Ok, i think i know why this card is worded the way it is. So many people seem to be going back and forth, but sometimes each individual/play group cultivates a method of playing a game in such a way that they are all unaware they're breaking a rule or not following a procedure. SO, here goes my attempt to penetrate the veil.

It says choose a ship. I have commonly observed people measuring the board wide, looking for the best targets to attack or declare actions against. Same when people boost or barrel roll. However, as per tournament technicalities, you cannot pre-measure anything. So the card says "Choose a ship". At this point, you're eyeballing it and hoping you're in 1-2.

Then you measure, since now you have declared your action. If this was an ordinary target lock, you'd be checking to see if it's within 1-3. If it is, then you acquire your target lock. However, if you are not within range 1-2, and not in it's firing arc, then by merit if the rules, you cannot even finish this action because the target isn't legal. Remember, you don't resolve this action in small parts. For instance, if a player were to use Expert Handling, but had no legal space to barrel roll into, they would not get to resolve the rest of it and shed their target lock. So, if you were to choose an illegal target, then this action fails to resolve and you could either choose a new target, or a completely new action. This is how any conditional actions are resolved in this game.

So just to be clear, lets look at action resolution again.

1. declare action.

2. check to see if action is legal.

3. if it is legal, resolve. if not, choose a new target or a new action.

OR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I WOULD HAVE TYPED IF THE POST I WAS LOOKING AT HAD THE CORRECT CARD TEXT.

So lets apply my previous logic to the real text.

Choose an enemy ship at range 1-2. If you are within that ships firing arc, you may acquire a free target lock. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

Okay, so, lets choose our ship. Okay, that guy. Are we within his firing arc? No. Boo, no acquiring a target lock. Okay, now i can boost.

Note that in the correct text of the card, the only thing conditional in this text is the acquisition of the target lock.

However, one should note that following proper resolution steps, if after choosing your ship you measure the distance and you aren't within range 1-2, then none of the action is legal and you must choose a different ship (or a different action).

But, but mah advanced playtesting...

Play it in the least favourable context until then. That way any surprises will be pleasant ones.

But, but mah advanced playtesting...

Play it in the least favourable context until then. That way any surprises will be pleasant ones.

Least favorable context? it doesn't work, you get stressed and ioned and take a critical damage card. the world implodes. the empire wins. (unless you are imperial. >:| )

Choose an enemy ship at range 1-2. If you are within that ships firing arc, you may acquire a free target lock. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

Okay, so, lets choose our ship. Okay, that guy. Are we within his firing arc? No. Boo, no acquiring a target lock. Okay, now i can boost.

Sorry, but that's the worst interpretation of a card I've seen. Conditions on cards should be read sequentially with failed conditions prohibiting further effects on the card from taking effect. You can't pick the bits you like, especially after a condition on the card has failed.

This card needs to be examined in the order it is written.

ACTION: Choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2. This is the first condition on the card. If it's not satisfied then further text on the card is not considered. If it is satisfied, proceed to the next statement on the card.

If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. This is the second condition and first effect on the card. This sentence cannot be considered unless the first condition has been satisfied. If the second condition is satisfied then the player may acquire TL. TL is not mandatory.

Then, you may perform a free boost action. Reaching this sentence implies that the first condition and second condition have been met and the player has chosen to acquire or not to acquire a TL. This timing is shown by the use of the word "then". At this stage, not before, the player may perform a free boost. Note that there is no mention of whether the TL is mandatory for the boost to occur.

If the TL was mandatory for the player to be allowed to boost then the final sentence should read "If you acquire TL you may then perform a free boost action." A sentence such as this would require conditions one and two to be met and force the TL to be acquired before a boost is allowed.

The text on this card is written clearly and, if followed as written, does not actually stipulate that TL is required to boost. Without such a stipulation on the card, the requirement for TL to occur before the boost can only arise from player misinterpretation.

Choose an enemy ship at range 1-2. If you are within that ships firing arc, you may acquire a free target lock. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

Okay, so, lets choose our ship. Okay, that guy. Are we within his firing arc? No. Boo, no acquiring a target lock. Okay, now i can boost.

