If you suffer 2, they suffer 1 crit. There is no order. It all happens at once.

So, can you suffer more damage than your hull? Yes.

Can you die in the process? I don't see why not.

Would you want to? Sometimes.

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.

Two hundred pages at least and an addendum every few months sold separately for years.

I used to play SFB frequently and I saw a great review that helped sum it up. This play tester had played several games and said repeatedly how overly complicated the game was. Then one day he pulled a rule out of his hat that his opponent had forgotten or missed. Oh how sweet that was he said in the review. He finally found the point of the game, he had beaten someone not from strategy, playing a better game or even a better build, but because he knew the rules just that much better.

Out of all the years I played SFB I realized how right he was.

I play Star Wars: X-Wing now.

P.S. Silent Death, in my opinion, is probably the best space fighter game and X-Wing, if not the best is very very close.

[Edited for spelling]

The other thing worth noting, and it might have been on this 3 pages, is that if two ships have the same speed they remain on the board until that speed step is completed (allowing them to fire back). I wonder if the same thing comes into effect here. DV's Lamda uses it's power, takes the cards, then gets removed at the end of the Speed Step, so there is no timing issues at all.

The other thing worth noting, and it might have been on this 3 pages, is that if two ships have the same speed they remain on the board until that speed step is completed (allowing them to fire back). I wonder if the same thing comes into effect here. DV's Lamda uses it's power, takes the cards, then gets removed at the end of the Speed Step, so there is no timing issues at all.

Ships in a simultaneous fire situation don't stick around until the end of the PS - they stick around until they have had their opportunity to attack. So this can't happen. Ravncat had a good (and I think correct) read on the destruction timing vs. Vader a few pages back, in this post .

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.

Two hundred pages at least and an addendum every few months sold separately for years.

I used to play SFB frequently and I saw a great review that helped sum it up. This play tester had played several games and said repeatedly how overly complicated the game was. Then one day he pulled a rule out of his hat that his opponent had forgotten or missed. Oh how sweet that was he said in the review. He finally found the point of the game, he had beaten someone not from strategy, playing a better game or even a better build, but because it knew the rules just that much better.

Out of all the years I played SFB I realized how right he was.

I play Star Wars: X-Wing now.

P.S. Silent Death, in my opinion, is probably the best space fighter game and X-Wing, if not the best is very very close.

Once the Doomsday edition came out they stopped doing addenda. They also have a master rulebook you can get with all of the game rules in one place.

I like it because its complex - you can do just about anything you could imagine doing on a real starship. The basic game rules really aren't that complex, its all the optional rules and various system interactions that can get complicated. And it does have a detailed Sequence of Play that specifies exactly when each action takes place. X-Wing could use something like that.

Buhallin, it is borderlining to silly to use TL + Missiles as an example when discussing if you're allowed to use DV crew with 1 Hull left. And actually I think that you (without intending to do so) are arguing in favor of mine (and other peoples) interpretation of DV in your posts in the thread on BGG ( http://boardgamegeek.com/article/13201732#13201732 )

Buhallin: "No, because Vader is all one ability. By the time it is activated, it will complete even if the ship is destroyed."

Buhallin, it is borderlining to silly to use TL + Missiles as an example when discussing if you're allowed to use DV crew with 1 Hull left. And actually I think that you (without intending to do so) are arguing in favor of mine (and other peoples) interpretation of DV in your posts in the thread on BGG ( http://boardgamegeek.com/article/13201732#13201732 )

Buhallin: "No, because Vader is all one ability. By the time it is activated, it will complete even if the ship is destroyed."

This seems to be in response to the case of a ship with Hull minus 2 worth of Damage cards. In this case - the worry is that Vader would not be able to deal the damage after the ship is destroyed because Vader is no longer on the field (I.E. ship destruction interrupts Vader) But - since the ability doesn't have a pause, or a timing clause, once you pay the cost and activate vader, it should resolve.

