So with the change to when "After you are destroyed" triggers, does this mean that if Tel is killed by an Initiative 4 ship before Tel has a chance to engage, he would be removed and placed in reserves without getting an opportunity to engage that round.

Yup.

Actually, I believe that simultaneous fire would allow him to engage before being destroyed.

6 minutes ago, feltipern1 said:

Actually, I believe that simultaneous fire would allow him to engage before being destroyed.

Nope. Simultaneous fire takes place between destruction and removal. This used to work fine with Tel...

Never realized what a mess that card was before.

I think there are three possibilities:

1) Tel is destroyed at initiative four before he shoots. He shoots, then flips a charge, and is removed. However, I don't think this supported by the rules. Aftermath step states: "Resolve any of the defending player’s abilities that trigger after a ship defends or is destroyed, excluding abilities that grant a bonus attack." Tel would trigger here.

2) Tel is destroyed at initiative four before he shoots. He flips a charge in the aftermath step and assigns himself five damage cards. However, the rules reference states: If a ship is destroyed at an initiative step during the Engagement Phase, the ship is not removed until all ships of the attacker’s initiative have engaged. He is substituting being placed in reserves for removal. So Tel would be sitting on the board with one health and could be killed again before being taken off the board for good if the opponent has other fours left to shoot.

3) Tel is destroyed at initiative four and flips his charge in the aftermath step, he is assigned the damage and placed in reserve immediately.

Since the rules ref states that ships are not removed until the end of their initiative step, I'm inclined to go with scenario two.

Per the attack section of the Rules Reference (starts page 4 but pertinent section is on page 5) Effects that trigger at the timing of when a ship is destroyed (if the ship is destroyed during an attack) happen during the Aftermath Step of performing an Attack now. Tel would be placed into reserve then.

"6. Aftermath: Abilities that trigger after an attack are resolved in the
following order.

a. Resolve any of the defending player’s abilities that trigger after a ship
defends or is destroyed , excluding abilities that grant a bonus attack

b. Resolve any of the attacking player’s abilities that trigger after a ship
performs an attack or is destroyed , excluding abilities that grant a
bonus attack.
c. Resolve any of the defending player’s abilities that trigger after a ship
defends or is destroyed that grant a bonus attack.
d. Resolve any of the attacking player’s abilities that trigger after a ship
performs an attack or is destroyed that grant a bonus attack."

21 minutes ago, missileaway said:

Never realized what a mess that card was before.

I think there are three possibilities:

1) Tel is destroyed at initiative four before he shoots. He shoots, then flips a charge, and is removed. However, I don't think this supported by the rules. Aftermath step states: "Resolve any of the defending player’s abilities that trigger after a ship defends or is destroyed, excluding abilities that grant a bonus attack." Tel would trigger here.

2) Tel is destroyed at initiative four before he shoots. He flips a charge in the aftermath step and assigns himself five damage cards. However, the rules reference states: If a ship is destroyed at an initiative step during the Engagement Phase, the ship is not removed until all ships of the attacker’s initiative have engaged. He is substituting being placed in reserves for removal. So Tel would be sitting on the board with one health and could be killed again before being taken off the board for good if the opponent has other fours left to shoot.

3) Tel is destroyed at initiative four and flips his charge in the aftermath step, he is assigned the damage and placed in reserve immediately.

Since the rules ref states that ships are not removed until the end of their initiative step, I'm inclined to go with scenario two.

Tel's ability doesn't replace being removed, they replace being destroyed in the first place.

Which would support @missileaway 's third scenario above. I didn't realize that there'd been a change to the aftermath step.

4 minutes ago, feltipern1 said:

Which would support @missileaway 's third scenario above. I didn't realize that there'd been a change to the aftermath step.

Yep. It was a buff to the Piñata droid Tac Relay. The effect on Tel is the blow back from it...

Third scenario it is then!

54 minutes ago, feltipern1 said:

Which would support @missileaway 's third scenario above. I didn't realize that there'd been a change to the aftermath step.

And to add some clarification, because his ability technically stops the destruction, he also doesn't trigger deadman's switch.

Edit: makes great point and then types the wrong upgrade. (I said Feedback Array initially).

1 minute ago, SwampyCr said:

And to add some clarification, because his ability technically stops the destruction, he also doesn't trigger feedback array.

If triggering feedback array is what destroys him then it still functions as normal, he's still dealt the damage which results in him being able to trigger his ability. If Tel is destroyed before he had a chance to engage then Tel cannot trigger feedback array during that engagement phase.

I think they might mean Dead Man's Switch.

So here it is. I recall when FFG made the change to destruction rules, there was some musing "I wonder if anything got broken by this?" but no one thought of anything off the top of their heads, and now here it is. Tel was broken.

Still, I think the rule change made sense. The fact that there used to be such a long potential gap between a ship being destroyed and the trigger of effects that happen "when destroyed" was mostly bad, and I think it's overall better for there to be essentially no gap. Having "on destruction" triggers happen within the normal sequence of the Aftermath step seems wicked clean to me.

