I'm going with the ambiguity of the wording on Dutch's card. If his card had said,"The chosen ship may immediately focus." Does that mean it's taking the focus action? Or does that mean it's granted a focus token? There is a difference there which gets to the heart of the matter of the question at hand.

Night Beast's card specifically says "may take a free focus action", and Garven's card says "may place that token". But Dutch's card doesn't say "May perform a free Acquire a Target Lock action" or "may place Target Lock tokens".

So how do you acquire a target lock? I think you do so by performing the action as listed on page 9, which DSA prevents. If you're saying, "I can acquire a target lock without performing the acquire a target lock action,", then Dutch's card should have been worded to say something like "the chosen ship may be assigned target lock tokens" or some such. It isn't worded to say either of those things, hence there is ambiguity there. And the debate lies in the interpretation of Dutch's card. I've always understood it to mean you are performing the action. But you might say you're just getting the tokens without actually taking the action.

And the R5 FAQ is in response to the question asking if it violates the taking the same action twice in a round rule. In which case, you have already taken the Acquire a Target Lock action, and are maintaining it on the same ship instead of taking the same action twice. The DSA card prevents you from taking the action in the first place.

But, I agree that there is grounds for a clarification from FFG.

I don't think there's any actual inconsistency in capitalization of action names. Outside of the headers in the rule book, references to action names are always lower case. This is consistent in the rule book, the FAQ, and card templating. What makes Night Beast's ability an action is not whether or not it's capitalized, it's whether or not it says it's an action.

I understand what the K6 question is about, but its answer is unambiguous - it's not an action. Yes, the question is specifically addressing the limitation on repeating an action, but why would that matter? Either it's an action, in which case all the limitations on taking actions - stress, once per round, etc - apply, or it's not, and they don't. You can't pick and choose, and the FAQ states, clearly and directly, that it is not an action .

I think you're also basically (sorry to be so blunt) making stuff up about how R5-K6 works. It does not say that you maintain the lock, it doesn't say you keep the tokens - it says you acquire a target lock, with the restriction that the new lock is on the same ship. This is a new lock in every way, and there's nothing to imply that it's not.

I honestly don't know how you look at R5-K6 and Dutch, who have IDENTICAL wording on their cards, and come to two different conclusions on how they should be read. Why didn't they say "Place a pair of target lock tokens" for Dutch? Because that doesn't specify range. Because it doesn't cover a ship only having one lock at a time. Because the rules for acquiring a target lock take up half a page in the book, recreating them all on the card would be tricky, and if you didn't recreate all of them it would cause even more confusion. If a card said "Place a pair of target lock tokens" would I be restricted to only doing that on a ship in range? Would I even be restricted to placing it on the acting ship?

We have firm examples where the name of an action is used without it automatically implying that it's an action. R5-K6 is one, the errata on Expert Handling is another. The specification of "action" in abilities like Night Beast also points strongly to this division, as there would be no need for it if "focus" always meant "focus action". So, with that in mind, a simple question: Are there any citations which can be provided that say that the name of an action always means that as an action?

Here is my case:

Dutch's card: "After acquiring a target lock"

STOP. How does Dutch acquire a target lock? Answer that question. He MUST take the Acquire a Target Lock action. Whether he's taking the action during his own Perform Action step, or he's given a free action from Lando or a Squad Leader, he's still taking the action. But the card doesn't say "after performing the acquire a target lock action". So I'm lead to infer FROM DUTCH'S OWN CARD that "acquire a target lock" means taking the Acquire a Target Lock action because that's how Dutch himself acquires a target lock. I'm using Dutch's own card as precedence for the ability on Dutch's card.

But he could use R5K6 you say? True, he could. Let's look at some other upgrade card examples.

R2F2 counts as an action, because it has "action" in the header

Expert Handling counts as an action because it has "action" in the header. Moreso, it counts as a barrel roll action, as given in the FAQ, for purposes of performing the same action twice in the same game round.

