"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.

Not correct, we have an example (page 15) on when the rules check for destruction, whether you like it or not. I'm sorry if you find it inconvenient.

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.

I REFUSE to follow you into this. Actually I can't even believe that you went that far. There is a limit in how much you can apply literalness on rules. Beyond that limit, the interpretation simply becomes an error, plain and simple. Please, send a mail to the developers explaining them how a Proton Bomb doesn't cause damage. And don't forget to copy me on the answer.

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.

Which other triggers conditions? I only see one. You only check for ship destruction after you suffer new damage, which can come from different sources. The sources are not triggers, the sources are just that, sources of damage. The only 'trigger' is that the ship has suffered new damage for whatever reason. After suffering and dealing ALL damage caused by the source, you check if it is destroyed or not.

Here's exactly what you said back on the first page:

The rules are clear in that ships can receive more damage cards than their hull value. And the only way to apply that clause consistently is that you should only check for destruction after suffering all damage from ONE given source.

But that's not true. In a simultaneous fire situation, you can have more damage than hull. If you pull a Direct Hit with one hull left, you can have more damage than hull. So we have at least two cases which allow you to have more damage than hull, providing a contradiction to your "only way to apply that clause consistently" claim, thus proving it false.

We also have text in the rules that says every uncanceled damage result MUST result in a damage card being given to the ship that is hit, which blows the "stop the damage when the ship is destroyed" premise out of the water right there.

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.

Oh! I can play that too! Quote me a rule that tells you to check for ship destruction after every card is dealt. It should be pretty simple too, right? Quote me the rule. A rule that says that ship destruction is checked between each point of damage. Are we seriously playing this?

Here it is... Ready?

"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. That is the condition for the rule, and the effect which occurs when that condition is met. Any time that condition is met, the effect goes off. This is basic CCG-like Rules Interpretation 101. I'm going to take one last shot at explaining this, and then we'll leave this one alone.

Let's look at a similar rule: "When a ship executes a maneuver in which either the maneuver template or the ship's base physically overlaps an obstacle token, follow these steps." Same basic structure: " When <condition>, <effect>". At what points do you check for <condition>? Is it only during the "Execute the Maneuver" step? Only during its own activation? Only the Activation Phase? None of these - it's all the time. "When <condition>..." is a universally-active check. It doesn't matter whether it's executing a maneuver from its dial, or Daredevil, or another ship used Squad Leader to let it take a free action and it did Daredevil, or even some hypothetical ability that let a ship execute any maneuver after an attack, like Turr on steroids.

The rule is an "If...then" check that is on all the time, and when <condition> is met, you perform the rest of the effect. There are a multitude of these "always looked for" condition, and the game state is always on the lookout for them, and when they pop up, they do whatever they do. Damage itself is one of these rules. "When <a ship suffers damage or critical damage>..." This doesn't follow from only one specific event - it is triggered any time damage is dealt, whether that damage is sourced from an attack, obstacle impact, or directly via Vader.

I hope you're not so wrapped up in this debate that you won't try to broaden your understanding of how these sorts of rules systems work, because you really do seem to have some pretty fundamental misunderstandings. Take a look through the rules. Look for keywords like "When" and "If" and "While" and "After", look at the structure, look at the structure of the destruction rule, and try and take an objective look at why you think they're different. Your understanding will be better for it.

As a last thought - you really should follow me down that rabbit hole on Proton Bomb. Here's how it goes:

1. Damage, when suffered, removes a shield token. If there is no shield token on the ship, you deal a card.

2. The Proton Bomb doesn't say to deal damage - it says to deal a damage card. This can be contrasted with the Vader crew card at issue here, which says to deal one critical damage.

3. If the Proton Bomb DID deal damage, it would hit shields first, and only deal a (faceup) card if the ship had no shields.

4. The preview article for the TIE Bomber specifically says the Proton bomb will bypass shields: "Better yet, what if that critical damage is a Direct Hit that bypasses an A-wing’s shields to obliterate it one blast?"

5. So primary because of #2, with support from #3+4, I can say with absolute certainty that the Proton Bomb does NOT deal damage.

Please note that there's a difference between damage as a conceptual degradation of a ship's structure or capability, and damage as a rules term. In my blog series I call this the "Danger of Vocabulary". Clunky and inelegant, I know, but it highlights the risk of common terms not having common meaning, such as when simultaneous fire isn't actually simultaneous... or when a bomb that deals a damage card isn't actually doing damage.

