Netrunner Online

Netrunner Forum

The Netrunner Online Community Forum.
> > Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

Playful_EE said:

Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/07/2010

FR  

Dear all,

This huge task is heading to an end now !!
I’m almost done with the new version of errata v1.8, but I would like to share with you a synthesis of the specific points about additions/corrections maybe not completely validated here, and that I would strongly recommend to include in that “errata v1.8” file.
Once these points are fully validated, I’ll submit the errata v1.8 file to Wormhole, Frizzler and Frank for final review and proof reading. Then that file will become official and will be available on this site.

Points to be validated (for including them in the v1.8):

A. official decisions of TRC

B. official answers by WotC not included in the v1.62
C. Holger v1.7 addition (which contains most topics of the point B.)

D. all topics concerning errata and clarifications discussed on netrunneronline, but maybe not completely validated.

If I’ve forgotten a topic in the point D, thanks to tell me.

Another topic concerning the errata file will be shared with you in another thread called  “errata v1.8b: optional corrections”. As it contain some new topics and ideas, it has to be discussed among us before any decision to include it (fully, partially, or not at all) in the errata file.

The points A, B, C, and D are described below.
My comments are in italic.
Keywords and costs are not shown in bold (because cannot be cumulated with underlined) but as follows: [cost] or {keyword}.

Thanks for your feedback, especially for well known skilled experts in terms of rulings, like Frizzler, Wormhole, etc.

POINT A: TRC DECISIONS

These are just the long known rulings about:

A1. Tycho Extension and Enterprise Inc Shields, which are banned in constructed format in tournaments

A2. Code Viral Cache and Precision Bribery, which contain the sentence “That trashing cannot be prevented.” To prevent the locking combo with (multiple copies of) Time to Collect.

A3. Scaldan and Viral Pipeline, which have the keyword “unique”.

Only the next step of proof reading for the errata v1.8 file will be necessary there.

POINTS B, C: OFFICIAL ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS

These are also known already by players who follow the rulings, so I won’t describe that part again here. Only the next step of proof reading for the errata v1.8 file will be necessary there.

The rules concern mainly cards of the Classic expansion, that have been validated by WotC (Skipper Pickle, Tom Wylie) or/and Holger Janssen.

POINT D: NEW OFFICIAL ADDITIONS/CORRECTIONS

D1. Card keywords and card names references
I recommend to add a paragraph after “Public Knowledge” called “Card keywords and card names references”, that would contain the following clarifications:

D1a. Statement : in Classic expansion, the words “prep” and “operation” in the rule text of double preps and double operations are to be understood as keywords, even if they are mistakenly written in plain text instead of bold text.

This is to be compliant with the fact that all keywords must be written in bold.

D1b. Statement : in a card text, when this text refers to that card name, the reference should be understood as the full name of that card, even if mistakenly written in a simplified, truncated, or/and acronymic version. Examples: “ACME S&L” for “ACME Savings and Loan”, “Regional AI” for “Pacifica Regional AI”.

This is to be compliant with the fact that all references should be exact (like when programming with variable names).

D2a. ACME Savings and Loan
ERRATA: “Rezzing ACME Savings and Loan costs 1 agenda point, in addition to the normal cost. When you rez ACME Savings and Loan, gain [12] and trash ACME Savings and Loan. For the remainder of the game, pay [1] at the end of each of your turns, or lose the game. You can remove this effect and score 1 agenda point by taking an action to pay [12].”

D2b. Pacifica Regional AI
ERRATA: “You may advance Pacifica Regional AI before and after you rez it.
[Pacifica Regional AI Advancement counter]: Gain an action. Use this ability only during your turn..”

D3. Baskerville
The keyword {Black Ice} is lacking, for this sleepy brother of Cerberus (“dog”  title and illustration, same structure, similar subroutines especially the one giving the counter).

ERRATA: Baskerville has the keyword {Black Ice}, ie it’s an {Ice-Sentry-Black Ice-AP-Hellhound-Sleepy}.

D4a. Pattel’s Antibody (and consequently Pattel’s Virus)
Those two cards refer to the same counter name (Pattel), but the Pattel counter of the Corp is not the same as the one of the Runner.

Clarification: the card refers to a counter named Pattel, but this is not the same counter as the one of Pattel’s Virus.

D4b. Pattel’s Virus
Clarification: the card refers to a counter named Pattel, but this is not the same counter as the one of Pattel’s Antibody.

D5. Please Don’t Choke Anyone
There is a “logical” problem in that the card has to do actual damage to be able to “prevent” it.

ERRATA: : “For each damage you are about to do successfully, you may choose instead to prevent that damage and put a PDCA counter on Please Don’t Choke Anyone. That choice occurs after all prevention effects from Runner are announced, if any.
[PDCA counter]: Gain an action. Use this ability only once per turn and only during your turn.”

In other words, you may now choose to prevent the Homewrecker damage to gain 2 PDCA counters.

D6. Security Purge
Clarification: When Security Purge instructs you to install and rez ice, any of those ice cards that are not installed or rezzed (because you cannot pay for them, for example) are trashed.

D7. Sterdroid
As any other upgrade, Sterdroid works essentially on the fort it is installed in, and only that.

ERRATA: “[3], T: Choose a piece of {ice} on this fort. That {ice}’s strength is doubled until end of turn. If this would raise that {ice}’s strength above 10, its strength becomes 10. Use this ability only when Runner approaches a piece of {ice} on this fort.”.

The apparent redundancy of the first sentence and the last sentence (the ice on this fort) is not a redundancy: the first sentence target the choice of the ice, and the last sentence target the moment you can trigger Sterdroid. If you don’t put the last sentence as it is, you allow to trigger Sterdroid during a run on another fort, which is not logical (even if it would give no advantage to the Corp because of the first sentence).

D8. Back Door to Rivals
ERRATA: The card has now the keyword {Position}, as Runner Sensei.

D9a. Bakdoor
ERRATA: As initially intended, Bakdoor’s installation cost is [0] and not [2]. Wizards of the Coast Netrunner NetRep Mark "Sparky" Schmaltz has revealed that this card was designed with an installation cost of zero bits. This was erroneously changed to [2] bits during the production process.

D9b. Ice and Data Special Report
ERRATA: As initially intended, Ice and Data Special Report’s playing cost is [0] and not [2]. Wizards of the Coast Netrunner NetRep Mark "Sparky" Schmaltz has revealed that this card was designed with an installation cost of zero bits. This was erroneously changed to [2] bits during the production process.

