The answer is to the Question and the Question is conditional on there being a ship .

No it's not, and your serriously grasping at straws to make that argument. The question is quite clear, and no where does it mention that this only counts in a few cases.

It talks about excess damage, not excess damage if the ship is still around due to some other rule. If this only counted in those cases you list, then there is no need for this question, and the answer does not make sense. Because in that case the answer should be "Yes, if the ship is still in the game"

This is very common gaming concept. An item, in this case a ship, is either in the game or doesn't exist as far as the game is concerned. You can't assign damage to a ship that doesn't exist.

Also the answer is Yes .. and it's the answer to the question, the question does not explicitly say it refers to every situation where damage is applied. Just the situations where a) there is excess damage b) there is a ship for that damage to assigned to. SO When there is a excess damage and a ship for that damage to be applied to, YES you can apply more damage. .... It then gives an example of a situation where there is excess damage and a ship for that damage to be applied to.

I'm not at any point saying that "This means that a ship still in the play area due to the Simultaneous Attack Rule can be affected by additional faceup Damage cards." Is the only situation that the Yes applies to. I've always stated that everything after the period is an example.

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 ?

they shouldn't overwrite core rules.

Says who? The FAQ doesn't say such a thing. No where has FFG said that the FAQ is only valid if it doesn't conflict with the rule book. In fact in every case it's considered to supercede the rulebook.

Even if you could make the argument that it shouldn't do such a thing, that is not the same thing as saying it can't do such a thing.

Well that comes down to the definition of an Errata and an FAQ, They are commonly used terms in the gaming industry.

Just the situations where a) there is excess damage b) there is a ship for that damage to assigned

It doesn't actually say that. That is what you are impplying in the statement, but no where does it say such a thing. Plain reading of question and answer doesn't even allow for that interpeation of the answer. Because that makes it a very poor FAQ, if we have to read unwriten conditions into the question.

Well that comes down to the definition of an Errata and an FAQ, They are commonly used terms in the gaming industry.

Sorry but that definition is not spelled out anywhere that I've seen. Typically any time you have a FAQ it's considered to overrule any other rule that's been already written. At least that's how it's worked in MtG and othe games I've played.

The faq is written with the first page telling you when something is replaced in the rule book. Errata

Anything else is the faq is clarifying a question. FAQ

Because that makes it a very poor FAQ, if we have to read unwriten conditions into the question.

Well I think we can both agree on that. If you interpretation is right, it should explicitely state it's rewriting parts of the rules. And if what I believe is right the Question could be worded better. My reading doesn't break any rules, and is correct if you allow for the implied condition that there must be a ship , because it mentions that they are assigned to a ship .

Sorry but that definition is not spelled out anywhere that I've seen. Typically any time you have a FAQ it's considered to overrule any other rule that's been already written. At least that's how it's worked in MtG and othe games I've played.

There is a reason there are separate sections for Errata and FAQ in the document. If there was no difference then there would be no need for it.

Lets look at it from the stand point of someone who isn't quite as up to speed on the rules as others.

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.

This second statement in the answer does not in any way change the answer. It only adds a condition to it, dealing with a ship that is still in play. If the answer only applied ships still in play, then the second line is not only unneeded, it's redundant.

Using RAW, there is no room in that statement for adding conditions not listed. Unless you want to argue, that a FAQ answer doesn't actually count as a rule. In which case, a lot of the other FAQ's no longer mean anything...

Fetagator for example is a FAQ anwer, not Errata. Yet I don't see anyone trying to add conditions into that one.

There is a reason there are separate sections for Errata and FAQ in the document. If there was no difference then there would be no need for it.

Not true.

Errata is a change to the text itself. FAQ anwers are stil considered rullings in every way, at least in every other game I've played they were.

Lets look at it from the stand point of someone who isn't quite as up to speed on the rules as others.

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.

This second statement in the answer does not in any way change the answer. It only adds a condition to it, dealing with a ship that is still in play. If the answer only applied ships still in play, then the second line is not only unneeded, it's redundant.

