Buhallin,

I have enjoyed our conversation but we are at an impasse.

If I understand correctly, you believe target selection and weapon selection occur on a timeline, with discrete steps and timing. If this is true, several issues arise when selecting targets using turrets, not just the specific issue of Dark Curse and Blaster turrets, and you would like a more definitive step-by-step ruling on how/when these steps are taken.

I believe that weapon and target selection occur as simultaneous and inseparable parts of the target selection process. This in my mind resolves the issues that would occur if indeed there was a specific timeline.

So, what it boils down to is that you are asking for answers to a question (what order do these things occur in), and I am stating that I disagree with the question itself. I will not be able to answer your questions adequately, because I reject the premise. So, lets just agree that since we are not even asking the same question it is very unlikely that we could ever get the same answer.

In the meantime, I am hoping to see some of the people I have talked to here in Minnesota in November, including yourself. Perhaps a pint of our favorite stouts will help us resolve the issue. :-)

But your framing of simultaneous weapon/target selection does not actually fix the problem. Which is, again, that DC can't affect target selection until he is actually the target.

Whether weapon and target selection happen in steps or simultaneously doesn't actually affect the contradiction presented by the ruling. Again, simply: How can DC stop you from spending a focus before he is the target of the attack?

Just a thought (about how to solve the issue with the most minimal of side-effects)

For reference: the current Dark Curse text: "When defending, ships attacking you cannot spend focus tokens or reroll attack dice."

If the Dark Curse card text was changed to "When attacking Dark Curse, ships cannot spend focus tokens or reroll attack dice."

My guess is FFG wanted this to be clearer and less daunting of an issue to resolve. I suspect the original verbiage was considered, but not enough to anticipate the current confusion. If FFG could magically correct the text, on Dark Curse, would the wording I proposed still 1) provide the original intent 2) resolve itself within the Rules/FAQ defined sequence of making a attack and 3) be safe from other abuse?

It is not wrong for FFG to use the wording "While defending..." but scope of Dark Curse's ability seems to work more clearly (and within the Rules/FAQ as they stand today) if it uses "When attacking Dark Curse..." as the trigger.

RogueMorgan

Again, the impasse.

It is not possible to take an action that both targets Dark Curse and spends a focus token. The two are incompatible. There are no timing issues, the two simply cannot both be true at the same time. It does not matter what order you check the two variables, you cannot complete the action if both of them are true.

To answer your question more directly:

Q: "How can DC stop you from spending a focus before he is the target of the attack?"

A: "He cannot. DC makes any attack against him that requires the expenditure of a focus token at any point illegal."

RogueMorgan: I believe your rewrite would indeed make the issue more clear. The current wording can be interpreted that way, but your suggestion makes it so that it cannot be interpreted any other way. Thank you.

You keep mentioning Flow Chart.

You have mentioned flow charts several times so I'm guessing you do realize that there are flow charts with simultaneous actions that occur in no particular order as long as they are all done before the next step!

If I could figure out how to upload an image I would share it.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! I don't want to require a lawyer or memorize Roberts Rules of Order to play a simple game.

Respectfully, you are adding complication where none is needed. It is not in the rules and you want it to be.

Q: "How can DC stop you from spending a focus before he is the target of the attack?"

A: "He cannot. DC makes any attack against him that requires the expenditure of a focus token at any point illegal."

The problem is that the bolded portion is wrong. DC's ability does NOT make it illegal to spend focus tokens against him at any point. It makes it illegal to spend focus tokens against him when he is the defender. The answer you're giving simply isn't what the text of DC's ability says.

@RogueMorgan: I don't think that helps, because "When attacking Dark Curse" and "When defending" are synonymous. They could certainly errata DC's ability to resolve the issue, but it would need to do something to explicitly affect targeting.

[...] If FFG could magically correct the text, on Dark Curse, would the wording I proposed still 1) provide the original intent [...]

Unfortunately not since FFG said in the FAQ:

You keep mentioning Flow Chart.

You have mentioned flow charts several times so I'm guessing you do realize that there are flow charts with simultaneous actions that occur in no particular order as long as they are all done before the next step!

If I could figure out how to upload an image I would share it.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! I don't want to require a lawyer or memorize Roberts Rules of Order to play a simple game.

Respectfully, you are adding complication where none is needed. It is not in the rules and you want it to be.

I've pointed out repeatedly that you can take the flow through multiple options. But that's NOT the same as simultaneous, and if you think anything in a basic flow chart is simultaneous I don't think you understand them.

And, respectfully, I think you're refusing to acknowledge the rules as they exist. I've pointed out many times that the game has strict timing. I've explained how your "fluid" view is actually a strictly defined set of operations, complete with choice, and how it flows to actual target declaration.

If you don't want to deal with the strict timing, fine. If you don't like that it's there (a'la the obstacle/R2-D2 thing), that's fine too. But it most certainly is there, and you can't answer even the simplest card interaction questions wtihout it.

