Example: a Scurrg with Dead Eye and Synced Turret. From a previous round i have an target lock on Thane ( ARC ) and got a fokus at this round. Now Biggs an Thane are Both in Range.

Can i choose to fire the turret with th TL and take a shoot at Thane or must i use the fokus to activate the turret and declare biggs as target. Dead Eye says i "can" but dont "must" use the fokus, but

is the Weapontrigger at the

1. “Declare Target” step
ii. Attacker chooses weapon

or the

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable) step?

if the weapontrigger sets at ii. i can use TL and so avoid Biggs Ability, at iv. i have have to declare Biggs.

Choosing the weapon is when you have to decide whether Deadeye is changing the attack header. So yes, you can get around Biggs this way.

You will occasionally get some people that will argue "may" means "can" and therefore you would be required to use Deadeye to fire the turret at Biggs.

They are wrong. "May" always indicates an optional ability in X-Wing. Busker has it correct.

I'd actually say this is one of those gray areas in the rules in part because there are several different uses of "may" in the game. Sometimes "may" is indicating something that is optional. At other times "may" is simply telling you that various rules don't apply. When it comes to Deadeye I can see both of these at play.

When it comes to Deadeye and Biggs I'd be saying you are either using Deadeye throughout the attack from targeting to any discard requirements or you are COMPLETELY ignoring Deadeye. This last one is to say you shouldn't be able to use a Attack(Target Lock) requirement to avoid targeting Biggs but then when the attack says to discard the TL you want to discard a Focus token you have instead; you've already decided NOT to use Deadeye on the attack so there should be no going back later and changing your mind.

You can choose not the use Deadeye. Thus you can use the Target Lock loophole to get around Biggs. If you do decide to use Deadeye, Biggs will trigger though.

4 hours ago, StevenO said:

I'd actually say this is one of those gray areas in the rules in part because there are several different uses of "may" in the game. Sometimes "may" is indicating something that is optional. At other times "may" is simply telling you that various rules don't apply. When it comes to Deadeye I can see both of these at play.

When it comes to Deadeye and Biggs I'd be saying you are either using Deadeye throughout the attack from targeting to any discard requirements or you are COMPLETELY ignoring Deadeye. This last one is to say you shouldn't be able to use a Attack(Target Lock) requirement to avoid targeting Biggs but then when the attack says to discard the TL you want to discard a Focus token you have instead; you've already decided NOT to use Deadeye on the attack so there should be no going back later and changing your mind.

You made the same erroneous argument in another thread on the same subject. Different thread, same unsubstantiated opinion.

Deadeye has two independent "you may" abilities. They function separately; nothing in either sentence makes one reliant on the other. They're even separated by a double space on the card. Each half of Deadeye resolves at a different point in the Attack.

"You may treat the Attack (Target Lock) header as Attack (Focus)." This part is relevant during the Choose Weapon substep of Declare Target.

"If an attack instructs you to spend a target lock, you may spend a focus token instead." This happens during the Pay Cost substep.

You failed to deliver last time I challenged you to backup your opinion on this subject. I'm making the same challenge in this thread. Prove your position with rules and card text, or admit you are wrong.

So when you say "YES" to Deadeye then you should need to back all the way up to your targeting selection and pick Biggs.

If you really want to say that they are two completely unrelated things then my stance is that if you have a Focus and Deadeye you can NOT use the TL restriction to prevent shooting at Biggs because that targeting restriction no longer applies.

37 minutes ago, StevenO said:

So when you say "YES" to Deadeye then you should need to back all the way up to your targeting selection and pick Biggs.

Saying "you should" doesn't make it so. Nothing in X-wing is retroactive. Biggs does not become relevant until the substep after Choose Weapon.

37 minutes ago, StevenO said:

If you really want to say that they are two completely unrelated things then my stance is that if you have a Focus and Deadeye you can NOT use the TL restriction to prevent shooting at Biggs because that targeting restriction no longer applies.

Stop making things up. Start reading the Timing Chart. It's on page 8 of the FAQ. While you're at it, read the cards again.

