It seems clear to me that some folks come from a Magic background, so timing issues have been drummed into them as being of paramount importance. However, X-Wing does not have the same level of hard requirements for timing, you are allowed to change your mind after checking range/arc/etc.

There is no reason, other than habit of mind, to separate target selection and weapon selection. The active player decides who he is shooting at and with what. If it helps the MtG players, consider it playing a card and choosing a target. There is no intermediate step in between the two, both are performed at the same time and cannot be separated. Whether or not the target "becomes" illegal after that is immaterial, a legal target is chosen when the card is played or else the action simply does not occur. Even in MtG, you cannot pay the cost of an action if the action itself is illegal, it simply does not happen.

So, the attacker chooses his target and the weapon he is using to shoot it with simultaneously. If the weapon system cannot hit that target for some reason (out of arc, cannot spend a focus token, out of range) then he picks a different target to shoot at with whatever weapon system he chooses to shoot it with. He is not "locked in" to the weapon system he wanted to use in the first instance, neither is he "locked in" to that target but forced to use a different weapon. His first target/weapon combination was illegal (or he just decided to do something different), so the action is voided and he just starts over from the beginning.

KineticOperator

Thank you,

Intriguing and interesting discussion, it's been a fun read.

I think though, that the Blaster Turret wording itself clarifies this (although it may only make sense to my mind).

"Spend 1 focus token to perform this attack against 1 ship (even a ship outside your firing arc)"

To me, it seems like for this card, you've already chosen a target, and you're trying to perform the attack against the target i.e. you are in Step 2 of the Attack Sequence. Notice also, that you choose a target first (making sure it's within any of your firing arcs), then you go to Step 2:Roll Attack Dice, and you can there choose to switch to a secondary weapon that can shoot the target. Then, once you've chosen (in this case) the Blaster Turret, you spend your focus token to perform the attack against the ship, which is now defending, as you've chosen to attack it.

Declare target happens long before you use your focus token. You just use the focus token to actually shoot the turret, not to choose to use the turret.

Syleh, that is the problem. The rules say you cannot pick a target outside of your firing arc. The blaster turret says you can fire at a target outside of your firing arc, but if you declare a target before you declare the weapon, how can you shoot atma target outside of your firing arc?

ETA: Either declaring a target is before step 1, or it is after step one. It is unclear where declaring a target is. I do think the problem is way over blown, but it gives me something to think about while at work.

Re: the timing discussion

I think some of you'll are confusing what 'timing' really means and what the implication is for the timing by bringing up MtG. Timing in games (MtG and X-Wing, and nearly every other head-to-head game) really could just be replaced by 'order of operations'. X-Wing just happens to have a few loops incorporated at failure points of the order of operations*. Whenever timing is discussed in the sense of a very strict game (ie: Magic) it is really just saying 'at what step' does this "thing" have to occur. The stack is a method to manage these timings in Magic (and a few other card games), where most miniature games use a priority system based on who gets to take actions when (eg: the active player does stuff first).

*Barrel Roll/Boost is a good template for this. If you are unable to do what you initially chose: go back to 'choose your Action'.

That said - there is never a 'cost' associated with using a weapon. There are certain things you have to do as part of the weapon's attack that emulate costs in the keyword sense (ie: discard a target lock, discard this card, discard a focus), but none of these are explicitly costs. As far as the X-Wing game is concerned, there are things that must be done - but they aren't really 'costs' in the sense that they happen as some prerequisite to even declaring an attack ([Focus]/[Target Lock] are conditions to being able to do so just like being in firing range, arc, etc). So... the discussion, IMO, about when you pay costs (wrt to a focus cost and DC) is irrelevant because you don't ever pay costs. You execute the text on the card (which may involve using a focus) which has to happen after choosing and verifying that the defender is in range, and using the Barrel Roll/Boost actions as an example - the lack of ability to perform the attack just spits you back out at the beginning of the combat steps to try again.

