There is a bit of a debate in our local group around Composure. Composure reads: "Requires a [Focus] action. If you fail an action and don't have any green tokens you may perform a [Focus] action". This doesn't specify that the action you failed has to be a white action, and it also doesn't specify the colour of the free action (meaning it's a white action).

So if you put this on a ship with a fail-able linked action (e.g. interceptors, a-wings, punishers, e-wings) they can use this to essentially link into a white focus as long as they can fail their linked action.

This gets especially strong on the E-wing. The rules for failing a target lock say: "While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen". So an E-wing with composure can boost or barrel roll, link into a red lock, then choose not to take a lock (regardless of whether there are legal targets or not) and get a white focus. Since the E-wing has long range scanners, they usually don't actually want the lock anyways, and now they can reposition, focus, and already have a lock (all with no stress). Almost makes them worth their crazy high costs...

What are peoples thoughts? Abuse? Intended? Should it be FAQed/errata-ed? Am I misreading something and this doesn't actually work?

Did a quick checking in the rules reference, but I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work.

Eh, it takes a Talent slot. This stuff was basically free in 1.0, so I don't see much reason to change it

Yep.

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work on Interceptors and A-Wings.

Their extra action isn't technically a linked action, but it is still an action. Nothing in the wording of Composure would cause the failing of that action to not count as a trigger.

Very curious. They're unlikely to even be able to errata it to be after failing a white maneuever only, because that unfairly screws over ships like the Y-Wing with a red barrel roll.

Seems even easier to pull off on the E-Wing and Punisher, as target lock is the only action you can choose to fail (even if something is in range, you can choose to not take the lock).

Seems pretty powerful on E-Wings if you're looking to go defensive for a turn (Corran's 'off' turn, or an R2 regen). You can boost or barrel to dodge what you can, and focus up to help defend against what you can't.

4 minutes ago, Volkomor said:

Eh, it takes a Talent slot. This stuff was basically free in 1.0, so I don't see much reason to change it

You could get a stress free reposition action and focus token in 1e? How?

And even if you could, the whole point of 2e is to bring in 1e's power curve. Something being okay in 1e does not necessarily mean it's okay in 2e.

8 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

They're unlikely to even be able to errata it to be after failing a white maneuever only, because that unfairly screws over ships like the Y-Wing with a red barrel roll.

Agreed. If anything the logical fix would be that a lock only counts as failing when there are no legal enemy ship targets. If there are legal enemy ship targets then it doesn't count as failing (even if you choose not to take the lock). That would at least make the combo not an automatic free focus.

8 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Seems pretty powerful on E-Wings if you're looking to go defensive for a turn (Corran's 'off' turn, or an R2 regen). You can boost or barrel to dodge what you can, and focus up to help defend against what you can't.

It was also very nice on Corran for offence. Boost or barrel roll to get his bullseye and/or range 1, still have lock and focus and no stress.

5 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Seems even easier to pull off on the E-Wing and Punisher, as target lock is the only action you can choose to fail (even if something is in range, you can choose to not take the lock).

I think this “trick” will be extremely difficult to pull off in a Punisher.

1 minute ago, HolySorcerer said:

I think this “trick” will be extremely difficult to pull off in a Punisher.

Super hard because they don't have a talent slot... my mistake there

36 minutes ago, evcameron said:

Boost or barrel roll to get his bullseye and/or range 1, still have lock and focus and no stress.

Oof. This really would get in to rules lawyering.

I'm assuming you mean take the lock from beyond range 3 at the start and keep it, then maneuver + boost into range 1, attempt the target lock and fail it to get the focus?

With the rules as they are I think that's allowed. The rules about only having one target lock say you only need to break your current lock "before the chosen object would be assigned a lock token".

That means you have to choose the object before you break your current lock. So you can start the action, measure range, choose no object and therefore fail the action before you're required to remove your current token, even if the target you have locked is the one you've just boosted into range 1 of. Wow.

Hmm. Actually, on Corran specifically it works even better than that. The target you have locked isn't even a legal target for the action because of the E-Wing's ship ability.

32 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:

I think this “trick” will be extremely difficult to pull off in a Punisher.

Because Punishers don't have talent slots.

You're quite right. OP mentioned them initially and I was just responding to that. Didn't think about the slot.

I think we need some clarification on if the lock fails when no valid targets are available or just none you want.

But otherwise I don’t have a problem with this - like it has been said already, this is basically what we had in 1.0 natively (although admittedly I would support an errata on composure that says “...a focus action of the same difficulty” so if you’re combo’ing a linked action to get that focus you are still gaining a stress)

They could change the core rules to address that. I’m sure they will because that is not at all intended.