This is different than the current argument of having Hull Minus One damage cards, where the question becomes can the cost be payed? It's clear that the cost to activate Vader is to Suffer 2 damage. It's also clear that if you cannot pay the cost, you cannot get the effect ( Simple Do X to do Y wording)

What is unclear, is if activating Vader allocates both damage simultaneously, allowing the cost to be payed, or if the ship is destroyed prior to the second damage card - meaning that the cost cannot be payed, as the ship is gone. The final say on this is going to have to be the FAQ or an answer from the rules questions. - Like all other unresolved issues, it's a discuss with the TO or other players and make sure you're all decided on playing it one way or thother

(P.S. - target lock argument seems to just be pointing to another mechanic that clearly uses a mechanic with a cost -> He's saying "If Vader's cost cannot be paid in the above situation, and we allow his ability to go off, then it seems that we should allow other abilities to go off without paying the cost")

Agreed with Ravncat ^ ^ ^
You're pulling his quote out of context, because what he's said is if your ship has TWO hull left, it shouldn't matter that the effect would destroy Vader, because he's already paid the cost to trigger it (2 damage). The question is, if you only have 1 hull left, CAN that count as paying the cost? It's actually got less to do directly with the fact it would blow up the ship, and more to do with the fact that as the rules read, it's at least implied the ship would blow up after the first damage - raising the question of whether you actually CAN pay the entire cost for the effect.

And yeah if you're dismissing his Target Lock example out of hand, it's apparently because you're not getting that it's another example of paying a cost to get an effect, which is a much closer parallel than anything coming out of the section on the order of combat or whatever.

A lot of people back in wave 1 or so argued that you should be able to spend a Target Lock to fire a torpedo, AND get to use that same Target Lock to reroll the attack, because it was all part of the same sequence. They stepped in and clarified that no; once you spent it to fire the missile, it was gone and spent and no longer available to spend on a reroll.

Boiled down to brass tacks, the big question is: Vader 'costs' 2 damage, in order to deal someone else 1 critical damage. Can he deal 1 critical damage if he can only, in effect, 'pay' 1 damage, because doing so destroys your ship?

I suspect they'll wind up ruling that he CAN work that way. I won't be the least bit disappointed if they clear that up in favor of Vader being more effective. But the way the rules read right now, I haven't seen anything which makes it clear that you aren't blown up the minute that first damage resolves and deals a damage card equal to your hull.

I think a big part of the problem is that people tend to shortcut the damage dealing part of the game, because it normally doesn't matter. You figure out you did 2 damage, he's only got 1 hull, you usually don't even deal the FIRST card, let alone the second one, let alone figure out if the first one destroyed him without the second one ever actually taking effect - because it didn't matter.

With Vader, it matters. The order in which that all resolves is potentially critical to how Vader works, and the way Suffering Damage is worded, whether it's what they intended or not - and only they can answer that with an FAQ update - it reads pretty strongly like damage is resolved, and cards are dealt, one at a time. Resolved individually before the next one is even dealt - and if that is, in fact, the case, Vader blows up a ship with 1 hull left, and never deals the second damage to his own ship. If that's the case, there's an extremely strong argument to be made that the cost wasn't paid.

And I believe the relative cost of Vader increases significantly the closer your ship is to its Hull limit. So IMO you actually pay the higher (ultimate?) price when activating DV crew causes your ship to be destroyed in order for you to inflict the Crit to your opponent.

And I believe the relative cost of Vader increases significantly the closer your ship is to its Hull limit. So IMO you actually pay the higher (ultimate?) price when activating DV crew causes your ship to be destroyed in order for you to inflict the Crit to your opponent.

The problem is, I'm not sure there's anything in the game anywhere that cares a whit about "relative costs. " Costs in the game tend to be absolute.

Ravncat and CW both responded admirably in my stead on all counts. So for once, I'll leave it at that

Agreed with Ravncat ^ ^ ^

You're pulling his quote out of context, because what he's said is if your ship has TWO hull left, it shouldn't matter that the effect would destroy Vader, because he's already paid the cost to trigger it (2 damage). The question is, if you only have 1 hull left, CAN that count as paying the cost? It's actually got less to do directly with the fact it would blow up the ship, and more to do with the fact that as the rules read, it's at least implied the ship would blow up after the first damage - raising the question of whether you actually CAN pay the entire cost for the effect.

And yeah if you're dismissing his Target Lock example out of hand, it's apparently because you're not getting that it's another example of paying a cost to get an effect, which is a much closer parallel than anything coming out of the section on the order of combat or whatever.

A lot of people back in wave 1 or so argued that you should be able to spend a Target Lock to fire a torpedo, AND get to use that same Target Lock to reroll the attack, because it was all part of the same sequence. They stepped in and clarified that no; once you spent it to fire the missile, it was gone and spent and no longer available to spend on a reroll.

