I’d guess it works in a similar manner to Jackson (the first scenario you outlined); if the server is no longer around, then everything stops dead in its tracks; if the ICE that’s being encountered is no longer active, then the encounter window immediately ends. Along the same vein, the FAQ entry for ICE destruction:
Destruction of Ice
If a piece of ice is destroyed during an approach or encounter with that piece of ice, then the ice is immediately passed and the run continues. Any open paid ability window closes immediately.
That said, this is just my best guess, and destruction is definitely not the same as deactivation. Playing devil’s advocate, cards like Archangel could be used as a counter stance to show that inactive cards can still be encountered (though I’d argue that’s moreso golden rule than generally-applicable).
Well, perhaps Jackson was a bad example (not certain if that’s how that works though). Regardless, ICE destruction windows do immediately close the window, and that’s closer to the point anyway.
Checked the FAQ to make sure I’m not bullshitting.
[quote=“FAQ 3.1.2. Effective from 9.26.2016”]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. Unless the run has passed step
4.4 of the timing structure of a run, it is not considered to be
successful or unsuccessful.[/quote]
Also, your quote is from an old FAQ, I think.
[quote=“FAQ 3.1.2. Effective from 9.26.2016”]Destruction of Ice
If a piece of ice is destroyed during an approach or encounter
with that piece of ice, then the ice is immediately passed and
the run continues after any currently open paid ability windows
close.[/quote]
My apologies it looks like I was referencing an out of date FAQ (for both the Jackson point and ICE derez). I’d lean closer to the window staying open given this.
I wouldn’t say deactivation is inherently the same as destruction, but, if the paid ability window stays open when an ICE is destroyed, I can only imagine it stays open when the ICE is just derezzed.
Prevent effects are used in response to the event they monitor occurring. You use the paid effect in response to the runner using their ICE breaker, or clicking, or somehow otherwise breaking the routine.
Prevent effects don’t require the normal action windows.
So I take it then that Tyr’s Hand will need to be rezzed before the runner’s encounter window? So if the runner spends their last three clicks to break all the subs on Fairchild 3.0 the Corp cannot then rez Tyr’s Hand and prevent one of the subs from being broken.
It would be nice to have a surprise factor for Tyr’s Hand. Some text that reads “Tyr’s Hand can be rezzed whenever the runner uses an ability on an Icebreaker”.
I guess I should’ve read the card instead of just going from memory. My bad.
It seems like the kind of card that should be good but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it played. It needs something extra like if the sub could not be broken again or the runner had to pay 1 click to prevent the prevention.
I do like the “interrupt” template that CQ uses better, but you can basically look at any ability that contains the text prevent or avoid as an interrupt/reaction effect that counters the effect it is interrupting/reacting to.
It is noted in the core rules (page 21):
Prevent or Avoid
Some card abilities use the words “prevent” or “avoid.” Prevent or avoid effects are the only effects which can disrupt another effect. A prevent or avoid effect states what it is preventing or avoiding, and an effect that is prevented or avoided is not resolved. Prevent or avoid effects can be triggered whenever the effect they are preventing or avoiding is resolving.
The fact that the runner can just break the sub again is what causes this to be bad. Though, if it didn’t let them break the sub again, it might be too good. If you gave it both the click to stop the prevention along with the unbreakable (if they don’t click) clause, it might be in a better spot.
It might not be all bad with 2.0 and 3.0 ice. You could have some fun if the runner facechecks a Fairchild 3.0 first click and expects to make it through untouched. But yeah, as a card slot, it would probably be better as something else.
Re: derezzing ice. If the ice is derezzed you immediately pass the ice as you are no longer encountering it. You would go to the next paid ability window and the runner would have priority first.
I don’t see how it’s unintuitive. Destruction of ice says that you immediately pass the ice. Immediately. It forces closed the currently open paid ability windows.
Quick edit: not sure that the faq change is saying that the currently open window stays open until players say it is done? I think they just worded it differently to avoid issues with your own abilities that are waiting to resolve.
Second edit: after some more thought, I think you’re probably right that the window stays open until both players pass priority. I was still in the old faq thinking. What a weird faq change.
