Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Sneakdoor CR1.4 errata

So the NISEI article on the CR 1.3 update says (in the listed examples):

“The Runner uses Sneakdoor Beta while Crisium Grid is rezzed in the root of HQ. The run becomes successful, so Sneakdoor Beta has the game treat it as a successful run on HQ. Since the run is declared successful while the attacked server isn’t HQ, Crisium Grid can’t affect it. The Runner will access cards from HQ, and can also then play Emergency Shutdown.”

Then in CR 1.4, Sneakdoor was errata’d to say: “click: Run Archives. If that run would be declared successful, instead change the attacked server to HQ. Then, the run is declared successful.”

This changes the example because it is no longer the case that “the run is declared successful while the attacked server isn’t HQ”.

So according to that last change, the server being attacked (run) is HQ at the moment when the run is declared successful. Since Crisium is installed on HQ and “Runs against this server cannot be declared successful” (Crisium 1.3 errata), Sneakdoor would access cards from HQ but there would not have been a successful run on HQ, so that Emergency Shutdown cannot be played, contradicting the ruling under 1.3? Is this intentional?


I think it’s a good question, but also goes into Earth Station (ES) territory, is ES turned back?

Usually I would think it’s not successful, but I might be wrong here.

It might be worth splitting the “attacked server” in to two concepts “attacked server” and “declared server”.

Related: how does Copycat work under CR1.4? A strict reading of 6.2.1 says that a “position” corresponds to ICE positions protecting the “attacked server”. If the runner Copycats across to a different server, the “position” doesn’t seem valid and the “attacked server” does not change.

Perhaps the definition of “position” should be defined as a (Server, Int) pair and allowed to range over any server? Then running will update “position”, but so can other card effects (Copycat). 6.2.4.c can be simplified to say that if the encountered ICE changes position, the runner’s “position” updates also. The “attacked server” is then the first element of the “position”. Add a rule that when the runner reaches position (S, 0) they “approach the server”, and the “approached server” is S. At this point, the runner no longer has “position”.

Then reword sneakdoor to change the “approached server” to HQ.

This wording has also been applied to Omar, and seems like it’s worded this way specifically to make Crisium Grid (and Transport Monopoly) work on Sneakdoor and Omar runs. If I had to guess, I’d guess that this was done in order to make Earth Station a viable ID. When ES was spoiled, but before the CR 1.4 update was released, we tested ES a bit, and found that Rebirth into Omar and Sneakdoor made the ID nigh unplayable. So yeah, I think this was a purposeful change from the 1.3 update, which worked off the previous wording to the card.

Reading it a 2nd time, I totally go with @Saan as otherwise Omar & Sneakdore would wreck that ID (Earth Station). Saying 1/3 of the Runners (Anarch) would invalidate it. Still Sneakdore & Omar are issues with that ID, but at least your Crisium will work. So they would need to:
Click 1: Install Sneakdore, Click 2: Sneakdore Run, trash Crisium, Click 3: Sneakdore Run, switch Earth Station back, Click 4: Run remote.

I actually submitted this as a Jinteki bug before 1.4 was released. The jnet devs double checked with rules team and 1.3 interpretation is indeed now invalid.


I don’t remember it being an intentional change, but we will address the rules question in the Uprising Release Notes. It may have been indirectly related to the change to Crisium making people question if Sneakdoor/Omar interaction is intuitive and asking for further clarity.

Crisium Grid as described in the 1.3 document and article is not a functional change, it’s worked that way for years. We just wanted to clear it up through the errata and highlight the mechanic. It’s unfortunate timing that in the next update (1.4), the errata to Sneakdoor/Omar reverses one of the examples used in the 1.3 article.

1 Like

The CR1.3 update NISEI article is clearly just wrong.

And I don’t think the errata’d wording is functionally any different to the original wording. I think it just clarifies that you can’t claim a successful run against BOTH the Archives AND HQ.

What is wrong about the article?

In neither case (pre and post errata) is the run successful on both servers at the same time. No one was ever able be able to play Apocalypse with just two runs. It both cases, it’s a replacement effect, meaning you replace one thing with another. You don’t get to keep both “successful” labels for the two servers.

Compare the wording, pre-errata:

“If successful instead treat it as a successful run on…”


“If that run would be declared successful, instead change the attacked server to… Then, the run is declared successful.”

(Ellipsis to combine the common text between Omar and Sneakdoor Beta.)