The "Declare Target "Step

i. Measure range to enemy ships and check attacker's firing arc. = Neither Biggs nor Deadeye have any application to this step.

ii. Attacker chooses weapon = Attack headers matter in this step. Attacker decides whether or not to use Deadeye to treat Attack (Target Lock) as Attack (Focus)

iii. Declare target of the attack = Biggs matters here, but nothing in his ability instructs the attacking ship to go back to the previous substep, and nothing in the rules permits going backwards.

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable) = The second sentence of Deadeye may be resolved in this substep, regardless of what happened in the previous two substeps. It has no dependence on the first sentence of Deadeye, and Biggs has no application to the cost of an attack.

v. Target of the attack becomes the defender = not necessarily Biggs. No sense crying about it. His ability is powerful and nonsensical enough to warp the design of an entire faction.

Furthermore: An attack header and the cost of the attack are just as independent of each other as the two sentences on Deadeye. A Proton Torpedo requires you to have a Target Lock to choose the weapon, unless something changes the Attack Header. (Deadeye or Targeting Synchronizer.) Proton Torpedo requires the attacking ship to spend its target lock, unless another card offers an alternative (Deadeye, Targeting Synchronizer, Shara Bey.)

This is a weird one, but I'm on the "Deadeye is a Detriment" boat in this argument. Deadeye opens up being able to use a focus to pop off an attack that would otherwise require a target lock. The ordinance change that excluded Biggs ability from including ordinance was built specifically around the mechanic that a target lock exists between two ships ( where Biggs is presumed to not be one of those ships). Including the "I have a focus so I can target anything" brings Biggs back into the mix, because simply having the focus AND deadeye means you COULD target Biggs, which is the language on his card.

1 minute ago, jmswood said:

Saying "you should" doesn't make it so. Nothing in X-wing is retroactive. Biggs does not become relevant until the substep after Choose Weapon.

Stop making things up. Start reading the Timing Chart. It's on page 8 of the FAQ. While you're at it, read the cards again.

The "Declare Target "Step

i. Measure range to enemy ships and check attacker's firing arc. = Neither Biggs nor Deadeye have any application to this step.

ii. Attacker chooses weapon = Attack headers matter in this step. Attacker decides whether or not to use Deadeye to treat Attack (Target Lock) as Attack (Focus)

iii. Declare target of the attack = Biggs matters here, but nothing in his ability instructs the attacking ship to go back to the previous substep, and nothing in the rules permits going backwards.

iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable) = The second sentence of Deadeye may be resolved in this substep, regardless of what happened in the previous two substeps. It has no dependence on the first sentence of Deadeye, and Biggs has no application to the cost of an attack.

v. Target of the attack becomes the defender = not necessarily Biggs. No sense crying about it. His ability is powerful and nonsensical enough to warp the design of an entire faction.

Furthermore: An attack header and the cost of the attack are just as independent of each other as the two sentences on Deadeye. A Proton Torpedo requires you to have a Target Lock to choose the weapon, unless something changes the Attack Header. (Deadeye or Targeting Synchronizer.) Proton Torpedo requires the attacking ship to spend its target lock, unless another card offers an alternative (Deadeye, Targeting Synchronizer, Shara Bey.)

You just broke your own argument. Deadeye doesn't trigger until step iv, when you choose to spend either a focus or a target lock. Simply having the focus means that Biggs is now a viable target for the weapon, which is step iii. His ability is basically a "shall".

The rules of the game state that the more stringent of the effects apply, am I not correct? Not/must over can/may? If I have an effect that says you do a thing, you can't choose to not do it. In this case, Biggs says "Hey, shoot me!". You **can** since you have a focus that can trigger the weapon being used via your own deadeye, therefore, you *must*. In other news, just don't take the focus, or pick a better EPT?

Edit- Example: Omega Leader- OL has Biggs target locked. Biggs shoots at OL with a plasma torpedo, and he has guidance chips. Even though GC says that you MAY change a result to a crit, OL's more stringent language prevents you from doing so.

In this game, NOPE wins. In the original example, due to DE + Focus, if Biggs is in range, he says "NOPE, you gotta shoot at me".

8 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

You just broke your own argument. Deadeye doesn't trigger until step iv, when you choose to spend either a focus or a target lock. Simply having the focus means that Biggs is now a viable target for the weapon, which is step iii. His ability is basically a "shall".

