Here's a more direct and generally applicable version of the question I just submitted with the FFG rules question form:

" Device detonation is covered on pages 22 and 23 of the current Rules Reference (v1.1.0) and does not appear on any type of card. For purposes of the Ability Queue does device detonation count as a game effect or player ability? "

If they come back with anything other than, "yeah, duh, that's a game effect." Without it being accompanied by a complete and non-contradictory definition of the terms 'game effect' and 'player ability' I will ignore it the same way I ignored the Paige/Deathfire ruling until they updated the Rules Reference to match.

15 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

100% agree that Payload cards fall under the etc and are a player ability. It feels like you missed the point on 'device' being in the list though. The point of my underline was to emphasize that the list of "card abilities" contains a bunch of cards and one thing that's not a card. The sentence in the "ruling" basically says, "here's a list of cards: card type, card type, card type, card type, not a card, card type, etc."

The reason that is significant is because of the omission of the word 'card' from that item of the list. The list does not say 'device cards' it just says 'device' so it is most likely an intentional reference to the types of markers illustrated on page 22-23 of RR1.1.0.

As this is only in the "Official Rulings Thread" and not the Rules Reference document I intend to ignore what appears to be an erroneously included contradiction. I will be treating device detonation as a game effect until FFG specifically addresses it otherwise.

TL,DR: As I read it: the ability to drop/launch a device is a player ability which comes from the Payload upgrade cards, but the detonation of said device is a game effect because the only source of text is in the Rules Reference. Unfortunately, due to some kind of oversight, that game effect was included in a list of card types which muddies the water on this discussion.

Yeah, my money is on, they made that with the old term in mind which @Singulativ pointed out Devices was the old term for what is now Payload. Hopefully, when they add it to the Rules Reference, they will update the wording to reflect the change... Even... though they posted that question on the forums a month after making that change. But it still feels like human oversight to me, and not intentional.

54 minutes ago, Lyianx said:

Yeah, my money is on, they made that with the old term in mind which @Singulativ pointed out Devices was the old term for what is now Payload. Hopefully, when they add it to the Rules Reference, they will update the wording to reflect the change... Even... though they posted that question on the forums a month after making that change. But it still feels like human oversight to me, and not intentional.

Much like many people keep calling the Talent slot EPT.

OK so I'm just going to jump in here, try not to bite my head off if I've oversimplified things. As far as I am aware the resolution for both of the effects of the seismic charge detonating (Dealing damage and then removal of the obstacle) is 1 single ability resolving. Yes there are multiple effects of the ability resolving but its still just 1 single ability, it is not 2 distinct separate abilities, they are linked together, the obstacle removal cannot happen without the damage being done first.

Now my understanding of the new rules queue is that as soon as an ability begins resolving, no matter how many other abilities trigger during the resolution of that ability and are added to the queue, the ability will fully resolve all of its effects before the next ability in the queue can begin resolving.

This feels really simple, though I guess its not so much a question of timing but whether people think that the 2 effects of the detonation of the seismic charge are actually somehow 2 separate and distinct abilities.

5 hours ago, Mace Windu said:

This feels really simple, though I guess its not so much a question of timing but whether people think that the 2 effects of the detonation of the seismic charge are actually somehow 2 separate and distinct abilities.

To sum up the debate that's been going here for a couple pages, we have three basic understandings of the interaction that each lean on a different part of the rules and conflict with each other:

1. (then=after, game effect first) In this opinion the timing for removal of the obstacle is the same as that of Sabine (then=after) but because the detonation effect is in the book and not on a card it still resolves before Sabine (game effect first) so there is no opportunity to tractor onto the selected obstacle. This opinion comes from two places: First is the Kanan+ID FAQ in the RR(v1.1.0) p.33 which implies both that 'then' is the same timing as 'after' and that you can insert another ability in the middle of a current ability because it says you can choose Kanan to remove stress before gaining stress from Inertial Dampers. Second is the 'What is an ability?' FAQ from p.31 which directly says, "An ability is text from a card a player controls" (that's a direct quote!) Which by exclusion means that things from text in the book and not on cards must be 'game effects'
2. (then≠after) In this opinion the entire detonation is a single effect that cannot be interrupted. If this is the case then the 'game effect' vs 'player ability' argument is moot because the Seismic Charge damage dealing cannot be separated from the obstacle removal. Best I can tell, this opinion gets its basis from the Pinpoint Array FAQ on p.33 where it clearly says the player ability of gain a Tractor token to perform a rotate action must fully complete before the game effect of becoming tractored and relocate the ship even though it is all in the same timing. So if completing a player ability can take precedence over intimidating a game effect then it doesn't matter what the source of the new effect is because you should always complete what is currently in progress.
3. (then=after, detonation is an ability) In this opinion the timing is the same as the first (then=after) so I won't repeat that part. Where this opinion differs is that when you read the list of so called 'card abilities' in the 'What is an ability?' FAQ from p.31 it has the curious inclusion of 'devices' in the parenthesis list of examples of card types.

