I was right all along! Wheeeeee
Isn’t it a little more nuanced though?
The requirement for the conditional effect of Quantum Predictive Model seems to include a state of being (is tagged) and a time at which it occurs (when accessed). The requirement for the constant effect of Ice Carver only includes a time at which it occurs (encountered).
The only distinction seems to be that the time is a period for Ice Carver and an instant for QPM. Is that maybe a more accurate definition?
You’re actually correct…
New Sol puts Static up in front of Leela, who still has her hand raised. Game calls on her and she just stares blankly, “Uh… I forgot. Nevermind.”
2 Likes
If I start my turn with 1 credit, 2 Drug Dealers, and Order of Sol, how many credits do I have after paying the dealers? Does the Order of Sol trigger between Dealer 1 and 2 (lose a credit, gain one, lose one) or do both Dealers collect at the same time (lose a credit, don’t pay the second Dealer, gain a credit)? I’m guessing the former. Thanks!
Order of Sol is a constant effect, so yes - you’d trigger Order of Sol between Drug Dealers.
Edited: Not a constant effect. Just a cascading trigger.
1 Like
I think that’s a cascading trigger situation. When you have multiple effects triggered by the same event, you chose the order, but if other effects are triggered by resolving one event, you resolve those before going back to the intial “list” of effects.
So, start of turn triggers both copies of Drug Dealer.
- Resolve Drug Dealer #1:
- Trigger effect of Order of Sol happens. No simultaneous effects for “The first time you have no credits” so resolve Order of Sol.
- Back to the initial list of triggered events from the start of turn. Resolve Drug Dealer #2.
3 Likes
Jacob has just explained that “the first time” is seen as a conditional ability, so no it won’t be a constant effect.
1 Like
Arg, you’re right.
I don’t know what the current correct terms are, but it’s worth noting that as OoS has no “when” it is ‘constantly’ looking for its trigger, and thus precedes all other priorities. this is why it can trigger between the cost and resolution of a sure gamble, and why if you go into your turn broke (by spending you corp-turn OoS credit on a personal workshop, for example) you will always gain the credit before drug dealer looks to take it from you.
All cards are ‘constantly’ looking for their triggers. The difference is between Parasite/Ice Carver, which state something is true about the game given a condition (Ice has 0 str: Trash it, Ice being Encountered: -1 Str) and cards like Order of Sol/Security Testing which trigger WHEN a thing happens. (Your credit pool is 0 for the first time: Gain 1, You’ve made a successful run on the chosen server for the first time this turn: Gain 2 instead of accessing any cards.)
The reason it triggers between cost and resolution of Sure Gamble, and between two Drug Dealers, is that we have Cascading Triggers. During the resolution of an action, a trigger would happen, resolve the result of that trigger, then go back and finish the resolution.
I’m not one hundred percent sure on what happens if you start your turn broke with Drug Dealer out. It looks like Order of Sol happens before ‘when your turn begins’ triggers happen, as there’s a step before those where it could trigger.
2 Likes
So I was glancing through this thread and it seemed like there was a bunch of discussion about “playing cards that don’t have an expected effect is not allowed” stuff? Like you can’t use Scavenge on Femme Fatale with an empty heap because the card would have no effect, because you’re supposed to ignore that Femme would actually come back?
I couldn’t really find where the discussion started, but I’d like to know where that stuff comes from. I’m assuming it’s an FAQ that adds extra rules to the game because I don’t remember that being in the rulebook. It sounds massively counterintuitive and painful and awful though, and I would greatly prefer the much saner rules of every other game I’ve played where if you perform an action and nothing happened, ok, cool, nothing happened.
Questions:
When The Foundry rezzes their third copy of an ice, can they search their R&D just to get the shuffle? Can they rez their second copy of ice, search the R&D for a third, and not retrieve it even though it’s in there?(Magic allows this, with the idea of a search being something that can fail, and also because it’s kinda rough to expect people to accurately find a needle in a haystack on-pain-of-rules-infraction punishment)
Or is The Foundry required and expected to keep track of where all their ice is an never make unnecessary searches - if they do make a mistake, they put things back the way they were (which seems kinda crazy if only the runner has knowledge of the top or bottom of R&D)
If you Test Run and there are no programs in your heap or stack, was the Test Run illegal because it could never have changed the game state? Do you restore the randomized and unrandomized portions of the deck to the way they were and give the runner back 3 creds and a click?
[quote=“FAQ Page 3, Column 1, Paragraph 10”]
A player can only trigger an action or ability if its effect has the potential to change the game state. This potential is assessed without taking into account the consequences of paying play, install, or rez costs or triggering any further abilities.[/quote]
[quote=“FAQ Page 5, Column 1, Paragraph 5”]
If a player is searching for a card, he or she must find the card, if able. If a player is unable to fulfill the condition of the search, then nothing happens, but the deck is always reshuffled.[/quote]
So…
Yes. A shuffle is a change in game state. You can attempt to search for a thing, but then you fail to find it.
No. You must find something if you search for it.
I don’t believe that is a consideration at all. There are only so many cards in a deck.
