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

If he did write it, there wouldn't be mistakes like this one.

I see members getting on Buhallins case over this but he isn't able to resolve this, only theFFG rules department can. All he did was point out where recent FAQ rulings created weird understanding of the rules. Some say no, FFG explained it and are comfortable with that.

This has gone on for days now and and only FFG can resolve this as there seems to be a disagreement about secondary weapons and paid costs to use them during target selection.

I'm sending that to the FFG rules team for a clarification and I'll post a response here to help resolve this.

Sent this in. Will wait on a reply and post.

I think that the 'simplest' explanations are that:

1) the rule book is unnecessarily specific in requiring a target to be in your front firing arc during step 1 (and that 'enforcement' of that is really done in step 2)

-or-

2) the phrase allowing you to attack a ship outside your firing arc on the turret cards is actually static text that doesn't requiring the weapon to be chosen to be considered during step 1.

-or-

3) even if the weapon is chosen before the target, the 'costs'/weapon text are all considered specifically after the targeting. So step 1 really becomes: a) Choose weapon that you meet the conditions to use prima facia (Primary, secondary with [...] met), b) Choose target in appropriate range of chosen weapon, c) verify conditions for attacking with this weapon (including paying any 'costs')

Personally,--- I think #1 is unlikely as it changes step 1 quite a bit, but it is an elegant change IMO. I like to think #2 is an option, but it would make this an unique situation among non-damage cards. I think that #3 is somewhat likely as it clarifies the use of secondary weapons completely, and fits the DC ruling fine.

Again, these are just quick thoughts that would explain the ruling and allow turrets to actually work as 360 targeting platforms.

I see problems with each possibility, mege, largely including side effects.

1) Consider Rebel Captive. If I can declare a target whether it's in arc or not, then I could have Tycho (who isn't pointing anywhere near your ship) declare the target, take the stress for doing so. Then, per your timing in Step 2 we decide he can't actually shoot and I get to declare a new target.

2) This would work, but there really isn't anything in the templating that would suggest separating the arc restriction to be static. Quite the opposite, actually - it's very explicitly phrased as applying to the attack it's directing you to perform.

3) This runs into the same problem as #1. You're allowing a target to be declared and then checking conditions later.

You are declaring a legal target and the weapon you are using to legally shoot at it at the same time. "I am shooting at Dark Curse with an Ion Turret out of my arc at range 2", "I am shooting Vader with my Primaries in arc at range 2", "I am spending a Focus token and shooting at Biggs with my Blaster Turret because he is in range of the Blaster Turret and I don't have any other targets that are more than 1 away from him". If you accidentally declare an illegal target/weapon selection then you void the attack and declare something else. This is all done in a single step. Step 1 to be precise.

Not complicated or difficult, but for some reason it seems a few people are absolutely brain-locked into thinking you have to declare one thing at a time as if "Step 1" were actually a sequence of little steps.

"I am using my Ion Cannon" - "Ok"

"I am shooting at Dark Curse" - "Ok"

"I am checking arc" - "Ok"

"I am checking range" - "Ok"

If you do it any other way than simultaneously, you create a mess where careful selection of the weapon system and/or target, as well as the order they are selected, will allow you to ignore special circumstances and/or make turrets literally impossible to use.

Examples:

1 - You cannot target Biggs because even though he is at Range 1 he is out of arc of your primaries, and you declare targets before declaring weapon systems. Since you haven't "chosen a weapon yet" you cannot shoot at someone out of arc no matter who they are. Now that you are targeting Wedge instead, you declare you are using a turret that could have hit Biggs but since you are "past" the target step that is OK..

2 - Biggs is in arc but at range 3. You declare you are using a Blaster Turret before declaring a target. Since Biggs is out of range and Wedge is at range 2 you shoot Wedge even though the two are within 1 of each other.

Even Biggs' ability would often be useless if you were forced to declare sequentially. Biggs' text for reference; "Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead." Easily worked around if you are forced into sequential declarations, no matter what order you go in. If he is at range 3 declare blaster turret first and you can ignore him because the turret doesn't shoot that far. If he is out of arc declare your target first since you can't shoot 360 until you have picked a weapon (which hasn't happened yet) so you dont have to shoot him with the turret.

Not only does FFG's ruling make sense in general as well as in this specific case, it is the ONLY way the rules makes sense. You want greater "clarity" by using sequential checks, but not only is that not necessary it does not work. Mechanically the game works just fine with a synchronous declaration mechanic, why would you want to break it?

