Assuming that Captain Tarpals allows you to use the same ability twice, I think the answer to both of these is yes. In my group we've traditionally allowed Tarpals CE to let people use the same ability twice, ie Grenades 20 then Grenades 20 again.

1. No. Cradossk's CE replaces turn. Tarpals' CE replaces attacks with 2 abilities instead of just 1, but when you replace your whole turn you don't have any attacks to replace.

2. No. You aren't replacing attacks with Presumed Dead, so Tarpals CE doesn't trigger.




To clarify, Tarpals' CE says "Each follower can use 2 abilities that replace attacks instead of 1 on its turn." This would be open to two different interpretations:

* "When a follower uses an ability that specifies 'replaces attacks' on its turn, it can use 2 such abilities instead of 1."
* "When a follower replaces attacks with ability on its turn, it can use 2 such abilities instead of 1."

This difference didn't matter during WotC days, but with Cradossk, Presumed Dead, etc it does make a difference. Tarpals uses the second interpretation: you have to actually replace your attacks to gain Tarpals' benefit.

By the way, that's a great question - great eye for detail. That's a legitimate ambiguity that I don't recall anyone bringing up before. But all of those abilities (Cradossk CE, Presumed Dead, etc) have been designed and balanced based on the interpretation that they do not stack with Tarpals.

You didn't ask this question, but as Darth Reignir said, you can in fact use the same ability twice when using Tarpals' CE. It doesn't have to be 2 different abilities.

Yes. Both are legitimate interpretations - there's real ambiguity there. That's not a knock on whoever worded Tarpals' card - the wording didn't matter until you could use replaces-attacks abilities without actually replacing attacks. That didn't happen until the Vsets introduced it. (I forget which character did that first.) I don't think I've ever heard anyone raise interpretation #1 as a possibility before. This question had me reading it more closely and concluding that #1 is another valid way to read Tarpals' CE. But the all of the design has been based on and balanced under interpretation #2.

(Same thing for Overload, by the way, since it exactly copies Tarpals' wording.)

I'm going to throw a big KUDOS to FlyingArrow for his Johnny-on-the-spot answering of rules questions time and time again. I cannot count how many he's corrected that I've tried to interpret. So we should all be thankful there are people out there like that who want to help us loose cannons to reign in!