R5K6 does not have "action" in its header. So the FAQ ruled that using R5K6's ability does not count as an action for purposes of performing the same action twice in the same game round.

So if Dutch is equipped with R5K6, here's how it plays out:

Dutch acquires a target lock by taking the Acquire a Target Lock action
Dutch allows friendly ship to acquire a target lock by taking the Acquire a Target Lock action
Dutch spends target lock, uses R5K6. Dutch acquires a target lock on the same ship using R5K6's ability, which was ruled to not be an action in the FAQ for purposes of performing the same action twice in the same game round.
Dutch allows another friendly ship to acquire a target lock by taking the Acquire a Target Lock action

That is my interpretation. I understand the debate is about whether the friendly ship actually takes the action or just gets the tokens. I believe there is ambiguity in Dutch's card, and clearing up the wording would solve this issue. I believe FFG shold specify whether the friendly ship takes the action or not. Judging by the opening sentence of Dutch's own card, I say it does take an action, and therefore Damaged Sensor Array would prevent the ship from taking the action.

That is my case.

hothie said:

Okay, two major problems here.

First is your core premise, that the only way Dutch can acquire a target lock is via the action. There's absolutely nothing to support that, on Dutch's card, implied or otherwise.

But the bigger problem is that you don't even believe it. In your scenario for how R5-K6 and Dutch interact, you present a scenario where Dutch gets a target lock by a means other than the action, and triggers his ability based off that. You contradict your own MUST above.

You're also making some rather creative assumptions about R5-K6. Something cannot be "not an action…for the purposes of performing the same action twice". It's either an action, or it's not. You're trying to draw this distinction that R5-K6 is an action for some parts of the rules, and not an action for others. Again, there's absolutely nothing to support that. It uses the once-per-turn as an example of what not being an action means, but if it's not an action, it's not an action.

It's also irrelevant whether R5-K6 says "Action" in the header. The header indicates when you use it, and whether it costs you an action in order to do so. It says nothing about whether the effect qualifies as an action. Push the Limit does not have "Action" in the header, yet clearly generates an action, with all the appropriate limitations of doing so.

Buhallin said:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/x-wing/support/SWX01_XwingCoreRulebook_lowres.pdf

Here's a link to the rulebook. You may want to pay particular attention to page 9. That's where it talks about the Acquire a Target Lock action.

Buhallin said:

I'm saying R5-K6's ability is not an action, as is consistent with the FAQ and the rulebook, again, conveniently on page 9. Again, take a look at the bottom of the page.

And are you trying to say that acquiring a target lock doesn't require an action? Because I'm guessing Rebels win every single game where you play, if they can take the focus action AND acquire a target lock every single round. Or is there also not a precedence for gaining a focus token in your rulebook as well?

I think there is some ambiguity about whether it is an action and whether a ship incapable of acquiring a target lock is capable of acquiring a target lock. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but along with several other experienced players who are well versed in the rules, I claim it is ambiguous.

The only arguement left in this thread currently is one of whether or not we think it is ambiguous, and no amount of repeating the same ambiguous text is going to make seem it less ambiguous to those who think it is ambiguous.

Was that clear?

Anyway. I get your arguement B, I just think it's far less clear than the certain you have for it. And luckily there is a mechanism for clearing it up, which is already in motion. In the end we'll either get a ruling, or possibly a FAQ entry or other clarification. Till then, it's horse meat on the menu tonight.

@paradox: I understand where you think the ambiguity comes from, and even agree with it. I think there's plenty of evidence that the terms for an action, and what you do for that action, are used interchangeably. To answer hothie's question above, you can acquire a target lock by means of the "acquire a target lock action", but the action is not the only means to acquire a target lock, any more than the barrel roll action is the only means to perform a barrel roll.

What I'm less OK with is the increasingly fantastical rules interpretations that are coming out here, and the downright insulting tone that's developing. The deployment of the "Action:" header as some way to determine whether a component element of an ability qualifies as an action is such a fundamental misunderstanding of what that header means that I feel it's actively misleading to even suggest it.

