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.

I agree completely. In fact, I believe that it what Step 7 of the Combat procedure says to do. But then there's "Suffering Damage"...

The FAQ will be interesting either way.

Edit: This was a reply to CW. Bulhallin replied while I was typing.

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.

I'll happily concede that this is a fuzzier area, but still come back to this:

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.

There are two parts here that, IMHO, point strongly to damage not being suffered unless it is resolved. First is the "following these steps", which we've discussed before - I know there's some disagreement, but I still think that if you haven't followed those steps, the ship hasn't suffered the damage. That would be like saying it made an attack because it had the opportunity to, even if it didn't complete any of the attack steps.

The second piece to me, though, is even more telling: The ship must suffer all normal damage before ... This refers to suffering damage as a process which can, and in this case must be, completed. Let's say I take two hits and a crit. The rule says that I have to suffer that damage before the critical damage. How do we know when that's done? At what point have I finished suffering the normal damage so I can move on to the critical?

****.

They say there's no worse feeling than the point in an argument when you realize you're wrong. I think I just ran into that.

You make a very compelling case there. Step 7 seems to differentiate Suffering Damage and Dealing Damage Cards, but I have to agree that pretty much everywhere else seems to equate them. I have to admit you've changed my mind about that.

I agree totally that the Dealing Damage step muddies things. One of my biggest gripes with the X-wing rules is that they don't subdivide its processes well, which muddies things a lot. "Attack" is probably one of the best examples of this - there was no definition for it at all in the book, but cards used it and referenced it liberally. Honestly, IMHO Step 7 should have said "The target suffers one damage for each uncanceled {Hit} and one damage for each uncanceled {Critical Hit}. To resolve this damage see Page 16, Suffering Damage."

That's it. Instead, we get a partial rehashing of the damage rules. But nobody wants to cut and paste - it feels lazy and looks bad to an editor. So they change the rules up enough to make them look unique, and create a lot of confusion in the process.

The lack of segmented rules also muddies issues when you have different flows. Results turn into damage turns into cards. Each of those can happen on their own, but because of that rehashing and crossover, it's far easier to get them confused than it should be. Even before this, there was a big dustup over whether or not Vader's damage (self and target) would hit shields or not, which is entirely caused by people not realizing which element "damage" was actually referring to.

To complicate matters consider simultaneous attack. The ship with Vader may have zero damage remaining when it attacks. Can it use Vader after the attack?

Simultaneous attack: After this ship has had its opportunity to attack this round, it is immediately destroyed and removed from the play area.

Vader: After you perform an attack ...

I guess the player can choose which effect to resolve first: Remove ship or Vader.

Does Vader work in this scenario? I think so. Suffering two points of damage and being dealt two more damage cards while already having zero damage remaining does not trigger immediate destruction as destruction is already delayed.

Another idea, which may be complete nonsense: Does the simultaneous attack rule keep the ship and Vader alive if Vader kills his ship?

While executing Vader the ship suffering damage (Vader's ship) has a pilot skill value equal to the active ship’s pilot skill value . Is this sufficient to trigger simultaneous attack and keep the ship alive? Does it stay alive while suffering two points of damage as Vader is resolved at the same time and (player's choice) prior to actual destruction?

Another idea, which may be complete nonsense: Does the simultaneous attack rule keep the ship and Vader alive if Vader kills his ship?

While executing Vader the ship suffering damage (Vader's ship) has a pilot skill value equal to the active ship’s pilot skill value . Is this sufficient to trigger simultaneous attack and keep the ship alive? Does it stay alive while suffering two points of damage as Vader is resolved at the same time and (player's choice) prior to actual destruction?

This is not complete nonsense, and is a point I tried to illustrate earlier. You did a better job of verbalizing it, however.

The Active ship (Vader's ride) has the same PS as the ship being destroyed (still Vader's ride). On that score I would argue that once activated Vader may activate completely, regardless of whether his ride has 6, 1, or negative 15 hull remaining.

The question to me is whether Vader could activate AT ALL if his ship had equal PS and was destroyed by someone else. The ship is removed by Simultaneous Fire rules once it has had a chance to attack. The ship has already attacked, which could activate Vader, but it also means the ship should be removed. I am not convinced that immediately is tightly written to indicate priority, only because nothing else seems to be tightly written either.

I don't believe you can interrupt Vader's action midway through. Neither do I believe in a "Stack". I believe that when you have several special cards/etc., you pick one and execute it. If it has conditions on it (when you reveal a bank for example) you check to see if those conditions are met, then execute the rest of the card in full. You then move to the next card/ability, check its conditions if it lists any, and execute it in full just like the first one.