Each of these opinions has different merits and detractors:

1. (then=after, game effect first) this is the strongest argument in my opinion, but only by weight of precedent as this game has been played with interrupting effects since some time in First Edition and it was recodified in Second Edition when they copied that Kanan+ID ruling from 1E. There are many other combos that use then=after to gain an advantage an among older players this is the expected ruling and Kanan+ID is used as a broad ruling for general interactions even though it is listed in the 'specific card FAQ' section. Recent new rulings and FAQs have been leaning away from this though, which seems to be a tide change toward further streamlining one of the most potentially complex aspects of the game.
2. (then≠after) this argument is gaining momentum by the weight of new rulings that increasingly favor checking the current game state during resolution in addition to during trigger so you can't 'hold' an ability while you like up the game state using other abilities. Similarly, the Pinpoint Array ruling indicates they want to discourage abilities triggering inside each other to manipulate the game state. From a legalistic standpoint the Pinpoint Array ruling is just as valid as Kanan+ID since both are in the same 'specific card FAQ' section. Unfortunately they have not yet retracted the Kanan+ID ruling and people are unlikely to accept a more restrictive interpretation until it is directly stated that they must do so.
3. (then=after, detonation is an ability) in my opinion this is logically the weakest because it leans so heavily on what is possibly an outdated term left over in a strip of reminder text and mechanically it's the most abusive of the ways to rule this interaction. It really irks me because it's an obvious oversight in technical writing where the rule immediately contradicts itself, but is still technically functional. Not only that, but because it is in the 'Abilities and Ability Queue' section of the FAQ it is generally applicable in a way that both the Pinpoint Array and Kanan+ID FAQs can be argued not to be. If they intended to include a single page from the rulebook in a list of things explicitly not in the rulebook they should have called it out instead of burying it!

That's my summary of the last 2-ish pages.

@nitrobenz

That actually isn't the argument here. The difference between the Kanan+ID ruling and this, is Kanan is triggering off of something distinct within ID's mechanics. After executing a maneuver. If Sabine triggered "after suffering damage from friendly bomb", then they would be the same situation. But that isn't what she triggers from.

The question here is; Is the removal of the obstacle treated as an effect of the detonation of the seismic charge that a ship suffers?

If yes, then Sabine has to wait till the obstacle is gone.
If no, then there is precedent for her to place a token before its removed.

On 1/21/2020 at 4:44 AM, Lyianx said:

...

The question here is; Is the removal of the obstacle treated as an effect of the detonation of the seismic charge that a ship suffers?

If yes, then Sabine has to wait till the obstacle is gone.
If no, then there is precedent for her to place a token before its removed.

Hmm... I'd be happy to add that to my recap as a bonus question, but I don't understand the rules basis so I can't give it the merits & detractors it deserves. I guess I thought it was clear that a ship does not 'suffer the effect' of 'remove that obstacle' and the issue was a more general question of 'does the full effect need to complete before resolving the next effect/ability?'... I had conflated 'then≠after' with 'does obstacle removal count as part of Sabine trigger?', as @Lyianx pointed out that's actually a completely different question!

For an addition to the recap, would it be reasonably accurate to summarize that position with this tag? (obstacle removal is part of the Sabine trigger)

35 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

For an addition to the recap, would it be reasonably accurate to summarize that position with this tag? (obstacle removal is part of the Sabine trigger)

Maybe more like, (obstacle removal is part of a single overall ability/effect, part of which caused the Sabine trigger)?

12 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

I guess I thought it was clear that a ship does not 'suffer the effect' of 'remove that obstacle'

That's where we differ. For me, at least thematically, it does.

Seismic blows up obstacle -> Obstacle debris flies all over the place -> debris of obstacle hit the ship and damage it -> as a result, obstacle is no longer in existence.

The bomb is the cause of the damage, but the obstacle removal (ie it blowing up) is the source of it.

In the same manner that the ship fired the laserbolt, and the laserbolt is what is actually damaging your ship. Its just in the bombs case, its the ship that droped the bomb, which caused the explosion, that caused the rock, to hit your ship.

They would have to completely reword how the bomb detonates.. maybe like...

"When this device detonates, choose 1 obstacle at range 0–1. That obstacle is removed. Before the obstacle is removed, each ship and remote at range 0–1 of the obstacle suffers 1 [hit] damage.

Even that adds confusion. Im not sure there is really a good way to word it that the removal of the obstacle is what is causing the ships/remotes to suffer the damage other than how they have it worded.