But you can pay the cost. You can still suffer two damage, it just so happens that two damage is more than it will take to destroy your ship.

Here's another angle to consider. What if the ship Vader is on has suffered damage equal to its hull value minus two. Activating Vader's ability will still destroy the ship, so can he do it? Obviously yes. So what difference does it make if the ship has received one more damage card? It still suffers two damage, it is just destroyed after the first one.

Being destroyed after the first one means the ship is out of play, and cannot suffer the second damage. So no, you cannot suffer 2 damage if you only have one hull remaining.

But you never have one hull remaining. You are destroyed when the number of damage cards equals or exceeds the hull value of the ship, not when your hull value reaches zero. If your ship has five hull and you have four damage cards, you don't have one hull left, you have four damage cards. If you suffer two more damage, you are destroyed after the first one is assigned, but you still suffer the two damage. That's why it says "equals or exceeds". If it worked the way you said, damage could never exceed the number of hull because the ship would be destroyed at the point where the damage cards equaled the hull value. Even your example of drawing Direct hit wouldn't do it, because the ship would be destroyed after the first point and wouldn't be around to suffer the second.

I'm not so sure that the Simultaneous Attack scenario is actually a valid with Vader.

pg 16 ..."After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area."

Furthermore, Fel's wrath has the interesting wording of "When the number of damage cards assigned to you equals or exceeds your hull value, you are not destroyed until the end of the round." - showing that ships destroyed in simultaneous attack situations cannot wait until the end of the round.

This suggests that in the Simultaneous situation, where the ship carrying Vader has achieved enough damage to be destroyed, that the doomed ship is destroyed immediately after its attack. Vader is not an attack - and must happen after the attack. Immediately would seem to trump the wording on Vader. Luke and Gunner become a bit more iffy, but those cards also have the word immediately, suggesting that you would be able to use them before the destruction of the ship.

This interpretation of the simultaneous attack destruction timing would also prevent Tur Phennir from getting to barrel roll or boost after his "death attack"

Being destroyed after the first one means the ship is out of play, and cannot suffer the second damage. So no, you cannot suffer 2 damage if you only have one hull remaining.

If you suffer two more damage, you are destroyed after the first one is assigned, but you still suffer the two damage.

That's why it says "equals or exceeds". If it worked the way you said, damage could never exceed the number of hull because the ship would be destroyed at the point where the damage cards equaled the hull value. Even your example of drawing Direct hit wouldn't do it, because the ship would be destroyed after the first point and wouldn't be around to suffer the second.

I split that up a bit to make it easier to respond to. For the first, "suffering damage" means being dealt cards. If you want to argue that I can suffer two damage even though the ship was only dealt one card, I'll remember that the next time you hit me with two uncanceled hits

For the second, no - Direct Hit counts as two damage. That means you'd go from 4 damage to 6 in one moment, and never have 5. There's no point in time where you have the face up damage card, but the critical effect isn't active. And even then you're ignoring the most obvious case where a ship's damage total can exceed its hull value, which is a simultaneous fire situation. I'm somewhat baffled at the number of people claiming "This can only happen if..." when THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH gives you the primary - and common - scenario where it can happen.

Finally... Can we please stop harping on the whole "You never have X hull left, it's all about damage vs hull value" thing? Referring to the amount of hull left is a shorthand that we all - I hope - understand. If you're really going to make me start typing "have a ship with a 5 hull value which has taken 4 damage so far" instead of "has one hull left", fine - I'll do it. But please, let's stop pretending that using the shorthand means I don't understand the distinction, K?

I'm not so sure that the Simultaneous Attack scenario is actually a valid with Vader.

pg 16 ..."After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area."

Furthermore, Fel's wrath has the interesting wording of "When the number of damage cards assigned to you equals or exceeds your hull value, you are not destroyed until the end of the round." - showing that ships destroyed in simultaneous attack situations cannot wait until the end of their round.

