<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0">        <channel>
            <title><![CDATA[Netrunner Online : Forum : Rules : General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>		      
            <description><![CDATA[Welcome to the Netrunner Online Forums]]></description>
            <link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=662]]></link>
            <language>en-us</language>
            <copyright>Copyright 2008-2010, Netrunner Online</copyright>
            <category>Forum</category>
			                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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 ...]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=662#id662]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:26:41 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[i think we need to clarify the concept of cost no cost and additional cost]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=666#id666]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:45:14 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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...]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=667#id667]]></link>
					<author>AllyAces</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 21:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=670#id670]]></link>
					<author>Frizzler</author>
					<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:22:08 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=671#id671]]></link>
					<author>Playful_EE</author>
					<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=699#id699]]></link>
					<author>Frizzler</author>
					<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:22:55 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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.]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=701#id701]]></link>
					<author>photon79</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=707#id707]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[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]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=708#id708]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:29:44 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[@ 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]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=709#id709]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 08:37:31 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[After rereading the *new* card text in the promo edition of the card, they got rid of the "in addition" formula...of course to simplify the game and the utilisation of the NGCG card...

So I agree with Wormhole that if we want to follow the new card text as close as possible, it has to be treated as an increase of the trash cost number rather than an additional cost...
But if it appears that DFA is too strong in the constructed game, since NGCC was one powerful card to balance it, maybe an exception can be made...?
Another question could be, is NGCC too strong in  constructed ?
the best answer would come after playtesting those cards together, and see how they interact in a constructed environment...
Who wants to playtest it ? ;)]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=712#id712]]></link>
					<author>AllyAces</author>
					<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:49:46 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hello everybody

I strongly disagree with the interpretation, abusive in my point of view, which consists in separating two notions (here : accessing and trashing) and then get rid of an effect (here : trashing cost).

The rule is clear on that (official errata v1.62): 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).

For me, it means that when the Runner is generating a trash effect on Corp's cards, it is implicit that the trash costs of those cards are to be considered, even if he or she does not access cards. So Runner has to deal with any additional cost. And New Galveston City Grid effect is essentially to add a penalty cost to the fact of trashing.

I know that wording is something very difficult, and certain cards are almost impossible to word in a way that would prevent any abusive interpretation, which is the national sport of cunning players who think like lawyers and search for any flaw in the system to benefit from it (I fell several times into that trap in my youth...). This is the reason why clarifications and errata exist.
Famous examples of abusive interpretation were for example:
- the card NETO, where some players were not paying the bit cost to get cards into their hand because they have no bit left in their bitpool
- the card Security Purge, where players were installing ICE without taking account of the additional cost of cards like Restricted Net Zoning
- the false combo Joan of Arc + misc for Sale because the word 'successfully' trash were not present in misc for Sale card.

Whatever the game and wording, remember that it is always possible to pervert a text in some way for certain effects. A project of global rewording of rules and clarification/errata of card text has been wished, but it is a huge task, and very tricky one

Coming back to the subject of Death from Above and New Galveston City Grid, a (complicated) way to word could be either to modify the resource effect, which means a new wording of the at no cost, or to change the modifier of cost of the region.
Something like:
- Death from Above: trash all cards in a subsidiary data fort as if they had a trash cost of 0 instead of their original and printed one. Trash also all cards in that fort, that have no trash cost indicated
- New Galveston City Grid: whenever Runner is about to trash any card different from New Galveston City Grid, he or she has to pay [2], in addition of any other costs, or that card is not trashed, even in a run during which New Galveston City Grid is accessed.

Now, a second topic is assessing the power and balance of the cards in a game. And in that domain, I fully agree that Death from Above (like many other Proteus cards) is overpowered. And the reason is that it kills simply all installed ambush cards, which are an important asset of the game.

