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

And really neither one is a GREAT way of solving things, they're just the ONLY way to solve things until they're expressly cleared up in the FAQ.

The problem with Rules as Written is that sometimes rules are badly written. They wind up having interactions with other cards which the designers didn't predict when they wrote them, they fail to use important keywords clearly and consistently *coughFFGcough*, they don't bother to dub something like a Boost or a Barrel roll a 'Maneuver Action' or something similar so it falls under the rules for maneuvering onto a proximity mine, etc.

The problem with Rules as Intended is that you have no idea what the designers actually intended. You may think you do. You may even be right. But just as often, what you consider to be the obvious, "common sense," (god I hate that phrase - it means common as in shared or uniform, and NOBODY has the same experiences and biases, so everyone brings a very different, uncommon brand of common sense to the table, making the phrase meaningless) interpretation of something, the designers may have come at it from a completely different angle.

Maybe they wrote the rule with a future card or rule in mind, and that's why it seems a little weird and out of place. Maybe (see rules as written) they flat out wrote the card wrong, giving you the wrong impression of their intent. Whatever the cause, as bad as following the Rules as Written can be (assuming you can even agree on an interpretation of THAT), delving into the land of "here's what they "obviously" meant by that" is even more dangerous, because you're not doing what the developers intended - you're doing what you'd like to think they intended, and that's a very slippery slope.

It reminds me of that old Churchill quote about how democracy is the very worst possible form of government, except for all of the other ones. Reading the rules as written is usually the worst possible way to try and interpret a questionable rule - except for all the other ones. Because you don't know.

With the Vader thing, for example, you have two ways of taking the Rule as Intended. The developers intended Vader to be able to use his effect and blow up his ship, even if it only had 1 hull remaining to pay the 2 damage cost. OR The developers worded it the way they did to ensure you couldn't use his ability unless you had at least 2 hull remaining.

You could make an argument for either, both come from a fairly straightforward point of view. You were meant to pay the entire cost; if you can't, you can't use the ability, OR, you take both damage simultaneously, and are meant to be able to use his ability even if you are destroyed without being able to technically take two damage before doing so. As you've seen, there are cases to be made for both, there are precedents pointing to both, parallels for both arguments can be drawn from other examples in the rules, and both sides obviously feel that their side is the one the developers intended.

Which makes the entire concept of Rules as Intended one purely of bias couched in the disguise of this mythical 'common sense,' projecting your own interpretation and intention onto the rule and calling it the developer's. So again - Rules as Written is a terrible way to interpret a difficult rule. It's just better than the other way.

Ken at Sunrise: " Your Father CrookedWookie... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force RaW. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker CrookedWookie and "became" Darth Vader Buhallin. When that happened, the good man who was your father CrookedWookie was destroyed. So what I told you my interpretation of the rules was true... from a certain point of view."

Jehan Menassis: "A certain point of view?"

Ken at Sunrise: " Luke Jehan Menassis, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

[...]

But just as often, what you consider to be the obvious, "common sense," (god I hate that phrase - it means common as in shared or uniform, and NOBODY has the same experiences and biases, so everyone brings a very different, uncommon brand of common sense to the table, making the phrase meaningless) interpretation of something, the designers may have come at it from a completely different angle.

[...]

Experiences, I guess you have a point. But in my limited experiences many most of the people I have or currently game with seem to share common sense. i.e. It is not uncommon.

I know a some have said that in their experience everyone is completely different and can't come to the same conclusion or that common sense isn't that common. How do you guys agree on anything since that in human experience nothing is perfect (IMHO) so there is always a means to argue over the imperfections.

It is really a shame that so many here have had that experience; I suppose we are lucky in that we just haven't seen that. Yes there will always be the one that picks a foolish argument and can't let it go, but they are usually rare, in our experience. And if they are abusive we simply don't play with them.

Sorry you hate that phrase. It seems to work for us; it just makes sense.

[Edited for spelling]

Ken at Sunrise: " Your Father CrookedWookie... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force RaW. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker CrookedWookie and "became" Darth Vader Buhallin. When that happened, the good man who was your father CrookedWookie was destroyed. So what I told you my interpretation of the rules was true... from a certain point of view."

Jehan Menassis: "A certain point of view?"