Using RAW, there is no room in that statement for adding conditions not listed. Unless you want to argue, that a FAQ answer doesn't actually count as a rule. In which case, a lot of the other FAQ's no longer mean anything...

The FAQ item as written, relies on the question making sense. The question doesn't make any sense if there is no ship to assign damage to. You can't assign damage to a ship that doesn't exist.

And we haven't gone into how you assign that damage. That's not covered anywhere. So you play your cards one at a time.

• Assign a damage card to the ship.
• You equal the ships Hull
• The ship is removed from the game
• All damage is discarded
• All tokens are removed
• Now you assign the second damage card... How do you do this, there is no ship to put it on. Does it just get discarded, the FAQ doesn't say. Does it go on a ship that as far as the game is concerned doesn't exist, and just hang there in limbo for the rest of the game. Nowhere is this covered in the Rules or the FAQ item. Which suggests that it's not a correct interpretation of the rules.

Fetagator for example is a FAQ anwer, not Errata. Yet I don't see anyone trying to add conditions into that one.

Well there are conditions there, it's just they are always true. It's conditional on there being a dial for Fett to change. It's conditional on your being in the reveal dial step of the turn. All questions have lots of conditions, but most of the time they are just always true.

Errata is a change to the text itself. FAQ anwers are stil considered rullings in every way, at least in every other game I've played they were.

It's an FAQs job to clarify where something is ambiguous or not covered in the rules. They cover how to deal with a situation that is not covered in the rules and in this way they are rulings. But if they change how the a core rule work, rather than clarifying where the core rules are ambiguous they are an Errata. Quite a lot of companies are a bit fast an loose with this and prefer to FAQ when they should really be using an Errata. But that doesn't change what the role of an FAQ should be.

It's true - the FAQ is basically what we'd think of as rulings or clarifications to the existing rules.

The errata - and this is why that section is so much smaller - is where they actually rewrite or add/remove text to/from the written rule.

An FAQ entry might say that you can't used Advanced Sensors to make a Daredevil turn before moving, when ionized. That's simply a clarification of an existing (couple of) rule(s).

An errata, on the other hand is correcting the text of Daredevil to say that instead of making it a red 1-turn, it should in fact say to make a white 1-turn.

They go hand in hand but have distinct purposes.

Edit: Not sure what happen, but somehow it wiped out all the quotes I had. But I think what I'm saying is clear enough without needing to see what I was responding to.

The question makes perfect sense, and doesn't need any aditional conditions added. In fact FAQ's by and large will never rely on unwriten conditions, because then the answer becomes very muddy, and relies on a deeper understanding of the rules then is resonable to expect.

The whole point of the FAQ is to clarify things, not make them more confusing, which is exactly what does happen if we have to start reading the FAQ as RAI and not RAW, and start applying conditions that aren't spelled out in the question itself.

No, a FAQ like a rule should be read as writen. Anything else and the FAQ no longer has value.

In a way you're not... At least it doesn't have any effect other then removing those cards from the damage deck. What effect this may or may not have I won't go into, I couldn't do the math to prove one way or the other if this has an effect.

Maybe that's what it should be, but should and do are completely different things. FFG quite clearly feels that they can address rule issues thought he FAQ. Because the Errata section is very small with 3 pages from the rule book mentioned. In fact the Errata only takes up part of one page out of a 8 page document.

Fetagator is a clear example of this... Because they don't actually explain anything, just give an answer. Clearly that's meant to be read as a ruling on how to play the game.

There are a number of other places that the FAQ changes the rules as we understand them.

For example...

If a ship barrle rols or boosts unto a prox mine... Even though Barrel rolls aren't considered a manuver, and prox mines mention manuvers. The FAQ changes the way those things interact.

Or the Nine Nunb or R2 turning a Ion's 1 Forward into a Green maneuver. Or the whole R2 works before hitting a Astroid but not before hitting a Mine.

Now you may be correct, and that's not how things should be done. But it's quite clear that like the rules, FFG plays a bit fast and lose with common deffentions.