No. Because you can fail a search and a shuffle is a change in game state, this literally can never be an issue. Again, there are only so many cards in a deck. If a card is in there, you can be expected to find it.
Yes, the Test Run in that situation should never have been played in the first place.
No, since failing to find still results in shuffling and thus a change in game state, the Test Run is allowed.
That’s a question for the tournament/floor rules, not the game rules. But yes, that is how I would expect an illegal game state like that to be resolved (edit to add: though the Test Run is legal, so it doesn’t matter).
Wait, but to the first question, you said that shuffle is a change of game state. So doesn’t that mean as long as there are at least 2 cards in the stack, and whiffed Test Run is legal because it did have a change on the game state? Shuffling is one of the effects of Test Run that’s not based on costs or other abilities.
Haha yes good call. I was mixing up with Scavenge.
Wich is still not clear for many.
Based on this ruling, we can assume this formula :
Cost to X = X cost (the printed cost + any modification) + additional cost to X
But when I see this rule, there are no clue to what part of the equation we need to look at.
Cost to X ? X cost ?
Those who lean towards X cost are basing their theory on litteral interpretation. What can we say to prove them wrong ?
A cost to install / play / rez a card consists of a credit cost (printed + modifiers) plus any additional costs (extra credits, or something else). A cost to use (trigger) a paid ability consists of whatever is written before the colon, plus any additional costs (Midway Station Grid).
Paying costs has its own consequences, which can affect the game state, and might trigger abilities of cards in play. For example:
- you pay credits and go down to 0$, Order of Sol triggers and gives you 1$.
- you forfeit Superior Cyberwalls to play 24/7, a barrier gos down to 0 str and gets trashed by Parasite.
- you sacrifice a program to play Scavenge, Wasteland triggers and gives you 1$.
All these effects change the game state. But they are the consequences of paying costs, not resolving effects.
When accessing the potential of whether playing a card or activating an ability can change the game state, you do not take into account the consequences of paying costs (losing credits or agenda points, trashing cards in hand or in play, etc).
For playing / installing / rezzing cards, you do not look at their credit cost or any text that says “as an additional cost…”.
For triggering abilities, you do not look at what’s written before the colon.
And for both, you do not look at abilities on other cards that might trigger off either a cost being paid, or the card’s effect.
Actually, I think that “play, install, or rez costs” doesn’t cover it all, it should also mention “trigger costs” for abilities (e.g. Geist trashing a Clone Chip to draw a card while his heap is empty is not explicitly prohibited here).
I’m also not sure whether costs for optional conditional abilities qualify as trigger costs, and whether they are covered by this ruling or not (e.g. can the corp pay 1$ to use Project Junebug with no counters on it). As far as I remember, paying those costs counts as ‘using’ the card (e.g. can spend Toolbox recurring credits for Femme Fatale’s bypass conditional ability).
I meant something like that :
But I don’t think it’s that simple. Specially if you are meticulous about terminology.
If you look in the FAQ / Core rulebook you’ll see those definition :
- Rez cost: The credits that the Corporation must pay in order to rez a card.
- The play cost is the number in the top left corner of operation and event cards, representing how many credits a player has to pay in order to play that operation/event
- Install Cost: The cost which must be paid in order for a card to be installed. (Ice has an install cost of 1 for each piece of ice already installed protecting the server. Most Runner cards — Hardware, Resources, and Programs have an install cost listed on the card in the top left corner)
We also learn that :
- Rez and play costs are formulas that take into account any effects that modify them. They are not just the printed number on the card.
(BTW, I think it’s the same for install cost right ?)
But when you look at Running Interference you notice that this formula does not include additional cost.
So strictly speaking, rez and play costs are only credit cost (printed + modifiers).
With the ruling about recurring credit and additional cost, we learn that there is “something” that include both rez/play/install costs and their additional cost. Since we cannot call it rez/play/install costs, I spoke of them as “cost to rez/play/install”.
So, what makes some players disagree with @jakodrako about the Scavenge ruling is that the rules speaks only of the consequences of paying the rez/play/install cost.
Trashing a program for Scavenge is a consequence of paying the additional cost. It is also a consequence of paying the cost to play Scavenge. But it is not a consequence of paying Scavenge play cost.
Good points.
I think that the definition of play / rez / install costs in the core rulebook can be treated as inaccurate due to the early stage of the game when it was written, at which point it was difficult to foresee all these complex interactions. Of course, if so, a clarification in the FAQ would be helpful.
I guess that Running Interference does not include additional costs because it is itself an additional cost. When you’re paying costs, you pay the base [modified] cost, plus any additional costs. But these modify only the base [modified] cost, not each other. Again, it’s not explicitly stated in the rules, but it is an explanation I think.
I believe that we should not differentiate ‘play cost’ and ‘cost to play’. I’d say that:
Play cost = base [modified] play cost + additional costs.I’m 100% with you on that matter.
But updating the definition is something only FFG (Lukas ?) can do.
(As for Running Interference, the result would be the same even if you use it with Cortez Chip.)