The game log knows what you replaced with what. You only get to access one thing, which you choose to be the ice, then you replace accessing that piece of ice with Immo Script.
2 Likes
From Glenn Station - you do not install anything on it, please stop using that term when describing it. From Hosting rulings in the FAQ.
No, they apply to all hosting - why would they discriminate? The reason the Runner can install any program on Scheherezade, for instance, as [click] install is because there are no host restrictions on that card (besides allowing only programs). The reason you cannot [click] install a card on Worlds Plaza is because there is a hosting restriction - you need to use its click action to host.
I think my example is much simpler than yours, and makes more sense. I realize that you want the FAQ to catch up with rulings, but it’s a slow process. You probably want to follow the game designer here, not your own “feeling”. Can give me one example of a card that breaks the hosting restriction ruling?
1 Like
Yeah I think @mplain means something like “trash a piece of ice with imp during access”? You have to access to trash, so that counts as your 1 access for the run.
Ah, that makes more sense, and I can see how it’s more confusing than what I originally thought you were talking about.
My first gut instinct told me what Jako said, but I can see the argument from the other side (you did not actually access a card because you replaced the access). A literal reading of both Hudson and Immolation Script backs this up, but I’m not sure that’s the way it is/will/should be ruled.
I guess to see why it works that way, think about if you want to access that agenda first, then try to trigger Immolation Script. You can’t access, so you can’t replace the access with anything.
I’m not sure this is true. It’s the same template as any other access replace effects, and those all work with eater.
But again, that’s not quite the same. By using the access on the agenda first, of course you can’t now replace that access with IS. This wouldn’t be the first time accessing in a particular order is relevant to the outcome of the entire access (think Shock!s and agendas in Archives when on/close to game point).
The logical order of events for Hudson + IS would be:
- You get to access one card.
- One of those cards could be ice that is rezzed
- Instead of accessing that ice, you trash all rezzed copies
- You actually access the agenda in Archives
Why this doesn’t work with Eater is because you don’t even have the option of accessing the ice.
Again, I would be surprised if this were the intended outcome, but this is the rationale for the other viewpoint.
I don’t see why doing it in reverse order changes anything. You do have to be able to access a card in order to use IS, so you choose IS to access, then replace access, with IS’s ability. Then you can’t access another card.
IS doesn’t work with Eater, as IS replaces a single access in Archives. You have to be able to access that card to use the replacement effect. The difference is that in, say, Account Siphon’s case, it replaces the entice access phase.
@brendan2026 Nope. Eater doesn't allow you to access the specific card you have to replace the accessing of.
— Lukas Litzsinger (@RukasuFox) May 29, 2015
It’s actually not quite the same. The access replacements that work with Eater all say “instead of accessing cards” and 0 is a valid amount of cards to access. Basically, you are replacing the act of accessing cards. But if you are accessing 0 cards, you can’t replace the access of a piece of ice with IS, because you are never able to access a piece of ice in the first place.
1 Like
I agree that you have to be able to access a card in order to replace access to that card, but by replacing the access, you are not actually accessing that card.
If there were a card that said: “If the runner accessed a card on his or her last turn…” and you ran a siphon as your only run, would it fire?
Edit: I have to slow down here. The more I write this, the more I’m swayed to the other side. Hahahaha.
Edit2: Changed it from “any number of” to “a” to make it less ambiguous with the inclusion of 0.
If replacement effects didn’t know that something was being replaced, then Tori Hanzō wouldn’t work the way she works.
And no one is gonna argue that you get to Account Siphon AND ALSO access HQ. That’s preposterous.
I don’t think that’s the same thing, though. Sure, it knows it’s being replaced, but then you didn’t do the thing it replaced.
For Tori Hanzo, a similar case would be for a separate card to then trigger off of any net damage suffered. If there was only the one net damage that you replaced with brain damage then that other card wouldn’t trigger, right?
That’s not comparable at all. What people are suggesting is “By replacing an access to a card, I have not accessed a card and therefore get to access again”. That would be like saying, “I replaced the Snare! net damage with brain damage, thus Snare! hasn’t resolved yet and I still get to do 3 net damage.” Which is obviously wrong.
