So this came up in a game yesterday and reading through the rules I was getting mixed feelings about the conclusion. My opponent was flying Darth Vader with Afterburners and Supernatural Reflexes.

Afterburners - After you fully execute a speed 3-5 maneuver, you may spend 1 standard charge to perform a boost action, even while stressed.

Supernatural Reflexes - Before you activate, you may spend 1 force charge to perform a barrel roll or boost action. Then, if you performed an action you do not have on your action bar, suffer 1 hit damage.

He attempted to use Supernatural Reflexes to barrel roll, only to fail the action. The question arose whether or not he had to spend the force charge since he did not complete the action. The same scenario came up later when attempted to use Afterburners to boost, which also presents a second question of whether or not the ship takes 1 hit damage for a failed action.

Looking at the rules, I could not find anything about the costs for failed actions. The closest I could find was, "If a red action fails, the ship does not gain a stress token." which would seem to indicate that the ship would not take the penalty for a failed action.

What do other people think?

I actually can't give any proof about this, but I think the wording of the card states that you have to spend a charge first, in order to perform the action.

So the charge would already be gone, when the action fails.

To me, it reads that he'd have to spend the charge/force token because the card reads that you spend before you perform. Compare that to red actions, which are actions with the added drawback of receiving a stress token (upon completion). Afterburners/Supernatural Reflexes don't cost a token upon completion, they cost a token to perform.

3 minutes ago, Schu81 said:

I actually can't give any proof about this, but I think the wording of the card states that you have to spend a charge first, in order to perform the action.

So the charge would already be gone, when the action fails.

Yup that's my read.

Red actions don't give stress as they fail. I'd consider paying a charge on Afterburners to be similar: paying a cost to perform an action. If you cannot perform the attack, the cost does not have to be paid.

The rules on failed aren't really explicit on non-stress costs, but I think red actions are close enough, and there's a justice to not having to waste a charge. I mean, Proton Torpedos and such don't spend charges unless you actually attack.

On 9/14/2018 at 10:24 PM, theBitterFig said:

Red actions don't give stress as they fail. I'd consider paying a  charge on Afterburners to be similar: paying a cost to perform an action. If you cannot perform the attack, the cost does not have to be paid.  

The rules on failed aren't really  explicit  on non-stress costs, but I think red actions are close enough, and there's a justice to not having to waste a charge. I mean, Proton Torpedos and such  don't spend charges unless you actually attack.   

Could be a matter of timing, though.

The Rules Reference states on page 3: "After a ship performs a red action, it gains one stress token".

So, if a red action fails, it did not perfom the red action at all, so it doesn't get a stress token after that.

Afterburners and Supernatural Reflexes have a got a different wording. They demand you to "pay" a charge first, before you get to try your desired action. So, if the action fails, the tokens would already be gone, if you actually follow the steps of the card word by word.

Correct. You don't heven have the opportunity to find otu if the action fails before you pay the cost. You don't get to rewind back to before the action took place.

not very clear. there is some information in the rules reference on this, but it's not that easy to interpret.

Paying Costs
A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved.
• For example, GNK “Gonk” Droid’s ability says “Action: Spend 1 [charge] to recover 1 shield.” The ship cannot spend the charge if it has no inactive shields.

since this is the only example i could find, it seems logical to assume that you don't have to pay for failed actions. on the other hand, there are clear indications on what happens when you fail certain actions. it is also worth noting that spending the force or the charge to perform the boost or barrel roll from supernatural reflexes, or the boost from afterburners, is not part of the action. they are costs paid to be able to perform the action at that time, in contrast to the gonk-action from the example above. this leads me to believe you pay the cost and then try to perform the action. if the action fails, the effect is instead resolved in the default way for that action - and you don't get any charges back.

"• If a boost fails, the ship is returned to its prior position before it attempted the boost."
"• If a barrel roll fails, the ship is returned to its prior position before it attempted the barrel roll."

