Hm… I get your reasoning, and it makes sense. My hunch is that this was not the intention – that this was just poor templating and it was meant to just make you pay during the normal timing if you could afford it (should probably read something like “the first time you access… you cannot decline to pay its trash cost to trash it if able.” This will probably come down to Word of Lukas – even if your understanding is technically correct (and I think it might be), it’s counterintuitive enough that convincing other players without an explicit answer is going to be a pain.
2 Likes
That is possible. The correct template would be Kim, if so: “Trash the first card you access each turn, by paying its trash cost, if able.”
Based purely on the name of the card, I’m going to stick my neck out and say this is what the card is supposed to do, despite it being rather subtle. But as you say, good luck persuading anyone else without a ruling from Lukas…
1 Like
This is the same technical interpretation of the card that I have come to when posed the question of NAT + Imp/Demo Run.
The only Lukas Wild Card I would be worried about is him saying that NET has an ability that triggers and resolves at two different times, but there aren’t distinct steps for “access” and “interact” like there are for “successful run” and “access”. I could see that being an explanation, but I don’t think it’s correct given the current state of the rules and timing structure.
Even if there were, it wouldn’t be relevant would it? The card effect tells you to trash the accessed card by paying its trash cost. The fact that you can also trash an accessed card by paying its trash cost during the hypothetical “interaction phase” wouldn’t mean that the effect resolves in that phase, would it?
Gang Sign triggers on an agenda score, and tells you to access a card from HQ, but just because you can also access cards from HQ during the access phase on an HQ run doesn’t mean you’d wait until the next access phase on HQ to resolve the Gang Sign effect!
In other words, it seems to me that Neutralise All Threats doesn’t force you to take your (normally optional) chance to trash for credits, it adds another (mandatory) effect that happens to be the same!
1 Like
NAT does not look like a “when you access” trigger, to me. It’s the first card you access, but probably lets the other stuff fire first.
If it does provide partial immunity to on-access triggers that’ll make the name more sensical and the drawback really powerful in many situations, I just don’t have faith in the powerful interpretation. It would definitely make NAT even more useful in many situations, and I could see it being possible, even if I don’t subscribe to it.
That said, there’s no way it could allow you to skip on-access triggers and allow for Imping of the card. So even if one of those interpretations is correct, they definitely can’t both be so, because we know you can’t use Imp to avoid Snare!
Of the two, the ability to Imp cards seems more plausible to me, even if I’m not convinced in its accuracy, either.
Hee, we’re having the very same argument (although more centered around imp) over on the Adam thread.
I think it’ll have to come down to a Lukas ruling, as the access phase is a bit of a no-mans land when it comes to triggers and windows. it’ll either come down to:
a) on-access trigger, which might disallow imp but would make him immune to traps - fair trade imo
b) the trigger simply makes the regular trash option mandatory, which would seem to allow for imp, but would mean that traps go off as normal.
I think we’ll have to wait and see, the wording is definitely a bit bumbled.
2 Likes
I agree with you. I was thinking more of effects like Security Testing, which trigger at success but don’t fully resolve until access. But, like I said, there is no support in the rules for access and interact being separate steps, so it shouldn’t be relevant.
“The first time X” is a conditional trigger just like “when X”.
2 Likes
The wording isn’t bumbled, the rules are. The rules as they currently stand and are understood don’t support interpretation B because there is no separation between accessing and interacting with a card. If that is the intention of the card though, Lukas should fix the timing structure with a FAQ update.
2 Likes
Here’s hoping that his NAT lets him diffuse traps without taking damage. How awesome would that be? (answer: very)
EDIT: also, it would be suitable for a card called “Neutralize All Threats”
3 Likes
Imagine it read “you must trash it by paying a credit, if able”. This would unarguably have nothing to do with the usual trashing aspect of trashing cards (and be brokenly good). So it’s quite reasonable to interpret the trash cost as a coincidental aspect of the card, and nothing to do with the usual trashing of accessed cards with a trash cost.
If you access director Haas, or another of the executives, from archives can you use imp it to add it to your score area?
No.
2 Likes
Cards cannot be trashed from Archives. I forget which official document this is in, FAQ or Rules.
1 Like
Thanks both of you!
If I have multiple Zona Sul Shipping installed and click to take its credits, do I take all the credits from all the installed Zona Suls or just from one?
1 Like
Like all click abilities, only the card with the ability you activate is the one that triggers and resolves. Much like you can’t click Magnum Opus and get 4 credits by having another one installed, you can’t click one Zona Sul Shipping and get credits from the others.
4 Likes
Also, keep in mind if a card names itself, it only means that one card:
Self-referential Language
Unless otherwise noted, a card with text that refers to its own card title only refers to itself and does not refer to other copies of cards with that title.
(Core Rules, p. 21)
3 Likes
So I was wrong, and NAT doesn’t. Lukas ruled:
No, trash it when you would normally trash it.
So the question is: what about Imp?
1 Like
Film Critic vs TFP. Can you play (and lose) the psi-game, then choose to host on film critic?
I don’t think so, since the psi-game is the Corp’s trigger. So, all the runner’s triggers on access (including choosing to host on FC) would already have been resolved.
At least that’s how I think it works!
3 Likes