Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
62 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Rules

Subject: Decoy and New Angeles City Hall rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Geekmate75
France
Paris
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Hi guys !
I have this discussion about Decoy and New Angeles City Hall on Facebook and it appears that the wording isn't exactly the same on these two cards

Decoy : Avoid Receiving 1 tag
New Angeles City Hall : Avoid 1 tag

Is it relevant for something ? or is it just two ways of saying the same thing ?

Thx for your help !
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Parkes
United Kingdom
Birmingham
West Midlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I think they're the same. I don't think NACH allows you to remove a tag without a click or anything due to omission of the word 'receiving'.

What is being suggested in your discussion?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Keddie
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Was a dispute over whether there's any way to avoid taking a tag or losing a connection to Snatch and Grab. Because of the wording on NACH vs Decoy, some people argued that they function differently. It's already been ruled on though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geekmate75
France
Paris
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
The discussion was about Snatch & Grab too.
Someone said that NACH could avoid the tag of Snatch & Grab and preventing the trash of a connection but decoy could not.
Strange ruling for me but as the wording is not the same, and as english isn't my everyday language, i was asking myself about it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Keddie
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Just for clarity, preventing with Decoy OR New Angeles City Hall has the same result - you didn't take a tag, and the connection is trashed.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geekmate75
France
Paris
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Understood cap !!!
And seems logical, so no problem with that !
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Hardly logical. If you choose to take a tag from Data Raven, and then prevent that tag, you still get to continue the run.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Morris
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SonnyDK wrote:
Hardly logical. If you choose to take a tag from Data Raven, and then prevent that tag, you still get to continue the run.


Data Raven doesn't prevent a cost though, it just presents a choice: take a tag or end the run. If you choose to take the tag and then avoid that tag, then, no worries!

Snatch and Grab is different. Because it says "do X to Y", there is a cost for an effect presented. In order to get the effect (prevent the connection from being trashed) you must pay a cost (take a tag). Just like with other abilities and costs, if you prevent the cost from being paid then you don't get the effect.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My point is. I don't think everything is logical. In the case of Data Raven I can understand why

I've also wondered about Profiteering.



"I took 3 Bad Pubs, then I prevented them. Now you're telling me I DON'T get my money?"


That's not worded as a "do X to Y" or "cost:effect", but rather as a choice. Why does the 2nd sentence worry about what happened to the Bad Pubs in the first sentence. It should only observe whether or not Bad Pubs were taken or not.

But yet, if you prevent them. You don't get any money.

Not logical.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Morris
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SonnyDK wrote:
It should only observe whether or not Bad Pubs were taken or not.

But yet, if you prevent them. You don't get any money.

Not logical.


You might want to reconsider that. The second sentence does only observer whether or not bad pubs were taken. Like you said, if you prevent them you don't get any money. If you prevented the bad pubs, you didn't take them, did you?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jakodrako wrote:
If you prevented the bad pubs, you didn't take them, did you?


I certainly did.

If I get paid and then spend that money, does that mean I didn't get paid?

I took them. What I did with them should be irrelevant.

From a balance point of view, sure. It's up to the design team to determine whether or not it should pay out. I'm not trying to argue that you should be able to. I'm not out to change any cards.

I'm just saying that the wordings aren't always logical.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Let's do another example.



Card is accessed and resolves. Corp pays 1. Runner has 0 cards.

Runner choose to take 1 damage, then prevent that damage with Net Shield.

Can corp now argue that he didn't take that damage and so must add Shi.Kyu to his score area?

No, he can't.. Taking something and preventing it is not the same as not taking it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Morris
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SonnyDK wrote:
jakodrako wrote:
If you prevented the bad pubs, you didn't take them, did you?


I certainly did.

If I get paid and then spend that money, does that mean I didn't get paid?

I took them. What I did with them should be irrelevant.

From a balance point of view, sure. It's up to the design team to determine whether or not it should pay out. I'm not trying to argue that you should be able to. I'm not out to change any cards.

I'm just saying that the wordings aren't always logical.


There are several inconsistencies in Netrunner templating, but this isn't one of them. Prevent by definition (both as a word and a game term) stops an effect from resolving. So no, you didn't take the bad pub. I don't see how it's illogical for the next sentence ("Gain 5Cr for each bad publicity taken") to see 0 if all three bad pubs were prevented. You took none, so gain no credits.

SonnyDK wrote:
Let's do another example.



Card is accessed and resolves. Corp pays 1. Runner has 0 cards.

Runner choose to take 1 damage, then prevent that damage with Net Shield.

Can corp now argue that he didn't take that damage and so must add Shi.Kyu to his score area?

No, he can't.. Taking something and preventing it is not the same as not taking it.


