Easy.
There is two different interpretations about the Salsette / CTM situation.
Since there is no official rule about it, one Interpretation tries to do find a solution a logical base:
Salsette says: One time, …remove when playing the trash cost. Obviously its not a trash, so CTM should activate on the first real trash.
The other interpretation uses other rulings and a state of game that is not part of the rules, but makes sense to them:
The trash cost are paid, so at that time, both effects trigger, and salsette gets priority, so CTM should not trigger again.
The thing is, neither of those is right, cause the text on Salsette is misleading and there is no official rule in the FAQ or anywhere else.
So both are perfectly fine and as long as there is no official ruling, judges have to pick one. So they ofc pick the One they agree.
No discussion will help here, just an official ruling.
Why do you think discussion won’t help here? Learning about why the judges favour one interpretation over the other is pretty important. The interpretation you provided, for instance, might be inconsistent with other rules in the FAQ (I think it is). I don’t know if this is the argument @zwobot used, which is why I asked.
Knowing what lead to conclusions inconsistent with ANCUR (and with other rules in the FAQ) is pretty helpful to making the answer more obvious, and when the answer is obvious we’ll be more likely have natural (not enforced) consistency.
The discussion is a little fragmented at this point, going on in both the official rules thread as well as here, but, for the sake of keeping the discussion coherent, I feel like @Dragar made an great point in the official rules thread by comparing CtM to the (official) Tori Hanzo ruling:
Tori Hanzō
The first net damage can be prevented/avoided before Tori Hanzō’s replacement ability resolves.
If the first instance of net damage is prevented by another effect or replaced with Tori Hanzō’s own effect, Tori Hanzō cannot trigger for the remainder of the run.
Since Tori cannot proc off of later net damage (even if it was replaced), it is inconsistent that CtM could proc post-slums.
I’d rather contain actual rules discussion to the Official Rules thread. Whether or not the German ruling was right/wrong is immaterial to our discussion here, which is why they ruled the way they did and how can we provide sufficient clarity on rules so that TOs are under no doubt what the correct (or at least consistent) rule is, even without an official ruling.
The thing I’d like to see included in the next FAQ is a description of what exactly “the first” means; it can be inferred from existing rulings (e.g. Tori Hanzo vs Net Shield, the fact that Net Shield can’t repeatedly prevent net damage), but it’d be good to have it stated explicitly. I think it’s caused a bit of trouble here and would clear a lot (although not all) of the confusion around this up.
I’d also like to know what “the first” in a trigger condition means. Both jako’s explanation of how Slums/CtM works, and the text of Gene Conditioning Shoppe (“Genetics also trigger the second time each turn their trigger condition is met.”) suggest that it is a modifier to a trigger, not part of the trigger condition itself. What does it mean for a trigger to have a modifier, and what are the implications of this in terms of when and how that ability successfully triggers and/or resolves?
The thread is getting pretty long, so I understand not reading all of it.
From this paragraph, I gather that this was not a case of a rogue TO making an erroneous ruling, but rather the company that organizes Netrunner OP in Germany coming to their own semi-official ruling that is at odds with the rules as they are played elsewhere.
From this, I would suspect that any organized netrunner event in Germany ‘should’ follow the local ruling per Heidelberger Spieleverlag, but that means we have two different rules based on geography. There are lots of problems with fractured rules enforcement, but I think we can all agree that it is bad for the game.
I disagree with this sentiment. Following the same logic that ANCUR is unofficial despite the head designer backing it, so too should these rulings be unofficial despite whoever et al. backing it. The same stance used against ANCUR must be used here, or we have a double standard (and some fairly shit rulings seeing competitive play).
It is not in any official document, and is hence unofficial.
You don’t want to go with the word of the head developer and person that “makes the rules” for Netrunner, so instead of going with an unofficial rule, by Damon, you invent your own rule, but not until “going over his head” by asking someone that, evidently based on other “rulings”, do not know the game or its rules. So you think you know better than Damon…?
So you think you know better than Damon, or that Damon might not be right, you should then be able to work out what the ruling should be, by applying the game rules, resources and official documentation.
Now a TO/judge might go more or less all in on learning the rules, but in a case in which one goes against Damon’s word, you should definitely be able to make your case and defend your ruling using all the materials available. If you apply the rules you can work out that Damon’s ruling is how it should work, e.g. check Jako’s primer on abilities: trigger =/= fire, which should solve this case. Not official enough? How about Lex: Kit bypassing an ICE consumes Kit’s ability…?
