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.

None of the commitments force you to pick a different target if your original effort fails. If you try and lock A but find you're out of range, you can choose to focus. The question is how that applies to nested situations, but there's no other scenario in the game where if you try and do something but fail you're forced to try that same thing against a different target.

Why would this be a problem, regardless of depth?

The problem is that the longer the chain of nested effects the more difficult it becomes to remember all the steps that need to be undone. It becomes impossible to back out of something in practice because you no longer remember all the steps taken in the first place.

I would like to mention that I do agree with your interpretation that Dutch can change his mind and pass the lock to the rookie instead. I'm just pointing out a theoretical problem with the basic principle that may arise if the game continues to expand and grow.

The problem is that the longer the chain of nested effects the more difficult it becomes to remember all the steps that need to be undone. It becomes impossible to back out of something in practice because you no longer remember all the steps taken in the first place.

I'll freely grant this as a theoretical problem, but I think it's very theoretical at this point. For one, very few things in X-wing actually change the state of the game in a way that's hard to undo outside of attacks. We also don't really have much in the way of long-running chains, and honestly most of the chains are inherently simpler than some of the "basic" actions we've been getting lately like R7-T1 and Jake.

But even more importantly, X-wing has taken the "measure first" approach. This actually avoids the rollback problem nicely, because you don't actually change the state until you know the entire chain works. "Okay Lando triggers, passes the action to Wedge, who'll use Squad Leader to let Dutch lock... whoops, Dutch is out of range for Squad Leader, let's just give Wedge a focus."

Edit: And for my money, I think the X-wing rules are going to collapse under their own inconsistency and erratic interpretation long before we get chains complex enough to cause a rollback issue

I had Frank's response in my e-mail when I got home today.

Hello Sergovan,

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

A rookie, Dutch, and Wedge are together. Dutch passes off a TL to Wedge, who attempts to TL a Lambda that looks to be in range but turns out not to be.

Can the TL that Dutch passed to Wedge now be sent over to the Rookie instead?

If it cannot be done can you explain the mechanic that prevents it?

Yes. If Dutch allows Wedge to acquire a target lock, then he gets the opportunity to acquire a target lock. If he has no valid targets, then Dutch can allow another friendly ship to attempt to acquire a target lock.

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

This is filling in part of the puzzle when it comes to ability interaction. Frank's ruling would take the TL all the way back to Dutch, which does make sense. Rolling back from a TL action is in the rules already, backing out from acquiring TL tokens was not (it was in a grey area).

The important information gained was that Dutch's ability is not completed when the TL was passed, but when the TL is acquired. That is good to know.

I guess the fizzle theory has fizzled.

The outcome of Dutch's ability should be a second ship with a target lock.

No the outcome of his ability should not be a second ship with a target lock. Remember how I showed earlier that his ability is not optional. The outcome of his ability is that you have another ship that may optionally acquire a target lock.

Imagine Dutch in Range 1 of 2 Tala Squadron pilots. Both Tala Squadron pilots have a target lock on Howlrunner, who is in Range 1 of 5 Academy Pilots, and both have Assault Missiles. Now Dutch acquires a target lock on one of the Academy Pilots.

Would you honestly want one of the Tala Squadron Pilots to be forced to acquire a target lock? Remember you have to choose a ship at Range 1-2 when Dutch acquires his target lock.

EDIT: Posted before I read Franks response.

Frank answers the question just as expected. How the situation would be handled in Standard Rules, and when Wedge has no valid targets. In the OP, Wedge had another valid target. And at least for my part I have been addressing Competitive play

The outcome of Dutch's ability should be a second ship with a target lock.

No the outcome of his ability should not be a second ship with a target lock. Remember how I showed earlier that his ability is not optional. The outcome of his ability is that you have another ship that may optionally acquire a target lock.

Imagine Dutch in Range 1 of 2 Tala Squadron pilots. Both Tala Squadron pilots have a target lock on Howlrunner, who is in Range 1 of 5 Academy Pilots, and both have Assault Missiles. Now Dutch acquires a target lock on one of the Academy Pilots.