Cards may only be resolved during the timing specified. Biggs does not explicity specify a step, but his ability inherently only functions during the substep in which a target is chosen. On the Timing Chart, that is substep iii of the Declare Target step. Deadeye has two possible and totally independent times to resolve. First sentence during substep ii and second sentence during substep iv. Again, nothing in the text on Biggs has any bearing on what happens during those two substeps, and nothing in the Deadeye text has any bearing on substep iii.

8 minutes ago, JasonCole said:

The rules of the game state that the more stringent of the effects apply, am I not correct? Not/must over can/may? If I have an effect that says you do a thing, you can't choose to not do it. In this case, Biggs says "Hey, shoot me!". You **can** since you have a focus that can trigger the weapon being used via your own deadeye, therefore, you *must*. In other news, just don't take the focus, or pick a better EPT?

You are correct about the precedence of prohibitive abilities, but timing is still relevant. A "cannot" ability only trumps a "may" ability if they trigger at the exact same time. Biggs and Deadeye do not trigger during the same substeps. There is no interaction between these two cards.

since the weapons choice ( substep ii. ) ist the same time where you set the header, biggs have no influence on that.

if biggs will have an effect there, we are back at the discussion about wich weapon i have to use, if biggs is a possible target for the primary weapon, cause its the same step. and there ffg says biggs has no effect, cause its substep ii. of the chart and biggs will not effect the choice wich weapon the player want to use. cause he is triggering at substep iii.

to choose the weapon means to fullfill the weapon header, so at substep ii. you have to set wich weaponheader you want to use.

there is where you have to fullfill the premise to choose the weapon and so there is were you have to make your choice wich header it should have.

tl;dr: Step ii doesn't use Deadeye's text to allow it to select a target, that comes in Step iv (paying costs). I've checked the game rules as well, and the "choose weapon step" merely requires that you have the means to satisfy the weapon's cost, not that you do anything with it then. You must merely already have the TL and/or Focus.

Long post below, but it supports my position. The closest thing I can find to definitive regarding where deadeye resolves is the card itself, which deals with paying weapon activation cost (step iv), so I respectfully disagree. I would 100% agree with you if paying the weapon cost were in step ii, before target selection, but it's in step iv, which is after target selection. Deadeye + Focus in step ii hasn't done anything other than make Biggs a viable target. Typically, in most situations, choosing a weapon that requires a target lock means that during weapons choice, Biggs isn't a legal target for that weapon, so his card text has no effect. However, with deadeye and a focus in addition to the target lock, Biggs IS A LEGAL TARGET for the secondary weapon, so his card text (as a "MUST" effect) overrides the "MAY" text on the secondary weapon. Remember, step ii is JUST CHOOSING A WEAPON. It has nothing to do with potential target or paying activation costs. Secondary weapons getting around Biggs doesn't actually happen until step 3, because typically, I have a single thing target locked, and since that is the only thing that satisfies the requirement of the weapon, that *must* be my target. See the five examples below.

Example I: OP's situation:
Step i: Measure range to any/all targets.
Step ii: Choose weapon, I choose secondary. Deadeye allows me the "choice" of using a TL or a Focus, however nothing about this step forces me to select which consumable I use, because at this stage, the decision tree doesn't care which I have. Nothing is being paid here, so we are't choosing what to pay with deadeye, it simply broadens our target potential (the exact point of deadeye, actually). This stage doesn't care WHAT I have to use to select a target. Deadeye isn't triggered yet. I'm just choosing a weapon.
Step iii: Declare Target. This is where we look at Biggs. Biggs card text forces you to select him, since you CAN select him as a target. This is where validity of targets are checked.
Step iv: Pay Cost to perform the attack. This is where you "choose" which text to activate on Deadeye. In this case, since Biggs forces you to target him (must), then you have to spend the focus. Your "may" on deadeye is overridden by the "must" from Biggs.
Step v: Target of the attack becomes the Defender.

