54 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

The problem is that the card clarifications section of the RRG mentions what happens when two Second Chances are on the same character when he is defeated. Both still trigger, but only one can replace anything so the card ends up doing nothing and staying put.

Again, both still trigger. This would imply other before effects triggering on character death would also trigger. In which case GG would steal an upgrade regardless.

Lukas was pretty clear in his answer that only one copy triggers. I have no idea what the timing is which leads to only one triggering, but that's what he said.

Also worth noting that the clarification section you're referring to says nothing about triggering - it says that only one resolves.

2 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Second Chance is a replacement effect, so Finn is never actually defeated. GG wouldn't get anything.

I started crying when I saw this, Waagh finally got one right..... and then I read the rest of this thread and starting crying again. You guys are over thinking again.

I'll just say this, read the rules on replacement affects. They are very clear.

50 minutes ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

Here's the thread, maybe we can spare ourselves some redundant conversation:

I think it comes down to this: you resolve before abilities before continuing to resolve the effect, as per the rules. In this case the before ability - healing 5 - takes place before the effect - being defeated - finishes resolving.

The rules are also very clear on this, no excess lethal damage is received.

Go on.

6 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Well, with this logic Grievous has been dead for what, 45 years? So how could he steal anything at all??

Aren't they ALL dead? A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away?

Just now, DarthBlade said:

Aren't they ALL dead? A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away?

Been playing the walking dead for years, even the new movies are very much history at this point. Jedi zombies, force ghosts, cyborgs and clones this isn't a rebellion against tyranny this is survival!

6 minutes ago, Mep said:

I started crying when I saw this, Waagh finally got one right..... and then I read the rest of this thread and starting crying again. You guys are over thinking again.

I'll just say this, read the rules on replacement affects. They are very clear.

But it doesn't matter if the replacement effect hasn't resolved yet.

Lukas hinted that more was coming, but for the moment has said only that Grievous and Second Chance trigger at the same time. That means that the battlefield controller will choose which resolves first. If Grievous gets to resolve first, then he'll steal the weapon, then Second Chance will resolve and un-defeat the character.

I expect that will change - you don't drop cryptic hints about handling it in the next FAQ unless you're planning to change it. But for now, that's how it works.

The rules of replacement effects, as currently written, are very clear. Now if Lukas wants to go changing the rules, well that is what he gets paid for.

16 minutes ago, Buhallin said:

Well, with this logic Grievous has been dead for what, 45 years? So how could he steal anything at all??

Episode 3 took place a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away. We can safely assume Grievous has been dead for thousands+ years.

Of course.....He is fictitious and can't steal any thing....

1 minute ago, Mep said:

The rules of replacement effects, as currently written, are very clear. Now if Lukas wants to go changing the rules, well that is what he gets paid for.

They're so clear we have debates after reading them. Good point.

I think what we clearly need at this point are before-before abilities. A sort of hyper preemption, if you will.

5 minutes ago, Mep said:

The rules of replacement effects, as currently written, are very clear. Now if Lukas wants to go changing the rules, well that is what he gets paid for.

Yes, they are. So are the rules that say effects do nothing until they resolve, and the rules that cover timing.

When two or more triggered abilities meet their trigger condition at the same time, the player who is resolving those abilities chooses the order they resolve in (in the case of before abilities) or enter the queue in (in the case of after abilities). If more than on player has abilities that are simultaneous, the player who controls the battlefield chooses the order they resolve in.

So Grievous can resolve first, then Second Chance - but by then the weapon is gone. If it's the other way around, and Second Chance resolves first, then the defeat doesn't exist by the time Grievous would resolve, and nothing happens.

Now, I expect that what we'll get is an update that pushes replacements effects to resolve first, so everything will work the way your gut wants it to. But until then, it is what it is.

19 minutes ago, Mep said:

The rules of replacement effects, as currently written, are very clear. Now if Lukas wants to go changing the rules, well that is what he gets paid for.

Unfortunately the replacement effect rules have no bearing on two things that trigger at the same time.

REPLACEMENT EFFECTS
A replacement effect uses the word “instead” somewhere in
its text. If a replacement effect resolves, the original effect
is considered to have not resolved, and no abilities can
be triggered off of it. Abilities can be triggered off of the
replacement effect.

Yeah, the problem is, if the replacement effect does resolve, then the original effect never did resolve and GG can't trigger.

Though I do see the timing issue if GG controlled the battlefield and resolved before the replacement effect, except if the replacement effect resolves then no GG.....

