I see this as an auto-include in every deck that has 3 spare influence and no particular 3-pointer that is "needed" for the deck to work. It's just that good. Let's say you have six 2-pointer and three GFI. What that means is that you only need 3 agendas to win (if one of them is GFI), while the runner has to steal 4.

The math on this is pretty solid. Good card, nicely balanced.

Wow! Harmony Medtech likes this.

Gotta love that Runner hate.

That's tower bridge no? If so so can literally see where I work on this card's art....

In addition the card is great. London net-runners represent!

How does this work with Punitive Counterstrike? 2 or 3 damage?

How does this work with Punitive Counterstrike? 2 or 3 damage?

2 damage. It's in the Runner's score area, so it's worth 2 points when P.C. is used. The Runner only stole 2 points worth of Agendas.

2 damage. It's in the Runner's score area, so it's worth 2 points when P.C. is used. The Runner only stole 2 points worth of Agendas.

Oh, I would have ruled it as 3 damage because the points on agendas are printed in actual agenda card. I hope that FAQs will answer this soon.

Oh, I would have ruled it as 3 damage because the points on agendas are printed in actual agenda card. I hope that FAQs will answer this soon.

I was going to object and explain how it is 2 points, but after a second thought I am going to actually jump on the 3 point train.

Consider this: Punitive says that meat damage is dealt equal to the number of agenda points stolen during the last turn. So, even if I Data Dealer a stolen agenda, effectively making the net point difference in my score area from the last turn 0, Punitive is still going to hit me witht the agenda points on the stolen card.

Second, GFI says that it becomes 1 less agenda point only AFTER it is in the Runner's score area. So, even though it should be a single step, the sequence is: GFI is "stolen" for 3 points; GFI is moved to the Runner's score area; GFI gets -1 agenda point; a check whether the Runner has won is made; other simultaneous effects "on stealing". Also ,the rulebook makes a difference between the act of stealing and the agenda providing agenda points (page 18: "Stealing Agendas").

So when you make a check how many points the Runner has stolen (not what is the net difference in his score area for the last turn), you end up with the number 3.

As before, I want to stress the fact that I am looking at things from the view of a programmer scripting the game as it should run on a computer based on the current rulebook set. Official answer on this would really throw more light on conditional checking in Netrunner.

I was going to object and explain how it is 2 points, but after a second thought I am going to actually jump on the 3 point train.

 

Consider this: Punitive says that meat damage is dealt equal to the number of agenda points stolen during the last turn. So, even if I Data Dealer a stolen agenda, effectively making the net point difference in my score area from the last turn 0, Punitive is still going to hit me witht the agenda points on the stolen card.

 

Second, GFI says that it becomes 1 less agenda point only AFTER it is in the Runner's score area. So, even though it should be a single step, the sequence is: GFI is "stolen" for 3 points; GFI is moved to the Runner's score area; GFI gets -1 agenda point; a check whether the Runner has won is made; other simultaneous effects "on stealing". Also ,the rulebook makes a difference between the act of stealing and the agenda providing agenda points (page 18: "Stealing Agendas").

 

So when you make a check how many points the Runner has stolen (not what is the net difference in his score area for the last turn), you end up with the number 3.

 

As before, I want to stress the fact that I am looking at things from the view of a programmer scripting the game as it should run on a computer based on the current rulebook set. Official answer on this would really throw more light on conditional checking in Netrunner.

I can totally see that argument, except that the Rulebook does not unequivocally define "stealing" apart from the agenda being present in the score area.

Page 31: "Steal: the act of the Runner adding an accessed agenda to his score area." In other words, part of the act of stealing an agenda is the presence of the agenda in the score area.

Unfortunately, on page 18, stealing an agenda and "[placing] it face-up in [the] score area" are separated. This is sloppy, since, read together, to "steal" is to add an accessed agenda to the score area and place it face-up in the score area. The "and" is also not clearly sequential, but the reduplication is equivocal. (I appreciate the coding aspect of your argument, but it assumes that the "and" is necessarily linear, presupposing cause and effect for what might be a single "event").

That's problematic enough to warrant an answer on the FAQ, since it's unclear how much the Runner "stole." I appreciate the argument regarding Data Dealer, but this is clearly a separate action from "stealing."

Is Punitive Counterstrike functioning on the Corp's loss or the Runner's gain? Is the agenda being present in the Runner's score area a part of "stealing" or subsequent to it?

I'm leaning toward your answer, but I'm not fully convinced.

EDIT: minor quibble -- this agenda makes no claim regarding its point-value "after" it is in the score area, but only "while." If that "while" is a part of the act of "stealing," then the answer to the question is "2." If that "while" is subsequent to the act of stealing, then the answer is "3."

Further EDIT: Actually, I'm siding with "3" now. Punitive Counterstrike refers to "the number of Agenda points on Agendas that were stolen." It has nothing to do with what they're currently worth. The Agenda was stolen; it has 3 points listed on it. Case closed.

Further EDIT: Actually, I'm siding with "3" now. Punitive Counterstrike refers to "the number of Agenda points on Agendas that were stolen." It has nothing to do with what they're currently worth. The Agenda was stolen; it has 3 points listed on it. Case closed.

For clearance won't quote the whole paragraph, even though it is worth it. Great read as always, and the above exceprt was my initial spark of doubt on the case - the word "on" lead to the conclusion that the value was on in the moment of stealing and irrelevant to the Punitive Counterstrike afterwards. Yet the logical steps of the game state should be disected by their original designers (and seeing as they can rule it either way I think they will give the green a little bump saying 3 in the end

The latest FAQ does not specifically solve the agenda points issue, but does target the Punitive Counterstrike interaction:

79 Punitive Counterstrike
• Should read: “If successful, do meat damage to the Runner equal
to the number of printed agenda points on agendas he or she stole
during his or her last turn.”

So, Punitive will do 3 damage.