@Dragar What is the additional unwritten trigger on Tollbouth ?
What âadditional triggerâ?
If Slums is used to remove a trashed card from the game, the gamestate âadvances past the trigger condition due to simultaneous effects or a chain reaction, then the triggered ability cannot be resolvedâ. CTM cannot be resolved (it doesnât even trigger).
Just like Femme is used to bypass Tollbooth, the gamestate advances past the trigger condition, and Tollbooth does not resolve (it does not even trigger).
@Dragar what I donât get is the additional unwritten prereq on the fizzled CTM, so if you say itâs the same mecanics with Femme/Tollbouth, there must be an additional unwriten prereq on Tollbouth ?
If not, then itâs not the same mechanism, no ? Maybe Iâm wrong ?
What is making fizzling CTM is just this âadditional unwritten prereqâ aka âwas the card really trashed ?â.
I donât understand that, using @jakodrakoâs Primer on Netrunner Abilities document that you say (1) prereq on CTM is met because the runner is about to trash one card.
Then after that, you say âok, the runner still is trashing a card but RFTG the cardâ aka asking that second additional, unwritten question âwas the card really trashed ?â.
When the CTM prereq was met then the card was not allready trashed. So how it can be set to true in your timing if it did not allready happened ? How can a prereq mutate ? What are the conditions ? When to recognize one ? etc
I canât understand and solve that paradox (to me) but by saying Slum ends the trashing phase.
Slum should read âOnce per turn, when you pay the trash cost of an accessed card, end the trash phase and remove that card from the game instead of trashing it.â and I would be a happy panda dancing with all of you again.
This would make fizzle CTM because the card is no longer being trashed exactly like Femme/Tollbouth because the ice is not longer being encountered, or Ixodidae / Fester because Ixo is allready trashed, or all cases of these âchanged prereq past trigger conditionâ or whatever we should call that.
That âfirstâ on CTM garanties CTM canât trigger a second time this turn, exactly how Damon said that worked.
Can we please not make this adversarial by declaring ourselves to be on âteamsâ? It doesnât get us any closer to our understanding exactly how things work, and almost certainly gets us further away. Iâve presented my understanding of how things work, and Iâm open to it being corrected so I understand where Iâm going wrong. Instead attempting to prove yourself right by repeatedly trying to poke holes in what others say doesnât seem hugely constructive.
5 Likes
@Kesterer Yeah, ok, sorry. I edited this. Very very bad habit of mine among other things, my deep apologies.
1 Like
Yes, I hadnât thought about it this way but it seems to make sense. Some support is offered by Gene Conditioning Shoppe: âGenetics also trigger the second time each turn their trigger condition is met.â A reading of that where every Genetics card - which are of the form âThe first time X each turn, do Yâ - has a single trigger condition (âthe first time Xâ) would, strictly, mean that it does nothing, because the first X by definition cannot happen for a second time. So it does seem to imply that âthe firstâ part in a trigger condition is in some sense a separate object to the rest of the trigger.
1 Like
Is there an official ruling to this?
To me, it stills seems like Salsette replaces the thrash into a remove, which means that no card has been trashed yet. However, Salsette has been fullfilled for this turn, since you paid the trashing cost and removed the card from the game while accessing it.
So ofc it will not trigger again.
CTM, on the other hand, should be still active, since no card has been trashed yet. A cards trash cost has been paid to remove it from the game via Salsette, but reading that card over and over again it doesnât say " when you trash a card, remove it instead", but âpay the trashing cost and then remove it instead of trashing itâ (as you would normally do when you pay the trashing cost), so it gives the Runner a new ability he/she can use once per turn, it doesnât trigger of trashing a card.
Is it not true that a trigger condition sets up a queue of actions, and then when each item in the queue has their turn to resolve, it checks the game state again to ensure it can still resolve?
So, for instance, Femme and Tollbooth:
- The âthis ice is being encounteredâ trigger condition is met for the first time.\
- Femme and Tollboothâs effects enter the queue.
- Femme resolves first. Femme checks âthis ice is being encountered.â The answer isYES.
- Femmeâs ability is used to bypass the ice. Once bypassed, the ice is no longer being encountered.
- Tollbooth trigger resolves second. It checks âthis ice is being encountered.â The answer is NO.
