Obvious synergy with Maya, her console. Or Code Siphon. Or Vamp.

Gutenberg (a pretty annoying ICE against shapers) is also negated. At least the first one. Other NBN ICE that are dependent upon tags (Pachinko, Universal Connectivity Fee, Information Overload) are disarmed, too.

Wow! An aggressive Shaper. No jank, just run.

Time to get out the old Vamp/Siphon credit denial deck and retool it for her -- should be fun.

She likes to hang around with John Masanori too, being relatively immune to his nonsense when things go awry.

Wow! An aggressive Shaper. No jank, just run.

 

Time to get out the old Vamp/Siphon credit denial deck and retool it for her -- should be fun.

 

She likes to hang around with John Masanori too, being relatively immune to his nonsense when things go awry.

Doesn't John Masanori's tag apply only when a run is unsuccessful? I would think that the run is already over when he triggers, so it's not a tag you get during a run.

Edit: I've checked the FAQ and it says that the runner takes the tag after the run has unsuccessfully ended. So Jesminder is still affected.

Doesn't John Masanori's tag apply only when a run is unsuccessful? I would think that the run is already over when he triggers, so it's not a tag you get during a run.

 

Edit: I've checked the FAQ and it says that the runner takes the tag after the run has unsuccessfully ended. So Jesminder is still affected.

Huh. What an odd ruling, since it would affect a great many cards strangely:

A run is successful or unsuccessful at Step 4.4 of the Run.

The Run ends at Step 5.

Most "successful / unsuccessful" triggers occur at step 4.4, and when it triggers once the run has ended, the card is written like "Dedicated Response Team," i.e. "when a successful run ends . . ."

I'm disappointed in the offhand manner in which that's stated in the new FAQ too: it opens a can of worms -- apparently, without any further explanation, sometimes Step 4.4 simply is Step 5 -- ludicrous.

Quite stupid, that ruling, since now it is unclear when the Runner gets tags with Account Siphon or Vamp, and there could be an argument that a Bandwidth tag would apply for Dedicated Response Team, Bernice Mai's tag may or may not apply here, etc. etc. etc.

Terrible. Beyond terrible: completely arbitrary and out of line with every single other card, the FAQ itself, the rulebook, the text of the John Masanori card . . . FFG really needs to start paying their editors a bit better.

Scratch that: "unsuccessful" trigger conditions happen in Step 6. My bad. The ruling makes sense. Only successful trigger conditions happen at 4.4. /rant

My first thought was Security Nexus.

If you run Security Nexus with the presumption that you will be failing the trace, you should change the deck.

If you run Security Nexus with the presumption that you will be failing the trace, you should change the deck.

Quoted for effect. Well said.

She seems like she can be fun, but not really feeling it. If the ability were worded differently, such as " once per turn you may avoid one tag of your choice " it would be a lot better.

If more Shaper Run effects that tag you come about (Code Siphon for example), she might be a thing. Until then she is a meta call against the NBN-crazed mob at your local play area.

"Make 2 credits per run."

"Data Raven is worthless against you."

There we go: now how does everybody feel? (I know, those are exaggerations)

Seriously: this is basically tag-me Criminal that can, you know, put resources on the table.

I'll still be running NACH for the non-run tags . . . and maybe you guys don't like Vamp the way I like Vamp . . . saving 2 credits on a Vamp is, well, a big deal . . . not to mention that this is going on turn-1.

Stop thinking Shaper. She's not a Shaper.

"Make 2 credits per run."

Explain please?

Explain please?

Avoiding a tag means that you have 2 more credits than you would have when the tag isn't avoided, but taken and then removed.

Avoiding a tag means that you have 2 more credits than you would have when the tag isn't avoided, but taken and then removed.

Look, if Gabe has 1 chance to land 2 credits a turn, and this is huge, I'd expect 4 chances to avoid a 2 credit hit is decently good, never mind the click, the damage the tag can do . . . whatever. I'd expect to run aggressively with Jesminder and save 2 credits a turn (or more).

There will always be non-tagging Corp decks, just like there will be Corp decks that can lock Gabe out of HQ. Of course, Vamp and Account Siphon don't depend on the Corp.

This thing is econ and click efficiency, at least if you're aggressive. Not losing money is making money.

Avoiding a tag means that you have 2 more credits than you would have when the tag isn't avoided, but taken and then removed.

That's a flawed premise. 

It is predicated upon the assumption that the runner would take a tag every turn. 

If that were true, then yes the identity ability would be equivalent to $2 and 1 click per turn.

However that is not true in the general case.

There are special cases where that can be made to be true, if the runner intentionally plays cards that incur one tag per turn or potentially against specific corps decks sporting reliable tagging cards. In the special cases where it consistently applies, then yes the identity ability is good (obviously). But it is misleading to pretend that special cases are a de facto constant yield of $2 per turn.

 Not losing money is making money.

With respect, that statement hurts my head. 0 is not >0. Losing money is not making money. It is at best breaking even, and if opportunity cost is considered can be inferred to be a loss of expected revenue.

If I could earn $100 dollars or lose $100 dollars but instead gain $0 and lose $0 I did not "make money". Nor did I "lose money". I broke even; I also lost the opportunity to make money, and also avoided the risk to lose money. Because math.

oO killer shrike does not understand this new math Oo

With respect, that statement hurts my head. 0 is not >0. Losing money is not making money. It is at best breaking even, and if opportunity cost is considered can be inferred to be a loss of expected revenue.