E-wings that can boost/focus are quite a bit more effective than the cost of composure.

49 minutes ago, evcameron said:

This gets especially strong on the E-wing.

Only if there no other objects on the entire board, including obstacles, enemy and friendly ships.

6 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Only if there no other objects on the entire board, including obstacles, enemy and friendly ships.

With the current rules you can measure to all possible objects, choose not to lock one, and its considered as failing.

1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:

Only if there no other objects on the entire board, including obstacles, enemy and friendly ships.

Not true.

11 minutes ago, ScummyRebel said:

I think we need some clarification on if the lock fails when no valid targets are available or just none you want.

Nor is it in need of clarification. It is very clearly laid out in the rules reference on Lock on page 12.

"A locking ship is a ship that is attempting to acquire a lock by performing the following steps:

1. Measure range from the locking ship to any number of objects.

2. Choose another object at range 0–3.

3. Assign a lock token to it with the number matching the ID marker of the locking ship

...

While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen."

Bold mine.

If the ship you want to target lock is not in range, you can choose not to target lock something else.

If the ship you want to target lock is in range, you can still choose not to lock it. You do not have to declare the target of your lock attempt when you declare the action. You are free to declare the action, measure for range and then make whatever choice on locking you like.

6 minutes ago, Innese said:

With the current rules you can measure to all possible objects, choose not to lock one, and its considered as failing.

Hum, interestingly you might be right.

Quote

1. Measure range from the locking ship to any number of objects.

2. Choose another object at range 0–3.

3. Assign a lock token to it with the number matching the ID marker of the locking ship.

Quote

While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object is chosen.

Looks like you can essentially choose to fail a lock at any time.

Edit: Actually, maybe not. There is no may in "2. Choose another object at range 0–3.", which means it could be mandatory, if the Card Interpretation rules hold here:

Quote

The word “must” is used to mean “is required to.” Although all effects that are not “may” effects are mandatory, the inclusion of “must” is used to reiterate a mandatory effect that could provide a drawback to the ship with the effect.

3 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Hum, interestingly you might be right.

Looks like you can essentially choose to fail a lock at any time.

Edit: Actually, maybe not. There is no may in "2. Choose another object at range 0–3.", which means it could be mandatory, if the Card Interpretation rules hold here:

Good catch!

as with any game, theres always that 1 trick thats playing the rules not the game.

I dont see it being overly broken though, Both because it eats the talent slot and not many ships truly benefit from this.

Wouldn't failing a red action still give you a stress? or does that only happen then you complete a red action? The Rules Reference is a bit unclear about that.

2 minutes ago, joshthesheep said:

Wouldn't failing a red action still give you a stress? or does that only happen then you complete a red action? The Rules Reference is a bit unclear about that.

Alex said during one of the games that it didn’t leave you stressed if you failed a linked action.

1 minute ago, joshthesheep said:

The Rules Reference is a bit unclear about that.

It actually couldn't be clearer.

From Fail, pg11

"• If a red action fails, the ship does not gain a stress token."

2 minutes ago, joshthesheep said:

Wouldn't failing a red action still give you a stress? or does that only happen then you complete a red action? The Rules Reference is a bit unclear about that.

Rules reference specifically says failing a red action does not give you stress. (pg 11 of rules ref)

RRG clearly is not a bit unclear.

The only fuzzy bit between the RRG and upgrades ive noticed is Han Gunner. Thats it. The rest is pretty cut and dry.

10 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Hum, interestingly you might be right.

Looks like you can essentially choose to fail a lock at any time.

Edit: Actually, maybe not. There is no may in "2. Choose another object at range 0–3.", which means it could be mandatory, if the Card Interpretation rules hold here:

So you can’t really ever fail a target lock then. You are just required to lock an asteroid or friendly ship lol.

I’m fine with this, but there are still other ships with non-lock linked actions that they could fail to get a free focus action. Right? I’m sure there’s a couple.

1 minute ago, GuacCousteau said:

It actually couldn't be clearer.

From Fail, pg11

"• If a red action fails, the ship does not gain a stress token."

Oops. I totally missed that. Thanks!

11 minutes ago, __underscore__ said:

Edit: Actually, maybe not. There is no may in "2. Choose another object at range 0–3.", which means it could be mandatory, if the Card Interpretation rules hold here:

Interesting catch... I don't think this is intended, as it could lead to some strange cases where you currently have a lock, attempt to move it somewhere else, don't have range to the enemy ship you wanted to lock and are forced to move your current lock to a friendly ship or obstacle.

Still, technically correct I think!

Targeting computer: "You asked for a lock on that X-Wing? That ship's out of range, but I have locked that asteroid to the left for you. Thank you for flying Sienar Fleet Systems."