I've pointed out repeatedly that you can take the flow through multiple options. But that's NOT the same as simultaneous, and if you think anything in a basic flow chart is simultaneous I don't think you understand them.

You may think I do not understand them, nevertheless I have used them, published them in business, used them as program flow in multi-thread applications, used them in business process maps and had them reviewed by business process people.

You have rejected my basic premise and as such we do not even have a common ground to begin our discussion. I can see how this leads to our current impasse.

Still wish I could upload an image.

Stop being insulting. I know what it would look like.

And it's really NOT simultaneous. You have an option to measure or check arc or declare a target. You measure range, then you're back to the choice. You check arc, then you're back to the choice. You check arc on another ship, then you're back to the choice. Now you move to declare your target, and it's all downhill from there. Once you have declared a target, you can't go back and measure again.

But, as I've said before, even if measuring range and firing arc is simultaneous, its relation to target selection is not. It's clearly defined as BEFORE target delcaration. It is therefore separate.

I've rejected your premise because you've done absolutely nothing to support it. You're trying to use your solution to the dispute at hand in order to prove the dispute. That's circular. If, as you suggest, X-wing does not have tight timing resolution in its rules, then there should be other examples where the function can only be explained by simultaneous operation. But you have yet to provide any.

Again, simply: I can give you a dozen examples where rulings point to strict timing. Please, show me some ruling which relies on the nonexistence of strict timing.

If you can't, then you're basing your entire argument on an unprovable assertion which does not match the rules we have in front of us. And you're right - at that point, we are indeed at an impasse.

The way I'm seeing it, spending the focus token to use the blaster turret is fine until you decide to target Dark Curse, in which case you would have used a focus token to attack him. Basically, spending the focus token is like choosing a target and taking careful aim. I can get why people might not agree with that interpretation, but it doesn't bother me.

Stop being insulting. I know what it would look like.

I have worked with Flow Charts and program for many years and have often used simultaneous activities/actions. I simply thought we disagreed; you adding complication and me not seeing the need for precise timing on this particular step.

In absolutely no way did I mean to be insulting or offensive.

Truly I'm sorry and hope that you can accept my very sincere and honest apology.

I will not post on this thread or topic again.

I wish you the best in gaming and honestly do enjoy your blog.

Good luck.

<sigh>

Look, Ken, here's the thing.

You're making a broad statement about the foundational concept of how the X-wing rules engine flows, because it conveniently solves this issue. If your belief about the flow is accurate, you should be able to use it to predictively answer many other questions of rules and card interactions. At the very least, you should be able to point to rulings we have and retroactively justify them based on your understanding of the rules.

And you just haven't done that. Outside of this issue, did I miss other examples you provided which relied on your understanding in order to reach the conclusion? If I did, I certainly apologize.

I believe that X-wing has strict timing. I did not pick this structure because it would create this issue; I picked it long ago and have held to it consistently through my interpretation and presentation of rules. Overall, that foundation has served me well, and I think I've got a pretty good record for interpreting things correctly. That is entirely due to timing.

So please understand where I'm coming from with this foundation. I have seen it used and verified for the past six months or so, and up until the DC ruling it has worked fine. That means there are a few possibilities here:

1. I don't understand the fundamental timing structure of the game

2. X-wing uses a fundamentally tight timing structure everywhere EXCEPT targeting

3. Dark Curse is a "because I said so" ruling

I'm obviously disinclined to #1, and I think I've got a good enough track record that it's not just ego to say that. #2 is, I suppose, possible, but I'd hope to see more than just a "It makes this problem go away" to justify it.

I'm actually inclined to #3. We already have another example of it with the proximity mine ruling, which blatantly contradicts the card as printed.

A=Focus Spent (0, 1)

B=Target in Range (0, 1)

C=Target in Arc (0, 1)

D=Dark Curse is NOT target (0, 1)

You write it thus.

If A=1 then (if B=1 then (if C=1 then (if D=1 then (FireBlasterTurret=1) else (FireBlasterTurret=0)) else FireBlasterTurret=0) else FireBlasterTurret=0) else FireBlasterTurret=0

Unfortunately, this requires strict timing that would require the expenditure of focus at step 1 (if a=1) in order to even activate the attack, which is what you are saying. Changing the order of your if/then actions is impossible since step 4 (if d=1) is contingent on steps A, B, and C to occur (he cannot be the target unless the attacker has spent the focus to use the blaster, made sure he is in arc and in range).

I write it thus.

Bulhallin. GO **** YOURSELF WITH A MOTHER ******* RAZOR UNTIL YOU ARE FUCKUING DEAD!@

Changing the order of your if/then actions is impossible since step 4 (if d=1) is contingent on steps A, B, and C to occur (he cannot be the target unless the attacker has spent the focus to use the blaster, made sure he is in arc and in range).

...

I submit that it is not necessary to perform 4 calculations in sequence. Multiple variables may be considered within the same operation, and it is more efficient and simpler to do so.