I'm not really sure what your point is here. You're basically arguing for the fact that we've established some amount of consistency and that we can assume that the Runner would not have to take Shi.kyu as -1 agenda points in that situation... so how does that prove that it was somehow illogical? Unless you have a ruling from Lukas saying that the Runner would have to take the negative points. If that were the case, then there would be some logical inconsistencies.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
My point is simply, that taking something and then preventing it, is not the same as not taking it.

In the case of Shi.kyu the corp can't argue, that the runner didn't take the net damage, if it was prevented.

"I take 1 damage, then prevent it"
"But then you didn't take 1 damage.
"Yes I did. I took it and prevented it"
"No, you prevented it, so you didn't take it. You must take it"

The inconsistency comes from the two different cases

In one case, you take something, then prevent it. The interpretation is that you never took it.

In the other case, you take something, then prevent it. The interpretation is that you took it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cedric Bertolini
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SonnyDK wrote:
My point is simply, that taking something and then preventing it, is not the same as not taking it.

In the case of Shi.kyu the corp can't argue, that the runner didn't take the net damage, if it was prevented.

"I take 1 damage, then prevent it"
"But then you didn't take 1 damage.
"Yes I did. I took it and prevented it"
"No, you prevented it, so you didn't take it. You must take it"

The inconsistency comes from the two different cases

In one case, you take something, then prevent it. The interpretation is that you never took it.

In the other case, you take something, then prevent it. The interpretation is that you took it.


I'm not sure I'm following you.

Data Raven: "the Runner must either A or B". A={take 1 tag}, B={end the run}. The Runner can choose A, then prevents its effect. The Runner doesn't suffer B.

Shi.Kuy, with a minor edit: "The Runner must either A or B". A={take X net damage}, B={add Shi.Kyū to his or her score area as an agenda worth −1 agenda point}. The Runner can choose A, then prevents its effect. The Runner doesn't suffer B.

Where is the inconsistency you are talking about?

edit: I guess you're comparing them to Profiteering. Data Raven and Shi.Kuy have alternative effects, "suffer A or B". Profiteering has a if cost, then effect ; the cost being "take up to 3 bad pub".

You're mistaking the "A or B" of Data Raven and Shi.Kuy for a "if A, then NOT B" construct. But it's not, even if formal logic would tell us they're one and the same.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Keddie
Wales
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Actually I see where he's coming from, and I had a similar issue a while back when Wotan was ruled on (you can prevent the program trash with Sacrificial Construct and Wotan doesn't care, because you resolved a 'trash program' effect). Same as Data Raven or Shi Kyu, you chose to resolve the 'take tag' or 'take net damage', and the game doesn't care that you prevented them.

I've accepted the rulings on them, but they do feel inconsistent.

Snatch and Grab I'm ok with, as 'do x to do y' is implicitly (though it could do with being made explicit) a cost and effect.

Profiteering was more difficult for me to internalise - I resolved a 'take 3 Bad Pub' effect didn't I? As I recall the ruling was yes, you resolved the effect, but Profiteering only cares how much you ACTUALLY took, in the same way that Angel Arena only cares how much you ACTUALLY paid (and so Eureka! doesn't combo with it).

So although you did indeed resolve a 'take 3 BP' effect, you then check 'how much BP was taken?' Zero? No credits for you!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zak Jarvis
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Sonny's absolutely correct.

The understanding of what it means to "do X" is completely inconsistent.

The larger logical construction that it exists in (e.g. "If [do X] then [Y]" or "If [Z], then [Y] or [do X]" or whatever) should not be relevant in determining the truth value of the "do X" criteria itself. However the card templating and the rulings on the subject seem to have argued themselves into a situation where it is adjudged to be relevant just to stop any weird interactions that would result from having a consistent meaning of what it means to "do X".

As Sonny put it:

"If you would do X but it is prevented, did you fulfil a "do X" criteria?"

'Net Shield' says yes.
'Data Raven' says yes.
'Tori Hanzo' says yes.
'Shi Kyu' says yes.
'Wotan' says no.
'Profiteering' says no.
'Snatch and Grab' says no.

It seems the overarching principle is that prevented effects are recorded as having happened in the game state, and so it would seem to me to have made much more sense to simply add the words "(may not be prevented)" anywhere where it was not intended that something could be prevented but still trigger an outcome for having happened (e.g. 'Wotan', 'Profiteering', 'Snatch and Grab').
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
popeye09 wrote:

The larger logical construction that it exists in (e.g. "If [do X] then [Y]" or "If [Z], then [Y] or [do X]" or whatever) should not be relevant in determining the truth value of the "do X" criteria itself.

..

It seems the overarching principle is that prevented effects are recorded as having happened in the game state, and so it would seem to me to have made much more sense to simply add the words "(may not be prevented)" anywhere where it was not intended that something could be prevented but still trigger an outcome for having happened (e.g. 'Wotan', 'Profiteering', 'Snatch and Grab').


This..

