Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Official Rules Question Thread


Oddly, Hunter-Seeker just says to Trash 1 Card, so theoretically it can hit Hosted cards that aren’t installed. Why you’d do this I have no idea…

Most likely it should be read as ‘Trash 1 installed Card’ instead of the literal text on the card, though.


Ya 5 total accesses @thunderfist.

@CrushU weird it doesn’t. I would wager we’ll get an errata. That said, I believe most cards that host themselves without installing call themselves counters (which is a distinction from cards).


Sure, but cards like personal workshop host other cards onto themselves without installing. Why you’d ever want to trash the hosted card instead of the workshop (or Peddler, etc.), I don’t know, but I guess it’s possible?


From the FAQ:

###Choosing Cards
Unless otherwise noted, a card ability that requires a player to choose a card can only affect installed cards.

Edit: I guess you could argue that this should only affect cards that actually say “choose a card,” or something like that, but I’m sure I’ve seen something saying that this same principle powers the ruling that Tennin can’t place advancement counters on itself.


Hunter Seeker says “Trash 1 card.”

In theory, I could trash the runner’s ID, a scored agenda, a card from his grip, an installed ice or the topcard from R&D.

@Absotively Tennin’s ruling was what I was suspecting but still, why do they use Tennin’s wording when they could put “Trash 1 installed card”, it’s really strange.


In theory you can’t (outside the installed ICE), because of the above.


Marilyn Campaign: Does the effect (“If Marilyn Campaign is trashed while installed, you may shuffle it into R&D instead of adding it to Archives.”) trigger when the card is installed, but not rezzed? I guess no, but not sure.


I believe the answer is no. Usually, an effect that occurs regardless of rezzed or not does so because of its an effect occurring during access (which is the exception to the “unrezzed text is blank” rule), but Marilyn makes no mention of the access window.

Not 100% on that one, but that would be my initial thoughts.


Hi guys, small question.

My interpretation of the new Universal Influence with the new MWL and how it affects The Professor. If I have a “Lady H1” in my deck that doesn’t cost me any experience at all. Even it is a tier 1 card still is the first copy of a program and it shouldn’t count towards my limit. So I should be able to have 1x Lady and 1x Clone Chip in te deck, right?

Asking this because on Jinteki.net if you add a Lady to a professor deck right now it is counting as 1 influence wasted so wasn’t sure it it is a current bug or just bad interpretation by me.


Seems like it shouldn’t. Each copy of a card has universal influence equal to its tier by the new MWL, and professor doesn’t count the influence of the first copy of each program towards his influence limit. I’d agree with your interpretation.


@HongkongKoma @Reznor I followed up with @jakodrako on your questions; he agrees with the answers put forward.

So an unrezzed Marilyn does not shuffle, and program’s MWL influence should be ignored by professor for the first copy.


I know this has been mentioned in other places but I think it is worth asking here since I never saw a confirmed answer.

In light of this interpretation of The Professor getting past MWL influence, would the Alliance mechanic of Mumba Temple cancel the extra universal influence?

Rules as written seems to suggest it would cancel the universal influence but I do think that Rule as Intended would be for it not to cancel it.



We obviously need a clarification from FFG/Boggs, but it’s for this reason that I’m guessing the Professor’s ability won’t translate to MWL influence (sadly). Otherwise, putting Mumba Temple on the MWL was effectively pointless – very few decks ever used this card without taking advantage of the Alliance mechanic.


I would expect an alliance errata to say “printed influence”.


Mumba and The Prof have very different wording, though.

Mumba Temple says, “This card costs 0 influence if…”. For it to be effectively addressed by the MWL, it would be necessary for abilities which change a card’s influence to only affect the regular, non-universal influence.

The Professor says “The first copy of each program in this deck does not count against your influence limit.” For him to be not squashed by the MWL, it would be necessary for abilities that cause a card’s influence to not be counted to affect both regular and universal influence.

Since changing the influence of a card and causing the influence of a card to not count are different effects, it’s quite possible that they interact differently with universal influence.

I’m inclined to think that universal influence can’t be changed but can be prevented from counting. But I agree that we definitely need a ruling.


There’s a fix for this in the works I gather, but MT is intended to cost influence regardless (MWL applied after Alliance) and professor ignores MWL influence (professor applied after MWL).

As mentioned by @Absotively, it is vague/ambiguous currently (one does not inherently dictate the other), but that is the intention AFAIK. I’d operate under those assumptions until FFG/ANCUR releases something.


They could have distinct abilities due to the different wordings, but it’s not clear or obvious from the wordings how the effect would be distinct. Why would it exclude the professor influence but not mumba influence and not the opposite simply from the language of the two in a vacuum? They need to provide a clarification.


The other day we ran across a scenario with Skorpos that hasn’t come up yet. So, damage is calculated all at once, but dealt one at a time. I, as the runner, hit a Snare!, living through the experience because I had more than 2 cards in my hand. At this point the Corp attempted to take 3 cards and then decide which of them was getting RFG’d.

From my understanding, because the damage is dealt one at a time, Skorpos needs to decide one by one if this is going to be the card they RFG this turn before revealing the next card, similar to how I’ve Had Worse works.

Is this correct?


I suspect you may be playing IHW wrong.


Damage is dealt as a single lump. There can be multiple triggers that occur off of that lump that happen in some sequential order (akin to how you sequentially resolve X different HI triggers when apocalypse is played), but the damage itself is all at once, and the cards are trashed all at once.

IHW actually proves this; if I take 3 damage with an IHW in hand and two other cards, the IHW draws will not be considered candidates for taking the damage, even if IHW was the first damage “chosen” (because IHW doesn’t actually draw the cards until all damage is chosen, and subsequently dealt).

Tethering this back to Skorpios, they would get to see all three damage from the Snare! Before making their choice.

However, and perhaps obviously, but separate sources of damage are resolved independently. For example, if the runner hits a Snare! with Mr. Stone in play, Skorpios must choose if he wants to fire on the Snare! Damage before seeing the Mr. Stone damage. By the same token, if Skorpios had a HI installed and the runner played Apocalypse, Skorpios would have to make their choice after each individual damage (as it is X 1 damage triggers, not 1 X damage trigger).

Hope that helps.