Ken at Sunrise: " Luke Jehan Menassis, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Ken at Sunrise: " Your Father CrookedWookie... was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force RaW. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker CrookedWookie and "became" Darth Vader Buhallin. When that happened, the good man who was your father CrookedWookie was destroyed. So what I told you my interpretation of the rules was true... from a certain point of view."

Jehan Menassis: "A certain point of view?"

Ken at Sunrise: " Luke Jehan Menassis, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Search your feelings - you know it to be tr...wait, no it's not.

I just HAD to like both of them, the post and the You Tube.

Loved it. Sorry I could only like once each.

[...]

But just as often, what you consider to be the obvious, "common sense," (god I hate that phrase - it means common as in shared or uniform, and NOBODY has the same experiences and biases, so everyone brings a very different, uncommon brand of common sense to the table, making the phrase meaningless) interpretation of something, the designers may have come at it from a completely different angle.

[...]

Experiences, I guess you have a point. But in my limited experiences many most of the people I have or currently game with seem to share common sense. i.e. It is not uncommon.

I know a some have said that in their experience everyone is completely different and can't come to the same conclusion or that common sense isn't that common. How do you guys agree on anything since that in human experience nothing is perfect (IMHO) so there is always a means to argue over the imperfections.

It is really a shame that so many here have had that experience; I suppose we are lucky in that we just haven't seen that. Yes there will always be the one that picks a foolish argument and can't let it go, but they are usually rare. And if they are abusive we simple don't play with them.

Sorry you hate that phrase. It seems to work for us; it just makes sense.

And let me clarify one thing - I was using a bit of hyperbole myself. I think I threw some smiley winky faces in there somewhere. So I apologize if I made it sound all dire and cynical about mankind. I didn't mean that. Obviously people can come to agreement sometimes, and compromise others - if this question ever came up in the middle of a game, we'd just roll to see which way to play it and move on, not come to blows over it or something.

I've said before, I don't really want Vader to work that way, necessarily. I'm not sure he's meant to. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate because my first inclination was to dismiss what Buhalin said out of hand, and then I decided I should go back and reread the rules a little more carefully and sure enough came around to his point of view. Not necessarily agreeing that it's right but agreeing that's how the rules seem to imply it works . If they 'fix' or overrule that I'm not going to lose any sleep over it - in fact if it ever came up in my own group I'd probably not have a problem with someone playing it so he could use his ability with 1 hull left. I just think that's not the way it reads, to me, and partly figure the only way it'll ever GET clarified in an FAQ is if we all debate and argue and make a big fuss over it to the point where they decide it needs to be addressed. Squeaky wheel gets the grease, eh?

So I didn't mean it to sound nearly as dire and dismal as it may have come out. That's why I can't understand why some people start resorting to personal attacks and insults and stuff, because generally to me this stuff isn't personal. It's just good hopefully healthy debate. I'm not going to crow if they rule it 'my' way or Buhalin's way or whatever you want to call it, and I'm not going to be the least bit upset if they rule it the other way. I just hope they do so in a way that is clear, concise, and doesn't directly contradict anything they have written in the rules or on a card. (Good luck with that)

Terms like "Rules as Intended" or "Common Sense" just stick in my craw a bit simply because that's generally not what someone means when they say it. If it was common sense, if it was "obviously," "blatantly," or any other "ly" I've seen thrown around, what the designers intended, we wouldn't be arguing this for like 200 posts. CLEARLY there is some valid disagreement and lack of clarity on the point, right? So if it was all that obvious, or as clear and blatant as some people like to think, why are we still here, you know?

So again, I don't mean it to be obnoxious or cynical, I just mean that when someone says "just use common sense," they tend to really mean "how are you not seeing this the same way that I do?" and when they say "it's obviously what the designers intended" they really mean "I'm pretty sure I'm right on this, so obviously that MUST be what the designers intended, because I couldn't possibly be wrong."

Vader is the perfect example. You can make completely valid, logical arguments that the 2 damage thing is meant to prevent you from being able to use his ability when you're down to 1 hull, OR that the damage happens simultaneously and so it doesn't make any practical difference if his ship has 1 or 2 hull left when his ability kicks off. Both are somewhat supported in the rules. Both can be pretty logically laid out and argued for. But there's a pretty stark disagreement over which one is correct, which both sides agree is going to have to be cleared up or ruled on by FFG.