An just to finish this long mail, an final example of a lacking text in a card: Sterdroid. This card is an upgrade that double the strength of an ice during a run. As all upgrades, the principle of the card is to reinforce the fort it is installed in (as described in the rule book). But the text does not contain in that fort, so theorically, the card could be used like a node, with an effect on any fort. For me, this is so contrary to the spirit of the game and the way upgrades have been created, that I state it is an errata, and I consider that Sterdroid can have its effect only on the fort it is in, like any other upgrade. When I was referee in tournaments, most players were agreeing with that (excepted those cunning lawyers).]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=713#id713]]></link>
					<author>Playful_EE</author>
					<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:30:22 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Thanks Playful_AI,

(cunning) lawyers put the finger in the wound so that rulings are being made. If there is no structure in place to set and change rulings however, they are just a pain ;)

Perhaps we can open a new thread for Sterdroid. One question ahead: In the current wording Sterdroid can be combined with Dr. Dreff, is that right? How is affected by your errata? Would it say "installed on this fort"?

When it comes to the balance of ambush cards and protection from them, I am afraid that there is too much to say.]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=714#id714]]></link>
					<author>photon79</author>
					<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[To sum up a little,
the official errata was made in 1997 and the rewording of NGCC was made in 1999 with the new card printings...
So we can assume that if they did so either they made a mistake, forgetting their own rulings...
Or they found that NGCC was too strong to get rid of (haven't playtested it that much yet...;)
(maybe we can ask the person that rewrote the card ?)
Anyway, the goal of the topic here is to clarify some card interpretations concerning costs
So if a majority thinks that it's better to interpret NGCC the way it was before the reprint, then it's fine...
If after some playtestings we state that NGCC is too strong then an additional ruling can be made...
(I agree with sterdroid, but If some want to go further concerning  sterdroid effect, open a new topic, please...! ;)]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=715#id715]]></link>
					<author>AllyAces</author>
					<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hello everybody,

Concerning the possible 'unbalanced' effect of New Galveston City Grid, I can assure, that it is not overpowered to use it as I explained (that would have been known for long time if it was the case...).

This is a region, so no possibility to cumulate.

I know that newcomers think that Corps are often more powerful than Runner, but this is only an illusion. Corp are often more straighforward to play, and Runner game need more skill to be played out in a very efficient way. Nevertheless, the game experience shows that Runner have more advantages that Corps (draw, deck manipulation, massive bit generators, ...), and it is only fair that Corps get means to defend themselves. 

Thanks to have listen my point of view.

Good runs!
Playful_EE]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=717#id717]]></link>
					<author>Playful_EE</author>
					<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[hi everybody ! here is another time the cunny lawer ... lol 

i've found it in the card of dr dreff :

"The Sleepy Ice says '...the cost to rez is reduced by 5..'. Dr Dreff says '...pay half of that card rez cost...'. Since the rez cost is the number shown on top right of a card (as explained on pages 11-12 of the rulebook), and only that, rez cost differs from 'cost to rez' which means 'if you want to rez, do that'. With Dr Dreff, the ice is not rezzed (it is just encountered), so you don't trigger the reduction of rez cost. The Sleepy text just affects efforts to rez the Ice, not 'pay bits equal to card's rez cost' in general.  	Tom Wylie  	11/12/1999"

In this case there is a distinction made between "rez cost" and " cost to rez", can't we assume that a such distinction can be made for DFA and the reword text of New Galveston ? ( "trash cost" isn't always the "cost to trash" ...)

i can assume the majority is right as Playful and Photon said but in this case can we ban the new text of New Galveston ?

i agree with alli that the errata of DFA is dated 1997 and the new text of New galveston is dated 1999, a new errata in DFA could be forgotten at this time ...?]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=718#id718]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:31:46 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hi,

to summarize:
1) There are good reasons to doubt or even reverse the existing ruling for DFA/NGCG
2) There are better reasons not to reverse it
3) Proposal for a ruling

1) The reasons why the existing ruling for DFA/NGCG has a bad smell are:
a) The ruling hs been made before the card text changed and it refers to the old card text of NGCG; so it can be considered outdated or even invalid.
b) The rule that "additional costs" generally take precedence over "at no cost" is neither in the rulebook nor in the rulings (it can only be deducted by looking at Restrictive Net Zoning / Security Purge and Glacier / Rent-To-Own Contract).
c) The new text of NGCG speaks of "+2 trash cost". This could be interpreted as a direct modification of the printed number, not as an additional cost. Maybe this was even what they intended by rewording the card?

