So what happens if I only have 1 card left in my deck? Do I lose the game? What about multiplayer?

Because looking =/= drawing, I'd assume you don't lose. You simply look and draw the only remaining card. If you have to draw again by any other effect, it's then when you would lose.

No idea about multiplayer since I haven't paid too much attention to it and its rules.

What if you deck has 0 cards?

Drawing a card is mandatory once you activate the objective's action and attempt to look at cards.
Page 15 of the Rulebook states a player loses if he must draw while deck is empty.
By this logic, you would lose when using the objective's action with an empty deck.

I want to agree, but the objective explicitly states that you draw one of the cards you looked at, but you can't look at a non-existent card.

Since I can't give a certain explanation, I'll just use a comparison that may be completely wrong, so correct my line of thought if that's the case.
Take the Tatooine Crash, for example. "Reaction: After you refresh, capture the top card of an opponent's deck at this objective, if able."

Isn't quite the same, as Tatooine Crash is an effect that applies on the enemy deck instead of one's own. But since BSS doesn't use a similar wording, I just keep thinking that once you attempt to look, you're already forcing yourself to draw, even if there's nothing to look at all.

Honestly though, I'm at a loss. Hope someone else can step up and clarify.

The answer is quite simple. Don't activate the ability if you have just one card left!

 Even if you had one card in the deck don't think you could initiate the objectives ability because it says look at the 2 cards in your deck so if you have one card in your deck you cant look at the 2 cards. would you have to have the specific requirements to initiate a objective ability? But I never even played a game on star wars where I had 1 card left. 

Yeah, I'm with life on this one - as per the FAQ, you aren't allowed to activate an ability if you cannot resolve any of its independent effects. The effect here calls for two cards in your deck and clearly cannot be resolved if there are no cards in your deck.

 

If I'm wrong about that, I don't think this would cause you to lose instantly. Because 'look' doesn't include drawing, and the wording 'add 1 of those cards to his hand' is also distinct from drawing. It could easily have been written as 'draw 1 of those cards'.

so then why can you activate trust me when it only has 1 damage left on it?

Because you can deal 2 damage to trust me but it can only take 1 of that damage so the cost isn't paid

At least that's what they say

At least that's what they say

I know the reason, I'm just saying that's whyi believe this objective can be used even if you only have a single card left in your deck. You can (attempt) to pay the cost for both.

It's actually completely different from the Trust Me ruling.

 

Trust Me: you can resolve the effect (cancel the effects of an event card).  You can even attempt to pay the cost (nothing stops you from dealing extra damage to an objective).  But the cost does not end up successfully paid so you do not get the effect.

 

Blue Squadron Support: You can pay the cost (focus this objective).  You cannot resolve the effect (look at the top 2 cards...).  Since you cannot resolve the effect, you cannot trigger the action.

And yet those two rulings make no sense what so ever when looked at side by side because with trust me, if it has 4 damage on it, not only can you not pay the 2 damage to initiate the effect, you then cannot resolve the effect either, yet you can attempt to, where as with BSS, you can pay for the effect, but can't resolve it, so then you can't even initiate it.

The check on whether or not you can resolve the effect is independent of your ability to pay the cost.  You can resolve the effect of Trust Me (unless there's ever a DS card that keeps you from canceling events).  You cannot resolve the effect on BSS if you only have 1 card in your deck.

 

Once you've confirmed that you can resolve the effect on Trust Me, you move on to paying the cost.  You then deal 2 damage to Trust Me (which eventually becomes 1 damage because the excess damage is ignored) destroying the objective.  Then, when it comes time to actually resolve its effect, it fizzles because you did not pay the cost as only 1 damage was dealt and not 2.

I've read the explanation many times and the explanation does nothing to make a bad ruling better IMO.

I think (my humble amateur opinion ) the "Trust me"-ruling is as it is to allow the use of damage prevention/redirection/protect/shields etc. If you cannot pay the cost for something it will, logically, not work; however there are ways to prevent or move damage and if that happens using a card from your hand than you *can* actually pay the cost of Trust me but your opponent cannot confirm it without looking at your hand. So by ruling that you can attempt the pay the cost of something and fail at it you allow surprise effects while otherwise you deny the players that opportunity. 

 

The ruling that you cannot pay the cost for something you cannot do is a nice one...imagine The Killing Cold and Executor together without that ruling, for instance

Killing Cold and Executor existed together without that ruling for quite some time without really causing any trouble. The bigger problem was the Falcon being able to return to hand even if you didn't have a character or droid to drop back into play. It made the falcon even harder to handle.

The ruling that you cannot pay the cost for something you cannot do is a nice one...imagine The Killing Cold and Executor together without that ruling, for instance

I don't have to imagine it because both sets were out long before this ruling came out and it wasn't a big deal at all.

As DBmeboy said, the falcon was a much bigger issue since you couldn't verify if your opponent was cheating, short of looking at his hand, and just not dropping a unit even though he has one in his hand. Of course you can no longer pull the falcon into hand unless you can drop a unit.

Ok, well I was not around at that time and I thought it was a good idea hahaha. Anyway, now it would be if you combine it with Corporate Exploitation and Tagge..

 

Anyway, a little off-topic.

At first that was the big talk. Executor, plus killing cold, plus Vader's fist. If I'm remembering correctly, most of those variations had some resource issues.


For example, even with your idea, executor, killing cold, corporate exploitation, and tagge would have no resources at all.


It's like every other combo deck out there. If you get all the pieces, it works well, but the other %75 of the time, it falls flat.

At first that was the big talk. Executor, plus killing cold, plus Vader's fist. If I'm remembering correctly, most of those variations had some resource issues.


For example, even with your idea, executor, killing cold, corporate exploitation, and tagge would have no resources at all.


It's like every other combo deck out there. If you get all the pieces, it works well, but the other %75 of the time, it falls flat.

It is actually an adaptation of a deck Mike Cipra built for Store (http://fliptheforce....es.php?rid=162)  I remember thinking: too bad Executor arrives is not a Hoth objective...

 

But resources are an obvious problem. Getting Executor into play is always though and if your deck depends on it, sure... that would be a problem. Still, with Executor, KC, CE and Tagge you still have 3 slots left for "resource"-pods.

So what happens if I only have 1 card left in my deck? Do I lose the game? What about multiplayer?

I'm responding to a very, very old post, but for completion's sake, I want to point out that you do not lose a game for running out of cards in a multiplayer game.

Also, maybe it's worth to note, that "adding card to the hand" doesn't mean "draw the card", so you can't meet lose condition anyway.

As for me, Blue Squadron Support's action can be initiated if there is only one card in the deck, because you can resolve some independent aspects - look at the card and add it to the hand.