Again, 'common' sense means a shared sense of what is correct, something that should be obvious to anyone with a brain, like "the stove is hot, it would be pretty stupid to lay your face on a glowing red burner." It should be a pretty universal truth, unless you're somehow born to a race which has thick scales and is immune to heat or something, in which case you're going to come at the question from a very different perspective.

That's a ridiculous, extreme example, but my point is simply this: if we should all have this shared sense of correctness, this common sense, or a magic ability to look at the rules and read deep into the hearts of those who wrote it and divine their intent like a bunch of oracles reading bones, how are we disagreeing, or unclear on, anything in the rules? It's precisely because we don't all share the same point of view, the same understanding of the rules, the same belief in their intent, and sometimes the designers flat out write something wrong, or unclearly, or change their minds on something, and all of us are operating on bad information in the first place.

That's why logical arguments are fine, even if I don't agree with them, but appeals to common sense and intent drive me up a wall. The first can be argued and made a case for, even if we take the same facts and come up with different conclusions. The second, whatever you want to call it, is wishful thinking, guesswork, and projection. And I'd rather base my conclusions on the facts at hand, and find out I was wrong, than base them on my own personal feelings or guesswork trying to read the minds of those who wrote the rules, and find out later I happened to be right. Maybe that's crazy.

PS - Tongue in cheek or no, this couldn't POSSIBLY be more true:

Ken at Sunrise: " Luke Jehan Menassis, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

[...]

So I didn't mean it to sound nearly as dire and dismal as it may have come out. That's why I can't understand why some people start resorting to personal attacks and insults and stuff, because generally to me this stuff isn't personal.

[...]

Terms like "Rules as Intended" or "Common Sense" just stick in my craw a bit simply because that's generally not what someone means when they say it. If it was common sense, if it was "obviously," "blatantly," or any other "ly" I've seen thrown around, what the designers intended, we wouldn't be arguing this for like 200 posts. CLEARLY there is some valid disagreement and lack of clarity on the point, right? So if it was all that obvious, or as clear and blatant as some people like to think, why are we still here, you know?

[...]

That's why logical arguments are fine, even if I don't agree with them, but appeals to common sense and intent drive me up a wall.

[...]

But I have been attacked verbally for saying 'it make's sense to me', have been called names, told I didn't know what I was talking about or even told I lacked knowledge in my own professional field all from people that I have never met. It clearly bothers you and another has told me that simply me using the phase annoys him. So what am I to make of that?

No I didn't take anything dire and the world can go on and we can still be friends. I actually do agree that logical arguments are fine; I like how they point out things to me that I do not know or yet understand. Just so we are on the same page. I seldom invoke what is in my limited experience 'common sense'. I most often stick to the rules but where there is ambiguity I like to think some things just make sense or flow better. I've been accused of 'playing the way I want and calling it common sense' too. That is also unfortunate since he too has not met me and doesn't know my preference. I can say with a little more confidence than a total strange that sometimes a common sense ruling goes actually counter to my game preference.

Logic is fine, strict adherence to the rules is fine too. But, at least for me in my little world, when I look at some things that aren't clear to others, occasionally and not always our group looks at it and says 'that makes sense'. And that phase is not intended as an insult, it is not meant to criticize anyone's life experience or anything derogatory at all. It is merely means that may be other ways of looking at and interpreting the rules and those ways may just be as valid. Maybe, sometimes, once in a while.

Life long and prosper,

[Edited for spelling]

As one example, first time we played (ever) my group missed the rule on canceling crits and did it wrong. To a man the rest of the group felt that it made sense you should be able to cancel critical hits before regular ones. So we played it that way for several games, until I was able to go back with experience in hand and give the rules a more careful reading on some of the finer points.

And in fact they all complained that was a stupid rule and didn't make any sense, until I pointed out that if you flipped it around and looked at it another way, the critical hit is the shot that through luck or skill manages to hit you where it hurts - find the ***** in your armor, the gap in your defenses, whatever, so from that perspective of course they would be the hardest ones to avoid taking.

At which point everyone in the group kind of mulled it over and went "ok, yeah I guess that makes sense too" and it never came up again.

