Buhallin, can't you just admit that you were wrong about never admitting that you were wrong?

Lol, you leave out all the stuff where I said that my actual suspicion is that "immediately" did NOT mean what you said it does. Or that I was following the "immediately" argument through to its logical conclusion in order to test its validity (which is where you pulled this stuff from). Or the fact that in the entire thread I started titled, not coincidentally, "Immediately", I repeatedly noted that I was NOT convinced that the word "immediately" referred to timing because IF it did so there would be some serious contradictions. http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/91406-immediately/

And there are still any number of rulings which rely on "immediately goes first" to make sense.

<shrug> If you want to maintain that nobody in the entire community but you and Rodent get it, power to ya.

Having read that entire thread. It was obviously Kinetic putting forward a thought experiment. He then went saying that viewing it this way doesn't make any sense, and then put forward an alternative way of resolving it that made worked. You selectively quoted the bit that didn't make any sense and missed the bit where he said this doesn't make any sense and wrote down how he believed it should work.

The game is quite simple and the timing makes sense if you don't create a stack . Even though you claim you are not using a stack , what you are describing is a stack . And the stack messes up everything. I went into great detail on how timing worked in this game and the FAQ that came out subsequently has agreed with this theory.

All you do is get to the point in the turn, for example "After an Attack". You then play a card/ability that has "After Attacking" before the comma. You carry out what the card/ability says, then if you are still "After the Attack" you play the next card. Any checks on the card are done when the card is played. You never go these are the 3 cards I'm playing, you play one card and then, if you are still in the same time period, play the next card, until either you run out of cards/abilities or you have moved on to the next bit of the turn.

This is where all the issues come in. In your version get to the time period, say "I am playing these 3 cards" and then proceed to carry them all out whether or not the situation changes, this is this is the very definition of a stack of 3 cards.

So how does this play out in the game.

Lets give a few examples.

Adrenal Rush

• You get to "When you reveal the dial"
• There are a few effects that could now come into play, you choose to use Adrenal Rush.
• Adrenal Rush completes changing the dial to white.
• You are still in the time period of "When you reveal the dial" so you see if there are any more effects you could play.
• There are none left as the effect of having a red dial and stress is no longer valid
• You move onto the next part of the turn.

Swarm Tactics

• You get to "At the start of the Combat phase"
• You have multiple effects that could be played. You choose to use Swarm Tactics on Vader
• Vader gives Howlrunner PS 9.
• You are still in the time period of "At the start of the Combat phase"
• You still have effects that could be used in this period. So you choose to use Swarm Tactics on Howlrunner
• As Howlrunner is PS9 when you use his Swarm Tactics you give this value to the another Tie.
• You no longer have any effects that could be used in the time period "At the start of the Combat phase"
• 
  You move to the next part of the turn

Vader , FCS and Gunner

• You shoot and miss
• You are now in the "After Attacking" time period of the 1st Attack.
• There are multiple effects you could use in this time period you choose to use FCS first
• You gain a Target Lock against the ship you are shooting at.
• You are still in the "After Attacking" time period of the 1st Attack.
• You still have multiple effects you could use in this time period you choose to use Vader
• You take 2 damage and independently cause 1 critical damage to the defender of your 1st Attack.
• You are still in the "After Attacking" time period of the 1st Attack.
• You have an effect you could play so you use Gunner
• Gunner immediately starts a new 2nd Attack.
• You are no longer in the "After Attacking" time period of the 1st Attack. no more cards relating to that time period can be played
• You shoot
• You are now in the "After Attacking" time period of the 2nd Attack.
• There are multiple effects you could use in this time period you choose to use FCS first
• You gain a Target Lock against the ship you are shooting at.
• You are still in the "After Attacking" time period of the 2nd Attack.
• You still have multiple effects you could use in this time period you choose to use Vader
• You take 2 damage and independently cause 1 critical damage to the defender of your 2nd Attack.
• You are still in the "After Attacking" time period of the 2nd Attack.
• You have no more effect you could play in this period so it ends and you move onto the next part of the turn

<shrug> If you want to maintain that nobody in the entire community but you and Rodent get it, power to ya.

