Salsette/CtM Discussion Thread

Rules Questions
65

The difference between Crisium/ST and Sneakdoor/ST is that Crisium inhibits the event distribution altogether (or strikes it out for card abilities, if you prefer to see it that way). Inhibiting the event distribution inhibits all portions of it; both the event itself and the “first” flag triggering.

This means that the next such instance of the event will be the first instance of it, because, again, the prior was totally inhibited (not to be confused with Sneakdoor’s replacement effect, which in no way prevents the event distribution from occurring).

There’s an ANCUR post related to this ruling (which was reversed from a previous ruling that prevented ST from being available after Crisium trashing).

66

No, it’s neither successful nor unsuccessful for the purpose of card abilities. But the run is still successful.

67

In a game where game states are solely monitored by cards, how does one discern meaningfully between “didn’t happen” and “didn’t happen for the purpose of cards”?

1 Like
68

Access ? For succesfull runs if the “for card purpose” wasn’t there, you could not access I guess. But I’m not sure, and we should not care because it’s here on Crisium.

1 Like
69

No, it’s neither successful nor unsuccessful for the purpose of card abilities.

Precisely. So when Security Testing checks on the second run, it can’t see it as a first successful run because it was not a successful run for the purpose of card abilities. Security Testing’s condition is part of a card ability.

@RTsa has it correct. I think that’s the best explanation of Security Testing vs Crisium I’ve ever read :slight_smile:

1 Like
70

Going back on the topic of CtM/slums, I’m just going to drag this execution flow over from the main discussion thread (courtesy Jako), outlining how the effect works:

1. The runner pays the trash cost of the card to trash it 1.1. Salsette Slums meets its trigger condition and triggers 1.1.1. Salsette Slums resolves and puts its replacement effect into play 2. The card is trashed 2.1. Both Salsette Slums and Controlling the Message care about this game event. CtM meets its trigger condition, but has not yet triggered because there is a simultaneous effect to resolve first. 2.1.1. The constant effect from Salsette Slums is faster than triggered abilities. It replaces the card being trashed with removing that card from the game. 2.1.2. CtM goes to trigger and can't because its trigger condition is no longer met.

… Sometime later that turn …

42. The runner pays the trash cost of a second card to trash it 43. The card is trashed

1 Like
71

Since the bashing now goes on towards poor french Nats, i just want to make sure I still dont see it as clear as you do.

This is the fundamental for your rules interpretation.

But Salsette Slums does not state “pay the trash cost to trash a card” but just says “pay the trash cost” instead.

This leads to the fact that all official rules cannot clarify this situation. There is no rule for “paying the trash cost”, there is only rules for “if the runner accesses a card, he may pay the trash cost to trash it” .
PolOp also let’s you pay the trash cost, without using the core rule of trashing a card you access. So obviously PolOp gives you a new ability.

So its a possibility that the card text “pay the trash cost” on Salsette Slums does not refer to the core rule, but is a bad worded meaning of “gain a new ability you can use once per turn, which is different from the core ability to trash”.
And cause players are used to trash cards when they pay the trash cost, it defined that the core rule is not to be used: “remove that card from the game instead of trashing it”.

I can’t tell which interpretation of the situation is better, i just say both are understandable and thats why we need an official ruling instead of bashing poor TOs.

72

Trashing an accessed card involves:
A. Accessing it
B. Paying the trash cost

Thus: paying the trash cost of an accessed card (wording on Slums) is equal to trashing a card. And trashing triggers the replacement effect of Slums.

Can we please put this discussion to rest?

2 Likes
73

Oh, this is from an official rules book/FAQ?
And this changes the wording on Slums?

74

Read the page I linked:

Page 18, Column 2, Paragraph(s) 2, Core Rule Book

75

Please reread my post then. You dont answer it.
I can live with an official ruling both ways, im pretty confident it will go the way you described.

But Salsette Slums doesn’t state the normal trash is done and then replaced.

And you missunderstand the wording i guess:

If the light is red, cars will stop.
Does not imply "Whenever a car stops, there has to be a red light.

76

Slums is written the way it is, because you wouldn’t be able to use Imp tokens, for example, to trigger its ability. But paying the trash cost of an accessed card IS EQUAL TO trashing a card.

The car stops when red light argument is a false equivalency.

77

Salsette Slum states
"Once per turn, when you pay the trash cost of an accessed card, remove that card from the game instead of trashing it."

PolOp doesn’t let you pay the trash cost of an accessed card :
"[Trash], pay the trash cost of a rezzed card: Trash that card.".

You did not speak of Imp but on the other hand, Imp is used when you accessed a card to trash it. But there you don’t pay the trash cost.
It’s the same problem : half condition of Salsette does not trigger Salsette.

Many other problems from CtM/Slum comes from the difficulty to figure if an ability is permanent or triggered, so we can examine which take initiative over which one. This is not the difficulties you said, but understanding it and clarifying this is usually good for a player about this problem.

78

And thats the point where i dont agree.
Neither the official rules book nor any FAQ states this.
Thus its an interpretation of yours.

79

Come on. This is over. Leave it be.

