Although I should add, I think I've lost track of how it is being argued damage would be assigned (in theory) to a destroyed ship in the first place, so I'll have to go back and read through this all again in one go. I just think that there are some parallels between the two examples.

I will buy the argument that the reason Vader can't take effect is that your ship has 0 health, and can't pay the 'cost' of Vader's ability, where Gunner has no such cost. But I do think that brings us right back to wanting a concrete clarification that Vader can work if you have ONE hull left, but not NO hull left.

The problem is that while I think there's actually some agreement on how some of this should work, the contradicting rulings and precedents make it extremely murky WHY some things work the way they do. If you argue that Vader can use his ability if you have 1 hull, you're arguing against the idea that the ship is removed the minute it hits zero. The ship has to stick around long enough for the damage to resolve and Vader's ability to take effect.

But then if that's the case, why doesn't it stick around long enough to take effect during a simultaneous fire situation? It's in essence saying that if you have enough damage to be destroyed, you can shoot back - and even take a SECOND shot with Gunner if you miss - but NOT stick around and use a triggered ability like Vader.

If that's the way it works, that's the way it works, but I don't get WHY it works that way and it would be nice if they cleaned up the timing issues or gave a reason along with some of the rulings.

I believe both of the damages are put into play at the same time. And causing a critical on the enemy ship is not conditional on your ship being in play, whereas assigning damage to your own ship is. So even if your ship was removed from play before the critical damage was resolved, there is nothing stopping it resolving.

I agree Vader is murky though.

Saying that I do think that this proves that the Attack, Gunner, Vader, Vader ordering that some people were suggesting is wrong, we have direct proof here that immediate after the comma does not mean it has to be the first effect played. And I hadn't noticed it before this thread. Take these two effects

• 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.

• When the number of Damage cards dealt to a ship is equal to or greater than it's hull value, the ship is immediately destroyed.

I don't think any of us could argue that these two wouldn't happen in the same timing step. So if immediately after the comma affected the order you had to use effects the ship would be removed before Fel's ability could be used. In fact it would be impossible for Fel's ability to ever work.

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.

This is exactly what I meant by "functionally irrelevant." I still think that immediately effects must go off first, and can jump the line in a way non-immediate effects can't. If you removed the "immediately" from the destruction check, it would indeed wait until after all cards had been dealt. I'd point out that the Vader timing I suggest above operates as a queue.

Both your issues on Gunner are handled by the last line of the text. The "can't save it for later" is a standard issue that comes up often, and applies to anything whether it's "immediate" or not. Note recent discussions over Advanced Sensors and Push the Limit. I don't really find the "reminder to do this before anything else...where it might matter" compelling, because it matters in EVERY situation. What makes Squad Leader and Dutch worth immediate reminders when Push the Limit and Garven aren't?

There are 11 abilities that use immediately - that's about 10% of the game's total abilities. 9 of them are "after the comma". You're basically saying that these abilities had a random meaningless word thrown in. It's not a one-off, and it's not pervasive. The numbers point rather strongly to the term having an actual meaning.

Yes, a meaningless immediately makes the Attack/Vader/Gunner/Vader pattern work. But a forced-timing immediately explains why you can't use a dead Vader in a simultaneous fire situation without the need to invent rules about costs and ships with no hull. That is why I've been saying that we can no longer reasonably derive a foundational rule set from the rulings we have. Which rulings are truly representative of the underlying rules? Which are so badly worded that we're just misunderstanding them? Which are pseudo-errata, or just a "We don't care what the rules say, play it like this"?

I honestly don't know what the foundation is any more, because we have rulings that point all sorts of strange directions. I continue to find it deeply ironic that I, the guy who never ever changes his mind about anything, am the only one willing to admit that.

Well, not the only one.

I think a lot of us agree that there are rulings that contradict one another, rulings that set precedents that seem to contradict other rules or rulings, and at least one ruling that really should have been an errata since it directly overrides the actual rule as written. The problem is that in the absence of a firm, clear structure, everyone is finding their own ways to try and find meaning in the chicken bones.

I don't think Vader's ship needs to stick around in order for the Crit to be resolved. Once you start resolving a card, you resolve the whole thing regardless. The real issue is not the part where it says to immediately remove the ship, it is the part that says you must resolve each damage card one at a time.

Also, help my memory out. Do we have confirmation that a ship that has been destroyed but is sticking around for Simultaneous fire is indeed able to use Gunner? As I read things, it should not. This would be entirely consistent with the FAQ on Vader, since the ship is only hanging about until it finishes its attack and not a moment longer. If it CAN use Gunner, I am at a bit of a loss.

I honestly don't know if I've ever seen that spelled out concretely one way or t'other, no.

I get the feeling if Gunner couldn't be used the FAQ entry would be far more generic, it's very specifically about Vader. Which makes me feel... AND THIS IS ENTIRELY A GUT FEELING, that Gunner can be used, and the reason Vader can't be used is because you can't activate his card with 0 hull.

Immediate timing would explain the Gunner/Vader disparity. A ship is removed immediately after its opportunity to attack. That goes before Vader, but simultaneous with Gunner, allowing the choice.

