Does Maarek's ability work with major explosion from the Force Awakens Damage deck?

As Maarek you pick major explosion so that the defender rolls the damage dice, gets a hit and then suffers another crit, does Maarek pick up 3 new crit cards and choose 1 of those?

Also if Maarek happens to hit a ship with major hull breach with a normal hit does the ability still get used? (I'm thinking yes but would like to check)

Thanks

Yes Maarek's ability works with the additional Crit from Major Explosion. The crit effect is caused by his attack.

And yes a ship with Major hull Breach will be dealt face up damage cards, so Maarek gets to use his ability when causing both regular and critical damage.

As long as the attack is dealing faceup damage cards, Maarek will still draw three and choose one.

The question is, does Major Explosion's extra faceup damage card count as being dealt by the attack or not?

If Maarek tractor beamed a ship onto a rock and it rolled a crit, would you count that as being dealt by the attack?

No x2

"When your attack deals a faceup Damage card to the defender"

The "You" being Maarek.

No x2

"When your attack deals a faceup Damage card to the defender"

The "You" being Maarek.

Except that Fett crew has the same wording, and has been ruled that 'you' get to use his ability even if the damage was dealt by overlapping an obstetrical (with tractor beam) etc 'as it is still a result of the attack'.

I would rule that Maarek gets to keep digging for crits.

Except that Fett crew has the same wording...

... except that it doesn't.

Any damage directly caused by an attack would qualify. So collateral damage from a crit you dealt would also be caused by you.

There are other game effects that can cause damage during an attack such as Dace Bonearm. Here the source is clearly Dace, not the attacker.

I would say the same goes for obstacles. The damage is caused by the overlap, not the attack,even though it is suffered during the attack.

Fett crew doesn't care about the source of the crit and would work on both, but Stele does care and would only work on cards dealt by his red dice and collateral damage from those Crits such as the one from Major Explosion.

... Here the source is clearly Dace, not the attacker...

The damage is caused by the overlap, not the attack,even though it is suffered during the attack.

You can just as easily say the source of the damage is the crit, not the attack.

I'm pretty sure you will not get to use his ability on a major explosion result. An FAQ could overturn that but I see no basis for why he would be able to. It's a pretty simple thing I think, did Maarek deal the face up card? If not then he can't touch it. Maarek rolls blam blam kablam. Defender rolls 2 evades and takes a kablam on the hull. Maarek successfully dealt a faceup card and picks major explosion. The defender rolls a hit and major explosion causes another faceup card to be dealt. Did maarek cause that card to be dealt? No, maarek's first critical did, not him so he can't touch it.

The big important difference between Maarek and boba crew is Maarek is active during the attack and only during the attack while boba crew is retroactive. An attack dealing a faceup card is very well defined. Defender Maarek tractor beaming onto a proximity mine does nothing in a similar way since Maarek's attack did not cause the faceup card.

So how is the "you" on Fett different than "you" on Maarek? How is Maarek not active when it is still handling the damage dealt from his attack?

So how is the "you" on Fett different than "you" on Maarek? How is Maarek not active when it is still handling the damage dealt from his attack?

The you isn't different, the conditional is entirely different.

After performing an attack, if the defender was dealt a faceup Damage card, you may discard this card to choose and discard 1 of the defender's Upgrade cards.

versus

When your attack deals a faceup Damage card to the defender, instead draw 3 Damage cards, choose 1 to deal and discard the others.

Boba checks after an attack to see if a face up damage card happened with no other constraints. Maarek checks during an attack to see 'did I just deal a faceup card?' if so instead pick 1/3. That's also why Maarek works on each card you deal faceup from multiple uncancelled kablam results. Any faceup cards caused directly by the uncancelled red dice let you pick from 3.

Right... I see that. Wasn't someone arguing that Maarek wouldn't get to pick from three off of a chained Major Explosion?

Right... I see that. Wasn't someone arguing that Maarek wouldn't get to pick from three off of a chained Major Explosion?

Yes I'm still saying that.

Major explosion causing a faceup damage card != the attack causing a faceup damage card.

Right... I see that. Wasn't someone arguing that Maarek wouldn't get to pick from three off of a chained Major Explosion?

Yes I'm still saying that.

Major explosion causing a faceup damage card != the attack causing a faceup damage card.

Any additional damage card caused by a [crit] result is still part of the same attack. And the attack sequence doesn't end until all damage is dealt.

However, I assume that you're also willing to defend that IG-88A doesn't recover a shield if its target is killed by a dealt major explosion, instead of 'his attack'... Or that Reinforced deflectors doesn't recover you a shield if the 3rd card is dealt by a major explosion....

