If IG-88 has initiative and attacks Garven Dreis and kills him, does he immediately regain the shield or does he wait for Garven to finish his attack and be removed from play? Hypothetical, of course, but I understand that ships that are destroyed are removed from play but simultaneous attack interrupts the ship from being removed.

He immediately regains the shield.

Don't put too much meaning into the "simultaneous" part of the simultaneous attack rule. It could be renamed the "equal PS pilots still get to shoot rule". Nothing really happens simultaneously in X-Wing, you can have things trigger at the same time, off the same event, put you then resolve them in a certain order.

I think you go with "immediately regain the shield" as you've "destroyed" Garven even if he hasn't left the board yet.

To look at things a little bit differently if Garven kills IG-88 first then IG-88A would gain a shield via simultaneous attack the droid is still done despite regaining the shield which could have saved it. Of course there is nothing that says a ship can't be destroyed while still having full shields on it provided it has damage cards on it.

After further review this situation is just nuts especially when you get into the more complicated interactions.

My thought is still that IG-88A should regain a shield if at the end of its attack, which includes resolving any face up cards, its target would be destroyed. Maybe something else keeps the ship from ACTUALLY being destroyed at that time (it's the simultaneous attack rule which is ultimately what removes the ship from play in the original question) but the damage is already done. It also means that things which happen after the attack aren't directly attributed to attack even if it is ultimately the attack that caused them.

Sounds good. I'm not sure if I am just overthinking this.

The wording of the Simultaneous Attack Rule is a little ambiguous.

IG-88A:

"After you perform an attack that destroys the defender, you may recover 1 shield."

Simultaneous Attack Rule:

But IG-88A triggers "After you perform an attack" which would imply it happens right away. But you could argue that your attack didn't technically destroy the defender... which could mean you never regenerate a shield.

Like it or not, I believe this is the proper ruling. Your (IG-88) attack does not actually destroy the target.

The only thing I disagree with is that it's ambiguous:

...opportunity to attack before being destroyed...would be destroyed...After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed...

A ship in a Simultaneous Fire scenario which would be destroyed simply isn't; IG-88A's ability would never trigger at all. It's a bit of a ding on an ability that's already considered underwhelming, and it wouldn't shock me to see a "Because I said so" ruling that he works, but I don't think there's any real question what the rules say.

But IG-88A triggers "After you perform an attack" which would imply it happens right away. But you could argue that your attack didn't technically destroy the defender... which could mean you never regenerate a shield.

Like it or not, I believe this is the proper ruling. Your (IG-88) attack does not actually destroy the target.

The only thing I disagree with is that it's ambiguous:

...opportunity to attack before being destroyed...would be destroyed...After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed...

A ship in a Simultaneous Fire scenario which would be destroyed simply isn't; IG-88A's ability would never trigger at all. It's a bit of a ding on an ability that's already considered underwhelming, and it wouldn't shock me to see a "Because I said so" ruling that he works, but I don't think there's any real question what the rules say.

So do you just come up with the most ludicrous ruling and decide that one is right? Because if IG88s attack didn't destroy it, what did? Oh I know! It was the Simultaneous Attack Rule that destroyed it! Or no, it blew up on its own!

Obviously the IG88A regens a shield, but it is a question of when. I can see it going either way, but I have a feeling it would be after the IG88s attack and before the "simultaneous" attack.

I'm really starting to think you're just trolling, Buhallin, seriously. This idea that the simultaneous attack rule makes it so the ship that attacked didnt actually destroy the ship is a joke.

But IG-88A triggers "After you perform an attack" which would imply it happens right away. But you could argue that your attack didn't technically destroy the defender... which could mean you never regenerate a shield.

Like it or not, I believe this is the proper ruling. Your (IG-88) attack does not actually destroy the target.

The only thing I disagree with is that it's ambiguous:

...opportunity to attack before being destroyed...would be destroyed...After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed...

A ship in a Simultaneous Fire scenario which would be destroyed simply isn't; IG-88A's ability would never trigger at all. It's a bit of a ding on an ability that's already considered underwhelming, and it wouldn't shock me to see a "Because I said so" ruling that he works, but I don't think there's any real question what the rules say.

So do you just come up with the most ludicrous ruling and decide that one is right? Because if IG88s attack didn't destroy it, what did? Oh I know! It was the Simultaneous Attack Rule that destroyed it! Or no, it blew up on its own!