Example II: Similar Situation, but without Biggs
Step i: Measure range to any/all targets.
Step ii: Choose weapon, I choose secondary. Deadeye allows me the "choice" of using a TL or a Focus, however nothing about this step forces me to select which consumable I use, because at this stage, the decision tree doesn't care which I have. Nothing is being paid here, so we are't choosing what to pay with deadeye, it simply broadens our target potential (the exact point of deadeye, actually). This stage doesn't care WHAT I have to use to select a target. Deadeye isn't triggered yet. I'm just choosing a weapon.
Step iii: Declare Target. I'm up against Darth Vader and Omega Leader. I have a focus on my ship, and I have Darth Vader target locked. Both are in range. I can choose to target either Omega Leader or Darth Vader. I This is where validity of targets are checked. Deadeye STILL ISN'T DOING ANYTHING other than making Omega Leader a valid target.
Step iv: Pay Cost to perform the attack. In this case, I can choose to pay for the weapon activation with either a target lock if I've decided to go after Vader, or I can spend the focus and take a pot shot at OL.
Step v: Target of the attack becomes the Defender.

Example III: Similar to OP, but without Deadeye
Step i: Measure range to any/all targets.
Step ii: Choose weapon, I choose secondary. I'm flying a TIE Bomber with Homing Missiles, and I have Vader target locked.
Step iii: Declare Target. My weapon selected in the previous step requires a TL to activate, and the only thing I have TL'd is Vader, so he is my only option for targets.
Step iv: Pay Cost to perform the attack. HM requires that I have a TL on the target, but doesn't require spending it, so my attack continues without spending the TL.
Step v: Target of the attack becomes the Defender.

And Example IV: I'm flying a Decimator with a Plasma Torpedo (lol right?), and I have Weapons Engineer as a crew. I'm facing Biggs and Wedge in formation, both at R3 of me.
Step i: Measure range to any/all targets. Biggs and Wedge are within R1 of each other, and are at R3 of me.
Step ii: Choose weapon, I choose secondary. I have both Biggs and Wedge target locked because of WE crew.
Step iii: Declare Target. My weapon selected in the previous step requires a TL to activate, and since both Biggs and Wedge are valid targets for the torpedo, I *MUST* select Biggs because of his card text.
Step iv: Pay Cost to perform the attack. I pay the one target lock to send a torpedo at Biggs.
Step v: Target of the attack becomes the Defender.

Drumroll: Example V!: Shara Bey, Miranda vs Biggs and Wedge
Step i: Miranda activates, measures range to any/all targets. Her action that turn was to drop a mine. Biggs and Wedge are within R1 of each other, and are at R3 of Miranda, and Shara is R1 to Miranda. Shara Bey has a TL on Wedge.
Step ii: Choose weapon, I choose my Assault Missile. The game rules allow me to do this because I can potentially pay the cost of that activation with Bey's TL.
Step iii: Declare Target. My weapon selected in the previous step requires a TL to activate, and since Bey has a TL on Wedge, he is a valid target for Miranda, as she can use that to satisfy step iv
Step iv: Pay Cost to perform the attack. I pay the one target lock that Shara has on Wedge, even though she's out or attack range to him, to send a missile at Wedge.
Step v: Target of the attack becomes the Defender.

@JasonCole Some of your scenarios are correct, but you're still wrong about Deadeye.

In a general sense, if I have Deadeye and a Focus token, then I could target Biggs. If this was the only thing that matters, then you would be absolutely right. However, in X-wing timing is everything. Order of operations dictates when cards resolve. Substep ii of Declare Target is the only point in an attack in which the Attack header is relevant. To choose a weapon during that substep, you must meet the requirements of the Attack header. You cannot choose an Attack (Target Lock) weapon unless you have a Target Lock, and you cannot choose an Attack (Focus) weapon unless you have a Focus Token. Therefore, substep ii is the only step during which the first sentence of Deadeye may resolve: "You may treat the Attack (Target Lock) header as Attack (Focus)." You are not choosing a target yet, so Biggs doesn't matter. Page 10 of the FAQ states: "Biggs Darklighter's ability does not trigger if the attacker chose a weapon that cannot target Biggs Darklighter." This inherently means you cannot check for Biggs until after the weapon is chosen. Substep ii is already over at that point and with that the opportunity for Deadeye to change the header is expired. During substep iii, if the header was not changed by Deadeye, then Biggs cannot make the attacker go back to a previous step to resolve an ability for which the timing is already over.

