Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
46 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Rules

Subject: The shocking truth about Wotan and Scheherazade rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Andrew Keddie
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Got my answers to some questions I submitted a while back.

Original questions:

A few rules questions...

If a runner uses Decoy or New Angeles City Hall to avoid the tag from Data Raven, does the run end?

Similarly, if the Runner uses Sacrificial Construct or Feedback Filter/Monolith to prevent program trashing or brain damage when encountering Wotan, does the run end?

Finally, which Caissa programs can move from Scheherazade if installed there first? Will all Caissa receive the same errata as Pawn regarding hosting vs. hosting on ICE?

Many thanks!

Lukas wrote:
Thanks for the questions.


If the Runner avoids the tag, the run does not end, since he still resolved the effect of taking the tag. Same thing for saving programs with Wotan.


Only Pawn can move from Scheherezade.


Hope that helps,
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel D
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well that ruins part of my economy plans :/
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Silver
United States
Lino Lakes
Minnesota
flag msg tools
C'mon You Loons!
badge
United FC! -----------The Team for Me! ---- Minnesota! ----------- L-O-V-E! -------------
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well that makes Scheherazade less good...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FirstName LastName
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Errrrr....? The text on Bishop clearly allows it to be moved off of Scheherazade. I would expect an errata if they intend for it to become stuck on Scheherazade.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel D
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DrTall wrote:
Errrrr....? The text on Bishop clearly allows it to be moved off of Scheherazade. I would expect an errata if they intend for it to become stuck on Scheherazade.


A re-read of Bishop does seem to only restrict it if it's already on ICE, which it isn't. You could make a strong case for Knight as well since the restriction only applies to the "ice that is not installed directly before or after the current piece of ice hosting Knight" which is none of them.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Keddie
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Dovian wrote:
DrTall wrote:
Errrrr....? The text on Bishop clearly allows it to be moved off of Scheherazade. I would expect an errata if they intend for it to become stuck on Scheherazade.


A re-read of Bishop does seem to only restrict it if it's already on ICE, which it isn't. You could make a strong case for Knight as well since the restriction only applies to the "ice that is not installed directly before or after the current piece of ice hosting Knight" which is none of them.


I agree. Based on the wording that's how I had previously parsed the rules. Word of Lukas says otherwise. I am disappoint. Planned to use Scheherazade as an economy engine in my Reina deck.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel D
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CommissarFeesh wrote:
Dovian wrote:
DrTall wrote:
Errrrr....? The text on Bishop clearly allows it to be moved off of Scheherazade. I would expect an errata if they intend for it to become stuck on Scheherazade.


A re-read of Bishop does seem to only restrict it if it's already on ICE, which it isn't. You could make a strong case for Knight as well since the restriction only applies to the "ice that is not installed directly before or after the current piece of ice hosting Knight" which is none of them.


I agree. Based on the wording that's how I had previously parsed the rules. Word of Lukas says otherwise. I am disappoint. Planned to use Scheherazade as an economy engine in my Reina deck.


Ditto. I mean Word of Lukas overrules actually reading the card of course but one would hope they'd word cards in the same cycle more carefully especially with such a strong economy engine hinging on it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Stewart
United States
Owego
NY
flag msg tools
designer
www.drunkassgames.com
badge
!!!NERD ALERT!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the card is pretty clear without the ruling. "If already hosted,..." Any Caissa that has this statement will have a hard time with sheh'.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel D
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Glamdryn wrote:
I think the card is pretty clear without the ruling. "If already hosted,..." Any Caissa that has this statement will have a hard time with sheh'.


The reason there's confusion:

The "If already hosted..." conditionals on Knight/Bishop tell you which ICE cannot host them based on what ICE they're currently on.

The "If already hosted..." conditional on Rook tells you which ICE can host it based on the ICE it's currently on.

It stands to reason if Knight/Bishop aren't hosted on an ICE then they're also not restricted in where they can move.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mplain
Russia
flag msg tools
mbmb
I guess Lukas was drunk, should ask him again tomorrow.
19 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Stewart
United States
Owego
NY
flag msg tools
designer
www.drunkassgames.com
badge
!!!NERD ALERT!!!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When ruling on cards, you must read those sentences as being mutually exclusive. Take those sentences as stand alone and you will come to the truth that is lukas.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mad Scientist Philip von Doomula
United States
Orono
ME
flag msg tools
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
badge
I got in everyone's hostile little face. Yes, these are wooden cubes from boardgaming. Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I am enlightened.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Lukas should get this in the next FAQ as soon as possible because it is not readily apparent on the cards.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ony Moose
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, Rook shouldn't be able to move, Knight should and Bishop should probably be able to move off too.