Sorry, but that's the worst interpretation of a card I've seen. Conditions on cards should be read sequentially with failed conditions prohibiting further effects on the card from taking effect. You can't pick the bits you like, especially after a condition on the card has failed.

This card needs to be examined in the order it is written.

ACTION: Choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2. This is the first condition on the card. If it's not satisfied then further text on the card is not considered. If it is satisfied, proceed to the next statement on the card.

If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. This is the second condition and first effect on the card. This sentence cannot be considered unless the first condition has been satisfied. If the second condition is satisfied then the player may acquire TL. TL is not mandatory.

Then, you may perform a free boost action. Reaching this sentence implies that the first condition and second condition have been met and the player has chosen to acquire or not to acquire a TL. This timing is shown by the use of the word "then". At this stage, not before, the player may perform a free boost. Note that there is no mention of whether the TL is mandatory for the boost to occur.

If the TL was mandatory for the player to be allowed to boost then the final sentence should read "If you acquire TL you may then perform a free boost action." A sentence such as this would require conditions one and two to be met and force the TL to be acquired before a boost is allowed.

The text on this card is written clearly and, if followed as written, does not actually stipulate that TL is required to boost. Without such a stipulation on the card, the requirement for TL to occur before the boost can only arise from player misinterpretation.

But, but mah advanced playtesting...

Play it in the least favourable context until then. That way any surprises will be pleasant ones.

Least favorable context? it doesn't work, you get stressed and ioned and take a critical damage card. the world implodes. the empire wins. (unless you are imperial. >:| )

Least favourable context would be that you have to get or reacquire a target lock in order to be able to perform the boost. The world imploding is not "least favourable", because you would be dead and so would everyone else. Something about being made to bend over at the hips, a pineapple, and a distinct lack of lube is "least favourable".

But, but mah advanced playtesting...

Play it in the least favourable context until then. That way any surprises will be pleasant ones.

Least favorable context? it doesn't work, you get stressed and ioned and take a critical damage card. the world implodes. the empire wins. (unless you are imperial. >:| )

Least favourable context would be that you have to get or reacquire a target lock in order to be able to perform the boost. The world imploding is not "least favourable", because you would be dead and so would everyone else. Something about being made to bend over at the hips, a pineapple, and a distinct lack of lube is "least favourable".

XD you made me laugh

But, but mah advanced playtesting...

Play it in the least favourable context until then. That way any surprises will be pleasant ones.

Least favorable context? it doesn't work, you get stressed and ioned and take a critical damage card. the world implodes. the empire wins. (unless you are imperial. >:| )

Least favourable context would be that you have to get or reacquire a target lock in order to be able to perform the boost. The world imploding is not "least favourable", because you would be dead and so would everyone else. Something about being made to bend over at the hips, a pineapple, and a distinct lack of lube is "least favourable".

Well, that escalated quickly!

But, but mah advanced playtesting...

Play it in the least favourable context until then. That way any surprises will be pleasant ones.

Least favorable context? it doesn't work, you get stressed and ioned and take a critical damage card. the world implodes. the empire wins. (unless you are imperial. >:| )

Least favourable context would be that you have to get or reacquire a target lock in order to be able to perform the boost. The world imploding is not "least favourable", because you would be dead and so would everyone else. Something about being made to bend over at the hips, a pineapple, and a distinct lack of lube is "least favourable".

Well, that escalated quickly!

You've never made a pineapple salad without lube? Geez! Or were you thinking something dirty...

Okay, I need to bow out of this thread before I derail it further.

Okay, I need to bow out of this thread before I derail it further.

Derail?, but I like Trains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHkKJfcBXcw&feature=kp

and long threads arguing about semantics

As much as I hate to introduce actual rules into this discussion, we do have precedent for what "then" means, via Expert Handling. If you don't do the first part successfully, you don't get the"then" part.

