40 minutes ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

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

I can and I do, as backed by a combination of FAQ rulings and common sense with ability interactions. Specifically all game effects confined within the attack flowchart must be the attack, and the attack is the accumulation of all game effects during that time. Not separate attacks, but part of the same inclusive attack. Combat wouldn't work without that being true.

Game effects can occur during attacks. So for sure they are inclusive.

If you look closely to the attack chart steps there is no condition mentioned in step i which checks for a specific weapon requirement. So when you complete step i and move to step ii and declare a specific weapon attack which you cannot do you cannot perform this specific attack.

Anyway because step i has been completed you qualify for at least a primary attack of the basic sort.

5 minutes ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Game effects can occur during attacks. So for sure they are inclusive.

So you agree that game effects during attacks are part of the attack? That instruction up to, during and after that game effect must also be included as "the attack", or it comes back to the Kath vs Zeb example. Correct?

I think until FFG settles the issue with an FAQ, it is up to individual tournament judges to determine what Deadeye can do. It doesn’t seem like we are getting a consensus here.

There are good arguments for either option.

Option 1:

Deadeye only lets you shoot torpedos and missiles witha focus (original understanding)

Option 2:

Deadeye lets you spend a focus instead of a target lock for any effect during an attack (rerolling, shooting ordnance, pilot abilities etc...).

But we have reached the consensus multiple times, across many situations, with support for the former falling away. At some point we should push for a consensus or ruling, so why not now? Once it is settled, it can then be used to disseminate accurate information to the masses and prevent such confusion in the future.

We can come to a consensus here all we want, but we have no way beyond here or submitting the question to the rules questions form, to push for anything official.

Small steps. This site is checked by a lot of players and TO's, and the information will spread. Coincidentally, how does one submit a question to be officially answered by FFG?

There still isn't consensus. I stopped posting, because nothing I say will sway you or change your opinion. The fact is that an attack includes all steps of the Attack Timing Chart and only 1 step in that timing chart instructs the player to spend a token (Step 1 iv). The attack timing chart can trigger other game effects that may instruct you to spend tokens, but it is those game effects, not the attack itself, instructing the player to so.

Just now, Jimbawa said:

Small steps. This site is checked by a lot of players and TO's, and the information will spread. Coincidentally, how does one submit a question to be officially answered by FFG?

You can submit a question using the rules question form found under customer service.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

But bear in mind that as of the last 6 months or so, they appear to have made a policy decision NOT to answer questions unless they're clear by RAW or FAQ; if there's any controversy, expect no response at all.

I've not had an answer to a question from that source since the day after the second to last FAQ released...

I want deadeye to work with pilot abilities and to allow the player to reroll dice. It would open up many more combos and wouldn't be overpowered (from my point of view).

Unfortunately I think the current intent of the rules prevents this interpretation. @Jimbawa our best bet is to submit the tweet photo to ffg and see if they say it can be applied to rerolling dice as well.

@AngryAlbatross by the FAQ reading, it should, unless there's some evidence or examples that haven't been examined yet. I submitted a question to customer service on a ruling, but haven't heard back yet.

While I agree that the intent was most likely not to include this effect when it was released, I can't tell new players that "No, it doesn't work that way because I don't feel like it". I owe it to them to have a definite answer with solid reasoning.

On 9/27/2017 at 10:46 AM, AngryAlbatross said:

Deadeye only lets you shoot torpedos and missiles witha focus (original understanding)

But...synced Turret!

pretty sure the RAW on Deadeye don’t allow the normal TL rerolling by using a focus because you are never instructed to do so, it’s just the standard option and is not an explicit instruction. Likewise any ‘game effects’ that occur during the attack that specify spending TLs should be allowed to substitute focus tokens because the ‘instructions’ for the ability is explicit on the card, just like a card with a secondary attack cost. This might be confused further with ‘may’ and ‘must’ but I think in either situation the focus substitute should work.

@GrimmyV , this is pulled from the FAQ.

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.

The third listed effect of an instruction to spend a target lock is to modify your attack dice by rerolling. Yes it's an option, but by RAW, that counts as instruction and should trigger game effects reliant on such instruction, correct? That's why targeting sync works with primary attacks under this reading.