Step by step, there is only one solution to this rule question.

So let me change the original scenario, if I had only an a focus token and deadeye (no target lock), you'd agree that Biggs becomes the mandatory target for a secondary weapon, right?

Edit: also, which scenarios did you believe to be correct?

1 hour ago, JasonCole said:

So let me change the original scenario, if I had only an a focus token and deadeye (no target lock), you'd agree that Biggs becomes the mandatory target for a secondary weapon, right?

Assuming Biggs is at a legal range, in a legal firing arc for the Secondary Weapon, yes. For clarity: using the Secondary Weapon in this scenario is not mandatory.

1 hour ago, JasonCole said:

which scenarios did you believe to be correct?

Examples I and II are wrong because you say Deadeye doesn't trigger in substep ii of Declare Target. The first sentence of Deadeye resolves in substep ii. The second sentence of Deadeye resolves in substep iv. They resolve independently.

Examples III, IV and V are correct.

Hi guys.
Just along with jmswood's point I'd like to throw in my two dimes:

There's a difference in "Attack [Target Lock]" and "Attack [Focus]" in terms of target selection. Former has the restriction to only give viable targets with corresponding red target lock tokens while the other does not have this restriction.

A ship with Attack (focus) can select any target in arc and range. The timing chart is as this:

Declare Target

i. measure range

ii. choose weapon (Ship chooses Unguided Rockets. It has the 'Attack [Focus]' header. Say it has a focus so condition is met)

iii. declare target (any ship in arc and range qualifies as viable ship)

iv. pay cost. (Unguided Rockets don't instruct to spend a focus.)

v. target becomes the defender

In this scenario you have to choose Biggs as a target when he is in range to the declared target in step iii.

Now from the reading of the first part of deadeye:

"you may treat the "Attack [Target Lock]" header as "Attack [Focus]"

It lets you use the "Attack [Focus]" game effect instead which is described above.

The condition is checked in step ii. before Biggs comes into play (step iii.)
So when you use deadeye in step ii. you have to select Biggs in step iii. if he is in range and arc.

You still have the option to not use deadeye in step ii. and instead use a secondary with a target lock on another ship in case you have one. Then Biggs cannot interfere in step iii. as FFG made clear that Biggs cannot force a specific weapon selection.

In step iv. (pay costs) the second part from Deadeye (which is independent) allows now to spend a focus instead of spending a target lock.

So this way the attacking ship can surpass Biggs ability and attack another ship.

From my reading this should be a viable rule interpretation although I admittedly don't like it. In my oppinion it would give deadeye too much power.
Any thoughts?

2 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

In my oppinion it would give deadeye too much power.
Any thoughts?

Deadeye is a powerful card. Is it too much? I don't think so. It hasn't been connected to any serious balance issues in the game except for Jumpmasters, but I'm not going down that rabbit hole at the moment. Biggs on the other hand: players hate him, developers admit he was a mistake. Deadeye giving an advantage against one of the game's worst design flaws is fine with me.

I think I concur with Jason and Brat's logic here but let me present another example that might be pertinent.

QuickDraw shoots at Biggs, gets a TL from FCS. QuickDraw has Targeting Synchroniser.

Tomax has a Target Lock on Lowwrick. He would like to fire a missile at Lowhhrick BUT he could also use QD's TL to fire at Biggs. Is he compelled to fire his missile at Biggs?

Let's reverse the example. QD has a TL on Lowhhrick. Tomax has a TL on Biggs. Can he fire at Lowhhrick with Targeting Synch?

I think the answer is in every case "you must fire at biggs" because once the weapon is chosen, you still have the ability to target Biggs after choosing weapon.

I tried a few different ways to explain Targeting Synchronizer in relation to Biggs and I found a paradox.

Here's the relevant card text: "When a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked, the friendly ship treats the Attack (Target Lock) header as Attack."