But I'm done here. I've explained my point, I think quite thoroughly. I'll leave it to later readers to decide which of us has a better level of credibility when it comes to understanding rules.

I think there is a danger in using other cards or abilities as an example in this case.

Why because ships can have more than their value in damages, there is no limit but they are still dead destroyed no longer able to keep their parts flying in formation. But the condition is still meet. You have received two damaged cards.

With out a faq we cant be certin but seeing as the vader card has not specified for example only use if you have two or more hit ppoint leftit seems more likely you can use it any time.

You may have explained your point, but you have ignored the wording of Step Seven of the Combat Procedure to do it.

Perhaps you are using mandate differently that I am. I am not saying that Step Seven cannot be modified by specific abilities or cards, but it seems quite clear that the general rule is that the hit ship is dealt one damage card for each damage suffered, whether that damage is suffered from attack dice or some other source. The use of the word "must" says to me that all damage suffered results in a damage card being dealt. If the Destruction check is "always on" then not all damage would result in a damage card being dealt, so it seems to me that your interpretation goes against what the rules say.

Now let's look at your exceptions.

Draw Their Fire doesn't change the number of damage suffered, only who suffers it. No exception there.

Saboteur forces the target ship to flip a facedown damage card faceup and resolve it. No additional damage is being suffered so no exception, unless the card is Direct Hit in which case an additional damage card is dealt to the ship. No exception there.

Proton Bomb IS an exception, but only to the "Suffering Damage" procedure in that it skips Step One and deals the damage card directly to the ship. Earlier you said that being dealt cards equated to suffering damage, but now you say that it doesn't. You don't seem to be consistent with your interpretations.

The Chewbacca cards are not an exception to dealt damage, only to the result of the damage on the affected ship. The damage cards are still dealt, Chewie just gets to modify their effect.

All things being equal, I would agree with you about the "always on" nature of the Destruction Check, if it wasn't for the wording of Step Seven which you seem to be ignoring. I also think that if it was always on, it would have been included in the Suffering Damage procedure as step 3. I admit it is not as clear as it could be, but if it is always on then Step Seven is wrong because ships will only get damage cards for all damage suffered if it happens to be less than or equal to the hull value.

You are focused on the wording of "Destroying Ships", which says immediately, but you are ignoring Step Seven which says all damage is dealt as damage cards. I submit that the only way to interpret this issue consistent with both rules is to see "immediately" in Destroying Ships as meaning immediately after all damage cards are dealt. That is also consistent with the wording of the note at the end of Destroying Ships.

Of course, getting back to the original point, this means that Vader can use his ability from a ship with one hull point left since the ship can still suffer two damage.

You may have explained your point, but you have ignored the wording of Step Seven of the Combat Procedure to do it.

...

Saboteur forces the target ship to flip a facedown damage card faceup and resolve it. No additional damage is being suffered so no exception, unless the card is Direct Hit in which case an additional damage card is dealt to the ship. No exception there.

Proton Bomb IS an exception, but only to the "Suffering Damage" procedure in that it skips Step One and deals the damage card directly to the ship. Earlier you said that being dealt cards equated to suffering damage, but now you say that it doesn't. You don't seem to be consistent with your interpretations.

The Chewbacca cards are not an exception to dealt damage, only to the result of the damage on the affected ship. The damage cards are still dealt, Chewie just gets to modify their effect.

All things being equal, I would agree with you about the "always on" nature of the Destruction Check, if it wasn't for the wording of Step Seven which you seem to be ignoring. I also think that if it was always on, it would have been included in the Suffering Damage procedure as step 3. I admit it is not as clear as it could be, but if it is always on then Step Seven is wrong because ships will only get damage cards for all damage suffered if it happens to be less than or equal to the hull value.

You are focused on the wording of "Destroying Ships", which says immediately, but you are ignoring Step Seven which says all damage is dealt as damage cards.

Step 7 is part of the attack process. It has absolutely nothing to do with how Vader operates, any more than it has anything to do with how you resolve damage from an obstacle impact. I'm ignoring it (or trying to) because it's literally not part of the flow we're trying to untangle.

If Saboteur flips a Direct Hit, you don't deal another damage card. It just counts as two. I'm assuming this is a misspeak, but either way, it's very wrong.

On Proton Bomb, again, no. Just because it deals a card doesn't mean you jump into the middle of the damage resolution process. You just deal a card - that's it.

I've never said Chewie (either) was any sort of exception. I've used him as an example to prove that abilities and rules can trigger between cards being dealt, which means the destruction check can as well.