2 Likes
I’m glad you brought that up! I don’t think it’s quite what I was getting at, but it reminded me of something that explains why I was leaning towards the “double access = single access” in the first place. When IS was first released, I read the card as basically blowing up all of the corps rezzed ice for every copy in Archives! It made sense to me at the time, but then I quickly realized not only would that be completely overpowered, but it is quite silly as well. As you say, replacing an access no longer gives you the option of the access.
I still think the wording could have been cleaned up a bit, but this is clearly (for me) no longer a debate.
1 Like
I was thinking in line with another recent situation: runner trashes Victoria Jenkins, does he get a click? I ruled that at any point when you want to see if you gained a click, what you actually do is ask two questions instead:
-
How many clicks do I have this turn? (normally 4, and Victoria Jenkins isn’t around anymore to affect that)
-
How many clicks have I spent already this turn? (less than 4 so far)
I applied this same logic to the Immolation Script + Hudson scenario. Looks like it doesn’t fit here.
Okay that makes sense. I don’t think “accesses” are a resource that are gained and spent though.
The whole point is that clicks don’t behave like normal resources, like recurring credits for example. To my mind at least 
1 Like
Yeah this is a weird one and I can kind of see both sides. Another useful example would be Archives Interface as here we can play with ‘when accessed’ effects.
Does not count as an access: So, with Archives Interface you want to remove a Shock from the game. You can’t have accessed it, otherwise the ‘when accessed’ effect would trigger - and that’s the point of Archives Interface.
Eater: The reason Eater doesn’t work is because you have be able to access at least one card to be able to select a card and you can’t because you can only access 0 cards, but Eater works with account siphon because you can indeed access in and of itself (just 0 cards). So being able to access is different from actually accessing.
Choose then Resolve: However, I wonder if the key to this ruling is All Seeing Eye vs Fall Guy - fall guy can protect resources from it even though it would be trashed anyway. This is because you create the target set first, then you get the triggers (e.g. when trashed effects, prevent), and so technically they resolve in order potentially, but importantly the choices are not part of the those triggers, the choices cannot be changed once effects start getting resolved.
So back to Archives shenanigans + Hudson:
Flip archives over.
Choose which cards you’re going to access (normally all, 0 with Eater, 1 after Hudson)
Then deal with any effects that triggers and access any remaining from the target set.
You cannot access another card after you immolate because the moment where you create the target set for access has passed and you can’t go back to it. You chose your one card, and then decided to swap it out. You definitely didn’t access it, that’s true I think, and the game doesn’t think you have accessed it either. However the window for choosing access has gone, so you cannot re-select and so you cannot access any more cards.
So yeah, I don’t think you get to access another card. otherwise you could use Archives Interface as well, then access another card on top of that (so 3 in all) and that just seems plainly wrong.
1 Like
Ok, so, this question is fundamentally about the timing structure of triggered abilities. First though, I’ll lay out some common and normal interactions.
So Hayley has a Replicator installed. She installs a Lockpick or Silencer, then uses Replicator’s trigger before Hayley’s ability, and installs the Lockpick or Silencer she just found (and then potentially searches for the third).
Or, Housekeeping is active. Hayley installs a Replicator and searches for a Replicator, discarding that Replicator to Housekeeping, and then installs another hardware and searches for that. (Or would the second hardware install come before Housekeeping?)
But my real question is: Can Hayley do the following. Housekeeping active, Replicator already installed. Hayley installs a Lockpick. Searches for a Lockpick with Replicator. Installs that using Hayley’s ability. Searches for the third. Discards that to Housekeeping. Can she order the triggers like this, and do not only her two triggered abilities, but one triggered off of those, before resolving Housekeeping?
1 Like
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: With triggered abilities, we stop whatever we were resolving at the time and handle the triggers, and then go back to whatever we were resolving. So Hayley Installs Replicator, which causes three triggers to happen; Hayley, Replicator, and Housekeeping. AS LONG AS IT’S HAYLEY’S TURN, we resolve her triggers first, in whichever order she chooses. While we’re resolving the Hayley trigger, we can cause another Replicator trigger, and we’d resolve it before we finally resolve the Housekeeping.