This suggests that in the Simultaneous situation, where the ship carrying Vader has achieved enough damage to be destroyed, that the doomed ship is destroyed immediately after its attack. Vader is not an attack - and must happen after the attack. Immediately would seem to trump the wording on Vader. Luke and Gunner become a bit more iffy, but those cards also have the word immediately, suggesting that you would be able to use them before the destruction of the ship.

I think this is a solid read, but there's an undefined term that throws a wrench into the works. The rule doesn't actually say " After this ship attacks ...", it says " After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round ..." The "opportunity to attack" isn't really defined, and could easily allow any possible triggered effects to be resolved before the ship is actually destroyed.

You are reading Fel's Wrath a bit wrong, though - "round" is an entire game turn with all 4 phases (Planning/Activation/Combat/End). It doesn't mean a ship's opportunity to fire.

Again, I think your interpretation of the immediate destruction going off before Vader but tied with Gunner is correct, but lacking a definition for "opportunity to attack" it's not as solid as I'd like.

Being destroyed after the first one means the ship is out of play, and cannot suffer the second damage. So no, you cannot suffer 2 damage if you only have one hull remaining.

If you suffer two more damage, you are destroyed after the first one is assigned, but you still suffer the two damage.

That's why it says "equals or exceeds". If it worked the way you said, damage could never exceed the number of hull because the ship would be destroyed at the point where the damage cards equaled the hull value. Even your example of drawing Direct hit wouldn't do it, because the ship would be destroyed after the first point and wouldn't be around to suffer the second.

I split that up a bit to make it easier to respond to. For the first, "suffering damage" means being dealt cards. If you want to argue that I can suffer two damage even though the ship was only dealt one card, I'll remember that the next time you hit me with two uncanceled hits

For the second, no - Direct Hit counts as two damage. That means you'd go from 4 damage to 6 in one moment, and never have 5. There's no point in time where you have the face up damage card, but the critical effect isn't active. And even then you're ignoring the most obvious case where a ship's damage total can exceed its hull value, which is a simultaneous fire situation. I'm somewhat baffled at the number of people claiming "This can only happen if..." when THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH gives you the primary - and common - scenario where it can happen.

Finally... Can we please stop harping on the whole "You never have X hull left, it's all about damage vs hull value" thing? Referring to the amount of hull left is a shorthand that we all - I hope - understand. If you're really going to make me start typing "have a ship with a 5 hull value which has taken 4 damage so far" instead of "has one hull left", fine - I'll do it. But please, let's stop pretending that using the shorthand means I don't understand the distinction, K?

Right. Suffering damage is being dealt cards - and there is no prohibition to being dealt more cards than your ship has hull points. So Vader doing two points of damage to his own ship has nothing to do with how many hull points his ship has left, to use the shorthand. Vader does two points of damage, its just that his ship is destroyed after one.

If a heavy laser cannon hits a ship for three damage and the ship only has two hull left, do you say the HLC only did two points of damage? No, it did three, but the first two destroyed it. I see no reason to think it isn't the same situation with Vader.

Right. Suffering damage is being dealt cards - and there is no prohibition to being dealt more cards than your ship has hull points. So Vader doing two points of damage to his own ship has nothing to do with how many hull points his ship has left, to use the shorthand. Vader does two points of damage, its just that his ship is destroyed after one.

If a heavy laser cannon hits a ship for three damage and the ship only has two hull left, do you say the HLC only did two points of damage? No, it did three, but the first two destroyed it. I see no reason to think it isn't the same situation with Vader.

There is nothing preventing a ship from having damage cards exceeding its hull value. The question is timing.

Cards are dealt one at a time. The destruction check is universal - after each card is dealt, all rules and abilities have a chance to trigger, including the destruction check. If the ship is destroyed, it is immediately removed and is no longer in play to have damage cards dealt to it. The ship is removed after the first damage is dealt, the second damage cannot be dealt to it, and Vader did not suffer 2 damage so you don't get to inflict the critical damage.

Actually, I usually just say "OK, he's dead." But you're making a point about common nomenclature, not rules. It doesn't really matter what we call it, or how many we say it did. When a ship suffers damage, there's a process. That process is repeated for each damage dealt to the ship. If you don't carry that process out because the ship isn't in play, then it didn't suffer that damage.

