If it turns into a problem, they can also simply adjust the rules reference to give you a stress if the red action fails. It would decrease the amount of actions and make red linked more risky. But that looks like a good thing.

43 minutes ago, evcameron said:

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.

Yep, I'm definitely on the side of this interpretation, for the reason you gave. If you're on the cusp of range 3 to a bunch of enemies, with one already locked, but there's an outside chance that a different enemy might be just close enough to give locking them a try. If you then fail that, losing you existing lock on an enemy and having to lock a friendly seems especially harsh.

I think, though step 2 may be 'mandatory', choosing 'no object' at range 0-3 is a valid choice.

I think it's supported by the language of the fail condition under Lock.

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

If it were mandatory to lock something you had in range, I think that clause would say "While acquiring a lock, it fails if no object can be chosen"

It also really hurts with any red target lock actions. Because if you attempt one and can't reach an enemy ship, you'd be forced to lock a friendly or obstacle and take the stress. Yuck

I've been going back on forth on this issue since I saw it. Good to see the conversation here. I think the idea that you have to lock something else if it's in range is the proper interpretation, but we shall see. With old Norra and PTL, I would lock all the time. I'm still debating on if Norra or Shara are the better Arcs in 2.0 so far. Lots of interesting options.

I believe to fail says unable to complete the action. If you are able to complete it and chose not to, you didn't fail it. I don't have a rule book handy to confirm it.

30 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: "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."

Also, do you have a specific source for this?

I want to see what the language around this is. I'm thinking that 'if the card interpretation rules hold here' is actually a pretty big if.

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

Seems that would be a rules lawyer nightmare if so.

1 minute ago, GuacCousteau said:

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

It really must apply. For example, when completing a red maneuver: "During the Check Difficulty step of executing a maneuver, if the maneuver is red, the ship gains one stress token"

It doesn't say must... but we have to assume it's a must, or else taking a stress is optional.

5 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Also, do you have a specific source for this?

I want to see what the language around this is. I'm thinking that 'if the card interpretation rules hold here' is actually a pretty big if.

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

Seems that would be a rules lawyer nightmare if so.

Page 2 of the PDF under 'Card Interpretation' there's a section on 'Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”'.

1 minute ago, __underscore__ said:

Page 2 of the PDF under 'Card Interpretation' there's a section on 'Use of “May,” “Can,” and “Must”'.

Thanks, not sure how I missed that. I was scrolling all through the alphabetical rules section, but didn't think to go right to the top for some reason.

Looking at it, I really don't think there's any reason to assume those language conventions also apply to the rules document itself. It's talking quite specifically about pilot and upgrade cards, and the key line in question says

"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."

Effects are the results of game mechanics or abilities within gameplay itself.

I see no reason why the steps to be followed in performing a mechanic as detailed in the rules reference would be considered 'effects'.

7 minutes ago, evcameron said:

It really must apply. For example, when completing a red maneuver: "During the Check Difficulty step of executing a maneuver, if the maneuver is red, the ship gains one stress token"

It doesn't say must... but we have to assume it's a must, or else taking a stress is optional.

Not necessarily.

That's just prescriptive language. The example you gave doesn't leave room for an option, so there's nothing optional about it. It's explaining a game mechanic.

The specifics of how to interpret card language is a rule to try and prevent confusion during a game session.

If the Card Intepretation rules applied into the document, you'd run into all sorts of areas where the rules no longer work.

An example, based on how the word 'can' is used:

"The word “can” is used to mean “has the capacity to.

...

The ship always applies this effect as the effect is not optional but instead an expanded capability"

Now let's take a look at the rules for Actions (pg3)

"Ships can perform actions, which thematically represent things a pilot can do, such as repositioning slightly or flying defensively.

When a ship is instructed to perform an action, the ship can perform a standard action, which includes actions listed in that ship’s action bar, as well as abilities that have the “Action:” header on that ship’s condition, damage, ship, or upgrade cards."

And for Focus (pg 11)

"Pilots can focus to concentrate and expand their combat prowess. When a ship performs the ? action, it gains one focus token. A ship is focused while it has at least one focus token. Focus tokens are circular, green tokens."

Notice there's not a single instance of 'may' there? By the rules laid out for how 'can' is to applied, actions become non-optional and as a ship 'can' focus it must therefore... always focus?

It doesn't really make sense.

But I think it demonstrates my point that the rules reference itself just uses general prescriptive language and doesn't rigidly follow the language conventions it describes as applying to the cards themselves.

