Looks like the new FAQ reversed a few email rulings we'd gotten.

Phantoms can't use Advanced Sensors to cloak then immediately decloak. This might say some interesting things about when abilities are declared, and when their conditions are checked, and what it means for chained abilities... Or maybe not. As always, who knows?

Rexlar also gets to flip bonus cards from Minor Explosion, which I like. Not sure why they changed that, and I really wish they'd made it a more general rule... Does it apply to extra damage like Porkins hurting himself? Shrug.

Phantoms can't use Advanced Sensors to cloak then immediately decloak. This might say some interesting things about when abilities are declared, and when their conditions are checked, and what it means for chained abilities... Or maybe not. As always, who knows?

Rexlar also gets to flip bonus cards from Minor Explosion, which I like. Not sure why they changed that, and I really wish they'd made it a more general rule... Does it apply to extra damage like Porkins hurting himself? Shrug.

I'm not sure how you think porkins and rexler's ability would interact... They don't. Rexler's ability only applies to the damage he did during an attack, and jek's self inflicted damage is clearly not an attack.

Also: what do you mean by "make it a general rule"? It only applies to rexler's ability, he is the only one that flips up damage cards after an attack.

I think this really just clarifies that "immediately before you reveal your dial" is not a phase, it is a one time trigger and only the abilities present at the time of this trigger may resolve. Regardless, this ruling only affects things that happen before you reveal your dial, it doesn't affect any other chained abilities.

There isn't (shouldn't be) anything unique about "before you reveal your dial" as a trigger. If the conditions for any activated abilities are checked at the trigger time, they should be checked at the trigger time regardless of what that is, and it should most certainly affect other chained abilities.

Especially given that we had previous (though unofficial) word that this DID work, I'm inclined to treat it as a one-off ruling that's more about nerfing the Phantom a bit than anything to do with the underlying timing framework.

They didn't change anything, rexler's ability happens after an attack, which includes dealing damage, so naturally his ability would trigger after crits are resolved. They just clarified this because it was confusing to a lot of people (myself included initially).

I'm not sure how you think porkins and rexler's ability would interact... They don't. Rexler's ability only applies to the damage he did during an attack, and jek's self inflicted damage is clearly not an attack.

Also: what do you mean by "make it a general rule"? It only applies to rexler's ability, he is the only one that flips up damage cards after an attack.

We had this response from Frank only a few weeks ago, which is now reversed by the new FAQ:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/109718-rexler-minor-explosionthrust-control-firemunitions-failure/page-2#entry1140338

Damage from the Minor Explosion is only dealt by the attack in a secondary way, just as Porkins deals himself damage. If it were one way or the other - damage directly from the dice resolution, or all damage cards dealt during the attack - it would be nice and clear. But now we've got a messy halfway point where Rexlar works on some effects which resolve (Minor Explosion) but not others (Porkins). I have a hard time finding any potential rules wording that would make that distinction.

But damage from porkins' ability is not from an attack. How on earth can you claim that damage was dealt by Rexler when it has nothing to do with his attack? Even if Rexler gave porkins a stress, and he discarded it and took a damage, that is not a damage from an attack, that was damage from his ability. Clearly there is no interaction there.

The reason the damage from minor explosion can be flipped is because that would have been a damage from rexler's attack. I'm struggling to see where the confusion is. One is a self inflicted damage. One is damage gained by rexler's attack.

But damage from porkins' ability is not from an attack. How on earth can you claim that damage was dealt by Rexler when it has nothing to do with his attack? Even if Rexler gave porkins a stress, and he discarded it and took a damage, that is not a damage from an attack, that was damage from his ability. Clearly there is no interaction there.

The reason the damage from minor explosion can be flipped is because that would have been a damage from rexler's attack. I'm struggling to see where the confusion is. One is a self inflicted damage. One is damage gained by rexler's attack.

Again, though, how do you make that distinction in a rules-based way? Minor Explosion is not actually damage from the attack either - it's damage from a secondary effect, albeit a mandatory one and not an optional one. Similarly, Porkins only took damage because of the attack - no attack no crit, no crit no stress, no stress no I Can Hold It!, no I Can Hold It! no damage card. Does the choice to use Porkins or not override the root cause of the attack? What makes resolving Porkins (which results in damage) different than resolving the Minor Explosion (which results in damage)? Is it that it's on the target ship? That can't be it, because Minor Explosion is too... Is it that it's two step removed instead of only one? How do you quantify that? Is it because it's optional?

You're basically asserting that it is, but providing nothing in the rules to actually distinguish them. What defines "damage from an attack" in a way that Minor Explosion resolving to damage counts, but Porkins resolving to damage doesn't?