D10a. HQ Mole
I've modified slightly the text to take into account the immediate effect of ambushes and similar cards.

Clarification: HQ Mole triggers during the “access cards” phase, and can be used anytime during this phase access. When Runner has HQ Mole installed, he or she may first access the card(s) normally accessed without using HQ Mole, processing any immediate effect that would occur due to this access (like the 2 Net damage of Setup!). After that, he or she may still trigger HQ Mole to access the additional cards.
Similarly, when Runner has multiple HQ Moles installed, he or she may use them one by one (and processing for each Mole any immediate effect). In other words, Runner is not required to declare at once how many HQ Moles will be used, but can decide after each HQ Mole used, if he or she will trigger another one.
As always, Runner may intermingle with upgrades accessed from HQ.
See Emmanuel Estournet’s Run Flow Chart for more details.

D10b. R&D Mole
Clarification: R&D Mole triggers during the “access cards” phase, and can be used anytime during this phase access. When Runner has R&D Mole installed, he or she may first access the card(s) normally accessed without using R&D Mole, processing any immediate effect that would occur due to this access (like the 2 Net damage of Setup!). After that, he or she may still trigger R&D Mole to access the additional cards.
Similarly, when Runner has multiple R&D Moles installed, he or she may use them one by one (and processing for each Mole any immediate effect). In other words, Runner is not required to declare at once how many R&D Moles will be used, but can decide after each R&D Mole used, if he or she will trigger another one.
As always, Runner may intermingle with upgrades accessed from R&D.
See Emmanuel Estournet’s Run Flow Chart for more details.

D11. Prearranged Drop:
Clarification: Accessing multiple agendas does not multiply the effect of the card. But playing X Prearranged Drop will trigger X times the “[6] bits” effect. In other words, whatever the number of agendas accessed during a turn, you will gain [6] for each Prearranged Drop played before (but during this turn).

D12. The Shell Traders
Clarification: You can also pay for a Bodyweight Data Creche in The Shell Traders to install it in the middle of a run (before the run is declared successful) and gain an extra run.

D13. Viral Pipeline
Clarification: The socket counters are actually virus counters, and thus can be treated as any other virus counters (the Corp can forgo actions to remove them).

D14a Replicator, (same for Flak and Reflector)
ERRATA: The icon representing the type of icebreaker on Replicator is considered to be of “violet” colour, instead of the mistakently printed “green” colour.
Replicator breaks subroutines that trace, and these “intelligent” subroutines are only found on “intelligent” ice , the sentries. This is consistent with the colour of Dogcatcher.

D14b Flak
ERRATA: The icon representing the type of icebreaker on Flak is considered to be of “violet” colour, instead of the mistakenly printed “green” colour.
Flak breaks AP subroutines, and these “intelligent” subroutines are only found on “intelligent” ice , the sentries. This is consistent with the colour of Dogcatcher.

D14c Reflector
ERRATA: The icon representing the type of icebreaker on Reflector is considered to be of “violet” colour, instead of the mistakenly printed “green” colour.
Reflector breaks stun/hellbolt/knockout subroutines, and these “intelligent” subroutines are only found on “intelligent” ice , the sentries. This is consistent with the colour of Dogcatcher.

D15. AI Boon
ERRATA: The card has now the keyword “killer”.

As any other “pure” sentry breakers, ie breakers that explicitely have the keyword {sentry} written in their “breaking” subroutine.

D16. Bargain with Viacox
ERRATA: The text when a 6 is rolled should read: “On a 6, if the card revealed is a {double prep}, you must immediately provide an additional action that can be used to play a {prep} to fulfill its cost, otherwise it stays in your hand.”.

D17. Haunting Inquisition
Clarification: the actions gained via Valu-Pak Software Bundle count toward the 6 actions penalty, but only if they are actually used to install programs. In other words, a Runner installing X programs with Valu-Pak will have spent X actions counting towards the Haunting penalty.

D18. Paying costs
Clarification: If something allows you to perform effect X "at no cost", this only covers the normal cost to perform effect X.
If any card somehow increases (or adds something to) the cost to perform effect X, the additional cost has still to be paid.
E.g. the "+2 trash cost" caused by New Galveston City Grid is considered to be such an additional cost. Thus, when Runner uses Mercenary Subcontract to trash cards from a fort containing New Galveston City Grid, he still has to pay the additional 2 bits per upgrade or node that he wants to trash.

D18a. New Galveston City Grid
Clarification: The +[2] modifier for trash costs is considered as an additional cost. Therefore, any effect that allows the Runner to trash cards “at no cost” (like Death from Above or Mercenary Subcontract) applies only to the unmodified cost. The [2] additional bits from New Galveston City Grid have still to be paid for cards that have a trash cost.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.

D18b. Death from Above
Clarification:
Replace the paragraph
“When Death From Above meets New Galveston City Grid, the « normal cost to trash » the cards the cards in the fort becomes the cost of DFA’s effect, so the Runner must still pay the additional 2 bits per node and other upgrades installed inside the fort. If the Runner can’t pay the cost for ALL of the nodes and other upgrades, the Runner cannot use DFA’s effect. The Runner only has to pay for upgrades or nodes that have been rezzed or exposed.”

By the paragraph
“Death from Above “at no cost” applies only to the unmodified trash cost of nodes and upgrades. Therefore, when Death from Above meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash. The Runner only has to pay for upgrades or nodes that have been rezzed or exposed.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.”

The difference is to allow Runner to pay for what he or she can afford, instead of cancelling the whole effect if all the cards cannot be paid for.

D18c. Mercenary Subcontract
Clarification: Mercenary Subcontract “at no cost” applies only to the unmodified trash cost of nodes and upgrades. Therefore, when Mercenary Subcontract meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.

D18d. Kilroy Was Here
Clarification: Kilroy Was Here “at no cost” applies only to the unmodified trash cost of nodes and upgrades. Therefore, when Kilroy Was Here meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.

D18e. Romp through HQ
Clarification: Romp through HQ “at no cost” applies only to the unmodified trash cost of nodes and upgrades. Therefore, when Romp through HQ meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.

D18f. Crumble
Clarification: Crumble “at no cost” applies only to the unmodified trash cost of nodes and upgrades. Therefore, when Crumble meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.

D18f. Garbage In
Clarification: Garbage In “at no cost” applies only to the unmodified trash cost of nodes and upgrades. Therefore, when Garbage In meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.

