Yes, this is the situation I have questions about. Is the corp compelled to tell the runner about what server(s) they have previously run on when asked, even if it was many turns ago?
To my knowledge this is a significant change introduced by the derived information ruling.
Should the corp be to “tap” facedown accessed cards then ?
(so you can identify these and tell which they are to a lazy runner, by the way a runner that won’t miss the opportunity of being lazy there, just because the cognitive load switch sides.)
The rule prohibits preventing each other from observing open information. It doesn’t follow that players are required to remember all information and divulge it upon request.
It’s like this: I have a remote with an exposed but unrezzed Ash in it. On turn N, I install a Breaker Bay Grid. If I install it in such a way that the runner can’t see which was which, they can ask “which of those is the card you’re installing right now?” and I would have to tell them, because it’s open information at the time of install. On turn N+10, which card is which is derived information. It’s a pretty trivial derivation, assuming you remember (or used tokens to mark) the original open information, but nobody is obligated to perform it for you.
@ovamod7 this is how the game worked before. Today it is what you said plus :
As the runner, you access a card in a remote, reveal it but decide not to trash. The information “that card was a snare” is considered derived until the end of the game.
You can mark the snare, or forget it.
Then since :
As the corp, you’re supposed to tell the runner which card he accessed until the end of the game.
So, since :
Then the runner will always choose to forget. If the corp make a mistake there, a runner could theorically make an observation to a judge.
Second automatical thing, all snares and non advancable ambushes should never be trashed (unless the board states otherwise but this is quite rare). Before, by not trashing those, you took a risk to forget those. Now you don’t even take this risk.
Third : you run that snare, let it on board. Two turn after, the runner ask what was this card and you reply snare. Three turns after, the corp replace it with a 3/x but the runner wasn’t paying attention. Then corp scores. Since the runner doesn’t know when this card was replaced (or can pretend not to be aware), he can theorically raise legitimatly or not a doubt about the corp’s sincerity when he asked two turns after his first run.
This is what I call a security belt for the runner. But a bad one.
This is not fluff because I don’t know why a corporate should provide one to runners attackings them, and this is strange because listening / talking stance corp and runner had are switched.
Notice that I lost a consequent number of game running a server I shouldn’t run. As a runner I will stupidly abuse this until they discover this is not the best change they made to the game.
This is the part you’ve misunderstood. The corp has to share open information. (The corp also can’t lie about derived information.) Facedown cards are hidden information, and the corp explicitly does not have to tell you which ones you have previously accessed.
@ovamod7 I think the corp have to tell :
I put an ash, don’t rez it. You acces it then you decide not to trash. Turn after, I put an agenda there. The runner can ask which one is the ash. So the ash is not “hidden information” and stay derived.
It stay derived by the rule you just told before (ie “can’t shuffle/offuscate cards in remotes”). You can learn which one is the ash “by deduction” then, so the ash enters pretty much the derived information definition :
=> 419 will be quite a lazy boy.
If possible, i’d like to understand what this adresses in the game beside Maw and FF. Because if this is only for those cards, there is rulings for that.
If this is to create more “wtf where is my dice” effects like Maw on HQ, then it’s a very bad decision in my opinion.
If this adress unspoiled problems, then I think there should be a better way than reversing the responsability of run for an exposing / non trashing runner.
A runner headplanting a snare that he exposed in a remote should loose 3 cards and maybe the game. It’s his responsability.
Oh, I see; you’re reading “derived” and “hidden” as opposites. The way I’ve been interpreting it is that everything is either open or hidden, and derived information is a kind of hidden information.
Either way, though, I don’t understand how you’re getting from “A player cannot misrepresent derived information or hide the open information necessary to discover derived information” to “A player has to divulge all of the information that their opponent could derive.”
Because he cannot misrepresent that information ?
He can’t say “well I can’t remember ?” whether he remembers or not ? In that exemple ash stay derived so the corp have to not misrepresent it until rez / the end of the game ?
