The 2 damage to your own ship isn't really a "cost" - there isn't such thing in X-wing. But it is phrased as a prerequisite.

"Suffer 2 damage to inflict 1 critical damage". It's a "Do X to Y" structure. If you don't do X, you don't get Y. This is why I use the simple example of missile target locks earlier: "Spend your target lock to perform this attack." Nobody would accept that you could "perform this attack" without completing the "spend your target lock" part.

The damage from Vader isn't really anything like a Direct Hit, either. Direct Hit says it counts as two damage, but it's still one card. The only way for Vader to inflict two damage is by dealing two cards. And, finally, the "one at a time" clause is part of the generic Suffering Damage process, NOT part of combat resolution.

When the 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

No where on vaders card does it imply he has to be alive or be able to live through the experience.

Crooked wookie it sounds like your saying you opion is fact.

You said on page 16 under suffering damage you take one card at a time you then count your damage as instructed to do so under the heading destroying ships. Then go back to resolve any damage left.

How is it not contradiction to point out no where does it say to do that. If it does please point that out.

It says you take one at a time yes

It then says you cancel sheilds then hits before you take the crits....

After you have done all that.

Then the next step is to see if your ship has equal to or greater than damage.

If by this stage your alive okay

If you have three more hits than was needed to kill you oh well.

A lot of people have said that and every time you or someone say the are wrong or you say they dont listen to your argument.

But then you rubbish other people's argument in the same way.

Last I checked everyone was entitled to their opion.

And as for your claim ive not added to anything new and its just the same stuff other people said thats okay by me just means people agree with my argument while disagreeing with you. If ive said it as well just means I dont have time to read eight pages of back and forth arguments by yourself in how your opion is the only correct one as thats what it seems like.

Perhaps, but I just don't see how it is reasonable that the card says "you may suffer 2 damage to cause" and one tries to use it when they only have 1 hull left. Baring more clarity from FFG and any which rule interpretation one may have, this just doesn't seem right, period!

That is like saying 'I have 6 hull but since it says may so I'll only suffer 1 damage', It just doesn't sit well.

[Edited]

P.S. the more important question is can we get to 200 post only to say we don't agree?

And again, honestly - I think it'll wind up getting ruled your way, whether it seems to contradict the rules or not.

And that's fine by me, I don't really care how they do it, I just think a legitimate case could be made either way, going by the rules. I just hope they figure out a way to clean it up without making more of a mess elsewhere. Some of their FAQ answers seem to create problems where none existed before, rather than just fixing a specific one.

To me, as much as I avoid looking at intent, common sense, guessing what they were thinking, it comes down to one question: did they intend for you to be able to 'suicide' with Vader, or not? Because I think it's extremely likely that if you are able to suicide him with 2 hull, you'll also be able to do so with 1 hull. Not certain. They've split hairs like that before. But likely.

And at the end of the day, since there's nothing to indicate simply that Vader can't suicide, which would have been seemingly easy to slip in there, I suspect this IS the way it'll wind up working. I'm just not convinced it's the way it's currently written.

CW has the right of it. There are conflicting rules and precedents, so we really don't have an answer beyond guessing what the designers had in mind.

I'm not sure if this just muddies the water, provides clarity or is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand but I have seen something mentioned a couple times now in this thread and I'm still a bit confused about it.

When damage is dealt, aren't you supposed to apply a damage card from your deck equal to the number of hits you take regardless of how many hull remained?

Example: you have 1 hull remaining, you take 2 hits plus a crit and cannot negate any of them; although the first damage dealt is enough to destroy your ship aren't you still supposed to deal out all 3 cards from your damage deck?

Example: you have 1 hull remaining, you take 2 hits plus a crit and cannot negate any of them; although the first damage dealt is enough to destroy your ship aren't you still supposed to deal out all 3 cards from your damage deck?

This is kinda the crux of the matter.

The view that I, CW, and a few others have is that you deal damage 1 at a time, and effects, rules, and conditions are checked between each card being dealt. Since a ship is destroyed when damage equals or exceeds the hull value, if you had one hull left and took 3 damage you'd deal the first, the destruction check says "Boom, you're dead" and since you remove the ship immediately there wouldn't be anything to resolve the rest of the damage against - so while you'd deal them in theory, they'd fizzle without a target.