The Advanced Sensors timing issue really isn't that difficult to grasp. Either the word "before" represents a discreet window where events can happen at any time and in any order up to the point at which the dial is revealed, or it simply acts as a trigger word, like "when," "whenever," or "at." If it's the latter - which is the direction FFG has clearly decided to go - then events would trigger simultaneously, and then be resolved in whatever order the active player chooses. In this particular case, those simultaneous events would be cloaking and decloaking, but there were no preexisting conditions for the latter to trigger (i.e. the ship being cloaked).

I'm sure this has all been hashed out in no small detail before, but now that we have an answer the point is moot.

Buhallin, can you provide some examples of other things you think these rulings might effect?

Because, like the other two, I can't see any real issues.

Rexler can be affected by any out-of-band damage a ship can receive during its attack. Porkins is the most notable example of it, as presented, we've covered him. I can't find any actual rules-based reason why Minor Explosion would be considered to be dealt by the attack, but Porkins hurting himself avoiding an inflicted stress wouldn't. For that matter, we've all considered ion damage as something Rexler can affect, but is it? "After you perform an attack that deals at least 1 Damage card to the defender, you may spend a focus token to flip those cards faceup." What does it take for an attack to deal damage? There aren't a ton of cases now, but that actually has strong implications for a number of cases. Minor Explosion points to any cards dealt during the attack being vulnerable to Rexler.

The ACD/Phantom ruling has the potential to have outside impact depending on the reason for it. One of the theories flying around was that "immediately" allowed for only one ability to trigger, because once the first one triggered it wasn't "immediately before" any more. At least one person who held this view has taken the result as justification that it's the correct one.

I think it's a bad idea to go down that road, but it's not disproven by the ruling. For a concrete example of this, how about Vessery and HLC? Both activate immediately, and have the same trigger (rolling attack dice). If that particular reasoning is accurate, Vessery could use his target lock to "block out" the immediately, so the HLC doesn't get to trigger and change the crits.

As always, it's an issue of what can and can't be drawn as precedent, and even what that precedent is. Both previous rulings were actually pretty tight - Rexler affected only the cards he dealt directly, that was it, and the AdvDecloak trick worked because both fired in sequence. The new rulings on both are far more ambiguous for the "why".

But the "why" is just common sense. One triggering event, two simultaneous triggers. Unless there's an indication somewhere else in the game that triggers aren't simultaneous, there's really only one way to resolve the issue, and the "immediate" block isn't it. If anything, the very first general ruling in the FAQ does bear out the fact that triggered events are simultaneous.

But the "why" is just common sense. One triggering event, two simultaneous triggers. Unless there's an indication somewhere else in the game that triggers aren't simultaneous, there's really only one way to resolve the issue, and the "immediate" block isn't it. If anything, the very first general ruling in the FAQ does bear out the fact that triggered events are simultaneous.

Despite a general objection to calling rules "common sense", I don't necessarily disagree. I think the single immediate is wrong.

But it's impossible to prove. It's also hard to draw any strong precedent from a single ruling, given FFG's history of rulings which violate the rules as printed.

Am I missing something here? Rexlar's ability triggers off his attack, whereas Porkins triggers from stress. I don't see the interaction.

Despite a general objection to calling rules "common sense", I don't necessarily disagree. I think the single immediate is wrong.

But it's impossible to prove. It's also hard to draw any strong precedent from a single ruling, given FFG's history of rulings which violate the rules as printed.

Not all of the rules, just this one. It's really nothing more than math, as I explained in the second sentence: one triggering event, two simultaneous triggers. Do you agree that the triggers are simultaneous, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact? Because that's where the distinction ultimately lies.

Am I missing something here? Rexlar's ability triggers off his attack, whereas Porkins triggers from stress. I don't see the interaction.

Minor Explosion is not part of his attack, yet Rexler's ability can affect damage cards dealt by it. That's the point.

Not all of the rules, just this one. It's really nothing more than math, as I explained in the second sentence: one triggering event, two simultaneous triggers. Do you agree that the triggers are simultaneous, not as a matter of opinion but as a matter of fact? Because that's where the distinction ultimately lies.

Certainly I agree they're simultaneous. That's really not the distinction.

The distinction is when conditions have to be met, how that is checked, and how they resolve. Are they checked when the trigger condition occurs, or when the ability resolves? This ruling points to a check when it's triggered... except that doesn't really work either, because having a decloak token isn't actually a condition. You have a window when you can spend the token, but that opportunity isn't actually dependent on having a token.

Say you start cloaked and want to use Advanced Sensors to barrel roll before you decloak. How does that timing work? If we do some check for a decloak token, do I have to spend it before I use Advanced Sensors? Do I check to see if I have the token before so that I can declare I want to decloak, but then spend the token after?

There is no check to see if you have a decloak token - you just do it. Assuming the decloak operation remains atomic, you cannot reconcile the "can't decloak if you don't start with the token" with any sort of timing with Advanced Sensors. There has to be some check for the token before Advanced Sensors resolves (so it can know you don't have one) but you don't actually spend the token until after.

