Why is this ufaq and not ofaq then ?
FFG is a business and businesses don’t associate their brand officially with third-party resources. It’s nothing but potential liability. But FFG also evidently isn’t willing to dedicate the resources to answer the mass stream of questions that comes from the community. Just look at the size of this thread alone; 3200+ posts (and there’s still tons of ambiguity, even with the answers being provided here).
The UFAQ is a community-driven compromise, the way I see it. But just because it’s unofficial doesn’t mean that it should be dismissed. It is created with feedback directly from the designer; what advantage is there in ignoring that?
2 Likes
The advantages to find is time to read 3200 posts, permanence or rulings, pertinacity of rulings, etc.
Synthesising and ruling all this is FFG’s work.
Not really relevant to the discussion, but what do you mean with mandatory? Damon ruling from UFAQ:
Can the Runner choose not to use Salsette Slums the first time they trash an accessed card and then use it later to remove the second card trashed that turn from the game?
Yes. Because Salsette Slums can only be used “once per turn”, it is the Runner’s choice when to do so.
3 Likes
At the German nationals apparently it was ruled that slums was a mandatory event on the firate trash, not optional
There must be some sort of translation issue on the card here, right?
1 Like
I think this is provably the wrong interpretation purely from the official FAQ (page 11):
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.
If we were to use this interpretation of the CTM/Slums ruling, we have to apply the same logic here. Since Slums wasn’t a ‘real’ trash (it was replaced by removing from the game), so the logic goes, CTM fires on the next trash. But we have the same argument with almost identical wording for Tori.
After Tori has been used once, the runner takes more net damage - since the first net damage wasn’t ‘real’ net damage (it was replaced by Tori’s effect causing brain damage), Tori must fire on the second net damage of the turn too!
The FAQ shows that this interpretation is inconsistent and therefore wrong. The correct interpretation is that ‘the first net damage’ meets the trigger condition for Tori even if it is replaced or prevented, and that the first time a player ‘pays the trash cost of an accessed card’, CTM meets its trigger condition even if the trash is replaced or prevented.
6 Likes
Nope.
That’s pure interpretation on your side.
You act like netrunner rules are build logical and there is an official ultimate rules mechanic that you can use for each card.
There is no rule that says:
If a card says “playing the trash cost”, it means start a trash and then prevent the trashing.
If this rule existed, you were right. But its your interpretation.
So yes, you may be right, but we can only tell when we have an official ruling if you was or not.
No discussion will help cause of that fact.
There is no ultimate ruleset behind each Netrunner card.
People Interpret and therefore build their own set of keywords and rules interpretations.
But its not official nor perfect.
That’s very illogical. FFG isn’t going to make a complete compendium of Netrunner rules. It’s not in their business interest to waste resources on it in order to sate the dozen or so people who actually seem to care. They have shown this with their continuously sparse FAQ. Why would anyone ignore the work being done to create a unified rule set, created through discussion with the actual designer?
Why does the fact that this is unofficial even matter? So you look at the official rules, and feel that there’s an ambiguous position. You look at ANCUR / Damon’s Twitter / whatever, and see there’s clarification, but it’s unofficial so you decide fuck it I’m a frontier man going where no net dude has gone before and make the opposite ruling?
1 Like
Yes, there is (page 9 of the official rulebook says “When the Runner accesses an upgrade/asset, he
can trash it by paying credits equal to its trash cost”). How else would a runner satisfy Slums condition to ‘pay the trash cost of an accessed card’ without it being this interaction? There is no other rule that allows the runner to do so.
Slums replaces the trash (‘instead of trashing it’). These are terms used in the FAQ.
Regardless of your strange reluctance to entertain discussion, providing these arguments in a sharpened and coherent fashion is important. For instance, it’s imaginable that had these arguments been shown to a TO arguing for the second interpretation, they would change their mind and rule in a way consistent with ANCUR and the rest of the world. See my discussion with @MrMint in the German Nationals thread for a direct example of this in practice.
Discussion is both important and fruitful - even if not everyone will be convinced (or indeed, even if you are not conviced!).
2 Likes
The big problems here are still not regarding infrastructure or resources for rules
-
TO apparently knew what Damon had ruled and still went “over his head” to check if he could change the rule. So you can’t argue that there are problems in spreading the rules and “TOs can’t be asked to read through 3200 posts in a rules thread”.
-
If there is no official ruling for a case, but an unofficial one, by the head designer no less, why would you make up your own unofficial rule, your own rule would be at best equally inofficial, though in all practical cases “worth less” than Damon’s.
-
To a lesser extent, you can work out the ruling Damon made, that Slumming consumes the “first time clause” of CTM from other rulings and how the actual rules work, like I said in other places, for example through Jako’s primer on abilities, an ability can trigger but not fire, as in the Kit bypass ICE case. I say lesser extent, since this is pretty in depth knowledge of the rules, and you can argue that the judge/TO should or should not be required to have this in-depth knowledge.
