If that is the case and the intent of Immolation Script then I think wording similar to Archived Interfaces would have been much clearer than wording similar to every other card that works with Eater. But it’s the intricacies of the mechanics that make this game so damn interesting and worthy of debate. 
Let’s take a look at some card text:
Archives Interface:
Whenever you access cards in Archives, you may remove 1 card in Archives from the game, instead of accessing it.
Immolation Script:
Make a run on Archives. If successful, instead of accessing a piece of ice in Archives, trash a rezzed copy of that ice.
(emphasis mine)
They are basically the same structure expect the order of the clauses are different. Archives Interface would be exactly the same if it said:
“Whenever you access cards in Archives, instead of accessing 1 card in Archives, you may remove that card from the game.”
The cutlery cards don’t care about accessing at all, they only care if all subroutine on ice are broken.
I’m hoping you can more clearly see how the mechanics are described by the card text in these examples. 
3 Likes
My point was that Archives Interface explicitly requires you to access cards (as do the other interfaces, Makers Eye, and Legwork), Immolation Script doesn’t. The assumption being presented is because Immolation says “instead of accessing a piece of Ice” that you actually have to be able to access that ice for it to fire and therefore Eater will not work. While I don’t agree with that, popular opinion(5 likes) says that this is the case. Due to the seeming irrelevance of Immolation Script that’s good enough for me. If it becomes widely played I would be curious of an official ruling or at least an opinion based on cited rules or previous rulings. But everything that has been presented so far, including my own statements, are pure conjuncture due to an obvious excess of superfluous time.
Serious question: how is saying “instead of accessing a piece of ice” not explicitly requiring the runner to access cards?
I guess you want a “whenever you access cards” phrase to be added.
The same way that “instead of accessing cards” still triggers with Eater on:
Vamp
Account Siphon
Wanton Destruction
Indexing
Singularity
Retrieval Run
Escher
Utopia Shard
Hades Shard
Eden Shard
Just to name a few…
I think we all understand your confusion. The phrase of “instead of accessing a piece of Ice” implies that you are still able to access that ice if you choose to. Immolation Script gives you the ability to trash instead of accessing, but still requires the capability of accessing. For all the cards you mention above that interact with Eater, they don’t require the capability of accessing: choosing to forego that interaction to perform their abilities.
Hope that helps.
4 Likes
Ah, yes: there’s a tricky bit of rules-ing here: those cards are considered to enable “replacement effects”—they’re replacing the default ability to access cards with a different ability, which is why they work with Eater, since Eater doesn’t replace that ability, it just modifies it.
To me, the wording on Immolation Script says that it is not a replacement effect of the card access step as a whole, it, like Eater, modifies card access during that step.
Perhaps in a 2nd edition, FFG would consider some clearer language around that stuff.
4 Likes
Well stated. The root issue is whether or not changing the wording from “instead of accessing cards” to “instead of accessing a piece of ice” changes the behavior of “replacement effects.”
My point is merely that you can argue both sides (devil’s advocate) more than which argument is stronger. I do think that the answer though (partially contradicting my prior statement of irrelevancy), does have a significant impact on the strength of the card.
It doesn’t change the behavior of replacement effects.
Maybe where you are confused is in the specificity of the term “replacement effects”. A replacement effect isn’t specifically an effect that replaces access, which you seem to be inplying. A replacement effect could replace any effect with any other effect.
For examples, look at how Levy AR Lab Access replaces trashing a resolved effect with removing it from the game, or how Tori Hanzō replaces net damage with brain damage, or how Susanoo-No-Mikoto replaces “pass Susanoo-no-Mikoto” with “running on archives”. Replacement effect is just a category of thing that can happen with rules around how those types of effects resolve.
In this case, ImmoScript replaces the effect “access of a single piece of ice” with the effect “trash a rezzed copy of that ice”.
1 Like
Ya, I am still confused (and admittedly not real bright) so bear with me. So if ImmoScript replaces the effect “access of a single piece of ice” with the effect “trash a rezzed copy of that ice” as you’ve stated then doesn’t that mean that I don’t need to actually access the ice in order trash the rezzed copy? Hence Eater would work again? So confusing…
Timing structure of a run:
4.4. Run is successful. Trigger abilities if any. (ImmScript “if successful” triggers replacement effect?)
4.5. Access cards. Trigger abilities if any. (Eater limits access to 0 cards but still flips archives?)
Agenda : Stolen (Unless additional cost)
Trash cost present : may be paid to trash
Everything not trashed or stolen is returned to server.
Is it possible that it is worded that way so that you could still steal agendas if you didn’t Eater and trash a rezzed piece of ice at the same time? Just a thought.
Of course you need to access the ice in order to trash the copy. That’s the nature of replacement effects. When X would happen, instead Y. When you would (move to the access phase of the run), instead (force the Corp to lose 5Cr…). When you would (access a piece of ice in Archives), instead (trash a rezzed copy of that ice).
Yes, that is exactly why it is worded this way
But the wording is “instead of accessing a piece of ice”. So if I have to access it in order to not access it then that just makes it more confusing.
I don’t understand why it is confusing to have to be doing something in order to replace it with doing something else. I would like to so that I can help you figure this out though.
Would you argue that you could use Tori Hanzō when doing meat damage? When doing net damage outside of a run? When not doing net damage just because you want to do a brain damage and don’t need to do net damage in order to replace it with brain damage?
1 Like
Sorry, I was just messing with you. I think we’ve actually solved this one. I’ll be interested to see if anyone else picks up on it. It’s another good example that the best place to figure out these sort of questions is usually in the timing structure.
The only confusing part of it is that there are two separate things called very similarly (“being able to access cards”, and then “accessing individual cards”), and they are modified/replaced at different points in the timing structure.
Additionally, any instances of the second thing (stealing an agenda, accessing a Shock and taking damage, blowing up a piece of ICE) can only take place if it’s not forbidden by something that happened to the first thing - two common examples are the usage of Eater or Retrieval Run, which both stop you, albeit for different reasons.
Eater says “you can do the second thing, as long as you do at most zero of them”, while Retrieval Run says “if you can do the second thing, don’t do any and do this instead”. Which, incidentally, is the reason why the two work with each other 
(gah, I bet I just made it all more confusing, I’ll shut up now)
2 Likes
It’s actually quite clever. As they always say just follow the direction on the card. Let’s break it down:
1.0 - Make a run on Archives
4.4 - If successful instead of accessing a piece of ice in Archives (required conditional ability modifying step 4.5)
4.4 - Trash a rezzed copy of that ice.
4.5 - Access Cards - Changes from “access all cards” to “access all card except a piece of ice.”
Where as the other replacement effects modify 4.5 from an all to nothing (“instead of accessing cards”), Immolation script modifies it to an access all but “one piece of ice.” Since the rezzed ice was already trashed in 4.4 and Eater simply changes the quantity of 4.5, Immolation Script still triggers if Eater was used.
One minor nitpick, ImmoScript (and all other “if successful” effects) are constant effects. ImmoScript happens during 4.5 when you access a piece of ice (it is a constant effect that requires the run to have been successful in order to work).
2 Likes
Turntable and Glenn Station
2 Likes
What do people think about this one?
You have Skulljack installed and run through an RVSP without breaking it. You then access Tech Startup (or any other 1 cost to trash asset). Can you trash it?