If the runner encounters some Ice which has one or more "Trash a program" subroutines, and they don't break those subroutines…

Who chooses which programs get trashed?

I've been looking through the rulebook trying to figure this out, but haven't found anything.

Did I miss something - is this specifically called out in the rulebook someplace?

I'm thinking that it's the choice of the Corp player, just by comparing to other situations. Spend a click to trash a resource belonging to a tagged runner? Rules are clear, it's the Corp's choice. Which cards to trash when the Runner succeeds at a Demolition Run? Clear from card text that it's the Runner. But I'd like to find something more concrete than that.

Subroutines are typically structured as "commands" to the Runner; when they benefit or interact with the Corp, that interaction is explicit. (See Archer for an example of both subroutines.) While the rulebook is not explicit about how subroutines are resolved, I think this is the implication.

As a long–time [C/L]CG player—and as an overly–analytic reader & sometime copy–editor—I've long felt that rules tend to be both incomplete and overly–wordy; this is often a problem with other types of games, but in the case of CCGs*, where the entire point of the rules is to create a structure which will be violated by the actual cards, it is more problematic. There is some extraneous/redundant information in the Netrunner rulebook (I am not , by the way, considering the setting fluff to be extraneous!), but other useful information is either difficult to find or (in this case, it seems) non–existent.

* Can we just call the collective class "Constructible Card Games"?

Corp chooses.

Subroutines are written from the Corp's perspective (it's "Do 3 net damage" not "take 3 net damage").

Good question, though. It is ambiguous at first glance.

Anarchosyn said:

That's a better theory than mine because of that contrast, but if it is from the Corp's perspective (that is, subroutines are lists of things the Corp gets to do when they are not bypassed), wordings like "The Corp gains 2C" would seem best written as "Gain 2C". More consistent wording on cards would help out a lot.

(Though a clear instruction in the rulebook would be even better…)

From the "in–world" perspective, the way ICE works is ambiguous as well; it has to be actively rezzed, but then seems to work in a passive manner. (Indeed, subroutines are explicitly mentioned as an example of a conditional triggered ability.)

I believe Anarchosyn is correct, but it's more than ambiguous "at first glance," it's just plain ambiguous in the new rulebook.

Ariston is right, there are other subroutines that specifically call out an instruction to the runner (they spend a click) or to the corp (they gain some credits). So, although I believe it's the right conclusion, it's not self-evident from either the rules or looking at the text of other cards.

By the way, out of curiousity I looked back at the rules from the original game, and they make it clear that the Corp chooses the programs to be trashed :

Orignal WotC rulebook : "Cards to be trashed or discarded are chosen one at a time, either randomly or by the player initiating the trashing or discarding, as appropriate, and then are sent to the appropriate discard pile"

Yeah, things are kind of murky around the edges, for sure. Take this example:

Runner places Parasite (effect: trash at 0 strength) on Matrix Analyzer (NBN Ice with an On Encounter effect). Later in the same turn, the Runner decides to run against the Matrix Analyzer, using a Datasucker loaded with tokens to match the Matrix Analyzer's strength (effect: spend a token to reduce ice's strength). Over in the BGG forums, we've been debating back and forth whether you could Datasucker Matrix Analyzer to death before Matrix Analyzer's On Encounter effect triggered. My camp (the small) felt it couldn't, but most people cited "simultaneous effects" in the rules to argue the starting player had the right to choose.

Thankfully, while writing this, I see a playtester has come in and quoted from a developer to say my camp was correct, that conditional abilities resolve before paid abilities can be triggered, but the fact it turned into a thread where so many people chimed in with the wrong answer speaks to a need for errata.

Anarchosyn said:

Not errata, just a clarification to the rules. Anyhow, where is the playtester's comment? I don't see it in the thread, or as a new post here in the forum, either…

I mean, I'm convinced by prune's quote from the original rules (going by the assumption that anything that is not explicitly different is the same), I'm just curious.

Ariston said:

Mateusz Nowak (Mateui) is a playtester. The last person he quoted, Lukas, is the lead developer (second to last post, as of this posting): javascript:void(0);/*1347241108516*/

btw - Errata, though technically meaning "corrections," is the general expression used for post release FAQ and clarifications. To rationalize the word's usage, you can think of the ambiguity as the mistake being corrected.

Top left of page 18 in the rulebook, under the heading Encountering Ice, last sentence:

"Unless specified otherwise, the Corporation always chooses the effects of a subroutine, when necessary."