Official Rules Question Thread

I think no. Clicks are spent as the cost to play the operation, which happens before the operation resolves. The trigger condition on Jeeves is that three clicks are spent on the same thing while Jeeves is active, so as Jeeves is not active when the click to play the current is spent, it is not counted as one of them.

Not 100% sure this is true. I thought all actions in Netrunner resolved their effect (not to be confused with costs, like scavenge) atomically (unless specifying otherwise, like Deuces Wild).

I would think it’s:

  1. Effect: trash corp cards + turn runner cards face down.
  2. React: CtM trace.

Over:

  1. Effect (part 1): trash corp cards.
  2. React: CtM trace.
  3. Effect (part 2): turn runner cards face down.

I’m not sure if there’s any precedent on either side for this already; I haven’t thought about it too much. If you (or anyone really) knows of any (in either direction), I’d be interested.

Trash all installed Corp cards. Turn all installed Runner cards facedown.

If the card said “Trash all installed Corp cards and turn all installed Runner cards facedown.” I think you’d be right.

Take run events for example. “Make a run.” is typically the first sentence. Advanced Concept Hopper would let the corp draw 1 card or take 1 credit once the run is initiated.

Then if you look at Injection Attack that says “Make a run and choose an icebreaker.” Advanced Concept Hopper lets the corp draw 1 card or take 1 credit once the run is initiated and the runner chooses an icebreaker.

2 Likes

Neither of these examples successfully show a break in the atomicity though. In fact, I feel like the example given helps forward my point.

Take Dirty Laundry for example. The order of operations must be:

  1. Effect: Run + Setup DL ability for after run successful.
  2. Run begins.

If it was instead what you are proposing:

  1. Effect (part 1): Run.
  2. Run begins.
  3. Effect (part 2): Setup DL ability for after successful run.

Then DL would miss its timing window and you’d never gain money. Similarly for High-Stakes Job (which is an even better example because it doesn’t use an ambiguous term like “after”).

I don’t see how the second example doesn’t work.

Make a run. After the run is completed, gain 5c if it was successful.

Events stay on the table until they’ve fully resolved. Make a run is an action. The second part is a conditional triggered ability where the conditional trigger is “After the run is completed” and the effect is “gain 5c if it was successful”. Nothing about Advanced Concept Hopper stops the trigger condition from being met.

‘After’ isn’t an ambiguous term because it defines the ability as conditional triggered.

1 Like

Let’s follow through the example with High Stakes Job. It reads:

Make a run on a server with at least 1 piece of unrezzed ice. When the run ends, gain 12 if it was successful.

If we are breaking this into sentence-based sections, we have:

  1. Make a run on a server with at least 1 piece of unrezzed ice.
  2. When the run ends, gain 12 if it was successful.

If we resolve it as such (instead of atomically), that yields:

  1. Make a run on a server with at least 1 piece of unrezzed ice.
  2. Run begins.
  3. […] Run ends.
  4. When the run ends, gain 12 if it was successful.

It should be obvious at this point that step 4 does nothing, as the run has already ended in step 3 (the conditional never fires).

It must be atomic:

  1. Make a run on a server with at least 1 piece of unrezzed ice.
  2. When the run ends, gain 12 if it was successful.
  3. Run begins.
  4. […] Run ends.

Here the conditional is setup on step 2 (which is really the same time as step 1), and is triggered on step 4. Everything works as expected.

So, back to the original inquiry, I’m now quite confident that, if Andy played Apocalypse against CtM with link cards on the board, the link cards would be turned face down before the CtM trace, and she would be facing the trace at base link (1). The alternative interpretation breaks HSJ, if card behavior is kept consistent.

“Make a run” just means you start the run, not you wait around to finish it before moving on. Once the run has started, you’ve completed that step. There’s no reason you’d wait around until the run is over to even see that the next sentence exists.

Maybe this isn’t a great parallel since the card text in question has two different types of abilities (one is “Do X”, the other is “When A, do B if C”). In the case of Apocalypse, it’s just “Do X. Do Y.” I’ll try a different example.

Whenever you and the Runner reveal secretly spent credits, gain 1c.


When the Runner accesses The Future Perfect, you and the Runner secretly spend 0c, 1c, or 2c. Reveal spent credits. If you and the Runner spent a different number of credits [… any Psi ability …]

My understanding is that it’s well established that you get the 1c from Nisei Division immediately after you “Reveal spent credits.” but before you carry out the result of the Psi game. Perhaps this isn’t clear because having the extra credit very rarely matters in regards to the Psi game effect.

Expose 1 card installed in a remote server. Trash that card at no cost if it is an asset or upgrade


Whenever you expose a card, the Corp must rez it by paying its rez cost, if able.

This is the clearest example I can find.