Re: "I also think that if it was always on, it would have been included in the Suffering Damage procedure as step 3" is the exact opposite of how the flow works. If the damage check were included as a step of Suffering Damage, it would not be an "always on" rule - it would be something that was only checked at that specific time, which would introduce the exact problem with Proton Bomb that I've been suggesting.

And that'll be my last contribution on this half of the conversation. I understand what you're trying to do, but again, I believe you have some fundamental misunderstandings of how these rule systems work. They're a flow, and a very mutable one. You can't just jump into processes halfway unless something tells you to, or pull pieces out of completely unrelated processes because they have a word you like. The same process can have multiple entry points, and you can have very similar processes that end up the same but aren't.

OK, this discussion has gotten so bogged down in the minutiae of damage checks and such that I've actually lost track of the fundamental point that you guys are disagreeing on, as far as how Vader works.

Here's my issue, to muddy the waters a little bit more. I would have said 100% Buhalin was wrong, based on my own interpretation of Vader as written, but the more I dig, the more I'm not sure he is. Or that he won't be, until they put out an FAQ with another "yeah, yeah, I know what we SAID, do it this way anyway..." ruling.

To be honest, his stance on this to me appeared very nitpicky, and I was going to grudgingly side with the other team on this argument, and here's why: I thought it was odd that Vader says to "suffer two damage," but says nothing about dealing damage CARDS. So I thought maybe he worked much like a Direct Hit, dealing you two damage at once, which would I think allow for Vader to activate on a ship with one hull.

Now, I'm not convinced that isn't how they intended it, but in reading up to clarify that, it kind of changed my mind back to side with Buhalin. Here's why. Page 16, suffering damage, broken down for clarity's sake. Vader tells you to suffer 2 damage, right? Ok, so we go to the Suffering Damage rules. It tells you to do two things in order, suffering the damage one at a time . They even put that in bold to emphasize it. Vader has you suffer two damage, but they are resolved one by one.

Assuming you have 1 hull and no shields left, you check for damage 1. No shields, skip to step 2, Damage Hull. "Deal 1 damage card to the ship, based on the type of damage it suffered," just a face-up, face-down deal. You resolve these one at a time .

Destroying ships says "when the number of Damage cards dealt is equal to or greater than...the ship is immediately destroyed."

I have a hard time getting past that, as much as on a conceptual level I may dislike it. It's very clear on the point that you resolve each damage individually, and that when the number of cards dealt to you is equal to (or greater than) your hull, you're immediately destroyed.

I'm not sure Vader IS a legitimate way to suffer more damage than your hull on a given turn, because it sure reads like "suffer two damage. Deal out a damage card for damage 1. Oh look, you have damage cards equal to your hull, you are immediately destroyed."

I think that first damage destroys you, before you ever have a chance to suffer the second one. So I guess the question is whether they wind up clarifying in the FAQ that you must suffer both damage if you're ABLE to, but don't NEED to suffer both damage if the first one destroys you, for Vader to take effect. As written, though, I think you wouldn't want to use him in that situation because he'd suicide himself and not accomplish anything.

I mean I would love to disagree with this, and I kind of hope they clarify it that way, because it sure seems like Vader should be able to use his ability and blow up his own ship even if it's down to one hull. But stripping it down to a close reading of the actual rules involved, without dragging in a lot of other stuff in to cloud the issue, it seems fairly cut and dry as written.

When you suffer damage, you resolve each 'point' of damage individually, one at a time.

You check for shields. No shields. You put down a damage card for the first point of damage caused by Vader. At that point you have damage cards equal to or exceeding your total hull, and are 'immediately destroyed.'

There's nothing in the Suffering Damage or Destroying Ships bit of the rules that leads me to believe there would be any reason to resolve the second damage caused by Vader, allowing you to trigger his ability. I think much like you just wouldn't use Vader against someone who had a point of shields left, you just wouldn't use Vader when you yourself only had a single hull point left.

Without going into detail or adding much to the debate, I'm on the other side. I feel Vader can use his ability whether he has 1, 2, 3 or more points left.

P.S. If you use the strict timing interpretation we are discussion the shuttle (or whatever ship) would need at least 3 hulls/shields left since with 2 Vader would still die.

P.P.S. I like this post: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/13201732#13201732

I appreciate everyone's thoughts, but I think there is a legitimate disagreement here and I don't think it really matters what anyone thinks at this point. FFG needs to clarify. I could see it going either way at this point, but continue to lean toward Vader can use the ability when he has just one hull left (or even 0 or less hull in a simultaneous attack situation). But, I could be wrong, who knows how they will rule.