That seems to be the only way to have the rulings we have so far all make sense within a consistent methodology/framework. If we did it another way, some or all of our previous rulings would be terribly inconsistent.

Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules.

The vader card says take two damage, could be you just take two damage.

Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules.

The vader card says take two damage, could be you just take two damage.

A conflict must be explicit. Abilities only override rules that they say they override. As an example, Night Beast gets a free action after a green maneuver; that does not mean he gets that action to the exclusion of every other rule in the book. He's still limited by the other rules.

The only rule vader is in conflict with is the suffering one damage at a time rule on page 16.

What else is he in conflict with?

In fact Crooked wookie did a long drawn out argument, where he said there was two places in the rules about suffering damage relevant to this card, one implied you take one at a time, the other does not.

So he is only in conflict with one rule then.

Buhallin I think its safe to say the intent of this card is to cause damage to both ships. In this case the intent is obvious what else can it be. Thats what the card says, it causes damage to both ships. Just how it does that? We will find out when the faq is updated.

It seems somehow more fitting for vadder to fight to the bitter end. Almost like its in his character.

The only rule vader is in conflict with is the suffering one damage at a time rule on page 16.

No. Not at all.

That was the point I was trying to make. Abilities only override the rules they say they override, and that's typically very explicit. Vader says suffer 2 damage. He says nothing about changing how that damage is suffered, so he doesn't. In fact, he CAN'T override the one at a time, because it would basically break the damage flow. Say your ship has 1 shield left, and you use Vader. If you are correct and those two damage must be dealt simultaneously, rather than one at a time, how do you resolve that? Lose the shield but deal no cards? Deal two cards even though there's a shield? The entire concept of suffering damage relies on it happening one at a time.

What about the rule when the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value?

That makes no sense under your damage flow argument, as its impossible to get greater tham the ships hull value. But as you well know not only are you allowed to its written on page 16. The very Same page your using to say its impossible.

So why have it all? I have the rules saying I am allowed and you telling me im not allowed.

The rules don't say you take one damage under suffering damage and then apply the destroying ship section. They say you take one damage at a time following these steps, reduce sheilds and then damage hull. Then its a new heading critical damage then its a new heading destroying ships. Where on the on page 16 does it tell you to skip ahead and then skip back like you suggest. What you do is follow the rules finish one part then move onto another. What your suggesting is like reading a book and before you finish the second chapter you skip to the last chapter.

The card say take two damage, if its the last hull point its rather obvious if there is no sheilds you lose the hull point and as your allowed to have greater than the number of hull points in damage, its easy pick two cards up. If you only have one sheild left and no hull points same result.

So vader cant over ride the rules dispute him bring in conflict with only one rule, because you cant work out how to resolve two damage at one time. Easy his dead apply another card he is still dead. He has taken two cards and thats allowed as your legally allowed to have more than your hull value.

Vader ability overrides the rules simple.

If you dont allow vader to override the rules you brake the mechanics of allowing cards to override the rules.

What about the rule when the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value?

That makes no sense under your damage flow argument, as its impossible to get greater tham the ships hull value. But as you well know not only are you allowed to its written on page 16. The very Same page your using to say its impossible.

So why have it all? I have the rules saying I am allowed and you telling me im not allowed.

That's essentially what we have been debating for 10 pages.

• Buhallin says that destruction is checked 'on the fly' for every point of damage suffered/damage card dealt.
• I say destruction is checked only once per source of damage, after resolving all damage from that given source.

• Buhallin says that "simultaneous attack rule" is (at least in part) the justification for the 'greater than hull value' part under destruction rules.
• I say that "Simultaneous attack rule" is a rule that exclusively delays ship's destruction, and that it has nothing to do on how damage is resolved.

• Buhallin says that checking for ship's destruction is an inherent part to the suffering damage process, this check on-the-fly prevents a ship from ever suffering more damage than its hull value if not operating under concrete exceptions like "simultaneous attack" or abilities like "Fel's Wrath".
• I say that suffering damage and ship destruction are 2 different processes. First, you resolve all damage from the given source, (even if the ship ends suffering more damage than hull value) and then, you check for ship destruction.

• Buhallin says that the rules say nothing specific about timing on destruction, and thus, it must be flow-checked, or checked on the fly.
• I say that the rules have an illustrative (albeit debatable) combat example in which ship's destruction is only checked once, after all damage from an attack (source) is resolved.

That pretty much summarizes both postures, if I'm not mistaken. That being the case, I'll gladly rectify what's incorrect.

