Admiral Sloane:
After another friendly ship at range 0-3 defends, if it is destroyed, the attacker gains 2 stress tokens.

While a friendly ship at range 0-3 performs an attack against a stressed ship, it may reroll 1 attack die.

Nien Numb (T-70 pilot)

After you gain a stress token, if there is an enemy ship in your at range 0-1, you may remove that stress token.


Scenario 1:

Nien shoots at Initiative 5 but is not the last ship to Engage at Ini 5 and deals fatal damage to a ship at Range 1 in his front arc. Nien receives 2 stress tokens from Sloane. The destroyed ship is not the Sloane carrier.

Q1: Does he get to remove the stress tokens before the destroyed ship is removed if he is not the last Initiative 5 ship to engage?

Scenario 2:

Nien shoots at Initiative 5 but is the last ship to Engage at Initiative 5 and deals fatal damage to a ship at Range 1 in his front arc. Nien receives 2 stress tijebs from Sloane. The destroyed ship is not the Sloane carrier.

Q2: Does he get to remove the stress tokens before the destroyed ship is removed if he is the last Initiative 5 ship to engage?

Either way, I think Nien Nunb discards the stress tokens.

If an effect triggers after a ship is destroyed, the effect resolves immediately before the ship is removed. (Destroying Ships, RR p. 9)

The ship still is on the board when Sloane triggers, and thus when Nien triggers.

On 12/11/2018 at 2:28 PM, theBitterFig said:

Either way, I think Nien Nunb discards the stress tokens.

If an effect triggers after a ship is destroyed, the effect resolves immediately before the ship is removed. (Destroying Ships, RR p. 9)

The ship still is on the board when Sloane triggers, and thus when Nien triggers.

Well the timing is still questionable.

The above example affects when Sloan is triggered and when the ship is removed.

However Nien's ability is at the back of the ability queue and game effects push infront of abilities.

12 minutes ago, Tyhar7 said:

Well the timing is still questionable.

The above example affects when Sloan is triggered and when the ship is removed.

However Nien's ability is at the back of the ability queue and game effects push infront of abilities.

If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first.

◊ For example, if a ship performs a red barrel roll and the ship has an ability that triggers after it performs a barrel roll, the ship gains a stress token before the other ability is resolved. Rr p3

So for the second example the removal of the ship should happen before Nien triggers.

ships destroyed - Sloan triggered - ship removed - Nien triggers.

In the first example the ship isn't removed until the end of the initiative so Nien does trigger.

Why should the timing change just because Nien is the last to engage at his initiative? Either things share a timing window or they don't. It seems to me that Sloane's timing window is necessarily distinct from removing a ship from the board, so Nien's ability would still resolve before the ship is removed.

1 hour ago, Tyhar7 said:

Well the timing is still questionable.

The above example affects when Sloan is triggered and when the ship is removed.

However Nien's ability is at the back of the ability queue and game effects push infront of abilities.

If there are game effects that share the same timing window as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first.

◊ For example, if a ship performs a red barrel roll and the ship has an ability that triggers after it performs a barrel roll, the ship gains a stress token before the other ability is resolved. Rr p3

So for the second example the removal of the ship should happen before Nien triggers.

ships destroyed - Sloan triggered - ship removed - Nien triggers.

In the first example the ship isn't removed until the end of the initiative so Nien does trigger.

You're misreading the rulebook. That section--game effects vs ship abilities--matters for something like red actions (which will complete and give a stress) rather than how two abilities/effects interact. Meanwhile, you skipped over an earlier part of the queue rule:

3. If resolving an effect from the ability queue triggers additional effects, they are added to the front of the ability queue using the above rules.

Sloane is an effect from an ability, as is Nien Nunb; Nien would be added to the front of the queue. We'd have the following sequence: Ship Destroyed - Sloane Effect (that is, stress) - Nien goes to the front of the queue - Ship Removed.

33 minutes ago, Maui. said:

Why should the timing change just because Nien is the last to engage at his initiative? Either things share a timing window or they don't. It seems to me that Sloane's timing window is necessarily distinct from removing a ship from the board, so Nien's ability would still resolve before the ship is removed.