D19. Gaining Actions
Clarification: The fact of “gaining” the action is immediate (see second point above), but “using” such an additional action may be delayed. The only obligation is to declare that the action used is the additional one when you use it (see third point above).
Thus, when you gain an action with Quest of Cattekin, this action is gained at the start of your turn, but you can use it (and declare it at that time) anytime this turn “between” two “normal” actions.

The points referred to in that paragraph are the ones described in the v1.62 errata file, ie:
#2
When an effect gives you an extra action, you gain that action immediately, even if you gained the action as a result of rezzing something after the last action of your turn. (Sparky!, Netrunner-L, 5/9/96)
#3
When a card states that you will get an extra action per turn, you must declare when you use it. If the card is trashed during the Corp's turn and the Corp has not declared that it had used the extra action, the extra action is lost. (Sparky, Netrunner-L, 7/26/96)

Thanks to have been through this encyclopedic mail !
Thanks for your feedback.
Rgds
Playful_EE

WormholeSurfer said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/07/2010

FR  

Hi everyone, hi playful

I agree with you in all point except for :

D4a, D4b, you're right on theses points but i can't really see where is the problem if we don't add this ruling...

D14a Replicator, you're strictly right but what about one day create a wall or codegate that trace ?
to me the green colour only represents an ice breaker that is not a normal wall, codegate or sentry breaker...
idem for D14c Reflector and D14b Flak

D17. Haunting Inquisition, i still strongly disagree with this interpretation...


for the others points i agree with You no problems

7OOTnegaTerces said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/07/2010

US  

A minor correction:

D17. Haunting Inquisition
Clarification: the actions gained via Valu-Pak Software Bundle count toward the 6 actions penalty, but only if they are actually used to install programs. In other words, a Runner installing X programs with Valu-Pak will have spent X + 1 actions counting towards the Haunting penalty, one for each program, plus the action to play the prep.


A few questions:

D18b. Death from Above
Therefore, when Death from Above meets New Galveston City Grid, the Runner has still to pay [2] for each node or upgrade he or she wants to trash. The Runner only has to pay for upgrades or nodes that have been rezzed or exposed.
See the paragraph “paying costs”.”

The difference is to allow Runner to pay for what he or she can afford, instead of canceling the whole effect if all the cards cannot be paid for.

[i]Why does the Runner only have to pay [2] for REZZED or EXPOSED nodes and upgrades?  If the Runner had not played DFA, they would still need to pay the printed trash cost of the hidden cards PLUS NGCC's cost increase in order to trash them. I see nothing in DFA's effect that would alter game play to the extent that the Runner would no longer have to pay for NGCC just because the card is not rezzed or exposed.[/i]


D19. Gaining Actions
Thus, when you gain an action with Quest of Cattekin, this action is gained at the start of your turn, but you can use it (and declare it at that time) anytime this turn “between” two “normal” actions.

What about after the last normal action of the turn (after your 4th without Emergency Self Construct, or 3rd if ESC has been used), but before you begin processing "end of turn" effects?


Also, I would like to suggest this errata in place of the current suggested "Paying Costs" errata:

Paying or Preventing Costs and Effects:
When ever a player uses, pays for, or suffers from, a generic effect (making a run, paying bits to trash a node, rezzing an upgrade, installing a piece of ice), i.e. one that is not generated by a card, these effects, or the cost to pay for them, can be modified by any effect at that player's disposal. Cost effects or detrimental effects, however, that come about from using a card can not be prevented by the other play by the means of any effect, past, present, or future. Thus the cost effects from New Galveston City Grid and Full Body Conversion can not be avoided or prevented by either player, while non cost/detrimental effects, like Death From Above (a cost preventative effect) or Urban Renewal (a non-unpreventable damage effect) can be blocked or mollified by effects from the other player. Note too that this is in reference to blocks coming from the opposite player, as it is always acceptable for the one issuing the Cost/Detrimental effect to block their own effect.
E.g. the "+2 trash cost" caused by New Galveston City Grid is considered to be such an additional cost. Thus, when Runner uses Mercenary Subcontract to trash cards from a fort containing New Galveston City Grid, he still has to pay the additional 2 bits per upgrade or node that he wants to trash. If any card somehow increases (or adds something to) the cost to perform an effect, the additional cost still has to be paid.

I admit that this version is a bit more wordy, but it is also more complete. I am, though, open to any suggestions of ways to simplify and or clarify it.

Frizzler said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/09/2010

DE  

Hi Playful,

cool, this will lift the rules and close the remaing gaps.
Thx for giving me the chance to check it before making it final, as I currently have no time for this.

But I quickly want to throw in some points from my list.
Maybe you have the time to word rulings for those cases, if you think it is necessary. Otherwise, I might find the time to do the wording myself next month.

1) maybe a golden rule is false, check this:
http://www.runners-net.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=360

2) if an Ice gets rezzed twice in one turn (Superglue...), does Field Reporter gain Runner 1 or 2 bits?

3) Data Fort Reclamation: The bits gained maybe used to rez upgrades and nodes that had been installed previously.

4) Joan of Arc when MU is full:
http://www.runners-net.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7957809

5) City Surveillance and Bodyweight Synthetic Blood: May Runner decide for each card individually or for all cards at once, before drawing any of the cards? Probably for all at once, compare to ruling for Hunt Club.

6) when self-destruct gets accessed and the corp triggers it, all unaccessed remaining cards from the subsi go to trash before runner accesses them

7) edited shipping manifests exposing unrezzed upgrades? no.
maybe add clarification that corporate cards only get revealed when
a) rezzed or b) explicitly exposed or c) scored or d) accessed

8) clarify that forgoing actions to remove virus counters is a special effect. So it cannot be used "at anytime" (as written on the virus cards), but only when special efects can be used. List these moments in the ruling, because many players don't know them.

9) Silver Lining Recovery Protocol errata: add text "... when they were accessed" (so you gain 0 if your agenda gets trashed by DFA)

10) Hidden Resources that gain bits (Swiss bank account etc) can be used whenever special effects can be used!
Most players don't know this and insist on those resources being useable only when something has to be paid. But they may be used also after each action. One of those resources may also be used to pay for another one.

11) Street Enforcer / Mme Irma: add ruling similar to the one for Newsgroup Taunting (must be rezzed already at the start of the run in order to take effect)

12) can disinfectant prevent the exchangig of socket to pipe counters?

13) does Back door to Netwatch cancel the tag given by crash space after an automatically successful trace attempt?

