I know Data Raven's tag can be avoided and the runner may pass through without ending the run, but I just wanted to be sure about what happens between NACH and SnG.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it doesn't work the same way, and that the tag cannot be avoided to prevent trashing (as it doesn't present the "or" condition present in Data Raven).

Thanks for the clarification.

Edit: Ok so I can't use the first word in SnG without it being censored lol.

Nothing says that it can't be prevented and runner isn't paying a cost (as it's the corp playing the card).

NACH can be used to prevent the tag unless an FAQ says otherwise or Lukas makes an official ruling.

I'm not asking if NACH can prevent the tag or not, I'm asking if avoiding the tag with NACH will still allow the runner to prevent a trashed connection.

I originally would have said go ahead, because as in the case of Wotan, Sacrificial Construct can save your program and still let you through.

However, I believe someone on BGG got a Lukas ruling which said no (in fairness the wording of the cards is different; one says 'The runner may x to y', the other says 'do x unless y'. So if that Lukas ruling proves legit, then I guess it's a no... which is weird given the other ruling.

Interesting. Perhaps the order of the wording is what matters?

Maybe SnG checks to see if the runner had taken a tag before preventing (did the runner take a tag? Yes, prevent this/No, it was avoided) whereas with Wotan, the run ends unless the runner trashes a program, so the run no longer ends when the runner opts to trash a program, which he can then prevent.

Edit: Actually now that i think about it, yeah it doesn't really make any sense.

Wotan would go: End the run unless X > X (condition check) > interrupt X

SnG would go: Take tag to X > take tag (condition check) > X

Take tag to X > take tag (condition check) > avoid tag > X

At least that's how I imagine it should work, based on how Wotan works.

I can speculate on it. In Conquest 'do x to do y' is split into cost and effect where 'do x' = cost and 'do y' = effect. To put it another way, anything before 'to' is a cost, anything after 'to' is an effect. If we apply that here that means that

"The runner may take a tag to prevent this"

would break down as

"The runner may [pay a cost] to [trigger an effect]."

If you don't pay the cost, you don't get the effect. If you prevent the cost being paid, you haven't paid it; ergo no effect.

By contrast, Wotan is 'do x unless y'. This isn't worded in a 'cost/effect' format so much as you have the choice between resolving one effect or another. During the resolution of one effect, you can trigger the 'prevent' or 'avoid' effect to get stop it resolving. However, you have NOT avoided paying any costs. You chose to resolve one of two possible effects, then prevented the resolution of the one you chose.

Again, pure speculation, but this is the only logic I can see behind the two effects being ruled on differently.

I agree with Feesh's reasoning. From private conversations I've had with people at the company, and Michael Hurley's public comments in the LCG SOTU event and interviews he's given since, there's a big push to get the templating to be more consistent across the board. So even though different games have different mechanics, the fundamental DNA of game design is there. The "[pay a cost] to [have something happen]" templating is buried deep in the base code: it goes back to AGOT first edition, where it used the word "then" instead of "to" and it was specifically stated that if the antecedent clause doesn't resolve successfully, the "then" clause doesn't go off.