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

Android: Netrunner» Forums » Rules

Subject: Question about strength and multiple ICE encounters rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
J.C. DaVault
United States
Arizona
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If you are making a run and boost strength with a program like Crypsis to defeat an ice does that strenght continue on when you encounter another Ice on the same run?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Dallas
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Depends on the ice. If it does continue for the full run then the program will say so.

Compare the wording on Battering Ram

with the wording on Crypsis

Battering ram specifies for the remainder of the run, Crypsis doesn't so you'll have to repump Crypsis after each ice you encounter.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
Darksbane wrote:

Battering ram specifies for the remainder of the run, Crypsis doesn't so you'll have to repump Crypsis after each ice you encounter.


I don't believe this is correct. If anything, the wording on Wyrm and Crypsis allude to a permanent increase in strength. If the strength increase only lasted until the end of the encounter, it would state:

"+1 strength for the remainder of this encounter." (see Datasucker for an example of this terminology)

Any rule reference that states otherwise?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Spartz
United States
Golden valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Darksbane wrote:

Battering ram specifies for the remainder of the run, Crypsis doesn't so you'll have to repump Crypsis after each ice you encounter.


I don't believe this is correct. If anything, the wording on Wyrm and Crypsis allude to a permanent increase in strength. If the strength increase only lasted until the end of the encounter, it would state:

"+1 strength for the remainder of this encounter." (see Datasucker for an example of this terminology)

Any rule reference that states otherwise?


Battering ram specifically states "for the remainder of the run". A run is over when you back out or when you access the server.

And from page 16 of the manual:

Quote:
Many icebreakers allow the Runner to temporarily increase the icebreaker’s strength by spending credits. This helps the Runner deal with stronger pieces of ice, provided he has enough credits to spend. This strength increase lasts only while the current piece of ice is being encountered, unless otherwise noted by card abilities. After an encounter with a piece of ice, the icebreaker’s strength returns to the value shown on its card. This applies to any other strength modifiers given by icebreakers as well.


Emphasis mine.

Edit: Heh, sorry Drew. Made it look like you were duplicating what I said when it was the other way around.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew Dallas
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Darksbane wrote:

Battering ram specifies for the remainder of the run, Crypsis doesn't so you'll have to repump Crypsis after each ice you encounter.


I don't believe this is correct. If anything, the wording on Wyrm and Crypsis allude to a permanent increase in strength. If the strength increase only lasted until the end of the encounter, it would state:

"+1 strength for the remainder of this encounter." (see Datasucker for an example of this terminology)

Any rule reference that states otherwise?

Rulebook, page 16 "Increasing an Icebreaker's Strength"
Quote:
Many icebreakers allow the Runner to temporarily increase the
icebreaker’s strength by spending credits. This helps the Runner
deal with stronger pieces of ice, provided he has enough credits
to spend. This strength increase lasts only while the current
piece of ice is being encountered, unless otherwise noted
by card abilities. After an encounter with a piece of ice, the
icebreaker’s strength returns to the value shown on its card. This
applies to any other strength modifiers given by icebreakers as
well.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
Thanks Drew. It's kind of a shame that they'd take that stance, but maybe it's just my MTG background. Seems they should explicitly state the length of the strength increase on the card (since they already do that for other abilities).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Spartz
United States
Golden valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Thanks Drew. It's kind of a shame that they'd take that stance, but maybe it's just my MTG background. Seems they should explicitly state the length of the strength increase on the card (since they already do that for other abilities).


There's no need to explicitly state the duration on the card. It's in the manual. Less unnecessary card text = better cards.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
Sparticuse wrote:
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Thanks Drew. It's kind of a shame that they'd take that stance, but maybe it's just my MTG background. Seems they should explicitly state the length of the strength increase on the card (since they already do that for other abilities).


There's no need to explicitly state the duration on the card. It's in the manual. Less unnecessary card text = better cards.


Less dependency on the manual = less confusion during play. My point is that they specify duration for all other abilities, they should specify duration here as well.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Mills
United States
Los Angeles
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
they should specify duration here as well.


They did. In the manual.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Owens
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Less dependency on the manual = less confusion during play. My point is that they specify duration for all other abilities, they should specify duration here as well.


The card specifies duration what it deviates from the norm established by the game rules.

You mentioned MTG. Do cards with flying describe flying? Trample? Haste? etc.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
malhaku wrote:
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Less dependency on the manual = less confusion during play. My point is that they specify duration for all other abilities, they should specify duration here as well.


The card specifies duration what it deviates from the norm established by the game rules.

You mentioned MTG. Do cards with flying describe flying? Trample? Haste? etc.