The FAQ entry for Biggs says that his ability is very broad. "...could target you instead" is effectively "Could have taken any possible action to target you." I don't think it's the cleanest ability, but the FAQ effectively clarifies that Biggs doesn't really care what you can do at any given moment, only whether it was possible for you to have targeted him in some fashion.

I'm not brain-locked into anything. I presented a few pages back the actual rules for target declaration, including words like "before" and "Once declared" that firmly establish the order of certain operations. Those are the rules. If you think I'm too locked into the order, then please - explain how something that says "before" and something else that says "Once declared" (which pretty solidly means after) means "All this can happen in whatever order and repetition you choose."

I did not invent the concept of timing and order in the targeting phase. They are very clearly in the rules. If you can't explain how to get from the printed rules - which have not been changed or errata'ed in any way - to your position, then your position is wrong.

I see problems with each possibility, mege, largely including side effects.

1) Consider Rebel Captive. If I can declare a target whether it's in arc or not, then I could have Tycho (who isn't pointing anywhere near your ship) declare the target, take the stress for doing so. Then, per your timing in Step 2 we decide he can't actually shoot and I get to declare a new target.

2) This would work, but there really isn't anything in the templating that would suggest separating the arc restriction to be static. Quite the opposite, actually - it's very explicitly phrased as applying to the attack it's directing you to perform.

3) This runs into the same problem as #1. You're allowing a target to be declared and then checking conditions later.

Aren't these ONLY problems if you enforce your unnecessarily strict timing that isn't even in the section of rules you're talking about.

Just checked the FAQ again. Buhallin is still wrong.

I see problems with each possibility, mege, largely including side effects.

1) Consider Rebel Captive. If I can declare a target whether it's in arc or not, then I could have Tycho (who isn't pointing anywhere near your ship) declare the target, take the stress for doing so. Then, per your timing in Step 2 we decide he can't actually shoot and I get to declare a new target.

2) This would work, but there really isn't anything in the templating that would suggest separating the arc restriction to be static. Quite the opposite, actually - it's very explicitly phrased as applying to the attack it's directing you to perform.

3) This runs into the same problem as #1. You're allowing a target to be declared and then checking conditions later.

Aren't these ONLY problems if you enforce your unnecessarily strict timing that isn't even in the section of rules you're talking about.

Which part is exactly "unnecessarily strict"? I've pointed out the clear timing terminology in the rules. Those rules have not been changed or errata'ed. Would your fictional, timing-less version of target declaration work? Possibly. But it's not what's in the rules.

Emotions run high when we believe we are right.

I did not invent the concept of timing and order in the targeting phase. They are very clearly in the rules. If you can't explain how to get from the printed rules - which have not been changed or errata'ed in any way - to your position, then your position is wrong.

Actually, you did invent it. There are two sections in the rules dealing with target declaration.

Further, this ruling is NOT NEW. From the first FAQ on it has been clear that target selection and weapon selection occur simultaneously, because it is required for Biggs' ability.

...but at no point does it either explicitly list the order these things are done in, nor imply that they should be done sequentially. ONE step, "Declare Target", that requires a player verify the conditions as PART of declaring that target. The player only does one thing, declare a target, with the requirement that the target he declares is a LEGAL one.

There are only 7 steps in the Combat Phase, and step 1 is NOT subdivided into a series of smaller steps.

I thank you for finally trying to address the rules, but I don't believe this is a correct way to interpret them.

Let's consider another example and look at Step 3: Modify Attack Dice, how it's presented, and consider how to read it if we apply your approach.

It's a single step. It's not subdivided into partial steps. The player only does one thing - Modify Attack Dice. The only suggestion of timing is the second paragraph, which describes timing with words like "before", exactly the same as Step 1 does. If we consider your interpretation of Step 1 - no substeps, words which reference timing are irrelevant - and apply it to Step 3, then there is no timing ordering between attacker and defender modifications. It all happens simultaneously.

I think that's obviously a bad thing, and just as obviously wrong. So we have a solid counterexample in the rules where we cannot apply your preferred approach to reading them.

Maybe Declare Target is a unique exception - maybe the presentation style and meaning of the verbiage used are completely different for that one step than they are for the rest of the rules. But I think that's a very dangerous approach to trying to interpret the rules.

I addressed Biggs upthread a bit, and will just point there for my view on him.