Obviously the IG88A regens a shield, but it is a question of when. I can see it going either way, but I have a feeling it would be after the IG88s attack and before the "simultaneous" attack.

I'm really starting to think you're just trolling, Buhallin, seriously. This idea that the simultaneous attack rule makes it so the ship that attacked didnt actually destroy the ship is a joke.

Actually, I think its more of a timing issue. As the part he quoted and bolded points out, if IG88 attacks garvin, garvin isn't destroyed until after garvin attacks, then if IG is still alive he could get a shield back, but not before. seems odd, but also pretty simple to me from the way the rules read.

Edit: 9 finger typing strikes again

So do you just come up with the most ludicrous ruling and decide that one is right? Because if IG88s attack didn't destroy it, what did? Oh I know! It was the Simultaneous Attack Rule that destroyed it! Or no, it blew up on its own!

Obviously the IG88A regens a shield, but it is a question of when. I can see it going either way, but I have a feeling it would be after the IG88s attack and before the "simultaneous" attack.

I'm really starting to think you're just trolling, Buhallin, seriously. This idea that the simultaneous attack rule makes it so the ship that attacked didnt actually destroy the ship is a joke.

Before we get into an actual debate here, are you actually reading the rules? Or is this going to be another one of those cases where you don't like the rules, so ignore them and rant about how much better your guess at what the devs want is? Because I'm perfectly happy to discuss the rules, as long as we're discussing the rules. I think I'm going to go ahead and assume that we are indeed going to discuss the rules, although that's probably optimistic of me.

Those rules don't do a good job of defining exactly what destroys a ship. If we go through the full process and my attack has an uncanceled hit that turns into damage that deals the last card, then it's pretty safe to think that my attack destroyed you. What happens if you have two hull, I deal you a Minor Explosion, then you roll the hit and deal the last card. Did my attack destroy you? There's probably a fair case that it did, but the killing blow actually came from the crit, which is your effect. What if that crit is a Console Fire instead, and you blow up next round - identical effects, different timing, should that matter? What if I deal Porkins a crit that inflicts a stress, he uses his ability, and goes boom from that? What if you have two hull left, IG-88 hits you with an ion cannon, and then Dace uses his ability for the last. Did IG-88's attack kill you, or did Dace? What happens if IG-88A kills Fel's Wrath? And if we want to get REALLY fun, who gets credit if a Firespray hits an undamaged Scyk with an ion cannon, then Dace uses his ability to damage it, and Greedo (on the Firespray) flips it up to a Direct Hit?

That's the problem with your brand of "It's obvious and all you rules lawyers need to shut up!" Sure, you cover a few of the obvious happy-path cases just fine, but you've literally got nothing to go on when things get weird. That's what the rules are for, and those rules should be followed even when you happen to think the outcome is ridiculous. This might be a good time to point out that your angst is misdirected - if you don't like ridiculous rule outcomes, you should be mad at FFG for writing bad rules, not me for bothering to read what they wrote.

Unfortunately for us, "My ship destroyed your ship" is not defined in the rules. At all. Ships are destroyed when they have damage equal to their hull - nothing more. Who gets to paint the kill marker on the side when they get home isn't defined. What IS defined is what actually counts as being destroyed - and ships which would be destroyed in a simultaneous fire situation are not destroyed during the attack. The rules are actually pretty clear on that - it's not "You're destroyed but not removed until later", it's "You're not destroyed until later". Same thing goes for Fel's Wrath, actually.

So we take our best guess at what "I killed you" means. The only really consistent way I see to do it is to read it as "Destroyed while my attack was taking place." It locks in who's responsible (avoiding Dace and critical hit ownership issues) and the timing (avoiding Minor Explosion vs. Console Fire issues). It also avoids complications like mixed damage sources. Yes, it does have the unexpected effect that IG-88A may not be considered to have destroyed a target even though the final damage card was dealt from his attack. But it is at least defineable and consistent.

Now, that's my best guess, explained in lavish detail and with references to the actual rules. Please feel free to discuss those rules and the scenarios we've got. But please, if the best you've got is a baseless "Of course it works like I say it does!" at least put a disclaimer up top, K?

Edit: Sorry that got so long, but having to explain not only the issue but why it's an issue, and lay out all the examples that make it not a simple issue, combined with my natural tendency towards verbosity, made it a hefty read. Kudos to anyone who got through it.