It's a shame Tel got murked, and I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see a FAQ to allow Tel to simultaneous fire, despite the rules.

36 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I think they might mean Dead Man's Switch.

Could be.

8 hours ago, feltipern1 said:

Which would support @missileaway 's third scenario above. I didn't realize that there'd been a change to the aftermath step.

I dont think it does. Tel's ability is a replacement effect the moment the destruction would happen (ie, the second he receive the damage card reaching his hull limit).

Tel then is never destroyed so he doesn't wait for aftermath that is looking for "after defending or after being destroyed". I see it as, hes dealt that 6th damage card, spend the charge, remove damage cards, suffer 5, undo the destruction, get placed in reserve. No retaliation attack. Hes immediately put in reserves.

Quote

When a replacement effect resolves, the replaced effect is treated as having not occurred

So no, deadmans switch doesn't trigger. Tel is never destroyed, so there is never a timing of 'after you're destroyed' for deadman to trigger off of.

I think it's notable to mention that there's another option to the third version. Tel Trevura's ability is a "may" ability, so you're not required to put it into the ability queue. Yes, this would mean Tel would die rather than "respawn," and your extra payment for his ability would go to waste. However, there could be situations where Tel has a beautiful Simultaneous Fire shot lined up (Like a range 1 bullseye Autoblaster shot against a 2-health-remaining Boba Fett, outside of his front arc, with focus and lock). Sometimes, you would rather just take one for the team, accept the damage, get your return shot, then die, rather than run away and lose an otherwise perfect attack situation... all in the HOPES you can get something like it again.

Mumble ... Mumble ... it's this type of explenations I'm getting stuck and go round in circles in my head. Also seems these type of tiny nuances keep poping up whenever I plan to play some of the more obscure pilots.

Wondering if I got it right now.

If you are at I4 in the attack sequence and you have initative than this is not an issue at all since Tel will fire before you opponents I4's, right?

If you don't have initiative you have the choice to use Tel's ability ... when both players have an I4 that happens to 'destroy' Tel in the I4 sequence ... or not (like emeraldbeacon explained), with potential consequence as result.

nevermind.

On 2/14/2020 at 3:07 PM, theBitterFig said:

It's a shame Tel got murked, and I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed to see a FAQ to allow Tel to simultaneous fire, despite the rules.

Since errata is apparently back on the table... I would prefer they errata Tel to replace 'If you would be destroyed...' with 'If you would be removed...'

'Cuz we said so' FAQ rulings that oppose the written text always irk me.

7 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Since errata is apparently back on the table... I would prefer they errata Tel to replace 'If you would be destroyed...' with 'If you would be removed...'

'Cuz we said so' FAQ rulings that oppose the written text always irk me.

Wouldn't be bad to have actual errata, probably the best outcome.

As second-best, I'd rather see a ruling more like Han Gunner/Roark which makes zero sense, than something which tries to build a complex scaffolding that muddies up everything else to hold up what probably should have been a carved out exception.

I'll add that I don't think the "destroyed triggers to aftermath" is like that. I think that's a rules adjustment which really makes a lot of sense.

3 hours ago, theBitterFig said:

...

I'll add that I don't think the "destroyed triggers to aftermath" is like that. I think that's a rules adjustment which really makes a lot of sense.

Agree with all of what you said, bitterfig. The current Rules for destruction triggers makes more sense given the increasing number of triggers that can occupy that game space. If Tel Trevura can't be errata and must be FAQ'd I would also prefer no explanation.

11 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Since errata is apparently back on the table... I would prefer they errata Tel to replace 'If you would be destroyed...' with 'If you would be removed...'

'Cuz we said so' FAQ rulings that oppose the written text always irk me.

Um.. i wouldnt. Id say keep it as is. There are already too many builds that prefer to be 2nd player over 1st. Id say if you want to make sure that doesnt happen with Tel, then you need to make sure you are first player. Simple as that. Being 2nd player cannot (or should not) *always* be the best option, and right now, it rarely ever *isnt* the best option.

Not to mention that there's a decent chance you just don't have a good enough shot anyway; you're flying a JUmpmaster after all.

On 2/15/2020 at 12:14 AM, Lyianx said:

I dont think it does. Tel's ability is a replacement effect the moment the destruction would happen (ie, the second he receive the damage card reaching his hull limit).

Tel then is never destroyed so he doesn't wait for aftermath that is looking for "after defending or after being destroyed". I see it as, hes dealt that 6th damage card, spend the charge, remove damage cards, suffer 5, undo the destruction, get placed in reserve. No retaliation attack. Hes immediately put in reserves.

That's kind of what that 3rd scenario is saying - Tel doesn't get destroyed, because "if you would be destroyed"...He uses the charge, gets the effect, and then goes to reserves. There's still an aftermath to that particular exchange, except Tel's not present for it.