I've also made several points, and asked several questions, which have gone unaddressed. By hothie's creatrive interpretation, the original text for Expert Handling had you perform a barrel roll action - because "barrel roll" and "barrel roll action" are the same, and Expert Handling is an Action, so the barrel roll action stays an action. Or maybe because it's an action it doesn't become a not-action the way target lock does for R5-K6. Or something. But regardless, by every bit of argument deployed in this discussion, "Action: Perform a barrel roll" means that you use the barrel roll action.

So… why the errata?

The core of the suggested ambiguity is whether or not the name of an action can refer to both the action, and what you do for that action. Is "acquire a target lock" always the "acquire a target lock action"? Is "barrel roll" always the action? I've put forth several cases which pretty clearly show that it's used in both ways. I think we've also got good evidence that says the way you tell those two things apart is by whether or not it says it's an action. Again, the Expert Handling errata points very strongly in this direction.

The one point I freely and openly grant here is the "capable of performing this action can maintain only one target lock" line. I think you're reading too much into it, but that's mostly because if it's intended to mean what you say then it's a very, VERY badly written rule. What I have less tolerance for is the twisting of rules to support broader positions, trying to create a very convoluted case for why two abilities with identical wording function differently. That's confusing and unnecessary, and as near as I can tell isn't driven by anything but a need to be right. There's certainly no issue with the power level of the abilities in question, nothing's going to be broken or overpowered based on the interpretation. I feel like we're being dragged down an ego-loaded rabbit hole into an environment where the meaning of rules is being invented from whole cloth, and we're all worse off for it.

Expert handling clarifies what needs to be done to allow a ship incapable of performing a barrel roll action to do so; even then, the action you are taking is Expert Handling which triggers a free barrel roll action. We have no direct precedent for this… only similar situations, but even then, there is obviously some room for debate.

My guess is there will need to be some clearing up of Dutch's power or some clearing up of the target lock rules. Till then… [shrug].

As to the more personal assertations you are making, my need is to know what is right. I have repeatedly claimed not to be sure what is right and that is why we are asking for clarification. You are the only person here claiming to be 100% right… so yeah, I agree with you about the ego-loaded rabbit hole, but no offense… the irony is that I don't know if you realize who in this discussion is the most guilty of it. IMO, you might be right… I'm just not sure about it.

paradox23 said:

No, the errata does not clarify what needs to be done. What needs to be done was always clear, and there was never any question about whether the ship needed to be capable of performing a barrel roll. The errata changes "perform a barrel roll" to "perform a free barrel roll action". The relevance is this: Why is this errata at all? You and hothie are both fundamentally trying to say that if the name of an action is used, then that refers to the action, always, that there is no distinction between "acquire a target lock" and the "acquire a target lock action". If that is the case, why did this need errata at all? Under your interpretation, the errata changed nothing.

If, instead, "barrel roll" can be an action or not, then the errata makes sense, because it actually changes something. Under the original wording, Expert Handling would allow you to barrel roll without that barrel roll being an action. This would allow Vader, for example, to barrel roll twice during a turn, once via the barrel roll action on the bar, and once via Expert Handling, without hitting the once-per-turn limit on actions. This was discussed and debated greatly - in the end, since FFG felt the need to errata it to make it an action that suggests strongly that on the card as originally printed, the barrel roll was NOT an action and allowed a double barrel roll. What's more, this explains why it was an errata to the card, rather than a clarification that "barrel roll" always meant "barrel roll action". If Expert Handling was not intended to allow double barrel rolls, then it was necessary to make some change to the card to enforce that, because a simple clarification wouldn't accomplish that restriction.

In short, we have two very clear, very direct FAQ entries concerning whether or not "<action name>" is always used to refer to the action - and it's not. There are several other examples of wording that backs this up by distinguishing between "<action name>" and "<action name> action" in ways that wouldn't be necessary or relevant if they were the same.

paradox23 said:

<shrug> As you wish, although that wasn't directed at you. I've certainly pushed my read on the rules, but been met largely by unsupported assumptions, declarations of fact relating to nonexistent rules, denial of plain text rulings in the FAQ, rules interpretations that strive to justify handling identical wording two different ways, and rules interpretations that are so expansive and unfounded that fantasy barely does them credit. I'm honestly at a loss for how to have a reasoned rules debate with someone who wants identical words to mean different things on different cards. What you are considering ego I consider an attempt to correct blatantly misleading rules interpretations before they confuse anyone else, despite goggle-eyed astonishment at the suggestions being made.

But I think it's best to consider this one played out. Frustration is obviously starting to set in on all sides, so I'll just leave it alone until FFG clarifies it.

Ummm, I am wondering what you are reading… nowhere did I mention the errata in that statement. I just said, "Expert handling clarifies what needs to be done to allow a ship incapable of performing a barrel roll action to do so."

Action: Perform a barrel roll. If you do not have the [barrel roll] action icon, receive 1 stress token . You may then remove 1 enemy target lock from your ship.

On the card itself it tells you how to deal with ships that cannot perform the stated action.

You wrote an entire erroneous paragraph about a made up arguement that never existed. I think it's time we all take off the arguing pants for a while and put on the reading other people's posts before you reply to them pants.

I have only ever brought up Expert Handling in the context of what the errata says concerning whether or not "<action name>" and "<action name> action" are interchangeable. I'd assumed you were responding to that.

But as long as that's out there, the "Take a stress if you don't have the icon" part of Expert Handling concerns what you do if you don't, but says absolutely nothing about whether or not you could do the action if you didn't have the icon. If Expert Handling just said "Perform a free barrel roll action." and nothing else, you could still use it to barrel roll just fine. If you have a Damaged Sensor Array, it depends on whether or not you have the icon. If you do (say it's on a TIE Fighter) then you couldn't perform the action via Expert Handling either. If it were on an X-wing, you could.

In either case, it's not actually relevant to how Dutch interacts with the Damaged Sensor Array. The core issue is whether "acquire a target lock" always means the action, or not. That's the point I've been trying to discuss.

sirchristopher2 said:

Yes,

Dutch can give a free target lock to another ship, however, if that ship has a stress token it will be unable to acquire that target lock as acquiring the target lock requires an action (free or normal) and the stress token prevents any action from being used.

Dutch passes the ability to take the acquire target lock action immediately. A stress token prevents ANY action from happening

P.17 "While a ship has at least one stress token, it cannot execute red maneuvers or perform any actions"

You can lookup the resolution of Night beast and the free focus token while stressed to get a better understanding of what is happening.

There has been some talk as to whether Dutch's granting of a target lock grants an action or a free action. I believe that Dutch's target lock gift is a free action and that is based on the FAQ for R5K6 and the wording of "immediately" in his pilot ability text description. The action granted happens on Ducth's turn, so the pilot performing the acquire target lock will be doing it on Dutch's turn, not their own. Normal Actions happen during the perform action step, while free actions do not. That's the big distiction. Free actions happen at anytime, regardless of step or phase. So the action granted by Dutch is a free action.

"After acquiring a target lock, choose another friendly ship at range 1-2. The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock".

As for the second part of that quote, the lock action has already been taken so doing something that nets a stress token (such as performing a red maneuver) would only stop actions from when the stress token was granted to when it is cleared.

To sum up,

Give to a stressed ship= Yes (the ship just can't use it)

Would it keep the lock after doing a red maneuver = Yes, it did the action on Dutch's turn, before it did the red maneuver.

Sergovan said:

After reading 90% of the thread and leaving out the parts that where mostly intended to diss other posters, i would tend to disagree. I will tell you why:

I am not sure if a stressed ship can perform the action acquire target lock even if it clearly is a free action. A stress token prevents ANY action free or not according to your quote. But if you say something in R5K6 ruling acts as a precedence fir this case, i do believe you. So free actions may be performed on stressed ships. And this is necessary because Dutches card says that the other ship acquires the lock, it is not Dutches gift (as opposed to Garven) nor he doing it for the other guy.

