Ah… FWIW it seems to be the way French TOs will rule the interaction too. I was going for it but if Damon clearly stated otherwise I’ll follow him. Would not be the first time I enforce a ruling I disagree with. ^^
EDIT : I understand that it may be the intended interaction between those two cards, but I think the slum’s text is poorly written.
Considering that ruling : “No. The accessed card is removed from the game instead of trashed, so Hostile Infrastructure does not trigger.” If the first card is not considered as trashed for one card’s purpose, I find difficult to consider it trashed for another card’s purpose.
You’re making the mistake a lot of people do: TOs don’t need to be judges. We need to separate these roles (as actually written in the current Tournament Regulations) and finally have that certified rules-expert / judge / whatever program that FFGOP mentioned in a presentation somewhere. Then you have people who vow to spend their free time to be on the top of Netrunner rules.
In the particular case of CTM and Slums there’s no real source to quote for it. It was mentioned in Stimhack Slack, mentioned on Fetal.ai’s twitter (nothing actually referenced there, just the ruling) so after I spent hours trying to find a source for this aside “Jakodrako ruled this at GenCon and Damon approved” being mentioned in chat by various people, I asked Damon myself on twitter. You can’t expect anyone hosting a tournament to go out of his way to track down these rulings. He asked FFGOP and complied to them. This situation is exactly why this whole “ask the head designer on twitter and put it on an unofficial wiki” situation doesn’t work in the long run. ANCUR is a great resource and I’m grateful for all the work you’ve done, but FFG needs to get their game on official rulings.
Also, this ruling isn’t even on ANCUR.
Damon already gave a public endorsement of ANCUR, as cited at the top of the Flashpoint UFAQ. To ask for anything more of the company that publishes the game is misguided.
Are you seriously believing that a company that makes a game shouldn’t be responsible for owning a comprehensive rules library for it? Yes, they have their own FAQ updated once in a while but in this particular scenario which you have the problem with the relevant ruling is not in the FAQ.
Misguided? I see nothing wrong with asking for more from our game companies. They’re not necessarily under any obligation to give us anything, but constructive challenges are always worthwhile. Ideally I’d like to see more TO / Judge resources and “How To” guides.
Indeed, the relevant ruling is not stated on ANCUR on the specific card pages. @jakodrako is right that you can derive how it works from the general rulings on replacement effects. However! I would really urge to include this specific ruling on the ANCUR card pages as well. It would clear up confusion from a lot of players.
Also, as stated, the official FAQ needs to be updated faster.
@MrMint: I’ve no doubt that you’ll do an awesome job next week, but I would like an announcement beforehand on this ruling (and maybe some other hot topics?) so that everyone who’s coming to play is up to speed with this matter.
I also don’t get how the TO, even after knowing what Damon has ruled and FFGOP says that it is an unofficial rule, thinks he can come up with his own rule. If there is no official rule, what is the reason to invent an official rule that goes against the inofficial rule made by the maker of the rules. The rule is alos only unofficial due to the fact that FFG can’t update the FAQ/Rules as fast rules come out. Also, if you read through Jako’s primer you’ll be able to derive that Damon’s ruling is in line with the actual game rules (trigger happens but does not resolve).
You’re being a mite unreasonable about this. ANCUR is very useful, but it’s not a rules document. It’s a somewhat ordered collection of the social media ramblings of designers as to their intent. Any “ruling” on it is unofficial. Anyone else could publish a website with Netrunner “rules” on it. What if two such unofficial websites disagree? What would a poor TO do then?
While useful, ANCUR is no more official than anything else. If a rule is official, it would be in one of the documents that FFG OP state contain official rules. That is the bottom line. If FFG want to expand their definition of official rules to include Damon’s personal Twitter feed, obviously that would be a different matter.
The take-home message ought to be that the TO did exactly what the FFG OP department told him to do when asked.
Yeah that was the end goal of my questions here. I intend to do an announcement asap so everyone know what to do.
Replacement effect ruling : A replacement effect is an effect that uses the word “instead” in its text to change another effect into some different effect. Only one replacement effect can be used per trigger
But according to the interaction with Sneakdoor beta for example that doesn’t add up. Since Sneakdoor Beta doesn’t count as a succesful run on Archives (Doesn’t trigger Temüjin), why the replacement effect of Slum would count as the first trash of the turn ?
This is where you’re going wrong. Sneakdoor does trigger Temüjin (or rather, Temujin meets its trigger condition). But the successful run on Archives is replaced by one on HQ, and so Temujin does not resolve.
This is just like Slums and CTM - trashing a card does trigger CTM (and Slums). But Slums resolves first, and so CTM does not resolve.
This is just like Femme and Tollbooth. Encountering Tollbooth does trigger both Femme and Tollbooth. But Femme resolves first, and so Tollbooth does not resolve.
That’s interesting ! Thanks this definitely food for thought !
To play devil’s advocate, the card’s text doesn’t specify that you’re trashing the card in order to proc Slum, just that you pay the trash cost for another effect than trashing the card. But I’m sure that the way you put it is the way the card was intended to be played.
I don’t agree on this particular point (but it’s not really important on this matter).
The trash cost is the cost the Runner can pay to trash a Corporation card while accessing it But it’s not meant to be the only use of the said trash cost (eventual card effect in the future).
The same way as paying the rez cost of something doesn’t mean you are rezzing it (councilman…)
For what it’s worth, @jakodrako put a lot of time into the primer on resolving abilities, which pretty clearly resolves the CTM/Slums dispute. Given the TO was given no guidance at all by FFG (except that nothing on ANCUR/Twitter is ‘official’) I find it perplexing he ruled a way that has been fairly well established to be wrong.
I’d be really interested in seeing the argument, and if it disagrees with any of the ability resolution rules that have already been established on ANCUR. Because presumably the TO did have an argument that he considered my persuasive than this, or why rule that way?
My point is that, in the way the text is written, you don’t pay the trash cost to trash the card but to remove it from the game.
If the text was “When the runner trash a card by paying its trash cost, he or she can remove it from the game instead” I wouldn’t have a doubt about it.
I think you’re going wrong thinking about Slums as something you use. You don’t. It’s something that triggers from paying the trash cost of an accessed card (which, barring replacement effects, trashes that card just like making a successful run leads to accessing cards).
