Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Kitara Cycle: I bless the rains down in africaaa~


#381

Needs to be a public agenda if you want the ability to be active while it’s installed


#382

It’d be OP if it worked as intended.

So let’s spend 50 posts trying to creatively misinterpret it :smiling_imp:


#383

The OP power of Blessing Type. Can be done in private!


#384

Installing at the innermost position never incurs any cost, so the bolded part of this statement would be redundant, wouldn’t it?


#385

Installing always costs how many ICE are currently protecting the server. Usually we think of it as “which position its in” but its not actually the rule.


#386

That and also additional costs mandated by card effects.


#387

Ah yes, good points both - I retract my comment above! :smile:


#388

I just re-used the “at no cost” you can find on the real MTI :wink:

I wonder if the “in the innermost position” replace an ice ?


#389

When I regularly install an ICE in the outermost position, I don’t trash the one ICE I have installed. Why on earth would I trash the inside ICE if I install in the innermost position?


#390

“Once per turn, when the Runner approaches a server, you may install a piece of ice protecting that server in the innermost position, ignoring all costs. The Runner is now approaching that ice.”

What a shit show of wording. I hope this doesn’t get released like this. If “protecting that server” is an adjective describing the Ice you install, then it just actively helps the runner avoid Ice.

If it’s an install from HQ, then it will be the only ID worth playing. Bring on the notrunner, at least for the first five turns.

Maybe you can’t install ice unless there’s already ice on the server?


#391

This ID has been discussed pretty thoroughly in this thread and also in the Rules Questions thread. TLDR; it lets you install a piece of ICE from HQ to the innermost position on server approach, and yanks the Runner to approach that ice. It seems pretty good.


#392

What I really wish FFG would do is confirm design intent rather than relying on… Whatever process we used to arrive at this outcome. Fair enough, the card’s not even out yet—I fucking. hate. spoilers—but at least when something comes out I’d like to be able to understand how it was designed and tested.

What irks me about cards like Standoff is that they didn’t seem to know. It was a Damon card, he left, someone made a ruling (possibly a young M Boggs in his first week on the job) and then later realized “Wtf no.” Even without saying the obvious (“Let’s just call Damon and see what he meant”) do they not retain any documentary artifacts of the design process to refer back to? Seriously? (Note: Standoff has provided me hours of amusement both ways, plz never change FFG).

Also, I’m assuming every card in a cycle is read by playtesters? Why are so many cards apparently unambiguous during playtesting but ambiguous when revealed to the paying audience? Not looking for an answer here, but worth a thought.


#393

Each deck archetype has a different sweet spot that depends on the agenda suite and the list itself. Check netrunnerdb.com, a tournament winning deck and go to the analyze or smth tab, there you can see the costs.


#394

The process to arrive at this outcome was basically just reading the card though. Every other card that lets you install from somewhere other than HQ/the grip specifies it very clearly on the card. Since this doesn’t, assuming that this would install from somewhere other than HQ makes no sense to me at all and seems more like people are just trying to be willfully obtuse. It’s the same with the various Apex “interactions” - no reasonable person is interpreting them as trashing your opponents’ cards.

Honestly almost every time a situation like this comes up it seems like people are just being smartarses to be honest. The only one that never quite made sense to be was the original Slums/CTM ruling, but if that’s what it is then accept it and move on.


#395

Nobody is forcing you to read or partake in discussions you don’t care for. If you read Standoff correctly the first time, good for you. But this kind of arrogant behavior really adds nothing to the discussion.


#396

That’s fair, and I definitely don’t mean to come off as arrogant. There have absolutely been a number of cases (especially in the last cycle or two) where the intent isn’t clear and FFG needs to clear things up. It’s more that threads can sometimes get derailed by some pretty weird leaps of logic - the Endless Hunger thing being the most egregious. In this case the default case for “install” for the Corp has always been from HQ unless specified so it seems kind of odd to get caught up on that particular part of the card when there are so many other interesting things to talk about.

Again not trying to be arrogant, these threads are just way more interesting when they’re not about rules lawyering! Sorry if I came off that way.


#397

Ey no worries, I was grumpy because I hadn’t had coffee yet. I can see where you are coming from, I can enjoy rules lawyering a bit too much from time to time :slight_smile:


#398

That’s not how I interpreted the Standoff debacle at all. My impression was: Damon/FFG accidentally released a card that did the opposite of what they intended. When Jakob asked Boggs about that, he confirmed that as written it does the opposite of what Damon intended. Then at the first possible opportunity (the first FAQ released after ‘Standoff’ came out) it was corrected to work as intended. There’s no indication to me that anyone ever forgot what the intent of the card was, it was just written incorrectly.


#399

Then why didn’t Boggs just make the correct call in the first place? If you go to the NRDB page for Standoff it still says the following:

Rulings
ANCUR UFAQ [Michael Boggs]

Can players trash their opponent’s cards during a Standoff?

Yes.

If you knew the card was “written incorrectly,” why wouldn’t you not just clarify it at the first possible opportunity?


#400

Because the fix was an errata, not a clarification on rules interpretations.

The UFAQ does not include card errata, that can only come from FFG. The UFAQ clarifies existing rules and lays out the logic as much as possible.

When a card is printed with the wrong words on it, the UFAQ can’t change them.