Security Testing and Account Siphon

[instinctive 4]

FAQ 2.0 (3/25/2015):

 

If Security Testing is used on HQ and the Runner plays an Account Siphon, can she choose which replacement effect to use?

Yes. Both of the cards have the same trigger condition, so the Runner can choose the order that they resolve in (and thus which one is used). 

 

This text is unchanged from FAQ 1.6 (10/15/2014). However, this tweet from Lukas dated 2/6/2015 directly contradicts the FAQ:

https://twitter.com/RukasuFox/status/563894763322355712

 

ST and AS are common in Criminal decks, and players may put ST on HQ only to change their minds and want to play AS instead.

 

Which is correct, the FAQ or the tweet? Thanks.

[CommissarFeesh 458]

The FAQ is the official rules document, and more recently released than the tweet. Stick with the FAQ.

[instinctive 4]

This BGG thread [1] referred to an even more recent tweet from Lukas [2], also contradicting the FAQ.

 

The issue appears to be that mandatory triggers take precedence over optional triggers. Since ST is mandatory and AS is optional, ST preempts AS.

 

[1] https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1375404/conflicting-ruling-lukas-re-account-siphon-and-sec

[2] https://twitter.com/RukasuFox/status/585261622391771136

[CommissarFeesh 458]

I've been following that thread too, and I've come to the following conclusion.

 

It's not a realistic or fair expectation for all players to be up to date on rulings not present in official documents, especially when those rulings directly contradict those in official documents. It IS realistic and fair to expect them to be up to date with the latest FAQ.

 

Where the FAQ does not cover the card interaction in question, best judgement should be used (which may, and should, include ad-hoc rulings from the design team where known and available).

 

Where the FAQ and another ruling disagree, even if that ruling is more recent, the FAQ should take precedence, as it is an official rules document and one that all players can and should be expected to know and adhere to.

[Raine 143]

Makes sense to me. I wouldn't want to have to subscribe to a half dozen different forums and social medias just to gain the "total" rulings of one game. One source, one ruling and from the official site. If they believe it's worth updating the offical FAQ, then it will be. If they (the devs) don't feel it necessary...then how could it be deemed official?

[Grimwalker 647]

Well, here's the thing. On the BGG thread, Lukas in so many words says the FAQ is wrong and it should have been updated. But they only update the official FAQ at only a few windows in the calendar: Prior to Worlds, prior to Regionals, and prior to Gen Con. So, "it's worth updating the official FAQ" is the wrong way to look at it. They never issue updates between times unless there is something broken or a critical game-balance issue needs errata/restriction.  For Netrunner that I recall, at most I think when Pawn came out they needed errata because it didn't work at all as printed.  

So, expect this to be in the pre-Gen-Con update. In the meantime, yes, you should abide by the FAQ. Back during the whole Chum/Komainu/Femme brouhaha, rather than issue a ruling via twitter that conflicts with the FAQ, Lukas told me "This will be addressed in the next FAQ." He didn't just tell me outright he'd be reversing the existing ruling. In that instance, it was clear that the official document in play still remained in effect. 

 

But, going forward, it's probably at least prudent to keep your finger on the pulse of the game and follow the forums and social medias for awareness if not for actual "rulings." A number of things that go out over twitter or emails to Project ANCUR are perfectly cromulent answers that work just fine under the existing framework.

So, for my own awareness/education, this ruling--

Because Security Testing is a Constant ability and because of how it's worded, it triggers at step 4.4 of a run, whereas Account Siphon's Conditional ability would only come into play in step 4.5. In so many words, Security Testing prevents a (replaceable) access from taking place?

Edited May 26, 2015 by Grimwalker

[CommissarFeesh 458]

From what I understand Grim, that's correct, as far as intent. From Twitter that SHOULD have been updated in the most recent FAQ but was missed; hence all the confusion now. Fully expect it will get picked up in the next version. I'm glad that you agree that FAQ should be used where contradictions exist though; anything else is just an awful can of worms.

[Grimwalker 647]

I guess I would say that the FAQ is authoritative, but it would be good if everyone kept abreast of developments and played according to the latest rulings--like I said, lots of corner cases get clarified under the existing rules. But, in this case, if the Runner were aware of the ruling and abiding by it, they simply would never try and Account Siphon with ST on HQ. It would never come up. The only way it would be relevant is if the Corp knew about the Twitterverse and the Runner did not, and tried to ruleslawyer their way out of a Siphon. In which case, no way, no how.