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.

Luckily it doesn't refrain you (or I for that matter )to be making a mighty big effort to do

He's right though, whatever else: an faq makes a ruling on something that could be interpreted multiple ways. An errata actually rewrites a rule that doesn't work as its intended to. One creates a new rule, or at least recreates an existing one. The other clarifies how a rule works, without CHANGING the rule itself. There is a world of difference between the two. In the case of barrel roll and boost, either they or more logically proximity mine needed an errata badly to account for actions that move your ship. Simply doing an faq without fixing the clear contradiction sets several very dangerous precedents without actually fixing the original problem. It leaves it hanging there, ignored in one specific instance, waiting for another rule to come along and trip over it.

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.

Nope. First of all you ask me to ignore the very core of my argument, next you tell me that the very fact they do not write "check for destruction of the ship after each card" that means that you should do exactly that. And finally you say that the exception (Simultaneous Attack) is part of the section that it i(Simultaneous Attack) s the exception from

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.

Luckily it doesn't refrain you (or I for that matter )to be making a mighty big effort to do

Then perhaps I should say it removes our ability to do so with certainty .

Consider an example. Lando with Nien Numb and an Engine Upgrade. Nien turns straight maneuvers green. If I boost forward, does Nien turn that green? Does that then let Lando hand out an extra free action to a friendly ship?

Prior to the Prox Mine ruling, the answer is obvious: No, Boost isn't a maneuver, so even though it's straight Nien doesn't affect it, and Lando can't trigger off it.

If we had errata to fix the problem, the answer would be equally obvious. Say they errata Prox Mine to trigger from overlap at the end of a maneuver OR ACTION, the answer stays as above. Say they errata Boost and Barrel Roll so they ARE actions - it now triggers the Prox Mine, and a whole lot of other effects, and makes the above combo work.

But with what we got... Who knows? I can't actually tell someone that the above is illegal, because I have no idea if it is or not. I can take a guess that it's probably not supposed to work that way - and that's obviously enough for you - but I cannot prove that it's wrong. So we dice it, and today it works but tomorrow it doesn't.

Let's take an even simpler, and even related, question for you: Can I drop a Seismic Charge after moving, but before I execute a Boost? Why or why not?

Aaaaaand goodnight ;-)

the very fact they do not write "check for destruction of the ship after each card" that means that you should do exactly that.

You're right - the fact that they don't write "Check for destruction of the ship after each card" doesn't actually mean that "you should check for destruction of the ship after each card."

It means that you "Check for destruction always, at all times, constantly throughout the game, and perform the effect any time the requisite condition is met". Yes, that happens to include between card deals, but they don't have to state it specifically in order for the condition to be met.

You know, if this is the way this is going to go, I'm going to stop trying to answer your questions, and just start linking to posts where people have made the exact same claims, and we've processed them all through. It'll be less painful for everyone.

How could the exception to a rule NOT be covered in the same section as a rule? What do you mean No? Go look at page 16 - it's right there in big red letters. I also did not ask you to ignore the core of your argument, I said put aside damage exceeding your hull *for a second* and then circled back and explained where it comes into play like two sentences later.

And they tell you RIGHT THERE under what condition you check to see if your ship is destroyed; any time damage equals OR exceeds your hull. Which means ANY time you suffer damage, from any source, you are by definition checking to see if it equals OR exceeds your remaining hull.

Is there a circumstance under which it can exceed your hull? Sure - simultaneous damage, which it makes clear is the EXCEPTION to the rule. If its an exception that damage can exceed your hull in that specific instance, it's clearly not meant to be a common occurence. But, and I cannot stress this enough, the rules state in big red letters that simultaneous damage is the EXCEPTION to how damage gets resolved. Meaning it doesn't normally pile on in excess of your hull.

Because, when it equals OR exceeds your remaining hull, you immediately explode. And it meets before it can exceed, if you're resolving the damage individually as it says to.

Part of the problem is that there are also rules that imply you deal all damage before you check, such as Step 7 of the Combat procedure and the note at the end of Destroying Ships.

If it wasn't for Vader's ability, we probably wouldn't even notice the problem. This can be justified both ways, so its going to have to come down to a ruling from FFG as to which way it is supposed to work.

Well I would definitely agree you have to *in combat* because of the exception - simultaneous attack. Not necessarily outside of combat. But I also agree they'll have to just straight up rule on this one.

The problem I have with the "Always check" interpretation is that it basically means "suffering damage" means two different things depending on whether you're making an attack or damaging with something else. During an attack Step 7 says to deal a damage card for every damage point suffered. That seems to say you deal all the damage cards first. But if its a proximity mine, that doesn't matter because (according to Bulhallin) mine damage isn't subject to Step 7 so its check after every card because of the way "Suffering Damage" is written.