Others are equally committed to the "must deal all the damage" idea, and read it that you don't check for destruction until after all the damage has been dealt.

When the 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

No where on vaders card does it imply he has to be alive or be able to live through the experience.

Crooked wookie it sounds like your saying you opion is fact.

You said on page 16 under suffering damage you take one card at a time you then count your damage as instructed to do so under the heading destroying ships. Then go back to resolve any damage left.

How is it not contradiction to point out no where does it say to do that. If it does please point that out.

It says you take one at a time yes

It then says you cancel sheilds then hits before you take the crits....

After you have done all that.

Then the next step is to see if your ship has equal to or greater than damage.

If by this stage your alive okay

If you have three more hits than was needed to kill you oh well.

A lot of people have said that and every time you or someone say the are wrong or you say they dont listen to your argument.

But then you rubbish other people's argument in the same way.

Last I checked everyone was entitled to their opion.

And as for your claim ive not added to anything new and its just the same stuff other people said thats okay by me just means people agree with my argument while disagreeing with you. If ive said it as well just means I dont have time to read eight pages of back and forth arguments by yourself in how your opion is the only correct one as thats what it seems like.

Dude, ok - first, it's an opinion. You don't have to learn to spell, that's fine, but spellchecker is your friend. I have no opions.

Second, paragraphs and complete sentences are your friends. Nobody is going to take anything you say seriously if it looks like their 6 year old cousin typed it out for them and they can barely decipher it as English. And no, I don't care if English is not your native language or something - that's great. Your computer still has plenty of ways to help make your thoughts legible.

For actual rules, it's implied a NUMBER of places that your ship has to be 'alive' in order for it to do anything. That's why somebody like Fel's Wrath is an exception to the rules. That's why simultaneous attack damage is listed as an exception to the rules on suffering damage. If you could just normally hang around and DO stuff after your ship was destroyed, they wouldn't need to list the couple of examples where that's NOT the case.

I'm not listing my opinions as facts. I'm listing facts as facts and then giving my opinion ON them. That's an extremely important distinction. Again, I don't know how much more clearly I can state this - and let's be clear, you not AGREEING with it is not the same thing as the point not being a legit one to make: there is only one clear, obvious example (Vader does not count, because he has not been made clear yet) of your ship being able to take more damage than it has hull. That is the Simultaneous Attack exception. Vader does not fall under that, nor under ANY of the rules on making an attack, because he is not an attack. He is a special effect that happens right AFTER you make an attack. So quoting steps from the process of handling an attack is pointless - he's not an attack.

If you agree that (keeping Vader aside for a moment since he's the very point of contention here) Simultaneous Attack is the only instance in the game, aside from Fel's Wrath, where you can have more damage cards than hull points, the entire argument you're making falls apart. And if there are a bunch of other examples of taking damage above and beyond your hull that are clearly laid out - by all means throw them this way. I'd love to look them over. I have seen nothing yet to prove that the more damage than hull clause is anything more than covering the couple of exceptions that come up.

If you agree that 99% of the damage in the game is resolved 1 by 1, and that it reads pretty clearly that you would be destroyed immediately if you get damage matching your hull - because "meeting" would happen BEFORE it could "exceed" and meet one of the conditions for destruction - it becomes a really fuzzy issue.

I'm not dismissing anyone's view on how damage works. If it was clear that - outside of combat - damage did accumulate and resolve even if it kills you before you resolve it all, great. We'll do that. But that's NOT what it says. It says to resolve one at a time, and if it equals or exceeds your hull you blow up immediately. Meet happens before exceeds. Immediately would imply "right now - why are you still trying to resolve damage?"

And if you didn't have time to read the entire thread and see what people were actually SAYING in it, maybe trying to write a rambling dissertation sharing your more than welcome to it opinion wasn't your best idea. Nice of you to chip in with a review of the film when you caught the last five minutes and the end credits. The fact you don't like the lead gaffer's name lends a lot of weight to your point of view.

Here I go being all wibbley wobbley. I agree 100% with what you said mostly. Huh 100% mostly? Yeah.

