Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

FFG Floor Rules

I think I’ll just try to perfect my German accent, that way everyone will just be laughing their ass off, despite what I am actually saying. :stuck_out_tongue:


You can also learn polish


worth noting I can probably get you DQ’d for calling me baldy


and if true you’ll never beat me again


Your new sobriquet is Wookie. The Colonials don’t understand irony, right?


I like how they emphasized in the announcement and the floor rules that this shouldn’t affect casual tournaments. The last thing I want is for someone to be disqualified from our 6-person GNK.

Edit: I also laughed at the comprehensive floor rules containing this: “The examples contained within are not

Also laughed at: “While the Runner considers making a run, the Corporation reveals two Scorched Earth
cards in HQ and asks, ‘Do you really want to do that?’”

The blank card solution for illegal decks is interesting. Pretty creative solution to avoid outright DQ for competitive-level tournaments.

Interesting that if someone is disqualified (eg, by major unsportsmanlike conduct) during the second game of a match, both the first and second games of that match count as wins for their opponent, regardless of who won the first game.


Honestly, Polish is just a rip-off from Russian. Therefore, learn Russian, @evilgaz! You will at least be able to use it for something. Polish is only used in Dota2 and LoL. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

All in all this document is a positive step in the right direction, but there are clearly some areas to develop.

More onus on the Corp to play slower I think, in order to not cause the runner to miss Clot / Shard triggers. My problem with this is that, as others have pointed out both here and on Facebook, the only foolproof way to handle it is to be a tool and ask in every window. I had a situation at Nordic Nationals where I’m pretty sure I paused long enough for the runner to make a Clot decision after an install. I intentionally waited longer than I normally would have (including drawing my card for NEH and reorganising my hand a few times) because I was trying to sneak an Astro out with a Shipment and Astro token, so the Runner had to Clot now or they’d miss the opportunity. In that situation if I suddenly ask “any action?” it seems fishy if I haven’t done it at any other time. So I played the Shipment and the Runner calls to wind the game back so he can retroactively Clot (this was in keeping with the house floor rules in operation that day). This seems a bit busted to me and it’s what we’ll have to contend with under the new FFG floor rules, but the alternative would slow the game down too much for everyone and feels a bit dick-ish. I could have argued the point then, as one could now, but it’s one person’s word against another - how do you judge an appropriate amount of time between clicks and how do you prove you waited long enough if someone calls you on it?

I’m not a fan of the missed triggers section, but I’ll have to go back to read it again and see exactly what it does an doesn’t cover. It feels a bit weak that the opponent can simply deny every missed trigger, because it happens all the time.

I don’t like not being able to concede. I’ve faced games before where I know there is literally no way for me to win. I played an RP / Batty / Blacklist / Grail deck at a BABW event that wiped my rig to the extent that the only server I could successfully run was Archives - and even then only until he got an ETR ICE outside of Excalibur. The only ways I could possibly win were either for the Corp to make the insane play of throwing all his agendas into Archives or to stall out for a timed win on game 1. I don’t mind admitting I conceded that game from 2-0 up, we both wanted to move on and maximise our time for game 2 as there was still potentially 10 minutes of going through the motions to be done.

If you’re not going to allow concessions then I’d like for judges to be able to make game state judgements to turn timed wins into full ones in clear cut scenarios, or even to adjust a current losing position into a winning one. I don’t like the timed loss/draw rules anyway - it’s in both players’ interests to concede a full win (for the loser’s strength of schedule). If the tournament rules allowed concessions and/or judges to adjust timed wins to full wins then it would open up deckbuilding options a little bit more for decks that are decent but too slow for tournament play.

I don’t mean that you should adjust all games, I just means ones in which a player can reasonably argue that the game is locked down and victory is just a matter of time. I had a game as Industrial Genomics that bizarrely ended 0-0, but the runner had no hand or deck left, no breakers and was reduced to clicking for single credits - unable to get into a scoring server of Caprice, Ash and 2 False Leads and would flatline if they ran anywhere else. In that position I could clearly demonstrate the runner has zero chance of winning the game. Even more bizarrely I benefited more from a timed draw in that situation than a timed win (due to strength of schedule), but a full win would have been a certainty if the game round had been longer.

I think if you gave judges the power to adjust game results on the basis of likely outcome this would reduce the impact of stalling. I’m happy for people to disagree on this, but my view on Netrunner is that the time limit is an artificial constraint that’s thrown into the game in order that tournaments don’t drag on forever. In a sense it makes the game less pure because it punishes certain deck archetypes which are perfectly valid to play. As such I’d prefer the rules to recognise and accommodate that by allowing scoring adjustments in exceptional situations. We’ve already seen the rules change once (when we went from agenda scores to prestige) because the old rules punished flatline decks that feed agendas to the Runner. That opened up new possibilities, and I think the same could be done if the time limit was less constraining on the play.



Playing NEH over 16 times this past weekend, I would always give a ‘healthy’ pause window. Otherwise, I’m moving on. If I start my next action, and you haven’t reacted to my reasonable pause window, sorry.


What’s a ‘healthy’ pause window? This is exactly the problem that the rules should have clarified but didn’t.


Me staring at my opponent for 5 seconds after installing a card.


Exactly, I felt I had but the floor rules allowed wind-backs to stop Corps playing too fast. Which is basically what the new FFG rules endorse. If the judge comes over and the Runner says “he played Shipment too quickly” and I say, “no I didn’t, I drew my NEH card, shuffled my hand a couple of times, looked at two facedown ICE and then played on”, how do you rule that?

One person’s “healthy pause” might be a fleeting second to other people, depending on experience level. I know for sure I’m at the slower end of the competitive players - I’m a part-timer at the game compared to many and don’t log a lot of time in online play. What you might consider a reasonable window for Dan D’Argenio could well be not long enough for me, or an even less experienced player. How do you call that as a judge?

You have two issues here

  1. Are both players being 100% genuine in their version of events?
  2. Is the time stated sufficient for a player to make an informed decision?

I’ve took the habit to ask everytime I install something and there’s a clot play potential.
No way to contest :stuck_out_tongue:


ie, “You blinked, I scored 5 points; pass turn.”


In that spot as the Runner I’d say that wasn’t long enough. Lots of things to factor in here: overseas tournament with language barriers and foreign cards etc. Just to take in the game state and assess credit pool takes more than 5 seconds to some players.

Is the onus then perhaps on the runner to put a hand up immediately and say “pause” to allow thinking time, even if they don’t end up taking an action? That’s not what the floor rules say - the onus is on the active player not to move too quickly, not the inactive one to request a window.

Calimsha has the right idea - there can be no question in his approach, but it undoubtedly adds time to games and that will really add up if you do it in every sinlge window. Maybe it’s only Clot for now, but as the game grows other windows will become important too until we have to do it literally everywhere to be safe.


Well, call the judge, then.

Honestly, I agree. The Floor Rules do zero to address the situation, and maybe they never can.

Good call. @eric_c ALWAYS asks if one wants to access, even if it’s a Maker’s after an Indexing.


Also, you say it was 5 seconds, I say you moved right on and it was 1 second tops. Who’s telling the truth? How does the judge rule that? I’m betting Runner gets the benefit of the doubt in that spot 9 times out of 10.

I think the rules have over-formalised situations that weren’t really an issue and really dodged the key questions.

Glad we’re on the same page.

I have zero problems flipping a table.


DQ :wink:

1 Like