It seems to me that it should be one way or the other all the time, and Step 7 seems pretty clear that you deal all the damage before checking. Bulhallin doesn't agree, but none of his examples as to why seemed to be relevant to me.

Don't get me wrong, I do see his point, and to be honest the "one at a time" statement is problematic for my position. But I think Step 7 is problematic for his, so what can you do?

So,

The ship taking damage here is the one with Vader on board. Lets just say for the sake of the argument it has a PS of 2. The ship conducting the attack also happens to be that same shuttle, still with a PS of 2. If this were two different ships, one causing damage at PS 2 and one receiving damage at PS 2, there would be no limit to the amount of damage taken because the simultaneous damage rules would be in play.

The point that I am making is that we do have a precedent where damage is clearly allowed to exceed hull value, and the ship is not removed immediately. Before Vader, under any other circumstances besides equal PS there was effectively no difference in game effects, the ship was removed before anything else had an opportunity to occur regardless.

It seems that Vader would have the same PS as himself, that all ships (including the ship involved) should be able to complete their actions before blowing up. I don't remember offhand, but if Soontir Fel were to kill Han Solo with gunner, would Solo be able to activate gunner before disappearing on his counter attack? I believe the answer is yes, which further suggests that what is "behind the curtain" is that all ships at a given PS deal damage and complete their attacks entirely, then all ships with damage equal to or greater than their hull are removed.

No, this is not stated explicitly, but equal PS shots are the only example we have of events causing the destruction of multiple ships "at the same time", so it seems like we should go with it for now.

Yes, the wording for drawing and applying one damage at a time is very compelling. But the wording that clearly allows for "excess" damage is also very compelling. Comparing the two, and considering the only real "simultaneous destruction" rules we have allow for excess damage, I think we should allow Darth Vader to function even if his ship needs only one more damage to be destroyed.

...which further suggests that what is "behind the curtain" is that all ships at a given PS deal damage and complete their attacks entirely, then all ships with damage equal to or greater than their hull are removed.

The problem I have with the "Always check" interpretation is that it basically means "suffering damage" means two different things depending on whether you're making an attack or damaging with something else. During an attack Step 7 says to deal a damage card for every damage point suffered. That seems to say you deal all the damage cards first. But if its a proximity mine, that doesn't matter because (according to Bulhallin) mine damage isn't subject to Step 7 so its check after every card because of the way "Suffering Damage" is written.

It seems to me that it should be one way or the other all the time, and Step 7 seems pretty clear that you deal all the damage before checking. Bulhallin doesn't agree, but none of his examples as to why seemed to be relevant to me.

Don't get me wrong, I do see his point, and to be honest the "one at a time" statement is problematic for my position. But I think Step 7 is problematic for his, so what can you do?

I know I said I was done with this, but I'm going to take one more shot.

You have two problems with how you're reading the rules for Step 7. First, you're assuming they cannot be interrupted by other abilities or checks, which we know is false. This is the "mandate" you set up, and we've already discussed it. I'd ask if you can find another example of a rule which does what you're saying this does - set up a condition which is immutable, and must be completed without modification by any other rules element. Honestly, even your own mandate has problems. You've said before that the mandate says all damage must be dealt, but abilities let you change where - but that's not what it says. "The hit ship suffers..." Deciding that you can move the damage around as long as it's still dealt is convenient, but if the damage dealing is as inviolable as you suggest, your own accommodation breaks it.

Second, you're also reading WAAAY too much into the ordering of Step 7, and where they list the destruction check. Let's try yet another example of "When..." and look at Acquire a Target Lock for a second. The process for this lists 1,2,3,4, and then says "When measuring range for a target lock, the player may measure 360 from the active ship." So does this mean you can only measure range after you completed step 4? Or is that sentence a more general rule that can be considered and used at any point in the previous process, so long as the condition ("...measuring range for a target lock...") is met?

Edit: To maybe simplify the point a bit, rules do not create an inherent ordering based on the order they appear; that ordering is created by the relational timing and conditions included in the rules themselves. Sometimes this is done via steps, other times explicit via terms like "After", but trying to create a strict ordering that things happen in based on the order they're printed in the book is not always safe.

...which further suggests that what is "behind the curtain" is that all ships at a given PS deal damage and complete their attacks entirely, then all ships with damage equal to or greater than their hull are removed.

This isn't how it works, though. You don't remove ships at the same PS at the same time (end of the PS cycle) - you remove each ship after it has had a chance to attack. The timing for this if two ships kill each other is pretty tight, but it's much easier to see in a 2v2 situation. If 4 ships all have the same PS, A and B fire at C and D, destroying them both, then C attacks, C is then removed, then D attacks, then D is removed.