We don't have a specific ruling on Gunner. I don't know that I'd read much into the ruling being specific to Vader, though. Most of the FAQ entries are specific to one card or another, without addressing or spelling out broad principles. FFG tends to answer specific questions directly, without any sort of underlying explanation of the timing or reason for it. At this point, I honestly believe that they're intentionally hiding as much of the foundational rules structure as they can manage.

But they could have just said. No. You cannot play any effects after a simultaneous attack.. and cleared up everything. without saying why.. just No.

BTW Buhalin you haven't said anything about Fel's Wrath and Removing Destroyed Ships. They both happen in the same timing spot. But Removing Destroyed Ships has an immediately after the comma.

If it had to be used first. Fel's Ability could never be used (as his ship would be off the board before he had a chance). So that is a fairly solid piece of evidence that things that say immediate after the comma don't have to go first.

Not sure if I really buy that train of thought. Fel's Wrath (if you keep calling him Fel, it sounds like you're talking about Fel ) pretty clearly and unequivocally states "you are not destroyed until the end of the combat round," period, full stop. That's just a hard counter to any and all normal damage rules about when that particular ship is removed from the board. I don't know that timing really comes into it at all. It doesn't get superseded by 'Immediately' because it doesn't have to, it just blocks (stalls, anyway) removal entirely.

And again kind of flipping that on its head - Chewbacca. "When you are dealt a face-up damage card <comma> immediately flip it face down (without resolving its ability)." That says immediately, after the comma , and does in fact go first - including, as the FAQ states, before an ability that would deny Chewbacca his special ability text. In other words, he straight up blocks even the crit that could prevent him from blocking crits.

Why? He does so immediately. And his immediately is after the comma you're so focused on. I think that's much stronger evidence the other way than Fel's Wrath (flat, hard counter to the normal rules of ship removal) is for your argument.

Of course, note: the fact I think it was a weak argument (Fel's Wrath) doesn't make it wrong , just not one that supports your case particularly well.

However, in trying to find an answer, re: Gunner vs damage meeting or exceeding your hull, in a simultaneous fire scenario... (pause to catch my breath after that mouthful), I did stumble across this.

http://www.afewmaneuvers.com/topic/1908-timing-diagram/

It's one guy's step by step breakdown of how I think every ability in the game affects the basic timing structure, where it falls in line, and denoting where there are clear conflicts. It's dense, but interesting. His conclusion is as well, if you skip to the end of it. You'll have to go read through at least his whole line of conclusions he draws from charting it out to see HOW he got there and whether you agree or disagree but here's his final analysis:

" So in summation I believe that “immediately” in no way affects the timing of when cards are played (unless actually used within the timing clause), only refers to the context of an individual card, and only seems to affect play when discarding damage cards before resolving the effects and when ships are destroyed."

Fel's Wrath to me is a clear case of "the golden rule". If a card contradicts the rule book, the card wins. So it's not a mater of two different effects and timing between them, it's just a overriding of the normal procedure for removing destroyed ships.

That is why I've been saying that we can no longer reasonably derive a foundational rule set from the rulings we have.

That's my impression as well.

CW -

Thank you for linking that. His reasoning dovetails with what RM, Bazinga, and I have been saying (and others). The timing clause exists up to the comma, and the only way "Immediately" would affect timing is if it were within that section. The fact that every ruling and card in the game functions within the rules and the FAQ if we do it that way is pretty strong evidence to support that conclusion.

I don't understand why this causes people to believe that we can not derive a foundational rule set. We have Atomic timing that functions throughout the entire rule set. We have cards written in a grammatically consistent manner, with timing requirements written first and separated from the rest of the text. Applying these two allows us to discern a smoothly functioning and consistent rule set. Why the angst?

On Fel's Wrath, I'm honestly not sure. I think it runs into the overloaded use of "when". The term is used for triggers in some cases (and should probably be "after" when it is), and for time-spanning effects in others ("When attacking..."). The time-spanning effects aren't "Do and done", and it's very unclear how the timing for these effects work. The answer I got from James concerning Adrenaline Rush, which is conveniently and consistently ignored, was that AR means the maneuver was NEVER red, so the dial change never even goes off. Take it or leave it, but that came direct from the designer's mouth. I think that Fel's Wrath has a similar time-spanning effect that is in effect the instant the conditions are met, so timing is irrelevant.

This extends to a few other cards as well. CW hit on Chewie above, and I agree with him that Chewbacca's interrupt effect is very difficult to explain without an immediately jumping the line. It's a "when" ability, so it's possible it applies throughout the process of damage dealing. I'm not really content with that though, and even with a meaningful immediately there are questionable timing issues there.

Can anyone explain why Vader can't be used in Simultaneous Fire, without creating new rules about costs and damage? The Simultaneous Fire removal rule is an after-the-comma-immediately, which means it would go off with the same timing as Vader and should allow him to be used or, at the very least, creates a big blob of unknown ordering concerning effects that aren't owned by either player.

The thing is with the system me, KO and a few people are suggesting, everything is consistant with all the prior rulings except in very fringe cases. Fel's Wraith works, Adrenal Rush works, Swarm Tactics works, everything is very consistant.

