The fact that the first line on Dutch's card doesn't include the word "may" is not really a basis for commitment to the ability.

Dutch's ability states that you must choose another friendly ship at Range 1 to 2. If there are no other friendly ships at Range 1 to 2, then Dutch's ability fizzles.

In the example given in the original post, Dutch must either choose Wedge or the Rookie. That ship then becomes the chosen ship. At this point, you can not change your mind, you have chosen the ship.

And this seems to be the crux of the argument. What you're saying is that the first part is now resolved, so there's no turning back. What I'm seeing is the text on the card, as a whole, is the ability - both sentences. And together with the FAQ entry on measuring range, you can measure range to any valid ships before resolving the ability.

It doesn't say you "must choose a ship..." and if no one is in range then it's clear it's not going to happen anyway. There are many precedents that allow the backtracking of an unsuccessful attempt at something. Why is this one different?

If there are no other friendly ships at Range 1 to 2, then Dutch's ability fizzles.

That requires a level of RAW and rules lawyering beyond anything FFG normally does.

At no point does FFG penalize someone for picking a target that isn't valid for some reason. The target of Dutch's ability may be technically valid but if that ship can't carry out the TL then you've wasted Dutch's ability, and that's just not how FFG does things.

At no point does FFG penalize someone for picking a target that isn't valid for some reason. The target of Dutch's ability may be technically valid but if that ship can't carry out the TL then you've wasted Dutch's ability, and that's just not how FFG does things.

Please prove the bolded statement regarding Dutch.

Part of the skill as a player, using Dutch, is giving his ability to a ship that can successfully use it. The chosen ship may acquire a target lock. It certainly doesn't have to do so.

In the example given in the original post:

Dutch chose Wedge.

Wedge has the option to acquire a target lock. He's not forced to do so.

Wedge measured the Shuttle and it was out of range.

Wedge had a TIE-Fighter in Range 2.

Wedge may choose to target lock the TIE-Fighter, or not. He's not forced to do so.

Please prove the bolded statement regarding Dutch.

The is no proof just there is none to support your interpretation. There are really no rules to cover a nested action like this.

But:

FAQ, page 9.

"When a player declares a ship’s ability that requires another ship (or ships) to be at a certain range, the player trying to resolve the ability can measure range from their ship to any valid ships before resolving the ability."

Rulebook, page 8.

"A ship cannot perform a barrel roll if this would cause its base to overlap another ship or obstacle token. The player may measure to see if his ship can perform a barrel roll before committing to this action."

Rulebook, page 9.

"When measuring range for a target lock, the player may measure 360° from the active ship. The active player may measure to see if an enemy ship is within range before committing to this action."

There are plenty of precedents that state you can do or measure things before committing to something.

The is no proof just there is none to support your interpretation. There are really no rules to cover a nested action like this.

So you can't prove your interpretation?

I haven't interpreted anything. I've read the card and applied what it stated to do.

There are rules to cover Dutch's ability. They are printed on his pilot card.

First do this: "After acquiring a target lock, choose another friendly ship at Range 1-2."

Then do this: "The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock."

FAQ, page 9.

"When a player declares a ship’s ability that requires another ship (or ships) to be at a certain range, the player trying to resolve the ability can measure range from their ship to any valid ships before resolving the ability."

Note that you are quoting from the Competitive Play section of the FAQs, which is fine.

I always assume Competitive rules, unless otherwise stated.

Yes. We can premeasure from Dutch to see which ships are in range of his ability.

In the example given, Wedge and the Rookie are both in range.

One of those ships must be chosen.

Wedge was chosen. He may now acquire a target lock. He certainly doesn't have to.

Using the FAQ, Page 9 (the dot point beneath your quoted rule): Wedge declared to target lock the Shuttle, but it was out of range.

Wedge may now choose to target lock the TIE-Fighter that is in range. He certainly doesn't have to.

The target lock's not in question here at all. We all know how that works. What was in question, from the original post, was can the unsuccessful TL be passed to the Rookie instead? And the three points I made above, all point to being able to measure or check before committing to anything. I see this as including the choice of ship acquiring the TL. After all, the choice of ship is part of the ability and if the TL isn't possible for Wedge, nothing regarding Dutch's ability has been fully resolved yet.

What was in question, from the original post, was can the unsuccessful TL be passed to the Rookie instead?

Wedge was chosen.

Wedge declared to target lock the Shuttle.

Upon measuring, the Shuttle was not in range of Wedge.