14) Corruption, see my proposal here:
http://www.runners-net.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7957810

15) Dupré, see Azuay's ruling:
http://www.runners-net.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=187

16) Lifesaver Nanosurgeons may be used even if the damage suffered did not cause a discard (because of 0 cars in hand and then Emergeny Self Construct). It may be used even if the damage was in the previous turn.

still a lot of work... But if we do it, we should do it right!

Thx again, Frizzler

Playful_EE said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/11/2010

FR  

Dear Frizzler,

No problem.
I'll take care of your additional points, and include them whenever necessary.
I'll post an updated thread that will contain corresponding ruling texts.

To 700TT,
your remarks will be answered also in this thread.

Rgds and good play
Playful_EE

Playful_EE said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/17/2010

FR  

Dear all,

Please find below the full analysis of the topics added by Frizzler about errata to include in the v1.8 of the official file. Thanks to those who have helped in this process.
I’m working now on the integration of all topics in the official file v1.8.

Warning 1: the text is very long, so be patient and courageous if you want to read it all.
Warning 2: this thread is more aimed at expert players, so it might be felt as difficult, or even a bit boring (and not boring bit ;-)  ), for casual players or beginners.
Warning 3: it is important to have those points settled in order for me to be able to include them in the official errata file v1.8. So thanks at least to Wormhole and Frizzler to validate those topics (or correct if something is wrong). Comments from other expert players are of course also welcome.

Rgds and good reading
Playful_EE

Wormhole remarks
------------------------

D4a, D4b (Pattel counter)
It’s just to avoid any theorical misinterpretation. In other words, if the game was to be programmed, you would use 2 variables.

D14a (icons on special sentry breakers)
Your interpretation may be right (about the green icon understood as NON dedicated icebreaker), but icebreakers that are in fact “subcategories” of dedicated icebreakers (code gate, wall, sentry) must belong to the mother category. This is the case of the described icebreakers, which are only breaking sentry subroutines.
And when we consider the three ice types, we can see that two of them are less “intelligent” than the third one: code gates and walls are essentially not sentient (they are just algorithms simulating “locks” or “walls (!)”), but sentries are more “self-conscious” programs (some of them being even AIs), capable of detecting alien and forbidden elements, “tracing” back the coordinates of the hacker, and “attacking” his system (programs, hardware, ...) or his body (damage).
In terms of rule principle, this translates immediately into several ice specifications that are specific to ice types (unfortunately not said explicitely in the rulebook, but still valid for the cards, and logical):
- brain damage = sentries (black ice)
- trashing a program or hardware = sentries
- making a trace = sentries
- AI = sentries
- complex and multi-subroutines or effect = sentries (Fatal Attractor, Cerberus, Colonel Failure, ...)

D17 (Haunting 6 actions)
Haunting forbids to do something for a certain time (the 6 actions). So, THE VERY NATURE of what you are doing during this time is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is the time elapsed. The logical consequence is that any card that makes you GAIN time (actions) is counting toward that.

700TT remarks
-------------------

D17 (Haunting 6 actions)
You’re right. Valu-Pak “uses up” one action by itself, of course. It was implicit in my explanation, but I’ll correct to be perfectly clear.

D18 (Death from Above and face down cards)
The problem (with or without New Galveston City Grid effect) is that Death from Above makes the Runner “unable” to access cards, opposed to any “normal” run. In a normal run, accessing cards means that you actually have the possibility to “look” at them, and therefore “know” their trash costs.
How do you manage the “unknown” trash costs ? Theorically, you could ask a third party to check face down cards and tell you the costs ? “On the Fast Track” has a clarification like that, but I fear that it would become really ugly with DfA.

D19 (gaining actions)
Of course, you can use an additional action after your last action of the turn, or before your first action in the turn. I’ll add this comment.

D18 (paying costs)
Your wording looks theorically good, but is, from my point of view, too complex and may appear unclear to most players. Furthermore, it could lead to interpretation problems for “generic effect” or “not generated by a card”.
I prefer to keep the previous proposed one by Frizzler, which is maybe not 100% perfect, but gives clearly the rational behind the ruling.

Frizzler remarks
---------------------
You brought out 16 new topics, and I’ve renumbered them from D20 to D35 for the sake of continuity and easiness of reference in the future. See my answers and synthesis below.

D20 Ice strength modifiers and order in which they apply
I fully agree, and it is described in that sense in the official errata file v1.62, though not as clearly as below and not specifically about this topic (this is why I’ll keep this new clarification). The official errata file says that “If a player has multiple effects to process at any given time (e.g., start of turn, end of turn, start of run, end of run), that player chooses the order in which the effects are processed.”
Concerning your new clarification, your sentence has to be slightly reworded. Hence below:

Clarification: In the Rulebook page 32, replace the sentence:
“If multiple events take place at the same time, the player whose turn it is chooses the order of those events.”
by the sentence:
“If multiple events take place at the same time, the player owning the elements (cards, decisions, or effects) concerning those events chooses the order of those events.”

D21 Field Reporter for Ice and Data multiple effects
The text does not instruct to count the number of pieces of ice that are rezzed at the end of the turn, but to count the number of time the Corp rezzed a piece of ice. In other words, FRID triggers (ie “stocks” [1] bit) each time the Corp rezzes a piece of ice. If that ice is derezzed (with Superglue, for example), then rezzed again during the same turn, FRID triggers again and will stock one more bit. After all, the Corp has also to pay again to rez it the second time. Hence the clarification below:

Clarification: “The triggering event of Field Reporter for Ice and Data is the rezzing event, not the number of rezzed ice at the end of a turn. Thus, if during a turn, a piece of ice is derezzed and rezzed again, Field Reporter for Ice and Data will trigger for each “new” rezzing. In other words, an ice derezzed X times by Disintegrator (or Disgruntled Ice Technician, Superglue, ...) and rezzed again X times the same turn, will make Runner gain X times the [1] bit of the resource.”

D22 Data Fort Reclamation and timing of cards rez
I’m not sure I agree with that.
If you mean that “previously” represents any upgrade or node that has been installed “before” processing the effect of DFR, then it is incorrect (and even meaningless as the fort created has to be new, ie empty of any card). The effect applies only on the cards chosen via the DFR process.
If you mean that “previously” represents any upgrade or node that has been installed during the DFR process, but not rezzed when just installed, it could be correct, but...
Let’s explain what happens, and in which order.
a. You score DFR (gaining immediately 2 AP in that process)
b. You gain [10] (temporarily, so you put those bits aside your bit pool to identify them)
c. You choose up to 4 cards stored in HQ
d1. You install one of those cards in the NEW fort (creating it when you process your first card). You may use any of the [10] of step #b to pay for installing that card (if an effect would make you pay an additional cost for example).
Note that if Precision Bribery forbids you to create the fort, you cannot process AT ALL the effect of DFR.
d2. You may choose to rez that card. If you do so, you may use any of the [10] of step #b to pay. If the card costs more than [10], you can pay the rest from your bit pool.
d3. You repeat steps #d1 and #d2 up to 4 times (depending on the number of cards you have chosen with DFR).
e. You return to the bank any of the [10] not spent.