2) Anyhow, it would not be a good idea to reverse the ruling.
The main reason is consistency: In the other cases where "at no cost" meets an additional or increased cost, the additional cost still applies (these cases are Restrictive Net Zoning / Security Purge and Glacier / Rent-To-Own Contract); so the case DFA/NGCG must be dealt with in the same way.

3) Finally, as a result of this discussion and in order to close the rules gap with Mercenary Subcontract / NGCG, I suggest a ruling to be added to section "Paying costs" in the rulings document:
"
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 somehow increases (or adds something to) the cost to install, rez or trash that card, the additional cost still has 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.
"

It would be cool if we could agree on this or sth similar; we could then move on to discussing Sterdroid.]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=733#id733]]></link>
					<author>Frizzler</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:49:17 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hello Frizzler,

Your summary sounds excellent to me. I think it contains the 'essential' of what causes the problem with that kind of game effect.

I also agree to the addition of the clarification you propose (or something equivalent if we find a better way to word it) to put in the "errata & clarifications" file.

As you say, there's a few other topics in Netrunner that may need also a clarification. Sterdroid is one for sure, but we could think about certain timing issues (cards that have an effect during or/and after a run...)

Thanks
Rgds
Playful_EE]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=736#id736]]></link>
					<author>Playful_EE</author>
					<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 06:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[hi everybody !
we are very close to end the ruling ...

i agree with you frizzler except that a "cost to trash" is not the "trash cost" ...

yes of course it could be interpreted like that but it doesn't satisfy me ...

we are here in the same case like dr dreff and reduction of rez cost ...(see dr dreff page...)

why they created the new promo text of NGCG ? if only Wotc staff could help us ...]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=743#id743]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hi,

in order to shorten the text from my previous ruling proposal and for avioding the "cost to trash" / "trash cost" problem and for making it more generic, I slightly reworded my proposal:
(to be added to section "Paying costs" in the rulings document)

"
If an effect allows you to perform effect X "at no cost", this only covers the normal cost to perform effect X.
If any card effect somehow increases (or adds something to) the cost to perform effect X, the additional cost still has 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.
"

If we won't find a consensus, I would say we let the majority decide. I vote *for* this latest proposal.

SeeYa, Frizzler]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=758#id758]]></link>
					<author>Frizzler</author>
					<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[hi everybody i accept the mass decision no problem but in this case the new text of ngcg makes a nonsense to me]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=760#id760]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[hi everybody, i've talked with Playful AI yesterday and he also assume that there is a wording problem on promo text of NGCG...

I agree with the majority for the problem with DFA but i'm now only afraid of some consensus we could make ... ( Rez cost, cost to rez and trash cost, cost to trash...)
that's the only remaining problem to me ...

Thx to have listened to my point of view guys]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=764#id764]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:18:10 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hi,

slight rewording again, because the word 'effect' was used too often...

Final proposal to be added to section "Paying costs" in the rulings document:

"
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 still has 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.
"

We have to keep in mind that this causes a slight troubles concerning the term 'trash cost', which should be the number printed on the card.
Considering this, the new/promo text of NGCG is indeed nonsense, because the printed number cannot be changed.

seeya, frizzler]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=766#id766]]></link>
					<author>Frizzler</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 11:30:35 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Hello everybody,

I agree with Frizzler, and I would even like to comment his last sentence.

Saying that the trash cost (just to consider that particular figure, but other figures are also concerned, like the strength of ice and icebreakers, the agenda points given by agendas, ...) is the figure PRINTED on the card and that it cannot be 'changed' is an evidence but it is more profound than it appears to be.

That topic has been discussed since the beginning of CCGs, when card effects were "modifying" values on printed figures.

To clarify, let's reason like a computer, ie like if we were to program the whole Netrunner game. We would enter a variable called "ORIGINAL AND PRINTED VALUE", and a variable called "MODIFIED CURRENT VALUE". These two variables ARE different indeed. 

