Sorry guys, he has a point. It probably doesn't work like that, but there are no restrictions provided on the card. It does not require you to spend the target lock at any particular time or for any particular purpose, only that you are instructed to spend the Target Lock by the attack at hand. "When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock" could mean that the attack instructed you to spend the TL to make the attack at all (and always has up to now), but it also could very well mean that it instructs you to spend the TL to accomplish some other effect.

00supra00 is making a logical point based on a grammatically correct reading of the card. The alternative is more-or-less that it has never done that before, therefore it must never do that. Which would be fine, except that the circumstances that make this possible have never existed before so there is no precedent to follow. Edit: See bottom. I was incorrect, these circumstances have been around for a while.

The card was written long before Norra's ability entered the realm of possibility, and did not use definitive language. If I were you, 00supra00 (and anyone else) I would err on the side of caution and not allow deadeye to operate that way. But in the meantime, it would certainly be something for us to request an FAQ on.

Edit: I realized that there were opportunities for Deadeye to operate this way before, but nobody has ever noticed the possibility. R7 for example, or R4B11. I reiterate that I believe this is incorrect. The explanation for my position is that having an option to spend a TL for a purpose is not the same as being "instructed to spend", the latter implying you have no choice in the matter. Bottom line is that 00supra00 has a point, but I don't believe it is strong enough to carry the argument. IMO deadeye should not be used for Norra's ability or other similar abilities unless and until we receive definitive word otherwise.

Sorry guys, he has a point. It probably doesn't work like that, but there are no restrictions provided on the card. It does not require you to spend the target lock at any particular time or for any particular purpose, only that you are instructed to spend the Target Lock by the attack at hand. "When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock" could mean that the attack instructed you to spend the TL to make the attack at all (and always has up to now), but it also could very well mean that it instructs you to spend the TL to accomplish some other effect.

00supra00 is making a logical point based on a grammatically correct reading of the card. The alternative is more-or-less that it has never done that before, therefore it must never do that. Which would be fine, except that the circumstances that make this possible have never existed before so there is no precedent to follow. Edit: See bottom. I was incorrect, these circumstances have been around for a while.

The card was written long before Norra's ability entered the realm of possibility, and did not use definitive language. If I were you, 00supra00 (and anyone else) I would err on the side of caution and not allow deadeye to operate that way. But in the meantime, it would certainly be something for us to request an FAQ on.

Edit: I realized that there were opportunities for Deadeye to operate this way before, but nobody has ever noticed the possibility. R7 for example, or R4B11. I reiterate that I believe this is incorrect. The explanation for my position is that having an option to spend a TL for a purpose is not the same as being "instructed to spend", the latter implying you have no choice in the matter. Bottom line is that 00supra00 has a point, but I don't believe it is strong enough to carry the argument. IMO deadeye should not be used for Norra's ability or other similar abilities unless and until we receive definitive word otherwise.

The thing is, 00supra00 is trying to separate the two sentences on the Deadeye card, which is the only way he add any kind of strength to his argument. But you must take the whole text into account, or it becomes meaningless. The first line states you may treat an "Attack (target lock):" header as "Attack (focus):", and the second sentence explains how it works. It's that simple. There was a very similar argument when R7-T1 came out where some were trying to separate the text in order to get what they wanted out of it. They were assuming all you had to do was choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2, then ignored the second sentence (requiring you be in their firing arc), and went straight to the free boost. By their logic, as long as you had an enemy ship anywhere close enough, you could just boost away even if you weren't in it's firing arc. It didn't work then, and I can't see why it would work now with Deadeye.

Deadeye is pretty specific about what it does. It changes the cost of an attack with a secondary weapon. Nothing more. Once the cost is paid, Deadeye has done it's thing. There's nothing in the text to suggest that you can use any other opportunity to spend a target lock as a chance to swap it for a focus token. There's no reference to an ongoing effect.

He's thinking that the words "instruct" with "allow" are fairly interchangeable and I understand that English isn't his native language, but the overwhelming responses to tell him it doesn't work like that should have steered him in the right direction.

Edit: I realized that there were opportunities for Deadeye to operate this way before, but nobody has ever noticed the possibility. R7 for example, or R4B11.

Better example of a similar ability to Norra: Omega Ace, which somebody did ask about using Deadeye with: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189079-omega-ace-and-deadeye-ept/

For the record, the thing about taking the two sentences separately or as a unit? Not my issue. The thing about instruct vs allow? Not my issue.

A pilot ability that can be triggered during an attack is not itself an attack.

That's my issue

Edit: I realized that there were opportunities for Deadeye to operate this way before, but nobody has ever noticed the possibility. R7 for example, or R4B11.