I have a question very much associated with this.

My friend tried a barrel roll with supernatural reflexes but failed.

Then after activation he did a barrel roll.

A debate insued

I felt that he used his single barrel roll that round before his activation. But since he didn't actually DO a roll, he felt he could still do it.

Thoughts?

The design of x-wing contains very important feature - you cannot premeasure, which brings more skill into gameplay. If we want to be consistent here, we should interpret rules in line with game design. You cannot premeasure barrel roll, so you need to decide. Good decision is rewarded with a barrel roll, bad decision is punished with resource being consumed on the attempt. This is both thematic and in line with game design, just like micalculated maneuver, in result which you cannot shoot.

There are lots of cases where the costs are not paid if you cannot do the thing. Torpedoes (you don't spend a charge if the target is out of range), Red Actions (you don't take stress if you fail), Gonk (can't spend if you can't recharge a shield). However, the game is designed with an intent to fail actions. Boosts and Barrel Rolls are key examples in 2e. With a normal action, or if someone coordinated them or so forth, the price of failure is typically just the opportunity lost. Can't fit the boost? You've lost your action which could have been something else.

I think the argument that Afterburners still pays a charge in a failed boost to be non-trivial. But I think there's implications from other effects for charges not being spent. Personally, if I view it as a 50%/50%, I'd rather come down on the side of not paying costs for failed actions. I think it's more "just" and "fair" if folks only lose the opportunity, instead of having to pay the full costs of it as well.

However, I think there exists a good-faith, well-supported rules reading in either direction.

I think the rules reference is unclear enough to warrant an FAQ or similar. I can see both:

If you failed at an action, you can't perform that action again later that turn.
You did perform it, it just resolved in a way you didn't want it to. The rules reference states nowhere that a failed action doesn't count as performed, so you performed it and therefore can't perform it again.

If you failed at an action, you can still perform that action later that turn.
On the other hand , Linked actions only state "Linked actions allow a ship to perform an action after performing another action.", not talking about "successfully" or "after completing another action". The sentence "If an action fails, since the action was not completed, that ship cannot perform a linked action." shows up at the failed actions with a bit of weird reasoning - yes, it wasn't completed, but Linked Action technically doesn't demand an action to be completed, only performed. So by that logic a not completed action is not considered performed. This is supported by the fact that a ship gains a red token after performing a red action. If it fails, it doesn't get a red token, suggesting that "perform an action" means "attempt an action" and "attempt and successfully complete an action" depending on context.

Personally, I think the second interpretation is the correct one. They should add a sentence like "An action only counts as performed if it has been successfully completed" or "There is no maximum limit to the number of actions a ship can perform over the course of a round, but a ship cannot perform the same action more than once during a single round, no matter whether it resolved successfully or failed.."

Yeah I would really like an FAQ on this as currently on the side of you not getting the charge or force token back, but I'd love to be wrong as it would really help my list out.

On 9/17/2018 at 1:11 AM, meffo said:

not very clear. there is some information in the rules reference on this, but it's not that easy to interpret.  

Paying Costs
A ship can pay a cost for an effect only if the effect can be resolved.
• For example, GNK “Gonk” Droid’s ability says “Action  : Spend 1 [charge] to recover 1 shield.” The ship cannot spend the charge if it has no inactive shields.   


I understand what you mean and I think you're making a good point here, but the meaning of this rule could be different, though.

Maybe the devs just don't want anybody to "pay" costs for things they can't achieve anyway, just to trigger additonal effects.

Just like paying the costs for Gonk, while there is no shield you could reload. Or Garven Dreis, paying a focus token on 0 <eye> results, just to put the token on another ship.

So maybe the "pay a cost is only possible when the effect can be resolved" just means, that you're not allowed to do impossible things.

But a boost... might be possible. Sometimes you have to check, to find out

I mean, the boost can be resolved. It's just not getting resolved the way you wanted it to.