So the heavy laser cannon didn't do three points of damage, even though there were three uncanceled hits on the dice. It only did two, because two destroyed the target. Is that what you're saying?

No, I think I got Fel's wrath correct, because it's in line with what you wrote - maybe my wording just seemed weird - I was hoping to use it to help define that "opportunity to attack" bit - Fel's Wrath sticks around for "longer than that".

Also - when it comes to opportunity to attack, If I had to guess, I think that wording has to do with the situations which mess with a ship's ability to attack (for example, Blinded pilot (And to a weirder but more questionable case of Damaged cockpit). I think we can understand attacking well enough that opportunity to attack = chance to attack. )

So the heavy laser cannon didn't do three points of damage, even though there were three uncanceled hits on the dice. It only did two, because two destroyed the target. Is that what you're saying?

This is veering off into a very strange bit of terminology that I think is irrelevant, but from a formal terminology standpoint the heavy laser, and indeed the attacker, don't "do" damage. There's no reference to that in the rules that I can find (although admittedly it's late). Uncanceled results cause the target to suffer damage. That's it. And based on that, yes, the ship would only suffer two damage.

I'm not sure what the point of this is, though - apart from an interesting case study on the differences between how we talk about things, and what the formal rules actually are, I don't see how this has any bearing on the actual rules question.

So the heavy laser cannon didn't do three points of damage, even though there were three uncanceled hits on the dice. It only did two, because two destroyed the target. Is that what you're saying?

This is veering off into a very strange bit of terminology that I think is irrelevant, but from a formal terminology standpoint the heavy laser, and indeed the attacker, don't "do" damage. There's no reference to that in the rules that I can find (although admittedly it's late). Uncanceled results cause the target to suffer damage. That's it. And based on that, yes, the ship would only suffer two damage.

I'm not sure what the point of this is, though - apart from an interesting case study on the differences between how we talk about things, and what the formal rules actually are, I don't see how this has any bearing on the actual rules question.

It seems to me that saying weapons don't "do damage" but dice do is a very strange bit of terminology.

In any case, I see no rules reference to limiting the damage suffered by an attack to the remaining hull value of the ship. If you really want to get technical, Step 7 of the Combat Phase says "... ships suffer damage based upon uncanceled hit or critical results. The hit ship suffers one damage for each uncanceled hit result, and then suffers one critical damage for each uncanceled critical result. For each damage or critical damage suffered, the ship must lose one shield token. If it has no shield tokens, it must receive one damage card instead."

The section on Destroyed Ships referenced in this section merely says ships are destroyed when the damage cards equal the hull value. It does not say the damage suffered is reduced to whatever level was needed to destroy the ship. The ship still "suffers" damage equal to the number of uncanceled damage on the dice.

So, in my HLC example, the ship still suffers three damage, because that is the number of uncanceled hits on the dice. The fact that it was destroyed after two hits does nothing to lessen the amount of damage suffered according to the rules.

Similarly, if the ship Darth Vader is on needs only one more damage card to destroy it, and you activate his ability then the ship can still suffer two damage even though it is destroyed after one.

You are making a connection between "damage suffered" and "cards dealt" that I don't see supported in the rules. The dice tell you how much damage is suffered, not the number of cards dealt to the ship before you take it off the play area.

There's still debate about that subject.

• Some people believe that Vader could not use the ability in first place. In other words, he cannot commit suicide.
• Other people think that Vader uses the ability, but the ship is destroyed first and his ability fizzles without taking effect.
• Finally, others think that Vader gets to use the ability and his ship is destroyed in the process.

I'm more on line with this last way of thinking for several reasons.

