That's the rules reference chief, not the actual rule book.

....im speechless...

Please, please ,dont saying we are having this argument over "Learn to Play" rulebook. Cause there were no more booklets in my box nor there are any more pdfs on my site that i find under fantasyflight.com. You really consider "Learn to Play" actual rulebook?

Considering the "there has been an awakening" article explicitly calls it "the new core rulebook" yes

LEARN TO PLAY. LEARN.

Half of even semi advanced rules are skipped there. And you fight over such a advanced issue backuped by this?? Always a glossary or such a rules reference is considered more advanced then entry rulebook....

If you read the *actual* rule book, you'll see that it is exact and solely one step. Deal cards, destroyed. Things that then occur upon destruction occur.

Rules reference page 1, Golden Rules:

"If a rule in this guide contradicts the Learn to Play booklet, the rule in this guide takes priority".

THAT.

Except they don't in any way contradict one another.

The rules reference is a glorified glossary, and identifies itself as such on the first page.

I am pretty sure the OP is a troll as no one can be this misinformed, I am relatively new and even I know that:

Rules reference page 1, Golden Rules:

"If a rule in this guide contradicts the Learn to Play booklet, the rule in this guide take priority".

I say let him waste his points and waste TO's time as the TO points out the actual steps involved in destroying a ship.It has been pointed out in many ways by people who have a bit of an idea on whats going on. If Fels Wrath could have DMS would he have an infinite loop of proc'ing as he isn't destroyed until the end of the round?

They do. In L2P booklet those are really considered 1 step. In RR i explained to you how they are considered 2 steps.

Plus how about answering my thug example?

I think that sometimes a person is inclined to continue an argument - regardless of the amount of obvious valid contradictory evidence - so that, in the off-chance, longshot and highly in doubt, possibility that by some miracle someone of higher authority (IE FFG) will side with them no matter how ridiculous their argument and they can be "right".

I suspect this to be the case and we are all wasting our time here.

I think that sometimes a person is inclined to continue an argument - regardless of the amount of obvious valid contradictory evidence - so that, in the off-chance, longshot and highly in doubt, possibility that by some miracle someone of higher authority (IE FFG) will side with them no matter how ridiculous there argument and they can be "right".

I suspect this to be the case and we are all wasting our time here.

I beg to differ, this has become most entertaining. You can see the exact moment peoples patients snap.

They do. In L2P booklet those are really considered 1 step. In RR i explained to you how they are considered 2 steps.

Plus how about answering my thug example?

Except I'm staring at the rules reference and it's still one step.

I think that sometimes a person is inclined to continue an argument - regardless of the amount of obvious valid contradictory evidence - so that, in the off-chance, longshot and highly in doubt, possibility that by some miracle someone of higher authority (IE FFG) will side with them no matter how ridiculous there argument and they can be "right".

I suspect this to be the case and we are all wasting our time here.

I beg to differ, this has become most entertaining. You can see the exact moment peoples patients snap.

Patience*

I think that sometimes a person is inclined to continue an argument - regardless of the amount of obvious valid contradictory evidence - so that, in the off-chance, longshot and highly in doubt, possibility that by some miracle someone of higher authority (IE FFG) will side with them no matter how ridiculous there argument and they can be "right".

I suspect this to be the case and we are all wasting our time here.

I beg to differ, this has become most entertaining. You can see the exact moment peoples patients snap.

People have thought they would help out a person with the rules query, then blatant "nope" attitude has taken over even after advanced rules have been quoted. OP is using the Learn to Play guide as his bible. Somethings gonna snap...

Patience. Patients snapping would be an alarming event at a doctor's office though.

*edit* **** ninjas

They do. In L2P booklet those are really considered 1 step. In RR i explained to you how they are considered 2 steps.

Plus how about answering my thug example?

Except I'm staring at the rules reference and it's still one step.

I too am curious as to the thug example answer....

I think that sometimes a person is inclined to continue an argument - regardless of the amount of obvious valid contradictory evidence - so that, in the off-chance, longshot and highly in doubt, possibility that by some miracle someone of higher authority (IE FFG) will side with them no matter how ridiculous there argument and they can be "right".

I suspect this to be the case and we are all wasting our time here.

I beg to differ, this has become most entertaining. You can see the exact moment peoples patients snap.

I did a long time ago.

They do. In L2P booklet those are really considered 1 step. In RR i explained to you how they are considered 2 steps.