P.S. If you use the strict timing interpretation we are discussion the shuttle (or whatever ship) would need at least 3 hulls/shields left since with 2 Vader would still die.

No, I don't think so. There's no problem with the ship committing suicide.

To build off what VorpalSword said in the post you linked, the effect can't be interrupted by the death of the ship. Once it's declared, it's on the way. The question I'm raising is whether a ship that is destroyed before suffering two damage gets to inflict the damage. I don't see it any different than a ship that chooses not to spend a target lock and then decides it still gets to fire the missile because the effect was active.

That's why the timing of the destruction is so central to the question. If a ship has one hull left, it will be destroyed before it suffers the second damage, and so did not suffer two damage. If it has two left, it will still be destroyed, but it will satisfy the prerequisite of suffering two damage before it does. To again borrow from Vorpal's post: "It's unreasonable to argue that if I'm willing to pay a cost, I don't get the associated benefit." I agree with this - and indeed, everything he said - entirely. The question at hand is whether a ship with 1 hull can be considered to have paid the cost or not.

That's true - right or wrong, he is kind of inadvertently making your point. If you take two damage, the cost is paid regardless of whether you survive it, and the effect goes off. If you take one damage and are destroyed, there's a case to be made that you in fact did NOT pay the full cost and don't get to reap the benefit.

Now like I said, I'd actually PREFER it if Vader worked the other way. I think on a conceptual level it makes a lot of sense. But I do think that the argument for Vader working that way is a lot of reading into intent and what someone feels is reasonable or unreasonable, and not based so much on a strict reading of the rules. In fact, much the opposite, it's kind of "yeah, I know what the rules SAY, but..."

I do agree, though, that it's one FFG needs to lay down a ruling on, because I think a strict reading of the rules on suffering damage sure make it look like if you try and use Vader with 1 hull left, you're not going to be able to meet the conditions for triggering Vader's effect.

Buhallin, ah I see that now. Hmm interesting question. I'm not sure where I fall specific to that. I'm leaning toward:

• 3 points okay Vader causes the ship to suffer a critical.
• 2 points okay Vader causes the ship to suffer a critical and commits suicide.
• 1 point... I suppose could go either way but not having enough points to pay for the ability in the first place is a convincing point and I'll probably play that way unless something from FFG directs us otherwise .

Thanks I'll give that some more thought , that seems reasonable and within the rules. Good job Buhallin.

[Edits in whatever color this is ]

Buhallin, ah I see that now. Hmm interesting question. I'm not sure where I fall specific to that. I'm leaning toward:

• 3 points okay Vader causes the ship to suffer a critical.
• 2 points okay Vader causes the ship to suffer a critical and commits suicide.
• 1 point... I suppose could go either way but not having enough points to pay for the ability in the first place is a convincing point.

Thanks I'll give that some more thought.

And like I said, for myself, I'm not sure if I like it working that way, but that's the way a careful reading of the rules leads me to believe it would work, as written. I'm not going to shed any tears if they overrule that in the next FAQ update. And I don't think it's really the end of the world if it does work this way, either - the number of situations where you're going to wind up with Vader, a chance to use him, and exactly one remaining hull point are going to be fairly rarely occurring.

I play Imps more often than not, so I wouldn't mind if you could do it either And it certainly could go either way in the end - FFG has surprised us with enough lately that I'm no longer shocked by anything. They may intend "suffer 2 damage" to matter on initiation, rather than resolution (i.e. just trying to suffer the damage is what matters, not whether you actually do). I'd dislike the precedent that would set and think it would cause more problems down the road, but it also wouldn't be the first time they did THAT either. If nothing else, it raises a lot of fuzzy questions about what it means to start something, and what it means to succeed, and what the timing is on prevention - if I try to use my Blaster Turret on Dark Curse but can't spend the token because of Curse's ability, do I still get credit for trying even though I didn't complete it, and get to fire? I know that seems crazy, because it is, but that's the type of problem you get into if prerequisites are judged by attempt rather than completion.

