After some people ran shuttles at worlds, I was wondering....

I lost track of whether we ever got a definitive ruling on whether a Shuttle with only one hull (or less than on hull but still on the board due to simultaneous attack) could actually still trigger the Vader crew card.

This was being debated here for a while and I couldn't find the relevant thread. As I recall there was not absolute consensus, and this was the most relevant portion of the FAQ:

Q: If a ship suffers more damage or critical

damage than is needed to destroy it, are

the excess Damage cards still assigned to

that ship?

A: Yes. This means that a ship still in the play area

due to the Simultaneous Attack Rule can be

affected by additional faceup Damage cards.

Not totally unambiguous due to the seeming distraction of referencing the Simultaneous Attack rule.

Do we have an official answer?

That's all we've got. Between that one and the HLC/reroll ruling, I'm convinced that FFG holds internal contests for the best "Rules Answer That Doesn't Resolve The Question". Winner gets a bonus day off and his "answer" printed in the FAQ.

Seems rather clear to me... If the ship is still alive, then you can use Vader. If it is already dead but still on the board due to simulaneous fire, then it cannot use it. The only potential gray area is if you have specifically one hull, but as the FAQ is currently written, I would say 1 hull is fair game (and you would draw 2 damage cards)

Furthermore - if that ship happened to have gunner, if it used Vader after the first attack, which killed the ship, it would not be able to use Vader on the second attack. Curiously... I wonder what happens if there is no simultaneous fire and you use Vader on the first attack killing your shuttle... Do you get the gunner attack off? Or are you destroyed by Vader before you can attack with the gunner?

As near as I can guess, you can use Vader on both attacks even if the first one would destroy the ship.

Gunner is "immediately" and Vader is not. That means that the Gunner will actually resolve before Vader, so the second Gunner attack is done before either Vader resolves. That makes the pattern:

1. First Attack

2. Gunner Attack

3. First Vader

4. Gunner Vader

<shrug> All guesswork, honestly, since it seems like FFG actively doesn't want us to understand the rules... but based on our generally accepted meaning for "immediately" this is how the timing would go.

Thanks Buhallin, so to answer my question - no official clarification from Worlds.

Khryos, no offense, but I am not trying to open the debate again. If it was 100% clear the debate would not have existed in the first place. Your interpretation is very reasonable and I think I agree with you, but I just wanted to know if there was an official confirmation, in case it ever came up in a tournament, rather than rehash everyone's opinions about it.

Thanks guys.

Nope, you resolve each one after the attack it's linked to.

Q: If a ship attacks twice through some effect,
such as the Gunner upgrade, can the ship
use the ability of Darth Vader (the Upgrade
card) twice?

A: Yes, once after each attack.

1. First Attack

Vadar

declare Gunner

2. Gunner Attack

Vader

It says once after each Attack, not wait a while and activate it later, Buhallin is reading something into it that is not said. The FAQ is fairly specific. Darth Vader's ability activates twice, once after each attack.

Furthermore - if that ship happened to have gunner, if it used Vader after the first attack, which killed the ship, it would not be able to use Vader on the second attack. Curiously... I wonder what happens if there is no simultaneous fire and you use Vader on the first attack killing your shuttle... Do you get the gunner attack off? Or are you destroyed by Vader before you can attack with the gunner?

I think the ship is removed after the first attack. There is nothing in the simultaneous rules that says a ship that is shooting stays on, just ships that are the same PS that haven't had a chance to fire. It's not hugely clear.

There's no contradiction there, and I'm not reading too much into anything.

When there are multiple abilities which trigger off a given event, they all activate. Some will go before others because of the timing. Vader is indeed used once after each attack, but the second attack goes off before Vader can be resolved.

Of course, it's very possible for that to be incorrect - absolutely nothing surprises me any more. But if it is, it means that either"immediately" is a meaningless term, or that they're just ignoring the text again. Both are perfectly possible, and far more likely than a coherent timing structure.

Immediate is not in the timing part of the card. it's in the part after the comma, for what the card does.. IE when you choose to activate the card after attacking you have to immediately start a new Attack ending the last one.

If it said "Immediately after attacking [Comma] Make another Attack".. It would have to go first.

You are reading it like there is a stack, and nowhere in the rules does it even suggest there is one. The rules just say when it comes to the point in the turn use abilities in any order until either you are out of Abilities that happen at that part of the turn, or the chance to play them is gone.

Immediate is not in the timing part of the card. it's in the part after the comma, for what the card does.. IE when you choose to activate the card after attacking you have to immediately start a new Attack ending the last one.