Boiled down to brass tacks, the big question is: Vader 'costs' 2 damage, in order to deal someone else 1 critical damage. Can he deal 1 critical damage if he can only, in effect, 'pay' 1 damage, because doing so destroys your ship?

I suspect they'll wind up ruling that he CAN work that way. I won't be the least bit disappointed if they clear that up in favor of Vader being more effective. But the way the rules read right now, I haven't seen anything which makes it clear that you aren't blown up the minute that first damage resolves and deals a damage card equal to your hull.

I think a big part of the problem is that people tend to shortcut the damage dealing part of the game, because it normally doesn't matter. You figure out you did 2 damage, he's only got 1 hull, you usually don't even deal the FIRST card, let alone the second one, let alone figure out if the first one destroyed him without the second one ever actually taking effect - because it didn't matter.

With Vader, it matters. The order in which that all resolves is potentially critical to how Vader works, and the way Suffering Damage is worded, whether it's what they intended or not - and only they can answer that with an FAQ update - it reads pretty strongly like damage is resolved, and cards are dealt, one at a time. Resolved individually before the next one is even dealt - and if that is, in fact, the case, Vader blows up a ship with 1 hull left, and never deals the second damage to his own ship. If that's the case, there's an extremely strong argument to be made that the cost wasn't paid.

First of all; IMO the TL debate is totally irelevant, and I would never have attempted to argue that you would ever have able to spend the TL for firing AND afterwards for a reroll. That wording was always (and still is) clear to me.

Secondly: Just to make sure I understand you correct, you don't think that the following clearly and unambiguously make it totally clear that a ship

A) not only SHOULD but actually MUST be dealt ALL Damage Cards (Normal as well as Crits) equal to the number of uncancelled [Hit] and [Crit] results suffered?

and

B) a ship can suffer an number of Damages exceeding it's Hull value?

Quote from the rulebook page 13:

The hit ship suffers one damage for each uncanceled [Hit]

result, and then suffers one critical damage for

each uncanceled [Crit] result.

(bold emphasis by me)

Quote from page 16:

When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship

is equal to or greater than its hull value, the

ship is immediately destroyed (faceup and facedown

cards count toward this total).

(bold and enlarged font by me)

So when you say

"I think a big part of the problem is that people tend to shortcut the damage dealing part of the game, because it normally doesn't matter. You figure out you did 2 damage, he's only got 1 hull, you usually don't even deal the FIRST card, let alone the second one, let alone figure out if the first one destroyed him without the second one ever actually taking effect - because it didn't matter."

then you're simply saying that since people aren't playing it right then that sort of makes DV crew card work the same (erroneous) way? When I play I make a point of drawing all the cards and ALWAYS taking the facedown ([Hit] Damage cards before any face up ([Crit]) Damage cards

And I believe the relative cost of Vader increases significantly the closer your ship is to its Hull limit. So IMO you actually pay the higher (ultimate?) price when activating DV crew causes your ship to be destroyed in order for you to inflict the Crit to your opponent.

The problem is, I'm not sure there's anything in the game anywhere that cares a whit about "relative costs. " Costs in the game tend to be absolute.

Ahhhh, see now we for once return to a critical point (sorry for the confusion the use of this word might cause since it is used in another context than the in game [Crit] dice result, "Critical Damage"and "critical hit token"):

No matter if YOU like it or not, it is becoming BLATENTLY obvious that FFG in so many cases tend to FAQ in "favor" of a RAI way opposed to (your) RAW (or rather "rules as I, being a far superior being, will interpretate them, since I am able to disregard so many aspects of common sense")

I absolutely PROMISE and pledge to abide by any TO and/or future FAQ ruling on the matter, and I will even promise to admit that I was wrong if the ruling will be that the DV crew card can't be used with 1 Hull left, since it then would mean that FFG didn't mean it to work the way I interpreted it (NOT wanting, only interpreted!!).

Will you (especially Buhallin) promise not to say "Well FFG got it wrong in their FAQ!!"???

<sigh> And you were doing so well there for a few posts. Now we're back to RAI claims and your weird obsession with pretending that the emperor DOES TOO have clothes on! When you can explain the Proximity Mine/Boost/Barrel Roll ruling in a way that matches what's printed, I'll accept all your snark about how FFG never violates their own rules.

