How does only one mesh with the FAQ? I'm not sure what your point is there, since as far as I know it wasn't dealt with directly in the FAQ. It was however covered quite thoroughly in the rules.

It is entirely possible to deal one damage card at a time, resolving each before drawing the next one, and still end up with damage exceeding the hull value. It can occur either because of a Direct Hit critical result, or as the result of Simultaneous Fire situations.

The argument for continuing to draw damage cards rests entirely on the wording "or greater than". The following paragraph includes that phrase, but is actually pretty unambiguous about when ships are removed. They go away the moment they have sufficient damage.

Also, both in section 7 and in the following section it is clear that each card is resolved one at a time. It even goes so far as to bold the print stating as much.

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.

In accordance with the FAQ clearly stating that you keep assigning damage cards, I see no other option than waiting to destroy the ship until after all cards are assigned. This is not in contradiction with the core rules.

That FAQ seemed clear until they explained it. The way it is written it looks like all they were saying that a ship with enough damage to destroy it but that is still on the table due to simultaneous fire will still receive damage cards. That would let you fish for good Criticals like "Blinded Pilot" in order to hurt return fire from a ship already on its way down. The full text doesn't deal at all with "normal" damage situations. Not a good example of an FAQ answer clarifying the situation.

To be honest, I don't personally care enough either way to argue it in a game. I am debating here just to see if there is anything I have missed, but whether I put a few extra cards down on a ship before putting it away and discarding the damage is immaterial to me. If my opponent wants to do that, fine, if not that is fine also.

The full text absolutely deals with normal situations. You're saying that because additional information was provided it invalidates the initial answer.

No. I am saying that the context provided by the full FAQ answer makes it appear that the answer deals specifically with dealing "extra" damage during simultaneous fire. The FAQ makes it clear that a ship that has not yet been destroyed will continue to accumulate damage cards. It does not make it clear that a ship that IS destroyed will accumulate damage cards. The first situation may occur with simultaneous fire, the second situation may occur with non-simultaneous fire. You might be right, but the FAQ does a poor job of clarifying.

I am going to sign off of this now, however, because as I said before it just doesn't make enough of a difference to be worth any more debate. The ship gets destroyed either way, the cards go into the discard pile either way, its a difference without a difference.

It says "Yes." But you know that. Pretty unclear, I guess.

I agree with Ko its clear in simultaneous attacks. But it lacks clarity if it effects non-simultaneous fire

I also think as the damage cards once a ship is destroyed get put into a discard pile and will be recycled when the damage deck runs out, in a 100 point game/tournament game it makes no difference either way

The term Errata is used to refer to any correction issued to the rules text whether the error is due to a printing issues or an authorial error.

While the term faq is used for Frequently asked questions, abbreviated to FAQ, are listed questions and answers, all supposed to be commonly asked in some context, and pertaining to a particular topic.

Simply put the errta changes the rules the faq explains them. It may say yes but it says yes in the faq thats the wrong section if the "intent" was to change the rules. The only thing that the FAQ cleared up was simultaneous fire.

Some game systems may well mix the two up FFG has devoted page one to Errata and then clearly devoted the next few pages to the FAQ. Separate headlines meams separate topics.

Some game systems may well mix the two up FFG has devoted page one to Errata and then clearly devoted the next few pages to the FAQ. Separate headlines meams separate topics.

I somehow think its wrong. Vader must not die! Dont let him suicide! At least not until the end of Episode VI

It says "Yes." But you know that. Pretty unclear, I guess.

It says yes. What says yes? About what?

It says "Yes." But you know that. Pretty unclear, I guess.

It says yes. What says yes? About what?

I guess he's refering to the one word answer in the FAQ. For a question that does not metntion even once the Simultaneious Attack Rules.

I get that some people think the rules are clear cut, but the FAQ clearly says that the rules don't work the way you think they do.

Now maybe that means that the FAQ question is broken, but that doesn't change what it says. You also can't simply ignore it, because you don't agree with it, or think it lacks the authorty to change the rules. Unless you can find something from FFG that says that FAQ's lack that authorty.

