The Runner cannot access cards with Raymond Flint during a run on HQ initiated with Feint.

If the Runner accesses a card after suffering the effect of one of Hudson 1.0's subroutines, he cannot access any more cards, even through Raymond Flint's ability.

If Hudson 1.0 prohibits the Runner from accessing the cards in a remote server because s/he accessed a card already during the run, s/he can still replace the access with an access replacement effect.


If I have Raymond Flint in play (access 1 card from HQ when the corp gains 1 bad publicity) and I run on HQ with feint (cannot access any cards), and he rezzes an ice which gives him bad publicity, do I access any cards? (ok ignore this one, the cannot access part of feint only comes up when the run is successful, need some sort of upgrade that gives bad pub for this to matter )

If I have raymond flint in play and I run on a remote server, I hit a Hudson 1.0, I choose not to break it (I cannot access more than 1 card during this run), and I access a Clone Retirement in the server (the corp gains 1 bad pub), can I access a card from HQ with raymond flint?

If I do the above, but I use raymond flint during the run (the corp rezzed a bad pub ice) to access a card from HQ, and cannot access more than 1 card during this run due to not breaking hudson, then run successfully, and want to use bank job. I have accessed my 1 card that I am allowed to, can I use bank jobs replacement effect?


It is assumed that Lukas meant not breaking both of Hudson 1.0's subroutines.

You cannot access any cards with Raymond Flint if you play a Feint. And if you have already accessed a card, then you cannot access another card with Raymond Flint after running through a Hudson 1.0 and breaking both subroutines.

In the last case, you can still use the Bank Job as a replacement effect.


Even though Feint's prohibition of access is part of its "if successful" effect, the Runner is disallowed from accessing cards in the middle of that run, similar to the Run Events with Mid-run Effects Ruling.

Like the Bank Job v. Prohibited Access Ruling, this ruling suggests that not being able to access cards at all is distinct from being prohibited from accessing a particular card or subset of cards.


Posted to Board Game Geek by Allan Clements on May 13, 2014

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.