Just go re-read the thread. Gullwind already brought up every point you made, although he at least put enough effort in to make sure his were readable. I addressed why I think they're wrong, and I'm really not going to go through the whole thing again for your gratification, especially since you don't seem to actually care about the rules.

Seriously, why are you even quoting rules? If the only thing that matters to you is how you think FFG wants it to work, who needs the rules?

I love how if you disagree with him it's not because you have a legitimate, alternative interpretation of the rules, but a personal attack that must be rebuffed with insults. Maybe next he'll call us names and tell us we're rubber and he's glue.

Look one problem straight off the bat is that FFG hasn't been consistent with any of their rulings. Are some "blatantly obvious" common sense rulings that went against the literal interpretation? Sure - several. Are there a few that completely defy common sense in a way that even the most literal rule interpreters didn't expect? Yep - they're there, too. Is there at least one case (boosts and barrel rolls vs proximity mines) where they flat out overruled their own card text in favor of the way they wanted it done? Yeah, they did that too.

Now you can argue the last one is "common sense," but it's also "flat out the opposite of what the card says" and at least thus far they have simply overruled it, NOT errata'd it. When they vacillate between logic, strict RAW, and flat out "I don't care what the card SAYS..." where the actual text of the card cannot necessarily be trusted, any guess as to the way it is "intended" to be played is just that - a guess. I mean you yourself just qualified that statement about three times - "in many cases," "tend to," etc. If they tend to do something in many cases, it means they tend to do the opposite in all of the other cases, which makes it kind of less blatant than you seem to believe.

And we should forever strike the words "common sense" from any discussion of the rules, since if we did all share the same "common," or shared sense of logic, nobody would ever disagree on anything. It's a nonsense term that simply means "it seems obvious to ME, so if you can't agree with me, you're wrong."

That said, I also didn't say YOU made that argument about target locks, I said that argument was made. By many. And loudly. No matter how blatant, obvious, or common sense it seemed to most. Same with Cluster Missiles and how it interacted with things. Same with Homing Missiles and whether the lack of spending a target lock was a typo. Now it's Jan Ors and can SHE buff both cluster missile shots, even though every other ruling on CM has made it pretty clear to most of us that no, that's not going to work. And the sad part is, at this point, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they just randomly DID decide she could buff them both, just because, even if it went in direct opposition to every other precedent they've set so far. Because that seems to be how they roll.

Part of my problem with your argument is that you're grabbing things from page 13, which is great, but Vader doesn't happen during the Deal Damage phase of combat. He doesn't necessarily follow any of the steps included there, because he's not an attack. You don't check range, you don't declare his target (it's the one you just shot at), you don't modify dice, they don't get any defense dice, so no, to be frank, I don't think that anything pulled from the steps of making an attack is a clear, obvious precedent for how Vader should work. Especially since there is a whole OTHER section on suffering damage a few pages later that works differently.

For one thing, multiple damage cards 'stacking' past your health is definitely possible during an attack, because of the simultaneous attack rule. If three ps2 Imps all attack an unshielded ps2 X-Wing, land 5 damage between them, yes - it has more damage cards than hull. It also has to leave them there until it fires back, so it's necessary for the damage step to cover that. There is nothing in the rules that clearly states it works the same way if the damage is caused from outside of an attack - in fact, as we've pointed out, the Suffering Damage rules imply something very different, since they make sure to point out that all damage is resolved one at a time - where the attack rules on page 13 do not.

<sigh> And you were doing so well there for a few posts. Now we're back to RAI claims and your weird obsession with pretending that the emperor DOES TOO have clothes on! When you can explain the Proximity Mine/Boost/Barrel Roll ruling in a way that matches what's printed, I'll accept all your snark about how FFG never violates their own rules.

Just go re-read the thread. Gullwind already brought up every point you made, although he at least put enough effort in to make sure his were readable. I addressed why I think they're wrong, and I'm really not going to go through the whole thing again for your gratification, especially since you don't seem to actually care about the rules.

Seriously, why are you even quoting rules? If the only thing that matters to you is how you think FFG wants it to work, who needs the rules?

Uhh, an attack on me failing to see (due to the near to worthless posting editor) that the copy pasted parts from the rulebook was completely mangled. I must immedieately run to my bed and curl up and start to cry ;-) However, before doing so (FYI I won't actually do that) I will go back and edit muy post and even apologize for not reviewing the post.

