Official Rules Question Thread

The issue (as far as I understand it) isn’t with trash effects referring back to the game state at the time of trashing. It’s with what happens to the hosted cards. I believed that they aren’t assumed to be installed from the heap (Is that correct? So you can install from Street Peddler even though Blacklist is active?). So the trigger to trash the hosted cards doesn’t get carried out before you resolve the Street Peddler install effect.

There is a difference specifically in Street Peddler because of the way cards work. Street Peddler should be analogous to GRNDL Refinery. The effect of GRNDL Refinery depends on hosted items (advancement tokens in this case) even though it is trashed. And you can use the “looking back to the state at trashing principle” quite happily.

Trash GRNDL Refinery
->
Trigger trash of any hosted items
->
Trash advancement tokens
->
Referring back to state at trash cost, counting advancement tokens. Easy.
->
Get four times that in credits. Great!

For Street Peddler, this doesn’t quite work, not because we can’t look back to the state (we can), but because of what we are asked to do with that information.

Trash Street Peddler
->
Trigger trashing any hosted items
->
Trash hosted cards
->
Refer back to state at trash cost, looking for hosted cards. Easy.
->
Install one of those cards. Errrm, how? We can look back and see the three cards that were hosted on Street Peddler, but none of them exist any longer! There are three new cards in the heap, but these being cards that were trashed are entirely new instances of whatever named card they are, discrete from the cards they were before they were trashed. The cards in the heap only came into existence when they entered the heap, and they weren’t hosted on Street Peddler at the time the trash cost was paid because they didn’t even exist then! (The physical piece of cardboard existed, of course, and it was hosted on Street Peddler, but it was representing an entirely different card in game terms.)

So Gorman Drip, Reversed Accounts, Allele Repression, Corporate Troubleshooter should be okay, like GRNDL Refinery. Incubator, like Street Peddler, might have technical issues with resolving, not because of being able to examine the state when the trash cost was paid, but what we are asked to do with that information (While we can appreciate the virus tokens that were on Incubator, we can’t really move them from Incubator since they’re already back in the virus token pool, can we? It doesn’t quite have the additional complication of virus tokens being definitively different instances of virus tokens once trashed, like we have with cards, but it’s certainly a bit iffy. If on the other hand it said: “Add a number of virus tokens equal to the number of virus tokens on Incubator to another virus”, we could easily resolve it without worry.).

1 Like

The corp has no rezzed cards, and the runner has a Street Peddler hosting a Muertos Gang Member.

The runner makes a run, and the corp rezzes a piece of ICE. The rez is in 2.3, so the runner can encounter the ICE (step 3, resolving any on-encounter abilities), then in the 3.1 paid ability window install Muertos Gang Member off of Street Peddler to derez the just-rezzed ICE as it is the only rezzed card. Subroutines can’t fire from unrezzed ICE, so this would effectively bypass subroutines on that ICE and continue the run in 2.1 on the next piece of ICE.

Is that right?

1 Like

There are no direct rules quotes I can find for this exact situation, but I think this is the correct way to handle it.

1 Like

Bonus complication: what if the ICE in question were Chummed? When exactly does Chum decide whether to deal damage or not? My guess is that we resolve Chum at the moment of de-rezzing, when we still have information about the number of subs on that piece. Is that correct?

Well there is an issue with this fact…
How do you explain that Allele Repression can return itself if you are referring back to state at trash cost when Allele was not in Archives ?

that does seem correct. chum triggers when you bypass with femme, does it not? (as you still “encounter” the ice). In this case, you encountered an ice, and now you’re passing it without breaking all the subs. seems to trigger chum to me, regardless of the current state of the ice that you encountered to trigger chum.

I thought we were just talking about it being a principle for references to hosting relationships (since by definition a trashed thing can’t be hosting anything!)?

Aren’t the 2 points connected ?

Anyway, my very first question about Street Peddler was : what happend if I play Exile and I install a program hosted on Street Peddler ? Will I draw a card ?

If you tell me no, please explain me then why Allele can return itself while program on SP are not considered to come from the heap.

  1. no, sadly (i think exile would totally work with a street peddler, flavor wise).