No, and I'm not asking them to describe what "Strength" means. Magic DOES however, give lengths for when things are added to a card, and that's all I'm saying would be nice here.

For instance, a card would never state "U: Give this creature flying", it would state "U: This creature gains flying until the end of the turn"

It's a moot point, as this community is filled with people who like to argue for arguments sake. My only point was that adding a few words to the six cards that use "+1 strength" wouldn't have hurt FFG at all, and would have added clarity.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M N
Canada
Truro
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Except they put it in the rules so they wouldn't have to print it on all of those cards. Now the only stuff that will need to be on cards is when a card has a strength modifier that contradicts the rulebook itself.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
It's a moot point, as this community is filled with people who like to argue for arguments sake. My only point was that adding a few words to the six cards that use "+1 strength" wouldn't have hurt FFG at all, and would have added clarity.


It is a reasonable expectation that those playing the game are familiar with the rules.

Repeating rules on cards reduces clarity.

Stating exceptions to rules increases clarity.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawcomic
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
The stuff that dreams are made of...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you buy three copies of the game, you could cut out the section of the rules on this and tape it two cards in which this is an issue (while maintaining a pristine copy of the rules)!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
byronczimmer wrote:
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
It's a moot point, as this community is filled with people who like to argue for arguments sake. My only point was that adding a few words to the six cards that use "+1 strength" wouldn't have hurt FFG at all, and would have added clarity.


It is a reasonable expectation that those playing the game are familiar with the rules.

Repeating rules on cards reduces clarity.

Stating exceptions to rules increases clarity.


So by clearly specifying the duration on a card, it somehow muddles the clarity of the game?

It's not that this is a difficult rule to learn, I'm only stating from a design perspective, since most programs and icebreakers act in severely different ways from each other, that small bit of additional clarity may help in the long run. Again, we're talking about 6 cards out of 11 total icebreakers in the core.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Spartz
United States
Golden valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
byronczimmer wrote:
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
It's a moot point, as this community is filled with people who like to argue for arguments sake. My only point was that adding a few words to the six cards that use "+1 strength" wouldn't have hurt FFG at all, and would have added clarity.


It is a reasonable expectation that those playing the game are familiar with the rules.

Repeating rules on cards reduces clarity.

Stating exceptions to rules increases clarity.


So by clearly specifying the duration on a card, it somehow muddles the clarity of the game?

It's not that this is a difficult rule to learn, I'm only stating from a design perspective, since most programs and icebreakers act in severely different ways from each other, that small bit of additional clarity may help in the long run. Again, we're talking about 6 cards out of 11 total icebreakers in the core.



It muddles the clarity because you will NEED to put that text on EVERY icebreaker or people will start to ask unnecessary questions about the ones that don't spell it out for them. As is the golden rule for basically every game I've ever played: when designing cards, work for the assumption that the rules are known and only change the rules when the card specifically calls it out as different.

Also: 6 of the 11 icebreakers do what? In my set only 3 of them call out a special rule for how long they last.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
Sparticuse wrote:


It muddles the clarity because you will NEED to put that text on EVERY icebreaker or people will start to ask unnecessary questions about the ones that don't spell it out for them.


I'm not the OP, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that wasn't/isn't aware of this rule. By not having it on the card, it's already causing unnecessary questions about the ones that don't spell it out. So yes, putting it on any new icebreakers that specify a strength gain/loss couldn't hurt. And that's all I'm saying. There's absolutely no harm in putting the specification on the card. Absolutely none. There's no reason for it to be in a rulebook at that point, and the cards in the card game could speak mostly for themselves.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Spartz
United States
Golden valley
Minnesota
flag msg tools
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Sparticuse wrote:


It muddles the clarity because you will NEED to put that text on EVERY icebreaker or people will start to ask unnecessary questions about the ones that don't spell it out for them.


I'm not the OP, and I'm sure I'm not the only person that wasn't/isn't aware of this rule. By not having it on the card, it's already causing unnecessary questions about the ones that don't spell it out. So yes, putting it on any new icebreakers that specify a strength gain/loss couldn't hurt. And that's all I'm saying. There's absolutely no harm in putting the specification on the card. Absolutely none. There's no reason for it to be in a rulebook at that point, and the cards in the card game could speak mostly for themselves.


People are only asking now because they aren't reading the rules first. If you don't read the rules in any game you will be confused as to how to play the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Owens
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Again, we're talking about 6 cards out of 11 total icebreakers in the core.


Being central to the gameplay, there will be more icebreakers created for the expanding game. Considering the majority of icebreakers will not retain their increased strength through the run, this means that as time progresses it will be much more than 6 cards.