Plus how about answering my thug example?

Except I'm staring at the rules reference and it's still one step.

Ok im done.

If you cannot check the rules pages i gave you and that every1 that backed me up and then add 2+2 nor you cannot make difference between two simple english words "when" and "instead" (im not navite english myself and they taught me that in elementary) well i feel sorry for you. How the hell then you play this game whatsoever is beyond me.

<GlaDOS voice>

It must be hard.

For you.

Ingame

And beyond.

You know what guys? Why are we disagreeing on this? The OP is simply BRILLIANT!! We should all run this combo and fully exploit that one more 'free' use of Dead Man's Switch! It is sure to be a game winner for us, just like it will be for the OP! If we are all playing the rules the same then no one will have an unfair advantage.

I don't know why it took me so long to come around and am confused as to why you all aren't joining in on the 'fun'....

Patience. Patients snapping would be an alarming event at a doctor's office though.

*edit* **** ninjas

I think that sometimes a person is inclined to continue an argument - regardless of the amount of obvious valid contradictory evidence - so that, in the off-chance, longshot and highly in doubt, possibility that by some miracle someone of higher authority (IE FFG) will side with them no matter how ridiculous there argument and they can be "right".

I suspect this to be the case and we are all wasting our time here.

I beg to differ, this has become most entertaining. You can see the exact moment peoples patients snap.

Patience*

Im blaming my phone and I'm sticking to that story.

This argument is based on the willful misunderstanding of basic, and thus not-defined-in-the-rules, words like "would be", "instead", and "are".

That's weak.

I instead choose to interpret "first" as "every", and thus my ship is never destroyed!

Im blaming my phone and I'm sticking to that story.

I'm with you man. I have a few words that I've spelled wrong so many times that my phone defaults to the incorrect spelling as that is what it thinks I mean. Stupid autocorrect lol

*This is not the answer you are looking for*

Fine, I'll quote the page you gave.

Page 10, rules reference.

"A ship is destroyed when it has a number of damage cards equal to its hull value or when it flees the battlefield. "

One sentence. One step.

Tel is dealt all the cards. Tel qualifies for both "would be" and "are" destroyed. You may then use the abilities in any order.

This argument is based on the willful misunderstanding of basic, and thus not-defined-in-the-rules, words like "would be", "instead", and "are".

That's weak.

I instead choose to interpret "first" as "every", and thus my ship is never destroyed!

I want to interpret "once" as "every" and "die" as "dice" in Palpatine card

In ya face rulebook!

Wow.

Im blaming my phone and I'm sticking to that story.

I'm with you man. I have a few words that I've spelled wrong so many times that my phone defaults to the incorrect spelling as that is what it thinks I mean. Stupid autocorrect lol

My autocorrect says alot about me though. I type the letters C and H and Charzard instantly pops up as an option.

Fine, I'll quote the page you gave.

Page 10, rules reference.

"A ship is destroyed when it has a number of damage cards equal to its hull value or when it flees the battlefield. "

One sentence. One step.

Tel is dealt all the cards. Tel qualifies for "destroyed." You may then use the abilities in any order.

See, I told you - BRILLIANT!!

Fine, I'll quote the page you gave.

Page 10, rules reference.

"A ship is destroyed when it has a number of damage cards equal to its hull value or when it flees the battlefield. "

One sentence. One step.

Tel is dealt all the cards. Tel qualifies for "destroyed." You may then use the abilities in any order.

Aside from previous step (attacking) dealing those cards and triggering trevura instead of the quoted rule you wrote: all fine.

Plus we still have audience waiting for the thug answer. "When" and "Instead" are anxious.

I would like to know everyone's opinion on this thing that I think should or could work a certain way. Afterwards when you don't agree with me I'm going to argue semantics and tell you that you are wrong when you don't agree with me.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I started reading and all I saw was you arguing with everyone when they didn't share your opinion. You are just going to need to either wait for the new FAQ or more likely email the designers your question if you want an answer. The vast majority of people don't seem to agree with your interpretation though so you may want to brace yourself for an answer that doesn't confirm this working the way you want it to.

"Instead of being destroyed" is the same as "destroyed" you say? Conversely then would not "destroyed" be the same as "instead of being destroyed"?

In that case I am going to opt in all of my games from now on to not be destroyed and go with the other/same thing of instead of being destroyed.

I will win. Every. Single. Game.

BRILLIANT!!