I play Imps more often than not, so I wouldn't mind if you could do it either And it certainly could go either way in the end - FFG has surprised us with enough lately that I'm no longer shocked by anything. They may intend "suffer 2 damage" to matter on initiation, rather than resolution (i.e. just trying to suffer the damage is what matters, not whether you actually do). I'd dislike the precedent that would set and think it would cause more problems down the road, but it also wouldn't be the first time they did THAT either. If nothing else, it raises a lot of fuzzy questions about what it means to start something, and what it means to succeed, and what the timing is on prevention - if I try to use my Blaster Turret on Dark Curse but can't spend the token because of Curse's ability, do I still get credit for trying even though I didn't complete it, and get to fire? I know that seems crazy, because it is, but that's the type of problem you get into if prerequisites are judged by attempt rather than completion.

Could a Y-Wing with a blaster turret and Blinded Pilot clear the crit by making a turret attack against Dark Curse, you mean?

The question is then whether the two damage is suffered in the same way as as it would be two hits, or does it take two damage from one hit like "Direct Hit". Direct Hit does not "fizzle" when a ship has only one hull left (to use the shorthand), and regardless of how you read the destruction conditions it deals two damage and is capable of dealing more damage than necessary to destroy the ship.

It seems to me that this is a single "hit" for two damage, since it is the result of a single card effect, just like "Direct Hit" causes two damage with a single card effect. This is complicated (of course) by the practical necessity of drawing two cards to keep track of it. If it does operate like a single two-damage hit (direct hit) then Vader could use his ability with one hull left no matter how we read the destruction timing.

The question is then whether the two damage is suffered in the same way as as it would be two hits, or does it take two damage from one hit like "Direct Hit". Direct Hit does not "fizzle" when a ship has only one hull left (to use the shorthand), and regardless of how you read the destruction conditions it deals two damage and is capable of dealing more damage than necessary to destroy the ship.

It seems to me that this is a single "hit" for two damage, since it is the result of a single card effect, just like "Direct Hit" causes two damage with a single card effect. This is complicated (of course) by the practical necessity of drawing two cards to keep track of it. If it does operate like a single two-damage hit (direct hit) then Vader could use his ability with one hull left no matter how we read the destruction timing.

I disagree with the interpretation of the wording, though. Vader clearly says "Suffer two damage" where Direct Hit says "this card counts as two damage against your hull." Put another way, Vader forces you to resolve suffering two damage, where Direct Hit has already BEEN resovled.

If Vader said "suffer two `hits` in order to cause one `crit` this would be a no brainer and I would agree with you. This could easily be interpreted as a single `hit` for two damage however. I am inclined to think that Vader can do it, regardless, because there seem to be plenty of ways to take excess damage in the game and no explicit instructions to the contrary. It is true that the rules could imply otherwise, as Buhallin has shown, but it isn't clear enough to be definitive either way in my opinion.

This is hardly an opinion I stand upon with any confidence.

When a ship suffers damage or critical damage, it suffers them one at a time following these steps.

Bolding in the original rules. I don't think it matters how you end up with X damage - when you suffer that damage, you do it one at a time until you process X total damage.

It's possible that all other damage is handled as clusters of 1 damage rather than X damage, and now that we have an X damage dealer it's different, but I don't really see anything that actually points to that.

And then we're right back to the good old FFG issue of "what exactly is a hit? What exactly is damage? Are you using the two more interchangeably than you should?"

I mean look, I'm no expert, I've no doubt designing a game like this is a lot harder than it looks. But it seems like making, and then using consistently, certain keywords would help clarify things a LOT. Instead of a few terms for different things, some of which mean the same thing, except then sometimes not, really...

When you have terms like Focus (token), Focus (action) and Focus (die result - except it's not actually called Focus, it just looks like an eyeball, and sort of IMPLIES a focus), you're asking for trouble.

In fact, I'm just going to go out on a limb, and say that when half of your game rules are made up of iconography, which you don't actually specifically give names to, you're just asking for trouble.

Too bad Amarillo Design Bureau (publishers of Star Fleet Battles) didn't write these rules. Then there would be no question how things are supposed to work, because they go extreme lengths to make sure they use consistent terminology and reference every possible interaction. The Rules Booklet would be 200 pages long, but there would be very few questions.

What it all seems to boil down to, for me anyway, is either "damage suffered" means different things depending on whether it is suffered in Step 7 of the Combat Procedure or not, or when Step 7 says a damage card must be dealt for each damage suffered it doesn't really mean that.

I see Bulhallin's point. I really do. I just can't see why they would have written it the way they did if that's what they meant. A simple line saying you check for destruction after each damage card dealt, or one saying all damage is resolved before checking for destruction would have solved this issue nicely. As it is, I can see it both ways, but I still think the implication of the various statements is that all damage is to be resolved before checking for destruction. It seems (to me) to be the most parsimonious explanation for what they actually did write.