There seems to be a precedent with the way you drop bombs - if you can’t drop it because it overlaps the edge of the board, you reverse the play and recover the charge, so more and more it feels like if you can't resolve an action, you get the charge back.

When they finally do FAQ's for 2.0 it will help.

The new rules reference is out.

Nothing about costs, but we know now that we can't try an action again if it already failed this turn AND that it still generates stress. This is another example of "If the action fails you get all the drawbacks and none of the benefits", so I'd say the charge is gone.

One other area that is worth looking at in the Rules Reference is the section on Failing actions:

Quote

FAIL

Some effects can FAIL , which means the effect did not resolve as intended and instead is resolved in a default way.

My interpretation of this text combined with the PAYING COSTS section already cited is that all actions either resolve or don't resolve. Actions don't resolve when it's not possible for them to resolve. This is distinct from "failing", which is defined here as a subcategory of "resolving". So if you pay for an action and the action fails, it has still resolved (just not as you may have intended), so there is no 'refund' on the cost.

7 hours ago, Transmogrifier said:

One other area that is worth looking at in the Rules Reference is the section on Failing actions:

My interpretation of this text combined with the PAYING COSTS section already cited is that all actions either resolve or don't resolve. Actions don't resolve when it's not possible for them to resolve. This is distinct from "failing", which is defined here as a subcategory of "resolving". So if you pay for an action and the action fails, it has still resolved (just not as you may have intended), so there is no 'refund' on the cost.

My lack of gaming is probably the reason why I don't quite understand this

So (and please correct me if I'm wrong about this) all normal actions that you don't 'pay' for either resolve or don't, and if they don't they always 'fail'.

But if you pay for an action it resolves every time, even if you can't actually do it?

Is that right? It feels wrong, but like I say I'm not 100% with gaming rules and thier dissection (I just like flying small ships around )

All actions get resolved one way or the other. "Resolved" just means it somehow finishes.
If it succeeds you resolved it in the way you wanted to.
If it fails it gets resolved in a default way (usually "Nothing happens, but you might still get stress").

Just to be sure, if you fail an action, you can't choose another action to take, right?

12 minutes ago, Jaden Corr said:

Just to be sure, if you fail an action, you can't choose another action to take, right?

You can neither take another action nor can you attempt the same action later that turn.

11 minutes ago, GermanBlackbot said:

All actions get resolved one way or the other. "Resolved" just means it somehow finishes.
If it succeeds you resolved it in the way you wanted to.
If it fails it gets resolved in a default way (usually "Nothing happens, but you might still get stress").

This is obviously different to what Transmogrifier said, so it's very hard to understand why a payed for action (with a charge or focus), isn't able to fail, and be treated as a fail.

It's for these reasons that I just need FFG to say a plain 'yes you lose the charge' or 'you regain the charge'.

I don't think it's that different.
Transmogrifier said

8 hours ago, Transmogrifier said:

My interpretation of this text [...] is that all actions either resolve or don't resolve. Actions don't resolve when it's not possible for them to resolve. This is distinct from "failing", which is defined here as a subcategory of "resolving". So if you pay for an action and the action fails, it has still resolved (just not as you may have intended), so there is no 'refund' on the cost. 

Bolding by me.
So it's like this:

• You can only pay for an effect if the effect can be resolved.
• An action can succeed or fail. Either way, it gets resolved.
• Therefore you have to pay for the action. It got resolved (if it failed not in the way you intended).

Don't overthink it. You are not allowed to pay for an effect that isn't able to get resolved, so you wouldn't be able to pay for Supernatural Reflexes if you already did both a boost and a barrel roll this round (because then you are not able to choose a legal action). But this is not the case here. You choose a legal action, it fails, so it gets resolved in a way you don't like. But it still gets resolved.

So it still fails, but it doesn't obey the 'failure to resolve' rule that things like bombs have?