Wedge has another enemy ship that was obviously within target lock range - the TIE Fighter.

Wedge may now choose to target lock the TIE-Fighter.

The decision to pass Dutch's ability to the Rookie expires, once Wedge has been chosen.

What was in question, from the original post, was can the unsuccessful TL be passed to the Rookie instead?

The decision to pass Dutch's ability to the Rookie expires, once Wedge has been chosen.

I don't think so as the target lock can't be resolved. Why is there an expiration on half of the ability?

I don't think so as the target lock can't be resolved. Why is there an expiration on half of the ability?

Wedge's acquired target lock can be resolved against the TIE-Fighter.

Wedge gets to choose if he does so or not.

Where is it printed on Dutch's pilot card that you can rewind the whole sequence to the beginning? It isn't.

Dutch has two sentences to follow, in sequential order.

Clearly this argument is going to continue round in circles as we both have two different takes on it. Sergovan has worded a careful question to Frank so I suggest we wait and see how he looks at it.

Agreed?

Please prove the bolded statement regarding Dutch.

I think you just broke my irony meter. You're going to have to pay for that

Part of me is thinking "pay attention to all ships when you measure the DT for Dutch" and also when you measure the range to the guy you want to give the TL to.

To put it another way when measuring for Dutch try and be sure that the guy you want to TL a certain target will be close enough to that target.

I'm thinking this is an example of why completely forbidding measuring outside of specific conditions is actually bad for the game. Sorry, but I think ranges from A to B should be known and while I can see the possible "stalling" used by adding measuring it sure would help solve this problem.

I think we can all agree that the answer to the OP depoends on wether you are playing a Casual game or a Competitive game.

In Casual you would probably be allowed to backtrack Dutch choosing Wedge as the recipient of the optional aqcuisition of a target lock.

In Competitive play the answer is clearly debatable, hence this long discussion. And it pretty much hinges on wether you are locked into your choice of recipient, regardless of wether the recipient can then do what you intended.

The work may is very important in this. Or rather the lack of the word may. Several cards have choices that are not optional. And Dutch is one such card. This I base on the fact that Cards like Dutch, Roark Garnet, Swarm Tactics,and Wingman all use the same implied 'must if possible'

FAQ Page 9

Simultaneous abilities (such as when both players must trigger Swarm Tactics

at the start of the combat phase) are resolved in initiative order.

Of cause none of these mandatory choices can be performed if no valid target is in range. This is all implied as it would take up way too much text to spell it out explicitly. Further proof that the must is implied lies in the errata of Luke and Gunner. Both these cards was originally worded so that you had to perform a primary weapon attack if your attack missed. They were erattaed to include the work may.

FAQ page 9.

When a player declares a ship’s ability that requires another ship (or ships)

to be at a certain range, the player trying to resolve the ability can measure

range from their ship to any valid ships before resolving the ability.

Following this, Dutch can pre measure which ships are in range before committing to which ship he chooses. Once he has determined the valid choices, he must choose one of them, and he is now committed to the choice, because he was able to complete the card ability.

The chosen ship (Wedge in the OP) may immediately acquire a target lock. This is clearly optional.

FAQ page 9.

When acquiring a target lock, a player must first declare the intended

target. Then, he measures range to the declared target to see if the

target is within legal range. If the target is in range, the ship performing

the action must acquire a target lock on the target. If the target is not

in range, the player may declare a different target, or he may declare a

different action.

So Wedge declareds the Shuttle as the target, and finds it out of range. He may new declare another target or a different action. Since he is not performing an action the last part is irellevant, so he is left with the choice of target locking the TIE or not target locking at all. No matter what choice is taken, it will always fulfill the second part of the Dutch card ability, simply because the word may makes not acquiring a target lock a valid way of fulfilling the ability.

I think we can all agree that the answer to the OP depoends on wether you are playing a Casual game or a Competitive game.

I agree, in a casual game, or more accurately the standard rules which is what you should assume people are playing by, when it comes to rules discussion. You should never assume competitive play because that is a subset of the rules, not the rules themselves.

You are never locked into preforming an ability you declare. You can back out of anything no matter how far along you've gone, as long as that ship is still the active one.

Declare a focus action, put a focus token on the table, but change your mind and you can do something else. Declare a TL and measure to the target ship, even if it's in range you can still change your mind. Declare a barrel roll, and measure it and you can fit, but you can still change your mind.