I'm not even sure what this means. If you're after an attack, it's already over - "ending the last one" doesn't have anything to do with it.

You are reading it like there is a stack, and nowhere in the rules does it even suggest there is one. The rules just say when it comes to the point in the turn use abilities in any order until either you are out of Abilities that happen at that part of the turn, or the chance to play them is gone.

No, I'm not reading it like a stack. If it were a stack, the order I suggested above would be 1-2-4-3. Everything is resolving in the order it occurs, with the exception that immediately jumps the line.

"Immediately" isn't actually relevant to this case - if it were timed the same as Vader, it would just mean that it was a choice. Vader goes first, you get Attack/Vader/Gunner/Vader. But if you chose Gunner first, you'd still get Attack/Gunner/Vader/Vader. Gunner being immediate just forces the choice of resolution order, not how it falls out once you do.

Listen we have already argued this before. The FAQ is fairly direct in saying you do Vadar after each attack (Quote 'Yes, Once after each attack' not what your claiming 'once for each attack after you complete the second attack'). You are twisting what it says to match what you were saying before. You have done this after every FAQ, you argue something, the FAQ comes out that says something different, you twist it to try and match what you said before.

They have also said elsewhere you have to use abilities when they are meant to happen or lose them. They say that an ability may be used once per opportunity. No-where does it say you can go back to a previous opportunity to finish things. The game doesn't use a stack. When you get to an opportunity you may play cards one at a time. No stack. You don't put all the cards in a pile, and then work through them all. You get an opportunity, you play a card, you finish the card, you play the next card. You can't play another card if the opportunity has passed by.

Anyway we have argued this before. The FAQ does not agree with your interpretation. Nuff said.. signing out.

Really, not, but since we've hit the personal attack stage, not much point in continuing any more.

Which, to be fair, was pretty much where you started here. Silly on me for thinking there might be actual discussion to be had.

Really, not, but since we've hit the personal attack stage, not much point in continuing any more.

Which, to be fair, was pretty much where you started here. Silly on me for thinking there might be actual discussion to be had.

It's not a personal Attack, stating that the FAQ does not agree with an interpretation, is not personal. Stating you are twisting the words to match your interpretation is not a personal Attack, it's just a statement of fact.

I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking your argument as not being valid.

I've at no point made any comment on your character, called you names or used offensive language.

Q: If a ship attacks twice through some effect, such as the Gunner upgrade, can the ship use the ability of Darth Vader (the Upgrade card) twice? A: Yes, once after each attack

Clearly its after every attack if Buhallin was correct it would have been worded completly different but hay lets play.

Buhallin How are you allowed to go back to a previous Attack? If you can give an example anywhere where the rules support stacking and or going back to a previous state.

The funny thing here is that I see you doing exactly the same thing. The Gunner/Vader ruling pretty much demolishes your entire previous argument concerning what immediately means, and your window timing theory along with it... unless you dump the general understanding of immediately which is shared by most of the community, and let Vader resolve before Gunner.

<shrug> I think you're wrong, but I'm honestly no longer interested in sniping back and forth over a system which is pretty much indecipherable to anyone outside FFG and has resisted every effort to reverse engineer a coherent, comprehensive understanding. The reality is that all of it means whatever FFG wants it to mean on any given day. The rules and the FAQ are now full of contradictions, and there wasn't a single one of us who didn't have some "Wow, I got that wrong" crow to eat off the last FAQ. But despite all that, you're still coming after me by name.

So very done with it now. People can take or leave my thoughts on the system, but I'm done trying to engage with people like you.

Er.. I'm not coming after you by name.. I'm replying to a post by you. As your the one that is arguing an incorrect way of viewing the rules that doesn't match the FAQ. That is not coming after you, it's quoting you.

Maybe Vader needs Purple Dice to determine when he attacks when Gunner is present...

When there are multiple abilities which trigger off a given event, they all activate.

Everyone agrees to that. I think.

Some will go before others because of the timing.

At least they need to be executed one after the other for practical purposes.

Vader is indeed used once after each attack, but the second attack goes off before Vader can be resolved.

Of course, it's very possible for that to be incorrect -

In my understanding that is indeed incorrect. "Once after each attack" in the FAQ seems clear to me: Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader. No other order allowed.

But if it is, it means that either"immediately" is a meaningless term, or that they're just ignoring the text again.

Not one or the other but both! The non-immediate Vader happens prior to the immediate Gunner. That's clear (to me) from the FAQ. Therefore "immediately" does not mean what I thought it did. In addition to that the rule about choosing which effect to execute first is ignored. That answer contradicts the rulebook.