And where did you come up with me "not caring for the rules"??

On a second note: why do you even play the game since it obviously frustrates you that FFG makes FAQ's that "force" you to make a blog where you (sort of) makes your own FAQ on the FAQ?

I would also like to point out, I think it's very telling that the rules that keep being quoted are from the combat phase, covering the "Deal Damage" step of resolving an attack. That's all very well and good except, as stated above, Vader is not 'making an attack,' so those rules don't apply.

Furthermore, if you go to page 16, the heading is Additional Rules, with the text "This section explains all rules not previously addressed," and the first thing under that? Suffering damage, with the rules we feel are relevant in this instance, since it also covers all the damage suffered in ways other than as the result of an attack.

They're additional rules. It specifically states that they were NOT previously addressed (ie in the combat section), and it also lists Simultaneous Attack, in big red letters, as the one exception to the rules on suffering damage, which at least throws out there the idea that a simultaneous attack very well might BE the one time when a ship can actually have a stack of damage cards on it, exceeding its hull.

Not to mention, the combat section you keep quoting,directs you at least twice to the more in depth rules on Suffering Damage on page 16. So it's actually reads even there like it gives you a general idea how resolving damage in an attack works, before directing you straight to the part about resolving the damage received one at a time.

<sigh> And you were doing so well there for a few posts. Now we're back to RAI claims and your weird obsession with pretending that the emperor DOES TOO have clothes on! When you can explain the Proximity Mine/Boost/Barrel Roll ruling in a way that matches what's printed, I'll accept all your snark about how FFG never violates their own rules.

Just go re-read the thread. Gullwind already brought up every point you made, although he at least put enough effort in to make sure his were readable. I addressed why I think they're wrong, and I'm really not going to go through the whole thing again for your gratification, especially since you don't seem to actually care about the rules.

Seriously, why are you even quoting rules? If the only thing that matters to you is how you think FFG wants it to work, who needs the rules?

I will not dispute that reading the rules wording by the letter regarding the proximity vs boost/barrel roll was a straight out contradiction BUT, even in this make belief world of miniatures dog fighting scenarion, it simply didn't make ANY sense that a mine wouldn't go of since (and I've made that point several times before) a mine shouldn't care about the "how" you came to land on it. And being totally aware of the dangers of appealling to your common sense, don't you think that the FAQ makes the most "common sense" in the end?

And when it comes to quoting or not quoting rules; aren't we all "allowed" to quote the rules when debating this? Where else are you guys coming up with your idea/interpretation that (I am paraphhrasing the following bit) "damage (cards) are dealt one at a time and you must check for destruction after each card"??

I am feeling confident that you will say "Yeah, but they totally got it wrong" IF, and I repeat IF, FFG FAQ's that DV crew card can be used with 1 hull left. And I will absolutely promise you that I will write up a huge apology to you if they go with your view; however it will not be an apology for my efforts to "defend" my interpretation, but merely for having taken up so much of your valuable time trying to lecture me in my erronious ways of thinking. Deal?

My point was, some people seem to be very selective about their quoting the rules, ignoring anything that runs counter to the side they're trying to argue. I read through your part, your part says several times "go see his part." That, to me, implies it has precedence.

I'm not saying that Boost vs Barrel Roll, et al, was a bad call. I'm saying that they could have simply errata'd that particular rule to clear it up (and maybe they plan to) instead of just contradicting what was written. Instead of going "whoops, we wrote that wrong," or "we wrote that without taking this into consideration," they just belied their own card text. Not a specific interpretation, not a clarification, just a flat out overruling.

Do I think it was the right ruling? Sure. Do I think they could have handled it much more elegantly, and in a way that wouldn't have set a bad precedent for the possibility of them ignoring the text on future cards? Yep. I can think of a handful of ways they could have resolved that without calling their card a liar.

On the other hand I absolutely think Dark Curse entirely negating a blaster turret's ability to fire was a terrible call. Will I play it that way? Sure - they made it clear that's how it works. Do I have to like it? No. I think it was a bad, bad, terrible illogical call, and I will hope, possibly for the game's lifespan, that they come to their senses and change it. That doesn't mean I'll ignore it just because I don't like the call. Judge and jury hand down a verdict, that's the verdict. Doesn't automatically make it the "right" one. Just the one you've got to live with.