What about the rule when the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value?

That makes no sense under your damage flow argument, as its impossible to get greater tham the ships hull value. But as you well know not only are you allowed to its written on page 16. The very Same page your using to say its impossible.

So why have it all? I have the rules saying I am allowed and you telling me im not allowed.

The rules don't say you take one damage under suffering damage and then apply the destroying ship section. They say you take one damage at a time following these steps, reduce sheilds and then damage hull. Then its a new heading critical damage then its a new heading destroying ships. Where on the on page 16 does it tell you to skip ahead and then skip back like you suggest. What you do is follow the rules finish one part then move onto another. What your suggesting is like reading a book and before you finish the second chapter you skip to the last chapter.

The card say take two damage, if its the last hull point its rather obvious if there is no sheilds you lose the hull point and as your allowed to have greater than the number of hull points in damage, its easy pick two cards up. If you only have one sheild left and no hull points same result.

So vader cant over ride the rules dispute him bring in conflict with only one rule, because you cant work out how to resolve two damage at one time. Easy his dead apply another card he is still dead. He has taken two cards and thats allowed as your legally allowed to have more than your hull value.

Vader ability overrides the rules simple.

If you dont allow vader to override the rules you brake the mechanics of allowing cards to override the rules.

Argh, without recapping the entire debate, the highlighted point has been touched on now about eighteen times.

The equal to or greater than part is NOT possible, using the "Simultaneous Damage" exception on page 16. It would allow for you to have damage stacked greater than your hull IF the simultaneous attack rule was in effect.

You have two ps3 pilots, I have one, you have initiative. Your first ship does exactly enough damage to kill me. Your second ship adds 2 more damage. My ship remains on the board because it also gets to take a shot, if it's able to, before being removed from the board. It's got 2 damage cards more than it has hull points, but HAS to be able to hold onto those without them being resolved immediately in order for it to make its attack under the rules about pilots of equal skill rank.

So there is very clearly at least one (listed, in big red letters) exception which accounts (at least in part, maybe in full) for the reason it's worded like that.

It seems somehow more fitting for vadder to fight to the bitter end. Almost like its in his character.

And for the record, just ugh, no - please do not ever attempt to justify an interpretation of the rules based on armchair psychology of a fictional character. Trying to read the minds of the developers and figure out what they intended is bad (and pointless, usually) enough. Trying to draw justification for an interpretation of the rules based on how you think the developers intended to capture the spirit of the character in question is a step too far. "Well of course he should be able to take his second action AFTER executing his maneuver - he's such a brooding, thoughtful spirit."

Just....no. Let's at least try and keep the debate grounded in something approaching logic and not pure fantasy.

It seems somehow more fitting for vadder to fight to the bitter end. Almost like its in his character.

And for the record, just ugh, no - please do not ever attempt to justify an interpretation of the rules based on armchair psychology of a fictional character. Trying to read the minds of the developers and figure out what they intended is bad (and pointless, usually) enough. Trying to draw justification for an interpretation of the rules based on how you think the developers intended to capture the spirit of the character in question is a step too far. "Well of course he should be able to take his second action AFTER executing his maneuver - he's such a brooding, thoughtful spirit."

Just....no. Let's at least try and keep the debate grounded in something approaching logic and not pure fantasy.

Hi im not sure you realise this but its a fantasy game none of its logical or possible in real life. The entire game is based on the movies or around the star wars universe. So yes we can see what vaders character is like and agree that vader in the game would be like that indeed.

And for the record your forgetting is its a public forum so you dont get to tell me what I can or can not say.

You disagree with something ive said you can reapond nicely or dont reapond at all.

I think its kinda obvious the intent of this particular card its written on the card, you take two damage to give a critical. Your right im guessing here? But could the designers want you to receive two damages and take the risk of giving your opponent a more damaging critical hit that may impact on his ship, and give you a tactical advantage?

Im only guessing here your absolutely correct its so hard to work out what the game designers intended.

What about the rule when the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value?

That makes no sense under your damage flow argument, as its impossible to get greater tham the ships hull value. But as you well know not only are you allowed to its written on page 16. The very Same page your using to say its impossible.

I've never said it's impossible. I've presented multiple cases where it is, in fact, possible, and perfectly consistent with destruction being checked for constantly. The first, as CW has pointed out, is Simultaneous Fire. The other, which everyone on the other side seems to cover their ears and go "LALALA" about, is a ship drawing a Direct Hit critical that takes them past their hull value.