<shrug> There really isn't any consistent timing that makes it work if you keep it atomic.

Am I missing something here? Rexlar's ability triggers off his attack, whereas Porkins triggers from stress. I don't see the interaction.

Minor Explosion is not part of his attack, yet Rexler's ability can affect damage cards dealt by it. That's the point.

Rexlar only affects the cards dealt by, and as a consequence of his attack. If he gets a Minor Explosion card, that deals another card, he effects that too. Where does Porkins come into the equation?

You have a window when you can spend the token, but that opportunity isn't actually dependent on having a token.

Having a window and being a triggered event are mutually exclusive. The question prior to the FAQ ruling was which one we were dealing with.

Say you start cloaked and want to use Advanced Sensors to barrel roll before you decloak. How does that timing work? If we do some check for a decloak token, do I have to spend it before I use Advanced Sensors? Do I check to see if I have the token before so that I can declare I want to decloak, but then spend the token after?

Whether or not there's a check is the only thing that might have beeen debatable before, but now that FFG has made their ruling we might as well consider it a fait accompli. One triggering event, two simultaneous triggers. "Immediately before" is the triggering event, Advanced Senors actions and decloaking are the simultaneous triggers. Can you perform an action? Yes, unless you're stressed. Can you decloak? Yes, because you have a cloak token. Then, being the active player, you get to choose which order to execute them in. And, since both are completely optional in the first place, you get to choose whether you execute them at all. You don't spend the cloak token until you choose to decloak, just as you don't "spend" your opportunity to take an action until you've taken an action. Once the opportunity has passed, the active player cannot choose to do either again until it's legal to do so. If you elect not to take an action before revealing your maneuver, you may then do it after executing said maneuver. If you choose not to decloak, you will not be able to do so until the next trigger, which would be on the following turn.

Am I missing something here? Rexlar's ability triggers off his attack, whereas Porkins triggers from stress. I don't see the interaction.

Minor Explosion is not part of his attack, yet Rexler's ability can affect damage cards dealt by it. That's the point.

Rexlar only affects the cards dealt by, and as a consequence of his attack. If he gets a Minor Explosion card, that deals another card, he effects that too. Where does Porkins come into the equation?

Rexlar deals a crit that gives Porkins a stress. Porkins uses his ability to avoid the stress, and takes damage. Why does Rexler affect the Minor Explosion damage card but not that damage card? Neither is actually dealt as a result of the attack. Both are dealt during the attack (as you say, a consequence of the attack). Where's the distinction?

Rexlar only affects the cards dealt by, and as a consequence of his attack. If he gets a Minor Explosion card, that deals another card, he effects that too. Where does Porkins come into the equation?

If Rexlar lands a crit on Porkins, he tries to bypass it but gets damaged. Rexlar could flip Porkin's damage card, or that is the argument I believe Buhallin is creating as to the two different (but yet similar) damage sources being treated differently.

You have a window when you can spend the token, but that opportunity isn't actually dependent on having a token.

Having a window and being a triggered event are mutually exclusive.

Then replace "window" with "opportunity". Which is a fairly standard case in X-wing - a triggering event occurs, giving an option to do something.

To clarify my above comment, Minor explosion and Porkins ability both create a damage card, one is affected (M.E.) by Rexlar but one is not (Porkins).

To clarify my above comment, Minor explosion and Porkins ability both create a damage card, one is affected (M.E.) by Rexlar but one is not (Porkins).

I agree. But Rexlar can only use his ability once per attack. So when does Porkins check his stress ability? Before or after Rexlar has done his thing?

If Rexlar lands a crit on Porkins, he tries to bypass it but gets damaged. Rexlar could flip Porkin's damage card, or that is the argument I believe Buhallin is creating as to the two different (but yet similar) damage sources being treated differently.

Not necessarily arguing for it... but someone asked way back at the beginning why I wanted a general rule for this and why it mattered. This is why I want a general rule. The original email ruling from Frank said the damage from Minor Explosion wasn't subject to Rexler - which was fine. It established that only cards dealt directly as part of the attack could be flipped. But once Minor Explosion's extra damage is in play, we know SOME extra damage is in play, but we have no rule to determine whether any OTHER extra damage is in play.

To clarify my above comment, Minor explosion and Porkins ability both create a damage card, one is affected (M.E.) by Rexlar but one is not (Porkins).

I agree. But Rexlar can only use his ability once per attack. So when does Porkins check his stress ability? Before or after Rexlar has done his thing?

Depends on when the crit hits. If it's part of Rexler's flip, then he can't affect it again. But if he deals it as a regular crit, Porkins gets the stress/clears the stress/takes his damage in Step 7 - still during the attack.

It's all a matter of timing,I suppose.

I've edited my previous post a fair amount.