35 minutes ago, GuacCousteau said:

Also, do you have a specific source for this?

I want to see what the language around this is. I'm thinking that 'if the card interpretation rules hold here' is actually a pretty big if.

Is there any language to suggest that the use of 'may' and clauses without it are mandatory even without a 'must' even applies to rules documents?

Seems that would be a rules lawyer nightmare if so.

It doesn't apply. If you read that card rules apply to the rules reference then the linked action section can be interpreted as making the linked action mandatory each time. I messaged the gencon judges about it and they talked to the devs. It was pretty clear that the rules reference wasn't written like it was card text

OK, this seems kinda silly. Obviously the way we're looking at Composure so far is not in the spirit of what FFG has been trying to bring about with 2.0. The card will likely have the word "white" added - failing a white action permits you to perform a white focus action. Yes, this screws Y-wings and ARCs but that's fine - they're harder to barrel roll and failure is more likely to result in no gain. Mind you, until they fix the card, I completely agree with the current rules assessment. I don't like it, but I concur with it.

Hopefully they fix it soon.

From the rules reference on step 2. For lock action, I just want to point out that the E-wing ship ability overrules it in the first place.

10 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

Yes, this screws Y-wings and ARCs but that's fine - they're harder to barrel roll and failure is more likely to result in no gain.

What about the red Jam on the HWK?

What about the red co-ordinate on the Reaper, Escape Ship and U-Wing?

There's a bunch of other ships with red barrel rolls and boosts too. It's a lot of ships that Composure potentially becomes a lot less useful on if this is the fix.

I agree that this probably isn't an intended effect of Composure, but there must be a better way to fix it.

1 minute ago, GuacCousteau said:

What about the red Jam on the HWK?

What about the red co-ordinate on the Reaper, Escape Ship and U-Wing?

There's a bunch of other ships with red barrel rolls and boosts too. It's a lot of ships that Composure potentially becomes a lot less useful on if this is the fix.

I agree that this probably isn't an intended effect of Composure, but there must be a better way to fix it.

I follow the KISS rule where possible. You are correct, it will suck for certain ships. Those ships would be better off with another Talent.

15 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

OK, this seems kinda silly. Obviously the way we're looking at Composure so far is not in the spirit of what FFG has been trying to bring about with 2.0. The card will likely have the word "white" added - failing a white action permits you to perform a white focus action. Yes, this screws Y-wings and ARCs but that's fine - they're harder to barrel roll and failure is more likely to result in no gain. Mind you, until they fix the card, I completely agree with the current rules assessment. I don't like it, but I concur with it.

Hopefully they fix it soon.

I really don't see much of a problem with this, certainly not one that would require a hard errata. Very few ships don't have linked actions that don't involve focus. Punishers don't have EPTs, so bombers with their BR > TL, and E-wings with their choice of boost or BR. That's it, those two ships are the only ones that can do it. One a fairly fragile ordinance platform, the other being one of the most expensive small ships in the game. If anything, this explains why the E-wing costs so **** much.

12 minutes ago, DarkArk said:

I really don't see much of a problem with this, certainly not one that would require a hard errata. Very few ships don't have linked actions that don't involve focus. Punishers don't have EPTs, so bombers with their BR > TL, and E-wings with their choice of boost or BR. That's it, those two ships are the only ones that can do it. One a fairly fragile ordinance platform, the other being one of the most expensive small ships in the game. If anything, this explains why the E-wing costs so **** much.

I love TIE Interceptors. They're probably my favorite ship in the Star Wars universe. I'm very happy with the 2.0 version, but Composure permits the old Turtle effect if you're anywhere near a rock (and I typically am). This brings back token stacking, the elimination of which was a major part of 2.0. I want to win games based on my skill with flying my ships around, not with how many tokens I can stack that make me impossible to kill. Force me to fly smart, not rely on rules to do my work for me. Again, I'm talking about the spirit of this current incarnation of the game. Composure seems similar to Luke Gunner - it's a crutch for players that can't judge distance (Luke is for folks that can't gauge where their opponents will be). Experienced players should gain less from Composure, but as it stands, it could wind up an auto-include for Squints. I really don't think we want that as a collective. Auto-includes mess up the game. Diversity makes for meaningful gameplay.

Again, the point is currently moot anyway. I agree with the assessment of how the rule works right now. I simply stated I expect them to change it to fit with the goals they've repeatedly proposed from FFG.