It is important to note that step #d2 occurs essentially AFTER step #d1 because the card instructs to process the installation “one at a time”. So your decision of rezzing a card has to be taken just after that installation. Once you’ve installed the next card, you cannot “come back” to any previous one, ie one that has been installed before (but still within the process of DFR).

It could be possible to take your remark into account (with the restriction that the word “previously” concerns only one of the four cards chosen), which means we would allow the Corp to decide the rezzing at the end (after all installation are made).
But then it’s an errata on DFR. We could then take the opportunity to also fine tune it. It could read then:

ERRATA: “Gain [10] and choose up to four cards stored in HQ when you score Data Fort Reclamation. Create a new data fort using the cards chosen in this way. Install those cards one at a time, rezzing immediately the ones which have to be rezzed when installed. When all those cards have been installed, you may rez any of them not already rezzed and rez them. Then, return to the bank any of the [10] not spent.”

The card without the errata (ie you cannot decide to rez at the end of the process) changes only the fact that you have to “think” at all rezzing possibilities “before” installing each card, because when the next card is installed, it’s over for the previous one. Now, in terms of gameplay, as there is only 4 cards max, the difference is minimal between the two options (decision one after the other, or all at the end).

D23 Joan of Arc when MU is full
Let’s summarize the situation described and try to process it step by step. The answer will come by itself (actually, this situation is an old case already treated).
To simplify the explanation, we suppose that all programs installed are 1 MU programs, and that the Runner has no card providing him or her more MUs.
a1. MUs available: 4
a2. programs installed: #1, #2, #3, and Joan of Arc. All MUs are therefore fully used up.
a3. the Runner wants to install a program: #5. The process of installation begins ...
b. program #5 is taken out of Runner’s hand, and begins its “trip” from the hand to the playing area.
c0. Program #5 is about to overwrite one of the other programs (other than Joan of Arc, of course). Let’s say that program #1 is the overwritten program.
c1. You place the program #5 card on the program #1 card. By the simple fact of doing that, the program #1 card LEAVES PLAY immediately (it is exactly like overwriting a node in a fort: the fort DOES NOT disappear, as the new node replaces the previous one immediately).
Rem: Your MU number has not changed during that phase: it is always 4. Which means that at NO MOMENT you have (for a micro-instant) 5 MUs, of which you would have to cancel one immediately.
c2. The additional program being NOT in play, cannot be saved by JoA (which prevents a trash from an “installed” program).

In other words, if JoA prevents #1 to be trashed, it means that #1 IS installed, which means in turn that it has not YET been overwritten.
And by the time you overwrote #1 with #5, the installed program is #5 and NO MORE #1 (which is already on its way to the trash).
This implies a more general case, even if MUs are not filled at 100%: overwriting a program makes the saving of the overwritten program impossible with Joan of Arc.

In conclusion, the combo does not work. Hence the clarification below:

Clarification: “You cannot overwrite a program P by a new program N, and save the program P at the same time with Joan of Arc, because as soon as the program P is overwritten, it is no more installed (it has already left play and started its way towards the trash).”

D24 City Surveillance and timing of decisions when Runner draws more than one card
The clarification on Hunt Cub BBS (all the choices are made before processing the exposing phase) and one of the clarifications of City Surveillance (“if the Runner plays Jack 'n' Joe, we may rez City Surveillance to force the Runner to either take three tags or pay three bits or any combination thereof. (Sparky, Netrunner-L, 5/17/96)”) suggest that when a card like Jack ’n’ Joe or Bodyweight Synthetic Blood is played, all the choices about paying or being tagged should be made before processing the draws.
On the contrary, the card text itself, by instructing that “for each card Runner draws”, he or she has to “make the choice”, suggests that you could draw each card, and decide just after that draw if you pay or receive the tag. So what happens really ??

The right answer is the first one (you decide all, and then you draw all) because the effect of cards like Jack ’n’ Joe is to be understood as ONE TRIPLE effect, opposed to THREE TIMES ONE effect. In that sense, the effect cannot be divided nor splitted into more “basic elements”. It is well described in the errata file in the paragraph “card effects”: “If an effect targets multiple cards, all decisions are made regarding those targets before the effect is resolved (e.g., if the Runner plays Hunt Club BBS, all of the cards to be exposed are chosen before they are exposed) (Netrunner FAQ v1.0, 5/23/96)”.
Hence the clarification below:

Clarification“When a card instructs the Runner to draw, as one effect, several cards, he or she has to make ALL decisions concerning the bit/tag effect before drawing the cards.”

D25 Self-Destruct and timing of trashing
A statement exists already: “The Runner has to survive the effect before he or she can trash any card in the fort or score any agenda. If a card is trashed by Self Destruct it goes to the Archives before the Runner can trash or score it. (Holger Janssen, 03/11/00)”.
So the cards remaining to be accessed are included in that.

D26 Edited Shipping Manifests
I don’t understand the issue about ESM.
Of course, ESM does NOT expose nor reveal anything. Not accessing cards does not mean in any way that you can look at them!
For the generic clarification, I don’t see really the need for such an addition, but if everybody wants me to add that clarification, I’ll add the topic below in the “card effects” paragraph of the official errata file.

Card effects:
“Installed Corp cards are turned face up only when they are scored (agendas), rezzed (ice, upgrades, nodes), revealed or exposed by a game effect, or accessed (by Runner).”

D27 Forgoing actions to remove virus counters: timing
The “at any time” refers implicitely to any time belonging to the “special card effects” timing. Any moment different from that MUST be explicitely written (like “at the start of a run”, etc.).
That point has been already answered in the “Viruses and forgoing actions” paragraph of the official errata file:
“You can remove virus counters (and be forced to forgo your next three actions) any time you can rez a card. (Sparky, Netrunner-L, 7/17/96)”
You can see also in my Run Flow Chart all moments of a run when you can use those “special card effects”.