There are a lot of people in the community that seem to get it, they just don't want to get involved in the conversations, I know this from the amount of PMs I get. Also I chat to people at tournaments and at clubs over here and they all seem to understand it fine.

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.

I believe that you can not choose to allocate damage as part of a Upgrade Card cost to an already destroyed ship. With Vadar on a Shuttle with 1 Hull, the ship is there (and so can be targeted to receive damage) and as all the damage is generated simultaneously (the crit and the 2 damage to your own ship) It all gets resolved. Once the ship is technically destroyed (even if it remains on the board) I believe you can't generate the 2 damage (the ship is no longer a valid target to receive damage) and therefore you can't use the card. Damage from shooting is slightly different, as you're not choosing to apply it directly, it's a side effect of an Attack.

No matter what it doesn't really alter how timing works. You get to the point after the Attack, there is only one card you could use (if you had FCS, you would have 2 so you could play that first, and as it does not end the "After Attacking" time period, you could then play Gunner)

• You shoot and miss
• You are now in the "After Attacking" time period of the 1st Attack.
• There is only 1 effect you can activate (Vader is not a valid effect, as it can not be used if you have 0 hull)
• You choose to use Gunner
• Gunner immediately starts a new 2nd Attack.
• You are no longer in the "After Attacking" time period of the 1st Attack. no more cards relating to that time period can be played
• You shoot
• You are now in the "After Attacking" time period of the 2nd Attack.
• There are no effects you can play in this period so it ends (Vader is not a valid effect, as it can not be used if you have 0 hull)
• Your shuttle is removed and you move onto the next part of the turn

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.

I believe that you can not choose to allocate damage as part of a Upgrade Card cost to an already destroyed ship. With Vadar on a Shuttle with 1 Hull, the ship is there (and so can be targeted to receive damage) and as all the damage is generated simultaneously (the crit and the 2 damage to your own ship) It all gets resolved. Once the ship is technically destroyed (even if it remains on the board) I believe you can't generate the 2 damage (the ship is no longer a valid target to receive damage) and therefore you can't use the card. Damage from shooting is slightly different, as you're not choosing to apply it directly, it's a side effect of an Attack.

Regarding Vader not being usabIe under Simultaneous Fire Rule, I don't think it's totally accurate to say that "the ship is no longer a valid target to recieve damage". It is stated that any damage suffered by the destroyed ship, and especially critical hits, do affect the 'retaliation fire' from it.

In theory, nothing prohibits declaring the destroyed ship as a target of the attack from, for example, another ship with the same PS that the one who destroyed it. You could do it in order to stack more lucky critical results on it, with the intention of diminishing its 'retaliation fire' efectiveness (Blinded pilot, Injured Pilot, Munitions Failure, Weapon Malfunction) during SFR. Furthermore, since the destroyed ship's upgrades and abilities still work under SFR, you are forced to keep attacking ships like Biggs, even when previously destroyed by another pilot with the same PS.

However, note that we have a curious exception in 'Cluster Missiles' which establish that if you destroy the ship with the first volley, the second volley will not occur, for reasons I cannot fathom.

Besides that (and delving into Rules as Intended territory), I agree in that it seems that Vader it is not allowed to use its ability 'for free'. In other words, for Vader being able to use its ability, its ship must suffer an 'ill consecuence' (2 damage or destruction if at 2 or 1 hull) and the loss must be relevant to the game.

Once Vader's ship is destroyed (but under SFR) it would be totally inconsecuential for him to stack more normal damage. Allowing him to be used under SFR would always translate into one extra guaranteed damage in the 'retalliation' attack (or 2 assuming 'Gunner' can be used during SFR)... Extra damage that comes totally for free, without any opportunity cost, since his ship is already destroyed, and he has 'nothing to lose'.

Re the cluster missiles second attack. My group have a local rule to allow the second cluster attack to proceed against an enemy of same PS. Against anyone else it is a moot point.

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.

I believe that you can not choose to allocate damage as part of a Upgrade Card cost to an already destroyed ship. With Vadar on a Shuttle with 1 Hull, the ship is there (and so can be targeted to receive damage) and as all the damage is generated simultaneously (the crit and the 2 damage to your own ship) It all gets resolved. Once the ship is technically destroyed (even if it remains on the board) I believe you can't generate the 2 damage (the ship is no longer a valid target to receive damage) and therefore you can't use the card. Damage from shooting is slightly different, as you're not choosing to apply it directly, it's a side effect of an Attack.