... Or that Reinforced deflectors doesn't recover you a shield if the 3rd card is dealt by a major explosion....

It absolutely would not trigger in that case.

The card dealt by Major Explosion is not considered to be "dealing damage" anymore than Wampa or a Proton Bomb are. It is just another card that is dealt to the ship; it still only suffered 2 damage.

EDIT: Actually, a better example would be Plasma Torpedoes vs Reinforced Deflectors. If the Plasma only dealt 2 damage and removed a 3rd shield token, Reinforced Deflectors would not trigger as the ship only suffered 2 damage.

... Or that Reinforced deflectors doesn't recover you a shield if the 3rd card is dealt by a major explosion....

It absolutely would not trigger in that case.

The card dealt by Major Explosion is not considered to be "dealing damage" anymore than Wampa or a Proton Bomb are. It is just another card that is dealt to the ship; it still only suffered 2 damage.

EDIT: Actually, a better example would be Plasma Torpedoes vs Reinforced Deflectors. If the Plasma only dealt 2 damage and removed a 3rd shield token, Reinforced Deflectors would not trigger as the ship only suffered 2 damage.

Wrong. Read again carefully 'Major Explosion' and you'll realize why you are wrong.

Also, Plasma Torpedoes have nothing to do with the topic, since they remove tokens (a shield token). It has nothing to do with suffering damage or dealing cards.

Wrong. Read again carefully 'Major Explosion' and you'll realize why you are wrong.

"Roll 1 attack die. On a Hit result, suffer 1 critical damage."

Hmm. It sounds like this card, rather than the attack, is instructing the ship it is on to suffer damage.

Wrong. Read again carefully 'Major Explosion' and you'll realize why you are wrong.

"Roll 1 attack die. On a Hit result, suffer 1 critical damage."

Hmm. It sounds like this card, rather than the attack, is instructing the ship it is on to suffer damage.

Thus, what you are defending is that 'Major explosion' is a self-awareness, malicious entity, that deals damage on its own, independently of the attack that caused it.

So, according to your theory, if a ship equipped with reinforced deflectors suffers 1 [hit] + 1 [crit : Major Explosion] that causes to suffer the ship an additional [crit: Direct Hit]... The ship can't use reinforced deflectors... because 'the attack' only did 2 damage, but then, the evil Major explosion came alive (Watch it! it's on the loose!) and caused more damage on its rampage!

IT'S ALIIIIIIIVE

Just to make things clear...

...

So, according to your theory, if a ship equipped with reinforced deflectors suffers 1 [hit] + 1 [crit : Major Explosion] that causes to suffer the ship an additional [crit: Direct Hit]... The ship can't use reinforced deflectors... because 'the attack' only did 2 damage

...

Indeed.

Do you want to find an argument from the rules that contradicts this, or do you want to agree that the rules are not clear on this and that we could use a ruling, or do you want to carry on being juvenile?

The question is, does Major Explosion's extra faceup damage card count as being dealt by the attack or not?

If Maarek tractor beamed a ship onto a rock and it rolled a crit, would you count that as being dealt by the attack?

The movement for a ship thats been hit by a tractor beem, doesn't count as a maneuver, therefor is no check for asteroid hit dice.

Ah ah, don't put the burden of proof on me.

The rules are pretty clear in that the attack sequence generates damage cards, and that a given attack isn't fully resolved until all damage cards are dealt, and all critical effects are resolved.

It is you who have to prove that additional damage caused by critical effects is not considered part of the original attack, as you are suggesting.

Mostly because every ability and effect in the game suggests otherwise.

Edit: Like major explosions, my smartphone auto-corrector is alive

OK, my position is "the rules are ambiguous", and my proof is "this question has been asked, and no-one has come up with a concrete answer from the rules either way".

The rules are not ambiguous.

Read the pertinent sections of attack, damage and critical damage.

Critical damage is always immediately resolved. And if a critical effect generates more damage, nowhere it says it doesn't count as part of the original attack. In fact, 'the attack' doesn't end until the 'dealing damage' step is completed. A step that includes suffering damage from uncancelled dice results and resolving any critical card effects. Only after that step is completed, the attack truly ends, and you can begin to apply other effects that trigger 'after the attack' that this time -rightfully- would not be considered part of it, like Bobba Fett (crew) or Rexler Brath.

You are just throwing a self-made interpretation, and claiming 'prove me wrong'. But that's not how rules work.

And if a critical effect generates more damage, nowhere it says it doesn't count as part of the original attack.

Nowhere does it say it does count, either.

I'm not the one making an interpretation and demanding I be proved wrong. I'm saying that making a decision either way requires such behaviour.