Recommend
8 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Rules

Subject: The Cleaners CONFIRMED!!! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kroen wrote:
Hello.

Say as the Corp I have The Cleaners scored, and the Runner can't break/match the trace of the newly encountered Flare while having Plascrete Carapace installed. This leads me to the following question:

Can the Runner prevent the third meat damage? And if he can, can he use his only installed Plascrete to do so even though I chose to destroy it with Flare?

Another related question: If I play Scorched Earth (while I have The Cleaners scored) and the Runner prevents 4 meat damage, does the 5th meat damage even occur?

Thanks in advance.

Lukas wrote:
Thanks for the questions. The damage with Flare is unpreventable. The Cleaners + Scorched Earth would do 5 damage, even if 4 of it is prevented. Hope that helps,

Just as I suspected; The Cleaners seem to revise the text of cards. So a card that reads "Do 4 meat damage" would instead read "Do 5 meat damage" if The Cleaners is scored.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew H
United States
Millersville
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The first question seems to remain a bit ambiguous to me; although I haven't seen any of the ongoing conversation surrounding The Cleaners.

The damage from Flare is unpreventable, so the third damage (due to The Cleaners) is considered to also come from Flare - making it unpreventable?

Not trying to be a bother, just clarifying for my own sake. Thanks.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jure Volarevic
Croatia
Zagreb
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SunUhMuhnBuhns wrote:
The first question seems to remain a bit ambiguous to me; although I haven't seen any of the ongoing conversation surrounding The Cleaners.

The damage from Flare is unpreventable, so the third damage (due to The Cleaners) is considered to also come from Flare - making it unpreventable?

Not trying to be a bother, just clarifying for my own sake. Thanks.
Just think of it like this: While Cleaners is scored "one" becomes "two", "two becomes "three", "three" becomes "four", etc. Scorched Earth deals 5 damage, Flare deals 3 unpreventable damage.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mplain
Russia
flag msg tools
mbmb
Why oh why couldn't they write "whenever you do meat damage, increase that damage by 1". Oh well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Larner
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Yes, the templating is horrible, and I hope they errata it (though I doubt they will). It seems fairly clear that it's a replacement effect, even though it's worded like a conditional ability (i.e. Treat it like RnD interface, rather than like feedback implants).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Blumklotz
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Cleaners and Flare Answer too...

Quote:
Question:
Weyland has scored The Cleaners on their turn and the runner hits Flare on her turn. Is the extra point of Meat Damage unavoidable as per Flare, or is this Meat Damage preventable?

Answer:
Thanks for the question. Sorry it has taken so long for a response, I've been out of the office the past couple of weeks.

The Cleaners would create an extra point of unpreventable damage.

Hope that helps,


Lukas Litzsinger
Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games




3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joel Tamburo
United States
Justice
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ah. So it is exactly as I (and others) were saying all along. It's a meat damage enhancer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anton R.
Russia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Post my answer to clear up crash space case:

Quote:
Rule Question:
How do The Cleaners interact with Meat damage prevention?
What does happen in next cases?

1) Corp has scored Cleaners and plays Scorched Earth. Runner has Plascrete Carapace with 4 tokens. He uses them all.

2) Corp has scored Cleaners and scored Private Security Force. Activate click abilitie of PSF. Runner uses Crash Space to prevent up to 3 meat damage.

3) Corp has scored Cleaners and activates subroutine of Flare. Runner has Plascrete Carapace.

Thank you for your time!



Quote:
Anton,

Thanks for your patience. The Cleaners increases the amount of meat damage being dealt, even if all 4 damage from Scorched Earth are prevented by another ability. So:

1. The Runner takes 1 damage
2. The Runner takes 0 damage
3. The Runner takes 3 unpreventable damage.

Hope that helps,

--
Lukas Litzsinger
Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Diachuk
msg tools
mbmbmb
So, why does using Tyr's Hand to prevent the breaking of a Bioroid subroutine stop E3 Feedback Implants from working to break another subroutine?

In this example, "The Cleaners" is akin to E3 Feedback Implants, since they both say "Whenever (condition), (effect)"

E3 Feedback Implants wrote:
Whenever you break a subroutine on a piece of ice, you may pay 1 [Credits] to break 1 additional subroutine on that ice.


The Cleaners wrote:
Whenever you do meat damage, do 1 additional meat damage.


Note that they're both written in exactly the same fashion ("Whenever you [do something], [do some] additional [something]").

Likewise, Crash Space prevents Meat Damage, while Tyr's Hand prevents Bioroid ice subroutines from being broken.