Break it down:

Declare Target

i. Measure Range

ii. Choose Weapon - This is where attack headers matter, because you can't choose a secondary weapon unless you meet the conditions of the header. In order for the attacker to meet the conditions of Targeting Synchronizer, "friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked," the attacker must have chosen a target, but Choose Target doesn't happen until the next substep. The ship is attacking, but it isn't attacking a specific ship yet, so technically Targeting Synchronizer can't trigger to change the attack headers. That means the ship can't choose an Attack (Target Lock) weapon unless it has its own Target Lock.

iii. Declare target of the attack. Assume the ship with Targeting Synchronizer has Biggs locked, and the attacking ship is at Range 1-2 of the ship with Targeting Synchronizer. The attack headers didn't change in the previous step. Assume the attacker chose a weapon that can target Biggs, then the Biggs is the target, but Targeting Synchronizer didn't have anything to do with it. At the moment Biggs was chosen as the target, all the conditions of Targeting Sunchronizer were met. Now the Attack headers change, but attacker headers don't matter at this point in the Timing Chart.

I don't say this often: needs FAQ. The wording of Targeting Synchronizer doesn't function with the Timing Chart.

It's almost like the timing chart was written specifically to accommodate the FAQ that allowed secondaries to circumvent Biggs. Which was itself a reversal if I remember correctly?

Now you mention it, the firing sequence doesn't make a whole lot of sense anyway. We don't even need to bring Biggs or targeting synchs into it, just a regular old torpedo. Let's say you want to fire your proton torpedoes and you have a target lock on your enemy.

First here's the rule for the Attack (target lock) header. The “Attack (target lock):” header indicates that the attacker must have a target lock on the defender.

• i Measure range to enemy ships and check attacker's firing arc (okay, the enemy is in arc and in range)
• ii. Attacker chooses weapon (But in order to satisfy "Attack (target lock)" to select the weapon, you need to have a defender)
• iii. Declare target of the attack (now you have a target)
• iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable) (spend the TL here)
• v. Target of the attack becomes the defender (finally, you have a defender)

Taken all together, to fire a proton torpedo you need to get to step (ii) and then skip to step (v) to check if you can complete step (ii) before proceeding. Unless the "Attack (target lock)" doesn't apply at step (ii) at all, in which case it would have to kick in at step (iv) otherwise you've already spent the TL. If it kicks in at step (iv) then it should say "must have a target lock on the target" not "defender". Obviously all this isn't a problem in practice because you declare your target before you fire but this is throwing up this biggs weirdness.

14 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

First here's the rule for the Attack (target lock) header. The “Attack (target lock):” header indicates that the attacker must have a target lock on the defender.

• i Measure range to enemy ships and check attacker's firing arc (okay, the enemy is in arc and in range)
• ii. Attacker chooses weapon (But in order to satisfy "Attack (target lock)" to select the weapon, you need to have a defender)
• iii. Declare target of the attack (now you have a target)
• iv. Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable) (spend the TL here)
• v. Target of the attack becomes the defender (finally, you have a defender)

That seems to hit the nail right on the head.
Looks like FFG just mixed their vocabulary. On first view pretty much could be solved when the "Attack [Target Lock]" rule's wording changed from defender into target..

12 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

It's almost like the timing chart was written specifically to accommodate the FAQ that allowed secondaries to circumvent Biggs. Which was itself a reversal if I remember correctly?.

That was part of it, but not all of it.

16 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

ii. Attacker chooses weapon (But in order to satisfy "Attack (target lock)" to select the weapon, you need to have a defender)

The rules say the Target Lock has to be on a Defender. That's an inconsistency between the Rules Reference and the Timing Chart in the FAQ. FAQ wins that argument, so now we rationalize the result: At substep ii the Timing Chart shouldn't care where the red token is, because the presence of a blue token is proof enough that a Target Lock exists, which is what the Attack (Target Lock) header ultimately requires. The red TL token doesn't really matter until substep iii.

The Timing Chart settles a lot of rule disputes. I rely on it. Some older cards (Biggs and R4 Agromech) got new FAQ entries to fit the Timing Chart. The sad part of Targeting Synchronizer is that the card was written after the Timing Chart.

If we assume the rules reference should say that the "attacker must have a target lock on the target" it still assumes this rule applies at step (iii) or (iv).

This isn't really any less weird. You select your weapon in stage (II) and then check the requirement to fire the weapon later? This means you can select a weapon you may not be able to fire depending on your selection in step (iii).