  2. either because

  • trashing the peddler is fine, but the ability resolves before checking the rest of the game state to determine the peddled cards are trashed

  • because Lukas.

Sadly there doesn’t seem to be an answer you will be more satisfied with that I can think of. I agree the templating on this card is bad.

Agreed.

Here’s the best way to describe how Chum works.

There is a switch on each piece of ice labeled “all subroutines broken”, and it starts “off”. To even walk up and touch the switch, you must get to step 3.1 of the run. So if you somehow skip over step 3.1 in any way, you never have a chance to flip the switch. Once you get to step 3.1, you can flip the switch to “on” by breaking all subroutines on that ice, removing subs, etc. If there are no subs, you walk up to the switch and turn it on immediately because you find no subs to break. The corp can also flip the switch back to “off” by adding subroutines to the ice.

Once the encounter with the ice ends, the Runner takes 3 net damage if the switch is set to “off”.

4 Likes
  1. if I added a rule that the runner gained 1 credit whenever they run a server with exactly 10 ICE protecting it, it would also rarely/never come up. But why do we have such a rule then? I argue from simplicity and agree that this doesn’t change the meta.

  2. The better ruling is what everyone I have seen intuitively does when they run a server. They consider the runner to be “at” a position in the line of ICE protecting the server, approaching or encountering the inner one:

Server
Bako
Bako
– Runner is here
Tollbooth

Now the corp bounces both Bakos. In my text editor I delete the Bako lines:

Server
– Runner is here
Tollbooth

Voila!

1 Like

:smiley:
I’ll keep it short and hopefully less emotional than before:D

The Bako rule seems a bit wonky in a vacuum, but I think it’s just a bit of collateral damage: these new rulings involving ICE destruction are meant to make cards like crick more manageable. when all or most of the old ICE gets trashed and new ICE installed simultaneously, using a relative position (i.e.; determining the runners position using the relative positions of remaining ICE they have or haven’t passed) as in your example falls apart a bit. the new ICE is not clearly installed either inside or outside of the old ICE, as they were all trashed as part of the installation.

Going by the absolute position can occasionally result in un-intuitive scenarios, but ultimately it provides a clear, never fail standard for what to do when ICE gets trashed or switched or whatever else new cards might want to do mid-run to installed ice!

Ok, that was the last one, honest. Back to rules questions that haven’t been answered yet!

1 Like

I’ve got so much respect for you. I could not do this or understand all these nuances. You also explain it so simple to people like me. Great job. :clap:

6 Likes

In my mental model, the switch doesn’t even exist (and thus you cannot check its state) until you get to 3.1 (as that’s where it gets instanced), but that’s probably a professional deformation from being a programmer by trade :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Hi, I have this weird situation:

  1. Runner has 3 installed medium in Personal Workshop
  2. Runner has an installed Grimoire
  3. Corp has 2 installed Cyberdex Virus Suite

after passing last piece of ICE:

runner installed 1 medium from Personal Workshop, and decided to access

corp rez first CVS to purge virus counter

runner installed 1 more medium

corp rez second CVS to purge virus counter

runner installed 1 more medium and access R&D

question: is this play correct?
I was under the impression that during a run, priority cannot be passed back and fourth between runner and corp?

Paid ability windows are passed back and forth until both players have had a chance to act, and a player declines to act.

It can if each of them finish the abilities they wanted to play. priority doesn’t pass back and forth after each action, but if your opponent used any paid abilities, you have the chance to respond. After each player has had the chance to use paid abilities, if one player passes on a chance to respond, the window ends. Think of them like mini-windows where each player plays as many abilities as they want in their window and alternate mini-windows back and forth until someone passes (after they’ve both had a chance).

1 Like

You may want to review the rules on timing priority during a paid ability window. Priority does indeed pass back and forth as long as players choose to act.

Also, just to be clear, deciding to access is not part of the paid ability window. That happens after all paid abilities.

4 Likes

In between, actually. Paid abilities are 4.1 and 4.3, the decision to access (or rather, the decision not to jack out) is 4.2

4 Likes

11 Likes