At first I thought that Buhallin's interpretation was the one best supported by the rules since ships that have had their last hull point removed by another ship with the same Pilot Skill are not destroyed until after they attack. However the wording of IG-88A's ability is a little wonky since it sets the trigger as "After performing an attack that destroys the defender". The defender actually being destroyed is not the trigger, but the attack that removes the final hull is.

I do definitely think this requires some clarification on Dace's ability and how it's timing interacts with Ion weapons.

I don't think Greedo would affect damage dealt by Dace's ability since that damage isn't being dealt by the attack that is being defended against, no matter which ship it was on.

I don't think Greedo would affect damage dealt by Dace's ability since that damage isn't being dealt by the attack that is being defended against, no matter which ship it was on.

Greedo just says "The first time you attack each round...the first damage card is dealt face up." If you're within the attack window, the ability is active, and it doesn't stipulate the source of the damage, just that the first card is dealt is done so face up.

"After performing an attack that destroys the defender". The defender actually being destroyed is not the trigger, but the attack that removes the final hull is.

Uhm... How is being destroyed not the trigger? "After performing an attack that destroys the defender..." "Being destroyed" does not mean being dealt the final damage card. That can happen well before the ship is actually destroyed. With the right set of abilities interacting, it can potentially be almost an entire round. A ship is, by default, destroyed when the last card is dealt to it, but that can be changed. There are a number of things which may or will happen when the ship is destroyed - it's removed from play, its effects vanish, Dead Man's Switch will activate, etc. All of that happens at the same time. Would you take a Simultaneous Fire situation and detonate the Dead Man's Switch immediately, but not remove the ship until after it makes its final attack?

The problem here is that in this scenario, the attack truly doesn't actually destroy the defender. Again, that's largely undefined in specific rule terms, but if the attack ends with the defender still in play, the ship clearly hasn't been destroyed.

What people want IG-88A's ability to do in this case is know that his attack dealt the final damage card, distinguish that card from any and all other damage, ignore any additional damage dealt, wait through one or even more attacks until the ship is removed, and then trigger. Does this make any sense in the rules framework? Does this timing apply for any other "After performing an attack" ability? Could Vader wait and see if a ship survives other Simultaneous Fire before deciding to use its ability?

<shrug> I understand what people want to happen, or think should happen here, but I just don't see a way to make it work in the rules we have.

@Buhallin: I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Greedo+Dace, but that's off-topic. And I think you're right about the "destroyed by an attack" language: Simultaneous Attack Rule turns it off.

Capthalfbeard is right that the interaction is weird and counterintuitive, but that doesn't make it wrong. And the Simultanous Attack Rule creates a lot of those situations, actually.

@instantaequitas. Without reading too much into it, yes, ig88 would get his shield back straight away as the other ship is immediately destroyed. The simultaneous rule simply keeps the other ship around long enough to get it's attack in before being removed, which doesn't alter the fact that ig88's attack destroyed it.

If the situation ever comes up in a game, and neither side can agree, I'd recommend rolling dice to decide who's interpretation is used. Hope that helps...

Really, it's obvious that rules have some bugs, also in this case...

I think the buhallin interpretation is consistent, but is missing something important.

That's true that rules don't define when an attack is responsible for destroying a ship. But if we pursue this path we have to say that the rule trigger "when you destroy a ship with an attack" is meaningless, that's obviously can't be the case.

That's also true that technically the ship is not destroyed in that moment, but is also very clear that the destruction is not reversible from the moment that the ship lost its last hull point.

Reading the rules about simultaneous attack, I'm under the impression that also in the case that a ship would recover in some way one hull point, it would be destroyed. In fact rules don't say "if at the end of the simultaneous attack the ship have no hull point then destroy the ship", it instruct "after the attack remove the ship from the play area".

The simultaneous attack rules need an errata. But it seems to configure as a time-shift effect, where the destruction is not suspended, it's only delayed until after the ship had an opportunity to counter attack.

Also, as pointed by others, the trigger of this ability is not "after the ship is destroyed", but "after the attack that destroy a ship". The destruction effect is triggered in the very moment the ship lost its last hull point, also if the effective destruction is delayed, and the destruction itself is irreversible.

So finally, surely some poor worded rules about that we needs official clarifications.

But, imvvvvho, the meaning and how to play it is pretty clear.