There's some question of what constitutes success in this case, since the first part is a "may". But IMHO there's no question about the arc requirement. If you may lock but don't, it might still be successful. But if you don't even have the chance to lock, I don't see how it can be considered successful to let you move on to after the "then".

Buhallin I tend to put a great deal of weight in what you say. But in this case I'm not so sure that Expert Handling and D7-T1 are the same thing.

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

In this case the action is to preform a barrel roll. In the case of R7-T1 the action is to pick a ship at range 1-2.

Action: Choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2. If you are inside that ship’s firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

So going strictly by RAW, the action you preform with R7-T1 is to pick a ship at range 1-2. You then get to do two different things after you preform that action. If there is no ship with in range 1-2 you can't preform the action.

As much as I hate to introduce actual rules into this discussion, we do have precedent for what "then" means, via Expert Handling. If you don't do the first part successfully, you don't get the"then" part.

There's some question of what constitutes success in this case, since the first part is a "may". But IMHO there's no question about the arc requirement. If you may lock but don't, it might still be successful. But if you don't even have the chance to lock, I don't see how it can be considered successful to let you move on to after the "then".

I'm leaning strongly toward the idea that you get both the target lock and the boost or neither, but I might be persuaded otherwise. But the only question really up for debate about this card is whether you're allowed to boost if you choose not to acquire a TL. The order in which the boost and lock happen is obvious from the card itself, as is the fact that you have to be at Range 1-2 and in the firing arc of the chosen ship to do either.

Buhallin I tend to put a great deal of weight in what you say. But in this case I'm not so sure that Expert Handling and D7-T1 are the same thing.

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

In this case the action is to preform a barrel roll. In the case of R7-T1 the action is to pick a ship at range 1-2.

Action: Choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2. If you are inside that ship’s firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

So going strictly by RAW, the action you preform with R7-T1 is to pick a ship at range 1-2. You then get to do two different things after you preform that action. If there is no ship with in range 1-2 you can't preform the action.

I respect your posts over at BGG, but there's simply no way you're going to convince me that the only thing on the card that's actually an action is choosing a ship. The action you perform consists of the entire card text; your interpretation breaks a lot of things in the game. For instance--if I use Squad Leader or Lando to grant someone a free action, and that ship uses the action to activate R7-T1, does the ship get to do anything other than choose an enemy ship? It's clear to me that the answer is yes, but if that's the case then taking that action means doing everything on the card.

R7-T1 clearly defines a conditional benefit: if you're in the firing arc of the chosen ship, you get the rest of the stuff listed on the card. You can't do the stuff on the card if you don't meet the condition.

I respect your posts over at BGG, but there's simply no way you're going to convince me that the only thing on the card that's actually an action is choosing a ship.

Not really, there's the action and there's the other things you can do because of that action.

I don't see what playing it that way would break, but I'm completely open to examples of issues that it might cause. The examples of SL or Lando don't break in anyway. You get to use one of those to preform the Action that R7-T1 allows, and the effects that preforming that action allow.

I looked though the other cards with Action: in them, and I didn't see any that would work any differently if you treated R7-T1 like this.

Now to change the subject from what it does to what it could be used for: I could see this loaded on a Y wing (ICT has a 1–2 Range as well, and you could boost out of someone's arc while still being able to shoot at them). This would pretty well shut down Carnor Jax if he tried to attack a ship like this without proper support.

Been thinking about this, and thought I'd pose the following question.

Is an action the whole text on the card? Or is an action the first sentence on the card, with additional effects caused or allowed by preforming that action?

Of the cards I've looked at, the 2nd method doesn't break anything I can find. Also basic grammar seems to imply the 2nd method. If I tell someone to "Go there" I don't need to say anything else for it to be a complete action or instruction. I can however tell someone to "Go there. Then do this, that and the other thing."

Look at Expert Handling.

“Action: Perform a free barrel roll action." This is a complete sentence, and action. The rest of the effects that follow don't change anything. I'm not required to have a TL on my ship to use Expert Handling.

Daredevil

"Action: Execute a WHITE (turn 1) maneuver. Then receive 1 stress token." The action is clearly doing a turn 1, and treating it as a white maneuver. The second part of the card is just an additional effect of using that action.