Yes, that is the more technically correct way to put it. No, that doesn't make any material difference to the point I was making which is why I didn't belabor the difference. The ship is not removed until it has completed its attacks, and like gunner I believe Darth Vader should be allowed to activate as part of that attack before the ship is removed.

Yes, that is the more technically correct way to put it. No, that doesn't make any material difference to the point I was making which is why I didn't belabor the difference. The ship is not removed until it has completed its attacks, and like gunner I believe Darth Vader should be allowed to activate as part of that attack before the ship is removed.

Ravncat hit this a few pages back, and I think he's got it right. The "immediately" on destruction will tie with the Gunner (allowing it to happen) but beat Vader, and the ship will be removed before Vader can be used.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/90367-question-about-darth-vader-crew-card/page-2#entry867146

That makes sense, though I see no functional difference between wording it as "after you perform an attack, ..." and "after making an attack, immediately...". Otherwise, you would be allowed to use Vader at any point on any turn as long as the ship in question had performed an attack at some previous point in the game, rather than be required to perform it right away.

Regardless, the point made by Ravncat would only apply if the ship carrying Vader was attempting to activate him as part of a "simultaneous attack" after being destroyed by a ship with equal PS. If Ravncat's reasoning is sound, then Vader would not have the chance to activate at all, for any amount of damage, because the moment the attack was completed the ship would go away and not have the opportunity to activate Vader in the first place.

The question at hand is whether, once activated, Vader would be able to complete his action if the ship he was on required only 1 more damage to be destroyed. It looks more similar to a simultaneous attack than anything else, to me, since the damage inflicted by Vader is occurring at the same PS "step", and as part of a single action.

It is possible that Vader's ship could be destroyed by an opponent with equal PS. In that case, we have two questions. 1 - Does Vader have the opportunity to activate at all once the attack is done? 2 - If Vader is allowed to activate, does his ship disappear halfway through Vader's action?

In my opinion, Vader goes off and does his thing. That seems the most consistent with the way simultaneous attacks have worked, even with other abilities like gunner. It also seems to be the most consistent with FFG's propensity to allow special abilities a great deal of latitude when overriding general rules. With conflicting statements in the rulebook, I don't really know what else to go by. You make a very good point, so do the people who disagree with you, and absent a specific ruling none of us really have anything more to go on.

Yes, I was strictly referring to simultaneous attack rule and arguing that it prevents vader from attacking.

I can now only point to RAI, cluster missiles were also hotly debated using simultaneous attack arguments, but ffg ruled that they are not, so I do not expect simultaneous attack to be valid for reading Vader. It seems that simultaneous attack rule is really an exception to the game framework rules for destroying ships, fel's wrath being the only other exception I know of.

I do not think we can make a rational ruling using the exceptional case, as

A: when part of the exceptional case Vader cannot be triggered (by my reading and logic linked above)

(Though if he could trigger immediately, it would seem that he could be activated as the ship could take infinite damage before destruction)

And

B: when outside of the exceptional case (not simultaneous) Vader is clearly after the attack and not an attack, and thus framework rules mandate ship destruction before the cost can be fully paid IF the cost is paid one at a time. While suffering damage implies taking cards one at a time.

The most relevant ruling on this from ffg I cannot find, but is somewhere ; can anyone find where they wrote about dealing damage cards? Are more cards dealt to a ship than it has hull? Or do you stop drawing cards when a ship is destroyed (outside of a simultaneous attack situation)?

I know I said I was done with this, but I'm going to take one more shot.

You have two problems with how you're reading the rules for Step 7. First, you're assuming they cannot be interrupted by other abilities or checks, which we know is false. This is the "mandate" you set up, and we've already discussed it. I'd ask if you can find another example of a rule which does what you're saying this does - set up a condition which is immutable, and must be completed without modification by any other rules element. Honestly, even your own mandate has problems. You've said before that the mandate says all damage must be dealt, but abilities let you change where - but that's not what it says. "The hit ship suffers..." Deciding that you can move the damage around as long as it's still dealt is convenient, but if the damage dealing is as inviolable as you suggest, your own accommodation breaks it.

Second, you're also reading WAAAY too much into the ordering of Step 7, and where they list the destruction check. Let's try yet another example of "When..." and look at Acquire a Target Lock for a second. The process for this lists 1,2,3,4, and then says "When measuring range for a target lock, the player may measure 360 from the active ship." So does this mean you can only measure range after you completed step 4? Or is that sentence a more general rule that can be considered and used at any point in the previous process, so long as the condition ("...measuring range for a target lock...") is met?

Edit: To maybe simplify the point a bit, rules do not create an inherent ordering based on the order they appear; that ordering is created by the relational timing and conditions included in the rules themselves. Sometimes this is done via steps, other times explicit via terms like "After", but trying to create a strict ordering that things happen in based on the order they're printed in the book is not always safe.