Sort of a bad example simply because the rules DO very clearly state that one and we just flat out missed it on the first read-through as we went. But I guess my point is, if pretty much unanimously we agreed the logical, common sense way to do it was the exact opposite of what the rules tell you to do, you can hopefully imagine how much room there is for confusion and disagreement when it comes to a rule that isn't very clear on how it's meant to work. When there's no clear, ironclad precedent to follow and circumstantial, roundabout evidence that could support either interpretation.

That's all I mean by my whole "ugh, never say common sense to me" demeanor. Although I think the fact that to me it's just kind of a minor annoyance but clearly you have some personal history and find people attacking your common sense to be kind of a sore spot to be exactly indicative of what I mean when I say everyone brings their own varying history, points of view, and experiences to the game and it's going to color our interpretations of it.

But for me, whenever this kind of thing comes up, I always think back to those first games when we did crits wrong because we missed that rule and did it the way common sense told us to, and it makes me very wary of trying to judge anything in this game using "common sense," because it's inevitably a biased, unreliable, contentious way to judge a rule - simply because what's common sense to you, and what's common sense to me, may be completely at odds with one another. And at that point you're just kind of slinging unsupported personal interpretations at one another and not getting anywhere.

Put another way, if I rail against dragging "common sense" into a debate, it's not because I'm trying to personally attack someone's point of view - it's because when most people refer to common sense they're generally ignoring the fact that's precisely what their argument IS - their personal point of view, and not one they should enter the discussion assuming everyone else would/should share it. I can respect someone stating straight up "this is my personal interpretation of this, and here's why." When they say "come on, just use common sense" they're so convinced their own point of view is right - and should be shared by anyone 'with an ounce of common sense' that they're usually shut down to any other possible interpretation whether they realize it or not.

My gut feeling on whether you can use Vader's ability w/ 1 hull left or not is that if they didn't intend for you to be able to do it w/ less than 2 hull remaining they would have specified so much.

For instance, with Jan Ors she can take a stress to allow a friendly to roll an extra attack dice but it specifically states that she can only do it if she isn't already stressed.

Of course gut feelings are all well and good until FFG actually rules on it.

My gut feeling on whether you can use Vader's ability w/ 1 hull left or not is that if they didn't intend for you to be able to do it w/ less than 2 hull remaining they would have specified so much.

For instance, with Jan Ors she can take a stress to allow a friendly to roll an extra attack dice but it specifically states that she can only do it if she isn't already stressed.

Of course gut feelings are all well and good until FFG actually rules on it.

Well, Jan Ors specifically says that, and there's STILL a vocal minority insisting that she should boost BOTH attacks on something like Cluster Missiles, and that the ruling on Gunner is a totally unrelated issue. If one thing should be clear by now it's that they sometimes assume we're assuming things we're not. Or they assume we're not going to assume things that some of us do. I assume.

My gut feeling on whether you can use Vader's ability w/ 1 hull left or not is that if they didn't intend for you to be able to do it w/ less than 2 hull remaining they would have specified so much.

For instance, with Jan Ors she can take a stress to allow a friendly to roll an extra attack dice but it specifically states that she can only do it if she isn't already stressed.

Jan says she can't user her ability while stressed because if it didn't, there wouldn't be anything to stop her from using it repeatedly for every attack carried out. The "if not stressed" clause isn't there as some sort of redundant reminder - it's a limit on using the ability which wouldn't exist without that bit of text.

Vader wouldn't need a similarly explicit prohibition because the base rules already stop it.

Lol

When they rule on it my guess would be that they will either not allow you to suicide at all or allow you to do with either 1 or 2 hull. You could be right about having to pay the price or whatever but I doubt it will get hung up on exact #, either you can or can't.

When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value, the ship is immediately destroyed

I see why your saying vader cant be activated when he can only receive one damage.

But I think your over thinking it a little.

I also think vader card says take two hits to give one critical not an exact quote im using.

Both happan at the same time. It says take to give.

Implies timing occurs same time.

Unless we have established it somewhere in the multiple pages it does not.

Do we really nees and faq to say on the count of one two three we will both take our cards from the pile?

When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value, the ship is immediately destroyed

I see why your saying vader cant be activated when he can only receive one damage.

But I think your over thinking it a little.