Where as you yourself has been seen saying that under your way of working the timing.

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.

In fact every single ruling matched what we thought would happen with our version of the timing. Except Vader, and that is because I believe the ruling has nothing at all to do with timing.

Can anyone explain why Vader can't be used in Simultaneous Fire, without creating new rules about costs and damage? The Simultaneous Fire removal rule is an after-the-comma-immediately, which means it would go off with the same timing as Vader and should allow him to be used or, at the very least, creates a big blob of unknown ordering concerning effects that aren't owned by either player.

Under both your system and ours the Vader ruling doesn't seem to work without some kind of modification. Saying that I don't think the issue is a timing issue. I think it has more to do with "do X to perform Y", which has never really been covered by FFG. We still have no ruling on Yorrs interaction with Elusiveness, and the Vader ruling is still open to a lot of speculation about what it means in the general scheme of things.

I think it totally comes down to having to be able to start "do X" to be able to use the card. And the fact Vader can "do X" IE assign 2 damage when on 1 hull and isn't able to "do X" when the ship is on 0 hull. I also believe that if you can use the card, you apply all the parts of the card and there are no further checks. IE. If it's legal to assign a stress to your ship you can play Elusiveness, once you play the card however the stress can be reassigned or removed and it won't stop "perform Y" going off.

But that is speculation. As we also haven't had any confirmation over whether you can do Gunner in a Simultaneous fire situation.

Under both your system and ours the Vader ruling doesn't seem to work without some kind of modification.

So neither system is correct. Maybe FFG uses a third system. Or none.

Under both your system and ours the Vader ruling doesn't seem to work without some kind of modification.

So neither system is correct. Maybe FFG uses a third system. Or none.

That's not quite what I'm saying, read the rest of the post. What I'm saying is both systems are Timing systems. Neither cover the "Vader can't be used on 0 hull" not working, if that is caused by Timing. However, I believe Vader is NOT a timing issue, but to do with how "Do X to perform Y" are dealt with. If this is the case it wouldn't be covered by Timing at all. But by what is a legal use of a card.

A possible point of view as to why Gunner gets its second shot. It fires at the same time.

Because while playing the game we have to break everything into steps and sequences he appears to shoot after a miss.

I suggest that what the second shot is trying to simulate is the pilot and gunner bracketing a target with fire at the same time. If the pilot hits then the gunner can’t have hit because the target evaded in the opposite direction. If the pilot misses, the target has rolled into the fire of the gunner and is trying to evade that.

This is a guess at the intention of the gunner as opposed to an exact rules answer.

Vader could also be explained as a vindictive force attack on a target that survived. He wouldn't get to see if the target survived if he was currently occupying a ball of fire.

I think we have somewhat lost sight of the reason for the word "immediately" in the gunner text. It is there for one reason as far as I can tell. You take a shot, you miss, you use gunner. Now you must make the attack with gunner now, you may not choose another pilot with the same PS and shoot him and then decide to use the gunner attack.

Take as an example, you have Kath Scarlet + Gunner + Concussion (on 2 Hull) and Maarek Stele + Concussion (On 1 Hull). Both are PS7. Opponent has Green Squadron A-wing with Assault Missile (on 2 Hull) and 2 other ships (also on low health) called Rebel 1 (Tycho Celchu with Assault on 1 health) and Rebel 2 (Jan Ors with Blaster and Stress) both are PS 8/9. (Rebel 2 is less of a threat that Rebel 1)

Kath has TL on Green and Stress, Green has Focus + TL on Kath. They are at range 3 facing each other. Kath has aft arc shot on Rebel 1 at range 2. Maarek Stele has TL on Green and Stress, he can shoot either the Green at Range 2 or Jan Ors at Range 1.

So on your attack phase. You need to kill the Green A-wing otherwise he will launch Assault at Kath and likely kill both Kath and Maarek. Your best chance to kill Green is to use the concussion on Kath. Then use Maarek to hit Jan. Hope next turn you can kill Rebel 1.

Now if you kill Green with Kath, you would use Mauler to Kill Jan Ors. If you miss with Kath's missile, you use gunner. You cannot now use Maarek to shoot his missile at Green and then use the Gunner attack to hit Rebel 1 (Tycho). You must use the attack created by gunner before you are allowed to use a different attack. Hence the "immediately". Otherwise you could try Kath's missile, then Maarek's one and then if Maarek kills Green you can hit Tycho with Kath.

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.

Yep

I fail to see where the rules say you preempt dealing damage with destruction. You check for destruction after dealing damage cards, not after dealing each one.

I fail to see where the rules say you preempt dealing damage with destruction. You check for destruction after dealing damage cards, not after dealing each one.

It says you deal them onto the ship one at a time, they also state as soon as you equal of exceed hull you remove the ship.

Well it's actually quite fuzzy on that point, is the problem. In various places the rules make it sound like you resolve all damage cards before a ship is destroyed, or you resolve each one individually, in which case it's entirely possible that your ship would be destroyed immediately after resolving the damage that equals its hull value, even if more damage was incoming. It's not very well or uniformly spelled out.

However only one interpretation meshes with the FAQ.