IG-88A says “After you perform an attack that destroys the defender, you my recover 1 shield.” How does that interact with additional damage from other sources?

I'd say that it if the defender is destroyed during his attack, then that is "an attack that destroys the defender," regardless of the sources of the damage. Otherwise, you could argue that a ship that takes its last damage card from a Major/Minor Explosion crit was destroyed by a card effect, not by the attack.

On the other hand, Dace’s damage was dealt as part of a parallel trigger-and-consequence, so it does not count as being destroyed by the attack.

Keep in mind that Dace's ability isn't exiting IG-88A's attack sequence to trigger his own effect, then returning to it afterwards. It's an effect that is triggered within the structure of the attack (specifically, between steps 6 and 7, immediately after the Ion Cannon's effect resolves).

I don't buy that Dace's damage gets to count as part of IG-88A's attack, but I could be sympathetic to the arbitrary order argument: resolve the ion token first, then nest in Dace's damage, then resolve the ion cannon damage, thus giving IG-88A the kill. Seems like it needs an email.

I don't buy that Dace's damage gets to count as part of IG-88A's attack, but I could be sympathetic to the arbitrary order argument: resolve the ion token first, then nest in Dace's damage, then resolve the ion cannon damage, thus giving IG-88A the kill. Seems like it needs an email.

An attack isn't the 3 red dice you roll, or the damage those dice produce; an attack is the 7-step process described in the rules. I'd say that if the defender is destroyed over the course of those 7 steps, then it's destroyed by the attack.

I'd say that if the defender is destroyed over the course of those 7 steps, then it's destroyed by the attack.

I tend to agree. The question becomes if Dace's ability is factored into the 7 step attack sequence or happens outside of it. I'd again tend to say it happens inside that attack sequence, because the trigger is a ship getting a ion token, and that actually happens between step 6 and 7.

Agree in in the attack step since the card reads "when a ship receives an Ion token". That is still happening during the IG's attack.

Dace's ability wouldn't have activated if IG-88 hadn't attacked, so it's hard for me to see it any other way than it happening during the attack.

But on the gripping hand...

Moatie.

I'd say that if the defender is destroyed over the course of those 7 steps, then it's destroyed by the attack.

I tend to agree. The question becomes if Dace's ability is factored into the 7 step attack sequence or happens outside of it. I'd again tend to say it happens inside that attack sequence, because the trigger is a ship getting a ion token, and that actually happens between step 6 and 7.

Rules for the ion cannon / ICT say (emphasis mine):

If this attack hits, the defender suffers 1 damage and receives 1 ion token. Then cancel all dice results.

You would only be told to cancel all dice results if there were still parts of the attack sequence left to resolve - as the Ion token is added before this, and as that's the trigger for Dace, it's pretty clear to me that this falls within IG88A's attack so his ability will also trigger

I'd say that if the defender is destroyed over the course of those 7 steps, then it's destroyed by the attack.

I tend to agree. The question becomes if Dace's ability is factored into the 7 step attack sequence or happens outside of it. I'd again tend to say it happens inside that attack sequence, because the trigger is a ship getting a ion token, and that actually happens between step 6 and 7.

This is where I have a problem. This is a deliberately hyperbolic example, but if I take my trash out late at night and my neighbor is awakened by the noise, gets out of bed, trips on a toy spaceship, and falls down the stairs to his death, did my chore kill him?

If we get a ruling that effects triggered by an attack transfer causality upstream to the attack that triggered them, fine, I'll accept that that's the way that concept works in this game. But I don't see any a priori reason to assume that "Dace killed that guy during IG-88A's attack" is the same as "IG-88A's attack killed that guy."

This one is clearly a case of "an assist" with the kill, and the question is "who gets the kill?". During World War II, if a fighter pilot poured a few hundred rounds into an enemy plane, then his wingman flew in and topped the pilot, they would both be credited with a half-kill each. They even went down to third-kills in some cases.

So I see this one as being almost the same. Dace can't do anything until some else has started the attack and landed an ion token on the enemy. If he adds the final point of damage that kills the enemy ship, he's merely providing an assist. IG-88 initiated the one attack that eventually caused the destruction of the enemy ship, so I think his ability would trigger. If you were dishing out kill credits, it would be half each.

But that's just the way I see it.

But I don't see any a priori reason to assume that "Dace killed that guy during IG-88A's attack" is the same as "IG-88A's attack killed that guy."

Because where the damage came from doesn't matter. At no point in those steps however is damage labeled as belonging to a given person, it's just damage. The fact that extra damage was inserted into the equation doesn't change whose attack it is.

Dace's ability triggers during IG-88A's attack and adds another damage to the mix. Where that damage comes from is simply not a factor when it comes time to deal damage to the defender. You don't deal IG-88's damage then Dace's, you simply deal X damage, and the source is not only irrelevant, there is no source that is tracked period. So you can't say who's damage it was.

So there is no way to say who killed him, but who killed him doesn't matter, because IG-88 A only requires that the ship is destroyed during by that attack.

By your logic, one could argue that a direct hit would mean IG-88 A doesn't get credit for the kill since that damage was caused by the crit effect and not the attack itself.

