Sacrificial Construct vs. Trash as Cost

[ryudoowaru 0]

 Looking for an official developer ruling on this one, as it's currently causing some consternation over on Board Game Geek:

 

If a program or piece of hardware has "trash this card" as part of its cost (e.g., the upcoming Cortez Chip), can Sacrificial Construct be used to prevent that card being trashed? Or does the act of preventing the trashing of the card also prevent the effect that happens because of it?

 

Thanks!

[Khudzlin 734]

It's also an interrogation on the French forum (and very probably elsewhere) since Cortez Chip has been revealed. However, FFG officials do not answer questions posted here, but only questions directly sent to them (using the "Rules Questions" link at the bottom of the page).

[Saturnine 47]

 Of course, one shouldn't apply rules from one game to another, but I think it's likely that we'll find out that it plays similarly to how it does in the Game of Thrones LCG (i.e. you cannot save a card from being discarded as a cost, as that would mean you haven't successfully paid the cost to trigger the action in the first place). But Lukas might surprise us, so I'm curious to hear about the official response if anyone is sending it in.

[Toqtamish 3,643]

If you were to do that the cost would no longer be paid and the effect would not resolve just like in AGoT. Which is what my answer was going to be anyway.

And before you ask yes this is the official response from Lucas who I already emailed when I first saw this question before I responded.

[ryudoowaru 0]

Toqtamish said:

If you were to do that the cost would no longer be paid and the effect would not resolve. And before you ask yes this is the official response from Lucas who I already emailed when I first saw this question before I responded. This is what my answer was going to be anyway but figured would not be happy without an official response.

I appreciate it. Thanks!

[Saturnine 47]

<reply just to mark the thread as read>