I agree

ANother debate where the honorable (I mean that) Buhallin is calling all who disagrees with him WRONG, while his interpretation is the right one (as most/always the case)

Will be interesting to see if (and how) FFG will FAQ this

My two cents: I don't think Vader can use his ability if it will result in the destruction of the Lambda shuttle. My reasoning has to do with how FFG handles this situation in some of their other games, including Runebound, Arkham Horror, and Elder Sign. Each of those games have cards that cause damage to your character in exchange for causing damage to an enemy, and each of those games make it clear (usually through a FAQ, but it can also be in the main rulebook) that you can't use that ability if such ability were to kill the character. In other words, the games don't allow for the "selfless" martyr. Although the rulebook for X-Wing doesn't discuss this, I doubt they had created this card when they originally wrote the rulebook. But hopefully a FAQ will clarify this.

Plus, this is Vader we are talking about. Prior to his redemption at the end of Return of the Jedi, I don't see him ever taking a bullet for the team.

ANother debate where the honorable (I mean that) Buhallin is calling all who disagrees with him WRONG, while his interpretation is the right one (as most/always the case)

I have (I think) clearly laid out the rules foundation for why I think it works the way it does. I've pointed out the flaws in thinking which lead me to the judgement that those others are wrong. For the most part, those flaws have gone unaddressed.

And OF COURSE I think my interpretation is right. Do you not think you're right? Is Gullwind arguing a point he's sure is wrong? This sort of thing is the height of inane internet trolling by people who can't keep up with the conversation.

If you think I'm wrong, then please - offer something up. The key points are clear - destruction check is ongoing and can occur between cards being dealt, a destroyed ship can't suffer any more damage, and unless Vader's ship suffers two damage he hasn't met the prerequisite. Gullwind has chosen to go after the third element there, and while I disagree with him, at least he's arguing the actual rules, which is more than you ever do.

The section on Destroyed Ships referenced in this section merely says ships are destroyed when the damage cards equal the hull value. It does not say the damage suffered is reduced to whatever level was needed to destroy the ship. The ship still "suffers" damage equal to the number of uncanceled damage on the dice.

So, in my HLC example, the ship still suffers three damage, because that is the number of uncanceled hits on the dice. The fact that it was destroyed after two hits does nothing to lessen the amount of damage suffered according to the rules.

Similarly, if the ship Darth Vader is on needs only one more damage card to destroy it, and you activate his ability then the ship can still suffer two damage even though it is destroyed after one.

You are making a connection between "damage suffered" and "cards dealt" that I don't see supported in the rules. The dice tell you how much damage is suffered, not the number of cards dealt to the ship before you take it off the play area.

No, the dice don't tell you how much damage is suffered. The dice tell you how much damage the ship SHOULD suffer - it begins a process of resolving damage, one at a time, and seeing what happens. Any number of abilities or rules can interrupt that process and change it.

There are already abilities that do this. If you hit with one crit, and my ship with Draw Their Fire takes that, did the original ship suffer any damage? The dice said yes, but abilities interrupted that before it could actually be completed. Or to put it in a more parallel scenario, say you hit with two hits and a crit, and Draw Their Fire takes the crit - how much damage does the original target suffer? Two, or three?

Again - there is a process to suffering damage. If you don't go through that process, for any reason, I don't see how you can say the damage was suffered. You're basically saying that damage sourced = damage suffered, and ignoring the potential for changes that can get in the way of that whole process. I think that's problematic.

So on a related note, do you really stop dealing out all of the damage cards upon the destruction of a ship? I was under the impression that if you were at 2 hull remaining and took 3 damage that all 3 cards would be dealt out still.

And as far as calling it or not calling it 2 hull, 3 hull etc, that's all really just semantics. Everybody can count and arrive at the correct result when hits get through. I wouldn't get hung up on how you describe it.

- When damage meets or exceeds the hull value, the ship is removed immediately

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Ships are not removed immediately. See FAQ and simultaneous fire rules for examples. So, sometimes they are removed immediately, and sometimes not. Ships can take more damage than their hull. So, my vote is that it will work with 1 hull left. Looking forward to the FAQ on this. I think this makes sense, but they've done things that don't make sense before.

EDIT: It is also very clear that ships can have more damage than hull.