Regarding Vader not being usabIe under Simultaneous Fire Rule, I don't think it's totally accurate to say that "the ship is no longer a valid target to recieve damage". It is stated that any damage suffered by the destroyed ship, and especially critical hits, do affect the 'retaliation fire' from it.

I did say that attacking did still cause damage. My point was that a a ship with no hull left could not choose to use an ability that would directly cause it damage, for example as part of it's cost. But the ship could indirectly take damage by being shot at, effects of critical etc. So I think we are saying the same thing

Re the cluster missiles second attack. My group have a local rule to allow the second cluster attack to proceed against an enemy of same PS. Against anyone else it is a moot point.

I believe the ruling was meant to stop people trying to target another ship after killing one. Looking at the ruling I don't think it's a solid No to shooting a second time against a ship that is firing simultaneously.

if you look at the FAQ

Q. A ship attacks with Cluster Missiles and destroys the defender with the first attack, does the second attack still occur?

A. No

So this Question covers taking a second shot if the ship is destroyed .

page 16:

Although ships perform their attacks one at a time ships with a pilot skill value equal to the active ship's pilot skill value have the opportunity to attack before being destroyed

If such a ship would be destroyed , it simply retains it's Damage cards without being removed from the play are. It may peform an attack as normal during the Combat phase, although any faceup Damage cards just dealt to it may affect this attack

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

This section says in 3 places the ship is not officially destroyed until after it's retaliatory shot. So a second Cluster Missile shot is not prohibited by the FAQ ruling.

Have we found out for sure yet if Gunner is allowed to go off if you're destroyed in a simultaneous fire situation?

No. The question never came up. Prior to the FAQ I assumed that it is.

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.

That is an interesting issue.

No, I am saying that Gunner indicates all requirements concerning when to activate it before the comma, which is consistent with other abilities.

Problem: It is not consistent with the FAQ.

Dvor -

What answer in the FAQ is it inconsistent with? I am suddenly feeling a craving for crow...

I did say that attacking did still cause damage. My point was that a a ship with no hull left could not choose to use an ability that would directly cause it damage, for example as part of it's cost. But the ship could indirectly take damage by being shot at, effects of critical etc. So I think we are saying the same thing

Ah, much clearer now, missed that part. Then yes, we pretty much agree on everything.

No, I am saying that Gunner indicates all requirements concerning when to activate it before the comma, which is consistent with other abilities.

Problem: It is not consistent with the FAQ.

Not consistent with what part of the faq? Can you please explain in what way.

No, I am saying that Gunner indicates all requirements concerning when to activate it before the comma, which is consistent with other abilities.

Problem: It is not consistent with the FAQ.

Er so what bit is not consistent with the FAQ? Like any scientifically minded person I've searched for a ruling that contradicts my theory. If you have found one please tell us. I haven't found any. The game seems to be so far totally consistent on laying out cards ....

[When you can activate an ability] [comma] [What the card does]

[paragraph]

[Additonal conditions for use]

I am referring to the following part of the FAQ. Quoted from page one of this discussion:

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

"Once after each attack" in the FAQ seems clear to me: Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader. No other order allowed.

Dvor if you go back and re read what's been said Ko has indeed argued very consistently with the faq, what he was doing was pointing out the most logical reason we have to how cards work and why the faq is written the way it is.

The other theory which has been put forard (not by ko) was not consistent, attack gunner vader vader.

I am referring to the following part of the FAQ. Quoted from page one of this discussion:

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

"Once after each attack" in the FAQ seems clear to me: Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader. No other order allowed.

and

No, I am saying that Gunner indicates all requirements concerning when to activate it before the comma, which is consistent with other abilities.

Problem: It is not consistent with the FAQ.

Er. I'm sorry what is not consistent with this FAQ item. KO stated, as have I, that everything before the comma is timing, everything after is the cards effect. As immediate is not before the comma it does not need to be the first effect played. Therefore Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is legal. This is totally consistent with the FAQ.

