12 hours ago, DarthBlade said:

Muddy at best. To be fair for thematics...it's a picture of Finn I believe when he crashes the tie fighter and never actually died. He just narrowly escaped. So with this logic GG wouldn't steal. But the silly rules leave the window open.

Thematically seen GG knocks the feller on his arse grabbing the saber like candy from a baby and Finn recuperating just seconds after. the picture is just before GG smacks him in the kisser.

However the words before and instead are used. before happens before instead. (grammatically seen)

Timeline --------->

Before Defeat

But instead

8 hours ago, Buhallin said:

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.

That isn't what the RRG says. The RRG says it cannot resolve, not because it didn't trigger but because it cannot replace being defeated again.

Second Chance is an ability that actually directly interacts with the game state condition that triggered it. GG is not.

8 hours ago, WonderWAAAGH said:

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

In game terms? It has to be. You don't know that a character would be defeated until they have the tokens on them.

Does "would be" mean it slots in before "is"? Uhhh, I guess that could be the case. But now we are in a really convoluted place again.

The double second chance example doesn't help us, as both are replacement effects and either one stops all other effects on defeat from triggering.

The wording on replacement effects is clear. If second chance resolves, he was never defeated and no other effects trigger from the defeat ... if it resolves. Now if GG steals the second chance, stopping it from resolving, it actually works except second chance is an ability upgrade and yellow only.

7 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

That isn't what the RRG says. The RRG says it cannot resolve, not because it didn't trigger but because it cannot replace being defeated again.

...

Does "would be" mean it slots in before "is"? Uhhh, I guess that could be the case. But now we are in a really convoluted place again.

That's actually exactly what the RRG says:

If a replacement effect resolves, the original effect is considered to have not resolved, and no abilities can be triggered off of it.

The "would be" vs. "is" question has been clarified by Lukas on the FB group. There's no difference between these, the two effects trigger at the same time.

I think a lot of people are getting very hung up on the example text for Second Chance and ignoring the rules which actually govern these interactions.

when defeated all upgrades are discarded. So when does grievous grab that saber. from the set aside pile?

but all crazy on a stick (haha stupid dutchy) they both trigger. as will be seen in the next RRG (I haven't seen it but with this much conversation on it it must be clarified)

4 minutes ago, john_nld said:

when defeated all upgrades are discarded. So when does grievous grab that saber. from the set aside pile?

Grievous is a "before" trigger, so his ability resolves before the upgrades are discarded.

7 hours ago, rowdyoctopus said:

That isn't what the RRG says. The RRG says it cannot resolve, not because it didn't trigger but because it cannot replace being defeated again.

Second Chance is an ability that actually directly interacts with the game state condition that triggered it. GG is not.

In game terms? It has to be. You don't know that a character would be defeated until they have the tokens on them.

Does "would be" mean it slots in before "is"? Uhhh, I guess that could be the case. But now we are in a really convoluted place again.

I think one of the major hangups that people are having just with Second Chance is the presumption of a 'marked for death' element that doesn't exist in the game rules. Characters that are dealt lethal damage are immediately defeated, and characters that are defeated are immediately removed from play; the indiscriminate use of the word 'immediately' puts us back at square one. The rules therefore seem to bear out that a character is only considered to have been defeated if it is actually defeated and, as a consequence, removed from play; there is no indication that defeated exists as a lingering status effect within the queue. The example for replacement effects that specifically mentions Second Chance also corroborates this fact.

Now let's consider the relationship between before triggers and defeated triggers. How far back do we go in order to resolve an effect? Maybe it depends on whether or not the dealing of damage is considered an effect that passes through the queue. If so, it might not be unreasonable to infer that once you meet the triggering condition (here, inflicting lethal damage) that you immediately stop and resolve the replacement effect before damage tokens are placed . This is at once both worrisome and beneficial, because it would mean that the cards with before triggers are constantly monitoring the game state to see if that condition is being met. A sort of 'pause and take a look around' step, if you will. "Finn was at 11 health and he's about to take 5 damage, will he die? No? Carry on." If that's the case, then we have a reasonable stopping point for replacement effects to take priority over other before abilities. One could then argue that there is, in fact, a practical diffference between "is defeated" and "would be defeated" as entirely separate triggering conditions.

I think people might be missing my point.

Second Chance and Grievous trigger at the same exact time. One doesn't wait to trigger while the other one resolves. It has already triggered and is waiting to resolve. Resolving Second Chance doesn't change the fact that Grievous already triggered.

So sure, nothing else can trigger off of the character death once you resolve Second Chance, but nothing else is trying to. By this point, GG already triggered and is awaiting resolution. That's the way I read things.

GG's triggering condition is a character being removed from play.

Second Chance's triggering condition is something that would cause a character to be removed from play if it fully resolves.

The two are, in theory, not the same.

48 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Second Chance and Grievous trigger at the same exact time. One doesn't wait to trigger while the other one resolves. It has already triggered and is waiting to resolve. Resolving Second Chance doesn't change the fact that Grievous already triggered.

So sure, nothing else can trigger off of the character death once you resolve Second Chance, but nothing else is trying to. By this point, GG already triggered and is awaiting resolution. That's the way I read things.

I can't find the post at the moment, but when Lukas clarified the double Second Chance this isn't how he described it. He explicitly said the second Second Chance didn't trigger.

As best I've been able to derive, "triggering" and "resolving" are not separate staging. Abilities resolve as an atomic operation, in whole, including the trigger event. So the "Nothing else is trying to" doesn't seem to be right. Instead, Grievous' ability has met its trigger condition, but it waiting to actually trigger.

I have to say the more I think about this situation the more it makes my head hurt. Reminds me of the epic debate regarding Advanced sensors for x-wing many centuries ago haha, particularly in the regard that the debate is centred around whether or not an ability can or can't resolve based on what might happen in the future.

I suspect that a relatively simple solution would be that where you have multiple triggered abilities with simultaneous triggering, one of the replacement effects is resolved first (then nullifying all other replacement effects potentially), thereby changing the game state allowing all other abilities to resolve or fail based on the new game state.

Or you know, Lukas could just make a RAI ruling and we will all move on a little wearier and a little more distrusting of the fundamental rules of the game.

18 minutes ago, Mace Windu said:

Or you know, Lukas could just make a RAI ruling and we will all move on a little wearier and a little more distrusting of the fundamental rules of the game.

This seems the most likely outcome...