Now, to come back to the game, a clarification would be then to say :
- That the effect at no cost would affect only the ORIGINAL AND PRINTED value.
- That any modifier of these costs are to be considered as additional costs.
Doing that would keep (from my point of view) the way the game has been intended to work, and consequently :
- make the errata of Dr Dreff clearer (you pay half of what is printed on the card, and only that, ignoring any other modifier), 
- make the New Galveston City Grid effect perfectly clear (Runner has to pay 2 additional bits per card trashed) vs cards like Death from Above
- make the Restrictive Net Zoning perfectly clear (errata has also been made in that sense)
- makes the clarification of the agenda point of Glacier clearer
- etc

In my expansions, I worked that way, putting clearly the words original and printed xxx whenever necessary.

Thanks to have listen to me
Rgds
Playful_EE]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=767#id767]]></link>
					<author>Playful_EE</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[ok guys, i jack in with the rule !]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=769#id769]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[everyone ok to add the rule ?]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=787#id787]]></link>
					<author>WormholeSurfer</author>
					<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:23:17 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[HaHaHa, funny thing, but I just commented something to the exact same effect on WormholeSurfer's DFA Vs. NG post before finding this one.  I agree completely with Frizzler's new Ruling! (I also retract all further comments I made both there and here in favor of my new comments in the following posts).]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=815#id815]]></link>
					<author>7OOTnegaTerces</author>
					<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:13:49 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[To add in another two bits worth, I think it would be good to step back from the issue of DFA and other cards (this post was supposed to be a meta-game discussion on all such cards, after all). What we are running into here is the classic interaction of the Sword and the Shield.

Whenever two combatants fight (whether for real, or in a game) they always have two tools at their disposal: a Sword, and a Shield.  The Sword, is, of course, some method, or methods, of attacking the other combatant, while the Shield is some form, or forms, of protection from attack. The outcome of the fight is determined by the relative strengths of each combatants Swords and Shields and their skill in wielding them.


There are three different cases one can run into in a fight of Swords and Shields:

Case 1: Both combatants Shields are equal to or stronger than their opponent's Swords, and the two are stuck in an eternal headlock, neither able to injure the other and thus eventually reach some sort of conclusion. In a game, this would lead to a very boring, and endless, tournament.

Case 2: One combatant's Sword and Shield is stronger than his opponent's, so that the former combatant is able to easily mow his opponent down. In a game, this would be a very boring, but brief, tournament.

Case 3: Both combatants Swords are stronger than their opponent's Shields. In a game this leads to a fun, exciting, and interesting tournament. In other words, this is the balance that must be maintained by all Swords and Shields in a game, or the game will be broken.

Thus one can derive the general principle for all games: The Sword must be mightier than the Shield.  Not always and absolutely, of course. It is perfectly alright if CERTAIN Shields provided absolute protection from CERTAIN Swords.  But, in general, all shields must be balanced such that, while they are stronger than some Swords, they are correspondingly weaker to others.  When this is true, the outcome of the fight is determined by the individual choices of each combatant in Sword and Shield and their relative experience with and against each. The point being that the ending of the game rests on the skill of the players and not the godly power of the Sword and Shield they use.


(I probably should make a note at this point that when referencing Swords I am referring not to the destructive power of a particular Sword, that is an entirely different issue of damage-over-time balance, but rather to its penetration in relation to a Shield, i.e. whether it is blocked or not.  Similarly how much of the attack is able to get through is a separate Shield-strength-to-versatility balancing issue.)


So I'm sure some of you are wondering how exactly to connect this meta-discussion with the particular mechanics of NetRunner.  Well, to boil the Sword and Shield down to their most base elements, a Sword is anything that DOES/CREATES something, or better yet INCREASES something, while a Shield attempts to PREVENTS/DESTROYS something, or better yet DECREASES something.  One must be careful, however, when trying to label and effect as a Sword or a Shield, of the old adage: "The best defense is a good offense". That is to say that, at times, you can use something that is at heart really an offensive, an effect that INCREASES something, in a defensive way.  The reverse can also be true, defensive tool, a Shield, can be used offensively, as if it were a Sword (like the Shield-bashing move in certain games).