(and yea - it would be nice to see a little stricter rules regarding how secondary weapons fit into the combat steps, which I think is also one of the main confusions)

X-Wing does not have the same level of hard requirements for timing, you are allowed to change your mind after checking range/arc/etc.

Giving you the option to loop back is actually strict timing. It's a decision point which the rules grant you.

I also disagree that X-wing lacks strict timing or strict triggering. Just looking through the newly-published answers, many of them are answered by hard requirements for timing. Daredevil needed errata because "execute a maneuver" stands alone and doesn't get a stress step. Night Beast doesn't get his free focus if he starts the turn stressed because his ability activates after Step 3, but before Step 4. All the Cluster+Gunner rulings are issues on timing and triggering. The one James corrected is what it is because if you miss the first shot with the Gunner and want to use it, you have to do it then - you can't just say "X-wing doesn't have hard timing requirements, so I'm going to do my second Cluster attack and then my Gunner".

X-wing is a relatively simple game as it goes, and for the most part you can play well enough without understanding the underlying timing structure. But it is most certainly there.

X-Wing does not have the same level of hard requirements for timing, you are allowed to change your mind after checking range/arc/etc.

Giving you the option to loop back is actually strict timing. It's a decision point which the rules grant you.

Why do you feel compelled to put something in the rules that quiet simply isn't there? Just because there are timing requirement doesn't mean that every aspect has these same exacting requirements. Yes rules do have steps, and steps implies timing. But there are plenty of games, X-Wing being one of them were a player is allowed to consider multiple pieces of information before committing down a path looking for a break point.

Step 1: Declare Target is this very example we are discussing. Several options are available, and at ANY POINT I can change my mind and for nearly any reason. The rules clearly state I can verify, measure, check, etc... before I commit. No where does it say, A) B) C) break point, go to A)...

Step 1 is a fluid step that allows a player to consider several factors and weapons, range, targets all of which will go into making this decisions. Don't add unnecessary restrictions. Not everything in the world follows a pre-determined set of steps. Some are rather 'fluid'.

As much as I like your thoughts we may have reached an impasse here.

I come from an extensive background in miniatures gaming, where these types of decisions are typically quite fluid. The super-precision timing discussions here are quite foreign to me.

I come from an extensive background in miniatures gaming, where these types of decisions are typically quite fluid. The super-precision timing discussions here are quite foreign to me.

Out of curiosity, which games? In my experience with minis games, including Warhammer, WarmaHordes, Malifaux, Flames of War, and a few others, timing of operations is very precise. I loved setting warcasters on fire with my Protectorate, because precise timing meant they never got bonus armor from their focus.

@Ken: I suspect we are indeed at an impasse. I'll say again that the timing you're claiming to not exist is there. It's even there in this very ruling - secondaries that require you to spend a focus don't work on Dark Curse because they're activated after he's the target. Otherwise, his ability wouldn't affect anything. That ruling is entirely based on the timing of when Curse's ability becomes active, and when you try to spend the token.

I can give you any number of rules and interactions that depend on the timing not being fluid. I'm honestly surprised you question this, after our BGG discussion on R2-D2 and asteroids. R2-D2 triggers before flying over an asteroid, but after flying over a proximity mine. How is that fluid timing?

What a lengthy discussion. It all looked good to me. Dark Curse is still a threat. Luke, YT, and clusters are potent. And of course boost or rolling is a movement (manuever) action. I don"t see what all the debate is about.

And of course boost or rolling is a movement (manuever) action. I don"t see what all the debate is about.

So then if I Boost when I have a Damaged Engine, I take a stress for it? And Nien Numb would make a straight Boost green, so Lando could potentially hand out two free actions? Treating boost and barrel roll as maneuvers has a lot of side effects.

It's also pretty directly wrong. Take a look at the Daredevil entry about whether it follows all the maneuver rules. It highlights why Daredevil as an action-based move is different from ones like boost.

@Ken: I suspect we are indeed at an impasse. [...]

I can give you any number of rules and interactions that depend on the timing not being fluid. I'm honestly surprised you question this, after our BGG discussion on R2-D2 and asteroids. R2-D2 triggers before flying over an asteroid, but after flying over a proximity mine. How is that fluid timing?