But okay let's say the R5K6 makes a case and the stressed ship can target lock. So he gets the tokens.

Where i absolutely disagree with you as that you say he can not spend the tokens… Now this is clearly not an action, even very clearly so. There is just written that you put the tokens back into the reserve, then you reroll the dice you want. So why would a stressed ship not be able to use its tokens? Nothing prevents that to my knowing.

So i would say i am unsure if a stressed ship can acquire the lock even as a free action, but i do believe you if the R5K6 case says so, but if the ship has a lock, be it from Dutch or the turn before it can use it even while stressed.

Sergovan said:

You've invented multiple rules concepts that do not exist. Being "stressed" does not prevent you from spending any tokens, spending tokens in in no way an action, nor does gaining a stress token cause you to lose any other tokens you had. I'd ask you to read the rules again more carefully before weighing in on rules issues because you are quite off the mark with the basics.

Has anyone emailed FFG asking the simple question of "Is Dutch's ability granting a free action, or is it just granting tokens" because that is the crux of this "debate"

ScottieATF said:

Yup… about a week ago. I'll post in here when they respond.

I'm sorry. There are gamers that I'm trying hard to not be like, but I'm not doing a very good job of it. It's just that I don't appreciate being attacked (in multiple threads now) for expressing my opinion, and it irks me. For that I apologize. This community is better than that, and I need to do my part to keep it that way.

I would go on about defending my opinion, but it's just dead horse, so I'll let it be.

paradox23 said:

Hopefully they'll respond soon!

While it may be a bit of dead horse beating - I was pretty inclined towards hothie's view, and decided to check the FAQ, since it had been updated, and I hadn't looked at the updates… I noticed (from the old FAQ) the following

"Can a ship use R5-K6 to acquire a target

We see from the wording in the FAQ that FFG would denote performing a free acquire a target lock action - which suggests to me that since Dutch's wording doesn't spell out taking a free acquire a target lock action. (I think we can all agree on the first part - it doesn't matter if Dutch takes the action or not, his ability triggers when he recieves his target lock token.) The second part, I initially thought was a bit ambiguous, like the expert handling errata - in which we saw the perform verb, but the free and action were missing.

But, looking at the other ship cards, I think we can see an important precident. Turr Phennir and Lando Calrrissian (from wave 2) specifically refer to performing a free (descriptor) action, where that descriptor is the name of the action. Looking at wave 1, we see the pattern still in place, on Night Beast "You may perform a free focus action. It seems odd to me that they would leave the words perform, free and action off of dutch's text. So our group has decided that the "acquire a target lock" is actionless (Though we'll be happy to change our ways should an FAQ or Ruling come down that says otherwise).

The points in this thread are starting to make my head hurt but I think I can boil it down a bit to try and sum up the given arguments presented.

There are actions.

There are free actions.

There are things named like an action but are not an action or free action and so are not clarified in the ruleset we currently have as to how to rule on them.

Being stressed prevents performing any actions or free actions.

Being stressed does not prevent using of tokens or doing a thing named like an action but is not an action.

Is Dutch's ability granting an action, a free action, or A Thing Named Like An Action But Is Really Not?

I had thought that Dutch's abitlity was granting a free action. That seemed like the logical inference. So, a free action would be stopped by a stress token.

I was sure that Dutch's ability was granting a free action then I reread R5K6 and now I have no idea what it is. If it is an ATNAABIRN, then a stress token would not block it.

I am awaiting the response from FFG as to how to rule on this issue.

This issue seems to be getting under peoples skin and I think its because of some seeing Dutch's ability as granting a free action while others see it as a ATNAABIRN and some see it as only the tokens (I don't know why but they do!)

Hothie and Paradox23, keep patient. You guys have been right far more times than you have been wrong.

