I think you’re right, but I’m not actually 100% here. Chirashi is ‘whenever’ you break, not ‘for each’ you break. Consider the way The Cleaners or Ixodidae work for a counter examples. Chirashi is a little different, I understand, because it is ‘whenever you break a subroutine,’ so this case is likely more analogous to Apocalypse/Hostile Infrastructure.
However, the wording on ChiLo makes me think that any ability which breaks multiple subroutines wasn’t necessarily intended to be treated as multiple discrete events. The new wording on Chirashi might just mean the two cards work differently, of course.
You probably mean Midway. Why would it not be worded like Midway if it was meant to work like it? Same with Ixodidae and Cleaners, they’re worded differently because they work differently.
You’re right - Midway and Chiyashi. This is why I shouldn’t respond on mobile.
Honest answer to your question: because one was written by Lukas, and the other by Damon. Flashpoint seems to have abandoned a lot of Lukas’ templating, and we’ve even seen cards changed from previews once it is pointed out to Damon that certain effects won’t work the way he intended with his initial wording.
ETA: To be clear, as indicated in the above post, I think you’re probably right about how this will turn out. But asking why it wasn’t worded more like Midway if that was the intent just opens the door to asking why it wasn’t worded more like other ‘for each’ effects (Chief Slee, etc.) if the intent runs the other way. My point was that the precedent here is not exactly crystal clear, because we have no prior examples of “whenever the runner breaks a subroutine” effects, and the templating on earlier cards seemed to suggest that you should treat an ability which breaks multiple subs as a single unit. This is based on the supposition that Midway was worded the way it was to avoid rules confusion – it seems highly unlikely that it had anything to do with moderating the power level of the card, given that this situation applied only to a small handful of rarely used breakers at the time.
In a super duper pedantic followup, should we treat Lukas’ “you can’t break a subroutine that has already been broken” ruling as still valid? Or has it been overruled by the more recent rulings on partially resolvable effects?
I ask because it has some implications for the difference between Dai V’s “break all” and the previous templating on, say, Morning Star (“break any number”).
What concrete difference are you worried about between Dai V and MS? They operate similarly but differently; one of them not forcing you to break everything (if you paint a Aiki barrier, for example). This isn’t just a templating change.
I don’t think anything has been said that invalidates that Lukas ruling.
Well, germane to the present topic - if you wanted to break a couple of Chiyashi’s subs with Grappling Hook and then Clone Chip in a Dai V to finish it off (taking 2 damage instead of 6), you wouldn’t be able to under the previous ruling.
To clarify - there is a difference between saying “you can’t break a specific subroutine twice,” which I would presume is still valid, and saying “you can’t use an effect which would break multiple subs if any of those subs have already been broken.” The former is still in line with more recent rulings of “an effect must change the game state;” the latter seems either to be at odds with or a special case of partially resolvable effects (e.g. Diesel with two cards in stack).
Yes you would? You grappling hook when it has 3 subs, breaking two of them, then clone in Dai V to axe the remaining sub. That ruling doesn’t seem to infer you can’t do that AFAICT.
I’m also not sure how this would result in only trashing 2 off the stack. Grappling hook breaks 2 routines, trashing 4, and then the last break from Dai V breaks 1, causing 2 more to trash (6 total).
Am I missing something here?
EDIT: Nevermind the strike through, I get it; no AI installed. Still don’t see why you couldn’t do it though.
Check the linked ruling above. LL said you couldn’t use a second Grappling Hook because some subs were already broken. Dai V would seem to fall under the same umbrella as a second Hook.
You can’t use the second grappling hook because there’s only one subroutine left to break (grappling hook breaks all but one; one less one is zilch). Dai V is perfectly capable of breaking a single subroutine.
I think this might be taking Lukas example out of context. I don’t think he meant “it is forbidden to use effects that break subroutines that have already been broken”, but rather “once a subroutine is broken, then it’s no longer available as a target candidate”.
I do see where you’re coming from with the quoted edit though. For reference, attaching Lukas specific wording in question:
You cannot use more than one Grappling Hook on a piece of ice, because you cannot break a subroutine that has already been broken.
Read literally, it sounds like he’s describing it as you mentioned. But I’m pretty certain he meant it as I mentioned.
Oh, interesting. I see where you are coming from, but that isn’t how I read the ruling at the time. I thought the issue was that if there were, say, three subs (A, B, and C), you could use one Hook to break “everything but C;” then, when you tried to use the second for “everything but A,” the problem was that B was already broken and you were trying to break it twice.
But your reading makes more sense - that you have to name an unbroken sub as the “but one,” and that is the hangup.
I don’t think step 2 is correct (IE: you can’t use Archives Interface), as the “instead of accessing it” never happens.
For reference, the text in question (my notes in bold):
Whenever you access cards in Archives (1), you may remove 1 card in Archives from the game, instead of accessing it (2).
Archives Interface basically has two abilities (annotated above). When you reach the access cards step of the run, effect (1) puts effect (2) into play, but not immediately resolving, as this effect requires accessing a card, which occurs later (or, in the Eater case, never).
Drawing this conclusion from how SS was described to work back in the days of the SS/CtM war of 2016.
By that logic, Account Siphon, Vamp, Bank Job, Retrieval Run, Keyhole, et cetera would not work with Eater because they are replacing accesses that ‘do not happen’.
I have no idea how this relates to slums, there are no ‘first time’ triggers or trashing to trigger unresolvable effects here.
“Accessing cards” and “accessing a card” are different things. It’s why Eater is worded in the peculiar way it is; because it lets “accessing cards” still happen (just removes all the “access a card” that would occur after that).
For reference, Eater’s break clause (bolding the important part):
Break ice subroutine. You cannot access more than 0 cards for the remainder of this run.
If it instead said:
Break ice subroutine. You cannot access cards for the remainder of this run.
Then it would not work with AS, Vamp, etc. As it is actually worded, those cards are not affected.
What’s important about slums is how it was a conditional ability (triggered on first paid trash) that sets up a constant ability (occurring on trash). This is akin to that; a conditional ability (triggered on “accessing cards” in archives) that sets up a constant ability (occurring on “accessing a card”). It’s the constant ability that does all the legwork. If the constant doesn’t happen, it has no effect.
I think it doesn’t work together. You access cards in Archives with Eater, but you access exactly zero. Of those zero you may remove one from the game, but eh … well, the selection is very small. You have to actually access the card for being able to remove it.
You have to actually access the card for being able to remove it.