This is a card, make no mistake about it. So many decks base their economy on one or more connections that this card's hosing power is considerable, not to mention the various utility connections.

Of course, some decks lack connections or connections worth bothering with. Also, Fall Guy.

But, this is a useful piece of deck tech to consider including as an answer for certain match ups.

Pretty niche, cause it'll be a dead card quite a lot of the time (Aggro Crims don't really care at all, and can you really afford to have a dead card against them?). Sure, it will sometimes be nice, but I'm going to have a hard time finding deck space for a card that's "sometimes nice". If you have a really specific matchup that you're worried about that relies heavily on connections, yeah sure, throw this card in. Seems really niche, though.

Specific, sure. Niche? Well, obviously it goes with tag punishment, so ok...it fits in the tag punishment niche. It kills a loaded Supplier. It kills a loaded Kati. It kills a ProCo before it pays for itself. And even against an aggro crim, a lot of them run John Massanori (or at least the ones I've seen). If the runner takes the tag, scorch em or close their accounts or even bad times...things like that. We'll see, but I think we're going to see some new meta changing connections in sansan as well, what with the street level regional theme.

Anyway, it is a good tech card to have in the pool as a meta choice. It's not an auto-include by any means, but it offers an answer to certain problems for a deck that can punish the runner even if they opt to get tagged.

Even taking into account all of that I still think it's really niche. It's only ever decent if the runner is really low on creds so they can't fight the trace. If I'm Andy running John Masanori and you spend even 4 creds on the trace to beat me I really don't care. That means runner needs 5 creds or less. Also, if I don't think you have a chance of Scorching me then I'll probably just take the tag if I don't want you to kill my Kati. As far as other connections go, if you've seen the ProCon page you'll know that I think it's the most overrated card in the game, and this of course just adds to it. I agree that blowing up Kati is nice, but runner still needs to be low on creds to be worth it (and you also need a way to punish the tag if they take it, which pretty much just means Scorch and maybe Bad Times cause if they're low on creds they won't care about closed accounts).

It's essentially like a no-influence SEA source that costs 2 less and doesn't need the runner to make a successful run, but it also needs the runner to have a connection they care about. 

Maybe I don't like it because I personally don't play or rely much on connections because I think they're pretty bad for the most part (except Kati, but I never rely on her anyways). If I see this in the corp's deck, I'll just make sure to try to always float at least 5 creds (which I try to do against tag punishment anyways) and not load Kati too high.

I'm a bit confused by the wording here. Does "The Runner can take 1 tag to prevent this." refer to trashing the connection or to the entire trace? Basically, which of these is the equivalent wording?

a ) Trace 3. If successful, either the runner takes a tag or trash a connection.

b ) The runner may take a tag. If he or she doesn't, trace 3. If successful, trash a connection.

I think it's (a.

I think this is a pretty good card to include in Haarpsichord Studios. Gets rid of those pesky Film Critics.

Absolutely, and I think that Replicating Perfection and pretty much any Punitive Counterstrike corp deck might consider running 1 or 2 for the same reason.

I think this is a pretty good card to include in Haarpsichord Studios. Gets rid of those pesky Film Critics.

This is one of the reasons I think NACH is a necessity with Film Critic. That easy combo works together very well to shut down so many Corp tools, including this one:

Runner takes the tag, and then spends 2 credits to avoid it. Snatch and Grab becomes just a minor tax instead of a game breaker.

Yeah, NACH got boosted through the roof, and Corporate Town seems to be the way to go if it becomes prevalent. Funny enough, Invasion of Privacy may also see some play to try and snipe that copy of Film Critic before it even hits the table, yet the chances for this are rather slim.

EDIT: Disregard the above due to the rules clarification below. Thanks, TheNameWasTaken.

This is one of the reasons I think NACH is a necessity with Film Critic. That easy combo works together very well to shut down so many Corp tools, including this one:

 

Runner takes the tag, and then spends 2 credits to avoid it. Snatch and Grab becomes just a minor tax instead of a game breaker.

Does that work? I think there was this ruling that the tag here is a cost, and if you avoid the tag you haven't paid the cost - and in that case you lose the connection.

Edit: here's the relevant link. http://ancur.wikia.c...s_a_Cost_Ruling

Hm, seems you are right here, as NACH says "avoid 1 tag" (same as "prevent" by the rules), so you would be preventing the condition. This is a really good news for the corp as Snatch and Grab remains a strong counter without other supporting cards.

Good point that.

It is an "avoid" and not a "prevent," however. The "cost" is substituting 2 credits for the tag, which is not a prevent: needs additional official clarification, since the link misrepresents NACH (There's no "prevent" order on the card).

The point is probably moot, however. Nonetheless, "avoid" effects substitute a cost, while "prevent" effects may or may not substitute a cost. That's just probably sloppy rules, so I think you're correct TNWT.

Don't want to present even more complication on the topic, but I went through the rulebook and the official FAQ, and Prevent/Avoid effects on both places are listed together, no separation is made between them. Is there a ruling or clarification I have missed that states the two words should be treated as different effects? Furthermore, if you check the glossary the definition of both is utterly identical, word by word.

Also there may be a great deal of misunderstanding between LCGs regarding the "do X as a cost" - in other games the rules explicitly states that if an effect prevents the X, i.e. you must spend X credits for instance, then use a prevent effect, this effect interrupts the resolution, prevents the cost and THEN the effect that required the cost verifies that the cost was paid. However, because it was prevented (your credits haven't changed because of a card in our example) then the X cost was not paid and the effect resolves.

This specific ruling is listed in the Netrunner's FAQ but only for the "Trashing as a cost" - if you prevent the trash then any effect that required it will not resolve (look Trade-in for example). However there are at least two more such effects - "Bad publicity as a cost(All Seeing I)" and Snatch and Grab, where this "cost" is listed in the body of the resolution  instead in the begining.

Don't want to present even more complication on the topic, but I went through the rulebook and the official FAQ, and Prevent/Avoid effects on both places are listed together, no separation is made between them. Is there a ruling or clarification I have missed that states the two words should be treated as different effects? Furthermore, if you check the glossary the definition of both is utterly identical, word by word.

 

Also there may be a great deal of misunderstanding between LCGs regarding the "do X as a cost" - in other games the rules explicitly states that if an effect prevents the X, i.e. you must spend X credits for instance, then use a prevent effect, this effect interrupts the resolution, prevents the cost and THEN the effect that required the cost verifies that the cost was paid. However, because it was prevented (your credits haven't changed because of a card in our example) then the X cost was not paid and the effect resolves.

 

This specific ruling is listed in the Netrunner's FAQ but only for the "Trashing as a cost" - if you prevent the trash then any effect that required it will not resolve (look Trade-in for example). However there are at least two more such effects - "Bad publicity as a cost(All Seeing I)" and Snatch and Grab, where this "cost" is listed in the body of the resolution  instead in the begining.

I think it's just sloppiness. I can't find any official difference between "avoid" and "prevent" either.

Good catch on "trashing as a cost" here. It'd be nice to get a ruling on this card's interactions into the next FAQ.