Sigh... I regret not coming to terms but we will still play the game and follow the rules we choose or make our own as so many do...

I am not saying timing doesn't exist. Please don't bounce your opinion of me from one extreme to the other. I've said no such thing. I do not tend to live in extremes as I find them not the best place to find excellence. There are places for timing to be strict and exact, and there are places for one to consider all the options available, weight them, consider, disregard and consider another finally committing to an action. Hence a more dynamic and fluid decision process.

Generals, warriors, pilots, commanders usually (good ones at least) do not charge ahead with the first available choice with no idea whether it will work and say, oops, out of range I want a do over (break point). Commanders consider all available weapons, checking arcs, range, target armor, etc... Nothing rules how a commander considers these options, it is a fluid process. However, once committed a very strict timing ensues... Move, set, target, fire, re-evaluate and begin again. Timing in one area does not exclude the human element in another.

As for R2-D2 I am quite disappointed in the ruling from FFG and I agree it very clearly a timing issue. The shields are not up but on the way up so sometimes they are considered up for obstacles and not for bombs? It seems to me that FFG had two differing areas within the rules and tried to keep to the wording rather than a linear flow of checks. I accept it as clarified but do not care for it.

The rules, at least to me, show a rather fluid dynamic process of a pilot choosing a target considering all of his options and the benefit/restrictions that apply. Once done, what follows is your quite correct strict timing procedures.

I am a bit (mildly) concerned about the other persons post of a squad of HWK-290s and a single Dark Curse with stealth. I was be more concerned if I didn't think balanced squads are more fun anyway.

P.S. and yes, I've played board games, RPGs, miniatures, war games, strategy games tactical games and even poker, chess and go.

P.P.S. I'd play it either way FFG chooses and often find myself double checking timing, rules and lawyering it up a bit. But simple is good too and should be preserved when possible.

@Buhallin

With all due respect, I don’t think your interpretation of the Dark Curse rule is correct, going by what you have explained the rule is affective on or after the 4^th combat phase however by that point the attacker cannot modify his roll at all, that already was supposed to happen on phase 3; remember that all combat phases have to be resolve in order, (no backsies)

The interpretation imho refers to the fact that Dark Curse is being attack, hence his ability applies on combat phase 3, in that way no matter which pilot, weapon or crew the attacker is using it will be limited to modify his attack by not spending focus tokens or reroll attack dice.

I believe your opinion is correct and I am a devoted "Dark Curse" player. "Dark Curse" should be allowed to be targeted by Blaster Turret because:

1. The Rebel player pays one Focus just to attack with the Blaster Turret and THEN decides on a target. "Dark Curse" isn't yet the target of the attack and his ability should only kick in once he has been targeted. The Blaster Turret can then fire at "Dark Curse" but then cannot use Focus to modify any dice. No re-wording or re-printing or errata is needed for this - just a clarification in the FAQ.

2. It simply doesn't make sense in-universe that a blaster turret cannot fire at a TIE Fighter when any other weapon can fire at the same target. We all shred a little of our suspension-of-disbelief for game mechanics but if the rules are so outlandish as to make no sense in an in-universe way, players become annoyed and frustrated. This happened in the Star Wars Miniatures game when Blaster Barrage was combined with Accurate Shot and Twin Attack and suddenly a single character with a single blaster pistol could shoot every enemy it had line of sight to twice whether it was twentry enemies or a hundred or a thousand or a million!

It was a game mechanic that made no sense in-universe and led to very unfun power-gaming.

Exactly this. And I also like to play Dark Curse. I am fine if Deadeye can't be used to target him, you can still simply TL and fire.

But the Blaster turret pays the cost of a Focus Token to be fired at all and I won't even go into the timing issues that implies vs. dark Curse. I simply can't understand why this ruling was made. after all you don't use any reroll on Dark Curse. Just rule it differently, no wordings have to be changed. and everything would be fine. Dark Curse would still be a strong pick in the current meta.

