For the purpose of card abilities, it was (and even after Crisium is trashed continues to be) not successful.
2 Likes
How I look at Crisium now is that it actually inhibits the successful run signal altogether. So not only are the cards not informed, but the game state itself (or the event distributors, following the programming convention) isnât informed (or perhaps, more apt to say that the cards arenât informed because the game state isnât informed?).
I havenât thought that through much in depth, but I think that jives with how the mechanics work.
I think itâs more correct to say there was a successful run according to the have log, but that run is not considered successful or unsuccessful for card abilities. Sec testing is a card, so when it asks if thereâs been a first successful run the answer is secretly yes, but since itâs concerning a card ability, the game log answers no instead (longer version of answer is: there was a run, but it was not successful or unsuccessful).
1 Like
Crisum in archives:
Ok so run 1 enters the game log, is successfull archive run #1, âget strikedâ, is neither successfull or unsuccessful archive run #1, crisium is thrashed but the âfirstâ token is consumed like it is for Sneak/ST, no ?
So you rerun archives, get a success, game log reads âarchives success #2â then sectest is triggering ?
So is there an individual card log on top of the game log ? Sectest could have itâs one, where it never saw âfirstâ.
I did not think yet about what this makes or changes for other situations here.
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 âfirstâ 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 Sneakdoorâs replacement effect, which in no way prevents the event distribution from occurring).
Thereâs an ANCUR post related to this ruling (which was reversed from a previous ruling that prevented ST from being available after Crisium trashing).
No, itâs neither successful nor unsuccessful for the purpose of card abilities. But the run is still successful.
In a game where game states are solely monitored by cards, how does one discern meaningfully between âdidnât happenâ and âdidnât happen for the purpose of cardsâ?
1 Like
Access ? For succesfull runs if the âfor card purposeâ wasnât there, you could not access I guess. But Iâm not sure, and we should not care because itâs here on Crisium.
1 Like
No, itâs neither successful nor unsuccessful for the purpose of card abilities.
Precisely. So when Security Testing checks on the second run, it canât see it as a first successful run because it was not a successful run for the purpose of card abilities. Security Testingâs condition is part of a card ability.
@RTsa has it correct. I think thatâs the best explanation of Security Testing vs Crisium Iâve ever read 
1 Like
Going back on the topic of CtM/slums, Iâm 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 âŚ
42. The runner pays the trash cost of a second card to trash it 43. The card is trashed
1 Like
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 âpay the trash cost to trash a cardâ but just says âpay the trash costâ instead.
This leads to the fact that all official rules cannot clarify this situation. There is no rule for âpaying the trash costâ, there is only rules for âif the runner accesses a card, he may pay the trash cost to trash itâ .
PolOp also letâs 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 âpay the trash costâ on Salsette Slums does not refer to the core rule, but is a bad worded meaning of âgain a new ability you can use once per turn, which is different from the core ability to trashâ.
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: âremove that card from the game instead of trashing itâ.
I canât 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.
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
Oh, this is from an official rules book/FAQ?
And this changes the wording on Slums?
Read the page I linked:
Page 18, Column 2, Paragraph(s) 2, Core Rule Book
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 doesnât 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.
Slums is written the way it is, because you wouldnât 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.
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 doesnât 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 donât pay the trash cost.
Itâs 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.
And thats the point where i dont agree.
Neither the official rules book nor any FAQ states this.
Thus its an interpretation of yours.
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 youâll notice the card doesnât say that. The actual text is:
As has always been the case in the game of Netrunner, âwhenâ 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 âtrash costâ 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 itâs how the rules of the game works. The ârulingâ is not even a ruling; itâs a clarification of how the already existing rules apply to the cards. The âinterpretationâ 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. Thereâs nothing that can be done about it anymore, so letâs all just leave it be. I implore the French TO to reconsider their mistake ahead of the event, but I wonât 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
I canât really understand why CtM Slum donât go in the ofaq. Or something in ofaq telling Ancurâs ufaq are now official.
The ofaq allready focus on similar cases âthis is allready in the rulesâ situations, like Femme / Tollbouth or things like that.
CtM Slum IS NOT EASY to understand (thatâs why thereâs 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 âofaq and ofaq only, anything else can be ruled by usâ. In a sense, they are right. FFG must take responsability about ufaq rulings or else anybody can claim to have spoken to Damonâs cat and tell Sneakdoor can access Archives cards.
(well, my cat can access cards without a run anyway).
2 Likes