Would you honestly want one of the Tala Squadron Pilots to be forced to acquire a target lock? Remember you have to choose a ship at Range 1-2 when Dutch acquires his target lock.

Fine - the outcome should be a second ship with a target lock if you want it. It is still optional, and that wouldn't even be an issue if you weren't still trying to rewrite the meaning of "may".

Regardless, we have an official answer that demolishes the fizzle theory, and the creative interpretation of "may" which was invented to support it goes along with it too.

In the OP, Wedge had another valid target. And at least for my part I have been addressing Competitive play

Even in competitive play, if the declared target of a TL is out of range you can still pick a different action, you're not required to TL a different valid target. So Franks answer works for both sets of rules.

Not a surprising answer, however

If he has no valid targets, then Dutch can allow another friendly ship to attempt to acquire a target lock.[/font][/color]

This is at least the second time recently that franks answer still leaves a loophole that people can argue about if they want to.

This is at least the second time recently that franks answer still leaves a loophole that people can argue about if they want to.

Pshaw. You should have seen the HLC Reroll Ruling of '13. Now THERE was an answer that people could still argue about!

In all seriousness, they can. Honestly, I'm amazed nobody who preferred the fizzle argument has questioned the legitimacy of Frank's answers, since that seems to be quite in vogue these days. But while there are still specific scenarios that can be argued over, the core trend has continued in the direction of "no fizzles", and we also have a perfectly consistent standard that if you try something and fail, you can try a different action rather than being locked into the same thing against a different target.

That's good enough for me.

I'm amazed that this thread is four pages when I answered it on the first page. I'm also impressed at Steven-O's desire to attack me over a ruling, after you pointed out that you didn't read the initial question properly and by the timing of your sentences and the lack of answering the real question indicated that you viewed the problem in a similar manner to Parravon. Thanks for attacking me because YOU didn't bother to read the question.

When you use Dutch's ability, you get to measure who is in range for him to give it to. So you check which friendly ships are within range 1-2 and select one. After that there are no take backs. His ability has been used successfully and that is the end of the take backs for it. Whether the target of his ability can then use the TL is irrelevant. That becomes a second action with it's own take backs but is limited to that ship.

Seriously, this is not hard people.

When you use Dutch's ability, you get to measure who is in range for him to give it to. So you check which friendly ships are within range 1-2 and select one. After that there are no take backs. His ability has been used successfully and that is the end of the take backs for it. Whether the target of his ability can then use the TL is irrelevant. That becomes a second action with it's own take backs but is limited to that ship.

Seriously, this is not hard people.

Aaaaawwwwwkwaaaard...

I'm amazed that this thread is four pages when I answered it on the first page. I'm also impressed at Steven-O's desire to attack me over a ruling, after you pointed out that you didn't read the initial question properly and by the timing of your sentences and the lack of answering the real question indicated that you viewed the problem in a similar manner to Parravon. Thanks for attacking me because YOU didn't bother to read the question.

When you use Dutch's ability, you get to measure who is in range for him to give it to. So you check which friendly ships are within range 1-2 and select one. After that there are no take backs. His ability has been used successfully and that is the end of the take backs for it. Whether the target of his ability can then use the TL is irrelevant. That becomes a second action with it's own take backs but is limited to that ship.

Seriously, this is not hard people.

Apparently it is, since 3 hours after Frank officially ruled otherwise you are still arguing it.

I'm amazed that this thread is four pages when I answered it on the first page. I'm also impressed at Steven-O's desire to attack me over a ruling, after you pointed out that you didn't read the initial question properly and by the timing of your sentences and the lack of answering the real question indicated that you viewed the problem in a similar manner to Parravon. Thanks for attacking me because YOU didn't bother to read the question.