Don't get me wrong, I am less concerned about the lengthy timing discussion here than with game balancing. Dark Curse HARD COUINTERS Blaster turrets, and he is really cheap for 16 points. Is that really balanced or even intended?? I can hardly believe this!

With Y-Wings it is an issue, but at least they still have the same chance as always to down Dark Curse, BUT someone has also brought up the situation where you fly a Rebel squad with 4 HWK and Blaster turrets. How are they supposed to kill Dark Curse. With one attack per ship, he can just evade all day. Impossible odds really... This alone might be a reason to change the FAQ again.

Seriously FFG I am asking you why should a rebel player be punished that hard for playing a 4 HWK squad with blaster turrets? Please tell me, how would this squad be able to win even if there was ONLY Dark Curse against them.

I challenge you to tell people that want to play such a List on a tournament why they should autolose as soon as they encounter this one 16 point ship without any upgrades. Because that's exactly what is happening! Someone better at math than me could perhaps calculate the odds of 4 HWK without any secondary weapon hitting Dark Curse (assuming all 4 even can line up a shot). I bet chances are quite minimal and qualify for the term "autolose".

(Besides it is a really stupid marketing strategy: FFG makes the new ship with the new upgrade so horrible it can not only not win against a simple Wave 1 ship everyone already has, no they make it literally impossible to even shoot the weapon at the ship which makes no sense whatsoever... Is that supposed to make people buy the HWK? I strongly doubt it. In other games I have seen new lists power creep older lists, but in this case it is just the contrary...)

Rules problems aside, and there may be problems with the rules. But FFG isn't punishing anyone for bring a single craft squad build that has a well know gap in its defenses. FFG has NEVER punished anyone for loosing a game. Winning may get you a trophy but not getting a trophy isn't punishment. Not a fair comment I think.

I posted this else where but... why is everyone surprised that a fighter can destroy a squad with 4 freighters which don't have anyone flying cover. If you field 4 support craft and loose the game, we shouldn't blame FFG for our choices, If someone fields all Advanced Ties and not one is Darth Vader and looses do you blame FFG or their poor squad building skills?

There are fighters, assault fighters, interceptors, senator shuttles and even armed freighters. Some squads will definitely be superior over others.

i do apologize in advance if my tone was too sharp.

I would like to reiterate the point I made in my previous post about timing and target selection.

MtG is easily the most timing-centric game most of us have ever or will ever play. So, if we assume for the sake of this discussion that X-Wing is also utilizing strict timing, we can make the comparison between card/target selection in MtG and weapon/target selection in X-Wing.

In MtG, selecting a target is inherent to the playing of a card. There are no intermediate steps, you do not "pay costs" before selecting a target. For example, if a card read "B1: Sacrifice a creature. Destroy target non-black creature." A player pays 1 black and 1 colorless, sacrifices a creature, and names a target non-black creature as the target all at the same time. Then, and only then, is the entire effect placed on the stack.

If for some reason the player is unable to complete any part the card cannot be played at all. Say for example the only creature on the board is black. The player is not allowed to pay 1 black and 1 colorless and sacrifice a creature. He is not allowed to play the card in any way, the "costs" are never paid, nothing ever goes on the stack. This does matter immensely in MtG, since often the "costs" involved are as beneficial as the "effect" would be. A player does not select a card pay the cost then select a target, neither do they select a target then select the card and pay the price (there are effects triggered by target selection that cannot be triggered if the target would be an illegal target). Selection of card, paying costs, and choosing the target are inseparable parts of casting and occur simultaneously.

Going back to X-Wing, there is no reason to attempt to separate target selection, weapon selection, and "costs" from one another. You select a target based on the weapon you are using and vice versa. You don't select a target, then select a weapon, then pay the cost. You don't select the weapon, then select the target. You select both at the same time in a manner that makes the attack legal and pay the "cost".

Strict timing issues or not, the "problem" here only occurs if you attempt to separate the inseparable. Even in MtG there are things that can and must resolve simultaneously, this is a case of the same thing in X-Wing.