At the same time, I don't know why you're so convinced I, for instance, would rant and rail if FFG rules that you do not have to have 2 hull left to use Vader's ability. It's not personal. I don't care one way or another. I just think the way the rules are currently written there's a pretty strong implication he doesn't. If they overrule that, great. I just hope they do a better job of resolving it than they did the Prox Mine thing.

I don't need or want an apology for anything, nor would I offer one. I just think that Buhalin made a pretty strong case the more I looked into the wording of the rules. Honestly, I kind of hope they DO clear it up so that he can work the way you interpret it. I just hope they find a way to do so that's a little more elegant than just telling us to ignore what it says. I don't really have any personal stake in this ruling one way or the other, but if it's something I do strongly disagree with, of course I'd feel free to complain that they 'got it wrong' even as I played it the way they wanted.

CrookedWookie, the apology "offer" was mainly directed at Buhallin, and I wasn't implying that you would rant or have personal stakes in the matter. Actually neither do I, what I do have is the right and opportunity to say what my interpretation is, and I will continue to do so. I am sure that both you and Buhallin will do the same, and I actually hope so, since these discussions (believe it or not) makes me reconsidere/review my interpretation and/or understanding of the rules, especially when it is in the (many) cases where new upgrades, abilities etc. etc. seems to come in confligt with the core rules.

But more importantly, I continue to enjoy the game even more than I enjoy these "battles of wits" in here, I hope you do too

What CW said, but I'll elaborate this time.

You're perfectly entitled to quote rules. I'm just not sure why you're doing it. You admit and acknowledge that you don't care to follow the letter of the rules, that you're driven instead by your guess at what they wanted it to do rather than than what is actually printed. The problem with that is that your guess has nothing to guide it. "They didn't want Vader to be able to suicide his own ship" is a perfectly valid intent-based argument. So if you're not going to follow the rules, why bother with them at all?

When I say that FFG "Got something wrong" it's not because I don't like it, or even that they made me wrong about a call I'd made, it's that they're contradicting their own rules. If don't think the Proximity Mine ruling is good or bad in itself, but it blatantly contradicts the rules and card as printed. I don't have a problem with the mine going off; I have a problem with not presenting it as errata. As printed, the Prox Mine ruling is clearly WRONG.

I really couldn't care less about what FFG WANTS something to do - that's your realm, not mine. What I care about is whether or not they present a consistent, coherent, clear rules set that we as players can interpret without waiting for daddy to come home and tell us how to play it because they didn't bother to write clearer rules in the first place. So when I say they got something wrong, it's in relation to their rules as printed - more specifically, in relation to the rules we as players have available. If the "right" way to play something is utterly impossible to derive based on the rules and cards as printed, then yes - they got it wrong at some level, whether that level is the original design, the card ability, the ruling itself, or how to present that ruling.

It's probably worth noting too that I've never hesitated to acknowledge when I turn out to be wrong about something. In the recent round of "FFG got it wrong" I took a ton of abuse from people like you following 3 issues I raised. One was changed and prompted an update to the FAQ, one was acknowledged by Kniffen as exactly the contradiction I was suggesting it was, and the other so incontrovertibly contradicts the printed rules that it's impossible to deny. So I think I'm pretty honest about taking my best shot at reading what we've got, and you can take your demands for an apology and... well, do something unkind with it.

I would also like to point out, I think it's very telling that the rules that keep being quoted are from the combat phase, covering the "Deal Damage" step of resolving an attack. That's all very well and good except, as stated above, Vader is not 'making an attack,' so those rules don't apply.

Furthermore, if you go to page 16, the heading is Additional Rules, with the text "This section explains all rules not previously addressed," and the first thing under that? Suffering damage, with the rules we feel are relevant in this instance, since it also covers all the damage suffered in ways other than as the result of an attack.

They're additional rules. It specifically states that they were NOT previously addressed (ie in the combat section), and it also lists Simultaneous Attack, in big red letters, as the one exception to the rules on suffering damage, which at least throws out there the idea that a simultaneous attack very well might BE the one time when a ship can actually have a stack of damage cards on it, exceeding its hull.

Not to mention, the combat section you keep quoting,directs you at least twice to the more in depth rules on Suffering Damage on page 16. So it's actually reads even there like it gives you a general idea how resolving damage in an attack works, before directing you straight to the part about resolving the damage received one at a time.

