The ruling I remember says that hosted cards don’t remember anything about why they’re hosted. The only thing they do is trash themselves if their host is also trashed.
In general, any card can theoretically host any other card. The tricky part is that you can’t host a card unless something tells you to. For example, Parasite says to install it only ‘on’ a rezzed piece of ICE. This tells you that the ICE is hosting Parasite. For Worlds Plaza, it says that A) Unlike most cards, Worlds Plaza can only host up to 3 Assets, not as many as possible. and B) It tells you how to host cards onto Worlds Plaza, by spending a click. If Rumor Mill is out, both of those things stop happening. So now A) Worlds Plaza has no restrictions on how many Assets can be hosted on it. And B) Worlds Plaza doesn’t tell you how to host any NEW cards to it. In practice, nothing happens except that you can’t put anything new onto Worlds Plaza.
This is identical to the Film Critic -> Dr. Lovegood ruling. If you Lovegood a Film Critic that has an Agenda on it, the Agenda is still hosted on Film Critic, you just lose the ability to host any more Agendas there, and also the ability to get the Agenda off.
Mostly the way it works is that if a card says it can host other cards, those cards can only be hosted there when they get installed. (This would be Worlds Plaza and Film Critic, and Scherezade and Djinn. And Dinosaurus.) However, Film Critic specifies how to host a card onto it, so you cannot install Agendas onto a Film Critic. In the same way, Worlds Plaza specifies how to host cards onto it, so you cannot install Assets onto Worlds Plaza. Djinn and Dinosaurus don’t specify how to host onto them, so for those cards you just install a thing that they can host, and host it there.
Film Critic would actually still be able to host Agendas via its trigger even if it didn’t have the ‘Film Critic may host up to one Agenda’ text on it. Because, by rule, any card may host any other card. (Otherwise every ICE would have to say ‘may host any number of programs’ for Caissa and Parasites to work.) That line of text is actually just specifying that you cannot put a second Agenda on it.
The only relation that the host has with the hosted card is the Trash interaction mentioned in the third paragraph of the FAQ. If a host card is trashed, everything on it is unpreventably trashed as well. But if the card is derezzed or turned facedown (Hi Apocalypse) the hosted card stays. (So if I have a Corroder on a Dinosaurus and a Knight on a Wraparound when I Apocalypse, I now have a facedown Corroder hosted on a facedown Dinosaurus, and a Knight in the trash.)
The Runner have Salsette Slum and play against CTM.
There is 2 installed assets.
Runner turn
1st run on asset #1, willing to trash : Salsette Slum triggers to avoid the CTM trigger.
2nd run on asset #2, willing to trash : does CTM triggers ?
That third paragraph is very enlightening. Especially the derezzing part you just mentioned. Good examples btw. Not intuitive to the way a (retired) player of that other card game thinks, but more than logical once the entire thing has been read.
I’m actually currently a judge of that other card game. Used to be Level 2, but I’ve had… issues… with how the program is handled recently, so I’ve let it lapse to just Level 1.
It’s fun keeping the rules for the two games straight. The biggest weirdness moving from one to the other are Paid Ability Windows and Cascading Triggers. Both games handle them completely differently.
I was all ready to say that Slums and CtM both trigger when you trash a card… And then I re-read Slums.
It triggers on paying the trash cost, which is weird, and does indeed trigger by itself, then it RFG’s instead of trashes. So the next card that you pay the trash cost for would in fact be the first card trashed, so CtM triggers.
That’s a very odd way to word that ability on Slums. It means that Slums doesn’t work if you Parasite an ICE, Ed Kim an Operation, or Imp… anything? Seems a weird way to specifically ruin several potential interactions that aren’t really that busted… (Maybe the Imp thing was in testing and that’s why it’s worded so precisely?)
Remind them that because of Salsette Slums, the sequence of actions is not “Access Card -> Trash Card”, but “Access Card -> Pay Trash Cost -> Trash Card”. Remind them of Cascading Triggers, and that when we Trigger an ability, we fully resolve it before moving on.
Slums makes it " Access Card -> Pay Trash Cost -> TRIGGER: RFG Instead of Trash ", so there’s never a CtM Trigger in that sequence of events, and since CtM hasn’t triggered yet, it can still trigger later in the turn.
No, it can’t. CTM doesn’t fire on the second trash. The game state remembers the “first time” anything happens. The Trash trigger condition is satisfied even when it is replaced. Re: Tori Hanzo / Net Shield rulings.
I’ve talked to Jacob about this, we’ve debated it in Slack, and the ruling is that CTM does not fire on second trash after Slums rfgs the first card.
@Weigraff, an excellent rule guy on R4G also quote the Security Testing vs Crisium Grid that was reversed. 1st times vs replacement effects seems to work like @CrushU said.
I heard the same, and I played CtM at Gencon. This specific interaction never came up for me, as I encountered only one slumlord, and he did not trash a 2nd card on the same turn that I recall (because I wanted to hear from a judge/Damon directly on such an odd ruling).
I think this may be another case where better templating could have avoided such confusion and controversy much better, because I still don’t know what the right answer is, as the parallel to Hostile Infrastructure ruling on the same damn card seems to say the opposite to the ruling I’ve heard.
The weirdest part for me is that I initially thought that the second trash wouldn’t count… Until I read Slums, and it says something different than what I’d remembered. (Triggers on ‘paying trash cost’, not on ‘trashing an accessed card’)
