Palpatine uses emperor to order a Jet trooper to attack Han. Han and the jet both have triggers "After the attack resolves". If "After the attack resolves" is part of the attack process, the attacker resolves his ability first and the jet trooper gains movement points he has to spend immediately (Since it's not the jet's activation) and can avoid Han's return fire. If "after the attack resolves" is not considered part of the attack process, the player with initiative resolves their ability first.

My assumption is that "after the attack resolves" is not considered part of the attack process and therefore initiative determines the order.

2 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

My assumption is that "after the attack resolves" is not considered part of the attack process and therefore initiative determines the order.

After looking over the Attack rules and Conflict rules, I would agree. Both abilities seem to trigger after damage and keywords are resolved, so Han might kill the Jet Trooper before the trooper gets to report back to base.

Previous rulings were that "after an attack resolves" uses the attack conflict timing of mission, attacker, then defender.

And I want to say "after resolving an attack" uses the regular timing, but I'm not 100% certain.

Whether after attack resolve s is within the attack and whether it is different trigger than "after resolving attack" are two of the things I'm trying to get resolved with the IA team.

(I disagree with Todd's ruling of Emperor + Fly-By.)

Regardless, after attack resolves abilities are triggered by the attack, so should use attack timing.

Just now, a1bert said:

(I disagree with Todd's ruling of Emperor + Fly-By.)

There was a specific ruling on this already? I must have missed a thread/post.

May have been Lure of the Dark Side + Fly-By, but the same thing.

Edit: here.

That's interesting, and you make a good point in that thread about resolving the Cleave keyword as a parallel.

This rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than I expected

2 hours ago, a1bert said:

Whether after attack resolve s is within the attack and whether it is different trigger than "after resolving attack" are two of the things I'm trying to get resolved with the IA team.

(I disagree with Todd's ruling of Emperor + Fly-By.)

Regardless, after attack resolves abilities are triggered by the attack, so should use attack timing.

Where are you getting the "after resolving attack" wording from? Given Todds ruling should we go by our original guess that initiative determines order?

3 hours ago, Uninvited Guest said:

Previous rulings were that "after an attack resolves" uses the attack conflict timing of mission, attacker, then defender.

And I want to say "after resolving an attack" uses the regular timing, but I'm not 100% certain.

can you link to those rulings? Todd's ruling seems to go against that

Regardless of what the current ruling ends up being, I would like to see it be related to attacker/defender rules rather than initiative.

Combat interactions differing based on who has initiative seems like something that should be avoided if possible. I'd much rather the same interaction work the same way every time instead of having the result be based on something completely unrelated to what is going on.

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

can you link to those rulings? Todd's ruling seems to go against that

I mean it's basically all been stated on the forums here or BGG. I hope you don't mind, but I don't want to go digging through all those pages anymore than you do . Todd's ruling shouldn't matter though, as it was about who controls a figure for a controlling ability as opposed to the order abilities occur.

Let's just go with what @DTDanix said. They should be the same thing; they should be attack timing because, as @a1bert said, they are triggered by the attack. Oh, and...

1 hour ago, brettpkelly said:

Where are you getting the "after resolving attack" wording from?

Just to answer that real quick, Jets (rJet Troopers)and Fly by (eJet Trooper) use the two different terms. Jet's is "after resolving an attack" and Fly by says "after the attack resolves."

5 minutes ago, Uninvited Guest said:

Todd's ruling shouldn't matter though, as it was about who controls a figure for a controlling ability as opposed to the order abilities occur.

Todd's ruling is applicable because it establishes that the movement points are not part of the attack process, which would change the conflict resolution to initiative instead of attacker/defender.

9 minutes ago, Uninvited Guest said:

Let's just go with what @DTDanix said.

I'm fine if the current ruling gets changed, or if someone convinces me that another interpretation is correct, but when it comes to tournament play we can't just make up our own rules on this forum.

7 minutes ago, Uninvited Guest said:

Todd's ruling shouldn't matter though, as it was about who controls a figure for a controlling ability as opposed to the order abilities occur.

The Fly-By ruling depended on what is "during an attack" (figure being controlled), and timing conflict resolution depends whether you're "during an attack", so it does matter a lot.

31 minutes ago, DTDanix said:

Combat interactions differing based on who has initiative seems like something that should be avoided if possible. I'd much rather the same interaction work the same way every time

Exactly.

19 minutes ago, Uninvited Guest said:

Let's just go with what @DTDanix said.

As much as I would like to be the source of all rules, unfortunately we can't just do this. We'll need to get an official ruling.

26 minutes ago, DTDanix said:

As much as I would like to be the source of all rules,

I'd play that game

2 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

Todd's ruling is applicable because it establishes that the movement points are not part of the attack process, which would change the conflict resolution to initiative instead of attacker/defender.

2 hours ago, a1bert said:

The Fly-By ruling depended on what is "during an attack" (figure being controlled), and timing conflict resolution depends whether you're "during an attack", so it does matter a lot.

Fair enough, I was thinking of it as “spending movement points are not part of the attack process even if it occurs during the attack,” but that’s really not what he said.

2 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

I'm fine if the current ruling gets changed, or if someone convinces me that another interpretation is correct, but when it comes to tournament play we can't just make up our own rules on this forum.

2 hours ago, DTDanix said:

As much as I would like to be the source of all rules, unfortunately we can't just do this. We'll need to get an official ruling.

Haha, sorry, I didn’t have time to proof read (I realized I had to get home in case we had trick-or-treaters).

What I should have said was that was more in line with my feelings on it.

12 hours ago, brettpkelly said:

This rabbit hole goes a lot deeper than I expected

Sorry for dragging you down said hole. ?