The entire argument for only checking destruction after all damage is dealt is laid on the idea that it's impossible to exceed your hull value otherwise, which would make the "equals or exceeds" clause meaningless otherwise. Even if you claim that Simultaneous Fire somehow doesn't count, the Direct Hit case shows that it still IS possible, giving that clause a purpose other than the rather sideways one you're trying to justify.

It seems somehow more fitting for vadder to fight to the bitter end. Almost like its in his character.

And for the record, just ugh, no - please do not ever attempt to justify an interpretation of the rules based on armchair psychology of a fictional character. Trying to read the minds of the developers and figure out what they intended is bad (and pointless, usually) enough. Trying to draw justification for an interpretation of the rules based on how you think the developers intended to capture the spirit of the character in question is a step too far. "Well of course he should be able to take his second action AFTER executing his maneuver - he's such a brooding, thoughtful spirit."

Just....no. Let's at least try and keep the debate grounded in something approaching logic and not pure fantasy.

Hi im not sure you realise this but its a fantasy game none of its logical or possible in real life. The entire game is based on the movies or around the star wars universe. So yes we can see what vaders character is like and agree that vader in the game would be like that indeed.

And for the record your forgetting is its a public forum so you dont get to tell me what I can or can not say.

You disagree with something ive said you can reapond nicely or dont reapond at all.

I think its kinda obvious the intent of this particular card its written on the card, you take two damage to give a critical. Your right im guessing here? But could the designers want you to receive two damages and take the risk of giving your opponent a more damaging critical hit that may impact on his ship, and give you a tactical advantage?

Im only guessing here your absolutely correct its so hard to work out what the game designers intended.

First off, I realize it's a game. My point was that your interpretation of fictional characters should not drive your interpretation of the RULES of the game.

Second, if I don't get to tell you what you can or can't say (and I did say PLEASE, it was a request, not a demand) then you don't get to tell me how I can or cannot respond. It works both ways. If you get to say whatever you want, and I don't have to like it, I can reply however I like, and if you don't like it, tough.

Sorry if you don't like it. My point stands - the rules need to drive the game, and should not be filtered through armchair psych evaluation of the game version of the fictional characters in question. It's just not a valid lens to look at the rules through, like it or not.

What about the rule when the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than its hull value?

That makes no sense under your damage flow argument, as its impossible to get greater tham the ships hull value. But as you well know not only are you allowed to its written on page 16. The very Same page your using to say its impossible.

I've never said it's impossible. I've presented multiple cases where it is, in fact, possible, and perfectly consistent with destruction being checked for constantly. The first, as CW has pointed out, is Simultaneous Fire. The other, which everyone on the other side seems to cover their ears and go "LALALA" about, is a ship drawing a Direct Hit critical that takes them past their hull value.

The entire argument for only checking destruction after all damage is dealt is laid on the idea that it's impossible to exceed your hull value otherwise, which would make the "equals or exceeds" clause meaningless otherwise. Even if you claim that Simultaneous Fire somehow doesn't count, the Direct Hit case shows that it still IS possible, giving that clause a purpose other than the rather sideways one you're trying to justify.

That's because "the other side" doesn´t need exceptions to validify the rule. Checking after damage works in an absolute manner for all damage occurences. You are hit in combat? Fine.... You draw a Direct hit hit card? I could not care less ... And look! Now it is a proton bomb!... Welcome to the party!, the more the merrier!

It doesn't matter what hit you, what type of damage you suffered or if gas imploded in your ass. You'll be destroyed after resolving the source of damage if it equaled or exceeded hull value. Damage matched your hull value? Nice coincidence! Destroyed!....... It exceeded your hull value? Who cares? Destroyed anyways!. Regardless of the numeric outcome, you'll be destroyed, one way or another.

Unless anything prevents it... And not by coincidence, all the rules, cards and abilities you are using to justify "overstacking damage cards" only talk about DELAYING ship DESTRUCTION. They say absolutely nothing about damage or the suffering damage process. Those rules only say: "When your ship would be destroyed, keep it in play till <something> happens". They don't say anything about "From here on, you can stack cards because now it is relevant" , or "From here on, you can overstack cards because now you are allowed to do so".

It is your side the one who needs the exceptions to justify the "Greater than hull value" part of the rule. You are making 'Equal to hull' the general rule, but 'Greater than' an exception to that general rule. That's why you need the existence of those exceptions to justify it.

This side (the other side) doesn't need those exceptions at all, because your ship always will be destroyed regardless of matching the hull or exceeding it. Exceptions to suffering damage are not needed because we are applying both parts of the rules (equal or greater) after having completed the suffering damage proccess, and not in the middle of it. For this side, 'Equal to' and 'Greater than' are both general rules, and both can happen without exceptions.