So yes, for the rules to hold true, the replacement effect has to resolve first or that rule has to be rewritten to take into account simultaneous effects.

As currently written, GG effect cannot take place if the replacement effect nullifies the defeat and no abilities can be triggered off of it.

27 minutes ago, Mep said:

The rules of replacement effects, as currently written, are very clear. Now if Lukas wants to go changing the rules, well that is what he gets paid for.

Lukas changes rules in Destiny and George Lucas changed a lot rules in Star Wars movies... see what I'm getting at? Lukas and Lucas are the same person! This is how Lucas is changing Star Wars after the sale to Disney, through Destiny.

Or Lukas is Snoke. Sorry, I should have spoilered that.

Thought I would wade in with my 2 cents, though I'm not sure it will change to many hardened opinions.

Both abilities are "Before" triggers, that is agreed, right? (note; this is sarcasm I hope everyone knows that they are both before triggers)

The rules tell us that when 2 or more abilities trigger simultaneously they are added to the queue by the controller of the battlefield.

So there are 2 possible outcomes:

Grievous player controls the battlefield, Grievous trigger then SC trigger: resolve Grievous and steal lightsaber because at this point Finn is still about to die then SC resolves saving Finn from impending doom.

Finn player controls the battlefield, SC trigger then Grievous trigger: SC resolves saving Finn from impending doom, Grievous ability fails because Finn is no longer dying, as per previous ruling regarding effects resolving after a replacement effect.

This to me seems clear enough But nothing appears to clear enough these days.

@Mace Windu That's probably correct and the replacement rules aren't written in a matter compatible with simultaneous effects. For now the rules conflict and create a paradox. How can Grievous get a gun off Finn's corpse if we go back in time and make Finn not die at all and hence no corpse and exactly when did Grievous become Finn's grandfather?

And I'm sorry, but Lukas just doesn't have the goiter to be George Lucas.

Grievous could have knocked Finn on his butt and then jacked the gun, leaving Finn for dead. But then after a long dramatic pause and maybe a cut to another scene and then back, Finn mysteriously comes to and gets back on his feet.

24 minutes ago, Mep said:

@Mace Windu That's probably correct and the replacement rules aren't written in a matter compatible with simultaneous effects.

The entire concept of replacement effects create a paradox - how can Second Chance trigger AT ALL if it replaces the defeat ability? It would stop itself from triggering, and even if it did trigger there would be nothing to replace because it had already replaced it!

Unless, of course, the defeat is still valid when Second Chance resolves, and the "it never happened" only applies to any effect resolution that comes after.

I'm the first one to pile in when there's a gap in the rules, but in this case there really isn't. Anything that triggers on a soon-to-be-replaced effect and resolves before the replacement takes effect is perfectly valid.

1 hour ago, Mep said:

@Mace Windu That's probably correct and the replacement rules aren't written in a matter compatible with simultaneous effects. For now the rules conflict and create a paradox. How can Grievous get a gun off Finn's corpse if we go back in time and make Finn not die at all and hence no corpse and exactly when did Grievous become Finn's grandfather?

And I'm sorry, but Lukas just doesn't have the goiter to be George Lucas.

Before abilities never enter the queue. They interrupt the flow of the game and resolve immediately.

Both abilities have the same trigger. Even if SC is first, GG already triggered. Why can't it resolve?

Just now, rowdyoctopus said:

Both abilities have the same trigger. Even if SC is first, GG already triggered. Why can't it resolve?

Lukas' answer on the double-Second Chance (Triple Chance? Quadruple Chance?) situation was that only one would trigger. When the other one went to trigger the trigger condition was gone, so it wouldn't trigger.

I think the flow goes like this:
- Trigger conditions are met
- Abilities get in line to resolve (queue, or per simultaneous rules)
- Abilities resolve their full text, including trigger conditions.

I think a lot of games treat this as checking the trigger conditions again on resolution, which is close enough. I think it's a little different in the fine details for Destiny, but it's honestly reading tea leaves because they haven't bothered to make the rules that explicit.

I don't know. Is triggering "is defeated" really the same as "would be defeated"?

What Waaagh said.

And wouldn't you read the card in its entirety first before deciding if the trigger conditions are met first?

Second chance is even used as the example for replacement effects.

"Because this prevents the character from being defeated, the character is never considered to have been defeated."

This needs a response.

It does. The rules seem to imply an order of operations, but there's nothing concrete. We can only guess at this point.