Should Omega Ace be able to spend two focus tokens with Deadeye? I mean, yeah, it'd be complicated to get it on, but shouldn't it work? Also, I've seen around that Targeting Synchronizer and Omega Ace's ability don't jive, was there ever an official FAQ on this? The way it reads, I'm pretty sure it should work.

his ability does not have the attack:[targetlock] header so deadeye does nothing.

All deadeye does is change attack:[targetlock] to attack:[focus] it does not affect any other use of a targetlock

Target Synch i think works because he is attacking and i believe it was faq'd where long as the ship is attacking any form of "spend a targetlock" counts. I could be wrong on that one.

Glad we agree on TS. It has a separate sentence about spending the lock, that was my reasoning.

But that's where I got to thinking about Deadeye. The card reads:

Quote

You may treat the "Attack [Target Lock]" header as "Attack [Focus]". When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock, you may spend a focus token instead.

Simply put, Omega Ace does instruct you to spend a target lock, it just isn't called out as an "Attack [Target Lock]". I'm not really serious about making sure it happens since Omega Ace is unlikely to ever have to Focus tokens on his own merit, but it seemed like it should work with the same reasoning used for Targeting Synchronizer.

Omega aces ability is not an attack it is a modification. Deaden does not work with omega ace, ts does work with omega ace however because ts requires a friendly ship attacking.

Ah, there it is! Thanks for the clarification!

Np

It's an old answer, but I think it answers at least part of your question.

2 hours ago, Praetorate of the Empire said:

Simply put, Omega Ace does instruct you to spend a target lock, it just isn't called out as an "Attack [Target Lock]". I'm not really serious about making sure it happens since Omega Ace is unlikely to ever have to Focus tokens on his own merit, but it seemed like it should work with the same reasoning used for Targeting Synchronizer.

This has become the accepted ruling in my local area that all instances of instruction to spend a target lock (ordnance cost, pilot abilities and rerolls) allow deadeye to replace the target lock with a focus, for the same reasons why those actions would also work with TS (under TS's own limitations).

Whoever the heck at FFG wrote that tweet is an idiot

Deadeye makes no mention about "replacing a targetlock with a focus" otherwise you could also use a focus to reroll your dice (which would be interesting and probably make deadeye cost more than 1pt). It changes the attack header, nothing more nothing less.
OA is not an attack header.

(this isnt even age of the post type of thing because the card text never changed other than Small Ship Only)

9 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

Whoever the heck at FFG wrote that tweet is an idiot

Deadeye makes no mention about "replacing a targetlock with a focus" otherwise you could also use a focus to reroll your dice (which would be interesting and probably make deadeye cost more than 1pt). It changes the attack header, nothing more nothing less.
OA is not an attack header.

(this isnt even age of the post type of thing because the card text never changed other than Small Ship Only)

Hard to argue with FFG though about what should work in an FFG game.

It absolutely makes reference to replacing a target lock with a focus; the entire second clause does that.

The first clause is completely about the attack header, but the second (and more importantly) independent clause, says you may spend the focus instead of the target lock while attacking. Pilot abilities are in the very same category as ordnance cost and are both game effects during the attack that instruct you to spend a target lock.

"when an attack instructs you to spend a targetlock, you may spend a focus token instead"

Not the same at all. Its not giving you an open-ended option to use a focus, its saying if the attack itself (i.e. "Spend a targetlock to perform this attack") instructs you to do so, you may do this instead.

Nothing except ordnance flatout tells you to spend the targetlock at no choice of the user, which is what instruct leads to. Given a "may" clause has nothing to do with being forced to do something i.e. instructed to do something.

Like i said earlier i'd love it if they managed to rule it that way where deadeye works with any targetlock. Literally never targetlock, ever, always focus and either use it normally or use it to reroll instead of a targetlock.

You have an option to use ordnance, just like you have the option to use a pilot ability or not. Both of these are classified by FFG as game effects, specifically not an attack, that instructs you to spend the target lock. For clarity, using a torpedo that says "spend a target lock and discard this card" is not the attack instructing you to spend the target lock, but the effects of that particular upgrade card.

Since both of those effects are identical with regards to interaction with other abilities, Deadeye should work with both of them.

"May" clauses are a given that if chosen, you are instructed by their effects to do every step required for that action. That is why TS works with primary attacks.

IMHO "Targeting Synchronizer" was one of the simplest cards that the latest FAQ really STP'd on. This card should simply allow ships carrying ordinance with the header "Attack:(Target Lock)" to utilize the TL a friendly ship with TS has, period, end of story. Now it has basically become a situational "treat my blue target lock as your own", which since that language already existed in the game, should have been used or FAQ'd to. Nothing like not keeping it simple.

Or just replace the complex bit with 'may spend your locks as if they were their own'. Would clear up the arc controversy but would get most of it.

Targeting synchronizer works. "If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead." Omega Ace's pilot ability trigger is clearly "a game effect ."

Deadeye does not work. "When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock, you may spend a focus token instead." Omega Ace's pilot ability is a game effect but it is not an instruction as the result of an attack. It's an ability that may be triggered during an attack but, itself, is not an attack . It is merely a dice modification that may be used during an attack . Using Proton Torpedoes, Adv. Proton Torpedoes, etc. is an attack and therefore the "spend your target lock [...] to perform this attack" applies here.

As for the Tweet from 2015: this clarification from "FFG" directly instruct you to do what you want, not what the card says to do . As a TO, unless it is in the rulebook or FAQ, statements from "FFG" (be it twitter or Frank Brooks) are a guideline but, by no means, correct. In this case it would should be ignored and, I remind you, Frank and "FFG" have gotten it wrong many times before - the FAQ reverses their "clarification."

First rule of X-Wing: Fly casual, if you're not at an event make sure you and your opponent have the same understanding before you begin the game. Or, in today's messy world, check with your local TO and see if they have a ruling to follow - some regions even have their own localized FAQ to keep things clear for players that cross state-lines to play X-Wing.

So, what you're saying is "when attacking" is not part of "an attack", and you are arbitrarily considering some game effects attacks and others not attacks, even though they're classified as identical effects in the FAQ? I'm gonna need something to back that up.

I believe selecting your weapon, choosing your target and rolling/modifying your dice are all equally part of the attack. Can you find anything in the rules that would back up what is and isn't "the attack"? If we just go by everything within the timing chart as being a part of that, it absolutely includes pilot ability modifications, and Deadeye would work just fine with it.

16 minutes ago, Jimbawa said:

So, what you're saying is "when attacking" is not part of "an attack", and you are arbitrarily considering some game effects attacks and others not attacks, even though they're classified as identical effects in the FAQ? I'm gonna need something to back that up.

All attacks are game effects, but not all game effects are attacks. For example, spending an evade token to add an evade result is a game effect that is not an attack, using Stay on Target to change your dial is a game effect that is also not an attack, and spending a focus token to change an eye to a hit is a game effect and it also is not an attack.

Quote

I believe selecting your weapon, choosing your target and rolling/modifying your dice are all equally part of the attack. Can you find anything in the rules that would back up what is and isn't "the attack"? If we just go by everything within the timing chart as being a part of that, it absolutely includes pilot ability modifications, and Deadeye would work just fine with it.

The attack is the attack timing chart, and the only step in that timing chart that says anything about spending a token is to fire a secondary weapon. The attack and it's timing chart can trigger other game effects during an attack but that does not make any of those game effects an attack in and of themselves.

I don't expect to change your mind given the last time this came up, but there is nothing in the FAQ or Rules Reference that asserts " An attack that instructs you to spend " is interchangeable with " A game effect that instructs you to spend " just because that game effect happens to exist during an attack.

34 minutes ago, joeshmoe554 said:

The attack is the attack timing chart, and the only step in that timing chart that says anything about spending a token is to fire a secondary weapon. The attack and it's timing chart can trigger other game effects during an attack but that does not make any of those game effects an attack in and of themselves.

Look more than skin deep on the attack timing chart. Modifying dice is absolutely, irrefutably part of the attack. If you choose to modify your dice, just like if you choose to use a secondary weapon, you are instructed by that specific effect, either the type of modification or the cost of a secondary, to spend whatever token or pay the cost of the ability that causes it. If you want to change eyes to hits, you are instructed by the rules of modifying dice as part of an attack, to spend a focus token. You can't honestly say modifying attack dice is part of the attack, but the rules for modifying attack dice aren't.

I am well aware that there is no specific listing of what is and isn't an attack, and I believe it is incorrect to assume the attack includes nothing about the dice or their mods. If they were not part of the attack, they would not be able to be used during the attack, and modifications would be entirely without use.

4 hours ago, Jimbawa said:

Look more than skin deep on the attack timing chart. Modifying dice is absolutely, irrefutably part of the attack. If you choose to modify your dice, just like if you choose to use a secondary weapon, you are instructed by that specific effect, either the type of modification or the cost of a secondary, to spend whatever token or pay the cost of the ability that causes it. If you want to change eyes to hits, you are instructed by the rules of modifying dice as part of an attack, to spend a focus token. You can't honestly say modifying attack dice is part of the attack, but the rules for modifying attack dice aren't.

I am well aware that there is no specific listing of what is and isn't an attack, and I believe it is incorrect to assume the attack includes nothing about the dice or their mods. If they were not part of the attack, they would not be able to be used during the attack, and modifications would be entirely without use.

Look at the note about secondary weapons in the main rule book (pg 19).

Quote

Ships may perform only one attack during the

Combat phase. Secondary weapon cards show the header “attack:” as a reminder that a ship attacks with either its primary weapon or one of its secondary weapons.

...

Some secondary weapons specify other requirements in parentheses after the word “attack.”

Deadeye talks about an attack that instruct you to spend target locks, not during an attack. The requirement for the attack with a secondary weapon (proton torps as posted earlier lets say) is to have the attacker have a target lock on their target and to spend and discard a target lock to perform the attack.

Omega ace's pilot ability is done during an attack but is not a requirement to perform the attack.

I hope this clears a few things up.

So, point in question. Quoted from the rules for secondary weapons.

"The "ATTACK (TARGET LOCK):" header indicates that the attacker must have a target lock on the defender. The attacker does not need to spend this target lock unless instructed by the Upgrade card .

The "ATTACK (FOCUS)" header indicates that the attacker must have a focus token. The attacker does not need to spend this focus token unless instructed by the Upgrade card ."

It is not the attack that instructs you to spend the lock, but the upgrade card itself. It's highly inconsistent that you are arbitrarily deciding that one card that says spend target lock at time A on the chart works but another card that spends a target lock at time B on the chart doesn't.

It makes absolutely no sense that you are instructed to do every step of the attack but any particular substep is not instructed by the attack. Wouldn't being instructed to shoot a weapon not also include being instructed to aim and pull the trigger? Your argument is synonymous with saying no.

Beyond our own interpretations, FFG's only response is the tweet from 2 years ago. Until we do get an FAQ, it seems only logical that we treat that as the correct ruling until proven otherwise.

On 12/16/2017 at 6:52 AM, Jimbawa said:

So, point in question. Quoted from the rules for secondary weapons.

"The "ATTACK (TARGET LOCK):" header indicates that the attacker must have a target lock on the defender. The attacker does not need to spend this target lock unless instructed by the Upgrade card .

The "ATTACK (FOCUS)" header indicates that the attacker must have a focus token. The attacker does not need to spend this focus token unless instructed by the Upgrade card ."

It is not the attack that instructs you to spend the lock, but the upgrade card itself. It's highly inconsistent that you are arbitrarily deciding that one card that says spend target lock at time A on the chart works but another card that spends a target lock at time B on the chart doesn't.

It makes absolutely no sense that you are instructed to do every step of the attack but any particular substep is not instructed by the attack. Wouldn't being instructed to shoot a weapon not also include being instructed to aim and pull the trigger? Your argument is synonymous with saying no.

Beyond our own interpretations, FFG's only response is the tweet from 2 years ago. Until we do get an FAQ, it seems only logical that we treat that as the correct ruling until proven otherwise.

Except the upgrade card with the attack header is the attack being made. Look at my previous post.

I'd love to see a slight text change to Deadeye. "When a secondary weapon instructs you to spend a target lock..." It'd be nice for things to be more explicit, because there's certainly some needle-threading going on here. I find the distinction between 'an attack' and 'a game effect used during an attack' persuasive mostly because this seems to be the clear intent of Deadeye.

Would there be negative unintended consequences to that wording change that anyone can think of?

8 hours ago, Oberron said:

Except the upgrade card with the attack header is the attack being made. Look at my previous post.

I'm saying it is the attack instructing you, but not for the reason you're saying. The header is irrelevant. The upgrade card itself is not the attack instructing you to do something, it was something you chose to do in the course of your attack. You don't choose to use a proton torpedo and then execute an attack, you choose to attack and then decided what effects you wanted applied to your attack, including the rules for a proton torpedo. That game effect is a substep choice of the attack and that is what makes it instruction by the attack.

Pilot abilities and modifications must be included as instruction by the same means or they cease to function. You can only do what you're told to do and never do what you aren't told to, isn't that the x wing motto? You would not be able to use a "when attacking" ability ever because you are never instructed to do it under your interpretation. If you are never instructed to use a pilot ability, or any ability for that matter, you may not use it. That is why every step, substep and rules regarding each section must also be included under the "instructed by the attack" umbrella.