Ulp, well I guess the Rules Reference counts as being instructed to spend that TL for rerolls. You go Deadeye! You rock! Too bad you no longer work on large ships. Even if my card doesn’t say that.

On 2017-09-30 at 1:58 PM, Jimbawa said:

@GrimmyV , this is pulled from the FAQ.

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.

The third listed effect of an instruction to spend a target lock is to modify your attack dice by rerolling. Yes it's an option, but by RAW, that counts as instruction and should trigger game effects reliant on such instruction, correct? That's why targeting sync works with primary attacks under this reading.

While the question contains the word "instruct", the answere doesn't. It just states a bunch of cases that counts as "spending a target lock". Not sure it changes anything, just thought it worth noting, at the very least it could make things even more unclear. Hurray!

3 hours ago, Smuggler said:

While the question contains the word "instruct", the answere doesn't. It just states a bunch of cases that counts as "spending a target lock". Not sure it changes anything, just thought it worth noting, at the very least it could make things even more unclear. Hurray!

True, so it depends how nit picky we want to get. Since the question included "instruct", the answer could then be inferred to be clarification as to what an instruction is, but you can't rule on intent. Likewise, the community as a whole has taken this to mean these are instructions, as reflected in the "buff" to Targeting Sync, and allowing it to affect primary weapon attacks. Long story short, FFG needs new writers.

3 hours ago, Smuggler said:

While the question contains the word "instruct", the answere doesn't. It just states a bunch of cases that counts as "spending a target lock". Not sure it changes anything, just thought it worth noting, at the very least it could make things even more unclear. Hurray!

Yeah it's a bit muddy

Let's say all effects in the game are game effects.

Closely read it gives examples of game effects that instruct the player to resolve a specific (game) effect (called 'spend target lock') AND game effects that do not instruct the player to resolve this specific one.

And with the target sync text all these examples are included (the valid ones qualify for it's use).

As for Deadeye closely reading it qualifies for 'attacks' that instruct to resolve game effect 'spend target lock'.

Whether this 'attack' is the whole process until step 8 of the attack chart (here effects trigger that say 'after attack') or just the card (att x, range y-z) with the 'attack' header doesn't matter, in both the attack instructs to resolve game effect 'spend target lock' only in step iv. More exact the instruction is in the card text and gets resolved in step iv. (pay costs)

In following steps (f.e. modify dice) the attack (chart) instructs (with may, can, must) to resolve other game effects (by resolving abilities for adding, changing, rerolling dice).

Note that 'spend target lock' is not mentioned in this step as it is a game effect that is instructed by the ones mentioned there (and so not by the attack itself).

So from this view Deadeye cannot be used to reroll dice.

There might be others who may not agree with this reading though.

The attack includes the entirety of the attack flow chart, I don't think anyone has had an issue with that. You're jumping right into the arguments a few pages back and that has been the bulk of what allows Deadeye to trigger and what is the attack vs a game effect during an attack. The majority of people here have agreed that all game effects during the attack are part of the attack, and all such effects that instruct you to spend a target lock, e.g. for secondary weapon activation costs, pilot abilities and attack dice mod's as specified in the FAQ, are considered instruction by the attack.

There's quite a number of examples in the past few pages when you separate game effects from being part of the attack and how it breaks combat, but it's far from a unanimous decision here or among the community as a whole.

Guys really, it is not settled. There are two major opinions about the ruling.

And I can only recommend to look at what's at stake in this case. This place is used as a reference to lots of players or TO's and this way we got a responsibility for our loved game.

In the case of Deadeye I can only strongly recommend to try to look at the RAI.

A Deadeye which optionally allows to use a focus instead of a target lock to reroll any attack, not to mention the possible combination of double focus for target lock+reroll, various possible combinations with other abilities plus its origin power of freeing the restrictions to fire secondary weapons, all together just for 1pt ept without a drawback (except of not for big ships) doesn't f eel not only as a bargain than almost as a cheat to the game imo.

This could possibly be a game breaker.

So even if it's not totally clear how to rule this until there might be an errata we should consider the damage this could possibly cause to the current meta or just the confusion when it gets ruled differently on various tournaments.

All I say is we should be cautious to push for a 'desired' outcome for the sake of power.