Squad Leader works the same way. You have an action, and then additional effects allowed because you preformed that action.

Marksmanship has a comma, not a period, so the whole line of text is part of the same sentence.

Again if someone has an example of that method breaking something I'd be happy to hear it, because then it would make R7-T1 work like I thought it should originally.

I could see this loaded on a Y wing

I think R7-T1 would almost work better on a Y-Wing then any other card, because it gives the Y the most bang for the buck. It would be especially nice on Dutch.

Been thinking about this, and thought I'd pose the following question.

Is an action the whole text on the card? Or is an action the first sentence on the card, with additional effects caused or allowed by preforming that action?

Of the cards I've looked at, the 2nd method doesn't break anything I can find. Also basic grammar seems to imply the 2nd method. If I tell someone to "Go there" I don't need to say anything else for it to be a complete action or instruction. I can however tell someone to "Go there. Then do this, that and the other thing."

Look at Expert Handling.

“Action: Perform a free barrel roll action." This is a complete sentence, and action. The rest of the effects that follow don't change anything. I'm not required to have a TL on my ship to use Expert Handling.

Daredevil

"Action: Execute a WHITE (turn 1) maneuver. Then receive 1 stress token." The action is clearly doing a turn 1, and treating it as a white maneuver. The second part of the card is just an additional effect of using that action.

Squad Leader works the same way. You have an action, and then additional effects allowed because you preformed that action.

Marksmanship has a comma, not a period, so the whole line of text is part of the same sentence.

Again if someone has an example of that method breaking something I'd be happy to hear it, because then it would make R7-T1 work like I thought it should originally.

Well, more or less the same again: if I use Lando to give you a free action, and you spend it to activate Expert Handling, do you get to remove a target lock? If not, then the game is broken in a few ways (because in several cases costs and benefits are no longer associated with actions granted by upgrades).

If so, then what you're endorsing is a distinction without a difference, because taking the action listed on the card always implicates all the other stuff on the card--so it doesn't matter which part of the card is actually the action and which part is just mandatory stuff that happens every time you take the action.

But essentially, with R7-T1 I don't think there's no way to reasonably divorce the first sentence from the rest of the card--any more than you can sieve out sentences from EH or Daredevil or Squad Leader.

Not to be nitpicky, but you can't use Lando to activate Expert Handling, nor R7-T1.

It's a matter of activation.

To activate expert handling you need to perform a barrel roll. If you can't perform the barrel roll (overlapping) the card fails.

To activate daredevil you must perform a white 1 turn. Good news since even if the maneuver fails (overlapping) the card is still activated.

To activate R7-T1 you need to choose an anemy ship at range 1-2.

All 3 cards start with the requeriment to activation. And a period separates this requeriment from the rest of the card. In all three cards, if you fail to meet this requeriment the rest of the card fails.

However, many people seem to think that in R7-T1, the second requeriment (fring arc) needs to be fulfilled too with the first requeriment, otherwise the rest of card won't work. However, if that was the case, both requeriments would be on the first sentence... Something like:

"Choose an enemy ship at range 1-2 that has you in its firing arc".

But as the card is redacted, the requisite of activation consists only in choosing an enemy ship at range 1-2. PERIOD.

Well, more or less the same again: if I use Lando to give you a free action, and you spend it to activate Expert Handling, do you get to remove a target lock?

Why wouldn't you? The fact that's a free action given to Luke by Lando doesn't change the action in any way.

If so, then what you're endorsing is a distinction without a difference...

Not all, because in the case of R7-T1, you have two completely optional and independent effects that you can preform because of the action.

Can I use Expert Handling if there is no TL on that ship? I'd say yes, the removal of the TL is a side effect of the action, not part of the action itself.

For further evidence look at the way some other cards are written.... Both Marksmanship and Expose are a single sentence.

Well, more or less the same again: if I use Lando to give you a free action, and you spend it to activate Expert Handling, do you get to remove a target lock?

Why wouldn't you? The fact that's a free action given to Luke by Lando doesn't change the action in any way.

If so, then what you're endorsing is a distinction without a difference...

Not all, because in the case of R7-T1, you have two completely optional and independent effects that you can preform because of the action.

Choose an enemy ship at range 1-2. If you are within that ships firing arc, you may acquire a free target lock. Then, you may perform a free boost action.

Okay, so, lets choose our ship. Okay, that guy. Are we within his firing arc? No. Boo, no acquiring a target lock. Okay, now i can boost.

Sorry, but that's the worst interpretation of a card I've seen. Conditions on cards should be read sequentially with failed conditions prohibiting further effects on the card from taking effect. You can't pick the bits you like, especially after a condition on the card has failed.

This card needs to be examined in the order it is written.

ACTION: Choose an enemy ship at Range 1-2. This is the first condition on the card. If it's not satisfied then further text on the card is not considered. If it is satisfied, proceed to the next statement on the card.

If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship. This is the second condition and first effect on the card. This sentence cannot be considered unless the first condition has been satisfied. If the second condition is satisfied then the player may acquire TL. TL is not mandatory.

Then, you may perform a free boost action. Reaching this sentence implies that the first condition and second condition have been met and the player has chosen to acquire or not to acquire a TL. This timing is shown by the use of the word "then". At this stage, not before, the player may perform a free boost. Note that there is no mention of whether the TL is mandatory for the boost to occur.

If the TL was mandatory for the player to be allowed to boost then the final sentence should read "If you acquire TL you may then perform a free boost action." A sentence such as this would require conditions one and two to be met and force the TL to be acquired before a boost is allowed.

The text on this card is written clearly and, if followed as written, does not actually stipulate that TL is required to boost. Without such a stipulation on the card, the requirement for TL to occur before the boost can only arise from player misinterpretation.

you DO realize you're just repeating what I said, right? To quote myself, " Note that in the correct text of the card, the only thing conditional in this text is the acquisition of the target lock."

Oh and as a side note, I'm not "choosing the bits I like". Since I don't play rebels, only Imperials, then I actually benefit from a more restrictive ruling on this card. I'm just callin' it like I see it.

Been thinking about this, and thought I'd pose the following question.

Is an action the whole text on the card? Or is an action the first sentence on the card, with additional effects caused or allowed by preforming that action?

The complete action is everything on the card. If you think about it, there are other core-rule actions that are compound steps. They only reason they're not thought of as such is because they're in the rules, not on a card, and have already been explained in their written out format. When granted an action by a card, the entirety of what is on that card is the action. that's why it starts with the " A ction:" heading.

For instance, if you think about doing a barrel roll, it's actually a lot of steps like this. Lets break it down.

Action: Barrel Roll: choose a direction on either side of your ships base that does not have template guides. Then, place the 1 straight maneuver template along any portion of the base. No part of the template can extend past the forward or rear end of the base. Then, place the ship so that its base is in contact with the other end of the template, again making sure no part of the template extends past the front or rear edge of the base. If the end position of the ships base would overlap an obstacle or ship base, you cannot complete this action.

The complete action is everything on the card. If you think about it, there are other core-rule actions that are compound steps. They only reason they're not thought of as such is because they're in the rules, not on a card, and have already been explained in their written out format. When granted an action by a card, the entirety of what is on that card is the action. that's why it starts with the " A ction:" heading.

Correct. All three sentences together constitute the action. Sentences two and three include the word "may" which denotes an option. You have to resolve each sentence. All three of them. Sentences two and three can be resolved by deciding not to exercise the options they offer.

Can I use Expert Handling if there is no TL on that ship? I'd say yes, the removal of the TL is a side effect of the action, not part of the action itself.

Removing the TL is part of the action itself. The sentence states that you may remove a TL. It does not force you to remove a TL. You can use expert handling if there is no target lock. Even if there is you are not forced to remove it. You are entitled to keep the TL if you really want to.

EH is very similar to R7-T1.

Edit:

Both cards have several effects some of which are optional.