Its clear to me that you can’t combine the rule for trashing with the text on Salsette Slums, cause both dont match.
And I quote:
“When the runner accesses an upgrade/asset, he can trash it by playing its trash cost”
“Once per turn, when you pay the trash cost of an accesses card, remove that card from the game instead of trashing it”
The part “Whenever a Player pays the trashing cost of a card, he attemps to trash it and therefore triggers abilities like CTM” is somehow missing.
So its clear that Salsette does not describe wether you attempt to trash and then go for remove instead, having triggered CTM, or you pay the cost to remove it instead of the base ability of trashing it, which would leave CTM still hungry for the trash.
Its unclear wording. And only an official ruling can tell us what is the one, right solution. Till then, each interpretation is fine, as long as its stated loud and clear before a tournament starts.
New card question: If I use Citadel Sanctuary to prevent damage as Geist, do I keep the card I draw from Geist’s ability? Or does it also get trashed to feed Citadel?
Slums says ‘when you pay the trash cost of an accessed card’. Under what rules may a runner pay the trash costs of an accessed card if not the trashing of that card described in the rulebook? Slums alone contains no text to allow the paying the trash cost of an accessed card.
What allows a runner to pay the trash cost of an accessed card? If the runner is not invoking the trash ability, then what triggers Slums?
The runner is only able to pay the trash cost by activating the trash ability per the core rules. Once that ability is invoked, Slums allows for a replacement effect to be used to substitute the trash effect with a remove from game effect.
If the initial trash event did not happen, then Slums would not trigger. Slums and CtM are triggered be the same event, but if the effect is replaced by Slums, then CtM cannot resolve per the simultaneous tiggers resolution ruling (e.g. Tori Hanzo).
Slums replaces (‘instead’) the trashing of a card with removing it from the game.
Tori Hanzo replaces (‘instead’) the net damage with brain damage. Tori Hanzo cannot fire again (the FAQ tells us this).
“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 the first X is replaced by Y, anything that triggers from the first X cannot be triggered again this turn/run.
If the first trashing is replaced by removing from the game, anything that triggers from the first trashing cannot be triggered again this turn/run.
By that same argument, the first time Tori fires, there is no net damage. Hence the next time there would be net damage, Tori fires.
Or Muresh, for that matter. It prevents the first meat damage per turn. But since it prevents it there never was any meat damage, so it prevents the next, too.
Core Rules page 18
Trashing Cards
If the Runner accesses a card with a trash cost, he may pay
credits equal to its trash cost in order to trash it to Archives
faceup.
The trash cost can only be paid by invoking the runner’s ability to trash a card by paying its trash cost. Paying to trash a card is trashing a card, there is no separation between those events.
Besides which, we know from Tori that the thing being replaced, if it counts for ‘first time’ triggers, has happened for those triggers and cannot happen again.
Yes, I believe that between the core rules, and the Tori FAQ ruling, the CtM v Slums interaction is established in the official rules and doesn’t require an official ruling/FAQ entry/addendum.
I won’t say it is intuitive, as I argued over this point myself in this very thread, but @jakodrako explained it to me and I do now see the logic behind it. Sometimes it can be a little embarrassing to have things pointed out from the rule book that I didn’t think was there (hence I know exactly where the trashing rule comes from), but I am certainly a better informed player for it.
Everyone should strive to have a better mental model of the game, especially TOs. I don’t know why some people are resisting that and find it embarassing to learn something new. That’s not embarassing, it’s fucking awesome.
Unrelated question to CtM and salsette (thank gosh). It’s the runners turn and there is an active employee strike. The corp ID is replicating perfection. click 1 runner runs on archives (or any central, doesn’t matter). Click 2, runner installs a different current, trashing the employee strike. Can the runner run a remote server for click 3? Since the ID was blank, RP was not looking for a run on a central during the first click and would not have seen it for when it is active I would think, similar to how Jeeves only counts actions taken after it was rezzed.
You can run a remote without another central run. Just like how if a runner spends a click to draw Symmetrical Visage and then installs Symmetrical Visage, they will not get the 1 credit from the next click to draw action that turn. The game remembers the ‘first time X happens’ and the card effectively asks the game if a particular condition has occurred (not as unrelated to CtM and Salsette as you thought).