No doubt, Doppel + DRT doesn’t appear consistent with Doppel + DB. But that’s the situation we have currently. We will likely get clarification shortly.
I could see a situation where the DRT ruling flips instead of DB (stimhack will stay the same because, after Doppel, it is still “after the run ends”). But I don’t see the two rulings as sustainable together.
Some part of me feels like this is relevant to the CtM/Slums discussion. The trigger condition or state in this case is no longer present.
I also really don’t want to start talking about CtM/Slums again, so I’ll just walk away from that grenade.
Hopefully we get a clarification soon.
Both the triggers pass on but the DRT one is still valid (as a run just ended) whereas DB trigger is not valid as you are not ending the original run (referred to as ‘this run’ by the card itself). Isn’t it like the case of tollbooth and femme fatale? The DRT case, if you want, is like you were crushing into the same tollbooth after using femme fatal. I don’t know, perhaps I missed the point of this controversy.
I want also to point out that DB + doppelgänger is not a case nested triggers, these are simultaneous triggers, exactly as femme fatal+booth.
Regrading stimhack+doppelgänger I think we should read ‘the’ like an ‘a’ so that you take damage at the end of the second run.
So “when the run ends” effects are treated like “when a run ends”, and “a run ends” pays no attention to the specific?
Possible it goes that way, but it I doubt it. “The” is a specifier in English. The giraffe is this giraffe. It’s not the same as that giraffe over there. It’s my giraffe and it’s special god dammit.
It’s possible Damon doesn’t care about natural language, but I doubt that (it would make trying to excavate rules quite a bit harder). More likely if it goes this way, Stim will remain unchanged because of after vs. when, not the = a.
With respect to “when a run ends”, yes, we are at the end of a run, for sure. But it definitely wouldn’t be the way I intuitively see this. “When X happens” implies an instantaneous relation with X. If we leave X, I would say it is no longer “when” it happened (even if we come back to X from another entry point). It’s possible this gets ruled in this direction, but, as I mentioned, I see this as more of a “gotcha!” than a logical/intuitive ruling. If you’re going to go this way for one, I feel like it should happen for both.
With respect to your nested triggers claim, I agree; first DB run ends, both Doppel and DB simultaneously being evaluated. No inherent nesting.
If it were the case that, as suggested, DRT triggers when the initial run ends, then Doppelganger fires, then after the Doppelganger run DRT checks the trigger is still valid and it is but this time because the second Doppelganger run has just ended, so it resolves for the trigger raised from the initial run (after firing from the second run, of course), then if the second Doppelganger was not successful, the DRT trigger from the first run wouldn’t resolve.
That is to say, from a Doppelganger/DRT combo, you would end up either taking four or zero damage, but never two. That line of logic doesn’t seem apparent from the Doppelganger/DRT ruling. The question is “When does DRT deal damage?” and while Lukas in his answer covers the case of DRT being trashed before resolution, you would have thought that if it wasn’t otherwise certain to deal damage once the trigger was met (if the Doppelganger run failed) that he would have corrected this assumption too.
That’s also an interesting point that I didn’t consider. Failing the Doppel run would invalidate the first DRT if we work under the assumption that the reason for the apparent-discontinuity is that “a” is general and still works if we loop back into it.
There’s nowhere (that I can tell) that affirms this isn’t already the case, but I agree that I feel the inference can be made that it wasn’t the intention.
Also, going back and thinking about it further, if Stimhack + Doppel was decidedly ruled because Stimhack is still being resolved after its run, then the new encore ruling that you can’t get 2 turns from 2 encores is making less sense. It would still be after the turn ends.
I think I have to bow out on this one again. The more I think about it the less it coheres. I would say that there are rulings in place for all these interactions, and they should be followed (regardless of seeming-contradictions) until either Damon (or @jakodrako) can set it straight.
But that’s just my last 2 cents (this conversation has bankrupt me). Can understand if people feel otherwise.
I agree with you that this interpretation is not solid, especially because the card reads:
"Make a run, and gain 9 [Credits], which you may use only during this run. After the run is completed, suffer 1 brain damage (cannot be prevented) and return to the bank any of the 9 [Credits] not spent. "
From this I understand two things:
as in the first sentence it says ‘this run’, the extra credit won’t be available during the doppelgänger extra run.
‘the run’ in the second sentence refers to ‘this run’ in the first sentence (which kills the 'the=a ’ interpretation). So, triggers should follow here the same ruling as DB and by choosing to go for the doppelgänger run first you can avoid the brain damage.
The conclusion 2) can however be invalidated if ‘after’ signals here a constant ability rather than a conditional one. On ANCUR it says that ‘after’ is associated to conditional abilities, in the rules and FAQs however this is never explicitly said. More in general, could it then be that _‘after’ signals a constant ability? _. In this scheme, the ability of giving one brain damage would trigger as stimhack is played and resolves as the first run is completed.
There are 29 card at the moment that use the word ‘after’ in the text, I didn’t have time to check whether my hypothesis is compatible with the way we currently play these cards.
yes, exactly, essentially this is the question.
