I’m almost certain that this combo works as you describe - people are salty b/c it feels frustrating to lose to a combo involving a “bad” card. Also, it seems like saltiness in general abounds right now whenever playing anarchs of any kind
[quote=“strundle, post:2087, topic:1437”]
Likewise, if some confluence of events should conspire to give the opportunity to rez the outermost piece of on a different server (say Silhouette/Blackguard) during a run, DDoS would prevent that as well, right?
[/quote]correct. I won’t bother to link it (i believe @jakodrako has in the last 20 posts or so anyways; just scroll up) but negatives (“cannot,” “may not” etc.) always trump positives (“must,” “may,” etc.)
Oh, sure – I haven’t encountered any doubts about the “cannot” rule. It is really more about the phrasing of DDoS, I think. Some people seem to be reading it as “the outermost piece of ice during a particular run,” of which there can only be one (the first piece of ice approached during that run). I read it as long as it is “during a run” (a general conditional state during which DDoS is active), “the outermost piece of ice” on “any server” cannot be rezzed.
So if, for example, Silhouette, with a Blackguard installed, runs HQ and exposes the outermost ice on R&D, their interpretation would be that this is not “the outermost piece of ice during this run,” and thus must be rezzed. My interpretation is that the expose is taking place “during a run” and that the piece of ice being exposed is indeed the outermost on its server, therefore it cannot be rezzed. (Pointing out that the words “this run” don’t actually appear on DDoS doesn’t seem to ameliorate the situation.)
If I squint really hard, I can sort of see where they’re coming from because the phrasing on DDoS is a bit awkward (just a bit). But it seems clear to me that “outermost” refers to position as opposed to chronology, otherwise it could/should have been worded something closer to “The corp cannot rez the first piece of ice approached during each run this turn.” I also think we already have cards which are clear on the use of the term “outermost” – e.g. if you hit a Bullfrog 3-deep in a server and it successfully bounces you to another server with a Cell Portal, surely you can use Alpha when you get back to the Bullfrog. I mean, Bullfrog clearly spells out that it is the “outermost” piece of ice protecting that server, even though it may be the 5th or 6th piece you’ve approached/encountered that run.
(And for the record, this is actually coming up in a very influence-intensive use of these cards out of Leela, not Anarch. But maybe that contributes to the saltiness even more, since, in some extreme cases they’re having their board state set back by 3-4 pieces of ice installation in a single turn. It’s not a great deck (although not nearly as bad as I thought it would be), but it sure is fun to watch a 3-ice scoring remote melt away to nothing in a chain reaction of nonsense.)
Ah, I think I see what they’re trying to say, but they’re just wrong. Outermost is a fluid term based only on the current board state. I don’t think there’s any robust argument to be found otherwise, especially since if it worked like they thought the card would have used the well established “approach” terminology (as in, “the first ice you approach each run can’t be rezzed”)
Thanks Jako – this seems pretty definitive, then. If “the outermost” was a singular piece of ice determined at the start of the run, it certainly couldn’t apply to other servers.
I’ve added the ruling to ANCUR as well, so other folks who run into this in the future may have more luck with Google than I did. =)
Okay, so, question about an unreleased card, but… How does Jeeves interact with doubles? I seem to remember the discussion that if I use multiple clicks to do one action (Melange, for instance), Jeeves will trigger to give me an extra click. How about if I play an operation followed by a double operation?
“The first time you spend 3[CLICK] on the same action each turn, gain [CLICK].”
I don’t think this is correct: wasteland should fire unless the corp is the one doing the trashing or it is a hosted card being trashed because the host is leaving play. Daily casts and, say, Armitage or Faerie direct the player to trash them. This is the same entity (“you”) that wasteland refers to.
My interpretation, at least :). Metaphysics, baby!
I do find that a little confusing specially given that english is not my main language. Daily Casts doesn’t say “gets trashed” or something like that, but it seems to induct the runner to trash it. So what would be the difference? where is the line?
I think you are correct. If it isn’t triggered by daily casts, I can’t see how it would be triggered by Aesop’s (or, for that matter, Endless Hunger…).
It’s simple, unless a player is specifically named (e.g. “the Runner trashes”), then any card effects that trash are seen as a case of the card owner doing the trashing (since the order to trash is talking to the card owner).
So when Parasite trashes an ICE, that is the Runner doing the trashing as it’s a Runner card.
On the other hand while Forged Activation Orders is a Runner card it specifically names the Corp as the player to do the trashing.
You also have cases where neither player does the trashing if it’s due to a game mechanic like the trashing after playing an Operation or Event to put it in it your Archives/Heap. So while Currents refer to the point at which they are trashed, this is simply the normal trashing due to playing the card, you are just postponing it! In this case, neither player is trashing the Current as the trashing is not due to the card, but a core game mechanic (the card just modifies the timing). Similarly, trashing of a hostee due to its host card being trashed is not a card effect owned by either player but a core game mechanic.
I think what he means is that neither player is directly responsible for trashing the card because it is trashed as a result of it’s host being trashed. I think Lukas has described it in the past as the hosted card “falling off” (something something Awakening Center), but the point is neither player takes responsibility for when a hosting conditions are no longer met and a card gets trashed as a result.
edited phrasing, I realized using the word “credit” to mean “ownership” might be confusing in a game where the base currency is credits…