Look at that the way that they trigger is written. "After you perform an attack that destroys the defender ...". The bit about destroying the defender is a descriptor of the attack that is the trigger. You can remove "that destroys the defender " from the sentence and it still makes sense, the same is not true of removing "you perform an attack". Once a ship has recieved a number of cards equal to their hull damage, destruction is inevitable. Using the attack as the trigger has this ability function the way in all situations, even when destroying Fel's Wrath.

I agree that this interpretation raises a lot of other unanswered questions about what actually destroys a Defender. As for the accusation that I'm trying to make the rules fit the interpretation that I prefer, that's not true. I don't have a preference for either result. I don't ever expect this to come up in a game because I can't see playing IG-88A or playing against him as a likely occurance. Either interpretation has a downside. If IG-88A is at full shields at the time of his attack and recieves damage during the simultaneus attack, his ability doesn't regen a shield for him.

There are cases where "being destroyed" is a bit of a mess. An example is Fel's Wrath being destroyed by Corran in the end phase (see FAQ for Fel's Wrath). The ship actually gets another full round of fighting before actually exploding! R2D2 shield recovery also has its own FAQ section (with different timing), but back to the matter at hand. Here is how I foresee the scenario playing:

- IG-88A attacks Garven and deals more damage card than his hull.

- The simultaneous attack rule (core rule book page 16) clearly states that the ship is not destroyed until after it has performed its attack.

- Garven fires back at IG-88A.

- Garven is then immediately destroyed.

- Provided that IG-88A survived the attack, both of the conditions of his abilities are satisfied ("After he performed an attack" and "destroyed the defender"), he would regain a shield.

Now granted, the timing of the last part is where we can add some nitpicking, hence why I think it should be clarified in an updated FAQ.

Quite frankly, however, I can't imagine anyone using IG-88A outside of epic play (not when IG-88B and IG-88C are so much more interesting in 100 point games), so I'm quite willing to simply wait until the updated FAQ.

It's a bit like Fel's Wrath: the pilot has probably generated more discussion than it was actually ever used, lol

But IG-88A triggers "After you perform an attack" which would imply it happens right away. But you could argue that your attack didn't technically destroy the defender... which could mean you never regenerate a shield.

Like it or not, I believe this is the proper ruling. Your (IG-88) attack does not actually destroy the target.

The only thing I disagree with is that it's ambiguous:

...opportunity to attack before being destroyed...would be destroyed...After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed...

A ship in a Simultaneous Fire scenario which would be destroyed simply isn't; IG-88A's ability would never trigger at all. It's a bit of a ding on an ability that's already considered underwhelming, and it wouldn't shock me to see a "Because I said so" ruling that he works, but I don't think there's any real question what the rules say.

I would agree with this, but what makes me disagree is the lack of the word "immediately" on IG-88A. If it said "immediately after you perform an attack, if that attack destroyed the defender, then you may recover 1 shield", then I agree with you 100% that IG-88A's ability would not trigger. The timing condition would have passed.

But, after the defender fires under the simultaneous fire rule, the defender is still destroyed. The reason it's destroyed is from IG-88A's attack; so, even though another attack has taken place, it still fulfills the shield-recovering requirements of being a) after IG-88A's attack, and b) the attack from IG-88A is what destroyed the defender. There's no reason to think that just because the defender also had a chance to shoot that the cause of destruction shifts away from the ship that shot it. Nor that the timing window has closed once a new attack starts, in my opinion.

When this gets FAQ'd, because I have a suspicion that there'll be no consensus until it does, can we ask it as "IG-88A deals damage exceeding the hull value on 'Fel's Wrath'; however, 'Fel's Wrath''s pilot ability indicates that it is not destroyed until the end of the Combat phase. Does IG-88A's ability trigger, and if so, when?" That will (hopefully) clear up all questions about this ability.

Follow up question: Suppose the above question, and then suppose a Sigma Squadron Pilot also shoots at Fel's Wrath (because it wants to trigger ACD and Fel's Wrath is the only ship in arc, let's say); and suppose the Sigma dealt a damage with that attack. Does IG-88A trigger? (Buhallin would say no to both. In the former scenario, I would say yes, at the end of the Combat phase; in the latter, I would say probably not, because the final point of damage was done by the Sigma.)

Going to post this in its own thread, but here you go. Not too surprised buhallin's interpretation that Ig88A would not regen a shield was wrong...