Again, you might think this is beyond what can be expected from a TO, and it might be so, but in that case, don’t invent your own baseless rules.
In the end it comes down to making a judgement call that goes against the head developer and rules guy as well as the rules and resources that do exist, w.o. anything to base it on, which is at best, extremely poor form.
If the German publisher has not done all they could in previous years to deter me from travelling to German nats you sure have helped them out by handling things in this way, good job.
This could be resolved by Damon (hallowed be his name), or FFG producing an official updates document or making the unofficial FAQ actually official.
Your outrage seems to be because people don’t follow what Damon has said, regardless of whether it’s official or not.
Can I remind you that Lukas made rulings and then reversed himself, and in fact there is a “contradictions” section on ANCUR. There are very sensible reasons why a TO might choose not to implement a ruling until it is enshrined in an official document.
That is a really bad argument. Official rulings have also been reversed, erratas have been made.
Until a rule changes there is no point in not following it.
Secondly, if no official rule exists and you “can’t make a ruling that is inofficial”, it would mean that the game would “freeze” since any ruling you make is inofficial, the ruling made in this case is not more official than Damon’s. But if a scale from official to most unofficial existed, this ruling would be more unofficial than Damon’s.
Again, this is very sad imo, I have been interested in playing with the Germans and the Germans I interacted with at Worlds were all as nice as the next Netrunner.
I disagree, my argument is perfectly valid. You play with whatever the official rules are. If they get reversed, you play with the new official rules. Playing by unofficial comments in the meantime that are often reversed with no official sanction is daft.
A regular official channel makes is clear what the rules are. Trying to adhere to ad-hoc rulings as and when they pop up on social media or elsewhere is bonkers.
The thing is, by the official documents alone, there is definitely a degree of ambiguity here. There are (at least) two plausible stances. One has unofficial comments by the head designer saying this is how it should operate, and the other has zilch. Why gamble on the lame horse?
Why not ask and find out? Presumably there are good reasons. Let’s find out what they are and figure out how to address them, so that that it doesn’t happen again.
As previously stated though, head designers are known to make contradictory decisions. Until something is made official it’s still a gamble.
What I’d like to see is more frequent FAQ updates (monthly seems fine?), as this avoids the issue largely.
If we go the unofficial route you then have to start asking how unofficial is still okay? Something Damon told you down the pub? Something that was ruled at a tournament he was at but didn’t actually take any part in? Something briefed by another designer as definite, but Damon hasn’t mentioned yet?
I’m not saying the discussion here is not valuable. I agree this discussion here is worth having. What I’m trying to do is put myself in the position where I have to make this ruling as a TO, between these two ambiguous positions. What prompts one to ignore the unofficial comments from the head designer, in favor of a stance that is just as likely but doesn’t have those comments?
It’s not a matter of the official rules saying one thing, and unofficial comments saying another. It’s a matter of the official rules having ambiguity, with unofficial comments backing a particular stance. Why not roll with that? If nothing else, it ensures a unified Netrunner experience. Because what’s being proposed here is chaos; one TO might rule one thing, and another completely differently.
There could be lots of reasons. Translation issues; being unaware of ANCUR; not following the arguments presented on ANCUR; not being able to find the appropriate arguments and so disagreeing with a ruling; large numbers of players having played one way, unaware of the ANCUR ruling and being unwilling to run a tournament contrary to their expectations; believing the ruling will be reversed, etc.
What happened in this case? I don’t know. Hopefully we’ll find out.
Because what’s being proposed here is chaos; one TO might rule one thing, and another completely differently.
I’m making assumptions, but I’d posit that a TO would think “that’s going to be the official rule in the next FAQ, but until it’s official, we’ll carry on as before”
I personally would have gone with the Damon rulings, but I can see why someone would want to be official.
But there is no “as before”! The official rules never conflicted with the unofficial. The official rules are ambiguous, and the unofficial provide clarity. Why go against that attempt at clarification?
As before, in this case, probably best means “how everyone has been playing it here”.
Every area plays the rules as they think are correct. Until an official rule changes that, I can see people sticking to it.
As an example there came a point when IDs were allowed in tournaments. There was a grey area around them between announcement and being officially introduced. I can see an argument in that period for individual TOs to say either “we’re waiting for the official start date” or " well this is obviously going to be the rule now, we’ll just include it from now on".
It’s a different situation to be sure, but still raises the spectre of whether TOs should be 100% official or not.