Better example of a similar ability to Norra: Omega Ace, which somebody did ask about using Deadeye with: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189079-omega-ace-and-deadeye-ept/

For the record, the thing about taking the two sentences separately or as a unit? Not my issue. The thing about instruct vs allow? Not my issue.

A pilot ability that can be triggered during an attack is not itself an attack.

That's my issue

That is my point of disagreement with 000supra000's supposition. As far as taking the two bits together, they are separated on the card. Not only are they separate sentences, but they are in separate paragraphs, so there is every reason to believe they are unrelated to one another.

I still think that Deadeye should not work, for the reason stated by digitalbusker.

Sorry guys, he has a point. It probably doesn't work like that, but there are no restrictions provided on the card. It does not require you to spend the target lock at any particular time or for any particular purpose, only that you are instructed to spend the Target Lock by the attack at hand. "When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock" could mean that the attack instructed you to spend the TL to make the attack at all (and always has up to now), but it also could very well mean that it instructs you to spend the TL to accomplish some other effect.

00supra00 is making a logical point based on a grammatically correct reading of the card. The alternative is more-or-less that it has never done that before, therefore it must never do that. Which would be fine, except that the circumstances that make this possible have never existed before so there is no precedent to follow. Edit: See bottom. I was incorrect, these circumstances have been around for a while.

The card was written long before Norra's ability entered the realm of possibility, and did not use definitive language. If I were you, 00supra00 (and anyone else) I would err on the side of caution and not allow deadeye to operate that way. But in the meantime, it would certainly be something for us to request an FAQ on.

Edit: I realized that there were opportunities for Deadeye to operate this way before, but nobody has ever noticed the possibility. R7 for example, or R4B11. I reiterate that I believe this is incorrect. The explanation for my position is that having an option to spend a TL for a purpose is not the same as being "instructed to spend", the latter implying you have no choice in the matter. Bottom line is that 00supra00 has a point, but I don't believe it is strong enough to carry the argument. IMO deadeye should not be used for Norra's ability or other similar abilities unless and until we receive definitive word otherwise.

The thing is, 00supra00 is trying to separate the two sentences on the Deadeye card, which is the only way he add any kind of strength to his argument. But you must take the whole text into account, or it becomes meaningless. The first line states you may treat an "Attack (target lock):" header as "Attack (focus):", and the second sentence explains how it works. It's that simple. There was a very similar argument when R7-T1 came out where some were trying to separate the text in order to get what they wanted out of it. They were assuming all you had to do was choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2, then ignored the second sentence (requiring you be in their firing arc), and went straight to the free boost. By their logic, as long as you had an enemy ship anywhere close enough, you could just boost away even if you weren't in it's firing arc. It didn't work then, and I can't see why it would work now with Deadeye.

Deadeye is pretty specific about what it does. It changes the cost of an attack with a secondary weapon. Nothing more. Once the cost is paid, Deadeye has done it's thing. There's nothing in the text to suggest that you can use any other opportunity to spend a target lock as a chance to swap it for a focus token. There's no reference to an ongoing effect.

He's thinking that the words "instruct" with "allow" are fairly interchangeable and I understand that English isn't his native language, but the overwhelming responses to tell him it doesn't work like that should have steered him in the right direction.

Sorry, but no, I'm going to side with OP and say that it is specifically two different effects, much like how the new collision detector has two separate effects. The combo does not work simply because Deadeye works on attacks, and Norra's ability is not an attack.

The thing is, 00supra00 is trying to separate the two sentences on the Deadeye card, which is the only way he add any kind of strength to his argument. But you must take the whole text into account, or it becomes meaningless. The first line states you may treat an "Attack (target lock):" header as "Attack (focus):", and the second sentence explains how it works. It's that simple. There was a very similar argument when R7-T1 came out where some were trying to separate the text in order to get what they wanted out of it. They were assuming all you had to do was choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2, then ignored the second sentence (requiring you be in their firing arc), and went straight to the free boost. By their logic, as long as you had an enemy ship anywhere close enough, you could just boost away even if you weren't in it's firing arc. It didn't work then, and I can't see why it would work now with Deadeye.

Deadeye is pretty specific about what it does. It changes the cost of an attack with a secondary weapon. Nothing more. Once the cost is paid, Deadeye has done it's thing. There's nothing in the text to suggest that you can use any other opportunity to spend a target lock as a chance to swap it for a focus token. There's no reference to an ongoing effect.

He's thinking that the words "instruct" with "allow" are fairly interchangeable and I understand that English isn't his native language, but the overwhelming responses to tell him it doesn't work like that should have steered him in the right direction.