Okay,please allow me to quote the ENTIRE section from page 16 which (as you so rightly pointed out) concerns damage suffered not only during combat but also from all other sources (I will bold specific words for emphasis):

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: If the Damage deck runs out, shuffle the

discard pile to create a new deck.

Critical Damage

When a ship suffers damage, players deal the

Damage card facedown and ignore the card’s text.

However, when a ship suffers critical damage,

players deal the Damage card faceup.

The text on faceup Damage cards is resolved as

instructed on the card. Listed above this ability is a

trait (either Ship or Pilot). The trait has no effect,

but it may be referenced by other cards or abilities.

When a ship is dealt a damage card faceup, place a

critical hit token near the ship. This token reminds

players that this ship is affected by an ongoing effect. If

a ship somehow manages to remove the ongoing effect

(e.g., by flipping that card facedown, by discarding that

card, etc.), return the critical hit token to the supply.

Destroying Ships

When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship

is equal to or greater than its hull value, the

ship is immediately destroyed (faceup and facedown

cards count toward this total). Immediately remove

the destroyed ship from the play area, discard all of

its Damage cards to a faceup discard pile next to

the Damage deck, and return all of its tokens to their

respective supplies.

PLEASE PLEASE point out to me (I am a humble (and quite possibly stupid) Dane) that you MUST or SHOULD check for destruction after EACH Damage card?? How is it otherwise (within the scope of the quoted sections, especially the "Destroying Ships" part) possible to exceed the Hull value

(on a funny little side note I actually find it funny that they specifically say "the number of Damage cards" and thereby they "forget" that you could have ie. a TIE-Fighter with 2 Direct Hit cards (face up naturally), so doesnt that mean that the ship is still alive?? It only have 2 cards but 3 Hull, right? I am NOT so stupid as to defend this far out notion)

How is it otherwise (within the scope of the quoted sections, especially the "Destroying Ships" part) possible to exceed the Hull value

I have an X-wing with 2 damage cards. I take one critical hit (let's say I flew over an asteroid and rolled a crit). I draw a damage card face-up, it's a Direct Hit. I now have 4 damage.

Thus, the total damage is greater than the hull value of the ship, all while staying within your completely artificial "Only these rules" requirement. Thanks for making sure to include the Critical Damage bit, by the way.

As fun and different as it is having to answer rules questions without considering ALL the rules, we've been through all this before. Asked, and answered, more times than I can count for the last five pages.

Buhallin, I have already shoved the offer where I think you suggested I should put it ;-) It hurt just a little bit, but I'm okay again.

but seriously, don't you think that the deep core in our disagreement is exactly what you point out: you want clear concise unambiguous non-contradictory rules (that were written more than 1 year ago) that are capable to "handle" all these new issues, and that you (and this is my own wording) do not like having to consider other possibilities for interpreting the rules "how they were intended"? I will admit that they in many cases could and certainly should have made a better effort in wording it right from the start, but I do not care to go into a discussion on whether they should call it an errata or FAQ, to me that is bit potato/potato point.

I do not care to go into a discussion on whether they should call it an errata or FAQ, to me that is bit potato/potato point.

The difference is that errata fixes the source of a problem in a way that keeps things consistent. Rulings that deny the actual rules create additional inconsistency.

Proximity Mines only blow up when overlapped during a maneuver. Boost and Barrel Roll are not maneuvers. But they'll set off a proximity mine. So what other effects depend on maneuvers, but might be triggered by Boost or Barrel Roll? All of them? Only template-based ones? Only damaging ones? Only ones that use markers with at least some red printed on them?

<shrug> Who knows? An errata which fixed the underlying rules would have been clear for the next time someone asks "What happens if I Boost over...?" Doing nothing at all would have made it equally clear. Instead, we get a rule with absolutely zero foundation for the "why", and that not only doesn't help us answer similar questions, it actively removes our ability to do so.

It says right in the bit you quoted, putting aside "greater than" for a sec, if damage equals your hull, you are immediately destroyed. How does that not immediately check for damage? And right after that, it says Exception: Simultaneous Damage. So to answer the other part of your argument, to whit: how is it otherwise possible to exceed hull damage? Using the exception listed: taking simultaneous damage allows you to have more damage cards than hull. Asked and answered.