"After Defending" vs "After you perform an attack"

[daveddo 160]

So which of the phrases "After defending" or "After you perform an attack" would trigger first? Are they essentially the same trigger and therefore it goes to initiative?

[FireSpy 327]

It's assumed that they're essentially the same trigger, but the FAQ on Valen Rudor put this into doubt (making it appear that "After defending" is always first). See my thread on the topic for more details.

[ozmodon 535]

The catch all phrase is resolve in any order that you see fit ... So in the spirit of it,  FireSpy would be correct.

Edited March 23, 2016 by ozmodon

[VanorDM 11,599]

I emailed FFG with that very question but have yet to hear back from them.

[VanorDM 11,599]

Got an answer.
 
In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:
After performing an Attack vs After Defending. Have a question about these two timing windows. When exactly is 'after defending' vs 'after you perform an attack' Because now in X-Wing we have ships that do something after defending and some that do something after performing an attack. But sometimes they may conflict with each other or impact each other.

 
The timing window of “after defending” and “after you perform an attack” are the same timing window. When multiple effects occur at the same time, the order is resolved with the player with initiative resolving his or her effect first, then the other player.
 
Thanks for playing,
 

Frank Brooks
Associate Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
fbrooks@fantasyflightgames.com

[dotswarlock 2,424]

Thanks for sharing, even though this is a situation that makes me go "yay!" and "oh crap!" at the same time.

 

Yay: it plays back into how I thought it would work and will make other rules more consistent.

Oh crap: the Valen thing in the FAQ does not seem to follow that ruling, which means that until they update the FAQ, this is going to keep coming up over and over again.

[FireSpy 327]

Got an answer.

 

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

After performing an Attack vs After Defending. Have a question about these two timing windows. When exactly is 'after defending' vs 'after you perform an attack' Because now in X-Wing we have ships that do something after defending and some that do something after performing an attack. But sometimes they may conflict with each other or impact each other.

 

The timing window of “after defending” and “after you perform an attack” are the same timing window. When multiple effects occur at the same time, the order is resolved with the player with initiative resolving his or her effect first, then the other player.

 

Thanks for playing,

 

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

fbrooks@fantasyflightgames.com

 

Thanks  I edited this into the OP of my thread.

[emmjay 319]

Thanks for sharing, even though this is a situation that makes me go "yay!" and "oh crap!" at the same time.

 

Yay: it plays back into how I thought it would work and will make other rules more consistent.

Oh crap: the Valen thing in the FAQ does not seem to follow that ruling, which means that until they update the FAQ, this is going to keep coming up over and over again.

Well, then, are the going to change how Valen works with this new ruling?

[FireSpy 327]

 

Thanks for sharing, even though this is a situation that makes me go "yay!" and "oh crap!" at the same time.

 

Yay: it plays back into how I thought it would work and will make other rules more consistent.

Oh crap: the Valen thing in the FAQ does not seem to follow that ruling, which means that until they update the FAQ, this is going to keep coming up over and over again.

Well, then, are the going to change how Valen works with this new ruling?

 

 

I don't know if they will, I just checked my e-mail and found this:

 

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:

My question is regarding the timing of abilities that occur "After defending" and "After you perform an attack". Initially I assumed that these resolved at the same time, and so initiative would determine which abilities happen first. However, the recent FAQ update states that "If Valen Rudor defends against a ship equipped with Tactician, the range for Tactician is measured after Valen Rudor performs his free action." This implies that "After defending" abilities should be resolved before the attacker's "After you perform an attack" abilities, but I can't find anything (beside Rudor's FAQ) to support this.

 

The timing window of “after defending” and “after you perform an attack” are the same timing window. When multiple effects occur at the same time, the order is resolved with the player with initiative resolving his or her effect first, then the other player. The Valen Rudor example is an exception to this by giving an explicit resolution to this timing window.

 

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

fbrooks@fantasyflightgames.com

 

   

[skotothalamos 3,652]

Frank's new official nickname: "Valen Fanboy"

[Ubul 887]

Frank's new official nickname: "Valen Fanboy"

I prefer to call him "Gonk Hater" 

[dotswarlock 2,424]

Um...  ah...  huh... I'm going to have to print out the FAQ and every single clarification email for tournaments, won't I?