- When damage meets or exceeds the hull value, the ship is removed immediately

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. Ships are not removed immediately. See FAQ and simultaneous fire rules for examples. So, sometimes they are removed immediately, and sometimes not. Ships can take more damage than their hull. So, my vote is that it will work with 1 hull left. Looking forward to the FAQ on this. I think this makes sense, but they've done things that don't make sense before.

Yes, that's assuming no other rule (such as simultaneous fire, or Fel's Wrath) changes the baseline rule, which is that they're removed immediately.

I actually think it's important in these rules discussions to ignore the many exceptions unless they're specifically relevant. Sure, I could have said "...is removed immediately, unless you're in a simultaneous fire situation where you haven't fired yet, or the target is Fel's Wrath" Similarly, when someone asks if a stressed ship can take actions, I don't normally respond with "A stressed ship can't take actions, unless it's Tycho, who can." Stick to the baseline when it's relevant, and discuss exceptions when they're relevant, but trying to include every possible exception and ability in a discussion like this is far too cumbersome and cluttered.

Fortunately, I have addressed pretty much every exception at some point or other, including simultaneous fire. Probably worth catching up on the full thread.

Fair point. And, I did read the full thread and am still not convinced 100% one way or the other. If there were no exceptions, there wouldn't really be a question in the first place. It's the facts that there are exceptions and things are said like "meets or exceeds" that make it a worthwhile question. So, I guess the question is, is this one of those exceptions. I don't think it is a game changer either way, but I'm curious to see how they rule.

That's correct, but under my interpretation, Vader gets to activate his ability both at '1 hull' and at '-16 hull', which makes suffering damage and activating abilities consistent in both ways.

At 1 hull because he receives 2 damage cards that places the at -1 hull.

And at -16 hull because he receives 2 damage cards that place him at -18 hull.

...

But what you cannot do (and you are trying) is to establish the 'normal rule' from the exception.

My interpretation is equally consistent: Vader in a Simultaneous Fire scenario would be able to suffer the damage to end up at -1 as easily as -18. You're simply cherrypicking your axis, and deciding mine is inconsistent because it doesn't match yours. Per my interpretation, if Vader can suffer the damage, he can use his ability. Yes, that means there will be some cases where he can use it, and some where he can't - just like, say, Jan, who can't use her ability if she's stressed. Sometimes, that's just the way it works.

I'm not trying to establish anything based on the exception. I'm just pointing out some oddity which happens if you do it the way you suggest, and it's actually kinda fun watching you make up rules to disprove it... But it's totally peripheral to the actual point.

There are no rules that limit the "check for destruction" process to a specific time. The rule is very straightforward: "When the number of damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value, the ship is immediately destroyed." That's it. It doesn't tell you when to check that, which makes it a general, universal rule.

Nobody in these discussions (and this is about the fifth time I've had this one) has provided ANY rules which specify a specific timing. It's been claimed - repeatedly - but has always relied on the idea that the "equal or greater than" rule implicitly supports it because otherwise the "greater than" could never happen. But that's not true, and I think I've shown that rather conclusively.

Now, do I think Proton Bomb and Saboteur both function perfectly normally under the "always on" interpretation, and get very screwy and/or rely on a lot of made-up handwaving under yours? Yeah, I do. But in no way are they central supportive facts to my point. Which is, again:

- Destruction check is an always on rule, which can trigger at any time

- Rules and abilities can trigger between damage cards being dealt

- The "suffer 2 damage to..." is a prerequisite, and if you don't suffer 2 damage, you don't get "...to..."

Uhm, no. Your interpretation is everything but consistent. You are not allowing a ship "at 1 hull" to suffer more than 1 damage while at the same time your allowing it to suffer infinite damage at -16 hull. If that's consistent, I'm afraid this debate will be pretty long.

Also, which inconsistencies, screwy, and handweaved rules? I didn't invent anything that is not on the rules. Again, damage can come from: 1. Hits on the combat phase and.. 2. Cards and Abilities effects.

Proton Bomb is a card effect (=Source) that deals a face-up card. Are you really going to argue that being dealt a face-up damage card doesn't cause damage to the ship and triggers a check for destruction?