I agree that:

The view that I, CW, and a few others have is that you deal damage 1 at a time, and effects, rules, and conditions are checked between each card being dealt. Since a ship is destroyed when damage equals or exceeds the hull value, if you had one hull left and took 3 damage you'd deal the first, the destruction check says "Boom, you're dead" and since you remove the ship immediately there wouldn't be anything to resolve the rest of the damage against - so while you'd deal them in theory, they'd fizzle without a target.

Yes, yes, but if you have 2 hull left even though you go "Boom, you're dead" and even though "you remove the ship immediately"

Since you have met the requirement you still get to "cause that ship to suffer 1 critical damage" even though my ship is gone, boom, no more, history, only a memory...

[41 posts to go and no agreement]

I'm not sure if this just muddies the water, provides clarity or is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand but I have seen something mentioned a couple times now in this thread and I'm still a bit confused about it.

When damage is dealt, aren't you supposed to apply a damage card from your deck equal to the number of hits you take regardless of how many hull remained?

Example: you have 1 hull remaining, you take 2 hits plus a crit and cannot negate any of them; although the first damage dealt is enough to destroy your ship aren't you still supposed to deal out all 3 cards from your damage deck?

Here's the thing, though - that is stated during the COMBAT part. It's not stated - in fact the opposite is stated - in the Suffering Damage part. The suffering damage part says, clipped, but in order, please feel free to give it your own careful reread on page 16...

1. When a ship suffers damage or critical damage,

2. Reduce Shields: If there are any shield

3. Damage Hull: Deal one Damage card to the

Sorry it formatted weird. Now note - NOWHERE in there does it say you deal out a card for each damage. In fact it strongly is worded to the opposite. Resolve them one at a time. Deal ONE damage card. That really, really makes it look like damage is resolved one by one, and if the ship survives you go back and deal the next damage it suffered.

Here I go being all wibbley wobbley. I agree 100% with what you said mostly. Huh 100% mostly? Yeah.

I agree that:

The view that I, CW, and a few others have is that you deal damage 1 at a time, and effects, rules, and conditions are checked between each card being dealt. Since a ship is destroyed when damage equals or exceeds the hull value, if you had one hull left and took 3 damage you'd deal the first, the destruction check says "Boom, you're dead" and since you remove the ship immediately there wouldn't be anything to resolve the rest of the damage against - so while you'd deal them in theory, they'd fizzle without a target.

Yes, yes, but if you have 2 hull left even though you go "Boom, you're dead" and even though "you remove the ship immediately"

Since you have met the requirement you still get to "cause that ship to suffer 1 critical damage" even though my ship is gone, boom, no more, history, only a memory...

[41 posts to go and no agreement]

And that's not a bad point - except I think if you are able to resolve that second damage point, the rest of the effect is ALSO immediate. And since you could then resolve the destruction of your ship and Vader dealing a critical damage in either order you wished, since you're the active player and they are simultaneous effects.... Obviously you'd do the crit THEN blow up.

Yes, yes, but if you have 2 hull left even though you go "Boom, you're dead" and even though "you remove the ship immediately"

Since you have met the requirement you still get to "cause that ship to suffer 1 critical damage" even though my ship is gone, boom, no more, history, only a memory...

Yes - I agree with this completely.

Once the ability is active and in-process, it will resolve even if the ship is destroyed. So if you have 2 hull, you will meet the prerequisite of two damage, be immediately removed, and then Vader's ability will finish resolving.

The damage is different in the first place because it explicitly says you deal them one at a time.

Yes, yes, but if you have 2 hull left even though you go "Boom, you're dead" and even though "you remove the ship immediately"

Since you have met the requirement you still get to "cause that ship to suffer 1 critical damage" even though my ship is gone, boom, no more, history, only a memory...

Yes - I agree with this completely.

Once the ability is active and in-process, it will resolve even if the ship is destroyed. So if you have 2 hull, you will meet the prerequisite of two damage, be immediately removed, and then Vader's ability will finish resolving.

The damage is different in the first place because it explicitly says you deal them one at a time.

Buhallin, I have to tell you this is getting a bit scary... we've agreed on the last several posts and if you add CrookedWookie then it's down right spooky.