Well I don't think it's worth arguing this any more.

As I said your ruling leaves cards in indeterminate states (how do you assign a damage card to a ship that doesn't exist, is it discarded, get lost in the ether, nowhere is this covered), and I feel that is probably the biggest reason I feel the way your reading it can't be correct.

It takes a rule that is clean in the rulebook (for every case but when a ship remains on the board) and makes it murky and confused. If it only applies to when there is a ship (which may not be stated explicitly, but is implied in the question and also suggested in the example they chose.) Everything remains clean. Nothing is in an indeterminate state, there is nowhere you are left scratching your head and going er how do I deal with this card in my hand. Which I feel makes it the most like reading of it. It is also still totally valid under RAW, and makes far more sense under RAI.

As I said your ruling leaves cards in indeterminate states

But that's the whole point. It doesn't, it leaves those cards in the discard pile with every other damage card thats been assigned to a ship that's been removed from play.

It is also still totally valid under RAW, and makes far more sense under RAI.

Perhaps this is an issue to agree to dissagee. Because as I see it, what you are doing is using RAI only in regards to this Q&A. You are using implied rules that are not stated in the question itself.

But that's ok. I have a great deal of respect for your option, even if I don't always agree with it, but I think I agree with you more often then not.

As I said your ruling leaves cards in indeterminate states

But that's the whole point. It doesn't, it leaves those cards in the discard pile with every other damage card thats been assigned to a ship that's been removed from play.

Nope it doesn't that is the issue. The ship has already been removed and it's damage cards discarded. Nowhere does it state where these cards would go, the damage cards on a ship only get discarded when it's destroyed and that has already happened. And the ship doesn't really exist so they really can't be put there either.

Before this could never happen, the rules are very clear. However with your reading of the FAQ, suddenly you have a situation where you have a card and have no way to know what happens to it.

It is also still totally valid under RAW, and makes far more sense under RAI.

Perhaps this is an issue to agree to dissagee. Because as I see it, what you are doing is using RAI only in regards to this Q&A. You are using implied rules that are not stated in the question itself.

But that's ok. I tend to agree eith most everything else you've posted on these rule boards. I have a great deal of respect for your option, even if I don't always agree with it, but I think I agree with you more often then not.

I don't entirely agree with this. If an ability said "acquire a target lock", it is conditional on you having a target that you could acquire a target lock on, it's not stated but it's heavily implied. A similar situation is happening here, It says you may assign damage cards to the ship, it's not directly stated, but I think you can infer (just like in the target lock situation) you must have a ship to assign that card to (otherwise there is nothing in the rules which covers what you do in this situation, to assign a card you must have somewhere to assign it to, or it to state somewhere that any cards you can't assign are discarded).

it's not directly stated, but I think you can infer (just like in the target lock situation) you must have a ship to assign that card to

ok.

So we have a FAQ that is quite clearly worded. If you have damage in excess of what it takes to destroy the ship, you deal those cards regardless.

It doesn't break the rules, it only refines them. When a ship is dealt damage equal to or greater then it's hull value, it's removed from play. The very fact that "or greater then" is there, immplies quite strongly that FAQ as writen is correct.

If the ship was removed from play the moment it received X cards where X is the hull value, then there's no need for "or greater than". In fact that text actually causes the rule to make less sense if that were true. If what you say were true, then the text should simply said "equal to.", but it doesn't, it adds an aditional condition, meaning that the statement is when X => Y, and not when X = Y. So you don't stop adding to X, just because you have reached Y.

So we have a FAQ that says "you deal X damage cards even if X is greater than the hull value" and the rules on page 16 also say "or greater than".

Clearly those two statements jive with each other. The Immediately, can quite easly refer to the fact that the ship is removed before it's allowed any other actions. But does not require that the ship be removed before X damage cards are dealt to it... Which again is supported by the FAQ, and the RAW.

it's not directly stated, but I think you can infer (just like in the target lock situation) you must have a ship to assign that card to

ok.

So we have a FAQ that is quite clearly worded. If you have damage in excess of what it takes to destroy the ship, you deal those cards regardless.