Saboteur flips is another card effect (=Source) that flips a damage card up and forces you to resolve its text. When you flip a direct hit card, are you telling me that resolving it doesn't triggers a damage check for ship destruction? Are there other ways of resolving a 'direct hit' card?

There are no rules to limit check for destruction process to a specific time. And neither are rules that establish that ships cannot suffer more damage than its hull 'capacity'. More on the contrary, The General Rule clearly states that ships are destroyed when they receive damage cards equal or greater than its hull value. That's the general rule.

The "Simultaneous attack rule" is not the exception that allows a ship to stack more cards, as you erroneously try to imply. It is the exception that DELAYS the destruction of your ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with stacking cards. Cards are allowed to be over-stacked in a natural way by the own general rule, which clearly states the ship's chance of being dealt more damage cards than its hull value. And cards come by suffering damage from one given source. And nowhere is said 'Stop dealing cards when you reach target's hull value', or 'Stop the suffering damage process when the target ship cannot suffer more damage'.

If you find it illustrative, the combat example on page 15 begins with a TIE Fighter being dealt 1 normal damage and a critical hit. It suffers the normal hit, then the critical, and then... How curious! after all damage is suffered and all cards are dealt is when the rules checks if the TIE is destroyed or not. It doesn't pause after the first card to see/check if destruction happens, (and: No? ---> Then, continue). It checks only after all the suffering damage process is complete and all cards dealt. And while not strictly a rule, an Example is a clear precedent on how things should be done.

Now, you have a clear example of when the rules check for ship's destruction. After the suffering damage process has ended.

Proton Bomb is a card effect (=Source) that deals a face-up card. Are you really going to argue that being dealt a face-up damage card doesn't cause damage to the ship and triggers a check for destruction?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Proton Bomb does not cause damage. If it did, it would hit shields first. It is very clearly worded to NOT cause damage. So if you're relying on infliction of damage to trigger a destruction check, it won't do it.

Saboteur flips is another card effect (=Source) that flips a damage card up and forces you to resolve its text. When you flip a direct hit card, are you telling me that resolving it doesn't triggers a damage check for ship destruction? Are there other ways of resolving a 'direct hit' card?

I don't believe you can actually resolve a Direct Hit card - it isn't worded with instructions to do anything, it just changes how it is counted. It is possible that it triggers a recount, somehow, but there's nothing there to actually indicate that.

I really think you've got a fundamentally flawed understanding of how these rule systems work. Just like your idea that Kagi's "if able" checks against baseline rules and ignores other effects, you're trying to extend what these abilities do in ways that they're not written. You can't do that. You do only what the ability or rule tells you to do - nothing more. Does Direct Hit tell you to take any action? No? Then you don't take any action. Same thing applies to the Proton Bomb - if the destruction check is triggered as part of the damage flow, and Proton Bomb bypasses the damage flow, it won't trigger even though parts of the process (dealing damage cards) are the same.

The destruction check is one of two things: An always active rule, or a time-limited rule with a trigger. You're trying to make it a trigger, even though there's no text defining it as a trigger, and then you're making up other trigger conditions when you realize your hypothetical trigger doesn't cover everything it needs to.

The "Simultaneous attack rule" is not the exception that allows a ship to stack more cards, as you erroneously try to imply. It is the exception that DELAYS the destruction of your ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with stacking cards.

And nowhere is said 'Stop dealing cards when you reach target's hull value', or 'Stop the suffering damage process when the target ship cannot suffer more damage'.

ANother debate where the honorable (I mean that) Buhallin is calling all who disagrees with him WRONG, while his interpretation is the right one (as most/always the case)

I have (I think) clearly laid out the rules foundation for why I think it works the way it does. I've pointed out the flaws in thinking which lead me to the judgement that those others are wrong. For the most part, those flaws have gone unaddressed.

And OF COURSE I think my interpretation is right. Do you not think you're right? Is Gullwind arguing a point he's sure is wrong? This sort of thing is the height of inane internet trolling by people who can't keep up with the conversation.