To give an example while staying in the meta-game, any effect that allows a player to DECREASE or PREVENT the paying of a cost is a Shield effect, even if that effect is used in a highly offensive manner (yes, that was a double entendre). What this means is that it should never be possible to always and completely avoid, or PREVENT, the paying any cost, as this violates a golden priciple of gaming in general, the existence of an unbeatable Shield, and leads to Cases 1 or 2, neither of which are any fun to play.  Occasionally, or under certain circumstances, sure, no problem, just so long as it is not absolute.
Similarly, any effect that INCREASES a cost is a Sword effect. Now, of course, there are two Swords (bear with me here), the Sword that can be blocked by the Shield, and the Sword that can never be blocked. As to which category a particular Sword effect should be long to, the answer is simple.
The blockable Sword is the generic Sword, the one that can be used under most and any circumstance, the Sword that is part of each combatants standard toolkit and requires no special circumstances to be used, or is a base part of game play.  Note that this does not mean that generic Sword effects are only those that have NO cost or requirement to be used, only that these cost or requirements are of a very basic nature and don't exclude the use of that effect to special circumstances.
The unblockable Sword is the special one that is not normally available and only obtainable through special circumstances.  That is why it is unblockable, and vice versa.  In other words, if you must use or do something SPECIAL in order to use this sword, it must be unblockable, and if it is unblockable, you must have to do or use something SPECIAL in order to use it.
The blockable Sword effect can be prevented by the appropriate Shield effect, while the unblockable Sword effect must never be blocked by any Shield effect.  Except one, which is described next.  (And no, I am not contradicting myself, or breaking the meta-game.  Read on to find out what I am talking about...)


So far, I've only discussed prevention effect from the aspect of Combatant A preventing an effect [u]from Combatant B[/u].  What, though, of the case in which Combatant A prevents [u]one of his own attacks[/u]?  In a real fight, combatants may at times use a move called a faint.  In literal sword fighting, a faint is when Combatant A starts to attack Combatant B with one type of blade swing, but then suddenly switches to another.  Combatant A does this to trade one attack that would like not have been very successful for another with a greater chance of success.  And in such a fight, Combatant B can not yell fowl and force Combatant A to continue with his regular attack.  Why?  Because it is Combatant A's attack, he [b]owns[/b] it and may do with it as he likes, using or not using it as he sees fit.
In a similar vein, in the game world when Combatant A starts to use a Sword effect on Combatant B, but then prevents that effect, he is fainting.  And, like a literal sword fighting faint, he may always do so, no matter what type of Sword effect it is that he is using, because it is [b]his Sword effect[/b] that he is preventing, as opposed to one of his opponent's Sword effects.  Unlike preventing an opponent's unpreventable Sword effect (the disastrous results of which are outlined in the first two cases at the top of this post), preventing one's own unpreventable Sword effect does not unbalance the game.  To illustrate, I'll redo the three cases outlined at the start of this post, only now doing them from a self-preventing perspective:

Case 1: Both combatants always prevent their own Swords effects.  Since both combatants always block themselves from doing any damage, this is the same as the original case 1 in which both combatants Shields were equal to or stronger than their opponent's Swords. Like that case, both will be stuck in an eternal headlock, unable to injure the other.  However, unlike the original case 1, which went on indefinitely with no hope of ever changing, this will only continue until one or both combatants decides to stop blocking their own sword effect and start doing some damage. In a game, this would be a very weird tournament, and furthermore, would be unlikely.

Case 2: One combatant always prevents his own sword effect, while the other does not.  Since one combatant never does damage while the other always does, this is just like the original case 2, in which one combatant's Sword and Shield was stronger than his opponent's. Similar to that case, the latter combatant would be able to easily mow his opponent down.  However, unlike in the original case 2, this masochistic sacrifice would only continue for so long as the former combatant continued to prevent their own Sword effects. In a game, this too would be a very weird and unlikely tournament.