Pick your target, pick your weapon, and pay the cost all at the same time. Quit trying to create an issue where there is none by creating a break in timing where there is none.

Again I must agree with KineticOperator.

But seeing we are at an impasse both here and on another thread and...

Also that I've state to the best of my ability and thoughts and...

I haven't, yet, heard a persuasive opinion, well at least not enough to persuade me, haha.

I think I'll just play it out and see if FFG likes it or changes it.

Hmm if we change the rules and have a 4 HWK-290 squad each with a 3 atk I wonder if someone might complain that this squad is under priced, over balanced and too powerful.

just wondering...

My two cents, be at peace. But make war 'games'.

There are places for timing to be strict and exact, and there are places for one to consider all the options available, weight them, consider, disregard and consider another finally committing to an action. Hence a more dynamic and fluid decision process.

Where you see a dynamic process, I see a fixed process with a decision between a limited number of things which loops until you're done. Yes, you have multiple things you can do prior to target selection, and yes, you can do them multiple times. But you can't do an action at that point. You can't execute a maneuver at that point. You are still constrained in what you can do, and how you can do it. It's also worth considering that nothing in this loop changes the game state.

Can you point to any actual rulings which depend on the sort of fluid timing you suggest, and can't be put into a strict flow? A lot of people keep claiming that there's no timing in X-wing, but while I can demonstrate (and have) any number of rules and rulings that depend on timing, I have yet to see a good example of something that depends on strict timing NOT existing.

Let me try a different approach to illustrate the problem. Let's assume a hypothetical card that says "Action: Spend one focus token to perform an attack with this weapon." Could that weapon be used against Dark Curse? I'd have a hard time saying no - because the ability begins an attack, which we know from the errata is Steps 1-7, which includes target selection, and DC's ability doesn't kick in until he's the target.

Secondary weapons use the exact same text. How can you spend anything to perform the process you're already in the middle of?

Going back to X-Wing, there is no reason to attempt to separate target selection, weapon selection, and "costs" from one another. You select a target based on the weapon you are using and vice versa. You don't select a target, then select a weapon, then pay the cost. You don't select the weapon, then select the target. You select both at the same time in a manner that makes the attack legal and pay the "cost".

Even if your view of the simultaneous weapon/target/cost selection is correct, it doesn't fit the DC ruling. DC's text only applies when he's defending. It doesn't actually affect target selection at all. So this becomes inherently paradoxical - DC's text prevents me from targeting him, but his text isn't active until I've successfully targeted him.

[...]

Can you point to any actual rulings which depend on the sort of fluid timing you suggest, and can't be put into a strict flow? A lot of people keep claiming that there's no timing in X-wing, but while I can demonstrate (and have) any number of rules and rulings that depend on timing, I have yet to see a good example of something that depends on strict timing NOT existing.

[...]

Yes my friend, may I call you that? We've never met but I don't feel particularly unfriendly nevertheless I don't wish to presume to much. Anyway I digress.

Yes you have pointed to timing in X-Wing and there most certainly is timing in X-Wing as I said earlier so we agree on that point.

On the other hand I and others have pointed to the fluid process of 'Declaring a Target' which you deny exist. Not the actual declare target part, rather the fluid part.

You prefer the extreme of a very rigid time frame in every aspect of the game. That's well and good but in Step 1 Declare Target there are no sub-steps. One has the freedom to consider all of the options and restrictions, make a decision, check to see if it is valid, change one's mind, commit and move to Step 2.

I see both side of the coin (game). You see a very rigid framework even when one isn't there or you prefer to build one.

You have given me examples and you have asked for examples which has been given you.

However you disregard it as a valid example, hence our impasse and my posting after I thought I was done .

I do not have a preference for all or nothing rulings. I do not want to play this game with a rules lawyer but I do want to follow the rules. Even the R2-D2 one which I could suggest at length (ad nauseam) why FFG ruled in correctly. But I shan't.

