Thank you notvery for laying everything out. I can't do the same on phone or tablet.

If Rieekan's ship is destroyed befor his ability triggers, the same goes for all ships, and then he doesn't work at all. A destroyed ship is no longer in play and so his ability can not affect it. So either he works for his own ship or he doesn't work at all. I tend to lean toward him actualy working.

This is just silly. When another ship is destroyed, Riekeen is still in play. As far as I know, cards still in play continue to work. Cards out of play don't. So, when another ship is destroyed, we treat it as if it wasn't. Because we have a card that says so.

So why exactly are you suggesting that part of that clause would apply (upgrade cards) but the rest wouldn't (ship card and in play status) to a ship affected by Rieekan's ability? That isn't a defensible position as there is no reason for a player to apply part of those rules and not others

So either the whole clause applies or none of it, you can not just pick part of one sentence and discard the rest. And the reality is if the whole clause is applied to ships affected by Rieekan's ability then Rieekan's ability doesn't work and fundementally breaks the game. What that tells us is that we cannot apply that line of thought as it leads us to an impossible gamestate.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I very bluntly said that the idea was a no-go. I'm suggesting that Riekeen can't trigger his power when he's dead, and when his ship is destroyed, it should be pulled. (or at least, I can see this interpertation of the rules. I think it's wrong, though)

As for the timing, it still requires you to apply the power of a card at the same time that it is placed out-of-play. I see nothing that determines which takes precidence. You can quote the rule book at me all you want, I have my own copy, and I have read it. Several times, even. I still haven't seen the part that offers precidence.

This is the second thing that FFG hasn't responded to as quickly as I would have expected. The turbolasers, and Mon Mothma they got back to us PDQ. With Ackbar, and Riekeen, they are taking their time. Wonder what's up with them.

FFG usually doesn't answer rules questions about unreleased products, even those that have been previewed. Furthermore FFG doesn't have a consistent timetable for answering questions. I've gotten complex answers in a day, and simple ones in a month.

No one is suggesting that is Rieekan's Flagship is out of play, as in off the table, that his ability is anyway in effect. What people are saying is that if Rieekan's ability keeps a ship on the table, that it's upgrade cards are still in full effect. The reason is upgrade card inactivity is a ramifications of being a destroyed ship, and Rieekan's ability tells you to treat a ship as if it were not destroyed.

Notvery laid it out as cleanly as it's going to be laid out, clearly you're not interested.

I hadn't considered the not-yet-released ramafications. Good point.

Notvery has laid it out exceptionaly well, but he still can't tell me which effect has precidence. AFAIK, this is the only case in which a "while" effect is prohibited by it's own trigger, so there are no other good comparisons to reach for.

"The reason is upgrade card inactivity is a ramifications of being a destroyed ship, and Rieekan's ability tells you to treat a ship as if it were not destroyed." But if Riekeen is inactive, you can't read his card.

This is EXACTLY the crux of the matter. This is the exact point where the rules break down. A literal reading of the rules requires that Riekeen's ship is "immediatly destroyed" which inactivates the upgrade cards, but "at the moment" those upgrade cards say "treat as if not destroyed."

So, which comes first? "immediatly?" Or "at the moment?" If "immediatly" takes precident, then Riekeen is out of play, and can't be read. If "at the moment" takes precidence, then he is still in play, and can be read. I have yet to see anyone tell me, with a solid back up, which comes first.

I look forward to FFG answering it. I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of "at the moment," but I can see the argument either way.

I hadn't considered the not-yet-released ramafications. Good point.

Notvery has laid it out exceptionaly well, but he still can't tell me which effect has precidence. AFAIK, this is the only case in which a "while" effect is prohibited by it's own trigger, so there are no other good comparisons to reach for.

"The reason is upgrade card inactivity is a ramifications of being a destroyed ship, and Rieekan's ability tells you to treat a ship as if it were not destroyed." But if Riekeen is inactive, you can't read his card.

This is EXACTLY the crux of the matter. This is the exact point where the rules break down. A literal reading of the rules requires that Riekeen's ship is "immediatly destroyed" which inactivates the upgrade cards, but "at the moment" those upgrade cards say "treat as if not destroyed."

So, which comes first? "immediatly?" Or "at the moment?" If "immediatly" takes precident, then Riekeen is out of play, and can't be read. If "at the moment" takes precidence, then he is still in play, and can be read. I have yet to see anyone tell me, with a solid back up, which comes first.

I look forward to FFG answering it. I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of "at the moment," but I can see the argument either way.

To quote the RRG:

Under "Effect use and timing"

-if two or more of a players effects have the same timing that player can resolve those effects in any order.

The Golden Rule:

Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict the rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the components effect takes precedence.

There is not a issue with timeing at all because either the player chooses the order or the Card takes precedence and therefore happens first...

Because of the above stated reasoning I am having an issue with why people believe there is a timing issue going on with the ability. Treated either manner would yield no issue.

Additionally while I understand that you are trying to say in that initial instance of destruction, prior to Rieekan being able to kick in, that a ship would be accorded all that ramifications of destruction (including upgrades turning off) for that moment before Rieekan kicks in and retroactively nuffilfies the destroyed status (which would mean Rieekan would be off and unable to save himself) full application of that interpretation creates an impass. Upgrade inactivity isn't the only ramifications of being destroyed, you have the more pressing issue if being removed from the play area and being considered out of play. So if there is that moment where a ship is considered destroyed (and suffers the ramifications of destruction), then Rieekan doesn't work on any ship, because that moment would remove the ship from the play area and leave it not in play to be affected by Rieekan's ability in addition to rendering it's upgrades inactive. That's why I believe that moment can't be a thing, because if it is the ability can never save any ship.

I don't think an interpretation that leads to that end result can be a valid interpretation when there are other interpretations that remedy themselves within thevrules

"When" and "immediately" happen at the same "moment".

• If two or more of a player’s effects have the same timing, that player can resolve those effects in any order.

Ha!

CloneTrooper, also NotVery, that is exactly what I have been looking for. Player's choice in case of simultanious effects.

We're done here folks.

Yay! I'm actually being not sarcastic with that yay.

. . . The popcorn just ran out as well. . . Oh well. . . Time to move on I guess.

Can I ask that whenever we get into a big rules argument we just check everyone is aware of the "player chooses order of simultaneous effects" rule because that seems to fix most of the issues...

We could call it the "The Coextensive Rule".