D28 Silver Lining Recovery Protocol
Actually, if the agendas have been trashed without having been accessed (Death from Above effect, Synchronized Attack on HQ after an attack with Priority Wreck, etc.), they are NOT “stolen”, so SLRP will not trigger in that case. If the Runner makes a successful run on the Archives afterwards the same turn to access agendas there, then SLRP can give the bits.
Remember that “to steal” (Corp word, the Runner word being “liberate”) essentially means that the Runner has ACCESSED that agenda and is about to SCORE the corresponding agenda points. “Moving” an agenda from one place to another (from HQ to the Archives for example) has nothing to do with the fact of stealing it (or scoring for the Corp).
There is no need to make an errata on this card.

D29 Hidden Resource that generate bits: timing
The clarification already exists.
Chiba Bank Account, Liberated Savings Account, Swiss Bank Account have been already clarified in the official errata file. See below for Chiba Bank Account only (as other cards are similar).
The “you may” does NOT prevent from the normal timing; it is just adding an additional timing possibility.

Official errata file v1.62:
“You can use Chiba Bank Account to pay for installation costs. (Sparky, Netrunner-L, 11/11/96)
When using Chiba Bank Account to install a card or pay for an effect, follow this sequence: 1) announce the card/effect; 2) pay the price (this is when you trash Chiba Bank Account); 3) place the card in the trash/archives; 4) perform the effect. (Sparky, Netrunner-L, 11/11/96)
‘You may use this ability whenever ..’ means you can use Chiba Bank Account at the specified times in addition to the normal times that special effects can be used. (Tom Wylie via JD Wiker, Netrunner-L, 3/11/96)”

D30 Street Enforcer : timing of rez
I’ll add the clarification below in the “card effects” paragraph of the errata file, because it is a generic issue, not something specific to Street Enforcer (or any node or upgrade).

Clarification: “The ‘start of a run’ is NOT a normal time when you can use ‘special card effects’. Thus you cannot, unless specified otherwise, use a node or upgrade effect if that node or upgrade is not already rezzed at the start of a run. The only case when you can rez a node or upgrade “at the start of a run” is when the card text allows explicitely that possibility (Obfuscated Fortress). The normal timing for rezzing cards does not include start of runs. See my Run Flow Chart.”

D32 Disinfectant Inc and Socket/Pipe counters of Viral Pipeline
First, it is necessary to remind that Disinfectant “IS” a prevention card, ie a card that triggers when you are about to suffer from the effect to be prevented (“a prevention effect essentially occurs "before" the effect it is preventing. (Sparky, Netrunner-L, 6/17/96).”)
Technically speaking, Disinfectant does not prevent the “transformation” of virus counters. What it prevents is the fact of “receiving” a virus counter.
When the Socket counters are transformed into a Pipe counter (no event can be “inserted” there), the  Runner follows the text and attempts to give that Pipe counter to the Corp.
Then, as a reaction (“prevention” effect), the Corp activates Disinfectant and avoids receiving that Pipe counter (the fact that this Pipe counter does not come from a successful run but from a special card effect is irrelevant: the only thing that counts is that this counter IS a virus counter).
By the way, technically speaking, the Corp could also have chosen to avoid the third Socket counter in the first place.
A remark is necessary here: giving the Pipe counter is a “special card effect”, ie usable only at certain times (typically when a rezzing is possible). That means there is a difference between giving the Socket counter (virus counter given when a run is successful) and the Pipe counter (special card effect). This is why the Runner cannot transform immediately (the run is not over) the 3 Sockets during the last run.

I’ll add the clarification below for Disinfectant and Viral Pipeline:

Clarification: “When the Runner is about to make a successful run, and is about to give the last necessary Socket counter to be able to give a Pipe counter to the Corp, the Corp cannot stop the “transformation” of the 3 Socket counters into a Pipe, but can still use Disinfectant Inc effect, as it is a prevention effect, to avoid receiving that Pipe counter, or the third Socket counter in the first place.”

D33 Back Door to Netwatch with Crash Space
Let’s review first what are the effects of the cards.
- Back Door to Netwatch essentially cancels (ie prevents, as it generates a prevention effect), not a trace, but the effect of a successful trace. It gives also 1 BP point if the trace has an effect other than or in addition to giving any tags.
- Crash Space “transforms” (=modifies) the effect of a trace (the trace gives a tag, in addition to its other effects) and makes it also automatically successful.

This is exactly the same problem as the “original and printed” strength on ice: do we speak about “original and printed” effects of traces or current (=modified) effects ?

If we consider that what counts is what the trace is “currently” doing (I think it’s logical here), we could understand, that with these two cards installed, any trace attempted by the Corp:
- is successful (Crash Space drawback)
- generates an additional effect : the tag (Crash Space drawback)

In other words, the global modified effect of the each trace would be made of 3 possible parts:
1) to give X tags, where X is the number of tags given without Crash Space.
2) to have any other effect (if any), different from giving a tag. This effect is optional (depending on the tracing card text).
3) to give 1 tag, due to Crash Space

Then, triggering Back Door to Netwatch :
- is always possible with Crash Space (successful trace)
- would prevent the global modified effect: #1 and #3, and #2 if there is a #2
- about the BP, it’s more tricky... see below.

Now there’s a problem with how to interpret effect #3.
A. Do we consider that effect #3 is “merged” with effect #1, making it a “modified” effect #1 ? In that case, the BP is given only if effect #2 exists, and then depends only on the tracing card, not Crash Space.
B. Do we consider that effect #3 is separate ? In that case, the BP is always given because of Crash Space.

This is really a problem, because with a standalone card (ie without Crash Space) the sentence “other than or in addition to” means that you just ask yourself if the card effect :
- is tags only (Manhunt),
- something different from giving tags (Homewrecker subroutine)
- tags + something different from giving tag (Underworld Mole)
In other words, the tags are ONE part of the effect. The sentence “other than or in addition to giving any tags” is clear there.

But with Crash Space, the “in addition to giving any tags” is not so clear. We don’t know if we refer to the original tags given by the tracing card or the modified number with the Crash Space effect.
The “in addition to giving any tags” is a problem. Does it means that the additional effect of that trace must be something “different” from giving tags (the “any” word), or it has just to be anything “additional” (ie also giving a tag) ?

Hence the two possible clarifications below on Back Door to Netwatch.
The first one, that always gives the BP, supposes that you never merge the effect #3 with the original tags, and that the “in addition to” effect can be tags.
The second one supposes that you merge the effect #3 with the effect #1, triggering then the BP only if the tracing card has an effect #2 (ie something different from giving tags).