Also, since damage is dealt in the final step, after Dace's ability has triggered and finished... If you did track it, you could apply Dace's damage first, then IG-88's still giving IG-88 the kill.

^^ Very true. The key is in the wording of IG-88's ability "After you perform an attack that destroys the defender..."

It doesn't say "After you perform an attack that in which only the damage you did destroys the defender..."

Did IG-88 perform an attack? Yes

Was the defender destroyed by that attack? Yes

Trigger ability - killer droid gains a shield. Dace flies past giving IG-88 a thumb's up, which IG-88 processes as unessential data and ignores.

The counterexample to the assertion that no effect in X-Wing tracks the source of damage is IG-88A's ability itself. If they wanted it to unambiguously mean "during" rather than "by" they could have written "After you perform an attack, if the defender is destroyed". They could still errata it to say that.

As I've said, I'm open to the possibility that "by" is going to be synonymous with "during" in this game, but at this point I'm not convinced that's the only way to go.

The Direct Hit example is close, though you'd be better off citing Major Explosion. Qualitatively I still feel like "resolving the damage cards dealt" is more of a part of an attack than "resolving abilities of another pilot that happen to be triggered by a part of this attack" is, but I'm pretty far into the weeds on this one now, so I'm not super confident in my objectivity.

Anyway, I'm not trying to drag this out. I'm content to agree to disagree, or agree to wait-and-see, or whatever. If the issue comes up in a tournament I'm judging, I'll probably allow IG-88A's ability to trigger, but based on the presumed manipulating of the order of effects, i.e. choose to resolve Dace's damage before IG-88A's, thereby making the "by" vs "during" question irrelevant.

The thing is "by" and "during" aren't used in either IG-88's or Dace's ability text. IG-88 simply says "After you perform an attack that destroys the defender, you may recover 1 shield."

Two qualifiers are there: Did IG-88 perform an attack? Yes. Did the attack destroy the defender? Yes

Both qualifiers have been met.

I think it's only when we start over-thinking some things and trying to break them down too far, that ambiguity comes in. IG-88 destroyed an enemy ship with an attack. He was assisted, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the other ship is still destroyed.

I honestly see this one as having a pretty rare chance of happening too often to become a problem.

If they wanted it to unambiguously mean...

Sure, but lets be honest, if we used that as the bar, a lot of stuff in X-Wing wouldn't work, because FFG tends to not word things so there's no ambiguity...

he Direct Hit example is close, though you'd be better off citing Major Explosion.

You're right, I realized that direct hit isn't the best example, but Major Explosion is.

so I'm not super confident in my objectivity.

I think you could make that argument. That Dace's ability is more akin to the effect of a mine/bomb then an attack. That it is simply damage applied by an effect that is not an attack or part of an attack.

If in theory IG-88A had a bomb slot and dropped a cluster mine, he wouldn't get to regen a shield if a ship was killed by it, since that wasn't an attack. But if we treat Dace's ability as being outside the attack process, then that actually factors into IG-88's favor.

Because then the damage Dace deals would be applied prior to step 7, which means the damage from IG-88 hasn't been applied yet, so now you have a single damage being applied to a ship that is at X-1 damage cards.

The only way it wouldn't work, is if the Ion weapon itself was also not part of the normal attack/damage process. If that were true, then IG-88's damage might have to be applied first, giving Dace the kill, and step 7 is just skipped.

But I can't see any reason why we'd treat the ion weapon as different then any other attack in the game.

Did the attack destroy the defender? Yes

You understand that's literally the only part of this we disagree on, right?

For what it's worth digitalbusker I don't think your points are unreasonable at all.

The only way it wouldn't work, is if the Ion weapon itself was also not part of the normal attack/damage process. If that were true, then IG-88's damage might have to be applied first, giving Dace the kill, and step 7 is just skipped.

But I can't see any reason why we'd treat the ion weapon as different then any other attack in the game.

Well, the ion weapon isn't like other weapons. It deals its damage directly, not as the result of uncancelled red dice.

For what it's worth digitalbusker I don't think your points are unreasonable at all.

I'm on the fence about this. Leaning toward letting IG claim the kill simply for the wording on Dace's card.

unfortunately reasonability isn't strongly correlated with turning out to be right.

Perhaps, but I'd rather ben reasonable and wrong, then a jerk and right.

Plus I think there is merits to your argument, such as the more I think about it, the more I think Dace's ability doesn't add a result to the pool so would be dealt with outside the normal flow of an attack.

Having looked over ALL the arguments, I'm actually in the minority. I think it's about the "source" of the damage, in this case Dace's ability is the source of the damage applied. IG-88A inflicted damage, allowing Dace to use his ability, to my (imperfect) mind, Dace has inflicted that last point of damage. Vis the "direct hit" damage sub question, the firer was the source of that damage card so to my mind HE has inflicted that "additional" damage. It's been caused directly by his attack, not via an ability from another ship.

So glad I have decided to not play this game competitively, sure there are issues with the rules (which are FFG's fault in so much as play testing is largely internal) but most of these arguments/discussions... aren't about "rules" they are more about ENGLISH, one of the most complex languages on the planet, despite the fact it's the most widely spoken.