Bishop says it can move to any ice not hosting a caissia, then restricts that by saying:
It can only move to central ice ,if its being hosted by remote ice. (Not true, since Bishop isn't on remote ice so this restriction doesn't apply)
It can only move to remote ice, if itsbeing hosted by central ice. (Again not true for scheezade)

You can read it another way, as saying Bishop can't move to a central ice, unless its currently on a remote ice. This would still let Bishop move to awakening centre ice no matter what, but it would then be stuck!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, there goes my Reina Chess deck. Poor anarchs, they finally got an economic engine and now they've lost it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel D
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To be fair the Caissa are all extremely cheap in the first place. Allowing them to bounce of Scheherazade would make the deck hum probably just as nicely as HB Core does.

Overall it's disappointing, but probably won't completely cripple their use as support cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dovian wrote:
To be fair the Caissa are all extremely cheap in the first place. Allowing them to bounce of Scheherazade would make the deck hum probably just as nicely as HB Core does.

Overall it's disappointing, but probably won't completely cripple their use as support cards.

Please, even without this absurd restriction I highly doubt a chess deck would be on the same league as a Criminal deck or a Shaper Atman deck.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Guze
United States
Redmond
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kroen wrote:
Dovian wrote:
To be fair the Caissa are all extremely cheap in the first place. Allowing them to bounce of Scheherazade would make the deck hum probably just as nicely as HB Core does.

Overall it's disappointing, but probably won't completely cripple their use as support cards.

Please, even without this absurd restriction I highly doubt a chess deck would be on the same league as a Criminal deck or a Shaper Atman deck.


Well, kroen just dismissed chess decks. Might as well just give up and go home. It's pointless to even try making one.
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Louis Schiffer
msg tools
I don't know about knight, but bishop definately can't. Wording on card: if already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.

The key parts being, "if Bishop is on ice protecting a blah server." If bishop on is on Shah' the first statement that restricts its movement is true while both statements that allow it to move are not. Thus it can go nowhere.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LouisSchiffer wrote:
I don't know about knight, but bishop definately can't. Wording on card: if already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.

The key parts being, "if Bishop is on ice protecting a blah server." If bishop on is on Shah' the first statement that restricts its movement is true while both statements that allow it to move are not. Thus it can go nowhere.


Oh God, it's a scope ambiguity gulp

At first I thought the "it can't move" people were just crazy, but now I see it. Like most of y'all, the way I had been reading the last two sentences was that each one places a single, conditional restriction on Bishop's movement as already specified, that is, if it's on ice protecting a remote server, it can't be hosted on anything other than central ice. If it's not, then disregard. (And mutatis mutandis the other way around.)

But, instead of reading "Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server" as a restriction of the form "Bishop can only be hosted etc," if you squint really hard, it might be possible to read it as an elaboration of the permission, i.e.: "If Bishop is on a remote server, Bishop can be hosted, [but?] only on central server ice."

However, I still maintain that the latter reading is weird and misleadingly redundant at best, and not at all what a normal person would mean when using those sentences, and that the more plausible reading would have been the one where Bishop is allowed to move.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Painter
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
LouisSchiffer wrote:
I don't know about knight, but bishop definately can't. Wording on card: if already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.

The key parts being, "if Bishop is on ice protecting a blah server." If bishop on is on Shah' the first statement that restricts its movement is true while both statements that allow it to move are not. Thus it can go nowhere.


Aside from the fact that I think these cards should all have been worded better, I don't think that your interpretation is strictly correct.

If the word "only" came in the second clauses, i.e.

Quote:
If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted on ice protecting a central server only if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server only if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.


then there would be no way to move it off Scheherazade, but that's not correct. The position of the word is critical.

EDIT:

Similarly, if the word "only" came right after "can" it would prevent moving from Scheherazade in the way kobold47 mentions. But again, I think the position of the word "only" is incorrect for this interpretation.


Bishop wrote:

[Click]: Host Bishop on a piece of ice not hosting a Caïssa. If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.


Condition 1:
If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server.

BUT if Bishop is on Scheherazade it's not on ice protecting a remote server, therefore the restriction in bold does not apply.

Condition 2:
[Bishop can be hosted only] on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.

Again, if Bishop is on Scheherazade it's not on ice protecting a central server, therefore the bolded restriction once again does not apply.

Conclusion:
If Bishop is NOT on ice protecting either a central server or remote server, it can be hosted on any ice protecting either a central or remote server.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kaiwen Zhang
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
Welcome to Zombo.com!
badge
Art of life
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pfft, real chess players host them on scheherazade anyway to pawnshop them who needs to use caissa for their actual effect
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Louis Schiffer
msg tools
spaint2k wrote:
LouisSchiffer wrote:
I don't know about knight, but bishop definately can't. Wording on card: if already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.