Your first paragraph is my entire point. While it may be more efficient and simpler to do it your way, it also directly contradicts the rules as printed.

The fundamental flaw, that I think most can agree: there is no real clear cut place that a secondary weapon gets 'declared' for use.

Those 'siding' with the FAQ/ruling (like myself) are just using that to infer that the target selection happens explicitly before weapon selection. It really seems like the 'cost' (or non-cost as I've argued) is paid in the beginning of the 'Roll Attack Dice' step - as that is the first place that a secondary weapon is really ever referenced - and it's still consistent to 'restart' the sequence upon a failure. The 'cost' associated with firing a secondary weapon is part of it's weapon text, not some simultaneous process.

The idea of this being a 'soft', 'hard', 'fluid', 'fixed' timing issue isn't relevant since there isn't a comprehensive rules document, so the timing, as it relates to targeting and weapon selection, has to be inferred by the rulings.

@Buhallin - I don't see this as being in consistent or loose timing at all. It's just that we don't really know what those timings are explicitly (we can only infer them) and that is the real issue.

@mege: You hit it pretty much on the head. We don't know what the timing is. We have to infer based on current cards and rulings.

If we go by the Dark Curse ruling, it points to weapon selection being after target selection because Dark Curse can't affect spending the token until he's the defender. That's fine.

If we go by turrets, it points to weapon selection being before target selection, because the turret enables you to target ships you couldn't otherwise, and therefore its text must be in effect before you declare your target. That would be fine too.

Unfortunately, the two are mutually exclusive. I well and truly don't care which it is. I was just trying to point out the contradiction.

Buhallin -

If we must declare weapon selection at a particular time, and target selection at a different time, you are indeed correct that the rules are inconsistent.

I don't believe that it is necessary to do so, nor do I believe that we are supposed to do so, but I certainly agree that if we must declare target and weapon at different times you are correct.

:-)

If weapon and target selection are simultaneous, that doesn't work with the DC ruling. Yet again, his ability can't do anything unless he is the defender; he can't be the defender until AFTER target selection. So you select weapon and target at the same time - fine. NOW DC's ability takes effect, and you can't spend a focus from here forward. But you're still past weapon selection, which is when the focus would need to be spent.

Buhallin -

I understand you, but I am afraid you are locked into the idea of sequence. I simply believe that there are two status checks involved. One, is FocusSpent=1, and two is DKTarget=1. Dark Curse's ability is simply a status check that states if both FocusSpent and DKTarget are equal to 1, then the attack is illegal.

I get you, but your point requires sequence. I agree that if sequential selection is required you are absolutely correct. I do not agree that sequential selection is required either by the rules, or by logical deduction, or that sequential actions are the only viable method of resolving actions.

I would actually agree with you completely, and did so, right up until the new FAQ was released. I have only changed my mind because the FAQ requires a different understanding.

I get you, but your point requires sequence. I agree that if sequential selection is required you are absolutely correct. I do not agree that sequential selection is required either by the rules, or by logical deduction, or that sequential actions are the only viable method of resolving actions.

I would actually agree with you completely, and did so, right up until the new FAQ was released. I have only changed my mind because the FAQ requires a different understanding.

There are any number of examples in the rules where the answer is based on sequential resolution. The rules themselves say directly that things happen in sequence, not simultaneously. This is why we have the order precedence for simultaneous effects.

Would abandoning timing fix the DC ruling? Yes, but I think that's a mistake. I find it far more likely that this is a "Because I said so" ruling which does not actually conform to the rules of the game. We know FFG will do this - there are at least two other examples in the FAQ, one old and one new, where rulings contradict the actual rules. I wish they didn't, because it does nothing but make our lives as players harder, but it is what it is.

So we can accept DC as an exception that we shouldn't draw any precedent from, or we can chuck the entire concept of timing in the game. I obviously prefer the former, even if it means we have to accept that FFG screwed this one up by not following their own rules.

Side note: The other two examples I can think of are boosting into a proximity mine, and the ruling concerning taking obstacle damage if you stop short due to an overlap. Both make logical sense, but clearly contradict the actual rules and card text. So just like I wouldn't tell my opponent his Damaged Engine gave him a stress when he tried to boost, I'm not going to try and use the DC ruling as precedent for anything else.

I was not suggesting that there are no sequential actions in the rules, only that target selection and weapon selection are simultaneous. You are certainly correct that there are many sequential actions in the game, even within the attack sequence.

As for the other rules, again I agree that the FAQ contradicts the cards as written. However, I had just chalked that up to rules changes. I imagine they ruled the way they did because the original rule didn't work as intended.

I'll give it to you guys....you are persistent!! But the fact of the matter is DC can't be targeted with the blaster turret! ;-)

See you guys at GenCon.

Okay, I just checked my rule book again and it is confirmed. Definitely not written by Buhaulin. Somebody break the news to him gently.