At no point in the game are you ever locked into an action you declared even if preforming the action is possible. Except in a few cases when playing by competitive rules, and those cases are clearly spelled out, so no other ability falls under those rules. No pilot skills, Astromech abilities, EPT's, crew abilities, ect... You are not locked into any of those even under competitive rules.

So RAW if you declare a target for Dutch's ability you are not locked into that choice because his ability isn't listed. So again RAW you can declare a target for Dutch's ability, and then change your mind.

Playing by competitive rules if you declare the target of a TL, you have to preform the TL action if you are able to. But if you are not able to, you can back out of the TL action and preform a different one.

So that means if Dutch gives a TL action to Wedge, and the target Wedge declares is out of range, he does not have to TL some other ship. Wedge has the option of TL'ing a different ship, or else the whole thing rewinds and Dutch can pick a different target.

Because one of the key concepts in X-Wing is that no one ever loses an action because they chose a target that was invalid. There is no Gotcha in X-Wing like there is other games.

In 40k if you pick a target to shoo at and find out after you declare it's out of range you lose your chance to shoot with that unit. That is not how X-Wing works in any case at all. At no point are you ever locked into a action even if the target is a valid one, you still have the option of changing your mind, other then in 3 specific cases.

Forgot... Was going to mention this.

Squad Leader Action: Choose 1 ship at Range 1-2 that has a lower pilot skill than you.

The chosen ship may immediately perform 1 free action.

Dutch: After acquiring a target lock, choose another friendly ship at Range 1-2. The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock.

The two abilities are pretty much identical, in fact Dutch really just has a more limited free action. Based on TezzasGames' logic, the following is true. I'm curious if anyone would agree.

If I declare a target for Squad Leader, but that target has a stress, I cannot pick a different target for Squad Leader.

Nothing on squad leader says I can't give the free action to stressed ship. The rule is a stressed ship can't preform an action, even a free one. So lets say there's a free action token, Squad Leader would let me pass that token to a ship with stress, but the ship couldn't spend the token.

So, the stressed ship is a valid target of the free action, even if it can't preform it. So if for some reason I picked a ship that had a stress token, then Gotcha, you lost your action.

But again I don't think many if any think that's what really happens.

No matter what choice is taken, it will always fulfill the second part of the Dutch card ability, simply because the word may makes not acquiring a target lock a valid way of fulfilling the ability.

This has been mentioned several times, but it's really extending the concept of "may" in a way that I don't think the rules support. Here is the sum total of rules regarding "may":

I think the end result is the same, but pretty much all the rules we actually have in X-wing avoid costing you opportunities by allowing you to measure before you actually resolve it. Competitive rules, target selection, ability range checks - they all function exactly the same. Measure before you're locked in so you don't get stuck with an impossible effect.

But that's really a semantic difference - as I said, the end result is the same. Specifically, that you're not locked into using abilities if they turn out to fail. There's no RAW on this, because there are no rules - X-wing's rules just don't provide fine enough timing or specify what happens if you actually do declare something that's impossible. There's nothing at all that goes two levels deep. The closest we get is the rather inventive extension of "may", which has no rules support and no rulings for it.

What we have is a universally consistent standard in the game of not making you lose opportunities because something turns out to be out of range. I've asked multiple times now for even a single example where a choice makes you lose an opportunity, and nobody's provided anything at all.

What we have is a universally consistent standard in the game of not making you lose opportunities because something turns out to be out of range. I've asked multiple times now for even a single example where a choice makes you lose an opportunity, and nobody's provided anything at all.

I fully agree with this. But you are really not losing an opportunity. Your opportunity is to choose another ship. In the OP, Wedge and Rookie Pilot are both valid choices. Once Wedge is chosen you have satisfied the 'opportunity'. Now Wedge can measure Range for acquiring a target lock. He finds that the shuttle is out of range but the TIE is in range. He is bot forced to take the target lock because of the word may. And no opportunity is lost because it is a perfectly valid choice to be picked by Dutch and not acquire a target lock.

It's the same with Squad Leader. Yes you can use Squad Leader to grant a free action to a ship with a stress token, The stress token prevents the targeted ship from performing free actions, but again the chosen ship may perform a free action. it is not forced to. So you still didn't lose an opportunity, because you did choose a ship, and that should just had to choose not to perform a free action.

I am fully aware that it would be a very poor choice to use Squad Leader to choose a stressed ship. I don't imagine anybody would ever do so, except maybe by accident. But that does not make it a failed attempt to perform the action, if you actually do so.