2 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Guys really, it is not settled. There are two major opinions about the ruling.

And I can only recommend to look at what's at stake in this case. This place is used as a reference to lots of players or TO's and this way we got a responsibility for our loved game.

In the case of Deadeye I can only strongly recommend to try to look at the RAI.

A Deadeye which optionally allows to use a focus instead of a target lock to reroll any attack, not to mention the possible combination of double focus for target lock+reroll, various possible combinations with other abilities plus its origin power of freeing the restrictions to fire secondary weapons, all together just for 1pt ept without a drawback (except of not for big ships) doesn't f eel not only as a bargain than almost as a cheat to the game imo.

This could possibly be a game breaker.

So even if it's not totally clear how to rule this until there might be an errata we should consider the damage this could possibly cause to the current meta or just the confusion when it gets ruled differently on various tournaments.

All I say is we should be cautious to push for a 'desired' outcome for the sake of power.

This is actually a great point and where I first started off when considering how busted it could possibly be. I don't like ruling on intent, but Deadeye does feel like it was written with the original intention of only working with the activation cost of secondaries, as surely this must have come up when the card was printed and it had to get spread out among the community somehow that it worked as such. If it didn't, then there needs to be some serious discussion on it at some point. With the changes in the years between its release and now, the waters are murky and anyone planning on using it should consult their local TO.

As to how powerful it is. If a ship is running this, they aren't running VI or adaptability, which has been a necessity for aces. Likewise since it is an EPT it couldn't be put on low ps generic pilots. By further limiting it to small ships in its errata, I think there's only a handful of ships that can use recon specialist with Deadeye for that sweet double mod on a single action. TIE shuttle bombers have better things to do, and running a phantom at ps 6 or 7 instead of 8 and 9 is basically a death sentence. Rebel side, that leaves arc's, auzitucks, hwk's, and Nym. Of that list, only Norra gets much benefit from Deadeye, and that is more so from spending the focus-as-TL to trigger her pilot ability and then converting all eyes to hits, vs a double mod'd shot. Scum have misthunters, their flavor of hwk's, quadjumpers and scurrgs. There's not much there in the way of raw fire power pushing through so much damage that it breaks the game, and honestly there are better options for just about every one of those scenarios. Best case would be having a focus or reroll for each shot of your TLT.

Considering it without recon spec. It would change 50% of misses into hits with its normal function, or let you pick up those eyes and misses and still have a 50% chance to roll hits. If these ships have soft focus abilities, it becomes slightly stronger with less dice, and becomes statistically insignificant when you start reaching the range of 4-5 attack dice. Being able to stack focus tokens on these ships through other means can be powerful, but requires you to run a support ship that places some of it's value in the rest of your fleet. When you compare this to the results of something like Crack Shot, Deadeye gives you constant, chance adjustments to your dice, while crack shot gives you a single use, guaranteed hit at a time you need it.

It's strongest effect statistically would be to grant a target lock effect to a ship that does not have one naturally. By ruling that Deadeye lets you focus to reroll on your target, vs when you would have needed a target lock on them previously, it allows mid range ps ships like quadjumpers, strikers and auzitucks to have a long term, minor increase in combat viability, all for the cost of their EPT slot. And that is statistically the largest impact it will have. I'm not personally worried about 1 or 2 quadjumpers or strikers in a list taking down my Decimator and QD or destroying any Nymgar list I've run across, but I guess that would be for the TO's to decide.

If you have any other combinations that seem like they would upset game balance, by all means post them and we'll consider them as best case / worst case scenarios.

Well you took some effort to address my point.
While I'm glad you did, I think you may agree that if we would discuss any ship the posts would easily emerge out of hands so I try to keep my arguments slim. [edit: didn't work :)]

Aside I think the debate should focus more on the ruling techniques than on balancing issues
(and btw there is still a group that is convinced that under the current ruling Deadeye for rerolls (I will call it SuperDE from now on) is not possible)

But I put balancing on the table so blame is to me :) and I'm glad you asked so here are some points:

Your first argument about SuperDE beiing not that important due to aces needing other epts is a considerable point. But I won't underestimate its possible uses. While ceiling ps is very important for high ps aces it's not completely mandatory. Middle ps aces on the other hand almost don't benefit at all from adaptability and VI thus become SuperDE lovers. This would put additional pressure on expensive aces which are actually suffering a lot under bombs and upcoming tools to negate green dice..