Okay I break it down on how I'm reading the rules.

Admiral Sloane:
After another friendly ship at range 0-3 defends, if it is destroyed, the attacker gains 2 stress tokens.

The rules read.

If an effect triggers after a ship is destroyed, the effect resolves immediately before the ship is removed. (Destroying Ships, RR p. 9)

Sloans ability is one that is directly effected by the ships being destroyed so is resolved before the ship is removed.

Sloans ability triggers Nien's.

After you gain a stress token, if there is an enemy ship in your at range 0-1, you may remove that stress token.

Which goes at the back of the ability queue.

However the ability queue rules state that.

If there are game effects that share the same timing window  as a player’s ability, the game effect is resolved first. 

So the question is, is the removal of a ship a game effect. I would say yes and place the removal of the ship before Nien's ability activates.

9 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

You're misreading the rulebook. That section--game effects vs ship abilities--matters for something like red actions (which will complete and give a stress) rather than how two abilities/effects interact. Meanwhile, you skipped over an earlier part of the queue rule:

3. If resolving an effect from the ability queue triggers additional effects, they are added to the front of the ability queue using the above rules.

Sloane is an effect from an ability, as is Nien Nunb; Nien would be added to the front of the queue. We'd have the following sequence: Ship Destroyed - Sloane Effect (that is, stress) - Nien goes to the front of the queue - Ship Removed.

Okay was in the middle of writing a reply to the previous post.

Makes sense.

You're all misreading Sloanes timing. It's after defending not after destruction.

E: to elaborate when not phoneposting, Sloane's ability takes place in the Aftermath step of the attack that destroyed the ship, and NIen them immediately removes the stress, assuming any enemy ship is in his arc at range one.

Sloane's timing is 'after defending, if' not 'after a friendly ship is destroyed'.

4 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Sloane's timing is 'after defending, if' not 'after a friendly ship is destroyed'.

After another friendly ship at range 0-3 defends, if it is destroyed, the attacker gains 2 stress tokens.

"After another friendly ship defends" is different that "after you defend". Then, Sloane ability triggers after the attack is completed and only if the ship is destroyed (remeber that not triggers when damaged by an obstacle or bomb).

Oh for goodness sake FFG.

That's such a dumb and such an unforced error.

So the implication is that the Aftermath step is fundamentally broken and glitched?

A curse on the rules-snoots who won't let us just fix it ourselves.

14 minutes ago, theBitterFig said:

So the implication is that the Aftermath step is fundamentally broken and glitched?

A curse on the rules-snoots who won't let us just fix it ourselves.

The aftermath step RAW doesn't take account of abilities of other ships with the 'after defending' timing, only the ships directly involved in the combat.

And that's dumb and bad and broken.

40 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

The aftermath step RAW doesn't take account of abilities of other ships with the 'after defending' timing, only the ships directly involved in the combat.

And that's dumb and bad and broken.

And if we were a civilized society, we could just fix it.

Treat Aftermath step 6.a. handling all non-attack defending players abilities, rather than defending ships abilities, and extend outwards.

Because if they'd written "Resolve any of the defending player's abilities that trigger 'after defending,'" instead of "Resolve any of the defending player's abilities that trigger 'after you defend,'" we'd be set. Three letters which don't change the core idea of the step.

I mean, I think there's totally room for the interpretation, because the Aftermath specifically refers to the player and not the ship . But some folks will be hung up on specifically "after you defend" as the only wording, and invest a huge amount of power in the word you and ignore entirely the fact that the rule said "defending player " first.

But I don't so much blame FFG as the community. A large portion of the community (not necessarily you) will make an active choice on their own to keep a less than fully functional game, rather than exercise judgment.

I just don't believe the community can absolve itself of responsibility in potential rules glitches like this. It'd be trivial to treat "after you defend" as non-binding example text, and let the key phrase be "defending player's abilities," and we don't have any problems at all in the wording of the Aftermath Step. For the Aftermath step to be broken as currently worded, we have to make a choice to break it.

If I were playing in the game, I'd argue for that precise interpretation.