It doesn't break the rules, it only refines them. When a ship is dealt damage equal to or greater then it's hull value, it's removed from play. The very fact that "or greater then" is there, immplies quite strongly that FAQ as writen is correct.

Not really as you can get to this situation by dealing a critical damage card that deals 2 damage. So a Tie Fighter can go straight from 2 damage to 4 damage skipping 3 entirely.

If the ship was removed from play the moment it received X cards where X is the hull value, then there's no need for "or greater than".

It's necessary for Critical Damage that does 2 damage see above.

In fact that text actually causes the rule to make less sense if that were true. If what you say were true, then the text should simply said "equal to.", but it doesn't, it adds an aditional condition, meaning that the statement is when X => Y, and not when X = Y. So you don't stop adding to X, just because you have reached Y.

Again critical damage can skip straight over the ships hull value.

So we have a FAQ that says "you deal X damage cards even if X is greater than the hull value" and the rules on page 16 also say "or greater than".

See above

Clearly those two statements jive with each other. The Immediately, can quite easly refer to the fact that the ship is removed before it's allowed any other actions.

That could be seen as you reading something that isn't written into the rule. I feel reading Immediately to mean, "a bit later on when it feels convenient" is taking more liberties than reading that there must be a ship to "assign damage to a ship".

But does not require that the ship be removed before X damage cards are dealt to it... Which again is supported by the FAQ, and the RAW.

except you are redefining "Immediately" and really ignoring "deal cards one at a time". The fact your dealing cards one at a time does suggest that there is time between each card to carry out something that happens Immediately.

As I said your ruling leaves cards in indeterminate states

But that's the whole point. It doesn't, it leaves those cards in the discard pile with every other damage card thats been assigned to a ship that's been removed from play.

Nope it doesn't that is the issue. The ship has already been removed and it's damage cards discarded. Nowhere does it state where these cards would go, the damage cards on a ship only get discarded when it's destroyed and that has already happened. And the ship doesn't really exist so they really can't be put there either.

Before this could never happen, the rules are very clear. However with your reading of the FAQ, suddenly you have a situation where you have a card and have no way to know what happens to it.

It is also still totally valid under RAW, and makes far more sense under RAI.

Perhaps this is an issue to agree to dissagee. Because as I see it, what you are doing is using RAI only in regards to this Q&A. You are using implied rules that are not stated in the question itself.

But that's ok. I tend to agree eith most everything else you've posted on these rule boards. I have a great deal of respect for your option, even if I don't always agree with it, but I think I agree with you more often then not.

I don't entirely agree with this. If an ability said "acquire a target lock", it is conditional on you having a target that you could acquire a target lock on, it's not stated but it's heavily implied. A similar situation is happening here, It says you may assign damage cards to the ship, it's not directly stated, but I think you can infer (just like in the target lock situation) you must have a ship to assign that card to (otherwise there is nothing in the rules which covers what you do in this situation, to assign a card you must have somewhere to assign it to, or it to state somewhere that any cards you can't assign are discarded).

You could make the opposite case here, too, however. It's heavily implied that Garven, for instance, has to actually use his focus on something in order for it to be spent, when in fact he can 'spend' his focus to modify a nonexistent eyeball result in order to pass it on. So the implication as we see it isn't always the way FFG intends it to be played.

I don't entirely agree with this. If an ability said "acquire a target lock", it is conditional on you having a target that you could acquire a target lock on, it's not stated but it's heavily implied. A similar situation is happening here, It says you may assign damage cards to the ship, it's not directly stated, but I think you can infer (just like in the target lock situation) you must have a ship to assign that card to (otherwise there is nothing in the rules which covers what you do in this situation, to assign a card you must have somewhere to assign it to, or it to state somewhere that any cards you can't assign are discarded).

You could make the opposite case here, too, however. It's heavily implied that Garven, for instance, has to actually use his focus on something in order for it to be spent, when in fact he can 'spend' his focus to modify a nonexistent eyeball result in order to pass it on. So the implication as we see it isn't always the way FFG intends it to be played.

