By the most technical reading of the cards and rules, Spooned triggers during step 3.1 as soon as you’ve broken the last remaining unbroken sub. Spooned trashes Miraju, and you immediately pass it because it gets uninstalled, BUT at this point Miraju is no longer installed so its ability is no longer active.
Make a run. The first time you break all subroutines on a code gate during this run, trash that code gate.
I read this as happening at 3.1when the sub is broken, and per @jakodrako above, the Miraju stuff happens after 3.1 when you pass the ice. So I think spooned kills miraju.
Quick question on Wake Up Call: I’m correct to assume that the runner cannot prevent the trashing of something to both save the card trashed and avoid the 4 meat damage? And same with trying to prevent the damage done? Its either take one or the other but you can’t choose one and prevent it to skate free unharmed? The only reference I can think of is how you can’t prevent the tag on Snatch and Grab to save the connection.
You actually are allowed to do this. Snatch and Grab has a different syntax - “do X to Y”. In that case, X is a cost to effect Y, which is why prevention doesn’t work. The better comparison is Data Raven - “must X or Y”. For this structure, X and Y aren’t connected in anyway, you just choose one or the other.
The relevant text is on page 18 of the rules reference.
Ah gotcha. Thanks
If I Shipment from MirrorMorph a Jeeves, rez the Jeeves, then play 3 Biotics, does Jeeves trigger? I have been told that Jeeves does not, but multiple opponents on JNet have said that it does.
Your opponents were incorrect. Jeeves wasn’t active for the first 3 operation clicks of your turn, so he can’t trigger.
But you can Install Jeeves, rez Jeeves, then play 3 Biotics and get the Jeeves trigger…
I completely misunderstood one of the responses on here and the responses on slack, so I’m sorry if I came across as a bit of an ass in my CI game earlier. I’m glad this happened now and not during a tournament, that would have been super awkward!
If Loki gains Ravana’s subroutines, can it resolve those new subroutines to resolve a subroutine on the actual Ravana to resolve Loki’s original subroutine?
No. In this case Loki is not “another” piece of bioroid ice.
But the ravana is another to the loki and the loki is another to the ravana (I just wanted to check that you understood my plan correctly)
If the Loki is treated as the original ice for both “bounces” does that mean that the ravana could hit itself on the second bounce assuming it had some other subroutine? Not that there’s any point to this
People uses Knifed on Kakugo to avoid nets
Jeeves must be rezzed while all 3 clicks are being spent. Installed cards must be active while meeting their trigger condition, and Jeeves trigger condition is the spending of 3 clicks on the same action, not the third click.
(FAQ 4.1, p. 13)
Since it’s an ordinal event, Jeeves must be rezzed for the first 3 clicks that an operation was played (including the SfMM):
When an ability refers to a specific ordinal instance of something happening (e.g. “the first time”, “the second time”, etc.), it refers to that instance and only that instance.
(FAQ 4.1, p. 4)
I would be interested to know if there have been any rulings regarding facedown runner cards and “Derived” info. Here’s the Derived Info section of the FAQ:
Derived information is any information about the game, game
state, or cards one or more players has learned through the
process of deduction. This includes card that has been chosen
for Femme Fatale, a card hosted on another card, etc.
Derived information may be marked with the use of a token
or other indicator so that players remember the information.
A player cannot misrepresent derived information or hide the
open information necessary to discover derived information.
There are some folks on facebook suggesting this means the runner is obligated to show corp players facedown cards. The way I read this, I take it to mean they can’t rearrange their board to hide cards, but must flip them face down in place (since the identity of the cards is now “derived” from where they were before). Am I bonkers?
I too have questions about derived information.
My first ever judge call was when I was playing PE, the runner hit a Snare early on when there were 3 servers, and later wanted to run again, but wanted me to tell him where the Snare was. I declined to reveal which server had the Snare, or share my recollection of what servers he had run previously. Judge was called, and backed my interpretation of the rules; that I did not have to reveal any face-down card or remember and share which servers the runner had run and when.
The runner ran and hit a different Snare, which he again declined to trash (the runner was worried about Jackson Howard recycling the Snares back into R&D), but now marked the server with a piece of paper. This time I called the judge to ask if marking the server in this way counted as note-taking, which would not be allowed. Again, the judge agreed with my interpretation, and the marker was not allowed.
My question is: was this interpretation correct at the time? is it still correct now under this new ‘Derived Information’ rule?
How should we interpret the ‘Derived Information’ rule? At first reading, it always seems to run against most other ANR rulings I have seen on hidden information, and I am genuinely confused by it.
I share your intuition.
Also, the text bothers me because Femme and hosted cards are not learned through deduction but through declaration. There is intuitively a big difference to me between preserving deduced information versus declared information.
Yeah, I was really scratching my head at that part. I don’t know whether this is what they had in mind–and if so, it’s pretty obscure–but rearrangement effects are one way to make those work as examples of derived information obtained deductively. For example, there is unrezzed ice on HQ and R&D, I have a Femme on the R&D one, and the corp scores a Mandatory Seed Replacement and moves some ice around. I should be able to deduce which ice is Femmed afterwards based on whether the corp switched those two or left them on their original servers, and the corp isn’t allowed to shuffle them in order to obscure this information.
I don’t know whether the ruling was correct at the time, but this provision does seem to allow one to mark a Snare. My hunch is that while a simple slip of paper is an acceptable token, writing “Snare!” on it would go too far into note-taking territory. And if someone wants to try spelling out “SNARE” with power tokens, I’d be curious to hear what the judge says.
There’s also this part in the Hidden Information section:
Hidden information is any information about the game, game state, or cards unavailable to one or more players. This includes facedown cards in play or in Archives, cards in HQ or R&D, cards in the Runner’s grip or stack, a card that was exposed, but remains facedown and unrezzed, etc. If a card is temporarily revealed, it is derived information for as long as the player(s) is able to uniquely identify that card.
(FAQ 4.1, p. 10, emphasis mine)
That with quote from derived information makes it pretty clear-cut that marking accessed Snares is now legal. I checked back through some FAQ version and it looks like these sections were added with FAQ 3.1.2 (9/26/16). This is a big change from memory-focused treatment of hidden information, so I’m asking @jakodrako via ANCUR twitter: