7 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Yes.

They are game effects.

But Deadeye specifies attacks.

By this logic, Deadeye would never apply to any secondary weapon because they are effects, not attacks. That should be a pretty big flag that this isn't the right interaction.

3 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

By this logic, Deadeye would never apply to any secondary weapon because they are effects, not attacks. That should be a pretty big flag that this isn't the right interaction.

Attacks are a subset of game effects, they're not exclusive. All attacks are game effects, but not all game effects are attacks.

Attacks are cards with the attack: header.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

Attacks are a subset of game effects, they're not exclusive. All attacks are game effects, but not all game effects are attacks.

Attacks are cards with the attack: header.

And what about primary attacks? They have no header, and include instruction to spend a target lock during the modify dice steps for both attackers and defenders. I had asked on the last page but it might have been lost at the bottom. Can you give me an explicit and complete list of what an attack instructs you to do, with some reference to game rules to support that list of instructions? I'm trying to understand you, but all your says is attacks are attacks except when they aren't attacks because I say so. Give me something concrete and I'll gladly concede you're right and revert the tldr.

1 minute ago, Jimbawa said:

And what about primary attacks? They have no header, and include instruction to spend a target lock during the modify dice steps for both attackers and defenders. I had asked on the last page but it might have been lost at the bottom. Can you give me an explicit and complete list of what an attack instructs you to do, with some reference to game rules to support that list of instructions? I'm trying to understand you, but all your says is attacks are attacks except when they aren't attacks because I say so. Give me something concrete and I'll gladly concede you're right and revert the tldr.

They include the option to spend locks, not an instruction to do so.

E: I'm not saying Deadeye isn't poorly written, by the by.

They coudl have avoided the whole argument by saying 'when a secondary weapon instructs you' rather than 'when an attack'.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

They include the option to spend locks, not an instruction to do so.

The FAQ qualifies this as instruction. That is why Targeting sync works with primary attacks. You are using the option of rerolling your dice with a target lock which, again, is qualified as instruction by the FAQ.

Just now, Jimbawa said:

The FAQ qualifies this as instruction. That is why Targeting sync works with primary attacks. You are using the option of rerolling your dice with a target lock which, again, is qualified as instruction by the FAQ.

The thing instructing you to spend your lock there is the rules for spending target locks, not the attack. The attack sequence gives you the option, the rules for target locks tell you how to follow through on it.

Just now, thespaceinvader said:

The thing instructing you to spend your lock there is the rules for spending target locks, not the attack. The attack sequence gives you the option, the rules for target locks tell you how to follow through on it.

So can you give us a detailed list of what the attack instructs, and something to support that list? I don't understand why you're making a distinction without any evidence.

If the rules for the attack direct you to the rules for the target lock, that would then be defined as within the bounds of the attack. I think you've overanalyzed the distinctions.

Taking the time to actually look at the rules reference properly, I think you're right. SHould have done that in the first place.

My bad.

I'm 99% sure this is an unintentional consequence of having written Targetting Synchroniser in the stupidly awkward way that they did, and Deadeye isn't *supposed* to do this. ITS could have been phrased '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: ." When attacking, such ships may spend that your target locks as if they were their own .' Which accomplishes the same thing without introducing the concept of 'game effects instructing' the ship to do anything and muddying up the wording of Deadeye, Norra, Omega Ace, and half a dozen other things.

Good LORD FFG why can't you just write good rules?

It would be trivial to correct this using the words 'secondary weapon' instead of 'attack' in the second clause of Deadeye. Or by making the erratum noted above and striking the whole 'game effects' FAQ from the rules entirely.

I'm honestly surprised no-one's tried to do this before now - probably because spending focuses as TLs is OK, but probably not worth a point and your EPT slot other than to let you shoot ordnance without getting in range first.

2 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Taking the time to actually look at the rules reference properly, I think you're right. SHould have done that in the first place.

My bad.

I'm 99% sure this is an unintentional consequence of having written Targetting Synchroniser in the stupidly awkward way that they did, and Deadeye isn't *supposed* to do this. ITS could have been phrased '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: ." When attacking, such ships may spend that your target locks as if they were their own .' Which accomplishes the same thing without introducing the concept of 'game effects instructing' the ship to do anything and muddying up the wording of Deadeye, Norra, Omega Ace, and half a dozen other things.

Good LORD FFG why can't you just write good rules?

It would be trivial to correct this using the words 'secondary weapon' instead of 'attack' in the second clause of Deadeye. Or by making the erratum noted above and striking the whole 'game effects' FAQ from the rules entirely.

I'm honestly surprised no-one's tried to do this before now - probably because spending focuses as TLs is OK, but probably not worth a point and your EPT slot other than to let you shoot ordnance without getting in range first.

I know! They need to hire new writers or at least make an effort every so many waves to rectify all the upgrade cards to keep the intentions clear on their cards. I also absolutely agree that Deadeye probably wasn't intended to work as such when it was released, but I ran out of excuses to give new players at our store on why it wouldn't.

As for an example of when it could be used; TIE strikers (although only like 2 or 3 of them) could use it since they don't have a target lock action normally and it gives them a bit more of a punch than a single use crack shot. TIE /fo's also came up from a new player. Deadeye and Sensor Cluster would let you use a focus as an evade if you roll a blank, focus to fix any mediocre rolls, or as a reroll if you whiff an attack. A swarm of 5 Omega squadron pilots has a safe action to do without caring what your opponents do or where they move!

These are still pretty low-mid tier decisions and don't make a world of impact. There are almost certainly better options for an EPT in every case, but I won't deny someone the opportunity to think outside the box.

It's not getting you extra mods, is the issue. Focus and TL are functionally the same from a probability perspective.

Crack is better because it gives you something you didn't already have.

True that it's not an extra mod, and the probability of it fixing changing a miss into a hit is the same. It does give you an option where you otherwise couldn't spend it; all or multiple blanks on your attack roll. On a striker for example, if you rolled 3 blanks and a focus for a range 1 attack, a reroll would statistically be better than just focusing the one result.

I'm not saying it's a great option by any means, and crack shot does give you something significantly more impactful with it's used, partly because you get to see what your results would be before you use it.

It gives you an extra option, but option value is pretty low in this game. For every time there's a set of 2 blanks to reroll, there'll be a time when there's one blank and one eyeball and you don't have a good option, and there'll be a time when there's 2 eyeballs and you wasted a point.

I'd personally say that as an EPT, 'spend focus tokens as target locks' could be 'small ship only, 0 points' and not be broken. Heck, vice versa would probably be fine too.

Han Crew is priced as he is with Epic in mind, and is just not worth using in standard play.

12 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It gives you an extra option, but option value is pretty low in this game. For every time there's a set of 2 blanks to reroll, there'll be a time when there's one blank and one eyeball and you don't have a good option, and there'll be a time when there's 2 eyeballs and you wasted a point.

I absolutely agree with this. The option to me feels like having a multiple use, low impact ept vs. a single use, high impact ept. The choice comes down to playstyle and I'm sure there are ways to optimize each.

14 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

I'd personally say that as an EPT, 'spend focus tokens as target locks' could be 'small ship only, 0 points' and not be broken. Heck, vice versa would probably be fine too.

Coincidentally, Deadeye was errata'd as small ship only so this might very well be the direction they end up taking it.

It basically only needs ot be small ship only to avoid the easy combo with RecSpec being too common.

31 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It basically only needs ot be small ship only to avoid the easy combo with RecSpec being too common.

That certainly would make a phantom scary, if you can find a way to keep a PS 6 or 7 phantom viable. Would you ever go Stygian Particle Accelerator with that? Decloak to get your evade to hold you through until your turn, RecSpec for a double focus with Deadeye to use them. You'd want something defensive for your systems since you wouldn't strictly need FCS; maybe sensor jammer? Make your opponents use actions to get focus tokens or just accept that they're getting 1 less hit in on every attack.

Honestly, it probably wouldn't make a low PS Phantom viable. They still need to get arc.

Guys really, don't try to read what the cards don't say.

Attacks and game effects aren't the same.
Even when some players claim all steps together in the attack timing chart qualify as a whole attack they must admit that during an attack game effects may be resolved. These game effects obviously cannot be attacks.

Spending a target lock - "Spending a target lock to reroll attack dice" counts as a game effect that instructs you to spend a target lock

The FAQ says:
Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock?
A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot
abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify
Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a
target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to
another ship are not examples of spending a target lock.