And to ScotieATF, at no time do I talk about tokens. I was defining Dutch's ability as granting a free "acquire target lock" action. Try reading it again, slowly.

Sergovan said:

You mention keeping a lock after preforming a red manuver, when niether of the rules interact with each other at that point in time. Preforming red manuvers does not drop target locks, nor does gaining stress tokens. So what exactly are you talking about?

To be perfectly honest I'd bet on Dutch's ability being meant as granting a Free Action, but currently as written it just allows ships to pick up target locks. I do not think it will stay that way from long but it doesn't say Free Action and I don't want to make inferences based on my own thoughts on designers intent. So currently if going by RAW I'd say it is not an action.

If we're going to try and divine intent (which I generally think is a bad idea), I actually think it's intended to work as without requiring an action, just like Garven's ability.

Garven and Dutch were Red Leader and Gold Leader (respectively) in the first Death Star run. They share similar roles. Both of them are very synergistic abilities which help other pilots perform better. Garven does it for focus, Dutch does it for target locks. Garven does not require an action - but it easily could have been something like "After performing a focus action, one friendly ship in Range 1-2 may take a free focus action" so that it did.

So, Garven and Dutch: Similar positions in the lore, both synergistic, each hands out freebies for one of the Rebel's two main actions, Garven does it without it being an action, and Dutch… <shrug>

I wouldn't dare try basing a ruling on that, but as long as we're trying to guess at intent I think the parallels are strong enough that the best guess would be to continue them.

Buhallin said:

I think you have a good point here, though intent is as you say quite the shaky foundation to build an argument on. The Garven/Dutch similarity just feels right, for all the reasons you stated. There is a bit of a difference in the timing, as Garven's ability does not happen until the focus is spent - Dutch's happens when taking the action. And, unlike Garven, it could not be a simple "place the token" ability because there are other requirements to consider for having a target lock.

I have changed my opinion on this subject, and it is mainly due to the FAQ ruling on R5-K6. Consider this - Dutch (equipped with R5-K6) has acquired a target lock on a previous turn (and given one to someone else per his ability). This turn he performs a red maneuver, and acquires a stress token. Move to Combat. Dutch attacks, and spends the target lock to reroll. R5-K6 kicks in and the player rolls an [evade]. Does Dutch get to acquire the target lock again, even though he's stressed? I say yes, because the FAQ says "this effect does not instruct the player to perform a free target lock action", therefore it does not violate the "no action when stressed" rule. I would extend this interpretation to Dutch's ability, which has the same wording - "immediately acquire a target lock", and not "perform a free target lock action". I think Dutch's ability would work on another ship even if stressed (unable to perform any actions) or critted with Damaged Sensor Array (cannot perform actions listed in the action bar).

Sergovan said:

One of the oddest things about this thread is that this is a rules quandry that I have never seen in action and is super unlikely to ever happen. I'm actually far more interested in the intent because of various inconsistencies. And the biggest question for me is still, "Can a ship that is forbidden from acquiring a target lock acquire a target lock?"

What I have come to understand about stress and actions is that a stress token prevents taking any action but does not block using tokens. If you target lock in one turn and get a stress token on your next turn, you still keep your target lock and can use it as the action was done the turn before. Using a token does not get stopped by a stress token.

If you have a stress token, Garven would still be able to pass you his focus token and you would be able to use it.

The disagreement seems to stem from does Dutch grant a free action or does he pass tokens.

If it was a free action, Dutch could pass the free action to the stressed ship but it would be stopped by the stress token.

But if he passes on tokens it would not be affected by the stress token.

paradox23 said:

This is the wrong question.

The question is "Can a ship that is forbidden from taking the acquire a target lock action acquire a target lock?"

There is not, as far as I know, any rule which prohibits any ship from acquiring a target lock. There are several which prevent actions, and one possible one which will provide an extra limitation based on whether or not you can take the action, but there is nothing that prevents you from acquiring a target lock. At the very least, nobody has presented one.