Not saying you’re wrong, but just trying to clarify here, but …
Why not the stealth? The exact text is the folllwing:
“Use this ability only by spending a credit from a stealth card” - those 5 credits would have come from a stealth card right?
Is perhaps because they have to come “from a … card” as in, literally pulled off a card that instant? If that’s the case then that’s not particularly clear (though all the other cards do behave like that of course).
Being able to use them as stealth credits seems less janky than self-trashing ICE to me to be honest.
Yes, that’s why. “From a stealth card” implicitly means you aren’t spending them from your credit pool. There are plenty of cases where having credits on cards and not in your credit pool creates different interactions, such as not being forced to lose Cyberfeeder credits due to a Tollbooth.
All credits that you use from stealth cards are spent as soon as you get them. They are either reoccurring credits on a card, or credits that hang around on a card, a la ghost runner. You never actually add them to your credit pool, they are spent right off the card (as per the card’s text). With Little Engine, you gain the credits right then and there. They are simply credits. They came from a stealth card, but the credits are just credits; the game knows no difference between those and the ones you got from Dirty Laundry. There’s no separate credit pool where “stealth credits” go.
Interesting how Enforcer gets stitched up because it doesn’t specify which side the console must be on, but for example Endless Hunger doesn’t specify a side either yet can only trash cards on its own side. Is there some subtlety to that I haven’t noticed that makes that case different? Obviously that would be totally broken, but it does set a precedent for not needing to specify the side that the trashed cards should be on.
Yeah I see that those are different scenarios, yeah I guess that an effect will be more open than a cost (otherwise 2 credits could mean spend the other player’s credits).
That got me thinking though (and I’m sure this has come up before) what about “remove 1 tag” on cards like Keegan Lane as a cost? The corp doesn’t have any tags, so of course it must be from the runner (the intent here is clear obviously) but now we’re not specifying the side except it’s from the other side this time. This is a bit of a reach I guess, it just seems dumb to me that Enforcer can trash itself based on not specifying the side when it feels like other cards haven’t needed to do so.
Edit: could you install Personal Touch (mid-run of course) on a piece of that you gave ‘icebreaker’ ? …probably not otherwise there’ might be a bunch of cases where you could host stuff on the other player’s cards during normal play.
Yeah, it’s come up before. It’s kinda addressed with a bit of handwaving as far as I can tell.
As printed, Keegan Lane should not function. The golden rule shouldn’t even allow him to function unless the corporation somehow adds some tags to their tag pool.
Since the handwaving necessary is far more dramatic than the handwaving needed for E3 Feedback Implants to work as intended, and even that still got an FAQ errata, I think Keegan Lane and Lily Lockwell, both badly need an errata for everything to be rightside up.
This is actually a really good/interesting question, and I think the answer is “yes, you can.” And it would have +1 strength, as long as it was an icebreaker. Ha! I don’t see why that should ever be worth doing, but it should be functional, rules-wise.
Parasite also hosts on your opponent’s cards during play by checking if it has a valid type or subtype to do so, so this definitely works! Combo Artist Colony with D4vid and get some value!
It’s quite surprising to me that it works with its two contested actual cases (Enforcer & Wrap), but I can accept it. I sit in the crowd that subtypes must be “valid existing” for Pancha to apply, and Corp/Runner overlaps like Ritsy fix themselves because there is no Ritsy ICE. But the rules don’t specify, so people like me can’t stand on solid ground.
To be clear I think it’s very positive, especially on the vs. Wraparound case. I feel that Enforcer is unfair collateral damage and we are exposed to a can of worms in the future unless this is nipped in the bud. There’s already an issue with Awakening Center.
i sleeved up a silly Geist deck last night with 3x Panchatantra, 3x Sharpshooter, 3x Deus X, and 2x Gingerbread
lots of shenanigans ensued, but my favourite was legitimately giving Eli 1.0 an icebreaker subtype so that my Spike got the +1 strength it needed to break it
I don’t think that’s the case at all. All-Seeing I is written the same way – the fact that a) these ‘resources’ are unique to one side and b) the ‘remove’ language as part of the cost (as opposed to being written “One Tag: Effect”) makes it pretty unambiguous as to what’s going on.
The cost is ‘Remove 1 tag’, not ‘pay 1 tag’. Thus it doesn’t matter who owns it. Notice that the Runner default action also says ‘Click, 2cr: Remove 1 tag’.
Theoretically if there were a way to tag the corporation, these tags could also be Removed in the previous manners. (Would be interesting as a thought exercise, because then the Runner wouldn’t be tagged, the Corporation would be. Still, there’s nothing that currently does this in game, so it’s not worth thinking about too much.)