On Mar 20, 2015, at 11:49 AM, Alex Davy <[email protected]> wrote:

The simultaneous attack rule is a tricky one! According to the language in the core rulebook on page 16, a ship operating under the simultaneous attack rule is not actually destroyed until it has had a chance to attack, even though it has received lethal damage. This means that if IG-88A deals lethal damage to a PS 6 ship, IG-88A does not receive a shield until after that ship has attacked, which might result in IG-88A being destroyed before it can recover a shield.

Cheers,

Alex Davy

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:

Message from:

E-mail:

Rules Question:

When IG88A destroys a ship, and it is kept in play due to the Simultaneous Attack Rule, when does IG88A regenerate a shield? (more specifically, when is a ship officially considered "destroyed") Is it the moment it receives damage cards >/= its hull value or when it is removed from play? Thanks as always!

I never claim omniscience - I only take my best shot at reading the rules we have. And I believe I stated upthread that it wouldn't surprise me to see it get a "Because I said so" ruling, which is exactly what we got.

<shrug> I think it goes way outside of any reasonable timing structure on the rules, but I'm happy to have an answer.

I would agree with this, but what makes me disagree is the lack of the word "immediately" on IG-88A. If it said "immediately after you perform an attack, if that attack destroyed the defender, then you may recover 1 shield", then I agree with you 100% that IG-88A's ability would not trigger. The timing condition would have passed.

This doesn't hold for any other ability, though. Every ability activates and is resolved immediately, whether it says "immediately" or not.

What if:

IG88B shoots at Garven and inflicts enough damage to get Garven a number of damage cards equal to his hull value.

IG88A now fires at the soon to be detroyed Garven and gets him a few more damage cards.

Garven gets his chans to attack and is then destroyed.

Does IG88A get a shield? Does IG88B get a shield (assuming IG2000-title)?

What if:

IG88B shoots at Garven and inflicts enough damage to get Garven a number of damage cards equal to his hull value.

IG88A now fires at the soon to be detroyed Garven and gets him a few more damage cards.

Garven gets his chans to attack and is then destroyed.

Does IG88A get a shield? Does IG88B get a shield (assuming IG2000-title)?

Hehehe. Yay for unclear timing rules

Edit: Another weird scenario...

• IG-88B inflicts enough damage to kill Fel's Wrath
  • IG-88B doesn't recover a shield yet, since Fel's Wrath stays alive thanks to the Simultaneous Attack Rule
• IG-88A doesn't have a shot
• Jonus kills IG-88A
• Fel's Wrath shoots at something
• End of Combat phase
• Fel's Wrath is destroyed
  • Does IG-88B regain a shield, considering that IG-88A is now dead?

What if:

IG88B shoots at Garven and inflicts enough damage to get Garven a number of damage cards equal to his hull value.

IG88A now fires at the soon to be detroyed Garven and gets him a few more damage cards.

Garven gets his chans to attack and is then destroyed.

Does IG88A get a shield? Does IG88B get a shield (assuming IG2000-title)?

My guess would be that the IG-88 which first dealt the number of damage cards that equalled or exceeded the target's hull value would be the one to get a shield back. (But that is just a guess)

What if:

IG88B shoots at Garven and inflicts enough damage to get Garven a number of damage cards equal to his hull value.

IG88A now fires at the soon to be detroyed Garven and gets him a few more damage cards.

Garven gets his chans to attack and is then destroyed.

Does IG88A get a shield? Does IG88B get a shield (assuming IG2000-title)?

Hehehe. Yay for unclear timing rules

Edit: Another weird scenario...

• IG-88B inflicts enough damage to kill Fel's Wrath
  • IG-88B doesn't recover a shield yet, since Fel's Wrath stays alive thanks to the Simultaneous Attack Rule
• IG-88A doesn't have a shot
• Jonus kills IG-88A
• Fel's Wrath shoots at something
• End of Combat phase
• Fel's Wrath is destroyed
  • Does IG-88B regain a shield, considering that IG-88A is now dead?

On that one, Fel's Wrath stay alive much longer and not because of the simultaneous attack rule (he's only destroyed at the end of combat phase). By then, IG-88A was long gone, as was its ability.

The scenario might be more screwed up if we replaced him with a royal guard pilot at PS 6. In that case, is there an order of ship being destroyed? Is the Royal Guard destroyed first, allowing IG-88A's ability to trigger on IG-88B before IG-88A is destroyed?