Lukas' ruling suggests that E3 Feedback Implants changes "break (ice) subroutine" to "break (ice) subroutine and you may pay 1 credit to break an additional subroutine", and that tyr's hand preventing the first break doesn't prevent the E3 Feedback Implants break. Additionally, it implies that E3 Feedback Implants cannot chain, since otherwise The Cleaners would chain (since if E3 Feedback Implants can trigger off of itself breaking a subroutine, then The Cleaners can chain off of you doing its additional meat damage).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
FirstName LastName
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
taggedjc wrote:
So, why does using Tyr's Hand to prevent the breaking of a Bioroid subroutine stop E3 Feedback Implants from working to break another subroutine?

In this example, "The Cleaners" is akin to E3 Feedback Implants, since they both say "Whenever (condition), (effect)"

E3 Feedback Implants wrote:
Whenever you break a subroutine on a piece of ice, you may pay 1 [Credits] to break 1 additional subroutine on that ice.


The Cleaners wrote:
Whenever you do meat damage, do 1 additional meat damage.


Note that they're both written in exactly the same fashion ("Whenever you [do something], [do some] additional [something]").

Likewise, Crash Space prevents Meat Damage, while Tyr's Hand prevents Bioroid ice subroutines from being broken.

Lukas' ruling suggests that E3 Feedback Implants changes "break (ice) subroutine" to "break (ice) subroutine and you may pay 1 credit to break an additional subroutine", and that tyr's hand preventing the first break doesn't prevent the E3 Feedback Implants break. Additionally, it implies that E3 Feedback Implants cannot chain, since otherwise The Cleaners would chain (since if E3 Feedback Implants can trigger off of itself breaking a subroutine, then The Cleaners can chain off of you doing its additional meat damage).


No, it just implies The Cleaners was written poorly but we'll all survive.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Diachuk
msg tools
mbmbmb
They're both written exactly the same way.

If they're supposed to work differently, they should be worded differently.

As an errata, I'd make The Cleaners say "If you would do meat damage, you do 1 additional meat damage."

Then it's not a trigger at all, just a replacement effect that modifies how you do meat damage (which is what it's intended to be). A replacement effect would happen before any prevention effects.

I'm starting to get frustrated with all these "rulings" where the rulings directly contradict the wording on the card or previous rulings on other similar cards :/ I get that they were meant to work a certain way, but if the text doesn't say that, then it should be erratad, not just ruled one way or the other.

This is at least one thing that Magic: the Gathering does right. If a card doesn't work the way it's written, it gets errata.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Evan
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's only a contradiction if you think that damage and subroutine-breakings have all the same timing and iterative properties. Which would be nice, I guess, but why would you assume that?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Diachuk
msg tools
mbmbmb
I assume that because there's no rule that says they work any differently from each other. Why wouldn't you assume they would all work the same? How do they differ?

They are both just following the instructions on the card. Why is it that a triggered ability that triggers off of meat damage being done isn't prevented by preventing the meat damage that it's triggering from, but a triggered ability that triggers off of a subroutine being broken is prevented by preventing that subroutine being broken that it's triggering from?

The only way to justify that is to say that "If all damage that would be dealt is prevented, you still deal 0 meat/net/brain damage, so anything that triggers off of doing damage still triggers" but that comes with extra problems and doesn't explain why the Cleaners deals unpreventable damage when Flare causes damage to be dealt.

The only other way is to actually add an actual rule that says "If a triggered effect says to do additional damage, treat the original source of that damage as having that much additional damage"... but that's not a rule, currently. There's nothing at all in the rules that would explain why the two triggers would work completely differently. And just a "ruling" that says they work differently is not enough to make it the case. He could rule that Paper Wall gets trashed if it's bypassed instead of having broken its subroutines, but it would be a wrong ruling, since as-written bypassing is not breaking subroutines, and that's already pointed out in another ruling regarding Chummed ice and Femme Fatale.

The onus is on the person making the claim to provide the evidence. I would like some evidence in the official rules that shows why The Cleaners' triggered ability functions differently from E3 Feedback Implants' triggered ability. Lukas ruling that they work differently is not evidence, especially since he seems to get confused a lot (see his replies to "Copycat vs Paper Wall") and might just be telling us how it's intended to work, and not how it works as written.

