So we don’t change the way we access cards when we use Eater. We still turn all of the cards face up, access each card, one at a time, and resolve each access one at a time. We already know we don’t skip any of this from earlier rulings.
Eater tells us we cannot access more than 0 cards, not that we skip access or don’t access cards. So we turn all of the cards face up, we access them one at a time until all have been accessed, in any order the runner chooses.
Now, whenever we access a card in archives (because we access each card one at a time), Archives Interface gives us the option to rfg one of those cards instead of accessing it. This tells us that we still did not ‘access’ the rfg target, and therefore did not violate Eater’s rule; we are instead using a replacement effect for one (of many) access events that occurs at the conclusion of a successful archives run.
Source? I’m pretty much 100% sure this is incorrect.
You do turn all the cards face-up; that’s associated with “accessing cards” on archives (which happens). But you do not access the individual cards; you cannot due to Eater’s ability. Eater + Shock! on Archives does not result in damage.
In order to replace something in Netrunner, the something needs to happen first. The access never happens, and thus can never be replaced with a RFG.
This, again, goes back to why they didn’t just say “you cannot access cards” on Eater’s ability. Because it allows accessing cards to still happen, so you can replace that step and do something perhaps more meaningful with the run (AS, Singularity, Keyhole, etc.).
Hi All,
Apologies if this is covered elsewhere, but I didn’t find a clear ruling.
Regarding Global Food Initiative and Punitive Counterstrike, with the original wording Lukas ruled that punitive only did 2 damage because that’s what it was worth. In the 3.0.1 ruling, this is addressed as part of the FAQ. In the 3.1 errata, they changed GFI to say “printed agenda points” and they removed the question about the GFI/Punitive interaction from the FAQ. Does this mean that since July of 2016, GFI is worth 3 in a Punitive? If not, can you please point me to a ruling published after 3.1 came out addressing this?
This is covered in the latest FAQ (3.1.2); the example is Immolation Script and Eater, but the mechanic is the same:
Can the Runner use Immolation Script during a run in which Eater was used to break a subroutine?
No. Eater stops the Runner from accessing any individual cards, and so there is no access to replace with Immolation Script.
(p. 17)
I don’t know the exact release dates of the FAQ’s, but yes, that’s how it works. If the latest FAQ (3.1.2), still says it, and it does, there’s no reason to doubt:
Punitive Counterstrike
• Should read: “If successful, do meat damage to the Runner equal to the number of printed agenda points on agendas he or she stole during his or her last turn.”
(p. 11)
Especially, when the clarification is so exact. What makes you doubt? Was your opponent insisting that the old ruling from Lukas still mattered when there was a newer ruling in the FAQ?
What happens if I use Bryan Stinson to play Paywall Implementation? I feel like it would put Paywall Implementation into play, and then if it meets the [current text] condition, it would be removed from game instead of trashed.
I think I’d agree with that. Currents provide an alternate timing for trashing them, but they are, nonetheless, trashed. Bryan replaces the trashing of events with RFG. No reason the two can’t work together.
More generally, I’m pretty sure the resolution of triggered abilities exist independent of the source. It says it here for conditional abilities specifically, but I’m pretty sure it applies for paid/actions as well (the example of SDB trashing being precedent).
Can’t think of anything that disagrees it off-hand. There might be something though; haven’t given it too much thought.
Yeah or like the tag from Joshua. Once triggered an ability exists independently of its source. (Other more similar precedence would be ITD, which is a paid ability that sets up an effect that lasts as long as it lasts even if ITD gets trashed.)
Question about Hellion Beta Test and Salsette Slums. How they do? I think that you can still use HBT if a single card was trashed and slummed the previous turn, right? What gives me pause is the CtM+Slums ruling. Any clarification is appreciated!
You can use HBT if a single card was trashed, but, if the trash was replaced by Slums, then no card was trashed after Slums finishes replacing it. So Slums counters HBT.
From the FAQ:
Replacement Effects
An ability that uses the word “instead” is a replacement effect. Once an effect has been replaced with a new one, no other effects can be triggered off the original effect, regardless if they are regular effects or additional replacement effects.
CtM is a separate case, which the FAQ also covers under Ordinal Events. Basically, even though nothing was trashed if Slums replaces it, the first time the game tried to trash something has still occurred.
Thinking about it more I’m unsure now. All of the precedent I can think of revolves around reacting to a specific effect. HBT only cares that an event happened, not a specific instance of that effect.
CtM doesn’t proc after Slums because it knows that the first time already occurred. By contrast, maybe HBT could fire because it knows the first time has occurred. The FAQ entry for Replacement effects also states that nothing can react to that effect specifically, but makes no broader claims about if the event is considered to have happened.
The FAQ entry on Ordinal Events also has an interesting statement that has me leaning against my initial intuition (able to use HBT, even if SS replaces):
“Ordinal Events”
When an ability refers to a specific ordinal instance of something happening (e.g. “the first time”, “the second time”, etc.), it refers to that instance and only that instance. If a replacement or prevent ability happens, the game still counts it toward the number of times the replaced or prevented event has occurred.
So a card is considered to have been trashed once, even if Slums replaces it. This isn’t definitive, as it only specifies that the number of times is retained (not that it actually occurred).
Anyone have precedent or alternative perspective? I’m pretty sure there’s precedent on this that I’m forgetting.
Your emphasis on the Oridinal Event rule is what had me thinking that it does allow you to use HBT, though I was unaware that was in the FAQ (I need to read it more often, instead of glancing at new content when it is released). Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the runner uses any card that forfeits an agenda, the corp can still use Punitive Counterstrike, right? Maybe that’s the precedent for HBT being allowed to fire?
