that a relatively unskilled player could get some lucky 2-0s rounds 1 and 2 and make the cut that way, since if they played the next few rounds they’d probably lose a lot, which helps prevent the tournament from finding the best player there. The best way to truly find the best Netrunner at the tournament is to play more Netrunner. Avoiding playing means that both players involved make it harder for the system to find the best player (and can mean that players that should have made the cut don’t).
This is a pretty hot topic, and it’s very hard to say what’s right. Of course, as you’ve pointed out, IDing is really hard to rule against, and it could be argued that having the rule rewards unscrupulous players for IDing. That being said, these players are going to have to agree to ID in some way or another, and having this rule in place means that a judge (or some other players) overhearing two players agree to ID is probably enough to prevent it. I’ve asked a friend who’s a Magic judge about this, and it’s very different in Magic where IDing isn’t winning half of your matches, it’s intentionally drawing, and you can’t win 2 rounds then ID the next three in Magic and expect to make the cut.
Though it’s easy to argue that IDing is impossible to enforce, I can say with almost 100% certainty that the rule being there will have drastically reduced the amount of IDs at tournaments and therefore more games of Netrunner have been played and therefore tournament results are a bit more accurate. Taken to an extreme argument, murder is impossible to enforce as you could claim it was suicide, but in reality it’s not actually like this, as with Netrunner. People don’t ID at Netrunner tournaments, and it’s because of this rule, so I’d say it’s doing its job.
Anyway, I think these floor rules are very well thought out. They’re not perfect, and I think the language could use to be a bit more formal at times, but this is an extremely impressive first draft. There’re a lot of things to be clarified and improved (like the aforementioned problem if a spectator announces a card they see), but they will be clarified and improved. I’ve not seen anything that I completely hate and oppose, and that’s very much a good thing.
Where do you think not discarding cards as the Corp would fall under these floor rules, especially if it isn’t discovered until right before the runner is about to access cards from HQ?
I think someone would have a hard time proving I’m throwing a game. Or winning one, for that matter.
Illegal game state of some sort
I think the key thing to pick up on for the concession of games being collusion, and therefore forbidden, is in the definition of collusion involving “two or more” people. If I concede my game in order to get to the next one in a match for time reasons, that can’t be collusion as only a single party is involved, me. My concession in this instance isn’t to attempt to benefit anyone else, but to afford myself more time in the next game. It is a self-centered act that only involves one party, not “two or more.”
Nerve Agent against CI came up between me and @Nordrunner once.
This was somewhat unclear to me. I think as shitty as the situation is, there’s no way you can make a floor rule where you give someone in a game a game loss for something someone out of the game did without any collusion from them, otherwise, any asshat can decide the outcome of a game in either direction simply by acting like an asshat.
As much as I don’t feel like digging this up again, I have to point out the fatal flaw in this logic. If MORE games are being played but not ALL of them are being played, that could be, and probably is, worse for tournament result “accuracy” because some people have the advantage of being willing to split while others don’t. As long as the rule exists, this is going to be a major issue and this is the primary reason I think it shouldn’t be a rule. At least if everyone who can split safely does so, you don’t have to worry about some players playing to X prestige in round N to make the cut and others playing to X+2 prestige in round N+1.
Yeah; really glad we stopped working on ours, because they pretty much nailed it. FFG OP stepped their game up this time.
Well, I’m totally going to get DQ’d at world’s. What’s the game coming to when I can’t call my opponent a throbbing cockwomble for top decking an agenda? It’s political correctness gone mad I tell you.
I’m going to have to rely on colloquial British expressions to get me through the day…
I hope there’s still an unwritten ‘don’t be an asshat’ rule that takes precedence over the floor rules.
I want some clarification about interruptions for paid abilities.
I think mandatory triggers, if missed, should be retroactively applied if it’s obvious, and has clearly not affected any subsequent decisions.
This document is good though. I’m glad it exists. Makes me more confident about running events in future.
I’ll teach you some German expressions that no one will understand but will be quite effective in displaying your current state of mind.
Timo and I played the double elims of a BABW qualifier in German for one round until my vocabulary deserted me. “I rez an Ichi, which subroutines are you breaking?” Wasn’t covered in my Holiday German 10 week course (surprisingly).
Surely the Germans must have a word for “click, click, fire the trace” by now
In one word is tough. But “Klick, Klick, Aufspüren” should cover it quite well.
How about French and Chinese cursing?
It doesn’t look like there’s proper rules for handling Clot? Except this: “Players cannot cause an opponent to miss a trigger he or she controls by playing too quickly.”
Does that mean that Clot timing is entirely the responsibility of the Corp?
Yes. The same is true of the shards.
So really, the obnoxious gameplay that this demands is asking during every paid ability window: “Any response?”. Every single time. I’m not really happy about this.
I’ll watch Firefly to get some Mandarin swearing, can you help with Cantonese? Not sure where you’re linguistic background lies.