It's entirely possible that The Cleaners is intended to just increase all instances of meat damage by 1. However, as written it doesn't do that - or, at least, I haven't seen any evidence that the rules function in this manner. All other triggered effects resolve just after the condition that triggered them, and do not modify the triggering event in anyway - those would be prevention or avoiding effects. "Once an ability is triggered, its effect is resolved immediately and can only be stopped by prevent or avoid effects. Players must follow all restrictions on the cards when triggering abilities."

One way this could be interpreted is that even if the original condition is prevented or avoided, the ability has still triggered and will still resolve. This would explain why you can use The Cleaners even through a Plascrete that would have prevented all of the original damage. However, this doesn't explain why E3 Feedback Implants doesn't work if the original subroutine breaking was prevented - the condition was still met (up until it was prevented) so you should still be able to pay 1 Credit to break a subroutine.

Really, this does show one kind of "hole" I see in the rules. The rules specify "A conditional ability can only be resolved once per trigger condition." but E3 Feedback Implants is supposed to trigger off of itself - it doesn't trigger multiple times from the first subroutine being broken, but it does trigger off of the subroutines broken as a result of paying the credit for the E3 Feedback Implants, according to rulings. So, why isn't the additional meat damage dealt enough to cause The Cleaners to trigger again off of its own meat damage? This would obviously cause a loop to do an infinite amount of damage, so it's obviously not intended, but is that not what is implied here?

The Cleaners just needs errata. Make it a Constant Ability, instead, that increases the meat damage you do by 1. That would make it work exactly the way Lukas has ruled it ought to work, and it would even make sense and allow E3 Feedback Implants to work the way it's intended, too.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
According to your logic, R&D Interface, which reads "Whenever you access cards from R&D, access 1 additional card from R&D." should trigger off of itself and allow your to access all the cards in R&D.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
João Almeida
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
kobold47 wrote:
There's only a contradiction if you think that damage and subroutine-breakings have all the same timing and iterative properties. Which would be nice, I guess, but why would you assume that?


It is implied by the way the sentece was written. If E3 triggers after the first subroutine is broken, The Cleaners should trigger after the first instance of damage, as they are both written at the same way.

As someone said before, we all understood what FFG meant and we'll survive and Netrunner still is a great game, but you can't deny that the writing is inconsistent. The cards have the same trigger ("whenever X happens...") but different timings.

They either should errata The Cleaners or update the rulebook saying explicitly that "damage modifiers don't trigger themselves".

kroen wrote:
According to your logic, R&D Interface, which reads "Whenever you access cards from R&D, access 1 additional card from R&D." should trigger off of itself and allow your to access all the cards in R&D.


It makes sense. I guess it would be easier to errata E3, in this case.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Redston
Israel
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the easiest errata would be to replace "whenever" on E3 with "each time".
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrzej Fiett
Poland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Everytime I have doubt playing Android: Netrunner, I say to myself: "Don't bother about it. Just play!"

It works so far.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Clements
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Turns out Esseb did touch the flag. Don't tell him I said so though.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For damage, the corp does damage and the runner suffers it. You declare how much damage you are doing, then resolve triggers, then do that much damage. You don't resolve each damage individually. If you are taking 4 damage, you can't take 2 damage, then prevent 1, then take 1 more after seeing what cards you lose.

This is similar to r&d accesses, you declare how many you are going to access, then you use modifiers, then you access that many cards.

With subroutine breaking, you declare each break individually, if you break multiple subs at once, you pick all at once, then they break at the same time. Each break triggers a "when you break" trigger.

If a card said, "When you access a card in r&d, gain 1 credit". This would trigger on each card you access
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Larner
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
taggedjc wrote:




Just because the card says "whenever" doesn't mean it's a conditional ability. The rules helpfully state in the section on conditional abilities that "trigger conditions commonly use the terms “When” or “Whenever” in their card text.". "Commonly", not always. Some cards which use "whenever" are conditional abilities (e.g. E3 feedback implants). Some card which use "whenever" are not (e.g. R&D Interface). RAW, you have no way of knowing whether a given card is constant or conditional. Generally, common sense works, and for 95% of the cards, we can work out what the intent is. The Cleaners was fairly obviously not a conditional ability, but now we have a confirmation from the designer.

taggedjc wrote:

The Cleaners just needs errata. Make it a Constant Ability, instead, that increases the meat damage you do by 1. That would make it work exactly the way Lukas has ruled it ought to work, and it would even make sense and allow E3 Feedback Implants to work the way it's intended, too.