I also think vader card says take two hits to give one critical not an exact quote im using.

Both happan at the same time. It says take to give.

Implies timing occurs same time.

Unless we have established it somewhere in the multiple pages it does not.

Do we really nees and faq to say on the count of one two three we will both take our cards from the pile?

You're missing the point. It does in fact say, in the section on suffering damage, that damage is resolved one at a time - not at the same time, as is at least implied in the part about combat. So there's a fairly big question as to whether combat damage (to allow for simultaneous attacks) works differently than damage from other sources or not.

One section makes it sound like you take two damage, you resolve two damage. The other one makes it sound like you take two damage, resolve the first one, if the thing in question is still alive, resolve the second one. That would potentially make a big difference for something like Vader, or anything down the road that does multiple damage outside of combat.

And it might seem like it wouldn't make sense for them to differentiate, but people said the same thing about the game "knowing" where damage comes from - yet now a bunch of abilities play off of attack dice or defense dice specifically, so it IS now important to keep track of what result came from where. And in combat, because of the possibility of simultaneous damage occurring, you really CAN'T resolve damage one at a time - you have to let it pile up.

Page 16 on suffering damage, though, seems to clearly indicate damage is resolved one at a time, with the exception of simultaneous damage. So yeah it's pretty important they clear it up one way or the other, especially since Vader won't be the last time we see something cause 2 or more damage outside of an actual attack.

Lets just remember this for later

Note Because ships are destroyed immediately after receiving Damage cards (red writing so it must be important)

If your correct in that assumption there would not be a rule that states you can have equal to or greater than your hull.

The fact you say it sounds like is an opion. Yours and nothing wrong with that at all.

Opions can be nothing more than how you see things from your perspective.

Q: If a player has multiple effects that resolve at the same time, can he resolve them in any order?

A: Yes

Vader says take two hit to give one critical from my personal perspective I could turn around and twist this to say I think I can use this to make the critical get resolved first. But I wont.

Thats the problem with Opions you will then bring up another rule to say no it means this.

Lets look at this logicaly you say there are two rules on saying take one hit at a time where Page 16? It says take one at a time I agree does it specifically tell you to stop?

No it does not. Does it go on to say a ship is destroyed when it is equal to or greater than yes it does.

It never says stop at this amount and it never said stop at this amoun and check hull damage and count all your cards and see if yoyr sheilds have been accounted for like people suggest.

Now lets go back to the first thing i said not damage cards.

Again more than one. Thats why there is an s at the end of the word. Here is a rule agin saying you take all your cards before you see if your destroyed.

The problem with your interpretation it now crates two rules one where vader can be used with one hull and one where it can not.

Q: When the Simultaneous Attack Rule keeps a ship in play until it performs its attack, are all effects pertaining to that ship still in play? A: Yes. Effects from the ship’s pilot ability, upgrades, Damage cards, etc. are still active and may affect the game

So thats clear simultaneous attacks vader stays on Until the crit gets cancelled as under this rule there is still an effect in play.

With respect has ffg ever made a rule that has two out comes?

Its not a case of applying logic and or perspective its about the rules

Can you have equal or more than your hull in damage yes

While the rules sugest you take one hit at a time they never tell you to stop at a spacific number until you have taken all your damage cards and then and only then does the rules on page 16 under the heading destroying ships tell you to add your damage cards.

And reading the main rules and trying to find loop holes three years later for a card that they did not even know they would have and trying to go over the smallest implications really?

Can you have equal to or greater than yes you can this rule is without question proff to say you don't stop counting damage cards until you have taken them all. If you dont stop then that kinda deflates your argument.

Lets go for the fluff answer

Im vader in my reality ive not meet luke so im still bad, im about to be destroyed so whats a vindictive guy like me going to do.

Why glad you asked, im going to blow my self up and cause you damage.

Boom

Okay so now im dead the shock wave is going to ripple out and hit you.

Oh wait according to some people as im dead I can no longer hurt you so the shockwave in a twist of ironic fate never happans.

No the laws of physics occur and you get hit. Im still dead no matter if my damage is equal to or greater than.

Because thats the rules.

Lets put it another way if your still having trouble

You take one hit/crits at a time until all your hits/crits have been taken then and only then as the rules state you are destroyed so yes you can use vader any time.