But, in this case if you really did not want to take Damon’s word for it, don’t make up your own rule, look for how the rules should be applied to the case, since you think you know better than Damon, you should be able to support that claim with the rules as they are!
7 Likes
As an aside, the discussion here is tangenting away from “rules questions” (which i take my partial responsibility for). There’s a thread dedicated to the German National’s, which has the TO monitoring, and might be a better place to get clarification on his stance:
1 Like
Is that your position on all questions in the Official rules query thread, or just the most recent? 
Yoshi, your language in a lot of these replies is antagonistic. Why are you trying to paint a picture of someome deliberately trying to subvert Damon’s unofficial ruling? Is it not more sensible to assume the TO was looking for the most official answer he could get? I’m mildly perturbed that you seem more interested in demonising the motives of the TO than understanding the actual reasoning.
Falko has laid out some of his reasoning in the other thread, I’m sure he’s open to a sensible discussion about how he came to his decision, but let’s step away from trying to state what someone’s motives and thought processes were, as that unhelpful.
1 Like
Well it does upset me a lot when ppl do things like this to the ANR community.
I do not try to paint a picture, I am going off what people have said, that the TO was aware and still went to OP that know nothing of ANR rules (don’t knwo why you would do that in the first place).
Also I did check you thread and he said:
I was aware of some card combination problems before the tournament and wanted an official answer by FFGOP via email for that and other stuff, like ANCUR. The answer came and said: rulings must only reference official FFG documents and no ruling can be based on ANCUR
That suggest he knew about the ruling made by Damon and still went against it. Or in the least, he was aware of problems and instead of looking up what the closest actual ruling was, making up his own ruling, completely baseless.
I did answer in the other thread also, will see what comes out of it.
1 Like
You see, from my perspective, he’s saying “I went to get the official answer from organised play and this is what I got”. In principle, I think that’s fine.
I’m not quite getting why Damon saying things unofficially should be treated as gospel. I’m sure in the next FAQ there will be something about the Slums interaction, but until then I can’t really blame someone for going to organised play for clarification on how to organise their play.
I’d have preferred the Damon solution, but I can see the thinking behind not using it.
C’mon gaz, now we are just running through doors just after the other left the room 
He did not even get a ruling from OP, they just said that “that is not official”.
I see no reason to not follow Damon’s rules, especially when he himself applied it at a big tournament he was head judge for, but maybe it’s just me that is not that arrogant…
1 Like
But there is, we have the official rules book, FAQ to clarify some (but not all) Frequently Asked Questions, and FFG’s Organized Play Tournament Rules (I’m too lazy to link them all, but I believe we acknowledge that these exist).
I don’t believe this is the correct action to take. There are plenty of over-the-top ridiculous stories of individuals interpreting rules erroneously. There is a logical progression to interpret the rules as they are written to apply to many specific cases, which may not be immediately clear. The official FAQ attempts this, but obviously cannot be an exhaustive explanation of every card and board state. What they do attempt to do, is give a set of examples of how specific interactions work so that we can interpret other board states.
If we consider chess, there are many more board states than pieces, but the set of legal moves for each board state is limited by the rules for each piece, and a few general rules for the game. There is no exhaustive FAQ to document every possible board state. A confusing rule for many new players is how a pawn may move, and when it can use it’s ‘double move’.
Q: If the f-pawn is moved to e-3 to capture a piece, may it then move forward to e-4 using it’double move ability’?
A: No, capturing is distinct from movement and may not trigger the additional advancement
Q: If the f-pawn is first moved to e-3 by capturing a piece, may it then move forward two spaces?
A: no, it may not, capturing a piece on e-3 was considered this pawn’s first movement, and thus consumed this piece’s ‘double move’ trigger
We do not then go on to ask if the same rules apply to the c-pawn under an analagous set of circumstances, saying the rules that apply to the f-pawn are unique to the f-pawn and the c-pawn requires it’s own set of FAQ explanations. Many people here are inviting discussion (@Dragar in particular) to help clarify where exactly the breakdown between the two interpretations comes from. In this case, I am arguing that the Tori Hanzov Net Shield ruling in the FFG FAQ supports the CtM v Slums ruling. The situations are analogous, and should not require an additional FAQ ruling.
4 Likes
Haha. You see again, you’re assuming arrogance to the decisions. I don’t think that’s the case and making that about another person without speaking to them seems to be getting too emotional about it and is based on your views on the decision - let’s steer away from ad hominem attacks.
1 Like
Ad hominem. If you are unable to keep this discussion about the points, it isn’t going to persist.
4 Likes