Dirty Laundry reads the same as Stimhack…
"After the run is completed gain 5c, if it was successful"
I assume “completed” to mean after all the Run Ends triggers have been processed.
With the new Builder of Nations errata, does anyone know of any source for whether or not the meat damage triggers when you:
The encounter ends, we can be sure of that. But is it the end of an encounter with an advanced piece of ICE? The moment the encounter ends due to trashing seems to be the very same moment the ICE transitions from an advanced to an unadvanced state…
Any takers?
Yes, that also works fine by thinking that ‘after’ signals a constant ability that came into play as the card was played.
In the stimhack case you would then take the damage before starting the doppelgänger run as constant abilities have precedence over the conditional ones. Does this make sense?
And as a bonus question, is the answer the same if trashing the ice causes the server to stop existing and the run to end? (i.e. does the run ending close the “end of encounter” window before relevant effects can resolve).
So, I believe the errata was put in place to prevent bypass effects from turning off BoN. I think the intention is supposed to be “yes; you still take damage.”
But I’m also not certain that, mechanically, that lines up. We’ve noticed recently that if, after entering the Trigger Conditions Met step (Step 1), a trigger condition is invalidated, then the Trigger step (Step 2) will fail to resolve. I see that as very similar here. You might think that since the ICE is no longer installed, triggering BoN would fail.
There is, however, a caveat; this occurs on the effect ending. Regardless of if something ends to not existing or otherwise, it must end, right? Perhaps ending would track state information about what ended. We previously inferred that it’s possible that the game tracks which run DB cares about. It’s possible that it tracks what ICE was ended (and state information about that ICE) for BoN.
With respect to the bonus, I would say that an encounter ends even if the server ceases to exist. Here’s a relevant FAQ entry:
Destruction of Servers
If there are no cards installed in or protecting a remote server, then the server immediately ceases to exist. If a server ceases to exist during a run, then the run ends after any currently open paid ability windows close
If the game provides concession to continue through the paid ability window, I would imagine it provides concession to end the encounter (but that’s entirely speculative; I don’t think we have and precedent for ruling this either way).
TL;DR: That’s my thoughts. I want to say the damage happens, but that’s only based on my perception of intent. With this effect being relatively unique (encounter ending), I don’t think we’ll be able to hash it out with certainty without clarification.
When a card has a trash ability that is triggered, any reference to the game state within that resolving effect is based on the game state as it was at the moment of trashing, but with the trashed card considered a new copy of that card in Archives or the heap.
This is in the newest FAQ under “Trashing as a cost.” While trashing an advanced ice is not a cost, this is the closest we have to anything like it, so mayybe the ruling works the same way, i.e. you look at the game state before it was trashed to infer what happens when it is trashed. I.e. Damage Away!
The ice being trashed has nothing to do with BoN’s ability. You merely have to end the encounter to cause it to fire. Destroying an ice either due to an install or an effect immediately ends the encounter. IIRC this issue came up a while ago with Crick installing an ice over Crick during the encounter.
EDIT: I guess the point is can the ability see the trashed card? I believe the Ordinal Triggers ruling allows it.
Yeah, that wasn’t the issue. The encounter with the ICE ends. That’s not, I hope, under question.
The question is: is the ICE advanced when the encounter ends for the purposes of BoN?
The ICE is definitely advanced just before the encounter ends. It’s definitely unadvanced just after the encounter ends (it’s in the bin with no counters). How about when the trigger on Builder of Nations is both raised and resolves?
The ICE becomes unadvanced by the game process regarding trashing and hosted items. This usually happens at the fastest speed possible, I think. Presumably, the encounter ends at the same speed, being again neither a constant or a triggered effect but the machinations of the game? What happens to effects that trigger off an encounter ending? Do they see the ICE as advanced or unadvanced for their trigger?
I honestly wouldn’t like to guess!
Told a local player that starting “Find the Truth” would not result in revealing your opening hand as Adam (as starting hands are part of setup; before game starts).
An extension of this would be that you see your opening hand (+ Mulligan) before choosing your directives.
Anyone feel otherwise on this (w/ cause)?
Find the Truth in these spoilers: http://m.imgur.com/a/V9hO3
So if it’s not part of the game, there’s no need to refer to the game rules for that bit, right? I’m starting my next game with the eight of clubs, ace of diamonds, the hanged man and a Panini sticker of Gary Lineker as my opening hand…
The rulebook states that you draw your starting hand. “Find the Truth” says that when you draw a card you reveal it. There doesn’t seem to be an issue here.
(If card text was inactive when you drew starting hands, Andromeda would be pretty ruddy useless…)
Andromeda could be an exception by invoking the golden rule.
The text on Adam says “You start the game with 3 directives installed”.
But there is no “Start the game” event in the rule book.
The section that says “draw your starting hand” is in “Setup”.
Now, compare this to Jinteki Biotech, which says explicitly “Before your first turn…”
So now that we have more than 3 directives to choose from, when do you have to commit?
Presumably beginning your first game is the same as ‘start of the game’?
Game Setup
The following steps must be performed before players can begin their first game each tournament round.