Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Salsette/CtM Discussion Thread


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.


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.


I’m now realizing that my lemma is


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).


Tori Hanzo FAQ ruling.

The first time an event (net damage) happened, it was replaced/prevented (by Net shield). The next time it happens isn’t the ‘first’ time, because the first was prevented.

Sneak Door v Security Testing is the same thing. A successful run on Archives occurred, but it was replaced by a successful run on HQ. This was the first successful run on Archives, and thus any subsequent run on Archives won’t be the first, and won’t trigger Security Testing.


Thanks friend. I knew there was a recent discussion that could be used here, but was drawing a blank.

I’ll update my first post on this to keep it all within the official rules. Make as air-tight a case as possible.


I don’t think that’s entirely correct, it’s a little more subtle than that. The clarification does not apply existing rules to the cards so much as apply assumed, previously-used interpretations to the new situation.

If you base your thinking for Salsette Slums on the Tori Hanzō official FAQ, for instance, that says:

“If the first instance of net damage is prevented by another effect or
replaced with Tori Hanzō’s own effect, Tori Hanzō cannot trigger for
the remainder of the run.”

Technically, it doesn’t introduce a new rule that if the first of something is prevented or replaced, it is still perceived to have happened. It only answers for Tori Hanzō and net damage specifically, although the conclusion it reaches certainly seems to be based on such an assumption as to the unwritten machinations of the rules. There is still not officially such an overarching rule in the game on prevented “first time” occurrences, only inferences from specific answers.

If the rules are intended to be able to be logically deduced from core principles, the clean way to do it would not have been to “clarify” how Tori Hanzō worked (not based on rules, but a particular unwritten interpretation officially approved on a kind of “enlightened priesthood” basis). The clean way to do it would have been to have introduced a new core rule on prevented effects and first time triggers (and indeed not to answer the Tori Hanzō question directly at all!).

As it is, it all comes down to inference on the thinking behind previous specific rulings. Which might be a useful way to proceed, but it is not exactly true to say that it is based on existing rules. It’s slightly more messy than that, and that’s probably worth noting.


Man you gotta draw the line here somewhere.

People aren’t willing to accept unofficial rules, I can understand to a degree. Even if they provide a solid case, I can understand (even if I don’t agree) that some people feel like it’s just one person’s word versus another.

But to not allow inference as to how the game works based on officially known interactions? Netrunner will never be defined in a tight enough manner to make that work. For every card that comes out, you literally need to make a FAQ entry for outlining how it functions. It won’t ever happen.



But if you want a line to be drawn as you say, where things are unambiguous as the important quality (so that consistent rulings can be made on the subject), then requiring inference doesn’t quite provide a solid enough basis for that unfortunately.


No one ever said it can’t or won’t. I would bet it will find it’s way into the next FAQ update. But the OFAQ is only updated two or three times a year. FFG doesn’t update it when a rules controversy comes up just to appease rogue German or French TOs.


I think that to take the German/French line of argument, the offical FAQ makes it clear that you have to believe that:

a) When the first net damage is replaced/prevented, that net damage still satisfies the trigger condition for ‘the first net damage’.


b) When the first trash is replaced/prevented, that trash does not satisfy the trigger condition for the ‘the first trash’.

I agree; one could hold such a view consistently (“Tori Hanzo is special!”)… But I think any TO who is shown that they must believe such statements would notice the tension in such a pairing, and they would be faced with the Twitter responses of a designer in contradiction. That’s a pretty strange stance to take and hold.


Jakodrako, there are no “rogue” TOs. That kind of accusation really isn’t on, and you ought to stop it. Lots of people respect the things you have done to support the Netrunner community: please don’t be a negative force. :slight_smile:


Alright, then an unambiguous case can’t be made. But then let’s not think about it as right versus wrong; there’s consistent versus inconsistent.

We have a consistent model here; everything in Netrunner works harmoniously and as expected under the model that’s been established here. To take the alternate stance is to be inconsistent. It can’t be proven wrong because it isn’t outright stated that it’s wrong, but why would you go against the grain on known interactions? Why make a ruling that doesn’t line up?


Consistent: the value formally known as true.


How does knowingly playing the game incorrectly in a premeditated way at a nationals level event not classify as rogue?

Until anyone can present an actual argument as to why one would come to a different conclusion for the Slums/CtM interaction based on the actual official rules that the TOs claim to hold so dearly, then it is very clear that this is happening not because there is confusion or a logical explanation; it is happening simply because the TOs want it to.


So, a succesful run has happened on archive if we run with sneakdoor ?


Up until it was replaced, yes.


Yep, That is what the card says:

Program • Install: 4 • Memory: 2 • Influence: 3
(Click): Make a run on Archives. If successful, instead treat it as a successful run on HQ.


The issue is how you determine consistency.

In order to make a consistent ruling as you seem to understand it, you would need to assume that there is an unwritten underlying mechanic that applies to all “first time” effects that are prevented or replaced, and that all such cases follow the same rule. If so, given one example (e.g. Tori Hanzō) you can extrapolate to other cases in that bracket (e.g. Salsette Slums).

But the problem there is that you need to infer that there exists such an unwritten rule applying to all prevented “first time” effects. You think that such an unwritten, overarching principle exists. I think that it does. If it does exist, we can determine what it is. But we could both be wrong, and someone else inferring something different couldn’t be said to be wrong, just making alternate inferences.

If a specific ruling is based on a such an underlying principle, it makes sense to directly specify the underlying principle, rather than expecting players to successfully infer it from the specific answer.


So, the game log record a first successful run, and this is why we can’t trigger ST on the second run successuf. Am I right ?