Have some points; If I 2x Security Testing the same server it grants 4c at the end of the First Run? They both trigger from the same event/timing. Second Tennin Institute; Why can't ToL target Tennin as the first target "a card" the have to move it to an "another installed card". We infer that ToL wants 2 installed targets.

ToL " Move up to 2 advancement tokens from a card to another installed card that can be advanced."

So breaking down.

1st target:You need 0-2 Advancement tokens on a card

2nd target: another installed card that can be advanced

@Dev come on guys make a clear rules set. You have errata,FAQ. Most of us have or come from MTG (Oracle text and FAQS), why can't we have some type of unified text/clear rulings without having to always require an electronic response? Playing in a group setting there isn't a session that doesn't have some rules question from the group. Clear rules, unified text, defined timings.

Security testing is a replacement effect. You may only trigger one replacement effect per run, so no, you can't use two to get 4cr from one server.

As for Tennin ToL; just deal with it. That's the current ruling, it may change.

As for comparing Netrunner to Magic, Netrunner is relatively in its infancy. Further, FFG is not WotC, and doesn't have the same amount of money to throw into a separate platform just for rules questions. Besides, don't try and tell me Magic hasn't cocked up with certain card interactions in the past.

Further, FFG is not WotC, and doesn't have the same amount of money to throw into a separate platform just for rules questions.

White Wolf had a plain text searchable document. Money is not an excuse here.

The rules are fine, you just have to read them.

For Trick of Light, your ID is not an installed card.

For Security Testing, you trigger one then the other: the first one gives you money instead of access. The second one doesn't have an access to replace anymore, so it fizzles.

It's not difficult.

In fairness to all concerned, the nuances of natural language can leave a lot to be desired when attempting to construct something (supposedly) unambiguous like a complex, multi-interaction rule set.

Yes it would be nice if everything could be crystal clear from the get-go, but what is a simple interpretation to someone can tie someone else up in knots. It is also natural for people to twist the parsing of a particular rules text to suit their interpretation of the card rather than what was perhaps intended (but given intention is rarely available on the card, interpretation is mostly all we have to go on).

As rule sets get more complicated (such as with the inclusion of ever-more interesting effects and interactions) it should be accepted that even with the best efforts in the world these systems will be incomplete and/or inconsistent (and in my opinion incompleteness is preferable to inconsistency).

I agree that it would be lovely to have a Netrunner version of a certain other CCG's online database complete with a full description of any card rulings. But I can see also see why they would want to stick to their current FAQ system (and FFG's response on answering rules questions does seem to be swift and existent).

@Grimwalker ToL to move counters off of to an installed card as per the card text not inferring anything. Which is clear text. Digging around the web brings that ToL infers to 2 installed when it clearly only makes the the second target an installed card.

@CommissarFeesh This is a WoTC product. Im sure that the devs have played magic at some point. Yes MTG in is early years had language issues, however that has been corrected. Other games have attempted to insure that language is clear before release then if there is a problem correcting as a general fix. So FF gets to write off not being able to look back on 20+yrs of mistakes on learn from those? Why should they get to have a "learning" time of a card game thats based of MTG.

@Khouri Thanks for being constructive. Perhaps the debs could comment on creating a DB that would hold card ruling. FAQ system isn't bad its for addressing things coming out of interactions that they didn't see.

@CommissarFeesh This is a WoTC product. Im sure that the devs have played magic at some point. Yes MTG in is early years had language issues, however that has been corrected. Other games have attempted to insure that language is clear before release then if there is a problem correcting as a general fix. So FF gets to write off not being able to look back on 20+yrs of mistakes on learn from those? Why should they get to have a "learning" time of a card game thats based of MTG.

It's LICENSED by WotC, because they made Original Netrunner. They have nothing to do with the development of Android Netrunner, but get money from FFG for using a game they hold the rights too.

Also, it's not 'based of MtG' in any way. Where on earth would you get such a notion? They were both designed by Richard Garfield, but Garfield specifically designed Netrunner to be as different a game to MtG as he could make it.

Don't get me wrong; there have been (and are) card interactions which are ambiguous, but this is why we have the FAQ. The only thing I'd like to see is more frequent FAQ updates. Waiting an entire cycle can be a pain, but at the same time I can understand their reluctance to make rulings too frequently as they have to consider all the other cards in the pool that it may affect.

Further, FFG is not WotC, and doesn't have the same amount of money to throw into a separate platform just for rules questions.

White Wolf had a plain text searchable document. Money is not an excuse here.

They'd still have to pay someone to update and maintain it. Granted that (shouldn't) be a huge, time-consuming job, but I think it's fair to assume the team at FFG don't sit around twiddling their thumbs all day either. Still, this isn't a bad idea while waiting between FAQs.

@Grimwalker ToL to move counters off of to an installed card as per the card text not inferring anything. Which is clear text. Digging around the web brings that ToL infers to 2 installed when it clearly only makes the the second target an installed card.

Trick of Light specifies "another" installed card. The only way that condition can be obeyed is if both cards are installed. It's going to sound really passive aggressive but I swear I mean this as an honest question: Is English not your first language? Your sentence structure and grammar aren't very good, so if so then it's perfectly understandable that you might have some difficulties with the cards.