The key parts being, "if Bishop is on ice protecting a blah server." If bishop on is on Shah' the first statement that restricts its movement is true while both statements that allow it to move are not. Thus it can go nowhere.


Aside from the fact that I think these cards should all have been worded better, I don't think that your interpretation is strictly correct.

If the word "only" came in the second clauses, i.e.

Quote:
If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted on ice protecting a central server only if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server only if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.


then there would be no way to move it off Scheherazade, but that's not correct. The position of the word is critical.

EDIT:

Similarly, if the word "only" came right after "can" it would prevent moving from Scheherazade in the way kobold47 mentions. But again, I think the position of the word "only" is incorrect for this interpretation.


Bishop wrote:

[Click]: Host Bishop on a piece of ice not hosting a Caïssa. If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.


Condition 1:
If already hosted, Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server.

BUT if Bishop is on Scheherazade it's not on ice protecting a remote server, therefore the restriction in bold does not apply.

Condition 2:
[Bishop can be hosted only] on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.

Again, if Bishop is on Scheherazade it's not on ice protecting a central server, therefore the bolded restriction once again does not apply.

Conclusion:
If Bishop is NOT on ice protecting either a central server or remote server, it can be hosted on any ice protecting either a central or remote server.


Actually I just realize the problem. the "if bishop is already hosted" introduces an either or for which neither of the conditionals are true and are those false. This creates a restriction with a null set and thus it can't me.

Follow me here

A) If already hosted

fine so far,now the next bit

B) Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server, or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server

deleting we have a statement that says

either if Y than X or if P than Q

where
Y: hosted on a remote
X: can be hosted only on a central
P: hosted on a central
Q: can be hosted only on a remote

Now as we know being hosted on Shah' renders both Y and P false. Therefore their what follows in their statements are false. Thus, X and Q don't follow. Now by your argumentation that means "can be hosted not only on a central." However, the entire statement is false, not just the only. My Logic skills might be failing me here, but I believe if one statement is false its inverse should be true. And the inverse of the previous statement isn't, as you ascribe, "can be host not only on a central". But rather "can't be hosted not only on a central". Importantly, its can be hosted clause is negated as well as the limiting clause. They are not one clause, this is a complex statement with multiple parts and thus both are reverse if the inverse is true.

Thus we have a statement like if already hosted [on Shah'], Bishop can't be hosted not only on a central, or Bishop can't be hosted not only on a remote.

thus we have an either/or between two non-hosting options and cannot host


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel D
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
LouisSchiffer wrote:
Now as we know being hosted on Shah' renders both Y and P false. Therefore their what follows in their statements are false. Thus, X and Q don't follow. Now by your argumentation that means "can be hosted not only on a central." However, the entire statement is false, not just the only. My Logic skills might be failing me here, but I believe if one statement is false its inverse should be true. And the inverse of the previous statement isn't, as you ascribe, "can be host not only on a central". But rather "can't be hosted not only on a central". Importantly, its can be hosted clause is negated as well as the limiting clause. They are not one clause, this is a complex statement with multiple parts and thus both are reverse if the inverse is true.

Thus we have a statement like if already hosted [on Shah'], Bishop can't be hosted not only on a central, or Bishop can't be hosted not only on a remote.


Your interpretation of the inverse flies in the face of any kind of accepted inversion. The initial statement is "can be hosted only on a central." To invert it you add one negation statement somewhere within. Adding two ("can't be hosted not only on a central") means you're negating a negation (double negative) which would be the same as a positive.

The Bishop's hosting rules are two clauses but their separation is horrid and the parsing is terrible, ("If already hosted [then], [then] Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server")

When you negate the 'if' part of an 'if-then' clause you simply ignore whatever the 'then' part is. For all intents and purposes a Bishop hosted on a Scheherazade says "Click: Host Bishop on a piece of ice not hosting a Caïssa. If already hosted, [blank since neither 'if' clause is true]"
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Painter
Canada
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I disagree (EDIT: With LouisSchiffer).

You're saying if the two (hosting) conditions are both false, then you can do nothing because both (re-hosting) restrictions apply.

I'm saying if the two hosting conditions are both false, then the attached restrictions don't apply.

Your interpretation is dependent on the word "either", which means you can only choose one or the other. That word is not present on the card.

Quote:

If already hosted (A: on ice on a remote server, B: on ice on a central server, C: on another card),
A Bishop can be hosted only on ice protecting a central server if Bishop is on ice protecting a remote server,
B or on ice protecting a remote server if Bishop is on ice protecting a central server.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Louis Schiffer
msg tools
Fair enough, I misremembered how the logic follows and withdraw my statement. Sorry about that
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.