Thank you. I thought I was all alone here. Glad to see I'm not '
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sonny A.
Denmark
Copenhagen
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Alsciende wrote:
Profiteering has a if cost, then effect ; the cost being "take up to 3 bad pub".


But that's not at all how Profiteering is worded. There's no "if" (except in the flavor text) and there's no cost:effect construction.
 
 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
As was said, Netrunner is using "or" as a shorthand for "Runner chooses 1 of the following effects. A). B)"

If Data Raven were written like this:

"The runner must take 1 tag. If the runner did not take 1 tag, end the run."

Then prevent would still end the run.

As was said, this is definitely not one of the cases of Netrunner being inconsistent

Imagine a more positive effect, such as Infiltration:

"Gain 2 or expose 1 card."

If I play this on a card in a remote server, and the corp uses Zaibatsu Loyalty, I do not suddenly gain 2 credits.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cedric Bertolini
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SonnyDK wrote:
Alsciende wrote:
Profiteering has a if cost, then effect ; the cost being "take up to 3 bad pub".


But that's not at all how Profiteering is worded. There's no "if" (except in the flavor text) and there's no cost:effect construction.

There's no "if", but there's a "forEach". It's kind of like an "if". Ask php
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zak Jarvis
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Allan, you choose A or B.

A = take a tag;
B = end the run.

So, you prevent a tag. Have you chosen A or B? Does (A OR B) = True?

Well, if preventing a tag counts as taking a tag, then yes you have fulfilled the choice as A = True, B = False and therefore (A OR B) = True.

If however, preventing a tag doesn't count as taking a tag, then no, you haven't fulfilled the choice. A = False, B = False and therefore (A OR B) = False.

So for 'Data Raven', preventing a tag does count as taking a tag.

The inconsistency is when we look at 'Profiteering'. If we prevent the bad publicity apparently that doesn't count as taking bad publicity for the purposes of the second effect.

For profiteering:

N = number of bad publicity taken;
C = credits.

(and C = N * 5)

So you prevented three bad publicity. What is N?

You can't say that:

N = 0, because prevented things don't count as happening;
A = True, because prevented things do count as happening;
you are being consistent.

Two of the three above statements can be true, but not all three of them!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cedric Bertolini
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
popeye09 wrote:
Sonny's absolutely correct.

The understanding of what it means to "do X" is completely inconsistent.

The larger logical construction that it exists in (e.g. "If [do X] then [Y]" or "If [Z], then [Y] or [do X]" or whatever) should not be relevant in determining the truth value of the "do X" criteria itself.


I don't think it is.

I guess you're still talking about Profiteering vs Raven, so I'll give values to your variables:

If [do X] then [Y]: X would be "scoring the agenda", Y would be "take up to 3 bad pubs, and gain 15 credits for each bad pub taken".

If [Z], then [Y] or [do X]: X would be "the Runner encounters Data Raven", Y would be "the Runner takes 1 tag", Z would be "the Corp ends the run".

The truth value of "X" in these examples is never the question.

If you don't agree, please explain what are the values of your variables.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Cedric Bertolini
France
Lyon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
popeye09 wrote:
Allan, you choose A or B.

A = take a tag;
B = end the run.

So, you prevent a tag. Have you chosen A or B? Does (A OR B) = True?

Well, if preventing a tag counts as taking a tag, then yes you have fulfilled the choice as A = True, B = False and therefore (A OR B) = True.

If however, preventing a tag doesn't count as taking a tag, then no, you haven't fulfilled the choice. A = False, B = False and therefore (A OR B) = False.

So for 'Data Raven', preventing a tag does count as taking a tag.

The inconsistency is when we look at 'Profiteering'. If we prevent the bad publicity apparently that doesn't count as taking bad publicity for the purposes of the second effect.

For profiteering:

N = number of bad publicity taken;
C = credits.

(and C = N * 5)

So you prevented three bad publicity. What is N?

You can't say that:

N = 0, because prevented things don't count as happening;
A = True, because prevented things do count as happening;
you are being consistent.

Two of the three above statements can be true, but not all three of them!


I disagree.

The game says: "Do A or B. Pick one, now.". You pick A. The game is satisfied. Then, because you have the right card, you prevent the effect of doing A. The game doesn't care. All it wanted is for you to pick one.

The game says. "Do A." You do A, and because you have the right card, you prevent the effect of doing A. Then the game says "Do something based on what happened when you did A". Now the game cares what happened.

There's no inconsistency on what it means to take a tag. There's just a difference between "take a tag" and "having taken a tag".
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Zak Jarvis
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Alsciende wrote:
There's no inconsistency on what it means to take a tag. There's just a difference between "take a tag" and "having taken a tag".


If there is a difference in how you assess "take a tag" and "have taken a tag", then that means "have taken" is no longer the past tense of "take".

Of course we can always resolve issues by saying that we're redefining language (and by extension the logic that we're using it to describe) to mean something else entirely, but that seems like a rather trivial solution to me!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  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.