There is functional difference between the wording as I emphasized in the quoted text. Hopefully, you can see how the difference in sequence of the new (post) errata wording:

  • Previously: the run was successful, then replaced (“instead” wording signifying a replacement) with another server, before Crisium Grid has any say.
  • After: the attacked server is changed, then the “successful” label is attempted to be applied the run on the new server. Now, Crisium Grid has a chance to say “no”, because “cannot” wins when two abilities say contradictory things.

This is wrong.

The run is declared successful on the HQ server only. The original wording of the card is quite clear: a succesful run on Archives is treated as a successful run on HQ. I.e. there is no successful run on Archives.

No, it is correct, but these are not mutually exclusive. Before the errata, the attacked server was not HQ (it was Archives), then it was replaced with a successful run on HQ (you are correct that the run is no longer labeled as “successful” on Archives, because it was replaced). Given the pre-errata sequence (as I explained in my first post), Crisium does not have an effect on the run.

As far as I can tell, no one is saying that the run on Archives is successful as well as the run on HQ. No me, not you, not Skandrino (that started this topic), not Jamie (the author of the NISEI CR 1.3 article). The run was successful on Archives, otherwise the effect for HQ cannot trigger, but after it does trigger, Archives no longer is labeled a “successful” run.

Are you familiar with “replacement effects” (rule 9.8.8. in CR 1.4) that are signified by using the word “instead” in an ability? When something happens “instead” of another, the first thing is replaced by the second and the first thing longer exists. So, the “successful” label for a run on Archives is replaced by that label on HQ, and it no longer exists on Archives. The example in the article just described the correct sequence (which was changed with the errata).


I’m not suggesting that anyone is saying that the run on Archives is successful as well as the run on HQ, so no worries there. I’m just agreeing with most people on this thread, by saying that the statement “…the run is declared successful while the attacked server isn’t HQ…” from the NISEI article on the CR 1.3 is wrong. The run is declared successful while the attacked server is HQ because ‘Instead’.

I was also suggesting that the card never needed errata, because its original wording is functionally the same as the new errata. What the new errata does, perhaps, is make more clear to players that they cannot claim a successful run against BOTH Archives AND HQ with this card.

OK. Thanks for clearing up that you’re not saying both are successful.

I also covered you point about the attacked server not being HQ earlier. The attacked server (pre-errata) doesn’t change at all, the only thing that used to change is the “successful” label being applied to HQ instead of Archives without making a change to the execution of the run as the 1.3 article notes:

We updated some rules to make it more clear that “successful run” and “unsuccessful run” are just labels, not inherent to how you execute a run.

I don’t see anyone in this thread agreeing with you on this point, what are you referring to?

Do you understand how the errata changes the sequence? The article is correct (given that it was written before the Sneakdoor/Omar errata) and it is a functional change (as Skandrino points out in the opening post). Here is what I said about that 8 days ago:

Do you see the functionality difference when you have an effect like Crisium on HQ?

[quote=“Skandrino, post:1, topic:10649”]
Then in CR 1.4, Sneakdoor was errata’d to say: “click: Run Archives. If that run would be declared successful, instead change the attacked server to HQ. Then, the run is declared successful.”
[/quote] agrees with my point. As does everyone else who hasn’t expressed disagreement or dissatisfaction with the new errata. Are you disagreeing with the new errata?

There is no functional difference, but the potential for confusion was there:

The language is very clear. ‘Instead’ completely obviates the run on Archives. There is no successful run on Archives, so nothing that would normally be triggered by a successful run on Archives should trigger. There is only a successful run on HQ. End of.

Now, I understand fully how some players may find the wording ambiguous, so I welcome the new errata as a clarification to the original wording, and as a correction of the NISEI article on the CR 1.3.

@Skandrino is correctly seeing a functional difference between the example in 1.3 and how it would work with the errata from 1.4 and asking if it was intentional:

so that Emergency Shutdown cannot be played, contradicting the ruling under 1.3? Is this intentional?

They’re not saying (as far as I can tell) that 1.3 is wrong. I agree with them that it is different, but you’re saying it’s not.

I agree with the errata (it also makes it more clear how it works). But, other people being happy with it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make a functional difference.

I already explained how the sequence it effects is different, which you haven’t answered. I’d be happy to clarify if you want.

But, if you can’t see that before the errata Crisium on HQ had no effect on Sneakdoor, and after it makes the run not successful, then I’m not sure I can help you.

Also, after taking more time to re-read all your posts. You never mention Crisium. Without Crisium (and similar effects) there is not much change. Maybe that’s why we’ve been disagreeing.

P.S. I think some words are missing in your second to last paragraph. I’m not quite sure what you’re saying there.

1 Like