When a ship suffers damage or critical damage, it suffers them one at a time following these steps.

Bolding in the original rules. I don't think it matters how you end up with X damage - when you suffer that damage, you do it one at a time until you process X total damage.

It's possible that all other damage is handled as clusters of 1 damage rather than X damage, and now that we have an X damage dealer it's different, but I don't really see anything that actually points to that.

Buhallin, is it, in any way, shape or form, POSSIBLE to think that the phrasing you're quoting is (at least in part) meant to clarify the ORDER of the damages? I feel confident in calling you on taking the quote a bit out of context.

And I also still find that using the 7 steps of an attack isn't necessarily the way FFG intended to be the way to determine the DV crew effect. The ship with DV crew ISN*T taking the damge due to being hit by an attack (I am not rolling any green dices am I??), but rather is comes from a variant of PERFORMING a "follow up" on an attack. And the card straight out says "...you may suffer 2 damage" so these 2 Damage simply must/should be considered as coming in a bundle.

And then you may continue from here to eternity to say "this is what we MUST use when dealing damage" and by the letter you could be rightious but at the same time you must at least just consider that a poorly woorded rulebook written way prior to the Wave 3 cards just MIGHT be outdated orcoming short when dealing with these newly "problems" that continue to rise up, or....?

And the following is purely conjecture on my part; since there are other examples of Pilot Abilities and upgrades that come with all sorts of restrictions (ie. Yorr, Ibitsam and Ors) wouldn't one think it possible that they would have put a restriction on DV crew like "You cannot use this the damage suffered exceeds (or equals?) your ship's hull value"??

I know the last section could be viewed as a strawman argument, so maybe it's not the strongest point.

Anywho, as always I will play it the way we can agree on in friendly games and naturally as any TO will rule it untill FFG (hopefully) will FAQ it.

Until then, let's play nice :-)

-Niko-

Buhallin, is it, in any way, shape or form, POSSIBLE to think that the phrasing you're quoting is (at least in part) meant to clarify the ORDER of the damages? I feel confident in calling you on taking the quote a bit out of context.

And I also still find that using the 7 steps of an attack isn't necessarily the way FFG intended to be the way to determine the DV crew effect. The ship with DV crew ISN*T taking the damge due to being hit by an attack (I am not rolling any green dices am I??), but rather is comes from a variant of PERFORMING a "follow up" on an attack. And the card straight out says "...you may suffer 2 damage" so these 2 Damage simply must/should be considered as coming in a bundle.

I doubt the bit I quote has anything to do with the order, because the order is specified in the sentence following the one I quoted: " The ship must suffer all normal damage before suffering any critical damage ."

I think you may also be confused both about who's making what arguments here, and what I'm quoting from. I've said explicitly that I don't think Vader's damage has anything to do with the attack process - Gullwind has been basing much of his argument around Step 7 of the attack process, though. The bit I quoted there also don't come from any part of the attack process - it's from Suffering Damage on page 16, which is generic and applies to any damage from any source.

And that section (Suffering Damage) is independent. You may get there from Step 7 of the attack, or from the obstacle rules, or resolving a critical effect, or Vader... but it's all handled the same once you get there.

And the following is purely conjecture on my part; since there are other examples of Pilot Abilities and upgrades that come with all sorts of restrictions (ie. Yorr, Ibitsam and Ors) wouldn't one think it possible that they would have put a restriction on DV crew like "You cannot use this the damage suffered exceeds (or equals?) your ship's hull value"??

I know the last section could be viewed as a strawman argument, so maybe it's not the strongest point.

It's not a straw man at all.

The reason that restriction is on some abilities but not others is because without it being explicitly stated, that restriction wouldn't exist. Using Jan as an example, there's nothing that stops a ship from having multiple stress. So if her ability didn't say "if you have no stress tokens" then you'd be able to use it as many times as you wanted and stack enough stress to make Tycho jealous in the process.

On the other side, why doesn't every missile say "If you have a target lock, you may spend it to perform this attack"? Because it doesn't have to - having the token in the first place is an integral part of spending it. You can't spend something you don't have.

So it's a fair question. In this case, I think it's clear that the requirement to pay the cost is implied. Just like you wouldn't let someone fire a missile without spending the target lock, they shouldn't be able to inflict damage via Vader unless they suffer two themselves. I don't think anyone actually disagrees with that. The dispute seems to be largely over what you have to do in order to satisfy that "suffer two damage" requirement.