- Tollbooth fizzles.
So, imagine Sneakdoor, Security Testing, and Ash on archives:
- Sneakdoor is used to initiate a run and sets up a constant ability.
- The âsuccessful run on Archivesâ trigger condition is met for the first time.
- Sneakdoorâs ability and Ash enter the queue.
- Sneakdoorâs ability resolves first. Sneakdoor checks âsuccessful run on Archivesâ. The answer is YES.
- Sneakdoor resolves. The run is now being considered successful on HQ and is not being considered successful or unsuccessful on Archives.
- Chain reaction: check triggers for âsuccessful run on HQâ. Those resolve, and their chains resolve.
- Back to Ash. Ash checks âsuccessful run on [Archives]â. The answer is NO.
- Ash fizzles.
The access phase on Archives is never reached, so Security Testingâs trigger never resolves.
Because âsuccessful run on Archivesâ triggered for the first time, the game state records this and any further runs will be considered triggering âsuccessful run on Archivesâ for the second time. Even though Sneakdoor replaces that successful Archives run with a success on HQ.
Makes sense with Crisium and Security Testing on Archives, too, since the first run on Archives is not considered successful for Security Testing (as it is a card ability), but is considered successful as far as the game state is concerned.
Not sure if all of that above is actually just retreading the conversation, but itâs how I got it clear in my head. Correct me if any of that is wrong!
How am I relating that to Salsette Slums & CtM, though?
Look at the wording on Slums:
Once per turn, when you pay the trash cost of an accessed card, remove that card from the game instead of trashing it.
Look at CtM:
The first time the Runner trashes an installed Corp card each turn, you may trace4â If successful, give the Runner 1 tag (cannot be avoided).
So, going by the above I can see two ways to look at it:
- Card with a trash cost is being accessed. On-access effects resolve.
- Runner pays the trash cost on the card
Hereâs where they diverge, though:
Situation 1
- Runner pays the trash cost on the card.
- Paying the trash cost puts Salsette Slums into the queue and triggers âthis card is trashed by the runnerâ for the first time, which puts CtM into the queue, and adds âmove card to archivesâ to the queue.
- Slums resolves first. Slums checks âthe trash cost is paidâ. The answer is YES.
- Slums removes the card from the game. The card is no longer trashed by the runner.
- CtM resolves. CtM checks âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ. The answer is NO. CtM fizzles.
- âMove card to Archivesâ resolves. MCtA checks âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ. The answer is NO. MCtA fizzles.
E: See post below about how the timing of everthing actually works. The above situation is erronious. Slums resolves immediately after paying the trash cost, and sets up another constant ability that checks" this card is trashed by the runner". This is the exact same way that Sneakdoor interacts with runs on Archives, and that example is the best companion to this.
Situation 2
- Runner pays the trash cost on the card.
- Paying the trash cost puts Salsette Slums into the queue and âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ into the queue.
- Salsette Slums resolves first. Slums checks âthe trash cost is paidâ. The answer is YES.
- Slums removes the card from the game.
- âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ resolves next. TCiBTbtR checks âthe trash cost is paidâ. The answer is NO, because there is no longer a trash cost because the card has been removed from the game.
- TCiBTbtR fizzles.
The question is: Does paying the trash cost trigger âthis card is trashed by the runnerâ always, no matter what? Or, does Salsette Slums prevent the âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ condition from even being triggered, since it replaces the effect of paying the trash cost, rather than replacing the actual trashing of the card?
If it is the former, then using Slums triggers âthe first time a card is trashed by the runnerâ. If the latter, then Slums bypasses that trigger completely, and the next card trashed would be the first card trashed by the runner.
The latter is also consistent with the wording on/spirit of Slums, as the âonce per turnâ text limits Slums to only one use, regardless of if itâs the first card trashed or not, neatly bypassing this issue:[quote=âCrushU, post:6, topic:7955â]
the next thing you trash would also trigger Slums again
[/quote]
Now the real question is, does this logic continue to hold up when you consider the ideas of Constant and Conditional triggers? Because I didnât necessarily take those priorities into account when I initially made up these situations. If âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ is a Constant Ability triggered by paying the trash cost of a card, and Salsette Slums is a Conditional Ability triggered by paying the trash cost of a card, then Situation 1 would be the correct way to resolve the game state as the Constant Ability takes priority over the Conditional Ability. However, if Slums and âthis card is being trashed by the runnerâ are both Constant Abilities, then⌠then⌠Iâm really starting to confuse myself now. I need to take a mental break and come back to this later.