I fully agree with this. But you are really not losing an opportunity. Your opportunity is to choose another ship. In the OP, Wedge and Rookie Pilot are both valid choices. Once Wedge is chosen you have satisfied the 'opportunity'.

Maybe you have in the rules-splitting definition, but practically you have not. The outcome of Dutch's ability should be a second ship with a target lock. If that doesn't happen, it's a lost opportunity regardless of what step of the process it occurs at.

[Edit: To be clear here, I don't think there's anything in the rules that actually supports the idea that you have satisfied the opportunity, but we're basically outside the rules at this point anyway]

You could just as easily make the same statement about not being in range in the first place. If you try and pass a target lock with Dutch but it's out of range, well, you've had your opportunity to do so, right? You just chose poorly and ended up with someone who couldn't use the ability.

The end result is exactly the same regardless of which part of the process fails: no second lock. That means that Dutch's ability has not done what it was supposed to do.

And I'll point out yet again that we do actually have a firm ruling that fits exactly this model: Expert Handling. You choose Expert Handling as your action, but find that you can't barrel roll. Per this logic, you're done - you can't back up to select a different action. But we have a ruling that you can.

Second Edit: And to reiterate the core point from a previous post - for this to be correct we have to assume that the first-order forgiveness vanishes and turns into "You screwed it up, you lose it" once you hit a second-order effect. Possible, but both inconsistent and at odds with everything else we know about how the system works.

The outcome of Dutch's ability should be a second ship with a target lock. If that doesn't happen, it's a lost opportunity regardless of what step of the process it occurs at.

I thought that is what was happening in the given situation, wedge with a TL on the TIE (if he wants it)? Making the situation analogous to declaring a BR and discovering that doesn't take you out of arc like you thought. You can't back up and focus instead.

My problem with being able to back out of nested effects is, just how long does the chain have to be before you aren't allowed to do so. What if instead of wedge, Dutch passed a TL to a ship with weapons engineer and the desired target of the 2nd TL is out of range? What if the target of the 2nd lock has a hypothetical unreleased upgrade that triggers on being target locked by the enemy? Just how deep down the rabbit hole can you go and still be able to climb out?

The end result is exactly the same regardless of which part of the process fails: no second lock. That means that Dutch's ability has not done what it was supposed to do.

Exactly. This isn't 40k where there's a chance for you to lose out on what you intend to do because you misjudged something. X-Wing is very forgiving in that way, and if the desired action isn't allowed due to range or other condition, you don't lose out on the chance to pick a different and perhaps valid target for that action.

Per this logic, you're done - you can't back up to select a different action. But we have a ruling that you can.

Which as you point out Buhallin is proof in as much as we have any, that you can backtrack though more then one step if something doesn't allow you to carry out the action completely.

Making the situation analogous to declaring a BR and discovering that doesn't take you out of arc like you thought. You can't back up and focus instead.

In standard rules you can do just that. The rules are quite clear you can measure before being committed to an action, unless you're playing competitive rules. But even then, BR is specifically listed as an effect, so RAW the competitive rules only applies to those actions listed.

My problem with being able to back out of nested effects is, just how long does the chain have to be before you aren't allowed to do so.

As Buhallin pointed out, the only ruling we have is that you can back out of nested effects. How many isn't mentioned, so unless we hear otherwise there really is no limit that can be pointed out. You can back out of them, Yes/No and the answer we have is Yes.

My problem with being able to back out of nested effects is, just how long does the chain have to be before you aren't allowed to do so. What if instead of wedge, Dutch passed a TL to a ship with weapons engineer and the desired target of the 2nd TL is out of range? What if the target of the 2nd lock has a hypothetical unreleased upgrade that triggers on being target locked by the enemy? Just how deep down the rabbit hole can you go and still be able to climb out?

Why would this be a problem, regardless of depth? Apart from some sense, largely drawn from other games, that you deserve to lose actions if you pick something out of range, is this actually a problem?

What's really different between taking a green with Lando and handing off an action vs. taking a green with Lando and handing an action to Wedge who uses that action for Squad Leader to pass the action on farther to another ship? What makes the first one immune to failure, but the second one vulnerable?

I do think there's a problem with multiple-opportunity effects like Weapons Engineer, but I think that's a separate issue. The question of how Weapons Engineer plays in the competitive rules - how you declare your targets and what constitutes success or failure under the competitive rules - is fuzzy. But, again, separate issue to how nested or chained abilities should function.