Clarification 1: “If Crash Space is installed, it modifies the effect of all traces. These traces are considered then to have “an effect other than or in addition to giving any tags”. It means that the use of Back Door to Netwatch will cancel all effects of the trace, including the additional tag due to Crash Space, and will give 1 Bad Publicity point to the Corp.”

Clarification 2: “If Crash Space is installed, it modifies the effect of all traces by adding 1 to the number of tags those trace would give. It means that the use of Back Door to Netwatch will cancel all effects of the trace, including the additional tag due to Crash Space, but will give 1 Bad Publicity point to the Corp only if the tracing card has an additional effect different from giving those tags.”

D34 Corruption played several times
The fact that the “lose” word indicates normally a penalty is tricky, because it could be interpreted stupidly like for NETO (to bring cards without paying), and in this case, Corruption would be stupidly broken and at the same time dangerous to play.

There is a fundamental problem here, because the “broken” interpretation can be considered valid. I explain:
- what counts is the number X of agenda points you HAVE scored this turn. What you have done with those AP before playing Corruption is irrelevant (Databroker, ...). So that number X is fixed and defined once and for all.
- As the card instructs to “lose” X, you fulfill that PENALTY up to what you can do. In other words, if you play a first Corruption, you lose X AP, the Corp scores X AP, you gain X times [10] bits, and the Corp gives you a tag. No problem here.
- now if you play a second Corruption, you lose 0 (no more AP left, so you fulfill the penalty), the Corp scores X AP (it’s not a penalty for the Corp, it is just referring to X, not 0), you gain X times [10] (it is not a penalty, so it refers to X, not 0 !!), and the Corp gives you a tag.

With this card, you have a monstruous bit generator on one side, and a mega risk of making the Corp win on the other side.

We can still interpret the wording to link what the Runner can lose to what the Corp can gain. In other words, if all agenda points have already been lost, you cannot lose more (with the second Corruption), but in that case the Corp would gain 0 agenda points.

In fact it simulates that you are making a deal with the Corp: you give it valuable information you’ve hacked (“transfer” of AP from Runner to Corp), and in exchange, the Corp makes you a millionaire (bits). But as this is risky (the Corp traitor has emptied the bank account of the big boss), it cannot go unnoticed (tag).
If we stick to this explanation, it means that the “lose” should be in fact a cost. Errating the card in that way would clarify, but would change slightly the effect.

Now coming to the effects described by Frizzler:

Case 1
- Runner liberates Political Overthrow (takes 1 action; scores 6 AP),
- triggers an installed Databroker (takes 1 action; pays 1 AP out of the 6 gained; gains [10]),
- and plays Corruption (takes 1 action; should lose 6 AP because this is the number of AP scored this turn, but as 5 only are left, Runner loses 5 AP; the Corp gains 6 AP (yes 6, because the “that many AP” corresponds to the “all AP scored this turn”); Runner gains [50] because it is the “lost in this way” which means something like “succesfully” or “really” lost; and the Corp gives Runner a tag).
At then end, Runner has 0 AP, [60] = [10]+[50] bits, and a tag, and the Corp has 6 AP.

Case 2
- Runner liberates Hostile Takeover (takes 1 action; gains 1 AP),
- triggers Databroker (takes 1 action; pays the 1 AP gained from the agenda; gains [10]),
- CANNOT trigger the second Databroker (no AP left, so Runner cannot PAY the COST),  unless he or she has scored AP during previous turns,
- and plays Corruption (takes 1 action; should lose the AP, but already gone with Databroker, so loses nothing; the Corp scores 1 AP; Runner gain [0], as no AP has been lost in this way; the Corp gives Runner a tag).
At the end, Runner has 0 AP, [0] bits, and a tag, and the Corp has 1 AP.

Case 3
- Runner scores at the start of his or her turn Fetal AI automatically because of Bizarre Encryption Scheme effect (no action; gains 3 AP if he or she can pay the [2] bits to score it, no damage),
- and plays Corruption (takes 1 action; loses 3 AP; the Corp scores 3 AP; Runner gains [30] bits; the Corp gives Runner a tag).
At the end, Runner has 0 AP, [30] bits, and a tag, and the Corp has 3 AP.

Finally two solutions there to interpret Corruption:
- Keeping the text, but clarifying the “link” between what Runner can lose and the other effects. Then in case of several Corruption played, Runner would lose no AP, gain no bits, and the Corp would still gain X AP and give Runner a tag.
- make an errata to show that it is a cost;
“Play only if you scored any agendas this turn. Pay X agenda points, where X is the number of agenda points you scored this turn. If you do so, the Corp scores that many agenda points, you gain [10] per agenda point lost in this way, and the Corp gives you a tag.”

D34 Dupré
You would pay the full [14] of course.
Counters are not lost “before” the encounter but at the moment you declare that you use one of Dupré’s subroutines.”
See clarification below.

Clarification: “If you start a run on another fort than the one which has permitted to put strength counters on Dupré, Dupré loses its strength counters as soon as you use it during this run, which means that the moment you declare that you are about to pay for using one of Dupré’s subroutines, all strength counters on Dupré’s are removed from play, which forces you to pay from 0 strength again.
On the opposite, as long as you don’t use Dupré during this ‘new’ run, it keeps all its strength counters.”

D35 Lifesaver Nanosurgeons: conditions of trigger
This is right. LN triggers on the fact that a damage has been done successfully (as explained by Skipper Pickle in the errata file: if you have been “damaged”, it means that the damage has been done successfully), not the fact that cards have been discarded. As a matter of fact, it may happen that damage does not always lead to card discard, as you said (Emergency Self-Construct).
Also, the three “previous” actions can overlap on several turns.
I’ll add the clarification below.

Clarification: “Lifesaver Nanosurgeons triggers on damage done successfully, not on the effect of discarding. Therefore, it may be used even if the damage suffered has not caused a discard (for example in case of a hand of 0 cards and an installed Emergeny Self Construct). It may be used even if the damage was done in the previous turn, as long as it has been done during the last three actions of the Runner: in other words, those three consecutive actions can spread on two turns.”

7OOTnegaTerces said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/18/2010

US  

D18 (Death from Above and face down cards)

FIRST:
Why do we care what the original and printed trash cost of a node or upgrade is with DFA?  When you play with DFA you get to trash cards for free, so there is no need for anyone to look at the card, as you can just assume [0] for it's cost. New Galveston City Grid, or any similar trash cost increasing card, must be rezzed in order to be active.  And if it is rezzed, you can not only see it and what it's trash cost is, you can see how much it would add to the trash cost of any card, rezzed, exposed, or hidden.  Thus you can state categorically, without ever needing to look at any cards, the trash cost of any face down card when DFA is played.  It's either [0] if there are no trash cost enhancing cards, or [X], where X is the sum total of all trash cost enhancements. The only way this could ever become "ugly" was if there was some special "trash-preventing-effect" on a hidden card that wasn't your standard trash cost.  Then a third party might need to be called in, but that would be an issue raised, not by DFA, but by card X.