This clarifies what conditions qualify for spending a target lock to trigger a game effect and what do not as assigning or removing a token does not.

There are two steps I see in the attack timing chart that mentions spending anything. First is "Pay cost to perform the attack". Here the attack instructs the player to spend a token. It still is a game effect as the FAQ statet above but a specific one.

The other step comes in saying "[Attacker/Defender] resolves ability that modify [attack/defense] dice", which may trigger game effects
Note that this step does not instruct the player to spend anything. The corresponding game effect does if the player chooses to resolve this.

Game effects during an attack are still game effects that instruct the player to do something. They are not attacks and don't like to be mixed with

Deadeye part 2 - "When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock, you may spend a focus token instead"

Deadeye uses 'an attack ', which is specifically two things. The primary weapon attack and cards with the Attack: header . with only the latter instructs the player to spend a target lock.

Targetting Synchroniser.
... If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.

It specifically uses the words ' game effect ' (which Deadeye doesn't ).
Here the player may use the target lock of the TS equipped ship for any of its uses. Note that regardles it says 'may' the target lock must be spend if used to trigger a game effect (so no multiple uses of one target lock).

@Brat Smalllighter So your hang up is that the attack instructs you to do a game effect that includes the instruction to spend the target lock, and that is not the attack instructing you to spend the target lock?

If you're going by the attack timing flowchart, all instances of can, may or must spend a target lock are instructions as clarified by the FAQ. In this list, secondary weapons, pilot abilities and attack dice modifications are all listed as similar and equal game effects, not attacks, that instruct you to spend the lock. You can't cherry pick what parts of that list to apply it to and it must be an all or nothing consensus. If you want to jump up to that part of the logic tree, it was back on page 2 I believe.

If you're stuck on trying to decide what is and isn't an attack, you should consider what does the attack instruct you to do? Are you instructed to pick a target? Fire a weapon? Compare attack results vs defenses and deal damage? Resolve other effects of the attack? You can't break this chain or attacks have no effect on the game, and for the purposes of continuity, must include every step of the attack flow chart as instructions of the attack, including all instances of instructions to spend tokens, activate abilities or any other game effect contained therein.

If you want an out of game example. Let's say you're stopped by a police officer who tells you to stop at the street sign and turn right. You are saying that the police officer told you to go to the street sign and that the sign told you to turn right. Sure, it marks a road that you can turn down, but who really told you to go there?

No my post says that there is a difference if a game effect instructs you to spend a token or if an attack instructs you to do so.

When a game effect during an attack occurs to instruct you to do something it is still and only the game effect. It is NOT the attack that instructs you.

You cannot perform an attack if you don't met the conditions (fulfill the instruction to trigger a game effect i.e. spending a target lock for a secondary weapon)

but you can perform an attack without using a game effect (not matching conditions for it to trigger i.e. primary attack without modifying dice)

An attack IS a game effect. Everything in the game is.

The list in the FAQ is not exclusive, nor could it be.

To clarify this look at the text of a secondary weapon

Proton Torpedoes

ATTACK (TARGET LOCK): Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

It says you have to resolve a game effect (spend target lock, which occurs specifically in substep iv) in order to perform this specific attack

It clearly makes a difference between game effect and attack. The attack instructs you to resolve a game effect for the attack to occur.

The Deadeye text gives another option for resolving this specific game effect.

The attack itself is a game effect in the first place.

Game effects are the whole of the rules of the game.

Good LORD how I wish FFG had never used the words 'game effect' on TS< doubly so without properly defining them.

47 minutes ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

When a game effect during an attack occurs to instruct you to do something it is still and only the game effect. It is NOT the attack that instructs you.

@Brat Smalllighter , so can you clarify exactly what within that attack timing flowchart you are considering "the attack" and what isn't "the attack" but a separate game effect?

46 minutes ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

You cannot perform an attack if you don't met the conditions (fulfill the instruction to trigger a game effect i.e. spending a target lock for a secondary weapon)

Judging by this, you are cutting Step 1: Declare target out of the attack process. When you "perform an attack", you must go through all phases of each step before moving on to the next step. Those are the attack instructions. Choosing a weapon that you meet the conditions to use is already part of and contained within performing the attack, it is not a separate clause used before the attack has started. Yes, the indicated line is a game effect of step 1.iv of the attack you are already performing, specifically as instructed by the attack. You then move to rolling and modifying attack dice, again as instructed explicitly by the attack. Using a token, pilot ability or upgrade card at this point is the instruction of the attack, as you must come to and make a decision about using each of these effects as part of your attack. You may not move on to rolling defense dice until each and every instance of an effect has been used or withheld.