When you use Dutch's ability, you get to measure who is in range for him to give it to. So you check which friendly ships are within range 1-2 and select one. After that there are no take backs. His ability has been used successfully and that is the end of the take backs for it. Whether the target of his ability can then use the TL is irrelevant. That becomes a second action with it's own take backs but is limited to that ship.

Seriously, this is not hard people.

Apparently it is, since 3 hours after Frank officially ruled otherwise you are still arguing it.

Hmm I see that now. Well unless it is in the errata, it doesn't mean squat to me.

Hmm I see that now. Well unless it is in the errata, it doesn't mean squat to me.

Ha! I knew we'd get one eventually!

Hmm I see that now. Well unless it is in the errata, it doesn't mean squat to me.

Ha! I knew we'd get one eventually!

I'm honestly surprised it took 3 hours.

Hmm I see that now. Well unless it is in the errata, it doesn't mean squat to me.

Ha! I knew we'd get one eventually!

I'm honestly surprised it took 3 hours.

I think the surprising thing this time is how blatantly it's linked to not getting the answer he wanted. I'm fairly certain the email would have been considered as vital as the third (fourth, if you go by Mel Brooks) tablet of Moses if it had agreed with him.

Hmm I see that now. Well unless it is in the errata, it doesn't mean squat to me.

Ha! I knew we'd get one eventually!

Why? Emailed responses aren't valid because firstly you can do this:

I had Frank's response in my e-mail when I got home today.

Hello Sergovan,

In response to your rules question:

Rule Question:

A rookie, Dutch, and Wedge are together. Dutch passes off a TL to Wedge, who attempts to TL a Lambda that looks to be in range but turns out not to be.

Can the TL that Dutch passed to Wedge now be sent over to the Rookie instead?

If it cannot be done can you explain the mechanic that prevents it?

No, Eltnot is the supreme ruler of the X-Wing rules queries and you must obey him.

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Unless it is in the errata/FaQ or some similar verifiable method, then it doesn't mean squat and you play it how it is written in the rulebook. The second reason why is because a long time ago, Games Workshop used to have a rules query email. Depending on the day, you could have two people email in the exact same question and receive different answers. I expect FFG to be no different.

Note: I'm not saying Sergovan did edit the response. I'm merely pointing out that it can be done so easily and can't be verified.

Unless it is in the errata/FaQ or some similar verifiable method, then it doesn't mean squat and you play it how it is written in the rulebook. The reason why is because a long time ago, Games Workshop used to have a rules query email. Depending on the day, you could have two people email in the exact same question and receive different answers. I expect FFG to be no different.

Uhm... you're wrong about how it's written in the rulebook, too.

Just sayin'.

And GWs rules hotline was answered by different, random redshirts, not the guy actually in charge of the game rules.

And as B says, the rulebook says you can measure all this stuff before commiting to the act.

And GWs rules hotline was answered by different, random redshirts, not the guy actually in charge of the game rules.

And as B says, the rulebook says you can measure all this stuff before commiting to the act.

Yeah for each individual action; you complete one and then the next. I'll agree with you both when I see it in the errata.

Just so that people won't think I am making up these responses. (I don't take it personally Elnot) It isn't the first time I posted an e-mail response from Frank only to have it's authenticity immediately questioned and you have every right to doubt me on it, but I figure that it is these e-mailed questions that make it into the FAQ so I ask them so that they can be put on the list to be included.

The "no fizzle" way of looking at things really bakes your brain when you try to grasp it but I already had my taste of it with the Phantom decloaking 2 straight argument awhile back. Because I went through that experience, I was more cautious this time when it looked like a sure thing in card ability interaction.

Looks authentic. Photoshop?

Indeed.

Of course, Frank could just be farming it out to a noname intern who has no clue, and is just putting Frank's name on it. How do we know it really came from him at all? On the internet, nobody knows you're not actually the lead designer for an incredibly popular miniatures game.

(This was an actual argument during a previous cycle of this particular objection, of course aimed at a ruling someone didn't like).