Why because the one at a time rule appears under suffering damage and the equal or grearer than appers under destroying damage.

Logically follow the steps in order not like people suggest get a card go to next step go back get another card etc.

OK nothing you said actually contradicated any of the points we've been making. You just reiterated the same stuff the other side has been saying, and the rules they've been quoting, while dismissing out of hand the rules and examples the rest of us have been quoting. I'm not sure that added anything new or coherent to the discussion.

Put another way, "if you're still having trouble," if it says "you are immediately destroyed when you receive a number of damage cards equal to or greater than your hull," it is ENTIRELY possible to say that if the first condition (equal to) is met, you are destroyed immediately without ever needing to carry on to the second step (greater than). That's kind of what "immediately" implies. Not "if you receive damage equal to, keep going and see if you take damage greater than."

And don't tell me there's no example of a rule that has two outcomes. There are literally dozens. That's why there are rules to begin with. And more importantly, that's why some of the rules have exceptions, which you'll note, Simultaneous Damage is clearly listed as. Simultaneous damage in combat is an exception (and says so in big red letters) to the normal rules on how suffering damage works, which means that piling on more damage than you have points of hull is also an exception to how it normally works.

I would also like to point out, as came up in another thread, there is no such thing in the game as 'paying the cost' for an ability. That's something we've kind of made up as a community. Check the rules - "cost" is used about six times, all with reference to the actual point cost of a ship or upgrade.

Vader is not 'paying a cost' to use his ability, he is simply following the instructions written on his card. And there is a strong case to be made that if you have 1 hull left, you are unable to complete the instructions as written on the card - not to mention the timing issue that raises a distinct possibility that he would simply blow himself up without ever taking the second damage - and thus not completing the card text and hitting someone with a critical damage.

The more I think about this I "hope" for simplicity sake that they rule that you cannot suicide your ship to use the ability. That would be black and white and not even require delving into the rest of the debate.

Btw, where does one find the FAQ anyway?

On the FFG website, under Downloads, I think? Or support?
Or you know, just here:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=174&esem=4

But if this isn't a "cost", wouldn't that reinforce the notion that damage is inflicted anyway?

If we follow your methodology: In combat we have a ship with 2 damage "on the table" but only one hull left. We would draw and apply cards one at a time. So, we draw the first card and apply it. The ship now has sufficient damage, so we remove it from the board and we are done. No rules are broken, we don't invalidate the entire attack sequence just because we are unable to draw and apply that last damage card. We continue on from that point like normal.

Following that same methodology, it seems to me that we would: Activate Vader with only one hull left. We would draw and apply cards one at a time. So, we draw the first card and apply it. The ship now has sufficient damage, so we remove it from play. Again, no rules are broken, and we don't invalidate the attack sequence. We continue play, apply one Critical damage to the other ship and move on with the turn.

Alternately, it seems to me that we take 2 damage, bam, all at once because the effect is all at once. Just like a Direct Hit that causes two damage all at once. Either way, it is one card/effect causing two damage, unlike normal combat hits where each hit is specifically resolved one at a time.

Well it depends, I mean at this point we're kind of splitting hairs and interpreting them the way that fits our perspective.

I mean for any rule either of us can throw at the other on this one, the other can take the exact same rule, or a similar rule, and throw it right back with the exact opposite interpretation.

Using my methodology, you could just as easily say that you activate Vader with one hull left. You draw and apply cards one at a time. Draw the first card and apply it. The ship has sufficient damage, so we remove it from play. We now cannot apply the second damage and so the card is negated and discarded from play. I mean the way you just argued it, you basically said that the ship (and presumably everyone/thing on board) is removed from play - but the Vader crew card somehow remains in effect and plays through to completion. I don't know that that makes any more sense than the alternative. If the ship is removed from play, why are the crew cards still taking effect?

Remember, you said "no rules are broken, so we don't invalidate the attack sequence," - this is not an attack sequence, unless I'm misunderstanding you, so it's not going to follow the steps of an attack. It happens immediately following an attack, and would jump straight to the rules on p16 about suffering damage. There would be absolutely no reason to bring the steps of an attack into play at all since Vader's effect would wedge in AFTER your attack was resolved, but BEFORE moving on to the next ship or whatever.