About double focus (F+F) combinations you have to consider there is more than simple rec spec.
Besides basic token sharing abilities like Garven Dreis, f.e. Soontir Fel got it build-in and is well used (sure he wants ptl but hey I try to make a point:)). Fleet officer or General Hux are viable ways to provide even multiple ships with double focus.

Even the SuperDE F+F is more easy to achieve than a TL+F because everyone got F but not TL (just to mention auzitucks) and rec spec is, while less present, still existing (auzitucks again, arc-170).
This gives SuperDE lovers a significant damage spike.

Related to this issue, everyone who was just using Deadeye before gets boosted significantly due to the additional features. (possibly any small ordnance carrier with an ept., I'm looking at you Nym...)

Well, its open to discussion whether ordnance carriers could use a boost, are powerful enough or even going to be overpowered but this would def. have an impact on it.

I'm concerned it shifts the balance from target lock to focus in an unhealthy way.

As focus got an edge on defence plus more options when to use it its counterbalanced by loosing it in the end of the round. Target lock doesn't provide defensive options and is restricted only to a corresponding ship which had been locked before but is slightly balanced by lasting until spent. Still we are honest often focus gets the preferrence. With SuperDE then way more. (Yay now no difficult decision and I'm free to choose depending on situation and dice symbols!)

Well it eradicates the need for TL at all!

(Yay no more target comp bargain, free extra slot for defence on my ace!)

which brings me to my biggest concern, a point you slightly mentioned and thus to a question I want to ask the community for opinion.

When SuperDE replaces 'spend target lock' with 'spend focus' for reroll, does it replace the need for a corresponding ship to have locked?
Can I, instead of having the restriction to only use it on a ship I have locked before, just use the reroll on any attack on a ship in my arc?

In the core rulebook on page 11 it is written:

" Spending Target Lock Tokens
If the attacker has a target lock on the defender he may return his pair of assigned target lock tokens to the action token supply to choose any number of attack dice (...)"

"the attacker may spend target lock tokens only when he is attacking a ship that his lock is targeting."

In the rules reference of the TFO core-set the phrase is missing and it states shortly:

"Target Lock: The attacker can spend a target lock he has on the defender"

Question: Does the second phrase in the first text still apply when using SuperDE here?
Because if yes one can argue that you'd still need a ship locked when using a focus for a reroll..

At least from a balancing point of view I could live with a DE ruling like that..

And besides, assuming there's no need for a lock than we got an argument more on the SuperDE-is-harmful-side because with no need for having your target in arc two following rounds it lowers the need of good flying significantly and infavors not only our beloved ps-aces but also the game itself.

Well, don't get me wrong, I don't like ruling on intend too, rules must be played the way they are written until occasionally changed but, as you said, with murky waters like this and a SuperDE with possibly revolutionary changes (as so I see them) I'd prefer to stay a little on the conservative side until we get an errata (hopefully).

Looking forward replies, guys

7 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Well you took some effort to address my point.
While I'm glad you did, I think you may agree that if we would discuss any ship the posts would easily emerge out of hands so I try to keep my arguments slim. [edit: didn't work :)]

Aside I think the debate should focus more on the ruling techniques than on balancing issues
(and btw there is still a group that is convinced that under the current ruling Deadeye for rerolls (I will call it SuperDE from now on) is not possible)

I agree that breaking down the conversation to ship specifics would probably derail the issue and we should absolutely focus on the ruling process then it's implications on gameplay. Gameplay and the meta will always be fluid, but the way rulings are determined should be more concrete. I think a lot of that process will revolve around FFG putting out some kind of information on their intent for cards and effects that they then show how that builds into their rulings. That would be a transparent process that explains why all their rulings went the way they did, although it would be far more effort intensive than I can imagine.

That all being said, you did bring up a lot of gameplay issues that I'll try and address.