But you seem to be totally willing to ignore the fact that the question state that it is about the subset of situations where it is possible to assign damage to a ship. And even gives an example of the subset of situations it is talking about in the Answer. That second phrase would be totally superfluous if you were right VanorDM. And why wouldn't they say "Yes. You always place all damage cards before removing a ship". The fact that the Answer gives an example to clarify what the FAQ item is about speaks volumes to it's scope.

The Rules are very clear about the order of operations when you take damage. An FAQ item would not completely rewrite the rules without being more explicit about it or having an additional Errata item.

But you seem to be totally willing to ignore the fact that the question state that it is about the subset of situations where it is possible to assign damage to a ship.

No in fact I'm not. I just dissagree that the rules work like you think they do. I'm very much of the option that the ship isn't destroyed until after all damage cards have been delt. That matches up exactly with the FAQ question and answer.

This also does not viloate any rules, or make any part of the rules irrelevent. Something your method does, because if that were true, the "or greater then" part is meaningless. There is no case where that text actually has any impact.

The fact that the Answer gives an example to clarify what the FAQ item is about speaks volumes to it's scope.

That is only true when you read the question and answer with your interperation of the rules already in mind. If you read the question and answer with mine, it quite clearly means exactly what it says.

The Rules are very clear about the order of operations when you take damage.

Yet they felt a need for a FAQ regarding it? Myself I've never seen a single question brought up about what to do with crits when dealing with the SAR or other cases where a ship surives until the end of the round.

Well there's at least one case where the 'greater than' part would still have an effect; simultaneous damage.

Well there's at least one case where the 'greater than' part would still have an effect; simultaneous damage.

Yes but that's kind of implied in the rules for that. Also the way the rules typically work, a statement made in general applys to all situations, unless some other rule counters it or refines it.

So the greater then in the general rules shouldn't assume the simultaneous damage rules, because that's a different set of rules that should be self contained.

Yet they felt a need for a FAQ regarding it? Myself I've never seen a single question brought up about what to do with crits when dealing with the SAR or other cases where a ship surives until the end of the round.

They felt the need to clarify what happens when a ship remains on the board. This could be due to Simultaneous Attacks or Fel's Wraiths ability. This is actually covered by the rules, but people were arguing it so they clarified. That is what FAQ items should be for.

because if that were true, the "or greater then" part is meaningless.

And now it becomes obvious you don't read a thing that you don't want to.. I've stated multiple times that they are not meaningless. I have given examples of why that phrase is not meaningless.. THERE ARE CRITICAL DAMAGE CARDS THAT DO 2 DAMAGE.. a Tie can go straight for 2 damage to 4 damage entirely missing 3 damage, so "or greater than" is important, or else a TIE could take 4 damage the last 2 damage caused by a Critical and not be removed from the board, and actually be totally immune to being killed. the "or greater than" part is NOT meaningless.

They felt the need to clarify what happens when a ship remains on the board.

But that's not what the question asked. You can say it's implied all you want, but it isn't what was actually said.

The other statement makes sense because it deals with situations where a crit has an effect on a ship that has X damage cards already assigned to it, but still can effect the game.

But that's not what the question asked. You can say it's implied all you want, but it isn't what was actually said.

Well can you point to one place in the rules which covers assigning damage cards to a ship that is not in the game. NOPE.. because it's not there. Because you can't assign something to a ship that is already out of the game...

Because you can't assign something to a ship that is already out of the game...

Your whole interperation is based on the idea that as soon as Damage = Hull the ship is removed. My reading of the rules is that the ship is set to be destroyed once all the damage cards are delt. That rule can be argued either way. You may not agree with me, but you can't say there's no way to make the argument.

Your reading of the rules does not fit with the FAQ, because it only works if you read into it with what is impplied elsewhere. A pretty bad way to write a FAQ question.

On the other hand, my reading of the rules allows the FAQ to be read exactly as writen.

Your whole interperation is based on the idea that as soon as Damage = Hull the ship is removed. My reading of the rules is that the ship is set to be destroyed once all the damage cards are delt. That rule can be argued either way.

They really can't, if you ignore the FAQ. There is only one way the Rules on p16 can be read. They state multiple times cards are played one at a time.. IN BOLD.. They then state that as soon as the Hull is equaled or beaten the ship is immediately removed.... Ignoring the FAQ. There is only ONE way those rules can be read.