If immediate had meant it had to be used first then you couldn't do Attack, Vader, Gunner. Which the FAQ says is wrong. Therefore this could not be the case.

The only person in this thread that has suggested that the order isn't Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is Buhallin who said it was Attack, Gunner, Vader, Vader which I think we all agree is totally at odds with the FAQ. and I would say could never be the case, as you are no longer after the 1st attack, so the first Vader couldn't be used in this position.

I think some of this might have got lost in translation, you might want to read back through the thread Dvor, as English can be a bit of a tricky language. It's not nearly as regimented as German. It's also possible that you are looking at the Kinetic Operator quote that Buhalin put up, Buhalin only quoted part of the original post as a direct attack on KO, he took what KO said completely out of context in an attempt to make KO look stupid. I suggest you go back and look at the original thread the quote is from.

I think we actually agree on how it should be played, IE you use Vader before you make the second attack. What we were discussing was why this is the case.

Er. I'm sorry what is not consistent with this FAQ item. KO stated, as have I, that everything before the comma is timing, everything after is the cards effect. As immediate is not before the comma it does not need to be the first effect played. Therefore Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is legal. This is totally consistent with the FAQ.

After re-reading the entire thread I agree.

If immediate had meant it had to be used first then you couldn't do Attack, Vader, Gunner. Which the FAQ says is wrong. Therefore this could not be the case.

Immediately does not mean what I thought it did prior to the last FAQ. I already figured that out. Right now I think the word could have been omitted without changing any rules.

The only person in this thread that has suggested that the order isn't Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is Buhallin who said it was Attack, Gunner, Vader, Vader which I think we all agree is totally at odds with the FAQ.

and I would say could never be the case, as you are no longer after the 1st attack, so the first Vader couldn't be used in this position.

Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is the way to go. Prior to the FAQ I thought that Attack, Gunner, Vader, Vader were either mandatory or at least optional.

I think some of this might have got lost in translation,

The German translation includes several mistakes. I use downloaded English rulebook and cards for rules discussions. Lack English texts from the medium ship boxes, though.

I think we actually agree on how it should be played, IE you use Vader before you make the second attack. What we were discussing was why this is the case.

I agree to that. The "why" is not clear.

There is one item CrookedWookie raised: Can you use Gunner after attacking when you are alive only due to simultaneous attack? Prior to the FAQ I assumed you can. Right now I have to say you cannot. Because of the Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader and "no Vader if simultaneous attack" answers. That does suprise me.

After re-reading the entire thread I agree.

Er. I'm sorry what is not consistent with this FAQ item. KO stated, as have I, that everything before the comma is timing, everything after is the cards effect. As immediate is not before the comma it does not need to be the first effect played. Therefore Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is legal. This is totally consistent with the FAQ.

Immediately does not mean what I thought it did prior to the last FAQ. I already figured that out. Right now I think the word could have been omitted without changing any rules.

If immediate had meant it had to be used first then you couldn't do Attack, Vader, Gunner. Which the FAQ says is wrong. Therefore this could not be the case.

Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is the way to go. Prior to the FAQ I thought that Attack, Gunner, Vader, Vader were either mandatory or at least optional.

The only person in this thread that has suggested that the order isn't Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader is Buhallin who said it was Attack, Gunner, Vader, Vader which I think we all agree is totally at odds with the FAQ.

and I would say could never be the case, as you are no longer after the 1st attack, so the first Vader couldn't be used in this position.

The German translation includes several mistakes. I use downloaded English rulebook and cards for rules discussions. Lack English texts from the medium ship boxes, though.

I think some of this might have got lost in translation,

I agree to that. The "why" is not clear.

I think we actually agree on how it should be played, IE you use Vader before you make the second attack. What we were discussing was why this is the case.

There is one item CrookedWookie raised: Can you use Gunner after attacking when you are alive only due to simultaneous attack? Prior to the FAQ I assumed you can. Right now I have to say you cannot. Because of the Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader and "no Vader if simultaneous attack" answers. That does suprise me.

Yes, Gunner is still able to be played when ship around due to simultaneous attack.

I agree to that. The "why" is not clear.

