"After you defend, Zam Wesell recovers 1 charge . Then, you may acquire a lock on the attacker."

"A card cannot recover a charge if all of its charges are on their active side." - from rules reference

Can you do the second part, acquire a lock, if you cannot recover a charge?

I don't think you can. It'd say "Zam recovers 1 charge and you may acquire" if you could. As written there is an implied "If you do".

6 minutes ago, Hiemfire said:

I don't think you can. It'd say "Zam recovers 1 charge and you may acquire" if you could. As written there is an implied "If you do".

No, because Dalan Oberos doesn't work that way: '"That ship loses 1 shield and you recover 1 shield" is a single effect, and so both parts must be able to resolve for either to occur.' - rules reference

Also at the other card there is: " After you defend you, you may spend 2 charges from Zam Wesell . If you do, perform a bonus attack against the attacker. " Here there are words 'if you do'.

not clear. annoyingly, this card uses the word "then", which according to the good old intertial dampeners ruling indicates that it's two different effects. it's just a single ability, though. so i'm still going with @Hiemfire here. if you can't recover a charge, you don't get a lock.

As meffo says, it indicates it's two different effects. I don’t think the intent was for either to be dependent on the other, but you have to put them in some order on the card when they have the same trigger.

So the big question is, how do we parse the phrase, "Do X. Then, you may do Y." ? Is Y dependent upon successfully doing X, or are X and Y merely related by sequence (do one before the other)? To my knowledge, there aren't any abilities in X-Wing that are specifically parsed that way , where X is something that could fail, AND Y is something that could subsequently succeed. Is it etymologically equivalent to the single-sentence version: "Do X, then you may do Y?" Is there an implied "if you do" at the beginning of the second sentence?

Myself, I'm cautiously leaning towards the interpretation that the two effects (recovering a charge, and acquiring a lock) are independent , neither one being contingent upon the other succeeding. In this case, if you had full charges, even though you would be unable to complete the first sentence, it wouldn't impact your ability to do the second sentence.

it doesn't matter that it's two different effects. there are a ton of abilities that can be split into a number of effects. i'm still leaning towards having to recover a charge to be able to acquire a lock. i really don't like the word "then" in ability text, though. it could go either way.

We just had a discussion about this, and I think there is a reasonable comparison in resistance Chewie:

I think Chewie can perform the bonus attack even if he fails or cannot or chooses not to perform an action; therefore I am also of the opinion that Zam can acquire a lock without recovering a charge.

27 minutes ago, Maui. said:

We just had a discussion about this, and I think there is a reasonable comparison in resistance Chewie:
I think Chewie can perform the bonus attack even if he fails or cannot or chooses not to perform an action; therefore I am also of the opinion that Zam can acquire a lock without recovering a charge.

Yeeeah. I'm * kinda * leaning toward this being the case.

While "Then" isn't specifically defined in the rules mechanically, nearly every time it is used *in* the rules, points to <This happens>. (Then, no matter what) <This happens>. Granted, its extremely loose, this argument. And im not dead set on it or anything. But just as one example.

Quote

Modify Attack Dice: The players resolve abilities that modify the attack dice. The defending player resolves their abilities first, then the attacking player resolves their abilities.

In the case of dice modification, regardless if the defending player actually resolved any abilities, the attacking player still gets to resolve theirs. The attacking player's option to resolve their abilities, isn't dependent on if the defending player resolved any of theirs.

A lot of the text in the rules references seems to work like this when using 'then'. As i said though, that is an extremely loose (and reaching) argument for it.

3 hours ago, Maui. said:

We just had a discussion about this, and I think there is a reasonable comparison in resistance Chewie:

I think Chewie can perform the bonus attack even if he fails or cannot or chooses not to perform an action; therefore I am also of the opinion that Zam can acquire a lock without recovering a charge.

i would agree, if you should thank me said "zam wesell may recover a (charge). then, [...]", but since chewies action is completely optional per the card text, i don't think he holds up well as an example.

Is there even another example of a card that instructs you to do something but you don't have an option to do that? Maybe it is just error in text, because clearly there should be 'may recover 1 charge'?

7 hours ago, Boreas Mun said:

Is there even another example of a card that instructs you to do something but you don't have an option to do that? Maybe it is just error in text, because clearly there should be 'may recover 1 charge'?

Mace Windu : After you fully execute a red maneuver, recover 1

General Grievous (Crew): After a friendly ship is destroyed, recover 1 .

Elusive: After you fully execute a red maneuver, recover 1 .

Granted, nothing occurs after. So there is no "then do this". And the rules clarify that if you have no inactive charges, you cant recover them.

The ability reads "Do X. Then do Y." I think it is just stating the order of operation, not an if/then statement. Otherwise it should read "Do X. If you do, then do Y." Here, that would be worded as "...recover 1 charge. If you do, then you may acquire lock on the defender."

With the Chewbacca defense presented by @Maui. , it pretty much seals the deal for me.

On 11/30/2020 at 2:20 PM, 5050Saint said:

The ability reads "Do X. Then do Y." I think it is just stating the order of operation, not an if/then statement. Otherwise it should read "Do X. If you do, then do Y." Here, that would be worded as "...recover 1 charge. If you do, then you may acquire lock on the defender."

With the Chewbacca defense presented by @Maui. , it pretty much seals the deal for me.

I like this a lot.

This seems like a case of do what the card says, don’t do what the card doesn’t say (did I say that right?)

On 11/30/2020 at 3:20 PM, 5050Saint said:

The ability reads "Do X. Then do Y." I think it is just stating the order of operation, not an if/then statement. Otherwise it should read "Do X. If you do, then do Y." Here, that would be worded as "...recover 1 charge. If you do, then you may acquire lock on the defender."

With the Chewbacca defense presented by @Maui. , it pretty much seals the deal for me.

But that really does not address the “may” in Chewie’s text. However, as @meffo said...

On 11/29/2020 at 3:01 PM, meffo said:

i would agree, if you should thank me said "zam wesell may recover a (charge). then, [...]", but since chewies action is completely optional per the card text, i don't think he holds up well as an example.

... which was the first thing I thought when I read Chewie also, so it’s not as compelling as I wish it were.

It seems to me that probably *should* be two independent clauses, and that they *probably meant* it to be two independent clauses, but it really isn’t entirely clear. Chewie is not quite equivalent. I would probably lean toward the two abilities on Zam being independent, but more because of what I imagine to be RAI.

2 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

But that really does not address the “may” in Chewie’s text. However, as @meffo said...

I get it, but The text from Chewie and something like DGS-047 are much closer to Zam's text than any other text I can find (currently). There are plenty of examples of the "Do X. If you do, then do Y" which Zam's text avoids.

If they had wanted to Zam to not proceed to the lock, the common terminology that they use is "if you do, then...".

4 hours ago, 5050Saint said:

I get it, but The text from Chewie and something like DGS-047 are much closer to Zam's text than any other text I can find (currently). There are plenty of examples of the "Do X. If you do, then do Y" which Zam's text avoids.

If they had wanted to Zam to not proceed to the lock, the common terminology that they use is "if you do, then...".

Seems like there are three elements to Zam that we haven't seen in this particular combination:

1. The first effect is mandatory.
2. The second effect is optional.
3. The two effects are in separate sentences.

Personally, though, I'm inclined to think that the separate sentences makes the two effects independent of one another (rather than the second one relying on the resolution of the first). I don't think the mandatory or optional nature of the abilities has any bearing; there is no plainly written causal connection (i.e. "if you do") between the two, only sequential (i.e. "then").

Same Card - Different question

If you defend multiple times, can you recover multiple charges in the same round of shooting?

1 hour ago, freakyg3 said:

If you defend multiple times, can you recover multiple charges in the same round of shooting?

Yes, it appears so, as the only stipulation is "after you defend" for the charge recovery.