Question to Netrunner players

Hey chummers, just finished putting together data files for Netrunner.
Covers V1.0, Proteus and Classic card lists. But got a question
for you guys.

I wanted to get an idea of what Netrunner users want for basic
deck validation rules (agenda counts for corp, 45 min for runner).

I see two choices:
A. Use the 2 deck system in Card Vault and set all Corp cards
to go to Deck 1 and all runner cards go to deck 2. The pro is
you wouldn't be able to mix corp and runner cards in one deck.
The con is that unless you built both decks, your deck would
be "invalid" (annoying messages).
B. Just use rule sets (Corp rule set vs Runner rule set). The
pro is you don't have to build both decks at the same time to
avoid the invalid issue. The con is that mixing corp and runner
cards are possible (not idiot proof).

I prefer option B, but I want to make these data files appealing
to most Netrunner users.

Guy Swartwood

I'm not sure I understand your problem with B) (then again I haven't
tried writing a rules set yet either!).

Can't you just make a rule that if you have ANY Corp cards in your
Deck (deck 1 OR deck 2) that adding a Runner card causes a validation
error? And Vice Versa, once you add ANY Runner cards to your deck
(Deck 1 or Deck 2), then if you add a Corp card later, that will
generate a validation error?

Example: Deck 1 has no cards in it. So anything goes. Once I add my
first card, Runner or Corp, then trying to add a card of the opposing
type gives an error. Isn't that doable?

Thanks, I'm looking forward to the Netrunner files. (Yes, I DO
probably own most every CCG out there.... Wait until I get to my
Killer Instinct cards! haha!)

Doc

--- In cardvault@y..., "Guy Swartwood" <guy.swartwood@g...> wrote:
>
> Hey chummers, just finished putting together data files for
Netrunner.
> Covers V1.0, Proteus and Classic card lists. But got a question
> for you guys.
>
> I wanted to get an idea of what Netrunner users want for basic
> deck validation rules (agenda counts for corp, 45 min for runner).
>
> I see two choices:
> A. Use the 2 deck system in Card Vault and set all Corp cards
> to go to Deck 1 and all runner cards go to deck 2. The pro is
> you wouldn't be able to mix corp and runner cards in one deck.
> The con is that unless you built both decks, your deck would
> be "invalid" (annoying messages).
> B. Just use rule sets (Corp rule set vs Runner rule set). The
> pro is you don't have to build both decks at the same time to
> avoid the invalid issue. The con is that mixing corp and runner
> cards are possible (not idiot proof).
>
> I prefer option B, but I want to make these data files appealing
> to most Netrunner users.
>
> Guy Swartwood

--- Guy Swartwood <guy.swartwood@geek.com> wrote:
> B. Just use rule sets (Corp rule set vs Runner rule set). The
> pro is you don't have to build both decks at the same time to
> avoid the invalid issue. The con is that mixing corp and runner
> cards are possible (not idiot proof).

Not at all. Just add a rule to the Corp rule set that complains about Runner
cards, and vice versa for the other rule set.

You may need to generate a tag to identify Runner or Corp cards, but that is no
big thing


=====
---

Kuni Tetsu
Clan War rules guy
Moderator of ClanWar-l

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

I found the rule he wants in the Star Wars Decipher rules set (which
has the same issue with Light and Dark cards as he has with Corp and
Runner):

<rule id="corprunner" message="You may not have Corp and Runner
cards in the same deck." summary="Corp and Runner in deck"
scope="deck1">
<![CDATA[
card:side.Corp = 0 | card:side.Runner = 0
]]>
</rule>

Doc

--- In cardvault@y..., Kuni Tetsu <kuni_tetsu@y...> wrote:
>
> --- Guy Swartwood <guy.swartwood@g...> wrote:
> > B. Just use rule sets (Corp rule set vs Runner rule set). The
> > pro is you don't have to build both decks at the same time to
> > avoid the invalid issue. The con is that mixing corp and runner
> > cards are possible (not idiot proof).
>
> Not at all. Just add a rule to the Corp rule set that complains
about Runner
> cards, and vice versa for the other rule set.
>
> You may need to generate a tag to identify Runner or Corp cards,
but that is no
> big thing
>
>
> =====
> ---
>
> Kuni Tetsu
> Clan War rules guy
> Moderator of ClanWar-l
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com

> B. Just use rule sets (Corp rule set vs Runner rule set). The
> pro is you don't have to build both decks at the same time to
> avoid the invalid issue. The con is that mixing corp and runner
> cards are possible (not idiot proof).

That's very easy to fix. Just put in an extra tag group for "deck" and label
them R and C. We can program in that you can't mix R and C cards. No big
deal.

At 06:41 AM 11/27/2002 -0800, Kuni Tetsu wrote:
>--- Guy Swartwood <guy.swartwood@geek.com> wrote:
> > B. Just use rule sets (Corp rule set vs Runner rule set). The
> > pro is you don't have to build both decks at the same time to
> > avoid the invalid issue. The con is that mixing corp and runner
> > cards are possible (not idiot proof).
>
>Not at all. Just add a rule to the Corp rule set that complains about Runner
>cards, and vice versa for the other rule set.

As Ed suggests, another option is to make two "deck"
structures. If the Runner cards only go into "deck1" and the Corp cards
only go into "deck2", it all handles itself. See the LotR rules for
examples - I have the Sites set that they don't (can't!) go into the same
deck as the other cards.

>You may need to generate a tag to identify Runner or Corp cards, but that
>is no
>big thing

Or, to continue from above, you can set cards so that they only go
into particular decks. Easier than messing with new tags, and
self-enforcing without a new rule for mixed cards. IIRC, Netrunner has
*no* cards that are both Corp and Runner...

Mark.

--
Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away at a tiny yet
measurable distance from the earth every year. If you do the math, you
can calculate that 85 million years ago the moon was orbiting the earth
at a distance of about 35 feet. This would explain the death of the
dinosaurs. Well, the tall ones, anyway. -- Unknown