The "why" is not confirmed by FFG, but I think it's getting quite clear now. I think we have enough FAQ answers that we can make a theory and test it with enough different items as to be fairly sure it's correct (we can never by 100% sure, without FFG telling us). Have a look at my post a while back about "why" the order is Attack, Vader, Gunner, Vader it shows the theory in 3 different situations, but I think we have checked it with at least 15 different timing issues and it holds strong.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/93421-suicide-vader/page-2#entry908387

There is one item CrookedWookie raised: Can you use Gunner after attacking when you are alive only due to simultaneous attack? Prior to the FAQ I assumed you can. Right now I have to say you cannot. Because of the Attack-Vader-Gunner-Vader and "no Vader if simultaneous attack" answers. That does suprise me.

OK we know that Vadar can't be used in a simultaneous attack. I can think of 2 reasons this could be the case.

1. Vader's Ability can not be used when the ship has 0 hull
2. No Abilities can be used after a simultaneous attack.

I'm fairly sure that the correct reason is number 1. If this is the case then Gunner can be used normally.

OK we know that Vadar can't be used in a simultaneous attack. I can think of 2 reasons this could be the case.

1. Vader's Ability can not be used when the ship has 0 hull
2. No Abilities can be used after a simultaneous attack.

I'm fairly sure that the correct reason is number 1. If this is the case then Gunner can be used normally.

That puts another "why" on the table. Why cannot you use Vader with zero hull? What's the rationale behind it? I'd like to understand the reasoning. "Because FFQ said so" is sufficient but not good. Ships with zero (or less) hull can suffer damage if attacked. Or if someone else is attacked. (Assault Missile, DtF.)

Game balance might be a reason as Vader trades damage for damage. If you are dead anyway there is no disadvantage in using him. That's not a rules argument, though.

OK we know that Vadar can't be used in a simultaneous attack. I can think of 2 reasons this could be the case.

1. Vader's Ability can not be used when the ship has 0 hull
2. No Abilities can be used after a simultaneous attack.

I'm fairly sure that the correct reason is number 1. If this is the case then Gunner can be used normally.

That puts another "why" on the table. Why cannot you use Vader with zero hull? What's the rationale behind it? I'd like to understand the reasoning. "Because FFQ said so" is sufficient but not good. Ships with zero (or less) hull can suffer damage if attacked. Or if someone else is attacked. (Assault Missile, DtF.)

Game balance might be a reason as Vader trades damage for damage. If you are dead anyway there is no disadvantage in using him. That's not a rules argument, though.

I think that may be the answer though. It's meant to be a cost, and you can't attempt to pay that cost if the hull is 0. It can still take damage indirectly, IE. from an Attack, Critical Damage card etc. But you can't choose to use an ability that would directly cause damage to your ship as part of a cost. I think it's simply that.

I think Vader is a bit of an anomoly at the moment as it's the only card that has a damage cost. But I believe it will be a standard rule with new cards and how they interact with the game.

OK we know that Vadar can't be used in a simultaneous attack. I can think of 2 reasons this could be the case.

1. Vader's Ability can not be used when the ship has 0 hull
2. No Abilities can be used after a simultaneous attack.

I'm fairly sure that the correct reason is number 1. If this is the case then Gunner can be used normally.

That puts another "why" on the table. Why cannot you use Vader with zero hull? What's the rationale behind it? I'd like to understand the reasoning. "Because FFQ said so" is sufficient but not good. Ships with zero (or less) hull can suffer damage if attacked. Or if someone else is attacked. (Assault Missile, DtF.)

Game balance might be a reason as Vader trades damage for damage. If you are dead anyway there is no disadvantage in using him. That's not a rules argument, though.

Dvor - This is just a guess on my part, however...

FFG seems prone to putting what are more properly considered errata into the FAQ. For example, barrel roll and boost operate differently than they used to with the new restrictions re: templates. It seems likely to me that Vader is disallowed for a ship that already has zero hull because it leads to opportunities for abuse, rather than mechanical reasons. That would seem to me to be something that should probably be put in an errata section, but since we do not yet have a separate errata section...

OK we know that Vadar can't be used in a simultaneous attack. I can think of 2 reasons this could be the case.