But I can't control what a TO would rule, and I can't change the rulebook.

😐

Having noticed it's broken, FFG has to make a choice to fix it.

Lets consolidate all the info in one spot.

First both cards:

Now The RR section on Destroying Ships:

Destroying Ships

A ship is DESTROYED after it has a number of damage cards that equals or exceeds its hull value. A destroyed ship is placed on its ship card.

• After a ship is destroyed in a phase other than the Engagement Phase , it is removed from the game .
• If a ship is destroyed during the Engagement Phase, it is removed after all ships that have the same initiative as the currently engaged ship have engaged, which is called simultaneous fire .
• If an effect triggers after a ship is destroyed, the effect resolves immediately before the ship is removed.
• A destroyed ship's abilities remain active until that ship is removed unless the ability specifies a different timing for the effect to end, such as "until the end of the Engagement Phase." Such effects remain active until the end of the specified time.

It looks to me that since the destroyed ship is removed at the end of the current initiative step, and effects that take place when a ship is destroyed take place immediately before the ship is removed, then Nien would gain the stress from Sloane's ability at the end of that initiative step immediately before the destroyed ship is removed, would clear that stress immediately if at range one with an enemy ship in arc, and then the destroyed ship would be removed.

27 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

Lets consolidate all the info in one spot.

First both cards:

Now The RR section on Destroying Ships:

Destroying Ships

A ship is DESTROYED after it has a number of damage cards that equals or exceeds its hull value. A destroyed ship is placed on its ship card.

• After a ship is destroyed in a phase other than the Engagement Phase , it is removed from the game .
• If a ship is destroyed during the Engagement Phase, it is removed after all ships that have the same initiative as the currently engaged ship have engaged, which is called simultaneous fire .
• If an effect triggers after a ship is destroyed, the effect resolves immediately before the ship is removed.
• A destroyed ship's abilities remain active until that ship is removed unless the ability specifies a different timing for the effect to end, such as "until the end of the Engagement Phase." Such effects remain active until the end of the specified time.

It looks to me that since the destroyed ship is removed at the end of the current initiative step, and effects that take place when a ship is destroyed take place immediately before the ship is removed, then Nien would gain the stress from Sloane's ability at the end of that initiative step immediately before the destroyed ship is removed, would clear that stress immediately if at range one with an enemy ship in arc, and then the destroyed ship would be removed.

You're misreading the timing.

Sloane's timing is not 'after a ship is destroyed' it's 'after an attack' with the destruction of the ship defining which attacks trigger it.

It's clear when it's supposed to trigger (after the attack) and when (if the rules were written correctly) it should happen (aftermath step, defender's non-attack substep).

But the rules don't allow for that step to be used by abilities that don't belong to the defending ship.

1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:

But the rules don't allow for that step to be used by abilities that don't belong to the defending ship.

Golden Rules

If a rule in this guide contradicts the Rulebook, the rule in this guide takes precedence.

If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability takes precedence.

If a card ability uses the word "cannot," that effect is absolute and cannot be overridden by other effects.

During an attack or while otherwise resolving an effect involving dice, each die cannot be rerolled more than once.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

You're misreading the timing.

Sloane's timing is not 'after a ship is destroyed' it's 'after an attack' with the destruction of the ship defining which attacks trigger it.

It's clear when it's supposed to trigger (after the attack) and when (if the rules were written correctly) it should happen (aftermath step, defender's non-attack substep).

But the rules don't allow for that step to be used by abilities that don't belong to the defending ship.

The more I read the Aftermath step, I really think you've jumped the gun on that one, and the rules don't disallow it.

The rule specifically says "the defending player's abilities" not "defending ship's abilities." To rule out stuff like Sloane or Valen Rudor, you need to take a detour through a super-narrow reading of the word "you," which completely negates the first clause of each sentence of the ABCD steps, as well as the initial description of the Aftermath step "Abilities that trigger after a n attack are resolved in the following order." The "after an attack" language in the initial rule and "player's abilities" language in each subsequent step are enough, in my eyes, to allow abilities from the player on the whole, not just the single ship.

The Aftermath step is not in itself broken, unless people here choose to break it themselves.