DungeonOfDoom wrote:
No, and I'm not asking them to describe what "Strength" means. Magic DOES however, give lengths for when things are added to a card, and that's all I'm saying would be nice here.


Strength isn't defined on the card because it is part of the core gameplay rules. An ice increasing its strength lasting only the encounter with the ice is a base concept defined by the core gameplay rules.

As for duration, Magic cards will state "until end of turn" or "until end of combat" because those are in opposition to the effects that do not clarify and therefore are lasting effects.
In Netrunner, the standard is that the strength increase lasts for the encounter with a single piece of ice. A duration description is added only if it counters the norm.

And for the record, I'm fine with how both Wizards and FFG display their information on cards for MtG and A:NR. I think we can all agree we don't want cards that turn into This.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lawcomic
United States
Tennessee
flag msg tools
badge
The stuff that dreams are made of...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Adding "for this encounter" or "for this run" would really have made the cards crazy confusing! Who needs three words added to a card? Mayhem would ensue!

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noah D

Arlington
Virginia
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
There have to be basic rules that form a framework for the game. It's impossible to contain all the rules for how to perform a run on the ICE and ICE breakers for instance...

So what goes in the rules, and what goes on the cards? The rules establish the baseline. The way things normally work. Then the cards that deviate from that norm can specify in what way they constitute an exception. This is by far the most intuitive and concise way to design a game.

A bit of the confusion may be you seeing it as no more "normal" for icebreakers than maintaining their strength for the duration of the run (or not being able to increase strength at all. Sure it's 6 cards now, but it will be many many more down the line.

Missing any rule in a game can cause serious problems in play. But that's not something that can be solved by ditching the rules completely and trying to cram all of them onto the cards themselves. There has to be a starting point, a basic framework for the cards to build upon, and that includes defining the default way that icebreakers interact with ICE during a run.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeremy Owens
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Lawcomic wrote:
Adding "for this encounter" or "for this run" would really have made the cards crazy confusing! Who needs three words added to a card? Mayhem would ensue!


Mayhem would not ensue, but personally I prefer the information on cards in a Constructed Deck Game to be concise.

Compare the original MtG Control Magic

to the most recent printed version of the same card.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dungeon Of Doom
msg tools
mbmb
malhaku wrote:
DungeonOfDoom wrote:
Again, we're talking about 6 cards out of 11 total icebreakers in the core.


Being central to the gameplay, there will be more icebreakers created for the expanding game. Considering the majority of icebreakers will not retain their increased strength through the run, this means that as time progresses it will be much more than 6 cards.


That's assuming that all of the icebreakers released will have the option of increasing their strength. Many do not. If every icebreaker had an increase strength option, then yes, I'd say it's a core assumption. But they don't, so saying that EVERY new card that's released will have to have extra text is ludicrous. Only ice that specifies a strength increase/decrease would need it. I don't imagine we're talking about a lot here.

malhaku wrote:
As for duration, Magic cards will state "until end of turn" or "until end of combat" because those are in opposition to the effects that do not clarify and therefore are lasting effects.
In Netrunner, the standard is that the strength increase lasts for the encounter with a single piece of ice. A duration description is added only if it counters the norm.


And maybe that's the part I'm hung up on. Magic is "Assume permanence unless told otherwise" where as Netrunner is "Assume brevity unless told otherwise". Complete opposites of each other.

argus88 wrote:
There have to be basic rules that form a framework for the game. It's impossible to contain all the rules for how to perform a run on the ICE and ICE breakers for instance...

So what goes in the rules, and what goes on the cards? The rules establish the baseline. The way things normally work. Then the cards that deviate from that norm can specify in what way they constitute an exception. This is by far the most intuitive and concise way to design a game.

A bit of the confusion may be you seeing it as no more "normal" for icebreakers than maintaining their strength for the duration of the run (or not being able to increase strength at all. Sure it's 6 cards now, but it will be many many more down the line.

Missing any rule in a game can cause serious problems in play. But that's not something that can be solved by ditching the rules completely and trying to cram all of them onto the cards themselves. There has to be a starting point, a basic framework for the cards to build upon, and that includes defining the default way that icebreakers interact with ICE during a run.


I never once said put every rule on the cards. I only stated that since the cards have already established an expectation of "{cost}: {Strength Increase}{duration}", it would be nice if they did that across the board.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Checkers: Capture by jumping over
Chess: Capture by occupying same space

Different games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Noah D

Arlington
Virginia
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Lawcomic wrote:
Adding "for this encounter" or "for this run" would really have made the cards crazy confusing! Who needs three words added to a card? Mayhem would ensue!

Agreed!
 
 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.