Cheers for the explanation. That phrase “after this run” (to which you are implicitly adding the word “immediately”) doesn’t appear in Data Breach though. The phrase is “when this run ends”.
Regardless of the wording, in terms of the principle (that the effect must happen immediately) it seems that would require you to read the trigger as being the successful run, and the phrase “when this run ends” to be a modifier on the effect (making another run) that is intended to convey the immediateness of the effect. However the word “when” has always been used in the past to indicate a trigger condition (indeed it’s one of the words called out specifically in Jacob’s/Lukas’ big effect type clarification conversation, and the core rulebook itself). It doesn’t seem at all a natural reading to understand it in a different context in this case.
Well, I guess that settles that. I’ll follow his rulings.
But I do not perceive this as a good one. It’s “gotcha!”-style wording used to go against the grain of similar interactions. DRT specifies “when a run ends”, but persists if we proceed beyond the run in question. But for some reason, “when this run ends” holds some sort of special higher-order power, and will not persist if evaluated after the run in question?
@ironcache yeah I can’t say why one works one way and another works another way. I tried above, but after talking to Jake, I don’t believe that it’s quite so simple. Anyways, glad we talked this out. I’m sure it will be an interesting uFaq coming up.
I don’t think this can hold, though, without reversing some previous rulings (or hand waving “this run” as some kind of new magic keyword that takes priority or has a different timing structure, etc.). Stimhack doesn’t use the term “this run,” but you are definitely waiting for a very specific run to end…
ETA: if it turns out this new ruling does apply to, say, stimhack, I’m curious if there might be other ways to avoid the brain damage besides doppelganger.
Looking for clarification on the rules interaction between the new Jinteki ID, Potential Unleashed and I’ve Had Worse.
Corp deals out some net damage, hitting I’ve had worse: We have two effects here – the stack damage and the drawing of cards from IHW – am I right in thinking that priority depends on whose turn it is?
Whenever the Runner takes at least 1 net damage, trash the top card of the stack.
I’ve Had Worse
Whenever I’ve Had Worse is trashed by taking net or meat damage, draw 3 cards.
Whenever denotes a conditional ability (same speed), so, if these two conditions can be considered the same, then it would depend on turn priority (as you and @strundle already expect).
I’m uncertain if the two conditions are the same though. I believe taking damage is synonymous with trashing the cards, but that’s just my best guess.
Actually I’m reevaluating what I said previously. If trashing was synonymous with taking, Chronos Protocol would do nothing AFAICT (the condition it triggers off of would have already resulted in a trash, rendering it ineffectual).
So I’m now leaning towards “trashing” being after “taking”, which would mean PU invariably goes before IHW. Still not 100% though.
In an effort to elucidate (for myself as much as anyone), is it known if you draw before damage is chosen with Synthetic Blood? IE: can the Synthetic Blood draw end up being hit with the incoming damage?
Literally no one plays the card so I don’t know the interaction, but if the SB draw can end up absorbing the damage, then PU almost certainly goes before IHW.
Strictly speaking, Chronos Protocol doesn’t mention “taking” damage. It’s also not worded like most conditionals – while “the first” does suggest a conditional ability, “For the first…” connotes a different structure than “Whenever the first…”
I agree with what you’re saying (it’s why I’m not 100% confident). But I’m also not sure it’s different. It’s why I wanted to try and attack it from a different level (bringing up SB).
But the fact is that almost all abilities in Netrunner react to an occurrence, and then perform something that affects from now forward. CP would need to be pre-empt an occurrence and modify it, if taking and trashing are the same time.
Maybe that’s what is happening, and what the “For the …” wording entails. But it is definitely a bit of a jump from the normal model.
Also a fair assertion. Replacement effects are defined in the official FAQ as using “instead”, but I suppose there’s no reason it couldn’t be treated similarly.
Though, on point, even replacement effects do not pre-empt an event like CP would have to. They normally react to it happening and then redact it (which is why SDB shuts down ST). This is on another level.
That’s why I had the (partial) in parentheses. It clearly isn’t a replacement effect along the lines of, say, Tori Hanzo – a net damage still definitely happened here (if, say, CP chose to have you discard an IHW for some reason, you would still draw). But it also clearly modifies something as it happens, so it’s not working like a conditional trigger, either. I think it actually works as a constant ability and it just so happens that the thing it modifies includes the word “first,” which we usually associate with a conditional ability (side note: I believe cases like this are why @jakodrako 's primer includes the disclaimer that “the first time” is different than “the first ice, or the first program, etc.”).
But anyway, this is tangential from the original question – mostly what I’m trying to say here is that I don’t think CP is a solid case study to make an argument that “taking damage” and “discarding from damage” are discrete events.
ETA: On further reflection, I regret using the term “replacement” above – this is an inaccurate use of a reserved word.
Even constant abilities require the thing to happen though. Sneakdoor beta is a constant-ability, but it only happens after a successful run on archives is triggered (which is why ST on archives is then rendered inert for the remainder of the turn). This would have to be a special class of pre-emptive ability.
Anyway, I agree that it isn’t a solid case. But I am curious about how it works now.
If we want to get this back on track, I go back to SB draw vs. damage; do you draw then trash at random, or vica versa? The answer here will help.
On further consideration even SB doesn’t necessarily line up with PU + IHW. Could easily have the following:
Damage Flow 1
X damage Incoming
Suffer Damage; die if X > cards in hand. If not dead, choose X cards at random from grip to trash.
Trash the chosen cards.
Under this model, PU would always go before IHW.
Alternatively:
Damage Flow 2
X damage Incoming
Suffer Damage; die if X > cards in hand. If not dead, trash X cards at random from grip.
Under this model, it’s based on turn-priority.
Key difference is the separation of choosing cards / taking damage and trashing them. CP leads me to suspect they are separate, but, again, this is not solid foundation. I see both models as plausible.
Stimhack is slightly different. "After the run is completed, suffer 1 brain damage…"
Seems like you resolve that brain damage after any triggers from run is completed triggers.
So I wouldn’t consider it similar to DB and Doppel triggers.