1. Vader's Ability can not be used when the ship has 0 hull
2. No Abilities can be used after a simultaneous attack.

I'm fairly sure that the correct reason is number 1. If this is the case then Gunner can be used normally.

That puts another "why" on the table. Why cannot you use Vader with zero hull? What's the rationale behind it? I'd like to understand the reasoning. "Because FFQ said so" is sufficient but not good. Ships with zero (or less) hull can suffer damage if attacked. Or if someone else is attacked. (Assault Missile, DtF.)

Game balance might be a reason as Vader trades damage for damage. If you are dead anyway there is no disadvantage in using him. That's not a rules argument, though.

I think that may be the answer though. It's meant to be a cost, and you can't attempt to pay that cost if the hull is 0. It can still take damage indirectly, IE. from an Attack, Critical Damage card etc. But you can't choose to use an ability that would directly cause damage to your ship as part of a cost. I think it's simply that.

I think Vader is a bit of an anomoly at the moment as it's the only card that has a damage cost. But I believe it will be a standard rule with new cards and how they interact with the game.

I rather understand it like Evades or TL, you can't spend one if you haven't got one. I know we use damage cards added instead of hull points cards removed for damage, but if you think of hull points being tokens then you can't give 2 up if you have none (this does lead to ships with 1 hp left being able to use Vader as an anomaly)

OK we know that Vadar can't be used in a simultaneous attack. I can think of 2 reasons this could be the case.

1. Vader's Ability can not be used when the ship has 0 hull
3. No Abilities can be used after a simultaneous attack.

I'm fairly sure that the correct reason is number 1. If this is the case then Gunner can be used normally.

That puts another "why" on the table. Why cannot you use Vader with zero hull? What's the rationale behind it? I'd like to understand the reasoning. "Because FFQ said so" is sufficient but not good. Ships with zero (or less) hull can suffer damage if attacked. Or if someone else is attacked. (Assault Missile, DtF.)

Game balance might be a reason as Vader trades damage for damage. If you are dead anyway there is no disadvantage in using him. That's not a rules argument, though.

I think that may be the answer though. It's meant to be a cost, and you can't attempt to pay that cost if the hull is 0. It can still take damage indirectly, IE. from an Attack, Critical Damage card etc. But you can't choose to use an ability that would directly cause damage to your ship as part of a cost. I think it's simply that.

I think Vader is a bit of an anomoly at the moment as it's the only card that has a damage cost. But I believe it will be a standard rule with new cards and how they interact with the game.

I rather understand it like Evades or TL, you can't spend one if you haven't got one. I know we use damage cards added instead of hull points cards removed for damage, but if you think of hull points being tokens then you can't give 2 up if you have none (this does lead to ships with 1 hp left being able to use Vader as an anomaly)

A bit of one, I agree. But we have to work with the FAQ they have give.. So I feel we can guess that all that a card like this (Vader is the first, but I'm sure there will be more) check if a ship has hull left or doesn't as a binary check, rather than checking number of Hull left. To be absolutely honest I think this is a bit of an Errata fix. But I can't see it not carrying across to any other instances of cards causing damage to your own ship.

There was also a long discussion if Ellusiveness would work if Yorr took the stress away. I used Vader as an example that it would. In the case of Vader you cause 2 damage to cause a crit on the opponent. in the rulebook it says that you apply damage cards one at a time and the ship is removed immediately (discarding all damage) as soon as damage is equal or higher than the hull ¹ . So in the case of Vader's ship having 1 hull left, you can not play the 2nd Damage card yet the Crit still goes off. This means that the when cards say "[Do X] to [Perform Y]" the [Perform Y] is not conditional on the [Do X] completing succesfully, Just that you can start the [Do X] effect resolving, after that the [Do X] and the [Perform Y] is independent. Therefore I believe with all the evidence available you can use Yorr to remove stress paid as part of Ellusiveness ² .

¹ The FAQ is an exception to the rule, for what happens if the ship remains due to equal PS, in which case you carry on playing any remaining damage, rather than stopping at 0 Hull

² Note this is different from Soontir, in that case the stress is generated, but is removed before it get placed on Fel's card, so his ability can't trigger