Salsette Slums does not provide a new capability to the runner by which to remove a card from the game. That would require wording along the lines of:

But you’ll notice the card doesn’t say that. The actual text is:

As has always been the case in the game of Netrunner, “when” indicates a triggered ability. Slums is something that happens incidentally as a result of paying the trash cost of an accessed card. When do you pay the trash cost of an accessed card? When you trash it. You cannot separate the act of trashing from paying the trash cost of a card. This is not an interpretation, it is the rules of the game. Go ahead, do a CTRL+F on the core rule book and FAQ. The phrase “trash cost” only appears twelve times total across both documents, and literally always in the context of paying it to trash an accessed card.

The long and short of it is really rather simple. Slums vs CtM works the way it does because it’s how the rules of the game works. The “ruling” is not even a ruling; it’s a clarification of how the already existing rules apply to the cards. The “interpretation” that is used to explain and justify playing the cards incorrectly is fallacious. The German TO was wrong, FFG OP was wrong to mislead the German TO, and the French TO is wrong. There’s nothing that can be done about it anymore, so let’s all just leave it be. I implore the French TO to reconsider their mistake ahead of the event, but I won’t hold my breath. In the meantime, further discussion seems unnecessary, and Damon, Organized Play, and I will continue to explore better solutions to the rules management of Netrunner.

15 Likes
80

I can’t really understand why CtM Slum don’t go in the ofaq. Or something in ofaq telling Ancur’s ufaq are now official.

The ofaq allready focus on similar cases “this is allready in the rules” situations, like Femme / Tollbouth or things like that.
CtM Slum IS NOT EASY to understand (that’s why there’s bazillons of messages everywhere, mkay I may have made half a gazillon of those) so it must find a way to the ofaq imho.

The frenchies say “ofaq and ofaq only, anything else can be ruled by us”. In a sense, they are right. FFG must take responsability about ufaq rulings or else anybody can claim to have spoken to Damon’s cat and tell Sneakdoor can access Archives cards.

(well, my cat can access cards without a run anyway).

2 Likes
81

Thing is that this ruling (or more precisely clarification) is directly derived from official rules. It’s just a particular example of how the rules work. So it’s 100% official already and doesn’t rely on ANCUR or Twitter to exist. Should it be put into one of the examples? Sure, that would help since it’s a particularly tricky derivation which clearly has led to confusion. But it doesn’t need it’s own slot to because it’s not a new rule.

2 Likes
82

Maybe, in an effort to approach this from a different angle and it make clear, it would be best to deconstruct Slums:

Once per turn, when you pay the trash cost of an accessed card, remove that card from the game instead of trashing it.

So, going through the order, we have:

  1. Once per turn (irrelevant to the discussion, but only occurs once)
  2. when you pay the trash cost of an accessed card (conditional ability)
  3. remove that card from the game instead of trashing it (replacement effect)

We can’t argue against what 1, 2, and 3 are. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in the game and OFAQ that supports the model that this is a conditional ability that procs a replacement effect.

The first thing of importance here is that the replacement occurs when the card is trashed (IE: the exact time that CtM is fired). This portion is not up for debate.

Furthermore, as a lemma, we know that if you do a Sneakdoor run on Archives which also has ST on it, ST’s ability is triggered, and the fact that Sneakdoor occurred first (because constant abilities fire before conditional) does not change that. ST resolves after Sneakdoor’s replacement, and, thus, you cannot go back later and grab ST money.

And, really, no matter what model you use of the steps for “trashing a card”, it has to be the same interaction here. Runner-side effects always happen before corp-side effects on the runners turn (99% of time when runs are happening).

If you use the model put forward by @jakodrako, where you have:

  1. Pay trash costs.
  2. Trash.

Then what Slums is doing is setting up a constant ability that will result in the replacement effect happening when the “trashing” step comes. The constant ability will fire before CtM.

Even if you used some weird model where you have:

  1. Pay trash costs and trash (simultaneously).

So Slums isn’t setting up a constant ability within its conditional (it’s just directly replacing), then it would still resolve before CtM, as it is a runner-side effect on what is likely the runner’s turn.

In both cases, all effects that occur in response to an event (in this case, trashing) are considered triggered, regardless of successful resolution (from our lemma).

Where I’m going with this is; from my perspective, I cannot come up with a game model that both supports the rulings being made on Slums, and also coheres with the rest of Netrunner.

I hope this clarifies a little. If anyone feels like there’s a valid model that supports these Slums/CtM rulings and doesn’t break Netrunner as a whole, feel free to mention it. Because I haven’t seen it yet.

3 Likes
83

I’m now realizing that my lemma is

1 Like
84

So stimhack won’t let me edit or delete my fat-finger on submitting the lemma point for some reason (403 access denied).

What I was going to say is that my lemma is not in the OFAQ. Maybe someone could take the stance that this isn’t how Sneakdoor/ST works (and thus isn’t how Slums/CtM works).

I feel like there must be something in official documents that supports the sneakdoor/ST stance, but I don’t have it off-hand. If someone more knowledgeable than I wants to come to my aid, feel free.

Regardless, if the sneakdoor/ST ruling is made that ST cannot fire after sneakdoor, then it is inconsistent to rule that slums and CtM interact as ruled in Germany (and upcoming in France).

1 Like