Just checked the FAQ again. Buhallin is still wrong.

And the fact that FFG James came on and reversed a cluster missile/Gunner entry from that very FAQ doesn't register that maybe, from the other 38 new rulings added, there may be another one of those that could be wrong?

@ Ken at sunrise. Surprisingly, Buhallin has only held firm on his view and has had ample time to pitch a fit and curse out multiple times over. However, he has been neither rude nor demeaning to anyone else here over the 6 pages of this. I find he has been rather restrained and composed considering how some people have taken to arguing their viewpoint.

At everyone else. Hold off on further commenting until FFG development comes back with their answer. Both viewpoints have merit until the rules behind the ruling get revealed and help to clarify the points made in this discussion.

...but at no point does it either explicitly list the order these things are done in, nor imply that they should be done sequentially. ONE step, "Declare Target", that requires a player verify the conditions as PART of declaring that target. The player only does one thing, declare a target, with the requirement that the target he declares is a LEGAL one.

There are only 7 steps in the Combat Phase, and step 1 is NOT subdivided into a series of smaller steps.

I thank you for finally trying to address the rules, but I don't believe this is a correct way to interpret them.

Let's consider another example and look at Step 3: Modify Attack Dice, how it's presented, and consider how to read it if we apply your approach.

It's a single step. It's not subdivided into partial steps. The player only does one thing - Modify Attack Dice. The only suggestion of timing is the second paragraph, which describes timing with words like "before", exactly the same as Step 1 does. If we consider your interpretation of Step 1 - no substeps, words which reference timing are irrelevant - and apply it to Step 3, then there is no timing ordering between attacker and defender modifications. It all happens simultaneously.

I think that's obviously a bad thing, and just as obviously wrong. So we have a solid counterexample in the rules where we cannot apply your preferred approach to reading them.

Maybe Declare Target is a unique exception - maybe the presentation style and meaning of the verbiage used are completely different for that one step than they are for the rest of the rules. But I think that's a very dangerous approach to trying to interpret the rules.

I addressed Biggs upthread a bit, and will just point there for my view on him.

I have always tried to address the rules directly, I hope I did not give a different impression. However, regardless of my personal opinion of how the rules should read it is impossible in light of the FAQ to read them differently.

As for your counter-example, I can only say that I have never advocated mass-hysteria. :-) In cases where order is plainly laid out, such as who modifies dice first, of course we follow the rules as written. It is also important to note that at no time did I advocate ignoring time-related verbiage no matter where it is in the rules. I am only stating that when the rules imply a single step (and do NOT have time related verbiage) we should resolve in a single step.

This verbiage clearly directs the player to make a single declaration of a target with the restriction that it must be within arc and range. It does not direct the player to declare a target, then check range, then check arc. This is important because in cases like Dark Kurse some abilities may "activate" upon target declaration. Weapon selection is dealt with indirectly on the weapon cards themselves and more directly within the FAQ.

There obviously needs to be some order and sequence for the game to function, and every action/check in the game occurs at a specific time (which is your point). However, that is not exclusive to the idea that some things occur at the same time, again as specified in the rules. For example, Marksmanship allows you to change 1 *eye* into a *Crit* and the rest of the *eyes* into *hits*. Two "different" actions that occur at the same time. It does not specify the order in which you do this, because it is not a mechanism that requires a specific order. Expose changes your firepower and agility at the same time, again no order needed.

Target selection works if you simply state that the attacker must declare a legal target, which if you look at the rules is exactly what it says. You cannot declare a target that is out of range or arc, ever. The special weapon rules change what is legal, so do the special restrictions of Dark Kurse and Biggs. The attacking player is required to account for all the special rules/restrictions/weapons when he declares his target, there is no need for a specific "order" in which he accounts for those rules because nothing happens unless and until he has accounted for ALL of them and chosen a target that is legal for all of them at the same time.

This verbiage clearly directs the player to make a single declaration of a target with the restriction that it must be within arc and range. It does not direct the player to declare a target, then check range, then check arc. This is important because in cases like Dark Kurse some abilities may "activate" upon target declaration. Weapon selection is dealt with indirectly on the weapon cards themselves and more directly within the FAQ.

...

The special weapon rules change what is legal, so do the special restrictions of Dark Kurse and Biggs. The attacking player is required to account for all the special rules/restrictions/weapons when he declares his target, there is no need for a specific "order" in which he accounts for those rules because nothing happens unless and until he has accounted for ALL of them and chosen a target that is legal for all of them at the same time.