Have a grand and most excellent day,

It actually fits perfectly. For another analogy, consider a card with protection from white. White cards cannot target it, even though it's protection ability doesn't "become active" until it is targeted. Its text is "active" all of the time, it doesn't "turn on" once the card is targeted otherwise you would be able to cast a card targeting him. It is very important because that ability doesn't negate actions, it prevents them.

Dark Curse does not allow focus tokens to be spent attacking him. Again, that only causes issues if you attempt to separate timing. You cannot spend the token at any point with him defending, even during the "target/weapon/pay costs" portion of the turn. His text is active all the time, it just doesn't do anything most of the time.

Is Dark Curse the defender in this attack? Yes. Can you spend the token? No. - Attack does not occur.

Is Darth Vader the defender in this attack? Yes. Is he in my primary arc? No. Is he within range 2? No. - Attack does not occur.

Is Soontir Fel the defender in this attack? Yes. Is he in my primary arc? Yes. Is he within range 2? Yes. I target Soontir Fel with my blaster turret, spend 1 focus token, then go on to the next step.

The reason you are having trouble with this is that you are thinking of it as a series of actions, when in fact there is only one action occurring. Range, arc, weapon, all of these are if/then status checks that alter the legality of the single action, attacking.

Another analogy. You run across the room. You don't run, then go in one direction. Neither do you go in one direction then run. At the moment you begin moving you have both velocity and direction, they are inherent to one another and cannot be separated. Both velocity and direction may be changed independently of one another, but there can never be a point where you have one without the other.

And I will stop now, I hope some of this makes sense. Regardless, I am enjoying the game immensely and I am very glad to have this FAQ address so many of our questions, even if they aren't always the rulings I was hoping for. :-)

I didn't disregard your example - I countered it. I explained how what you see as fluid timing is still perfectly constrained by a flow chart. Having a choice - even a repetitive choice - does not indicate a fluid timing structure. If you can explain how teh target selection can't function in this manner, please do... but I'd appreciate it if you don't try and portray me as airily dismissing your point because I can't deal with it. And there's certainly no reason to deploy "rules lawyer".

Is Dark Curse the defender in this attack? Yes. Can you spend the token? No. - Attack does not occur.

Is Darth Vader the defender in this attack? Yes. Is he in my primary arc? No. Is he within range 2? No. - Attack does not occur.

Is Soontir Fel the defender in this attack? Yes. Is he in my primary arc? Yes. Is he within range 2? Yes. I target Soontir Fel with my blaster turret, spend 1 focus token, then go on to the next step.

This is completely wrong.

You cannot declare a target unless it is in arc and range. A ship does not become the defender until it has been declared the target. DC's ability doesn't activate ("do anything", if you prefer) until he is the defender. Actual rules:

During this step, the attacker (the active ship) must

declare its target (the ship he wishes to attack). The

target ship must be inside the attacker’s firing arc

and within range. A player may measure to verify that

these conditions are met before declaring a target.

Once declared, the target ship is now the defender,

and players proceed to the “Roll Attack Dice” step.

You're also completely ignoring the actual text of the turrets, which is "...to perform this attack." Performing an attack is defined as steps 1-7. When you trigger that text, you have to start at the beginning of the process, just like you do with a Gunner attack.

Another analogy. You run across the room. You don't run, then go in one direction. Neither do you go in one direction then run. At the moment you begin moving you have both velocity and direction, they are inherent to one another and cannot be separated. Both velocity and direction may be changed independently of one another, but there can never be a point where you have one without the other.

While you running across the room looks like one fluid motion to the outsider, there are specific steps that you must take in your head and body to make that fluid motion happen. First step: you make the decision of where you want to go. Second step: you decide how you are going to get there (flying, jumping, running, walking, etc.). Third step: you choose the route you are going to take. Fourth step: you orient your body to take the desired action that you took in steps one through three. Fifth step: you then are committed to the action by executing the movement by running across the room.