1 Like
To quote Jako
Anyway, to bring it all together, and hopefully clear this whole thing up once and for all:
The full break down for the first time the runner trashes an installed corp card and then uses Salsette Slums to remove it from game can be found below. (Mostly copied from up thread, but with better terminology.)
- 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- 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 canât because its trigger condition is no longer met.
⌠Sometime later that turn âŚ
- The runner pays the trash cost of a second card to trash it
- The card is trashed
And thatâs it. Nothing else to record in the game log. Controlling the Message can see that its trigger condition isnât being met by step 43 because this is the second time its trigger condition would have been met.
Also this ruling was made at gencon I think.
6 Likes
Well, this just rendered my whole post moot, and in a more concise way! Looks like my Situation 1 was slightly off in the order of things and how Slums interacts with the paying the trash cost trigger, and otherwise pretty wrong, but is essentially how it works. Good ruling!
Yes. It has been ruled by Damon officially as it was already understood, both in person while judging Gen Con and in writing in the rules question mega thread.
The important thing that it seems like you are missing is that as a replacement Slums must wait until the event it replaces occurs before reaolving. The RFG doesnât immediately happen once Slums triggers, it happens when the accessed card would normally be trashed (essentially instantaneous in practice, but an important distinction for the actual mechanism of the card).
If Slums was worded differently, say:
then the RFG would happen immediately because it would just be the effect of the ability and not a replacement. And if that were the case, then the card would never be trashed in the first place and CtM wouldnât trigger but it would trigger the next time the runner paid the trash cost of an accessed card.
tl;dr All the words on a card are important. Instead is an essential operator to how this card works.
7 Likes
So essentially this works the exact same way as Sneakdoor, and the second trash doesnât trigger CtM for the same reason you canât get money from Security Testing on Archives after first making a Sneakdoor Run?
4 Likes
Interestingly that version:
- is way cleaner
- is the way most people assumed it would work
- wouldnât cause any difference with the other cards that react to trashing (like Hostile Infrastructure)
- to me seems like the intent of the card (of course I have no idea what the actual intent was)
I wonder why they chose to go with the current one.
1 Like
Because pretend Slums isnât what they intended and what we got is. I canât speak to why they decided thatâs what they wanted (maybe they tested other versions and liked this one best, who knows). But itâs all very deliberate.
1 Like
OK, this makes sense and is consistent.
So is it right to conclude that if the game state is queried after a Sneakdoor run, the answer to the question âWas there a successful run on Archives this turn?â is NO, and the answer to the question âHas there been a first successful run on Archives this turn?â is YES?
And similarly, that after a removal from the game by Slums, the answer to the question âHas the runner trashed a corp card this turn?â is NO, and the answer to the question âHas there been a first time the runner trashed a corp card this turn?â is YES?
Iâm not trying to create a gotcha here, just to understand exactly how this works. Iâm perfectly fine with things being unintuitive but working.
5 Likes
I donât think thatâs how it works. I think the answer to both those questions is NO, but rather individual cards track their states. So, for the Sneakdoor run, when the run is successful, both ST and Sneakdoor are considered candidates for evaluation. Since Sneakdoor is constant, it fires first and replaces the run. Then, when ST attempts to activate, it fails, but it remembers that the first time it tried to activate has happened (and thus wonât try again).
Iâm also not sure if my interpretation is tangibly different though; might be that both work.
Edit: ignore my rambling Iâm wrong.
1 Like
I think both of those interpretations are possible (or even both!) but weâre going to need an official answer.
Itâs the game state that keeps track, not cards.
4 Likes
Yep I was just about to do a write up that I was wrong on this. You canât draw > install sym > draw to proc sym, so clearly itâs game state, and Kesterer is more likely right.
1 Like
To be honest with you guys, my ego and a tiny game thing that I have to clarify prevent me to like this post. 
Say I run R&D. then I Sneakdoor.
Where do I have to run next to launch Apoc in clic 4 ?