But you can flip that same logic around and point out "nowhere in the rules does it say 'make sure to deal out ALL damage cards before checking for destruction, WHATEVER YOU DO do not stop dealing damage cards even if the conditions for the ship's destruction are met." It's a two way street.

They could have very easily worded page 16 to say " After all damage has been dealt, if the number of damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than..." but they didn't. They said " When the number of damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than."

You may not fully understand the attitude, and that's great, but they could eliminate this discussion with a couple simple words and they haven't done that, which leaves room for interpretation that - whether you like it or not - has some pretty legitimate basis for consideration going by the phrasing of the rules.

But you can flip that same logic around

Well that's the issue though... An argument can be made either way. Not everyone will agree with how I read it, but it's not like I'm pulling stuff out of left field and hyperspace to make the argument I am.

but they could eliminate this discussion with a couple simple words and they haven't done that

IMO that's exactly what the FAQ does. The only reason there's any issue with the FAQ rewriting rules or needing special interperation is if you are in the ship is destroyed as soon as X = Y camp.

If you follow my reading of the rules, then the FAQ works exactly as writen. So we have two ways of looking at the rules, both of which can be valid. With one matching up exactly to the plain text of the FAQ and one that doesn't.

Which part of the FAQ are you referring to specifically?

And I certainly didn't imply you were pulling anything out of thin air - I was more addressing Jehan's whole " I don't understand how anybody could think this" thing, when as you said; I think there is an argument to be made either way, with evidence supporting each side.

I think I found the FAQ entry in question, so never mind that.

OK so my next question is, does anyone remember if there is still a situation where this would be an issue, given that (however he works) they pretty much ruled Vader "do it this way?"

Which part of the FAQ are you referring to specifically?

This part...

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.

My issue is that As Writen, this FAQ line says pretty clearly IMO anyway, that you don't stop dealing damage cards just because a ship is slated to be destroyed.

This matches up exactly with my reading of the rules on page 16.

Pretty much all of RM's arguments relies no the assumption that you remove the ship the moment that X = Y you remove the ship from the game. Which is I agree a reasonable way to read it, but it also is based on the assumption that you do that before you finish dealing the damage cards, which is not actually stated anywhere.

The "or greater then" line means mothing if that were true. Because there's no reason to actually resolve the critical hit, that would cause the damage to be greater then, in the first place. Even if you did... Would anyone really be confused if you took 4 damage when you had only 3 hull?

Prior to the FAQ I'd of agreed that when X = Y, you remove the ship. But in my mind, the FAQ clearly says this is not the case.

Per my amended comment above, is Vader the only situation where this question is even coming up?

And on a side note - I think it would have also helped matters slightly if Direct Hit said specifically "this card counts as two damage cards against your hull" but that's neither here nor there. It would just be nice, since the rules keep stating "number of damage CARDS" if it was used consistently.

Per my amended comment above, is Vader the only situation where this question is even coming up?

I think this is just a pretty big digression from the orginal question.

The issue is mostly accidemic really. It's unlikely to ever have any real effect on the game, other then discarding something like a Direct Hit or Blinded Pilot with out them taking effect in game.

I guess that was kind of my question. I know originally it centered around Vader. Now I'd still love a more clear explanation for why Vader works the way he does, but they did make it pretty clear how they want him to work (mostly). So I was just wondering "is there any other situation where this question is still going to come up?"

Some people claim that the Vader FAQ item suggests you can't use Gunner on a Simultaneous attack. So the question is can you not use Vader due to timing on the Simultaneous attack or due to Vader's card not being a valid play when a ship is on 0 hull.. I think it's the latter, You can't play his card when the ship is on 0, rather than Simultaneous attacks destroying the ship as soon as the first attack is resolved but before After Attack cards.

I'm beginning to think that, based on how they obviously want Vader to work, that the simultaneous attack thing being due to him not being able to assign his own ship any damage is about the most logical way to work it. But I don't care which side of any of these arguments you're on - the rules here could be a lot less gnarly.

so much talk on such an obvious thing

so much talk on such an obvious thing

....he said, adding more talk to the subject while contributing nothing...

ah true ... now im feeling bad.

And I certainly didn't imply you were pulling anything out of thin air - I was more addressing Jehan's whole " I don't understand how anybody could think this" thing, when as you said; I think there is an argument to be made either way, with evidence supporting each side.

Read again more carefully, that's not what I said. To be more precise, it's not that I don't understand how you could think that. I more than know why you think that. And I more than know that the rules may be a bit murky.

What I don't understand is why is so important for this thread's argument to stop dealing cards to a destroyed ship when damage = Hull, rather than simply dealing all of them, and then destroying the ship. As I said, for gunner, it's pretty inconsequential. The ship will be destroyed regardless how many cards are on it, and for SAR purposes, the number of damage cards on the the ship is irrelevant to consider if gunner should fire or not.

ah true ... now im feeling bad.

.

..

...

....for disliking the E-Wing.

I really really want an E-Wing in wave 4.

This has now become my favorite thread.

I really really want an E-Wing in wave 4.

Right?

Right!

So!

You guys so badly want the E-Wing?

How about the Z-95 Headhunter first, then the T-Wing and THEN the E-Wing.

And the E-Wing will come with the pilots:

PS 1 "We Need The E-Wing Badly Squadron"

PS 2 "Jar Jar Binks"

PS 1 "Jar Jar Binks' Son"

PS 0 "Two Generic Ewoks"

Per my amended comment above, is Vader the only situation where this question is even coming up?

And on a side note - I think it would have also helped matters slightly if Direct Hit said specifically "this card counts as two damage cards against your hull" but that's neither here nor there. It would just be nice, since the rules keep stating "number of damage CARDS" if it was used consistently.

On the side note - I don't agree since that would make understanding of R5 and R5-D8 less clear. If it counts as 2 damage cards could you discard one using R5? Does R5-D8 still allow you to flip the card? Any what about future damage affecting skills?

So!

You guys so badly want the E-Wing?

How about the Z-95 Headhunter first, then the T-Wing and THEN the E-Wing.

And the E-Wing will come with the pilots:

PS 1 "We Need The E-Wing Badly Squadron"

PS 2 "Jar Jar Binks"

PS 1 "Jar Jar Binks' Son"

PS 0 "Two Generic Ewoks"

The T-Wing?? How dare you, sir? How dare you? Wars have been fought over less.

Per my amended comment above, is Vader the only situation where this question is even coming up?

And on a side note - I think it would have also helped matters slightly if Direct Hit said specifically "this card counts as two damage cards against your hull" but that's neither here nor there. It would just be nice, since the rules keep stating "number of damage CARDS" if it was used consistently.

On the side note - I don't agree since that would make understanding of R5 and R5-D8 less clear. If it counts as 2 damage cards could you discard one using R5? Does R5-D8 still allow you to flip the card? Any what about future damage affecting skills?

I'm not sure that's true. First off, no - R5-D8 would not let you flip the card, because that's not what he does. He lets you discard a face-down damage card. Direct Hit would be a face UP damage card, as it is currently, that COUNTS as two damage cards. Now if something lets you flip it face down first, yes: it would be fair game for D8.

On that note, I don't see why the generic R5 couldn't flip it face down. I'm pretty sure he can flip it face down currently . Literally the only thing that would change would be adding the word 'cards' to the text of Direct Hit to make it consistent with their damage wording elsewhere and avoid some potential confusion.

I would argue it's more confusing right now, since it's not clear to new players if DH is one card, or if you flip it face down and add a second card, or if it becomes one damage if you do somehow flip it face down, etc.