If you think I'm wrong, then please - offer something up. The key points are clear - destruction check is ongoing and can occur between cards being dealt, a destroyed ship can't suffer any more damage, and unless Vader's ship suffers two damage he hasn't met the prerequisite. Gullwind has chosen to go after the third element there, and while I disagree with him, at least he's arguing the actual rules, which is more than you ever do.

LOL, well "LOL" if it wasn't sad and I know I will regret saying this but I will do it anyway:

You and I are very different in our attitude and level of selfconfidence especially when it comes to interpreting many of these issues. And though you have a point in that I "think" I am right when I argue "in favor" of the way I believe the DV crew card could be used you completely ignore that I am not stating or claiming to be sure, where as you often come across as being completely sure of your interpretation, and when FFG says otherwise they have it wrong.

I am getting a bit to old to keep this up, "fun" as it may be at times, so please continue without me. Feel free to call me a quitter/failure for not being able to carry it on, I hope other will speak their mind.

Out.....

The section on Destroyed Ships referenced in this section merely says ships are destroyed when the damage cards equal the hull value. It does not say the damage suffered is reduced to whatever level was needed to destroy the ship. The ship still "suffers" damage equal to the number of uncanceled damage on the dice.

So, in my HLC example, the ship still suffers three damage, because that is the number of uncanceled hits on the dice. The fact that it was destroyed after two hits does nothing to lessen the amount of damage suffered according to the rules.

Similarly, if the ship Darth Vader is on needs only one more damage card to destroy it, and you activate his ability then the ship can still suffer two damage even though it is destroyed after one.

You are making a connection between "damage suffered" and "cards dealt" that I don't see supported in the rules. The dice tell you how much damage is suffered, not the number of cards dealt to the ship before you take it off the play area.

No, the dice don't tell you how much damage is suffered. The dice tell you how much damage the ship SHOULD suffer - it begins a process of resolving damage, one at a time, and seeing what happens. Any number of abilities or rules can interrupt that process and change it.

There are already abilities that do this. If you hit with one crit, and my ship with Draw Their Fire takes that, did the original ship suffer any damage? The dice said yes, but abilities interrupted that before it could actually be completed. Or to put it in a more parallel scenario, say you hit with two hits and a crit, and Draw Their Fire takes the crit - how much damage does the original target suffer? Two, or three?

Again - there is a process to suffering damage. If you don't go through that process, for any reason, I don't see how you can say the damage was suffered. You're basically saying that damage sourced = damage suffered, and ignoring the potential for changes that can get in the way of that whole process. I think that's problematic.

What you are saying goes directly against what the rules say.

From the rulebook, page 13, Combat Procedure:

"7. Deal Damage

During this step, hit ships suffer damage based upon uncanceled and results .

The hit ship suffers one damage for each uncanceled result, and then suffers one critical damage for each uncanceled result. For each damage or critical damage suffered, the ship must lose one shield token. If it has no shield tokens, it must receive one Damage card instead (see “Suffering Damage” on page 16).

When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship equals or exceeds its hull value (yellow number), that ship is destroyed (see “Destroying Ships” on page 16)."

Here the rules define what suffering damage means. It means any uncanceled damage or critical damage results. It says that the hit ship MUST receive one damage card for each uncanceled damage result that does not remove a shield token. That means your assertion that the uncanceled damage results are merely what the ship "should" suffer is incorrect. It also means that you do not stop to check for destruction after each damage card is dealt. The ship receives one damage card for each uncanceled damage result. It doesn't say that you stop when the ship is destroyed.

As further evidence that this is the case, I quote page 16 from the Rulebook:

"Suffering Damage

Ships can suffer damage from different sources, such as being hit during combat or by an effect or card ability. Damage cards track how much damage each ship has suffered and are used to determine if the ship has been destroyed (see “Destroying Ships”).

When a ship suffers damage or critical damage, it suffers them one at a time following these steps. The ship must suffer all normal damage before suffering any critical damage.