[Quarrel 631]

[deleted]

Edited March 23, 2016 by Quarrel

[Mozic 174]

Um...  ah...  huh... I'm going to have to print out the FAQ and every single clarification email for tournaments, won't I?

 

To be fair, that's what the judges are for.

Unless you are a judge, in which case - yes.

[digitalbusker 2,248]

I don't know if they will, I just checked my e-mail and found this:

The Valen Rudor example is an exception to this by giving an explicit resolution to this timing window.

Weapons that automatically make two attacks in a row create two pre-planned attacks in scripted sequence, not one attack that triggers another. "Valen vs. 2nd TLT shot" isn't a case of multiple simultaneous effects. The FAQ entry makes perfect sense to me.

"Valen vs. Luke/Gunner/BTL-A4" is a timing conflict, though, and I don't know the official ruling on it. If we extrapolate from the Vader+Gunner ruling, I expect FFG will also rule by fiat that Valen always goes first (instead of following the general rule that it depends on initiative). They seem to want an intuitive rule that another attack can't start until everyone is done responding to the last one.

I think they're talking about the Valen Rudor vs Tactician example that's given in Valen's clarification text on p10 of the new FAQ, not Valen vs TLT.

[joliversc 23]

Is there a single depository for these rules questions that get answered by FF developers? It seems such a source would be of great help.

[treybert 893]

Wow that's just all sorts of inconsistent. 

[Parravon 5,217]

Wow that's just all sorts of inconsistent. 

Actually I thought that was pretty much right on the money. Two identical timings, intitiative decides. I think it's the Valen ruling in the FAQ is what creates the headache.

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

Soooo, after defending and after you perform an attack are the same except Valen who is special, and only when he interacts with Tactician?

 

WTF, Frank.

[Firespray-32 5,424]

Woah, don't shoot the messenger. After attacking and after defending are the same window and operate as per initiative until the rules are changed to specify this window.

 

The guilty party here is Valen Rudor for being an oddball.

[Parravon 5,217]

Woah, don't shoot the messenger. After attacking and after defending are the same window and operate as per initiative until the rules are changed to specify this window.

 

The guilty party here is Valen Rudor for being an oddball.

Yeah, not entirely sure why he's the exception here. Tactician and Rudor share exactly the same timing window, so I'd love to know FFG's reasoning as to why he gets to bypass the initiative rules.

[StephenEsven 632]

He is not an exception. The faq is wrong. It happens. Will probably be fixed next time it releases

[Firespray-32 5,424]

He is not an exception. The faq is wrong. It happens. Will probably be fixed next time it releases

 

"The FAQ is wrong."

 

No, it isn't. It's rules text. It is by definition right. If they put that Commander Alozen is instantly destroyed on deployment into the FAQ, Commander Alozen is instantly destroyed on deployment.

 

They may change it later but until then that is how Valen Rudor works.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Blue Five

[thespaceinvader 17,568]

 

He is not an exception. The faq is wrong. It happens. Will probably be fixed next time it releases

 

"The FAQ is wrong."

 

No, it isn't. It's rules text. It is by definition right. If they put that Commander Alozen is instantly destroyed on deployment into the FAQ, Commander Alozen is instantly destroyed on deployment.

 

They may change it later but until then that is how Valen Rudor works.

 

It would be fair to say however that it is currently inconsistent with the core rules.

[StephenEsven 632]

 

He is not an exception. The faq is wrong. It happens. Will probably be fixed next time it releases

 

"The FAQ is wrong."

 

No, it isn't. It's rules text. It is by definition right. If they put that Commander Alozen is instantly destroyed on deployment into the FAQ, Commander Alozen is instantly destroyed on deployment.

 

They may change it later but until then that is how Valen Rudor works.

 

Errata are official rules changes. The rest is answers to questions, and can be no means override the rules, only clarify them. If there is a answer that is clearly contradicting the rules, then the rules stand.

 

From the official tournament regulations.

 

Conduct

All tournament participants are expected to act in a respectful and professional manner during a

tournament. If players have a dispute during a competition and cannot resolve it themselves, they

must call for a judge to resolve it and provide any rulings that are needed. All card interpretations

during a tournament are a marshal’s responsibility, and he or she may overrule the FAQ when a

mistake or error is discovered. 

 

FFG clearly acknowledges that the FAQ can contain errors, and a TO can overrule such errors. Valen Rudor is one such very clear error. We even got evidence via a mail from Frank that is.