Sorry, but no, I'm going to side with OP and say that it is specifically two different effects, much like how the new collision detector has two separate effects. The combo does not work simply because Deadeye works on attacks, and Norra's ability is not an attack.

So explain to me the two different effects on Deadeye. And just how and where you would be able to use them, other than to change the cost for attacking with a secondary weapon? Because that's the only effect I can see.

So explain to me the two different effects on Deadeye. And just how and where you would be able to use them, other than to change the cost for attacking with a secondary weapon? Because that's the only effect I can see.

The two different effects on Deadeye are:

1) You can treat Attack (Target Lock) as Attack (Focus).

2) When an attack instructs you to spend a Target Lock, you may spend a Focus token instead.

Now there are not currently any attacks that instruct you to spend a Target Lock that aren't Attack (Target Lock) attacks, and it's vanishingly unlikely that there ever will be (because if you have to have a target lock to perform the attack, why not just make it an Attack (Target Lock) attack?), but those are still, technically, two separate effects.

We are arguing about a distinction without a difference, but meanwhile: A pilot ability that can be triggered during an attack is not itself an attack.

I'm not disputing Norra's ability isn't an attack. That's plainly obvious. What I am trying to figure out is how some people are trying to claim that there are TWO separate and different effects with Deadeye. Which I might add, you haven't explained. You've merely quoted the text.

Where are the differences between the two?

I'm not disputing Norra's ability isn't an attack. That's plainly obvious. What I am trying to figure out is how some people are trying to claim that there are TWO separate and different effects with Deadeye. Which I might add, you haven't explained. You've merely quoted the text.

Where are the differences between the two?

If you have a card that says "Attack (Target Lock): Spend a Target lock to perform this attack." you need both parts of Deadeye. If you just have the first part of Deadeye, you now have a card that says "Attack (Focus): Spend a Target Lock to perform this attack," and if you only have the second part of Deadeye, you have a card that says "Attack (Target Lock): Spend a Focus token to perform this attack." In order to get all the way to "Attack (Focus): Spend a Focus token to perform this attack," you need both parts of Deadeye.

Again, this is a pointless distinction, because every attack that requires the expenditure of a Target Lock is also an Attack (Target Lock) attack, and that situation isn't likely to ever change. But there's nothing mysterious or obscure about the argument that Deadeye does two things. It does two things. They are closely related, but they are still two things.

This has been my point all along. The two sentences don't work on their own without the other. If you use just the first sentence, you create an attack card that doesn't work. If you use just the second sentence, you create an attack card that doesn't work again. They are not "closely related", they are interlinked to the point they don't work without each other.

This has been my point all along. The two sentences don't work on their own without the other. If you use just the first sentence, you create an attack card that doesn't work. If you use just the second sentence, you create an attack card that doesn't work again. They are not "closely related", they are interlinked to the point they don't work without each other.

They're only interlinked because there aren't any cards in the game that say "Attack: Spend a Target Lock to perform this attack." If there were, and of course that's not at all likely, it would be relevant that Deadeye's two sentences operate independently. As it is, it's not relevant. But it's still true.

Proton torpedo with Chimps, one focus becomes crit, another die becomes a hit.

With deadeye and Recon, as well as TL existing on defender Norra can add another die with an eye result then make that a hit. Changes are there's another hit or two on the other dice, so 4-5 hits from a torp is her norm.

Of course this can be done once. And it's expensive.

If her ability was an attack or had the attack heading it would be awesome but it isn't and it doesn't.

Sorry.

Besides deadeye goes on Nera Dantels and toilet bowls

I'm not disputing Norra's ability isn't an attack. That's plainly obvious. What I am trying to figure out is how some people are trying to claim that there are TWO separate and different effects with Deadeye. Which I might add, you haven't explained. You've merely quoted the text.

Where are the differences between the two?

The differences are they do two different things.

If you have a card that says "Attack (Target Lock): Spend a Target lock to perform this attack." you need both parts of Deadeye. If you just have the first part of Deadeye, you now have a card that says "Attack (Focus): Spend a Target Lock to perform this attack," and if you only have the second part of Deadeye, you have a card that says "Attack (Target Lock): Spend a Focus token to perform this attack." In order to get all the way to "Attack (Focus): Spend a Focus token to perform this attack," you need both parts of Deadeye.

Again, this is a pointless distinction, because every attack that requires the expenditure of a Target Lock is also an Attack (Target Lock) attack, and that situation isn't likely to ever change. But there's nothing mysterious or obscure about the argument that Deadeye does two things. It does two things. They are closely related, but they are still two things.

Perhaps he thinks that "Attack (Target Lock)" makes you discard the target lock automatically? Otherwise I don't get how he thinks two different things are the same thing.