I think that’s tenuous and is just semantical quibbling. Compare to Endless Hunger as mentioned before: “Trash an installed card”. It’s doesn’t say “Pay by trashing 1 card” or anything along the lines of spending, yet you must trash your own. Semantically tags are not something that you would ‘spend’ as such in the same way as wouldn’t ‘spend’ 3 cards from your hand - so it would be weird to say ‘pay/spend a tag’, just like it’s weird to say ‘pay a card from your hand’ when really they mean trash a card. Don’t get me wrong, the intent is clear for sure, but the semantics are used in rulings and so it would be nice if they were applied consistently. 
2 Likes
If a card provides a cost to pay, it’s implicitly allowing you to pay it. Normally you cannot simply trash an installed card whenever you want to, but Endless Hunger allows you to trash an installed card in order to pay its cost to use its ability. If that weren’t the case, you’d have no way to actually use its ability. Therefore, cards can have costs that are not something you could normally do, and the card’s cost allows you to do that thing in order to pay for it. Jackson Howard’s cost is “remove Jackson Howard from the game” – how is that different from “remove a tag”?
I think our posts are not quite meeting each other straight on here, so bear that in mind. I agree that both allow you do things that are not normally doable and it’s fine that the ‘cost’ allows you to do that - in that sense they are not different, no. However, I was responding to CrushU’s assertion that the reason it could be *either player’*s tag (and so the runner as the corp doesn’t have any) was simply that it didn’t say ‘pay’. My point was that if that was the case then with that rationale Endless Hunger would not be limited in such a way either, because hey you can’t normally just trash the corp’s cards either so how do we know which one we’re now trashing?
In fact it was you earlier that said “Endless Hunger requires the Runner to trash an installed card to pay a cost.” and felt that simply that was a satisfactory explanation as to why EH can’t trash a corp’s card. So really, I’d ask you to expand on that if costs are not implicitly your own materials unless otherwise specified, because that was what I took from it and you didn’t correct me.
PS - this thread is basically nonsense now. Apologies for my part in it.
1 Like
Sorry about the formatting issues. Having some trouble with my computer.
I heard this thread is currently Damon’s home page. He’s been touting Pancha as the first design triumph of his New Order. When asked what percentage of winning deck lists will use the program, he replied simply, “I cannot speak for a meta that I transcended long ago.”
20 Likes
No apology necessary.
1 Like
You can give a piece of ice icebreaker in order to pump up the Breaking and Entering suite!
2 Likes
Somewhat off-topic, but: that is correct. No arguing rules is allowed, as far as I know. The TO is welcome to ask for your feedback but otherwise you’re not supposed to argue a specific rule interaction. If anything weird happens during the game you call the judge, explain the situation, and follow their ruling.
5 Likes
Oooooh.
Are we ready to discuss again how Endless Hunger can trash Corp cards again, as worded?
14 Likes
8 Likes
How about you can only pay for costs with your own cards, unless the resource is one sided? You can remove bad pub from the Corp for cards. You can remove tags, cause only one side acquires tags, but you can’t trash the Corp cards for the same reason you can’t spend Corp money to install programs.
"Limit 1 region per server."
There’s no in/inside mention.
I’d say the corp can’t rez a region until end of run if the real region in this server is not rez.
And you couldn’t name it a region if the real region is allready rez in this server.
Like the Console subtype for Hardware cards ?
This feels like my time as a GW manager when weasely kids would try to bend/break/subvert the rules or how they thought the English language might work to gain some sort of advantage and normally devolved into “it doesn’t say I can’t in the rules” to which my response was normally “it doesn’t say I can’t throw your space marines out of the window, so I’ll do that shall I?”.
If people are trying to weasel interactions that don’t work at a tournament (because they think they “should”, or because they’re trying to hoodwink an opponent, or they’re just ignorant, or haven’t read the rules or FAQ, or any other reason), then calling the TO over and getting the official ruling is fine. If the person then continues to argue with the TO (specifically when they’re blatantly wrong), then they should get a warning.
If the TO is wrong, or you have clear evidence to the contrary you could certainly present it for consideration - but the example FFG are using here is someone trying to subvert the use of subtypes (purposefully or accidentally) and the TO should happily set them right. Whether or not individual TOs have sufficient knowledge and a Judge’s program is needed etc. is a separate discussion - but arguing with a judge about how you think something should work is ultimately only going to end up one way. It’s cool to have rules discussions on these boards, or seek clarification from FFG, trying to determine how something like this works in the middle of a tournament and arguing with TOs isn’t.
Incidentally, a good way of getting a list of subtypes is to go to your favorite deck-building website and use one of their drop downs 
7 Likes
Text on region cards is a reminder, not a rule. The full rule is in the rulebook (and specifically says that the limitation applies to region upgrades).
How often does this have to be mentioned?
9 Likes
I like the idea of just calling Architect an arsehole, because even though you are certain it exists, you never really want to ever see it.
Can’t see why it wouldn’t; ICE have strength too. 'Course, D4v1d tokens are a pretty limited resource.