It does, however, specify that the player can only check range and arc before declaring a target. That's ordering. It also says that "Once declared, the target ship is now the defender." That means it only happens after target declaration. That's the important timing here.

To your second point, I agree that the attacker must take all restrictions into account, but Biggs and Dark Curse are very different abilities. Biggs' ability is always active. Dark Curse is an ability which only affects anything when he is the defender - i.e. "once declared". If Dark Curse were an ongoing ability with no restriction on when it was in effect, you'd be correct in their similarity. But they're not.

If you have not successfully declared Dark Curse as the target, he is not the defender. If he's not the defender, his ability does not affect anything at all. If you think it does, I'd be curious as to why, and what other cases "When attacking" and "When defending" abilities can take effect even if the ship is not attacking or defending (as appropriate).

Edit: Or, to put it another way, Dark Curse's ability is not always on. It has to come into effect at some point in time. What point in time is that? When does his effect "turn on" and when does it "turn off"?

Again, this isn't really about Dark Curse. This is about timing, and there is not a point where a player could have declared a target without having accounted for every rule involved. There is the opportunity to check range and arc before declaration in order to ensure that the declared target is a legal one, but it is not actually required. There is no provision for picking a different target if the first one is illegal, because it is simply against the rules to do so. If a person were to attempt to do so, it would be ignored as if it never happened in any way.

Dark Curse's ability is interesting because there was some doubt about when exactly a focus token (or target lock for that matter) must be spent. The ruling in the FAQ is consistent with all the other "requirements" for special abilities, in that ALL special rules must be accounted for in EVERY step of the attack, including the first one. In this case, Dark Curse's ability is incompatible with spending a focus token, so it doesn't work. I agree that the designation of defender in step 2 created ambiguity (in fact it implied that Dark Curse's ability might not work against the Blaster Turret), which is why I appreciated the FAQ. Again, I didn't write the FAQ and may have ruled differently if it were up to me, but I am not arguing what I think should have been done. I am just trying to explain how the rules appear to work.

However, regardless of how Dark Curse's special ability is worded there is the more general point of what order target selection and weapon selection occur. The three possibilities were:

1 - Select Target. Then select Weapon and pay its cost.

2 - Select Weapon and pay its cost. Then select Target.

3 - Select Weapon, select Target, and pay cost as a single action.

Of these 3, either of the first 2 options would create situations where special abilities (including but not limited to Dark Curse) could be "gamed around" by careful selection of target/weapon.

Biggs' ability: "Other friendly ships at Range 1 cannot be targeted by attacks if the attacker could target you instead" only matters when an attacker selects a target. If you select weapons first you would be able to select a turret when he is at range 3 (because that is legal, Biggs' ability only kicks in when a target is selected) and ignore him. If you select targets first, you could ignore Biggs when he is out of your front arc because until you turn your turret on you can NOT target Biggs (which satisfies his requirements).

It doesn't even work sequentially if Biggs' ability is "always on". For example. Biggs is at Range 3. Luke is within 1 of him, but at range 2. Wedge is at range 2 but more than 1 away from Biggs. It cannot be illegal for me to choose my turret, because it would be legal for me to target Wedge after picking my turret. So, I choose my turret. Now, it is time for target selection. Since it is no longer possible for me to target Biggs, I am not required to shoot at him and can target Luke instead. The same problem can be caused by selecting targets first and placing Biggs at range 2 but out of arc. Sequential selection does not work, at all.

It is true that even with a simultaneous weapon/target selection it would have been possible for Dark Curse's ability not to affect the Blaster Turret (because it could have been ruled that he is not defending until step 2). However, there is no possible way for the ruling make sense if we do not use simultaneous selection. There is also no possible way for any of the rulings to make sense using sequential selection as you have suggested, neither is there any possible way for ANY of the special weapons to work if we use sequential selection. Dark Curse's ability has been ruled to operate in the same way as other special abilities (like Biggs) despite the different wording. As far as the "when defending" wording, it is clear that it was put there so that Dark Curse only affects attacks targeting him not every attack on the table.

My guess is that the full extent of the possible special interactions was not understood when Dark Curse was printed back in Wave 1, so the FAQ is meant to bring his ability in line with the other special abilities released since then.

Why don't we setup a match on Vassal:

Buhallin

VS

KineticOperator

I would be willing to watch it...