Yes, yes, but if you have 2 hull left even though you go "Boom, you're dead" and even though "you remove the ship immediately"

Since you have met the requirement you still get to "cause that ship to suffer 1 critical damage" even though my ship is gone, boom, no more, history, only a memory...

Yes - I agree with this completely.

Once the ability is active and in-process, it will resolve even if the ship is destroyed. So if you have 2 hull, you will meet the prerequisite of two damage, be immediately removed, and then Vader's ability will finish resolving.

The damage is different in the first place because it explicitly says you deal them one at a time.

And like I just said - if BOTH damage are received, it meets the conditions for the final part of the card, which would then happen simultaneously with your ship being destroyed. And simultaneous effects are ladies' choice.

And like I just said - if BOTH damage are received, it meets the conditions for the final part of the card, which would then happen simultaneously with your ship being destroyed. And simultaneous effects are ladies' choice.

I'm not entirely sure this is the case. We know how abilities that go off at the same time work, but we don't necessarily know how that functions INTERNALLY with partial abilities. Does Vader get split up into two parts like this? Or is he just one big ability? And does the destruction interrupt something if it happens in the middle of an ability like this, or wait until after?

I don't think it actually matters at this point, and honestly I don't think we need to chase down another theoretical distinction that doesn't have any practical impact. It is an interesting question, though

I don't know, it's kind of fun. "Quick - confound the issue with another rule paradox!"

Ok, one more thought. Is there any reason why Vader's two damage does not consist of two damage cards dealt at the same time? As you have said, this is different than combat so drawing conclusions from there is problematic. Take 2 damage, maybe that means just take two cards and put them down on your ship.

Just a passing thought I had while reading the thread.

Honestly, I don't know. Combat makes it sound like you deal them out all at once. Suffering damage makes it sound MORE like you resolve them one at a time, and doesn't clearly say to deal them out one at a time or all at once either one. Is grey area.

Suffering Damage says to deal damage one at a time.

I think it's a mistake to read too much of damage resolution into Step 7 of combat. The instructions there are vague and incomplete at best, and even refers the reader to the full rules for Suffering Damage more than once.

Suffering Damage says to deal damage one at a time.

I think it's a mistake to read too much of damage resolution into Step 7 of combat. The instructions there are vague and incomplete at best, and even refers the reader to the full rules for Suffering Damage more than once.

I think it's a mistake to read step 7 of damage resolution in combat at ALL in this case, because nothing about Vader's ability indicates you'd have any reason to flip to the steps of carrying out an attack in the first place.

Suffering Damage says to deal damage one at a time.

I think it's a mistake to read too much of damage resolution into Step 7 of combat. The instructions there are vague and incomplete at best, and even refers the reader to the full rules for Suffering Damage more than once.

I think it's a mistake to read step 7 of damage resolution in combat at ALL in this case, because nothing about Vader's ability indicates you'd have any reason to flip to the steps of carrying out an attack in the first place.

Well, I'M certainly not the one who keeps bringing it up

I know, I guess it was more of a "I'd even take that statement a step further."

The point I was trying to make is that the rules seem to draw a distinction between "suffering damage" and "dealing damage cards". You can "suffer" a hundred points of damage. That doesn't mean you'll get a hundred damage cards. You'd only get enough to destroy your ship. (I've come to agree with Bulhallin on that point).

If you are hit by an attack that does three points of damage, you suffer three points of damage. That your ship is destroyed by the first damage card you are dealt for that attack is irrelevant to how much damage you suffered. Think of it as being shot three times. The first bullet hit you in the heart and killed you, but that doesn't change the fact that you were shot three times.

That's why I think Vader can still perform his ability even if one more damage will destroy his ship. The ship can still suffer two damage even if only one damage card is dealt.

My counter argument to that is that they could simply have had ships destroyed after all damage is resolved stated clearly. The fact it goes into resolving damage one at a time and says you are immediately destroyed when you take damage equal to your hull makes it much less clear. All it had to say was that you resolve ALL damage taken, and THEN if you have suffered damage equal to or greater than your hull, you are at that point immediately destroyed.