It is a constant ability, even without errata. What you really want is not really errata, but for FFG to introduce consistent templating so that it's crystal clear when abilities are conditional, and when they are constant. The ambiguity exists where "whenever" is not used as well (compare Gabe and Kit - both abilities are worded very similarly, but one is conditional and one is constant).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Double Plus Undead
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
taggedjc wrote:
I'm starting to get frustrated with all these "rulings" where the rulings directly contradict the wording on the card or previous rulings on other similar cards :/


This is the first time I've seen something which might be a contradiction.

Quote:
This is at least one thing that Magic: the Gathering does right. If a card doesn't work the way it's written, it gets errata.


WotC has been doing CCGs for 20 years. Fantasy Flight has been doing them for about half that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
João Almeida
msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
Kamakaze wrote:
For damage, the corp does damage and the runner suffers it. You declare how much damage you are doing, then resolve triggers, then do that much damage.


We know it works that way, but that isn't written anywhere. There's nothing in the game manual or the FAQ file that says that "the corp declares how much damage he or she is doing, then resolve triggers, then do the damage".

We know how it works by experience (and common sense), but those things have to be written somewhere officially. That's how competitive card games work.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Diachuk
msg tools
mbmbmb
Jadiel wrote:

It is a constant ability, even without errata. What you really want is not really errata, but for FFG to introduce consistent templating so that it's crystal clear when abilities are conditional, and when they are constant. The ambiguity exists where "whenever" is not used as well (compare Gabe and Kit - both abilities are worded very similarly, but one is conditional and one is constant).


I think this is what I'm frustrated about. Why not have consistency about triggered vs constant abilities?

I suppose I can live with this (and thanks for pointing out the wording on R&D interface, although that one is specifically addressed in the rules on how cards are determined to be accessed).

(I'll note that Kit's ability doesn't use "Whenever" so it's pretty obviously a constant ability because it just says it gives a subtype to the first piece of ice you encounter each run, whereas Gabriel's ability is written as a triggered ability that uses the trigger as "the first time you make a successful run on HQ each turn" instead of saying "Whenever you make a successful run on HQ for the first time each turn" - but that's fine, since it's still written in the format "[Condition], [do action]".)

pirate_chef wrote:

This is the first time I've seen something which might be a contradiction.


I'd say the ruling about caissa not being able to move off of Djinn/etc is a contradiction. Bishop, as written, can move off of non-ice. Rook cannot, so that part of the ruling is fine, and Pawn was said in the ruling to be able to do so, so that's fine, too. Knight's text suggests he can move off of non-ice but his text shows an obvious lack of forethought since it assumes he will be on ice, which obviously might not be the case (of course Knight wasn't out at the time the ruling was made).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Double Plus Undead
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
taggedjc wrote:
I'd say the ruling about caissa not being able to move off of Djinn/etc is a contradiction. Bishop, as written, can move off of non-ice. Rook cannot, so that part of the ruling is fine, and Pawn was said in the ruling to be able to do so, so that's fine, too. Knight's text suggests he can move off of non-ice but his text shows an obvious lack of forethought since it assumes he will be on ice, which obviously might not be the case (of course Knight wasn't out at the time the ruling was made).



I disagree, but I don't feel like flogging that dead horse. If you're interested, there are pages and pages of arguments about Caissas in the forum archives.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Tak
United States
Chapin
South Carolina
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FFG folks, I do hope you see and read these threads. As the card pool grows, we will need and want consistency above the rest. Part of good CCG (and thus LCG) play is being able to evaluate a card's worth and possible effects in the current game at first reading. Past a certain point in play experience, you should be reasonably able to correctly interpret a card. This ambiguity in wording doesn't help facilitate that! I know it probably makes designing the games less fun and more worklike. But consistency in phrasing makes the game fundamentally better, its worth the extra time it takes!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Allan Clements
Norway
Oslo
flag msg tools
badge
Turns out Esseb did touch the flag. Don't tell him I said so though.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hraklea wrote:
Kamakaze wrote:
For damage, the corp does damage and the runner suffers it. You declare how much damage you are doing, then resolve triggers, then do that much damage.


We know it works that way, but that isn't written anywhere. There's nothing in the game manual or the FAQ file that says that "the corp declares how much damage he or she is doing, then resolve triggers, then do the damage".

We know how it works by experience (and common sense), but those things have to be written somewhere officially. That's how competitive card games work.


That is true, but when else would you resolve the trigger? You certainly wouldn't resolve it randomly during the runner discarding cards.

You might think you would resolve the trigger after you do the meat damage (and the runner has discard cards). In this case, cleaners would not trigger if the damage was prevented though (imo)
 
 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.