7 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Your first argument about SuperDE beiing not that important due to aces needing other epts is a considerable point.
But I won't underestimate its possible uses. While ceiling ps is very important for high ps aces it's not completely mandatory. Middle ps aces on the other hand almost don't benefit at all from adaptability and VI thus become SuperDE lovers. Further this would put additional pressure on expensive aces which are actually suffering a lot under bombs and upcoming tools to negate green dice..

Just because VI might be the more competitive option doesn't mean it isn't still an option, and yes I should not discount them outright. I had been more worried about a tournament setting where you'd really only see this on PS 4 to maybe 7 or so barring specific exceptions; the aces or ept generics that have given up winning the PS battle anyway. I don't know that many would gain exceptional benefit (beyond a small defensive boost assuming they are getting a second focus token from somewhere), and it has no impact on bombs or other means of unblockable damage. Aces and bombs will be an issue regardless of this ruling, and deadeye doesn't change interaction from either side that I'm aware of. That interaction comes down to flying in a manner to deny your opponent the option of using bombs effectively.

7 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

About double focus (F+F) combinations you have to consider there is more than simple rec spec.
Besides basic token sharing abilities like Garven Dreis, f.e. Soontir Fel got it build-in and is well used (sure he wants ptl but hey I try to make a point:)). Fleet officer or General Hux are relatively simple ways to provide even multiple ships with double focus.

Sure, there are a lot of combinations to get a double focus. Most of these are specific to a single ship or require a support ship that would be giving that token to your ship anyway. So it only would have an impact when you are spending your action on a focus instead of any other actions, which is usually why you are running a support ship. You want your other ships to have their actions and still get a token. It makes for a build that is action locked to maintain it's effectiveness and gets shutdown by stress and blocking harder than standard builds because it relies on multiple ships getting their actions every round. It would be a playstyle change, but not necessarily one that should be discouraged.

8 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

Even the SuperDE F+F is more easy to achieve than a TL+F because everyone got F but not TL (just to mention your auzitucks) and rec spec is, while less present, still existing (auzitucks again).
This gives SuperDE lovers a significant damage spike.

This is absolutely true that it is easier to achieve, even just as a single token action. In fact this is the largest increase in power that Deadeye brings, when a ship without the target lock action takes the focus token for possible use as a reroll. It does not however bring a damage spike. Most of these primary weapons bring 2 or 3 dice, occasionally 4 in range 1. The biggest change it brings is allowing a reroll of a mix of blanks and focus results (but only in situations where the blanks equal or exceed the focus results) into the possibility of more hits than the focus would otherwise generate on its own. On any number of dice, with just the single focus, it is a statistical wash with the caveat that it does increase the possibility for crits. On ships that are able to get a double token that would for whatever reason not be able to get a target lock and token, it raises the floor of the expected damage by an average of less than .2 damage when accounted for a range of attack dice, evasion dice and various tokens on the defenders side, and that's generous. This also does not include opportunity cost and what ept it would be replacing. Crack shot for instance adds about 3x the expected damage increase, albeit for only a single shot. In opportunities where that use of crack shot is not decisive (which if it wasn't, why are you using it?), then you would need at least 4 rounds of double token attacks where you saw extra damage only because you had the double mods to make DE a worthwhile investment. That's purely from the offensive side, but you would also enjoy defensive benefits from having a focus vs a target lock, so it's not as hard to get your money's worth as I'm painting it, but it falls a bit to personal discretion.

8 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

I'm concerned it shifts the balance from target lock to focus in an unhealthy way.

As focus got an edge on defence plus more options when to use it its counterbalanced by loosing it in the end of the round. Target lock doesn't provide defensive options and is restricted only to a corresponding ship which had been locked before but is slightly balanced by lasting until spent. Still we are honest often focus gets the preferrence. With SuperDE then way more. (Yay now no difficult decision and I'm free to choose depending on situation and dice symbols!)

Well it eradicates the need for TL at all!

This is a legitimate concern and could lead to divergent playstyles. It does lean heavily on taking that focus action for better survivability and at least equal offensive capabilities. Ordnance being able to target any ship in range, while already covered under DE, is the strongest application of this effect. However, this focus prioritization is already the norm for ordnance ships running DE. Ships without ordnance that take deadeye for its reroll effect could very well stack focus effects, and it makes them brain dead builds that don't interact with you opponent beyond the combat phase. It's not terribly different from an accuracy corrector / autoblaster build, but doesn't rely on hard to find upgrade slots. There are effects that still require having a target lock, and SDE would only cover their expenditure during the combat phase, so it doesn't cover a lot of fringe uses of target locks from upgrade cards and pilot abilities.