We only need exceptions on SHIP DESTRUCTION, not on ships suffering damage. And that's precisely what rules provide... Exceptions (delays) to ship destruction, that have nothing to do with suffering damage.

I do beleive in this case there is a rather obvious intent. Do i need to make an obvious deduction using fact. As its written on the card in plain language you take two damage to give one critical hit, which gives you a chance of gaining some tatical advantage.

So you would disagree that its not fitting for vader to fight to the bitter end?

Lets see you responded no, so now your suggesting vader cant use his ability with two hull points left as its a rule governed by arm chair psychology. Because that was my point when I said it seems fitting, but feel free to deliberately take someone out of context in order to win an argument.

I don't have to tell you how or how not to respond there are rules to using this forum all I ask is you follow them.

The problem is, and has always been, that there are no rules telling you you only check after damage has been dealt. That makes it a generally-timed rule. Most people justify the timing as Bazinga does - "This wouldn't be possible unless you check after." That's why other cases where it is possible are problematic.

IF there were anything saying you only check after damage is dealt, then you might be correct. But there's not. There never has been. You've never been able to cite anything to justify that view beyond an example which is simply ambiguous. You've also never managed to handle the issues which arise from non-damage cards which get dealt.

You certainly make up for correctness with conviction, though.

Lets see you responded no, so now your suggesting vader cant use his ability with two hull points left as its a rule governed by arm chair psychology. Because that was my point when I said it seems fitting, but feel free to deliberately take someone out of context in order to win an argument.

Uhm... Nobody has ever questioned that Vader can use his ability with 2 hull left. Ever.

I'm not sure if this is a straw man or just a complete failure to grasp the issue at hand.

Lets see you responded no, so now your suggesting vader cant use his ability with two hull points left as its a rule governed by arm chair psychology. Because that was my point when I said it seems fitting, but feel free to deliberately take someone out of context in order to win an argument.

Uhm... Nobody has ever questioned that Vader can use his ability with 2 hull left. Ever.

I'm not sure if this is a straw man or just a complete failure to grasp the issue at hand.

No its a response to CW taking me out of context and failing to grasp the concept of a phrase where I said words to the effect that I was glad vader card had this ability. It seemed fitting.

I do beleive in this case there is a rather obvious intent. Do i need to make an obvious deduction using fact. As its written on the card in plain language you take two damage to give one critical hit, which gives you a chance of gaining some tatical advantage.

So you would disagree that its not fitting for vader to fight to the bitter end?

Lets see you responded no, so now your suggesting vader cant use his ability with two hull points left as its a rule governed by arm chair psychology. Because that was my point when I said it seems fitting, but feel free to deliberately take someone out of context in order to win an argument.

I don't have to tell you how or how not to respond there are rules to using this forum all I ask is you follow them.

If the intent was obvious, we probably wouldn't be arguing the rules for 10 pages and counting.

I would disagree that trying to apply your personal feelings about the fictional character's actions in a movie is a valid way of trying to interpret how the rules of the game should work. It's nonsensical. It's bad enough trying to guess the intent of the game designers (which is a coin flip to begin with); trying to guess the intent of the designers based on your feelings about a fictional character's personality is ludicrous.

If you want to report me, feel free. And good luck with that. I don't mean to be a jerk, but you took my head off when I asked (ASKED) you to please stick to the rules and not go all armchair psychologist on how you think the rules should work. I responded in kind. If you want to ask them to add a "he was kinda brusque in his response" button, knock yourself out.

The problem is, and has always been, that there are no rules telling you you only check after damage has been dealt. That makes it a generally-timed rule. Most people justify the timing as Bazinga does - "This wouldn't be possible unless you check after."

So by most you mean everyone except for you and CW?

Lets see you responded no, so now your suggesting vader cant use his ability with two hull points left as its a rule governed by arm chair psychology. Because that was my point when I said it seems fitting, but feel free to deliberately take someone out of context in order to win an argument.

Uhm... Nobody has ever questioned that Vader can use his ability with 2 hull left. Ever.

I'm not sure if this is a straw man or just a complete failure to grasp the issue at hand.

No its a response to CW taking me out of context and failing to grasp the concept of a phrase where I said words to the effect that I was glad vader card had this ability. It seemed fitting.

And my response was "I'm glad he has this ability, I think it suits him" is a terrible way to measure how the rule works. That's all. They gave Vader (pilot) two actions a turn because it was a neat game mechanic, not because it spoke to how he was forced to learn to multitask in order to maintain the focus needed to race pods as a young slave lad."