Netrunner Forum

  PARIS

Hi everyone !

The rules says that when a runner want to use DFA on a fort containing New GCG runner still have to pay 2 for each upgrade an node ...

Why this rule ?
because DFA just say trash at no cost

  PARIS

hi everybody, anyone to help please ?

  Koblenz

hi Ludo,

good question.

I think this is because the one who made the ruling applies death from above first (reducing the cost to zero), then new galveston city grid (adding two to the cost).

I don't think this is correct btw (new galveston takes effect first, as soon as it gets installed, so it must be applied first).

Also, with the promo version of new galveston, the card text has been corrected; I don't have the promo card available; can you please post its text for comparison?
With the corrected text, the ruling might have to be changed...

seeya, Frizzler

  PARIS

here is the text of the promo version ...

Each node and upgrade installed in this fort, other than New Galveston City Grid, gets +[2] trash cost.

Nothing really changed

I think we trash card for 0 but why this ruling ?

i think we need to look the run flow chart ...
thx fabian

  St Dizier

Hello everybody,

That kind of question has always been tricky.
It's the eternal struggle between
- "no cost = you pay nothing regardless of any other effect", and
- "no cost = you reduce what is printed on the card to zero, and then you apply any penalty due to additional cost"

Personally, and it was played like that in tournaments when the game was active, I always apply the second option. Any "additional" effect applies, unless prevented explicitely by the card.

Furthermore, if you consider my Run Flow Chart, yoy will see that you trigger the effect of Death From Above before, but you will have to pay for New Galveston City Grid at the very moment you want to trash cards.
In fact, you may consider that you "are about to trash for free", but then the region triggers and forces you to pay an ADDITIONAL cost.

Playful_EE

We can reason similarly for a Glacier "rezzed at no cost". You still have to pay the agenda point to be able to rez it.

  PARIS

Hi all, hi emmanuel and really thx for reply !

Personnaly i understand DFA on the 1st way that's why i disagre with the explanation but if it is the way it has to be played, so ok ...

Can we reword DFA for a better understanding ?

  St Dizier

I'm sorry to cancel the hope of players, but if you have a look on the official errata , you will see the text:
"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. (Skipper Pickle, Netrunner-L, 11/4/97)"

I always try not to be too blunt, but I was pretty sure onthis one...
Sorry.    ;-)

  PARIS

hi again, i knew this ruling that's why i posted the question because the way that New galveston an DFA were wording let me think that there is no additional cost since there is no cost to trash by DFA effect ...

we can trash cards by paying their cost (0 is a cost) or by "trash effect" generated by card ( startup immolator, ...)

I understand DFA like a "trash effect" like Startup ... so no cost, no additional cost ...

I just want to clarify the rules, i just want to understand if dfa vs NG has to be played like skipper picle said, i'll play like that but it is not logical due to the wordings of cards ...

Seeya

  Koblenz

Hi,

I don't really mind whether the ruling concerning Death From Above + new Galveston is correct or not, for three reasons:

First, DFA should be banned anyway.

Second, it is very rare that these two cards ever meet.

Third, even if the ruling should be wrong, we shouldn't change it: The rulings are spread over the whole internet. So if we change a ruling here, we would create a sort of parallel rules universe, there would be two different rulings at the same time in different places. (I personnally would stick to the rulings here, as this is the world's most active Netrunner site, but not everybody would accept this ruling unless it was the same everywhere.)

But I still have two comments:
1) The new wording of New Galveston speaks of "trash cost". In analogy to "rez cost", this is the number *printed* on the card. So no matter how the eternal struggle ends (see Emmanuel's posting) I think it would be correct to change the ruling; DFA sets the cost to zero anyway.
But we shouldn't change the ruling anyway, for the previously mentioned reasons.

2) We should add a ruling for Mercenary Subcontract. Proposal:
"When Mercenary Subcontract meets New Galveston City Grid, the «normal cost to trash» the cards in the fort becomes the cost of Mercenary Subcontract'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 Mercenary Subcontract's effect. (Netrunner-Online, Juli 2010)"

  Paris

Suggestion 1 : Add a new thread for Mercenary Subcontract even if there is an analogy with DFA
(Frank's advice)

Suggestion 2 : Concerning DFA, if a rewording was to be proposed, wouldn't it be simpler to add in DFA's text :
"Trash at no cost, all cards installed in a subsidiary data fort, even if they cannot normally be trashed, *** though any extra or additional cost must be paid ***. Use this ability..."