  1. Expose 1 card installed in a remote server.
    1.1 Corp must rez if able
  2. Trash if asset or upgrade.

FAQ on this stuff:

If during the resolution of an ability another ability meets
its trigger condition, then a “chain reaction” is created. The
ability that just met its trigger condition resolves immediately
following the active effect on the current ability. If this ability
results in another ability meeting its trigger condition, then that
ability is also “chained.” Resolve all the abilities from the most
recent trigger condition before continuing.

During the resolution of the first active effect on Apocalypse, CtM triggers and must resolve immediately (barring any other simultaneous triggers).

4 Likes

Card abilities have never resolved atomically. It’s one of the weird things about Netrunner. The chain reaction rule would be pointless if abilities didn’t resolve in the order printed on the card.

1 Like

This is clearly inconsistent.

If we read a “Expose/Trash a card.” sentence, we stop and fully push through that effect (and all associated chain reactions), but if you read “Make a run.”, we just start a run and continue evaluating the card before proceeding further with that run?

that is not true at all.

you mention the runner resolving all abilities then the corp doing the same, but you seem to be working under the assumption that these things are resolving with the same trigger.

to break it down:

Runner runs all 3 centrals
Runner plays Apocalypse. it then starts resolving. because it’s templated as two separate sentences, you first start trashing all corp cards. immediately when this happens, it triggers CtM’s ability (if no card was trashed during the previous 3 runs). this is a triggered ability that immediately starts cascading during the resolution of something else.

Apocalypse’s effects are only ‘triggered’ by the fact that you played the event. High Stakes Job is conditional on the runner making a successful run. Apocalypse is conditional on the fact that you have already run all 3 centrals (but this requirement is for playing it in the first place)

so for that reason, there’s no conflict of which one resolves first, since they don’t have the same ‘trigger’

CtM’s ability triggers during the middle of resolution, due to the cascading trigger ruling

i get that you don’t believe me, but i’m right about this.

the atomic nature of Apocalypse is that all corp cards are trashed with one effect, so the runner can’t ‘trash Hostile Infrastructure first’ or something like that in an attempt to cut off its ability. it is then resolved as ‘all’ runner cards are turned upside in one effect.

and speaking of, say i play Apocalypse against a corp with Hostile Infrastructure out, and i have Heartbeat (or some other net-damage-prevent installed card). do you agree that the runner can prevent at least some of that net damage from Hostile Infrastructure?

if so, why are they different? they are indeed different types of effects, but the crux of the ruling is the same: while trashing corp cards, a corp card’s effect triggers, and before turning runner cards upside down, they are still active during this trigger resolution. this is indeed the accepted ruling

the inconsistency is the language used to describe a run that has been initiated and has been completed is often murky and frustratingly similar

but as i said, High Stakes Job creates a conditional effect that checks for the resolution of the run. the ‘make a run’ in this instance could simply mean ‘initiate’ a run rather than complete a run. even if it did, however, the secondary effect is still checking for the end of the run, so it doesn’t need to exist before the conclusion of the run.

3 Likes

That’s what I thought; wanted to confirm. (It looks like Foundry/ABT to me so I’d assume we’d halt resolution of Apoc to resolve CtM. Just wanted to make sure I was reading it right.)

Thanks.

1 Like

I don’t think the differences between HSJ and Apocalypse are relevant. However, the linked cascading triggers ruling is helpful:

So the effects on the card are considered to be happening simultaneously (and hence occurring before any later steps but after chain reactions).

It still seems odd to me that running is a special case; it’s the only one listed in the rule book as a multi-step process, but, really, these all have to be multi-step processes on some level. The fact that making a run only results in initiation, but exposing a card goes through and legally chooses a target and resolves the expose, seems like a clear double standard.

And I do see your point (and all previously made points). I’m not irrational. I just feel like defining “make a run” as “start a run” seems like a poor definition of the term, at best (is it not more intuitive to think it would complete the run?). Guess it’s just something I’ll have to suck up.

the secondary effect is still checking for the end of the run, so it doesn’t need to exist before the conclusion of the run.

I don’t think that would be true. If the card said “Complete a run.” Instead of “Make a run.”, the second statement would not have been evaluated to add it’s conditional effect for consideration before the first run was done. But, at this point, it’s arguing abstracts.

And the runner uses lots of payings during those event:run.
(breakers).

How can the runner’s decision to use / ability to use icebreakers have any bearing on this discussion?

1 Like

Make a run. (you can use payings here to break subs) If the run is successful, …

You were saying atomic.

Can you please be cooler with bolded text please, it makes feeling readers are dumb, ty :wink:

I meant as in step 1 couldn’t be interrupted before step 2, etc. As in the run wouldn’t happen until after all effects resolved. This has been debunked.

I removed the bold text, it was rude, my apologies.

Thanks.

What exactly is the problem? I’m not seeing any inconsistencies here.

There’s no inconsistencies from a rules perspective, so long as “making a run” is defined as “starting a run” (which doesn’t seem intuitive, but also appears to be how it is).

Consider my rule concerns dropped.