Netrunner Forum

  PARIS

hi due to problem of dfa or mercenary vs new galveston and some other i think there is some problem on the basic rules ...

In order to clarify the rules to let young players access this game i 'd like to discuss of this kind of pb ...

  PARIS

i think we need to clarify the concept of cost no cost and additional cost

  Paris

Hi WormHole,
maybe you can post a few card (combo)exemples here to clarify/illustrate what you mean, in case newcomers are reading and willing to participate.
Thanks...

  Koblenz

Hi,

I suggest to add the following ruling to section "Paying costs":

"
If an effect allows you to install, rez or trash a card "at no cost", this only covers the normal cost to install, rez or trash that card. If any card effect causes an additional cost to install, rez or trash that card, this additional cost still has to be paid.
E.g. when Runner uses Mercenary Subcontract or Death from Above to trash cards installed in a fort containing New Galveston City Grid, he still has to pay the additional two bits for each Upgrade and Node.
"

This ruling would be consistent with what Emmanuel aka Playful AI explained in the DFA-Thread (see http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/index.php?thread=607&page=1).
It would also be consistent with the existing rulings for Death from Above and Security Purge.

At first sight, I had thought that ruling it the other way round would be correct (saying "at no cost" means always zero); but that way, the Corporation could use Security Purge or Rent-to-Own to rez Glacier without paying the agenda point (which certainly feels a bit strange).

A third option would have been saying that the final cost depends on the order in which the cost modifications occur. But this would be complicated, as the order is not always obvious.

SeeYa, Frizzler

  St Dizier

Dear all,

An important point to remember is what is fundamentally a cost vs a penalty.

A penalty is somtethings you have to fulfill as much as possible: when Bodyweight Synthetic Blood requires you to draw 5 cards and your stack contains only 3, then you draw all 3

A cost is something you have to make to get the effect; if you don't fulfill it fully, you don't get the effect. When a card say "install", for example, you need to be able to pay for its installation cost.
When NETO requires you to pay, it's a cost, so if you don't have the bits, you don't get the cards.
Same thing for Security Purge.

This topic of "no cost" has, in the past, opened the door to stupid brainstorming for some players (i'm not sure I should call them "players") who tried to pervert the rules to fit their desire of playing cards or/and effect without paying (NETO, JOan of Arc, ...).

At this time, the rule guru (I don't remember if it was Marc "Sparky" Schmaltz or Skipper Pickle) explained the concept of penalty and cost, and explained also that it was very difficult to put a 100% rigorous rule to certain cards in terms of (simple) wording.

The general principle was that a "no cost" effect never prevented an additional cost, which occurs essentially "after" any cost calculation. This is why, for example, some cards say "in addition to any other costs" to reflect that even if you don't pay anything, you still have to pay that "premium".

This approach of cost and penalty was quite clear in the mind of most skilled players.
For my part, I strongly advise NOT to let "at no cost" becoming a "free" effect whatever the context. This is not at all in the spirit of the game, and the way it's been designed.

I admit though that we could rewrite rules to clarify that, but there are also some other points that could be improved, like the run sequence (for certain cards timing). But I'm not sure it would bring a lot, as the booklet is very good in general, and the different errata and clarification explain details and subtle points for intermediate and expert players. Secondly, it is extremely difficult to write something consistent without taking the risk of changing something unwanted (it's like a court session with lawyers  ;-)

Playful_EE

  Koblenz

Hi Playful and others,

it is true that only a handful of intermediate and expert players would be interested in this clarification. But as long as there are still tournaments, I prefer to clear as much as possible *before* a game/tournament starts.

You are also right when you say it is extremely difficult to write something consistent without taking the risk of changing something unwanted.
But would you agree to my rules proposal and its wording?

Btw I met up with some long term Netrunner players at the German Nationals recently and they agreed (among them Lukas, winner of the German Nationals 2006 and Holger, who is/was rules czar).

SeeYa, Frizzler

  (ZA)

I vote for the following ruling:
"If an effect allows you to install, rez or trash a card "at no cost", this only covers the normal cost to install, rez or trash that card. If any card effect causes an additional cost to install, rez or trash that card, this additional cost still applies."

Together with following already existing ruling:
"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)"

we can clarify:
When Runner uses Mercenary Subcontract or Death from Above to trash cards installed in a fort containing New Galveston City Grid, he still has to pay the additional cost of two bits for each rezzed and/or exposed Upgrade and Node. In the case of Mercenary Subcontract, all nodes and upgrades will be exposed and/or rezzed because they have already been accessed.

  PARIS

Hi everyone
i am sorry but i still disagree with this rule, to me, new galveston give + 2 trash cost
if runner accesses normally a fort containing it and one other node or upgrde he has to pay + 2 because trash cost are +2.
but if he use DFA he doesn't normally trash cards by accessing and paying trash cost so why do we havé to care about this +2?
if the text of new galveston had to be :" cost to trash is+2" i would be ok but in this case it is written trash cost and in thé rule trash cost refers to number written in the trash and this this case we don't care...
This is my point of you

seeya

  PARIS

DFA is a very strong overpowered cards and your rules balanced it a little an it is cool but if we want the rule légal we have reword DFA an or New Galveston

  PARIS

@ Emmanuel
Your explanations of cost and aditional costs satisfys me but in the case of. new galveston ho can we clarly define that is an additional cost since it is not written " in addition to any other costs " ?

I know it is silly to play on terms like this but it is necessary if we want to reword and clarify cards