While it all seems very fluid, these steps happen very fast. The DC vs focus token thing doesn't work with your analogy because it is akin to saying you want to run through a wall into the other room. Even though you cannot physically do that (being outside of a firing arc), it seems you are arguing that running through the wall is a valid maneuver because you can walk out into the hall and avoid the wall all together.

Maybe it's worth taking a step back and looking at the actual process of declaring a target, based on the rules.

1. Measure range and/or firing arc to potential targets

2. Declare target - target MUST BE a valid target

3. Target becomes the defender

That's really all there is, and the order of those three steps is very strongly defined.

(1) is Ken's "fluid timing" block, and I think we got a little sidetracked as to whether it's "fluid" or "flowcharted", but either way, it must complete before (2). Why? "...may measure to verify that these conditions are met before declaring a target". It is strictly prior to target declaration.

Then we hit (2), and declare our target, which "...must be inside the attacker's firing arc and within range." This is what makes KineticOperator's examples wrong. You don't declare Vader as the target then make him the defender then find out he's out of arc. You can only declare a target AT ALL if it is within arc and range.

Then (3), the target becomes the defender. Again, this is strict timing and clearly defined. "Once declared..." means it only happens after the target has been declared. And, again, the target must be in both range and arc in order to be declared.

Completely ignoring Dark Curse or secondary weapons for the moment, does anyone disagree with this?

Your run across the room counter is a perfect point. All of those things going through your head are part of the decision making process, and every one of them goes around inside before the action is ever begun. They don't happen in a rigid sequence, neither does any part of that process commit you to a course of action. If at your step four I were to decide to scrap the whole thing and crawl I am free to do so. I can change my mind at any point, for any reason, and take the steps in the decision making process in any order. However, regardless of what went into the decision making process, once begun speed and direction are at all times a part of the movement. No movement can occur without both, there can never be a point in which the action has begun but one of those two parts is absent. My point is that weighing variables as part of the decision making process is not the same thing as performing actions in sequence. You are attempting to create a step by step process ala computer coding where none exists. Computer code is not a universal decision making process, it is a limited process used to allow limited machines to make decisions.

Also, we already have precedent when it comes to declaring attacks using secondary weapons. Depending on the weapon chosen, the firing arc changes. You are never required to use a particular weapon, neither are you locked into a particular target. You declare the target and the weapon simultaneously, so that you may satisfy the requirement where "The target ship must be inside the attacker’s firing arc and within range."

You pick the target and the weapon simultaneously. If for some reason the combination is not legal you cannot perform the action. The blaster turret says "spend 1 focus token to perform this attack". You cannot spend it, the attack is illegal, so pick a different target/weapon.

Bottom line is that the decision making process is not the same as taking actions. An action cannot occur if it is not legal in all ways. Regardless of what order you check the variables in, all variables must be simultaneously valid at the moment the action occurs. I will add that simultaneous validity resolves all issues of timing when it comes to weapon/target selection, whereas sequential decision making does not.

Edit: I saw your post came while I was writing. Your point, that a target can only be declared AT ALL if it is in arc and range, is correct but not complete. The target can only be declared AT ALL if ALL conditions of attacking it are true, not just arc and range. Yes, this means Dark Curse or secondary weapons create new conditions not specifically covered in the basic rules, which is why the general rules are trumped by card text.

Edit: I saw your post came while I was writing. Your point, that a target can only be declared AT ALL if it is in arc and range, is correct but not complete. The target can only be declared AT ALL if ALL conditions of attacking it are true, not just arc and range. Yes, this means Dark Curse or secondary weapons create new conditions not specifically covered in the basic rules, which is why the general rules are trumped by card text.

This is actually my precise, exact point that started this.

Turret weapons change the rules governing target selection. If that card is not activated (and resolved) before target selection, it can't have changed the rules to allow selection of a target not in your primary arc.

It's also worth noting that DC does not actually create any conditions on target selection. He creates a limitation on spending focus tokens. It says nothing about target selection. Which is, again, my point - if his ability isn't active until after target selection, and does not actually say it affects target selection, how can it affect target selection?