No, I'm not assuming they can't be interrupted. I have never said otherwise, and never intended "mandate" to mean that. If that caused a misunderstanding, I apologize. That doesn't change the fact that it says each damage suffered must result in one damage card being dealt. As far as I know there are no cards or abilities that change that. They may change who gets the damage card, or allow the ship to discard the damage card but they are still dealt. Checking for damage in between means that not all suffered damage gets dealt a damage card, in contradiction with Step 7. You have never explained why that would be, as far as I know.

As far as the ordering, it isn't there they way we both think it should be. All I'm saying is that Step 7 gives us an example of the relationship between suffered damage and damage cards. One for one. There is no mention of the possibility that you stop at some point. If a ship suffers three damage from weapons fire, it suffers three damage. It doesn't matter if it is destroyed by the first two damage cards, it still suffered three damage. I see no reason not to view it that way. As I understand your position, you don't consider a ship to have suffered damage until a damage card has been dealt. I don't think that position is supported in the rules.

As for your question about target locks, it stands to reason that Step 1 is when the clarification about how to measure takes effect. It says "When measuring...", and Step 1 is when you measure.

Now, I know what you're going to say, that "when" in Suffering Damage kicks in when the number of damage cards equals the hull value of the ship, but I submit that could equally mean it kicks in after all the damage is dealt since the same conditions are met. In addition, that would satisfy the wording of Step 7, which is that all suffered damage results in a card being dealt. I also point out the note at the end of Suffering Damage, which says ships are destroyed immediately after damage cards are dealt. Granted, this could mean "enough damage cards to destroy the ship", but that certainly isn't spelled out, and "after all damage cards for that attack are dealt" is equally possible and also seems to fit better with Step 7.

That makes sense, though I see no functional difference between wording it as "after you perform an attack, ..." and "after making an attack, immediately...". Otherwise, you would be allowed to use Vader at any point on any turn as long as the ship in question had performed an attack at some previous point in the game, rather than be required to perform it right away.

The generally accepted distinction is that "immediately" effects go off before non-immediate effects. As you point out, every effect is basically immediate; this is really the only concept for what "immediately" actually distinguishes that makes sense. This is backed up by several good examples:

- Gunner firing after the first Cluster Missile attack: if it wasn't immediate, you could trigger it and be simultaneous with the second Cluster Missile, allowing you to choose the order since they're both your effects, and taking the second cluster shot.

- Chewbacca's pilot card: If Chewie's ability weren't immediate, it would be parallel to the effect of the critical, and that critical might still take effect.

There are almost certainly others, but those are the two that come to mind first.

Sadly, the term isn't actually defined but that's been the generally accepted meaning long before Vader came along. Based on that, Ravncat's read looks correct.

Do you have an alternate purpose for what "immediately" means, and how effects which use it relate to effects which don't?

No, I don't have an alternative explanation, other than that the sometimes inconsistent and grammatically vague casual wording of the X-Wing rules leads me to believe this is just an example of inconsistency rather than intent. In both instances we are talking about doing something right away.

I can certainly support the position that you and Ravncat take where effects specifically listed as "immediately" must be performed before effects that lack that qualification. My earlier post was not an effort to take a considered stance on the matter, to be honest I had never really thought about it. I was only really trying to point out that Ravncat's interpretation did not apply to the specific question at hand, rather than trying to dispute that interpretation with any amount of intellectual rigor, as well as putting forth my feeling of what they probably mean / will rule.

Lacking further information, and having spent a little bit reading the arguments put forward and the relevant rules, I agree that the interpretation Ravncat put forward and you have supported is the one most supported by the rules we have. So, we would perform any effects/actions that have the qualifier "immediately" before we perform those that lack that qualifier, though all of these actions must be performed immediately in the general sense.

- Master, is the RaW side of the rules stronger than the RaI side?

- Stronger? No, no... no. Quicker, easier.... More seductive...

- But how am I to know the correct side from the incorrect?

- You will know... When you are calm, at peace, and read the FaQ. A Jedi uses the rules for playing and fun, NEVER to dispute...

Sorry, I have been laughing about this several minutes and I thought I should share it. Just in case someone finds it funny too.

- Master, is the RaW side of the rules stronger than the RaI side?

- Stronger? No, no... no. Quicker, easier.... More seductive...

- But how am I to know the correct side from the incorrect?

- You will know... When you are calm, at peace, and read the FaQ. A Jedi uses the rules for playing and fun, NEVER to dispute...

Sorry, I have been laughing about this several minutes and I thought I should share it. Just in case someone finds it funny too.

Got me chuckling too ;-)

And... for those that missed it RaW and Ral means???

Rules as Written, Rules as Intended.

Rules as Written, Rules as Intended.

So what gets people so upset with me is when I don't use either and say dumb things like common sense