Both are perfectly possible, and far more likely than a coherent timing structure.

I fail to see any coherent timing structure. Prior to the last FAQ I thought or at least hoped that there were one.

I think in the end that's what it's come down to, sadly. FFG is just kind of rewriting things as they go, piling up exceptions so things work the way they'd like. Which is frustrating when they leak this stuff to the community and weird interactions are found months before the cards actually come out . Seems like it would have been easy to do some playtesting and find this stuff.

But yeah Immediately apparently means Immediately and supercedes anything not-Immediate...unless there's an effect like Vader they want to happen first. If a ship with Vader falls to a ship of the same PS, it gets to make its simultaneous attack...but for some reason NOT use the Vader effect, even though the Vader effect apparently happens fast enough to take priority over Gunner. Even though I'm fairly sure you could use GUNNER before being destroyed under the Simultaneous Attack rules.

How does that make a lick of sense? Pretty much doesn't. They're clearly winging it and don't see the need to make this stuff consistent and concise.

I actually find the rules pretty straightforward and consistent. Rodent Mastermind has pointed out repeatedly that cards indicate timing in the text. When you play a card comes before the semi-colon/comma, how you play it comes afterwards. If you read all the cards that way, and apply atomic timing (another great term contributed by Rodent Mastermind), the rules work very well. So, in the Gunner/Vader interaction.

Gunner says "After you perform an attack that does not hit" then puts a comma right afterwards. That means the timing for Gunner is only after missing an attack, immediately does not enter into consideration when determining when to use Gunner. This is why you may use Vader, then use Gunner.

If you wait to use Vader until after a Gunner attack, you can activate Vader but the circumstances of the game have changed. Therefore you use Vader against the new target. This is also consistent with other rulings like Fettigator, where abilities affect and are affected by changes made before they "go off".

None of this has changed, all of it was predicted by several members of this forum even before the FAQ came out because it is consistent with previous rulings. Not everyone was forced to eat crow, because there are some predictable and consistent methods behind the rulings. The confusion has resulted from attempts to apply timing methodology from other games to X-Wing, where those methods clearly do not apply.

So you're saying that with Vader the term 'immediately' has absolutely no meaning in relation to timing, because of the wording (in which case, why include it at all?), even though in other abilities it DOES determine timing, because it is worded slightly differently? I'm not sure that is predictable or consistent either one.

No, I am saying that Gunner indicates all requirements concerning when to activate it before the comma, which is consistent with other abilities. The word immediately indicates that when you do activate Gunner it provides you with an attack that you resolve right now, rather than later in the turn. For example, if Chewbacca at PS 5 with Gunner is on the table with Biggs also at PS 5, a player may perform their attacks in any order. The word "immediately" on Gunner ensures that Chewbacca could not attack and miss, activate Gunner, then allow Biggs to perform his attack before performing Chewbacca's second attack.

The word "immediately" is not meaningless, but neither does it indicate when Gunner is activated. It indicates how, not when, to use Gunner.

Have we found out for sure yet if Gunner is allowed to go off if you're destroyed in a simultaneous fire situation?
Because if it is, that definitely clouds the issue a bit more. If Vader goes off before Gunner, but Vader is not allowed under SF rules, and Gunner was, that twists timing rules into a pretzel.

None of this has changed, all of it was predicted by several members of this forum even before the FAQ came out because it is consistent with previous rulings. Not everyone was forced to eat crow, because there are some predictable and consistent methods behind the rulings. The confusion has resulted from attempts to apply timing methodology from other games to X-Wing, where those methods clearly do not apply.

No, this actually isn't what you predicted. Honestly, it's not even close. Your own words:

For example, Gunner/FCS. Gunner says "immediately", FCS does not. Let's assume you fire your Gunner attack at a new target. You fire the first attack at target A, and miss. Now you have Gunner trigger because it goes off "immediately", but FCS does NOT go off at all because since it lacks the "immediately" qualifier it does not go off simultaneously with Gunner. Following through the example, you get a second attack using Gunner at target B, and that attack can/will trigger FCS allowing you to TL target B. You will not have the opportunity to TL target A using your FCS at any point.

Replace FCS with Vader (which has identical timing) and everything you said there directly contradicts what you're now saying.

The only thing more impressive than the evolving argument is the attempt to pretend that it's what you were saying all along. As I said, turns out that none of us were wholly right on this. Ironic that I, supposedly the one who never admits wrong, am the one saying this while you pretend you never said what you said.