If a judge goes to NetrunnerDB instead of CardgameDB, can I call the marshall?
If a judge goes to NetrunnerDB instead of CardgameDB, can I call the marshall?
IANARL, but as far as I can tell, you never passed that bioroid, so AoT doesn’t even try to trigger. And in the opposite situation, in which you break and move a bioroid for a non-bioroid, I think it’s still the bioroid that you’re passing, wherever it happens to be.
(FWIW, we know that you can Inversificator Turing to another server and then trigger Prey at the reduced strength.)
With the usual caveat that I’ve not totally misunderstood the question, I would have assumed that in both cases, AoT would fire, because in order to use Inversificator’s swap ability, you must have reached Step 4 (Pass) in the run timing structure. Doesn’t AoT’s ability fire at this step as well and therefore doesn’t care if the runner used Inversificator to swap the passed Bioroid ICE with anything else, they still passed a rezzed Bioroid and so the ability fires?
Happy to be proven wrong by a ruling or FAQ though, would be a (somewhat) interesting one if the AoT ability is suppressed by some/all Inversificator swaps.
Follow-up question on this that I just thought of:
When a player is asking a judge for the official text of a card from CardgameDB during a match, how must they identify the card they are asking for?
Sounds uncontrovesial that they can ask “what is the text on Hokusai Grid?”
Can they ask “what is the rez cost that Jinteki region that does net damage with a successful run?”
Can they ask “what is the text of… hockey something grid???”
I assume if they ask “what is the text of that upgrade that damages you” that isn’t specific enough so they get nothing, rather than a list of all the upgrades that can do damage.
I imagine this is probably something where the level of play matters. At a GNK, I would probably answer even the last one.
I think that’s had to be cleared up with the T.O. (they have the power of discretion for anything that’s not spelled out), a thorough reading of the “spirit” of the floor rules, and/or cleared up with @FFGOP.
I would agree with you that it probably depends if it’s a “relaxed” or “premier” level. Most likely if they ask, their opponents will just tell them.
Ok, some ask that question :
Expose 1 card installed in a remote server. Trash that card at no cost if it is an asset or upgrade.
Whenever you expose a card or access cards and do not steal or trash any of them, place 1 virus counter on Aumakua.
…in all cases ?
If Drive By expose an asset then trash it ?
If Drive By expose an agenda then doesn’t trash it ?
My opinion is Amaukua is pumped by the agenda expose + no trash, but not by the asset expose + trash, but we would need a confirmation because of a “or (…) and (…) or” precedence unclarified by a comma problem on Drive By.
Drive by doesn’t “expose then trash”.
Drive by exposes a card.
Drive by trashes that card if it is an asset, or upgrade.
Those are two separate events. Amaukua gains a counter from the first event due to nested trigger rules, of which we have numerous examples.
Drive By contains no comma. You probably mean Amaukua, which says:
“Whenever you expose a card or access cards and do not steal or trash any of them, place 1 virus counter on Aumakua.”
Given there is no card in the whole game which trashes during the expose step, while there is a well known trash step during access, the best interpretation is that any additional comma should be placed after ‘expose a card’, not ‘access cards’.
This means the Turtle only triggers on either single expose or (multi access + no trash).
When I access one card, I don’t “access cardS”. I “access card”.
No; ‘accessing cards’ refers to the access step of a run (see multiple other cards for this usage, including Security Testing and Account Siphon).
I’d disagree there : “trash” on Salsette is meant to be the name of an instant, not of a § in the rules.
This was the main mess and disagrement with that card : if “trash” there meant “what is called the trash event” like it’s described in the rules, then CTM wouldn’t care.
There, “access cards” should also be the name of an instant, not of the §. Therefor, should only work in archives, or any kind of multiaccess if there were a comma.
Proper access happens one by one and therefor triggers “access card” multiple times, and this doesn’t trigger Aumukua multiple times.
I totally understand your point, and could totally agree with you if it is ruled like you say.
This is just how I could rule this if I were TO without any clarification on this - and I’m never TO so don’t worry.
That kind of card with points get back & forth rulings. See Scavenge triggering trash before reinstall or not and other effects.
Both cards being strong and in the same faction should call a rapid answer anyway
Does Aumakua gain counters when you access cards with Gang Sign? My feeling says it should, I don’t see any reasons why it shouldn’t. But it does not so on Jnet and people never seem to add counters manually, so maybe I’m wrong?
It does. There’s a ton of shit jinteki.net doesn’t do automatically; it’s not a big deal. And multiple gang signs will get you a counter for each one, so it’s a pretty fun time.
I’m aware that JNet does not automate everything and that’s totally okay. I was just confused because I watched a couple of games and people never added counters manually.
I assume the answer is “no” but here’s my question:
If you use Ankusa to return a rezzed barrier to HQ, does that barrier count as having been “de-rezzed” for the purposes of Keros McIntyre?
No, because derez is a specific effect separate from returning to HQ.
Similarly an accessed card that is trashed does not count as rezzed, even though it goes to archives face up.
In addition, if Imp trashes ICE from HQ, that ICE is not counted as rezzed.
My thought was that Drive By would trigger Aumakua using either interpretation of Aumakua’s text since Drive by has two phrases separated by a period. (Though aren’t there some cards with text separated by a carriage return? Is a carriage return interpreted differently than a period?) A corresponding determining question for Drive By is whether it would trigger Blackguard. If the answer is “yes” then Aumakua gets a counter. If the answer is “no” then it would depend on the “or…and…or” interpretation of precedent in Aumakua’s text.
While we’re on derezzing…I’ve also wondered if Sapper is immune to Flashbang when being access-encountered rather than approach-encountered. I think there was a ruling on Archangel that says it isn’t rezzed when being access-encountered. If I’m correct, that makes Flashbang virtually unplayable except as a backup Killer.
We don’t have a ruling on that - but we do have it for Blackguard/Snitch:
Once per run, you may expose an unrezzed piece of ice when you approach it. You may then jack out.
Which is exactly like Drive By - ‘Expose … Then, X.’
The ruling is precisely as I have outlined through nested triggers: the rez decision happens first, then the jack out.
Thus, Drive By and Blackguard does combo (and it’s painful for the corp). And Drive By does work with Aumakua.
Not sure if it’s technically a rules question but here goes:
Player A plays Punitive Counterstrike and announces trace strength. Player B verbally implies (“hit me”) to not boost and take the damage but says he wants to rethink/recalculate the trace a second later (before handing his grip to the opponent to do damage).
Action was not really passed back to the player A yet. No board game change. No paid ability windows etc.
What kind of floor rules violation is this and what should the outcome be?
P.S.: Premier tier event
I can’t find anything in the floor rules that says this is a violation, and therefor must assume that it isn’t, and is completely fine. As you said, there’s no game state change, nor was there a move to change the game state that would inform Player B as to a potential consequence that Player B might not have been otherwise aware of, so I can’t see why a reversal of a decision made only a moment ago is a problem. I can see Player B’s opponent being disappointed that they don’t get to fire the punitive, but disappointment isn’t a rules violation, it’s a feature.
The closest thing this might be to in the floor rules is a “missed trigger,” which it obviously isn’t really; there’s no triggers that were missed, just a considering of the action to a trigger.