Your interpretation only works if you entirely rewrite that section. Therefore it CAN'T be right.

Why is Vader destroying his own shuttle anyway? What is happening inside his ship? Does he use the force to dismantle the own ship inserting the debris right into the enemies' ass? Why the **** he dont use an nearby astroid?

They keep playing a tape of his girlfriend dying, on a loop, and he's all "NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" and starts flinging stuff around the inside of the shuttle. It's tragic, really.

They really can't, if you ignore the FAQ.

...

Your interpretation only works if you entirely rewrite that section. Therefore it CAN'T be right.

Therein lies the problem.

Despite ongoing assertions of perfect consistency, there are multiple occasions where the FAQ rulings directly contradict the actual rules. I can think of 4 off the top of my head. Each of those rulings require even larger rewrites and changes in interpretation than the card dealing.

I happen to agree with how the rules are written concerning ship removal (see the previous Vader-at-one-hull debates) but the assertion that his interpretation can't be right because it would contradict the printed rules relies on the assumption that we should always play the game consistently with the printed rules. That's rather clearly not the case.

There is only one way the Rules on p16 can be read.

That's simply not true, unless you are going to set yourself up as the only authority on how rules should be read...

Ignoring the FAQ. There is only ONE way those rules can be read.

So the only way your method can be correct, is if we ignore the plain text of the FAQ...

Your interpretation only works if you entirely rewrite that section.

No it doesn't, it works just fine if you view the dealing of damage cards to be a process that must be completed, prior to removing the destroyed ship. Think of as a subprocess that can't be broken out of.

That system does not break any of the rules, it doesn't stop the ship from being destroyed immediately, once the damage cards are all dealt. This doesn't change the meaning of immediately, the ship is still destroyed before it's allowed any other actions.

The "One at a time" still works as well, becasue you shouldn't simply drop down 3 damage cards at once. You need to give the other person a chance to respond to each card in the order it was played.

There is nothing in the rules that makes my method of this process invalid, and again it matches up exactly with the FAQ question and answer. The only problem with it, in fact is your own opinion of how the rules works.

Now it is quite possible that the FAQ does competely re-write the rules on page 16, but again I don't think they do. But that doesn't mean FFG can't do such a thing, because as Buhallin points out, it wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened.

Again, nowhere is stated on the rules that "You must remove the ship as soon Damage = Hull" + "Stop dealing damage cards ASAP unless it matters for some reason".

You have to deal cards one at a time, yes. But that doesn't prevent you from dealing all cards. Here, many people seem to get the (IMO, wrongly) assumption that since you have to deal cards one by one, you must also check for destruction after every card is dealt. As VanorDM pointed out, dealing cards one at a time is simply a mechanic that allows for reactive use of abilities/cards that rely on getting damage, such as Chewbacca, and in other cases, the order in which you resolve damage cards may matter. But 'checking for ship destruction' is not part of the suffering damage steps. It is only the consequence of getting damage equal or greater than your hull value.

Furthermore, the rules certainly allow for dealing all cards, and then, check for ship destruction. In those other debates, I pointed that the illustrated combat example on the rulebook does precisely that, checking destruction after all damage cards are dealt. And now we have an absolute answer to the question of "if we must assign the excess cards" on the FAQ. The answer to the question is a 'YES'. Not a "yes if..." or a "yes when...", it is an absolute "Yes".

Furthermore, the debate had special importance for the 'Vader crew' upgrade, since it could determine if he met or not its triggering condition.... But the FAQ specifically answered that Vader can indeed suicide himself, and that all excess damage cards must be deal. So in that regard, it seems that 'dealing all cards' seems the way to go.

Finally, mechanically-wise, there is absolutely no difference between dealing all cards or dealing just the number needed. It only truly mattered for Vader, which has been already covered by the FAQ. Other than altering the damage deck probabilities or wasting a few micro-calories on our fingers, dealing all cards and then checking for destruction doesn't have any other tangible consequences, so I don't fully understand the "FOR ALL THATS HOLY!!!! STOP DEALING CARDS ASAP" attitude.

We are also required by the rules to put a critical hit token next to every ship with a face-up card, and practically no one does it. Dealing all damage cards is the same... The rules may require for doing it, but if it doesn't matters, or you don't want to waste time, feel free to not assign them.