2 hours ago, Maui. said:

The abilities do resolve at the start of the engagement phase. HP/Roark put into effect "engage at i7 instead of your initiative." Torkil puts into effect "engage at i0 instead of your initiative." Both replacement effects are now active targeting the same ship, but because they both replace the same effect only one can be resolved. HP/Roark's replacement effect resolves first (at initiative 7) which prevents Torkil's replacement effect from resolving.

/sigh The effects are competing with each other for which one is in effect when the game reaches the point of the Engagement Phase where the ships actually start engaging, which takes place after the Timing of both pilots and Heightened Perception. Since all 3 enter the ability queue at the same time and are resolved in player order at the start of the Engagement Phase, Second Player using HP/Roark or Torkil cancels out First Player using HP/Roark or Torkil.

You're interpretation requires abilities to only partially resolve before moving onto the next one in the ability queue. That isn't how it works since the rules themselves do not support it.

First Player HP/Roark/Torkil at the start of the Engagement Phase "This is the Initiative that ship "x" is engaging at."

Second Player HP/Roark/Torkil at the start of the Engagement Phase "This is the Initiative that ship "x" is engaging at."

Engagement Phase moves onto the actual engagements at I7/6/5/4/3/2/1/0 with the effect put in place by the Second Player dictating when ship "x" engages.

Torkil and Roark aren't replacement effects.

On 12/13/2020 at 5:32 AM, Lyianx said:

RR pg 2

Some abilities are substitutive in nature—they replace how an effect would normally resolve. These abilities use the words “would” and “ instead .”

You can't just highlight one word to try and make a point and pretend another doesn't exist.

"These abiltiies use the words "would" and "instead""

AND. Not or.

A replacement effect is worded like Jyn, "If you would [x], you may [y] instead"

That is not how Torkil and Roark are worded, they just happen to use the word 'instead'. They're just normal game effects.

They enter the queue like any other ability.

On 12/12/2020 at 10:50 PM, joeshmoe554 said:

So this came up again recently in a few groups I follow and it was interpreted as both abilities applying. Essentially, the ship would engage at both I7 and I0, but after engaging at I7 it cannot engage a second time and thus does not end up engaging at I0. This would mean that HP and Roark would always override Torkil regardless of player order. It's an interesting interpretation that holds some merit since neither is replacing the initiative or (as written) replacing the other's engagement initiative.

that's just straight up incorrect.

both torkil and roark have abilities that resolve at the beginning of the engagement phase. they are not replacement effects, but they are abilities that cause replacement effects during the engagement phase. the phrasing in the card text is a bit vague, but clear enough. "normal initiative" and "standard initiative" should mean something along the lines of "the initiative that ship would otherwise engage at".

since there can be only one replacement effect for the original effect, we should do what the ability queue has told us to do. which ever ability resolved last will be the one to take precedence.

6 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

AND. Not or.

A replacement effect is worded like Jyn, "If you would [x], you may [y] instead"

That is not how Torkil and Roark are worded, they just happen to use the word 'instead'. They're just normal game effects.

There's plenty of known and acknowledged replacement effects that do not use the word 'would'

Just for starters: IGd pilot , Deuterium power cells , Debris gambit , and the list the list goes on.

The example from the rules passage quoted by @meffo is particularly relevant since it does not use 'would' and both abilities could hypothetically stack if that one line was not there to prohibit multiple replacements.

"• For example, a ship is about to gain a focus token and has both the ability "Before you would gain a focus token, gain an evade token instead" and the ability "Before you would gain a focus token, gain a calculate token instead." Only one of those abilities could be resolved. "

6 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

Torkil and Roark aren't replacement effects.

You can't just highlight one word to try and make a point and pretend another doesn't exist.

"These abiltiies use the words "would" and "instead""

AND. Not or.

A replacement effect is worded like Jyn, "If you would [x], you may [y] instead"

That is not how Torkil and Roark are worded, they just happen to use the word 'instead'. They're just normal game effects.

They enter the queue like any other ability.

I'm not certain that this means they must have both "would" and "instead". Only that the words "would" and "instead" are the indicators of replacements effect. For both to be necessary for a replacement effect, it would likely be word as "These abilities use both the words 'would' and 'instead'." or "These abilities must use the words 'would' and 'instead'."

The abilities are not written in such a way that the second effect should "overwrite" the first. They only become mutually exclusive once the first replacement effect is actually resolved. Either both effects resolve in the ability queue and the first player's effect takes precedence (because the second effect can't replace a standard effect that has already been replaced), or as replacement effects they resolve at the appropriate timing during the engagement phase and the i7 effect takes precedence.

4 minutes ago, Maui. said:

The abilities are not written in such a way that the second effect should "overwrite" the first. They only become mutually exclusive once the first replacement effect is actually resolved. Either both effects resolve in the ability queue and the first player's effect takes precedence (because the second effect can't replace a standard effect that has already been replaced), or as replacement effects they resolve at the appropriate timing during the engagement phase and the i7 effect takes precedence.

i don't quite understand that line of reasoning. first, one ability replaces the timing of engagement for the chosen ship, then another ability replaces the timing of engagement for the chosen ship.

the effects are definitely mutually exclusive all along, since each ship can only engage once during each engagement phase.

if both abilities are added to the queue and resolved from it, there is nothing saying the first players ability should take precedence, since the effect itself (engaging at a specified initiative value) hasn't taken place yet. replacing replacement effects is fine, you just cannot replace an effect that ´has already been replaced, since that effect has not occurred.

i agree the wording is far from perfect. "instead of its standard initiative value this phase." and "instead of its normal initiative value this round" are not nice and clear, but i will maintain that they could both refer to each other, meaning "normal initiative value" and "standard initiative value" just means something along the lines of "the initiative that ship would otherwise use".

other than that, it makes sense roark should win, since i7 comes first. that's not how i interpret it, though.

9 hours ago, meffo said:

replacing replacement effects is fine, you just cannot replace an effect that ´has already been replaced, since that effect has not occurred.

This is an important distinction to remember. You CAN replace a replacement effect, like a TIE Bomber using Skilled Bombardier and Nimble Bomber together, in order to drop a bomb with a 2-bank. What you CAN'T do is replace an effect that has already been replaced before... it would be like using Skilled Bombardier to replace your 1-straight drop with a 2-straight drop, THEN using Nimble Bomber to replace the SAME 1-straight drop with a 1-bank drop, getting two bombs for a single charge.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

This is an important distinction to remember. You CAN replace a replacement effect, like a TIE Bomber using Skilled Bombardier and Nimble Bomber together, in order to drop a bomb with a 2-bank. What you CAN'T do is replace an effect that has already been replaced before... it would be like using Skilled Bombardier to replace your 1-straight drop with a 2-straight drop, THEN using Nimble Bomber to replace the SAME 1-straight drop with a 1-bank drop, getting two bombs for a single charge.

agreed, but there is another important distinction in this interaction. the replacement effect and the effect being replaced are not very different at all. they accomplish the same thing, just at a different timing. you're still engaging. it's like throwing a trajectory simulator on top (yes, i know, the tie bomber doesn't have a sysyems slot). after skilled bombardier and nimble bomber, you're still dropping a bomb, so you can still elect to launch it instead.