Corp. When accessed effects trigger before stealing and gaining points. I died in such way at a tournament recently.
2 Likes
Great thanks!
If you flip Sync 3 times with Jeeves in play, will you get an extra click ?
EDIT : also, what about cards with multiple click abilites on them ? For exemple, if I use click 1 to host a card on Glenn Station. With click 2 I add that card to HQ and with click 3 I put an other card on the agenda. Did I spend 3 clicks on the same action ? (Which would be Trigger a [click] ability on an active card (cost varies).)
RE: Sync - It’s the same card with the the same title, subtitle, and the ability is the same so I’d say yes you would gain the click.
RE: Glenn Station - I’d say no as it’s not the same click action that you take each time. It’s different click actions on the same card.
2 Likes
Can you use Raman Rai on the runners turn, even though the corp doesn’t have any clicks to lose?
No - “if you do…”
Suppose Alice is playing a very mainstream Biolock list, but Bob is playing a more unusual list that includes Magnum Opus, Net Shield, Feedback Filter, and perhaps a Kati Jones. Bob steals an early three point agenda, then sets up the above cards to profit 1-2 credits per turn through Biolock and run very rarely. In front of a judge, Bob suggests that perhaps Alice should concede. Alice says no, but plays at a reasonable pace.
After another half hour and very little progress, five minutes remaining is called, and Alice concedes the game even though no turning point in the slog has occurred. Bob complains that the concession is too strategic. They play for five minutes game 2, but it’s criminal versus haas bioroid so it is easy for Alice to end the game with a small agenda point lead before Bob can begin building secure remotes.
The judge, afterwards, asks Alice why she concede later rather than earlier during the first game, and she say, "So that game 2 wouldn’t finish, in order to maximize my prestige gain."
Alice has committed no infractions mentioned in the floor rules, right?
This question came up while I was considering building a Mopus FF Net Shield list to counter the meta…
Er. That’s the very definition of slow play.
Edit: That is to say, the slow play rules can’t force you to concede, but that is exactly what the slow play rules are intended to prevent.
I thought the slow play rules were intended to prevent deliberately letting the clock click down while artificially wasting time (e.g. by “thinking” about how to break a rezzed piece of ice during a run for long periods of time).
Sometimes in Netrunner you can end up with a stalemate (neither player has an incentive to try to steal/score until the other person attempts and fails, for instance). That such a game should take up all the allotted round time is what the corp’s mandatory draw and limited deck size is supposed to prevent, not the floor rules.
1 Like
Yeah, slow play relates to how quickly you resolve each action, not which actions you choose to take.
(It’s not in the floor rules examples, but Bob telling Alice she should concede to him seems like pretty poor sportsmanship to me!)
1 Like
I believe that this is why @popsofctown is asking: an action that is clearly against the spirit of the law, but not against the letter of the law. Clear and specific rules are helpful to let everyone know what behavior is expected of them, but it also creates a space for people to abuse the rules for their own advantage.
From what I can tell, TO’s have wide discretion in enforcing the floor rules, even if their enforcement goes against a ruling published by FFG. The worst a player can do to the TO is complain about them. The situation described probably depends more on your TO than the letter of the ruling, since the behavior is clearly unsporting.
Its not a great answer to give, but I do think that move is within the rules. “I wanted to get at least 1 point out of game 2” is a much better way to spin it.
Zero points for both players who go to time would put a stop to it. Agenda points arent even a good metric for who is actually ahead.
4 Likes
If Alice is seen to be “abusing the spirit” of the game by making tactical decisions with the round time limit in mind (note, tactical decisions, not slow play), then can you really say the same doesn’t equally apply to Bob (get three points, wait for the time limit)?
I can’t see how either player is doing anything against the rules (a bit cowardly, yes, but not against the rules). But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no?
1 Like
I realize this isn’t in the spirit of the question, but it strikes me as poor tactical play anyway. Alice isn’t guaranteed a point early in game two, nor is she guaranteed to lose a full length match against HB. Unless the odds are overwhelming (like at least 2:1) that she will score early and stall out, she probably shouldn’t willfully remove a 2 point win from the possible payouts. (She certainly tanks Bob’s chances of a 2 point payout, but unless it’s a 2 player tournament, that is only bad news for Alice’s SoS anyway.)
5 Likes
Alice is leveraging Tragedy of the Commons, though, and tempting/forcing Bob to make suboptimal plays to resolve the game more quickly to compensate for Alice’s refusal to resign. Maybe Bob will RDI into double snare without the full 18 credit cushion on hand because Bob wants to improve his chances of getting at least one prestige in the second game.
Aside from that, it’s still plausible this can occur. It could be a bad tactic that someone does anyway, not every unsporting play actually secures the competitive advantage it aims for, or it could happen in a deck with a shoddy alternate wincon that the player gives up on when they need to leave enough time for a timed win, not one they give up on when that alternate wincon has been fully undermined.
No, Bob refusing* to resign the first game is an example of Tragedy of the Commons. He is acting in his personal interest (to hold on for his one timed point) and in doing so reducing the combined point total from the match (only one from four potential points). Alice not choosing to resign earlier is not a Tragedy of the Commons. She is actually working against her personal interest (leaving only one point up for grabs in game two instead of one) while also acting to depress the combined point total.
But however interesting that may be, it’s ultimately irrelevant since avoidance of Tragedy of the Commons is not a part of the Netrunner floor rules!
*“Refusal” is absolute nonsense. There is never, and should never be, any expectation on anyone to resign a game!
Sure, sure. Like I said, it doesn’t really address the rules question at the heart of it. I’m just weighing in because I think “mobying” has been tactically overvalued in a lot of recent discussions. It is competitively viable (if potentially unsportsmanlike) in a narrow set of circumstances, but people need to keep in mind that 1 point is still substantially less than 2, much less 4. (For this reason, Bob waiting on enough creds to stop a double snare! -a fairly unlikely event- is probably a bad tactical play, also, if it would force the game to time).
I’d like to word in a way that doesn’t use the word refusal… but what I’m trying to point out is the inconsistency between not resigning earlier, and resigning later. If there are five minutes left and Alice continues to plug on without resigning, it doesn’t seem unsporting.
Would a better scoring system be two points for a win, one point each for going to time, and a bonus point for two wins in a match?
It would:
give both players exactly equal incentive to go and win (instead of holding out for time);
provide a slightly lower combined score for IDs (currently it’s higher than for honest matches!);
give the winner of the first game a bit more to play for in the second game (currently it’s a little of the opposite, the first game winner can chill a bit and think “I’ve got two points already, if it goes to time it’s not so bad.”).
Would that provide better incentives than the current scoring? Would there be any unexpected consequences?