I'm not going to argue that Biggs' ability isn't a bit weird. As I said, they've basically clarified it as "If it is possible for you to take any series of acts which would allow you to target Biggs, you cannot target anyone within Range 1 of him." It's certainly an expansive ability which looks at potential capability rather than concrete game state, but it's not an unheard-of game effect in general. There are plenty of games with abilities that force you to take some action even if you might be able to circumvent them by making a different choice.

The real question at this point is what we take the Dark Curse ruling to mean. You want to use it as justification for a rules change to make it work. I think that's a mistake - it's a broad reworking of something which you, yourself, admits we understood very differently. It's also something that I think creates the potential for a lot of WTF abilities in the future - if we take your route, any ability which surrounds or is based on target declaration has an undefined timing, just as Dark Curse now seems to.

There are some abilities which we can use to clarify our understanding of the rules. I think DC does the opposite, just as the proximity mine/boost ruling contradicts the printed text and would create problems if we were to use it to redefine whether boost is a maneuver, or when abilities that triggered from executing maneuvers would go off.

<shrug> At the end of the day, I see far fewer problems with the rules if we consider DC to be a wonky one-off "Because I said so" ruling that tells us how to play it even though it violates the rules. Both cards and rules read far better if secondary weapons initiate attacks, rather than being activated in the middle. If I have to choose one of them to make work, I'm going to go with the one that keeps fundamental timing principles intact.

And that, I'm sure to the vast relief of some, will be the last I say on it.

I do not advocate undefined timing, I advocate for clearly defined timing that includes both target and weapon being declared at the same time. I also do not want to change the rules, I believe that this is always the way the rule was supposed to work. Not at any time you wish, or in whatever order you wish, but both simultaneously during step one of the Combat Phase. Activating weapons first rather than simultaneously causes more problems than it solves.

Having said that, at the very least I believe we have beaten this particular horse to death, around the world, back on its feet and down again. At least. :-)

So, I will also sign off of the subject. However, I do think the Vassal match would have been fun.

Best regards, and if we meet up in person the first pint is on me. :cheers:

Yeah, quiet at last. Can world peace be far?

Let's all grab a pint, put our differences aside and plan our strategy to blow our friends out of the sky.

The game is still fun...

Let's all grab a pint, put our differences aside and plan our strategy to blow our friends out of the sky.

The game is still fun...

+1

Several of us took the opportunity at GenCon to hit the FFG guys present with questions. VorpalSword asked James about secondary weapons directly, and I chatted with someone else about the broad state of the rules without going into specific rules questions. Here's the combined response, most of it paraphrased and coming from VorpalSword.

- Secondary weapons are selected in Step 2 of the attack.

- This makes the Dark Curse ruling work.

- This does indeed create problems for secondary weapons which change targeting restrictions, especially turrets.

- They know this problem exists, but it's how the rules are written.

- Fixing it would require a nontrivial amount of errata to the rulebook that they've been reluctant to do.

- Turrets should be played with a sort of "I'm planning on picking this, so I can pick a target I'm not normally allowed to" look forward.

- Not explicitly stated, but presumably this handwaving should extend to other weapons which have problematic effects like Cluster Missiles, and just play as they seem to be intended without trying to fit them into the rules.

So there we go. The formal rules are for weapon selection during Step 2, this does create problems but we can't expect them to be fixed any time soon, so we just roll with it.

So now we have to play with broken rules and more broken rules can be introduced because we now have a precedent where they say it is ok to have broken rules in the game.

Sorry i do not like that stance one bit.

I agree that, if they as was said, you select the weapon during Step 2 isn't the idea solution.

Some were satisfied/happy with the way it was, other not.

This way, no one is happy, haha

So now we have to play with broken rules and more broken rules can be introduced because we now have a precedent where they say it is ok to have broken rules in the game.

Sorry i do not like that stance one bit.

I agree with the concern, but it's not exactly the first time we have a ruling which contradicts the actual rules, and that's not something unique to Fantasy Flight.

Again, though, they seem to admit and acknowledge that the problem exists, but it would require them to errata a pretty hefty chunk of rules to fix it - at a minimum, they'd probably have to rewrite Steps 1 and 2, add a Step 0 for weapon selection, and also rewrite the Secondary Weapons section on Page 19. While I do which they would actually do it, I understand why they'd be hesitant.

And as long as they're aware of it, they can design around it. I'm not really concerned that this is going to open some floodgate of bad rules.