Case 3: Both combatants only prevent their own Sword effects sparingly, and prudently.  Since both combatants are now doing damage to one another, this similar to the original case 3, in which both combatants Swords were stronger than their opponent's Shields.  Furthermore, there is now an extra air of unpredictability, as neither combatant can guess for certain exactly what the other will do. In a game this would be an even more fun, exciting, and interesting tournament than the original case 3.

In short, allowing combatants to block their own Sword effects, even the "unpreventable" ones, cannot unbalance or break a game, since this form of [b]self-prevention[/b] is under the control of the wielder of that Sword effect.  Self-prevention is fundamentally different from regular, or [b]opponent-prevention[/b], and does not have the same limitations that opponent-prevention has.


******************************************************************

[b]In conclusion:[/b]
Effects in any game must follow this progression in order to maintain balance: Blockable Sword -> Shield -> Unblockable Sword.  The Blockable Sword is your generic Sword Effects that can always be used, or are a base part of game play.  These effects can be trumped by defensive Shield effects, which in turn can be circumvented by more powerful, and more rare and harder to use Unblockable Sword effects.
Either these Sword effects can be blocked, however, by a self-prevention effect by the combatant that owns and is wielding that Sword effect, preventable or not.


******************************************************************


So as to make sure all my points are clear, I'll make one more post that will leave the meta-game and delve back into the various specifics mentioned in this thread.]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=816#id816]]></link>
					<author>7OOTnegaTerces</author>
					<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 02:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[This post is a card specific examination of the concepts from my previous meta post. To summarize that post, a Sword effect DOES or INCREASES something, while a Shield effect PREVENTS or DECREASES something. In a balanced game there can be unblockable Swords, but there must never be an undefeatable Shield.


Example 1: Death From Above

Now, while it is true that this card is often used offensively, when you examine the different parts of its effects, it can be seen that it is in fact a defensive card.  DFA does two things:

1) Allows the Runner to trash Corp cards before the Runner access them. In other words, it PREVENTS the Runner from accessing the cards in the SDF.
2) Allows the Runner to trash Corp cards "at no cost" (as to what that means, see New Galveston, discussed below). In other words, it DECREASES the trash cost of the cards to zero.

Both of these effects are defensive or Shield effects by nature, thus DFA is a Shield card and not a Sword card.  What does this mean? That while it may be able to prevent the accessing of cards and/or reduce trash costs to zero most of the time, it must not ALWAYS be able to do so. Note here that I am NOT talking about the original intent of the card makers or the wording of the card itself.  What I am talking about here is how DFA needs to be in order to not break the game.


Example 2: New Galveston City Grid

In contrast, NG, though it may appear to be a defensive card, it is in fact, an offensive one. Let us examine its effects:

1) INCREASE the trash cost of all other cards in the fort by two.

As you can see, since NG's effect is to INCREASE something, even if this is done in defense of that thing, it is an offensive, or Sword effect. The only question is, is it a blockable generic Sword effect, or an unblockable special Sword effect. As I mentioned in my meta post, the key distinction between the two is whether you have to do something SPECIAL to use that effect, or if you always have it at your disposal.  In the case of NG. the former is true, NG must be INSTALLED in a fort in order for its effect to be used in THAT fort, marking it as a special unblockable Sword effect.
What does this mean for NG? That its additional cost must always be paid, no matter what special effect the Runner has (like DFA, or Mercenary Subcontract, or any other card or effect). Once again, I am NOT talking about the original intent of the card makers or the wording of the card itself. This is the way NG needs to work as an unblockable Sword effect in order to maintain the balance of the game.

Thus, when speaking in general terms, a card effect can decrease another cards trash cost to zero, even when another effect would normally increase that cost, but only if the latter effect is not unblockable (like if the Corp had the generic ability to pay bits and the Runner would have to match them AND pay the trash cost in order to trash that card. Speaking of which, that doesn't sound like a bad - generic Blockable Sword - effect for a node or upgrade or something...).  That way things always follow the progression of: Blockable Sword -> Shield -> Unblockable Sword.