Yep that is totally true, but that is slightly different, as the main rules just say you may spend a token, all eyeballs turn to hits. It doesn't say you can't use it when there are no eyeballs. So they are clarifying.

This situation is quite different, they are talking about assigning something to a ship. if the ship is not there how do you assign it? This is not covered anywhere in the rules. So I feel it's fair to infer that you can't do it. Which means that the Question and the subsequent Answer only cover situations where you could assign a damage to a ship.

It's a reasonable inference, I would argue more reasonable that inferring "immediately remove the ship" to mean "remove it after you play another 2 cards". So when you look at the two options.

If I'm right the FAQ item, like Garven, is just clarifying that if a ship remains in play you can carry on stacking damage on it from subsequent shots. Without altering any core rules.

So are we back to believing that "immediately" effects do go off before non-immediate? Because it seems to me that if immediate effects don't go first, they can't interrupt the damage dealing process which is already underway.

I actually happen to agree with RM about the what the rules say, although I'm not sure that the FAQ ruling doesn't change/contradict that... but I am pretty sure you can't implement immediate removal without immediate effects jumping the line, and wasn't the whole point at the beginning of this new mess that immediate didn't mean that any more?

I believe you don't treat them differently at all, Buhalin. In the case of Gunner the immediate part of the text is not before the comma in the bit of the text which refers to when it goes off. I have always said that once you choose to play gunner you have to perform his attack immediately and it ends the current attack.

Part before the Comma is when it triggers, bit after the comma is how it resolves.

"After you perform an attack that does not hit [Comma] immediately perform a primary weapon attack."

Whereas in this case the text says when you take damage equal to or greater than your hull. If you are playing the cards "one at a time" as it says, there is a place in the timing after the card is played where "when you take damage equal to or greater than your hull" can slot in. When you get to that point you do what the effect says in this case immediately remove the ship.

They work more or less identically. In fact the wording in the book is even laid out exactly like on the Gunner card.

"When the number of Damage cards dealt to a shop is equal to or greater than it's hull value [Comma] the ship is immediately destroyed."

If there were other abilities or effects that said "When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than it's hull value", it would be perfectly allowable for them to be resolved before you resolved the effect that immediately removes the ship. But if there is only one effect you can play it has to be played then and there, and once it starts resolving you have to carry it out immediately.

That could be seen as you reading something that isn't written into the rule. I feel reading Immediately to mean, "a bit later on when it feels convenient" is taking more liberties than reading that there must be a ship to "assign damage to a ship".

except you are redefining "Immediately" and really ignoring "deal cards one at a time". The fact your dealing cards one at a time does suggest that there is time between each card to carry out something that happens Immediately.

Didn't you argue, in this very thread, that "immediatley" (on gunner) means exactly "a bit later on when it feels convenient"

as you would have Vader kick in between the missed attack and the "immedialty" following primary weapon attack?

[Edit - got a small case of ninja there it seems]

So if I'm understanding you right, you think immediately is functionally irrelevant in Gunner, but meaningful in the removal rules, correct?

Nope not at all.. It's relevant in both and both are dealt with identically. You get to the timing stop described before the comma. You then play abilities or cards that happen in that timing stop one at a time. When you get to playing Gunner, or the Ship Removal effect, as soon as you say I'm resolving this ability next you have to carry out what it says after the comma immediately.

So with Gunner you get to "After you perform an attack" bit before the comma, you then can play any card that says "After you perform an attack" before the comma one at a time until you hit Gunner, as soon as you play Gunner the second part of it's text, the bit after the comma, is resolved and you immediately perform a primary weapon attack.

Same with the Ship Removal you play the damage card, you get to the point where the "When the number of Damage cards dealt to a shop is equal to or greater than it's hull value" before the comma is true. You may then play any card or effect that says "When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than it's hull value" before the comma one at a time until you hit the Ship Removal effect, as soon as you use the effect the second part of it's text, the bit after the comma, is resolved and you immediately remove the ship.