 

If I could earn $100 dollars or lose $100 dollars but instead gain $0 and lose $0 I did not "make money". Nor did I "lose money". I broke even; I also lost the opportunity to make money, and also avoided the risk to lose money. Because math.

 

oO killer shrike does not understand this new math Oo

Vamp. You take a tag. You spend a click and 2 credits to clear that tag. Jesminder doesn't have to do this . . .

Consider this:

Gabe Vamps, gets his successful run on HQ, and makes 2 credits. It's now an era when tags can actually hurt you, so he spends 2 credits and a click to clear the tag. He made 2 credits, then he spent 2 credits. His net is zero.

Jesminder Vamps and avoids the tag from Vamp. Her net is zero, and she's a click up on Gabe. That click is potentially worth money as well. This is the case on turn 1 of the game: clearing a tag per run for free has an economic value. That economic value is considerable.

Everybody else Vamps for a net of -2 and a click down to Jesminder. Also, let's not forget that she can repeat this trick multiple times during a turn.

This is someone who should be Vamping -- a few clicks and a few credits saved makes the difference in that economic race. Vamp runs on money more than most.

What if I had a Vamp that was also a Dirty Laundry? Without any additional economic pieces in place, that's what this is: a normal Runner Vamps, then uses 2 credits and a click to clear the tag; Jesminder Vamps, avoids the tag for free, and simply makes a credit with the click, because we're not talking about combos here. Runner #1 nets -2 credits; Jesminder nets 1 credit. She's 3 credits up on the other guy.

A Dirty Laundry in your Vamp does not suck.

That's not even considering the economic benefit to her that she gains for walking through a Gutenberg, a Turnpike, a Shadow, a Newshound, a Matrix Analyzer, Hunter, Bandwidth, because we might not want to consider the Corp's choices or structure. Against many Corps it'll do nothing; against some, the economic benefit could swing the game.

The economic aspect that you're misunderstanding is that she's not sitting on her ass not making money -- she's doing something -- a lot, actually. I'm talking about the bottom line of a series of actions -- net profit or loss, not passivity. That's built in: she has to run to benefit.

I don't disagree with the statement "this runner has a lot of synergy with Vamp". 

I disagree with the generalization that this runner with or without Vamp in the deck is synonymous with "Make 2 credits per run."

Running 3 copies of Vamp, even with heavy recursion, is not synonymous with a guaranteed $2 per turn, much less per run. Vamp will not be in your hand every turn, you will not play it every turn, you will not play it every run.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I don't disagree that the identity is playable despite not being interested myself. I just don't see the benefit of exaggerating scenarios to conflate a solid card interaction to the level of an "always on" passive ability.

I don't disagree with the statement "this runner has a lot of synergy with Vamp". 

 

I disagree with the generalization that this runner with or without Vamp in the deck is synonymous with "Make 2 credits per run."

 

 

Running 3 copies of Vamp, even with heavy recursion, is not synonymous with a guaranteed $2 per turn, much less per run. Vamp will not be in your hand every turn, you will not play it every turn, you will not play it every run.

 

 

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I don't disagree that the identity is playable despite not being interested myself. I just don't see the benefit of exaggerating scenarios to conflate a solid card interaction to the level of an "always on" passive ability.

Maya gives you a tag every turn.

Maya gives you a tag every turn.

I'm thinking Maya will be useful on multi-access particularly -- find that key operation and bury it: Scorched Earth? Biotic Labor? Punitive Counterstrike? Midseason? How about a Shi.kyu?

Buh bye.

Bottom of R&D can be a lot safer than Archives.

Also @KillerShrike: I've missed you, bro.

Maya gives you a tag every turn.

If you take that as a console, and if you activate its optional ability. And again, that's a synergistic card interaction with some other card.

The statement that I questioned was ""Make 2 credits per run."". The reason being, if there is in fact a way to leverage the identity ability to do that I'd obviously want to know about it.

All the ensuing brouhaha after asking has instead presented other card interactions which are all pretty obvious and not what I was asking for clarification on. I'm still waiting to hear the make 2 credits per run pro tip.

I'm thinking Maya will be useful on multi-access particularly -- find that key operation and bury it: Scorched Earth? Biotic Labor? Punitive Counterstrike? Midseason? How about a Shi.kyu?

 

Buh bye.

 

Bottom of R&D can be a lot safer than Archives.

 

Also @KillerShrike: I've missed you, bro.

Yeah, Maya is obviously intended to be Sareen's console. Still not making $2 per run.

And yeah, its good to be back. I've had a really busy time of it lately, been hard to make time for hobbies! Missed you guys.

I know this is like beating a dead horse, but there may be a simple Shaper program waiting ahead that allows you to blank the text of the current ice and replace it with the text of another rezzed ice. Just replace that triple ETR on Curtain Wall with a Trace ->Tag, avoid it, and pass at your leisure (or the program may give you a tag for such trickery).

Keep her aside for now, but mark where she is - she is far from being tier 1, but is definetely not as bad as some other.

This feels very liberating to me. Half the reason for playing so conservatively on the 4th click is that you don't have clicks left to remove any tags before the corp's turn begins. Now, Jes still has to worry about the other half (taking damage during the run), but this frees me to take chances I might otherwise not take. I'm also liking that I can now test some very aggressive playstyles with the shaper cardset, where other shaper identities never rewarded me for doing so before. Jes's strength is momentum -- where other runners would slow down, she keeps running. I don't know if there are enough tools in the shaper toolbox right now to really sell that approach, but it will be fun to try.

And I really like that she's taking shaper in a different direction, rather than just joining a crowded field of deck-building shaper identities.