8 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

which brings me to my biggest concern and thus to a question I want to ask the community for opinion.

When SuperDE replaces 'spend target lock' with 'spend focus' for reroll, does it replace the need for a corresponding ship to have locked?
Can I, instead of having the restriction to only use it on a ship I have locked before, just use the reroll on any attack on a ship in my arc?

In the core rulebook on page 11 it is written:

" Spending Target Lock Tokens
If the attacker has a target lock on the defender he may return his pair of assigned target lock tokens to the action token supply to choose any number of attack dice (...)"

"the attacker may spend target lock tokens only when he is attacking a ship that his lock is targeting."

As for your concern here; this is already a decided point. DE with its accepted use of substituting a focus for a target lock to fire a secondary weapon has always bypassed the requirement of needing a lock on your target to spend the focus as such. So ruling it works as such on primary attacks would be in accordance with the effect it has always enjoyed.

9 hours ago, Brat Smalllighter said:

And besides, assuming there's no need for a lock than we got an argument more on the SuperDE-is-harmful-side because with no need for having your target in arc two following rounds it lowers the need of good flying significantly and infavors not only our beloved ps-aces but also the game itself..

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You wouldn't need the ship in arc at all to acquire a target lock, and that's no different from a focus.

Strong flying skills would be emphasized by the need to predict your opponent's position and forcing them to choose between taking that aggressive action for more damage, or a defensive action / maneuver to get into arc or out of an enemy arc. Blocking and stress also hinder DE builds more than usual builds because you are being denied a core function of your ship's capabilities. This would push the game in favor of high PS to negate the benefits of DE entirely from your opponents, so I'm not sure how you can claim the opposite.

I would however love to hear more people voice their thoughts on the gameplay aspects, although we might need a different thread so this one doesn't get too long.

On 10/6/2017 at 4:25 AM, Jimbawa said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You wouldn't need the ship in arc at all to acquire a target lock, and that's no different from a focus.

Strong flying skills would be emphasized by the need to predict your opponent's position and forcing them to choose between taking that aggressive action for more damage, or a defensive action / maneuver to get into arc or out of an enemy arc. Blocking and stress also hinder DE builds more than usual builds because you are being denied a core function of your ship's capabilities. This would push the game in favor of high PS to negate the benefits of DE entirely from your opponents, so I'm not sure how you can claim the opposite.

Again I appreciate your well balanced post which covers the main aspects and a lot of gameplay issues. Even though I don't agree with all your weighting your thoughts are reasonable and in terms of balancing a matter of taste anyway.

I just want to correct the one of my points you said you didn't get about the difference of target lock and focus in terms of flying. As you pointed out correctly I had a wrong thought about target lock requiring to have a ship in arc two following turns. You can aquire a lock in the same turn and use it, sure. But note that this has restrictions due to iniative order of flying and range as low ps ships often struggle to acquire a lock in first round of engagement. SDE focus action bypasses this. But I meant the amount of planning involved. To make a target lock work (with lower ps) you have to emphasize where the ship you have in lock will end its turn or what other possible targets will be present at the end of the round. And to use the advantage of a target lock staying after the end of the round you need to plan this accordingly. But with SDE again this gets a no-brainer and so significantly disfavors efforts for good flying.

As for the comparison to crackshot, well you're right this is very powerful but also its gone when used. SDE on the other hand works the entire game granting a significant offense and defence boost as also versatility with its options.

You're very right about the stress effect to shutdown SDE completely but here I like to point out that stress does so with all the actions anyway and I could argue that when used on SDE it just seems more effective because SDE grants that much of a power spike if not getting disabled

All arguments still leave me convinced that Super Deadeye is nothing we should want as it would be severely off-balance and underpriced and is still not agreed how to rule by all of the community

So, with all that said I'll come to rest with my thoughts as I just wanted to make sure some major points don't get forgotten in this debate.

Thanks to everyone for their efforts