Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Jakodrako's Primer on Netrunner Abilities


I think this post has had a triggered effect on some people.

You could look at the three steps as:

  1. Am I triggered?
  2. Are my conditions satisfied?
  3. Fire.

I think it’s fair to say, with the current card pool, that steps 2 and 3 will occur atomically (Edit: this is not correct; see below posts); it is, for all intents and purposes, a single action that cannot be interrupted between 2 and 3 (anyone can feel free to correct that if they feel I’m wrong). But you always need to check the conditions before firing the ability (hopefully that’s trivially obvious). Since steps 2+3 are atomic, it shouldn’t matter if you separate them into 2 and 3 or 2+3, so are we really arguing about much here?


The example that comes most easily to mind is paid abilities (which are a subtype of triggered abilities).

E.G. Geist uses Clone Chip. CC has triggered but does not resolve until after Geist triggers and resolves.


I completely neglected paid ability costs being part of triggering. That means my post about atomicity is definitely incorrect, and also means that the distinction of 2 and 3 is definitely necessary.


I mean, it’s not entirely wrong. Just like steps 1 & 2 usually happen concurrently, so do steps 2 & 3.

Like in a really plain board state, where say there’s only an Aesop’s and an empty Cache, Aesop’s meets its condition, triggers, and resolves pretty much all at once. It’s only with additional complications that each atep of the process becomes more and more important to consider distinctly.


That’s why nested/cascading ruling are made for, no ? The corerules still say there is only two steps : (1) and (2+3) or it’s an error ?

Let’s me be clearer :slight_smile: (or try to) :slight_smile:

  • this document with this step 1/2/3 tries to explain rules, or mecanism ? Because I was interpreting this as rules. I’d agree it can be a good model to get what mecanism are though.


If 2+3 were the same, then Geist’s interaction with paid trash abilities would be:

  1. Pay to trash a card (ex: Fall Guy) (step 2)
  2. Fall Guy gives +2 Credits (step 3)
  3. Geist gives you +1 Draw. (external effect)

But this isnt the order (or at least that’s what I’m getting from this discussion). It’s actually:

  1. Pay to trash a card (ex: Fall Guy) (step 2)
  2. Geist gives you +1 Draw. (external effect)
  3. Fall Guy gives +2 Credits (step 3)

The important distinction is that abilities have the chance to trigger based on the triggering effect of other abilities before those other abilities finish resolution.


I see it more like:
a- Pay cost to activate prerequisite condition (1) of fall guy.
b- That cost happens to be a trash which is (1) intercepted by permanent of Geist then (Geist’s 2+3) draw
c- Then Fall guy’s (2+3).

That’s how I see additional costs working aswell.
Paying a cost leads to (1)
Paying that cost lead to trigger another (1) saying there additional cost for those cards
(2+3) the paying guy say ok / not ok for paying additional cost => cot are paid / not paid
then (2+3) of the original works or not depending the guy payed or not additional costs.


To give a stronger example, consider this situation:

1 credit available, Tech Trader on the board, Clone Chip on the board, Corroder (and only corroder) in the heap.

Under the 2+3 interpretation:

  1. Pop Clone Chip (step 2)
  2. Fire Clone Chip; can’t install (step 3)
  3. Gain Tech Trader credit (external effect)

Under the 2 then 3:

  1. Pop Clone Chip (step 2)
  2. Gain Tech Trader credit (external effect)
  3. Fire Clone Chip; install corroder (step 3)

The two are not the same.


You can’t pop clone chip in both exemples if you can’t solve it’s effect (aka pay for installing corroder).


That’s a pretty pedantic point. Assume there’s a shiv in the heap then. The point still holds; you can’t install the corroder.


Why pedantic, it’s a Lukas ruling made some year ago ?

Anyway :slight_smile:

“Poping clone chip” means pay the cost of it so it pops and lead to (1) CC’s paid prerequisite is ok.
CC is trashed as the result of the cost been paid, intercepted by Tech trader’s perma ability which gives you a cred
Then CC’s 2+3 resolve. Instal a card from heap paying install costs, there you can choose corroder over shiv.


It’s pedantic because it’s irrelevant to the point that was being made.


There, I answered you :slight_smile:
That model I use never proved to be flawed, if you like to search and search again you can but you may have trouble :confused:


So you’re now saying that, instead of Jako’s 1-2-3, we have Syntax’s 1.1-1.2-2+3.

I hope it’s obvious that step 1 (check if triggered) cannot possibly occur at the same time as step 2 (trigger). There’s numerous rulings that show that to be true (CtM/Salsette, Sneakdoor/ST). So you’re essentially breaking step 1 into two parts, in which case you have the exact same thing.


What, no ? It’s in the core rules, dude :slight_smile:
In order to pay a cost so a card can met paid prereq (aka 1) you have to actually… well pay for it :confused:

I agree on the gap between 1 and 2, not on a gap between 2 and 3.

1 is prereq met. Not “prereq to pay or to meet”


I don’t think I can help you get further down the road here. It’s illustrated through known rulings that there is a clear boundary between Jako’s steps 1/2 (CtM/Salsette), and 2/3 (Trader/Clone). There are 3 distinct steps

The core rules might’ve said something different. It wouldn’t be the first time the rules have been modified. Jako talks directly with the designer. I’d have more faith in his interpretation than something wrote in the 4 year old core rule manual.


Yeah, but I have more faith in something directly sold/written by FFG.
Which is the case of all ppl in my country btw.

I have strictly no problems with any of you guys, and admire any work done by jakodrako (this is fantastic, I’ve said it, and will say again), but where I live, ppl could be DQed if they talk about ID not in front of a TO. We talked about that last point not later than this morning after UK’s reports (yeah, french guys love to argue with each others)


Yeah, but I have more faith in something directly sold/written by FFG.

If you have faith in FFG, then why can’t you accept the CtM/Salsette ruling, which has been made directly by Damon, showing a clear distinction between “checking if triggered” and (later) “triggering”?

When I said have faith in Jako, I didn’t mean blindly trust him wholly. There’s demonstrable official rulings why his viewpoints are in the right here.


It’s not in the FAQ yet. So yes, you can call names there. I won’t move :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:
I’m in the process of chomping it and say whatever.

Spike + Wraparound disagrees totally with your 1 then 2 then 3 (I said “your”, not Jako’s).


The 3-step sequence in question is under “Conditional Abilities”.

Step 2 “Trigger” does not mention paying costs.

For paid abilities I suggest other three 3 steps:

  1. Trigger the ability
  2. Pay costs
  3. Resolve the ability