1. Reduce Shields: If there are any shield tokens remaining on the ship’s card, remove one of the tokens and skip Step 2. If there are no shield tokens, proceed to Step 2 below.

2. Damage Hull: Deal one Damage card to the ship based on the type of damage it suffered. If the ship suffered damage (such as from a result), place the Damage card facedown next to the ship’s card. If the ship suffered critical damage (such as from a result), place the Damage card faceup next to the ship’s card (see “Critical Damage” below).

Note that checking for ship destruction is not included in the damage procedure.

Lastly, the note after "Destroying Ships" says:

"Note: Because ships are destroyed immediately after receiving Damage cards, ships with low pilot skill values may be destroyed before having an opportunity to attack."

Notice it says ships are destroyed immediately AFTER receiving Damage Cards. I admit this is not clear. It could well mean after receiving damage cards sufficient to destroy the ship, but given the other factors, it seems to me that the implication is clearly that ships are to receive all suffered damage before checking for destruction.

Coupled with the clear mandate that ships MUST receive damage cards for ALL suffered damage, it appears obvious that Darth Vader can indeed use his ability when the ship he is on needs only one more damage card to destroy it. The ship would still suffer two damage, even though one is sufficient to destroy the ship. Two points are suffered, and then the check for destruction takes place.

Your example with Draw Their Fire is irrelevant. The dice say one critical damage is suffered. One critical damage IS suffered, the DTF card simply changed who suffers it. In the second example three total damage are suffered, just as the dice require. I fail to see how this helps support your assertion in the slightest.

The rules clearly state that damage sourced DOES equal damage suffered. Nothing you have said changes that.

The quoting here is cumbersome, and getting old with these big cross-replies, so going to simplify it.

There is no mandate that ships must receive all damage cards. It's a standard rule, subject to interaction with any other appropriate rules and abilities. It's not immutable, as you're trying to make it. It outlines a process. That process is subject to interruption and modification just like anything else in the game.

"Notice it says ships are destroyed immediately AFTER receiving Damage Cards."

Yes, it does. If a ship has two damage and is hit for two more, would removing it after the next one violate that statement? Not at all. You're also trying to take a side element of the clear purpose of that rule, which is that ships are removed when destroyed even if they haven't had a chance to fire that round.

"Note that checking for ship destruction is not included in the damage procedure."

Which is exactly my point. It's not specifically timed ANYWHERE. This leaves it as a universal rule which will activate whenever the condition (damage equals or exceeds the hull value) is met. And that can be between one damage deal and the next.

[Edit]

Ah, one more thing: There's a pretty serious flaw in your entire process as presented. Specifically that you start with Step 7 of combat, and say that "Here the rules define what suffering damage means." That's not the case. Damage can come from anywhere, and while results can generate damage, the damage is not dependent on the idea of uncanceled die results. I think Vader himself provides a concrete example of that.

Yes, there is a mandate. Step seven says specifically that the hit ship suffers one damage for each uncanceled damage result on the dice. It goes on to say:

"For each damage or critical damage suffered, the ship must lose one shield token. If it has no shield tokens, it must receive one Damage card instead"

Note the word MUST. It doesn't say "should", it says MUST. Does that really not sound like a mandate to you? Each uncanceled damage or critical damage result causes the hit ship to suffer one damage. For each damage suffered, the ship MUST receive one damage card of the appropriate type. I fail to see how this is not a mandate. I grant that some abilities may modify who gets the damage, but nothing I've seen supports your contention that not all the damage needs to be applied, and certainly not your assertion that the dice only say the damage the ship "should" receive.

As for the Destruction Check, I admit it is vague. It never says specifically when you perform it, but there are references to "receiving all damage" and "after damage is received" which seems to me to imply that you don't check until after all damage is applied, but regardless of the correct answer on this, it seems obvious that Vader can use his ability with only one hull left.

As for damage being received from different source, I quoted the "Suffering Damage" section that states this. You're right that dice results are not the only source of damage points, but that doesn't change the fact that the rules say that the hit ship must receive a damage card for each damage suffered.