SECOND:
NGCC or any other trash enhancing card states that the Runner must pay an additional [X] in order to trash a card.  If the Runner does not (and they may refuse to), the card is not trashed, even if the Runner plays some effect that tries to trash that card.  Thus when DFA meets NGCC the extra [2] the Runner has to pay is actually a completely separate effect from DFA.  It is both generated and resolved by NGCC.  And remember, NGCC doesn't care how or why you are trying to trash any one node or upgrade.  It just cares that you are. And whenever you do try to, NGCC steps in like a sheild, demanding [2] before it will let you proceed with the trashing. Pay and you may then trash the card.  Don't pay, and you can not.  It works in exactly the same manner as Full Body Conversion works for mead damage (I mean MEAT, meat damage - and I swear I hadn't been touching the stuff!) done to the Runner.
Really, this extra [2] bits should be considered a separate payment event, even when trashing cards normally.  Thus, a dumb Runner who tries to trash a card that they just have enough bit to do so, but not enough to pay NGCC, would loose all those bit to no effect, as they paid the card's trash cost, but then did not pay NGCC so that it would let them successfully complete the trashing (DUDE! That would make an awesome one shot ambush upgrade!).
Which is why it makes no sense to demand that the Runner who wishes to play DFA must pay for NGCC to play DFA, since you are now trying to control the effect of one card via a completely different and separate second card! In reality, the true effect order and interaction when playing DFA is this:

1)Play DFA. Runner may now trash all cards for free. Go to step 2.
2)Is there a card to trash?
      Yes. Go to step 3.
      No. DFA is now finished.
3)Prepare to trash the card. Are there any trash cost enhancers in play?
      No. Trash card for free, go to step 2.
      Yes. Go to Step 4.
4)Set X equal to the sum of the trash enhancements. Do you wish to pay [X] to trash this card?
      Yes. Pay [X] and trash the card. Go to step 2.
      No. Card is not trashed. Go to Step 2.

Thus the Runner who plays DFA on a fort containing NGCC may choose which cards they wish to pay the extra [2] for to trash, not because of anything that DFA does, but because that is the way that NGCC works.  Always.


Remember folks, we're trying to settle the interaction between two cards, which means that, logically, some effects will be generated by both cards and must be dealt with by both cards.  It is important, therefore, in such situations, to separate the effects of the two cards and make sure you keep them separated.  That way you avoid trying to fix the effects of card A in the effects ruling of card B. With the way DFA is currently worded, any extra trash costs generated by other cards must be dealt with by those other cards. Any attempt to make DFA work such that the Runner must pay [2] per rezzed or exposed node/upgrade to play DFA would require a complete revision of DFA's card text to allow it to manipulate the effects of other cards (it would bypass NGCC's trash enhancement for a lesser cost of it's own), but that would then contradict the game principles discussed in my Sword and Shield post: http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=816#id816 .

Playful_EE said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/19/2010

FR  

Dear all,

To 700TT

D18 Death from Above
Hmm. I guess I mixed up different things when I sent the mail. Tired, maybe...
;-)
You’re totally right on your FIRST remark. Sorry to have send something so obviously wrong. I’ll remove the sentence on the rezzed/exposed cards.

Your SECOND Point: Excellent comparison with Full Body Conversion.
Excellent flowchart. Fully agree.

To all

Now I’m just realizing that I forgot some other clarifications/errata to include:

D36 Hijack and order of sentences
As currently worded, Hijack cannot be played correctly. We all know that the text has to be processed in the order it is written. In that case, Hijack instructs to install first( ie you pay now), and ONLY THEN you gain the 3 bits (ie they are useless at that time). Hence the errata below:

ERRATA: “Choose a program or hardware card from your hand. Gain [3], which you may use only for its installation cost, and install that card. Return to the bank any of the [3] you did not spend.”

D37 Faked Hit wording
The card should use the word “suffer” instead of “take”. Hence the errata below:

ERRATA: “Give the Corp 1 Bad Publicity point. Suffer 2 brain damage. This damage cannot be prevented.”

D38 Running Interference
Do we consider the current rez cost (ie possibly modified) or the original and printed one ? I think the best way to avoid problems is to statuate that the additional cost of [X] concerns only the original and printed rez cost, or at least the unmodified one. It would be logical as the card refers also to the “normal cost”.

Clarification: “X is the original and printed cost of the ice, ie the unmodified value.”

Thanks to take these points into accounts.

Last remark: some topics need not only a validation but a positioning, as they propose 2 solutions. Thanks to give your arguments to statuate on these. These points are:
- D22 Data Fort Reclamation timing
- D33 Back Door to Netwatch and Crach Space
- D34 Corruption played several times

Rdgs and good analyzes
Playful_EE

Playful_EE said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/19/2010

FR  

Dear all,

Please correct the following topic numbers when you refer to them:

- "Disinfectant Inc and Socket/Pipe counters of Viral Pipeline" is the D31 (and not D32 as written above)

- "Back Door to Netwatch with Crash Space is the D32 (and not D33 as written above)

- "Corruption played several times" is the D33 (and not D34 as written above)

Thanks and sorry for the mistake.
Playful_EE

WormholeSurfer said:

Re: Errata v1.8: Validation of UPDATES

10/19/2010

FR  

Hi everybody hi Playful

Just one question :

D18d. Kilroy Was Here

Why applied New galveston Effect for cards STORED in R&D that we would trash with Kilroy ?

i think it is a mistake ...

Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11  |  12  |  13  |  14  |  15

Post a Reply

Please Login to Post.

RSS

RSS

© 2008–2013 Netrunner Online. Support | Contribute

This site is an unofficial resource for the Netrunner CCG by Wizards of the Coast and was not produced, commissioned or endorsed by Wizards of the Coast.

Netrunner is © 1996 Wizards of the Coast, Inc. Cyberpunk 2020, Cyberpunk, and Netrunner therein are trademarks of R.Talsorian Games, Inc. Copyrights in certain text, graphic designs, characters, and places derived from Cyberpunk 2020® are the property of R. Talsorian Games, Inc., and are produced under license to Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Deckmaster and Wizards of the Coast are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast Inc.