I hope this technical explanation satisfies the legally minded out there, but if it does not, I don't care...


Though once again I am still confused as to the reasoning behind part of the official ruling on DFA vs. NG. It is not clear why the Runner should have to pay to for all nodes/upgrades in order to use DFA at all, instead of choosing which ones they would pay the extra two for and be able to trash, or why the Runner didn't have to pay for face-down nodes/upgrades, just the ones that were rezzed/exposed.  So if anyone could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=817#id817]]></link>
					<author>7OOTnegaTerces</author>
					<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 05:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Writing the last post gave me the idea of a new keyword, something like "Unblockable" for all Unblockable Sword cards, just as a means of simplifying the process in the future so newbies won't be constantly asking "Is this Blockable?  Is this Blockable???"  Though this keyword should not be used to make a generic Blockable Sword effect unblockable, but rather only to denote which ones are and aren't, based on how the effects and the costs to use them work.]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=819#id819]]></link>
					<author>7OOTnegaTerces</author>
					<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 06:13:55 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[I'm not really in favor of adding that keyword like that. Nevertheless, your comment about Sword and Shield is very interesting and essential to any good understanding of game mechanics.

Thanks for this excellent work.

Now coming to your last comment about the two weird topics concerning Death from Above vs NEw Galveston City Grid (coming from the errata of S Pickle), ie:
- Runner has to be able to pay the extra [2] for each card he or she is about to trash, or DFA cannot be used at all
- Runner has to pay only for rezzed/exposed cards

I agree with you that it is not clear...
And it may even sound not logical.

If we consider what errata is written for the card On the Fast Track, we should do the same approach for the face down cards for Death from Above, which means that the additional [2] of New Galvaeston City grid should be paid for each card, whatever its status (face down or up). This is consistent also with the way you trash cards when they are face down in a fort: you access them, and then you may trash them by paying the cost. So for me, the sentence of Skipper Pickle about the face down cards is probably wrong in terms of rules.

Concerning now the capacity of Runner to pay for all cards of the fort or not, I agree also that Runner should pay up to what he or she can, and let the rest in the fort. That would be consistent with the way Security Purge is working (see card and errata).

As a summary, I would propose 
- to update the DFA/NGCG errata in that way for these two topics
- to add the general errata about 'original and printed' costs and 'additional cost' definition vs what is printed on the cards.

Finally, I would just like to draw attention to all the community that rewriting the whole rules of such a complex and subtle game, even if it's a wish of all players (and myself), is a VERY long, tough, and TRICKY process... And I think that Netrunner rules are not so bad after all, even if not perfect (some games have rules that are far more subject to criticism).
Maybe the best way (in short term) would be to continue to clarify or/and change some points in the errata and to update/change some obvious broken cards to make sure that misinterpretations / perversion and game balance can not happen.

In that last topic (errata maintenance and update), I'm willing to help 100%.

Thanks and good runs
Playful_EE]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=823#id823]]></link>
					<author>Playful_EE</author>
					<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[422btd  <a href="http://xislrpejwnst.com/">xislrpejwnst</a>, [url=http://mglpsdcfrmtn.com/]mglpsdcfrmtn[/url], [link=http://qphvebrmvzmw.com/]qphvebrmvzmw[/link], http://cyjfmxfvmsrl.com/]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=1184#id1184]]></link>
					<author>xsrdpzqk</author>
					<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				                <item>
                	<title><![CDATA[Re: General concept of cost, no cost, additional cost]]></title>
                	<description><![CDATA[Z9Vw79  <a href="http://ijpmmhtrrspb.com/">ijpmmhtrrspb</a>, [url=http://arimdinjpzug.com/]arimdinjpzug[/url], [link=http://xdfjvzfxrudd.com/]xdfjvzfxrudd[/link], http://iykrztlgtikd.com/]]></description>
					<link><![CDATA[http://www.netrunneronline.com/forum/?thread=1204#id1204]]></link>
					<author>xsrdpzqk</author>
					<pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:24:02 +0000</pubDate>
                </item>
				        </channel>
        </rss>
		