To use the one word "you" to delete the entire first clause, particularly when the "Use of 'You'" rules entry refers only to ship and upgrade cards, not the rules themselves, seems so entirely unreasonable to me.

Fair.

10 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

To use the one word "you" to delete the entire first clause, particularly when the "Use of 'You'" rules entry refers only to ship and upgrade cards, not the rules themselves, seems so entirely unreasonable to me.    

That may be true if the words in the sentence will be not quoted: "after you defend" and "after you attack" in the rule refers to the card abilities, so the quoted text must be matched by the cards that you can activate in this step. As long as the quoted text refers to the text of a card ability, then I cannot ignore the "Use of You" rule.

I always read the rules from a game in "strict mode on" so I do not tend to ignore any implication from a rule.

If FFG states that "After a friendly ship defends" is equal to "After you defend with a friendly ship" then Sloane triggers in Aftermath. But this is not true, by now.

Until then "After a friendly ship defends" is an out of combat ability.

10 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

The rule specifically says "the defending player's abilities" not "defending ship's abilities."

More specific: "player's abilities that triggers". Do not ignore parts of the rule. "That triggers" is a limit to which abilities activate here.

"Player's abilities" refers to the abilities of the cards belonging to a player. It's a short term to say "ship, upgrade, conditions and damage abilities" or "all abilities from player cards". Without cards, a player has no abilities at all (in game terms 😜 ).

7 hours ago, Arachneo said:

Until then "After a friendly ship defends" is an out of combat ability.

It really isn't.

Here's the thing: I will not absolve you of responsibility.

The rule says player's abilities, and not ship's, and the overall Aftermath description is "abilities which trigger after an attack." Clearly, Sloane is one of those. There is more than enough here to place Sloane and Valen Rudor where they intuitively belong in the Aftermath step.

But if you really want to make that choice, cause the rules of X-Wing to function worse, that's your choice, and it'll be your fault. You don't get to blame someone else. You don't get to smash something and pretend innocence when it doesn't work. You want to ignore "player's abilities," ignore the entire text of the initial description of Aftermath, for whatever you've got struck in your craw? Then have the courage and honesty to take responsibility. The rule isn't broken unless you break it.

7 hours ago, Arachneo said:

Until then "After a friendly ship defends" is an out of combat ability.

😜

Even assuming this, it is still an ability that takes place after the relevant ship defends, not after it's removed or destroyed.

this all looks fairly simple. (except for the fact i'm not satisfied with the lack of a clarification that tokens are always gained one at a time, but that's an assumption i'm just agreeing with everyone else on.)

" After another friendly ship at range 0-3 defends , if it is destroyed, the attacker gains 2 stress tokens.
While a friendly ship at range 0-3 performs an attack against a stressed ship, it may reroll 1 attack die."

" After you gain a stress token , if there is an enemy ship in your (front arc) at range 0-1, you may remove that stress token."

after a ship defends and is determined to be destroyed, nien numb would gain two stress tokens if he was the attacker. if nien numb has an enemy ship at range 0-1, he may remove the stress he receives one at a time, even if the only ship he has at range 0-1 in his (front arc) is the ship he just attacked, since destroyed ships are not removed until all ships at the current initiative value has engaged during the engagement phase.

it doesn't matter whether nien is the last ship to engage at initiative five or not. the ship is still not removed until he's done engaging and all abilities in the queue have been resolved.

i don't understand why there would be any problem interpreting this what so ever. i don't care about the aftermath in this scenario, since it's not necessary. the description of the aftermath is only there for effects that trigger bonus attacks. if you want to discuss how this could affect the aftermath, i'd simply go with not caring about the use of "you". defending player resolves effects that don't grant a bonus attack, attacking player resolves effects that don't grant a bonus attack, defending player resolves effects that grant a bonus attack, attacking player resolves effects that grant a bonus attack. if timings collide, resolve in player order - and if timings collide and the same player controls the effects, that player chooses in which order to resolve the effects.

works perfectly. 'nuf said.

The ship is not removed until nien is done his engagement....

I don't know where this argument is coming from it's all very clear cut.