If for instance you had Fel's Wrath which says

When the number of Damage cards assigned to you equals or exceeds your hull value, you are not destroyed until the end of the Combat phase.

You would get to the "When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than it's hull value" you would have two effects you could resolve, and I think all of us will choose to play Fel's Wrath's ability first. At which point you carry out the second part of his text, the bit after the comma, and he can not be destroyed, you then attempt to play the Ship Removal effect but it's not valid as Fel's Wrath's ability has happened first. As the ship hasn't been removed you continue onto the next damage and it gets applied to Fel's Wrath.

So then how would Gunner be played differently if you removed the "immediately" from it?

So then how would Gunner be played differently if you removed the "immediately" from it?

How would the Ship removal be played any differently?

but seriously, I think it's to stop people believing it just allows them an extra attack later in the ships Combat Phase. It also immediately end the current After Attack part of the phase and immediatly starts a new attack. It doesn't allow something like Cluster missiles second attack to slip in between.

I don't think it would play very differently, but I don't think the Ship removal would either. immediately seems fairly redundant in most cases. It feels more like a reminder to do this before everything else, in situations where it might matter.

With the Ship Removal you might think to continue an play all cards before removing, with Gunner you might think finish off Cluster Missiles extra attack then take your extra attack from Gunner.

Personally, I believe the "greater than" during damage dealing is there because there are at least two circumstances I can think of where even if you do deal cards one at a time, and remove a ship the second damage=hull, you could potentially wind up with damage>hull. Those two circumstances are Direct Hit criticals, and simultaneous fire situations.

The way I look at it is that I will first try to reconcile ALL rules with one another. In this case, RM's reading does allow for a ship to be removed the moment damage=>hull, so it does not directly invalidate the wording present in any part of the rulebook. The alternative, drawing cards for all damage even once you reach a point where the ship is destroyed (and not in a Simultaneous fire situation) does directly contradict the rules stating you must remove a ship the moment damage=>hull and the rule stating that damage cards are drawn and applied one at a time.

Either way it seems to me to be a fairly non-important distinction. As long as my opponent removes his ship, I am not terribly concerned with how many cards he puts on it.

I don't entirely agree with this. If an ability said "acquire a target lock", it is conditional on you having a target that you could acquire a target lock on, it's not stated but it's heavily implied. A similar situation is happening here, It says you may assign damage cards to the ship, it's not directly stated, but I think you can infer (just like in the target lock situation) you must have a ship to assign that card to (otherwise there is nothing in the rules which covers what you do in this situation, to assign a card you must have somewhere to assign it to, or it to state somewhere that any cards you can't assign are discarded).

You could make the opposite case here, too, however. It's heavily implied that Garven, for instance, has to actually use his focus on something in order for it to be spent, when in fact he can 'spend' his focus to modify a nonexistent eyeball result in order to pass it on. So the implication as we see it isn't always the way FFG intends it to be played.

Yep that is totally true, but that is slightly different, as the main rules just say you may spend a token, all eyeballs turn to hits. It doesn't say you can't use it when there are no eyeballs. So they are clarifying.

This situation is quite different, they are talking about assigning something to a ship. if the ship is not there how do you assign it? This is not covered anywhere in the rules. So I feel it's fair to infer that you can't do it. Which means that the Question and the subsequent Answer only cover situations where you could assign a damage to a ship.

It's a reasonable inference, I would argue more reasonable that inferring "immediately remove the ship" to mean "remove it after you play another 2 cards". So when you look at the two options.

If I'm right the FAQ item, like Garven, is just clarifying that if a ship remains in play you can carry on stacking damage on it from subsequent shots. Without altering any core rules.

How are you seeing these as two wildly disparate things? You can mirror "assign damage" with "spend a focus token" and "enemy ship" with "eyeball results." You're saying - forced to say, since the FAQ spells it out in no uncertain terms, that Garven can modify something that is not there. Even if there is no eyeball result on any of the dice, he can still modify "any number" of eyeball results even if that number is zero. He's modifying something that's not there.