Guys, even if an attack is a game effect (which I honestly don't know)

A game effect IS not an attack. It CAN be but it can be anything else (like a barrel roll or a shield reload or whatever).

TS is referring to game effects allowing for any game effect in the game.

Deadeye is referring to attacks which might be specific game effects but not all.

@Jimbawa , I don't cut out any step. As you said during an attack a player must go to all steps in order. I'm just talking about the steps in question. The first step is not in question in this topic.

Furthermore when you look closely to your post there must be the possibility to cancel an attack even in further steps when a condition is not met. For example for a secondary weapon you must cancel the attack in step ii (choosing weapon) or at least in step iv (paying costs) when you don't have a corresponding token, even when step i has been resolved.

And in opposition to my reading of your standing I strongly believe that a game effect instructing you to do something during an attack is still a game effect instructing to do something.

And if an attack is supposed to be a game effect itself we have the situation that game effects can occur inside game effects. Then still it has to be resolved 'from inside out', like a program.

FFG made clear that interlinked game effects can occur and are to be resolved in this manner:

game effect A triggers game effect B

game effect A pauses

game effect B resolves completely

game effect A resumes

So here when we assume that an attack is a game effect the attack pauses to give another game effect place to happen until finished. Then the attack resumes.

You cannot say both "attacks are game effects" AND "game effects are attacks" but you do if you proclaim that anything that happens during resolving the attack chart is actually an attack when it comes to the question whether an attack instructs you to do something or a game effect does.

38 minutes ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Guys, even if an attack is a game effect (which I honestly don't know)

A game effect IS not an attack. It CAN be but it can be anything else (like a barrel role or a shield reload or whatever).

TS is referring to game effects allowing for any game effect in the game.

Deadeye is referring to attacks which might be specific game effects but not all.

To break this down:

An attack might be a game effect; you don't know and have given no evidence one way or the other.

A game effect might be an attack; you don't know and have given no evidence to draw a distinction between attacks, attack game effects, and game effects.

TS allows a game effect to trigger it; specifically the modify attack dice step of an attack.

Deadeye refers to a specific game effect that you cannot define, and you haven't identified what the triggering identifier entails (i.e. "the attack")

38 minutes ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Furthermore when you look closely to your post there must be the possibility to cancel an attack even in further steps when a condition is not met. For example for a secondary weapon you must cancel the attack in step ii when you don't have a corresponding token, even when step i has been resolved.

And in opposition to my reading of your standing I strongly believe that a game effect instructing you to do something during an attack is still a game effect instructing to do something.

And if an attack is supposed to be a game effect itself we have the situation that game effects can occur inside game effects. Then still it has to be resolved 'from inside out', like a program.

FFG made clear that interlinked game effects can occur and are to be resolved in this manner:

game effect A triggers game effect B

game effect A pauses

game effect B resolves completely

game effect A resumes

Cancelling your attack because you don't have a target or are for whatever reason unable to fire is not a distinction separate from Step 1. If you cannot complete all parts of Step 1, then you cannot complete the "perform an attack" action and have therefore, not performed an attack. You have not "performed the attack" until it has been resolved in it's entirety and abilities that trigger "after performing an attack" do not trigger until after the timing chart. This has never been called into question.

If you believe a game effect during an attack is not the attack, can you give us a hard link to such a situation from the rules or FAQ?

The resolution of triggers does not in any way impede on the premise that an attack includes all contained actions within the attack flowchart.

If you split "the attack" from "game effects", then an ability with the phrase "while attacking" might never trigger. Look at Imperial Kath Scarlet. If she gets a crit and a hit on her attack against Zeb Orrelios, who uses his pilot ability to cancel a crit and take a hit. Her crit die was cancelled during a game effect created by a pilot ability, not during "the attack" as you define it, therefore, she would not give a stress to Zeb. Does that sound to you like the intended outcome? You must consider game effects as inclusive in the attack, or many such instances simply don't work.