And this opens pratices of bad will with runners that’ll ask “I don’t remember the servers I accessed, can you list them ?”. The corp can make a mistake there and the runner just have to tell “thanks” ?
I’m warning and said that I’ll abuse that. I think this is bad.
Sure he can! He can say “I can’t remember,” or even “I remember, but don’t want to tell you.” Those are not misrepresentations. The only thing he can’t do is say “this card [points to Government Takeover] is the Snare you accessed several turns ago”
Both are a blatant misrepresentations to me ?
the information was known to both player, it can’t be transofrm into unknown anymore without changing its representation (this may be the philosophical design of my langage there).
Please make sure to read the rules.
Since you’re quoting my text of the rules, I should chime in. There is nowhere in the new rules that compels either player to answer any questions about the derived information. You can’t lie, but you don’t have to answer. Maybe “misrepresent” means something more in French, but it does not in English.
The new rules allows players to keep track for themselves.
I have not see this compulsion anywhere in the rules. Have you come across any text where it can be implied?
He have to answer, and we agree that this can’t be a lie.
I’d agree “misrepresent” could have switch sense since it came in the english langage from french then to US from english, but I think by just reading its definition that this should be pretty clear to me.
Your opponent cannot hide open information. It’s in your quote.
Open information is specifically defined (that’s why my first sentence was to review the rules):
Open Information
Open information is any information about the game, game state, or cards that is available to both players. This includes faceup cards in Archives and the Heap, the number of cards in HQ, R&D, the stack, and the grip, the number of credits in a credit pool, and any other information continuously available to both players.
Open information is the right of every player and cannot be hidden from an opponent. A player must allow their opponent to discover the information themselves if they attempt to do so.
Related: Archives, Corp, Credit, Credit Pool, Expose, Facedown, Faceup, Grip, Headquarters (HQ), Research and Development (R&D), Reveal, Rez, Runner, Stack, Unrezzed
(RR1.0, p. 16)
Derived information is not open information.
I see, I think I’m wrong now 
Would have understood with two sentences but whatever. #englishreading101
Just a last question to close that question for me : are accesses (in remotes) an open information ?
Because the runner could say “but you and me saw that I accessed one snare, now where is it please ?”
This is leading to exposes = open or not.
-edit- oh and many thanks for your patience btw
-edit2- I’m not implying open are un-temporal information like derived is.
No, I don’t think so. Before FAQ 3.1.2, Netrunner just had definitions for hidden and open information. But, there were situations where the information was hidden, but known, so it was harder to classify. That’s why I think they made a new definition for derived information. So if a card is accessed/exposed it goes from hidden to derived. It doesn’t become open information at any point, in my reading.
Even in the language of open information there doesn’t seem to be any compulsion. If the runner asks the Corp how many cards in HQ, it doesn’t seem like they have to verbally say. Although that’s polite and sporting, and in 99% of games will. But, they do have to “allow the player to discover for themselves.”
EDIT: You’re welcome.
Honestly I 100% prefered to be wrong on that !
Thinking of this again, I think in 4.5 (access), because of the gamestate, that accessed card is open information, then again because of the gamestate, after 4.5, it’s not open anymore.
Same for expose : at expose resolution time, it’s open and then it’s, err, “closed” information.
Case closed for me.
Fair enough. But, I don’t know why it can’t just be derived and only derived information, as to what was accessed.
Sure, spending a click 3 to make a run and accessing is part of the game state’s open information and is the right of both players. But, to me, what was accessed goes from hidden to derived.
And that game state’s open information needs to be tracked by both players, but thankfully there’s no card I can think of that would require you to remember beyond my opponent’s last turn and my current turn, that isn’t handled by other means. So, most players just learn to remember well enough.
Glad everyone sorted it out. This is a strictly better version of netrunner. As usual, it may be a little unclearly written (especially with regard to R&D ordering), but those details can be sorted out.
Also maybe some day FFG will just let us take notes (which by the way will not slow the game down lmao). crosses fingers
so what is the end result tl;dr here?