5 minutes ago, Bad Idea Comics said:

I love TIE Interceptors. They're probably my favorite ship in the Star Wars universe. I'm very happy with the 2.0 version, but Composure permits the old Turtle effect if you're anywhere near a rock (and I typically am). This brings back token stacking, the elimination of which was a major part of 2.0. I want to win games based on my skill with flying my ships around, not with how many tokens I can stack that make me impossible to kill. Force me to fly smart, not rely on rules to do my work for me. Again, I'm talking about the spirit of this current incarnation of the game. Composure seems similar to Luke Gunner - it's a crutch for players that can't judge distance (Luke is for folks that can't gauge where their opponents will be). Experienced players should gain less from Composure, but as it stands, it could wind up an auto-include for Squints. I really don't think we want that as a collective. Auto-includes mess up the game. Diversity makes for meaningful gameplay.

Again, the point is currently moot anyway. I agree with the assessment of how the rule works right now. I simply stated I expect them to change it to fit with the goals they've repeatedly proposed from FFG.

Composure only works if you have no green tokens, hard to token stack

8 minutes ago, Sir13scott said:

Composure only works if you have no green tokens, hard to token stack

Was going to say this too. Kinda confused what the debate is here. The rules clearly state, too lazy to exact reference, you can’t do the same action twice in a row. Therefore the best you get out of this is 1 focus, after failing something else, and having no evades to begin with. All this grants is the action not a token.

Also correct me if I am wrong because I don’t have a solid wording in front of me but I’m pretty sure you don’t get the link action if you fail the enambler. Again could be wrong on that but it’s kinda silly if I am.

28 minutes ago, Sir13scott said:

Composure only works if you have no green tokens, hard to token stack

Ah, I was missing that part. Man, I gotta start looking at these cards more carefully. I was worried you could go back to the old Evade and Focus nonsense, obviously. Since that's not the case, winner winner, chicken dinner.

1 hour ago, LordFajubi said:

Was going to say this too. Kinda confused what the debate is here. The rules clearly state, too lazy to exact reference, you can’t do the same action twice in a row. Therefore the best you get out of this is 1 focus, after failing something else, and having no evades to begin with. All this grants is the action not a token.

Also correct me if I am wrong because I don’t have a solid wording in front of me but I’m pretty sure you don’t get the link action if you fail the enambler. Again could be wrong on that but it’s kinda silly if I am.

The main upside would be that it lets a ship do 2 actions without a stress. For example an interceptor can boost then attempt a barrel roll, have it fail, and get a white focus. You're correct that you don't get the linked action if you fail the first one, but the whole point was to use it on the second action.

I don't think it's a big problem or anything, but for 2 points it is quite good. Although definitely it's best use was the E-wing (reposition plus white focus was really nice, especially because it doesn't have any green turns), which seems to not work based on what @__underscore__ pointed out.

3 minutes ago, evcameron said:

The main upside would be that it lets a ship do 2 actions without a stress. For example an interceptor can boost then attempt a barrel roll, have it fail, and get a white focus. You're correct that you don't get the linked action if you fail the first one, but the whole point was to use it on the second action.

I don't think it's a big problem or anything, but for 2 points it is quite good. Although definitely it's best use was the E-wing (reposition plus white focus was really nice, especially because it doesn't have any green turns), which seems to not work based on what @__underscore__ pointed out.

For what that ship costs it deserves the bump lol

3 hours ago, LordFajubi said:

For what that ship costs it deserves the bump lol

Yeah I honestly think as written it works right now. Who knows if that will last

i really dont see how this could be "fixed" without utterly screwing over a handful of other ships.

Short of composure being the first hard-eratta anyway. By that i mean change it to have a charge so you can only do it once anyway so big whooptiedoo (maybe twice)

2 hours ago, Vineheart01 said:

i really dont see how this could be "fixed" without utterly screwing over a handful of other ships.

Short of composure being the first hard-eratta anyway. By that i mean change it to have a charge so you can only do it once anyway so big whooptiedoo (maybe twice)

I think the simplest fix (if one is needed) is to make the focus action that you get the same color as the action that failed.

So now if you use it off a linked action, you are no longer getting 2 actions with no stress.

3 hours ago, evcameron said:

I think the simplest fix (if one is needed) is to make the focus action that you get the same color as the action that failed.

So now if you use it off a linked action, you are no longer getting 2 actions with no stress.

Or make failed red actions still give you stress. Thought that kinda odd to rule it the way they did. Red actions are something that in doing it causes you pressure from difficulty. You would think failing it would cause more stress not less. It would end a lot of other shenanigans too which I am more than fine with.