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 think there is a misunderstanding. The card is not written in a programming language. It is written in English. "If" and "then" do not necessarily belong together.

If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship.

That is a conditional sentence. It starts with the conditional clause if you are inside that ship's firing arc followed by the consequence clause you may acquire a target lock on that ship followed by a full stop. In a programming language you would put "then" at the start of the consequence clause. In English "then" is omitted.

Then you may perform a free boost action.

This sentence is not part of the conditional sentence. It includes one reference to the previous sentence. That reference is the word "then". In this context "then" is about timing. It does not refer to the conditional clause.

If you think about it, there are other core-rule actions that are compound steps.

Edit: Going to rewrite post because I think I see what is causing the confusion on my point.

Ok. I think I've refined my thinking of this. It's still the same concept but without using quite the same terms.

The action is the full text of the card, in rule terms. You do what the card says, with any optional effect being up to you.

The first complete sentence is the only conditional statement you need to worry about, in regards of being able to use the effects of the rest of the text.

So in the case of Expert Handling, you have to do a barrel roll before you can do the rest of what the card says. If you can't do a barrel roll for what ever reason the rest of the text doesn't matter.

For Marksmanship, all of the text is part of the conditional statement.

For R7-T1 the only condition that you must meet is having an enemy ship at range 1-2 from the ship attempting to use R7-T1. If that condition is met the rest of the text on the card is now valid. In this case both of them being optional effects with one having an additional requirement.

Depending on how/if FFG rules this will change how we think of actions a bit or at least I think it will.

Because either the whole of the text is to be treated as conditionals that must be met before you can move on to the next line. Or else only the first full sentence is. This is the first card that's had more then one optional effect on it that I can think of so until now it's never really mattered.

I cannot completely agree.

The action is the full text of the card, in rule terms. You do what the card says, with any optional effect being up to you.

Agreed.

The first complete sentence is the only conditional statement you need to worry about, in regards of being able to use the effects of the rest of the text.

I disagree. You have to do everything the card says. Some parts are optional because they explicitly say so. (may)

Because either the whole of the text is to be treated as conditionals that must be met before you can move on to the next line.

I agree. Let's look at the R7-T1 card and apply formal logic where required.

Part 1:

Action:

There is no doubt how this part works.

Part 2:

Choose an enemy ship at range 1-2.

There is no doubt how this part works. You have to meet it. If not the entire action fails. You may choose another action.

Part 3:

If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship.

You need to resolve the whole statement (sentence), not only the conditional clause.

A:= you are inside that ship's firing arc

B:= acquire a target lock on that ship

You may acquire a target lock on that ship gives you an option. In logic terms that is (B OR (NOT B)).

The whole sentence: A IMPLIES (B OR (NOT B))

(Note: IMPLIES is a material conditional as a truth function. Also written -> or =>.)

The statement (A IMPLIES (B OR (NOT B))) is always true . So this part always resolves successfully. No matter what the situation is (inside firing arc or not) or what you do (choose/may).

Part 4:

Then you may perform a free boost action.

C:= you may perform a free boost action

The sentence is written as C OR (NOT C). Which is always true. This part always resolves successfully.

You have to resolve all parts for the action to work. The last two parts just happen to always resolve successfully. Mainly because of "may".

In this context "then" is about timing. It does not refer to the conditional clause.

I'm not saying it relates to the conditional. But from the EH ruling, it does relate to the successful completion of the previous portion of the ability. It's not that"then" explicitly checks the arc condition, it's that the previous element can't be completed without meeting the arc condition.

I disagree. You have to do everything the card says. Some parts are optional because they explicitly say so. (may)

Yes and no. Take Expert Handling for example. If you can't preform the barrel roll, you don't do the rest, do you?

I agree. Let's look at the R7-T1 card and apply formal logic where required.

Let A: "[You are at Range 1-2 of a particular enemy ship, and] inside that ship's firing arc.

Let B: "Acquire a target lock on that ship."

Let C: "Perform a free boost action."

Then R7-T1 says: A --> (B U ~B) --> (C U ~C) Or, equivalently, A --> (B U ~B) ^ (C U ~C). That's the kind of argument I'd been looking for… I'm moving to the "you can do any subset of B and C" camp, but I do still think you have to meet the in-arc condition.

Let A: "[You are at Range 1-2 of a particular enemy ship, and] inside that ship's firing arc.

Let B: "Acquire a target lock on that ship."

But the Inside that ship's firing arc is part of B not A.

The text says "Pick an enemy ship at range 1-2(period). So the condition of being in the fire arc has to be part of B, because it's part of that sentence. What you're saying doesn't fit with the grammar of the text.

In order for it to be what you're saying it would have to be written as...

"Pick an enemy ship at range 1-2, that you are in the firing arc of."

I disagree. You have to do everything the card says. Some parts are optional because they explicitly say so. (may)

Yes and no. Take Expert Handling for example. If you can't preform the barrel roll, you don't do the rest, do you?

If you can't preform the barrel roll, you don't do the rest. Why? Because you have to do everything the card says. All or nothing.

The EH card (with errata) has three sentences. The first (barrel roll action) is a yes/no situation. You do it or you cannot do it. It can work or it can fail. The second (stress if no barrel roll in action bar) cannot fail. The third sentence gives you the option to do something (remove a TL). It cannot fail either.

You have to resolve all three sentences. Only one of the three can fail. That is similar to R7-T1. You have to resolve all three sentences. But only one of them can fail.

I agree. Let's look at the R7-T1 card and apply formal logic where required.

Thanks for this; I hadn't broken it down in this way, although perhaps I should have. I'm reading this card as:

Let A: "[You are at Range 1-2 of a particular enemy ship, and] inside that ship's firing arc.

Let B: "Acquire a target lock on that ship."

Let C: "Perform a free boost action."

Then R7-T1 says: A --> (B U ~B) --> (C U ~C) Or, equivalently, A --> (B U ~B) ^ (C U ~C). That's the kind of argument I'd been looking for… I'm moving to the "you can do any subset of B and C" camp ...

The difference in our opinions seems to be a single bracket.

Your opinion: A --> (B U ~B) --> (C U ~C)

My opinion: (A --> (B U ~B)) --> (C U ~C)

I'm also willing to go for (A --> (B U ~B)) ^ (C U ~C)

(I would split A into two statements. But that is irrelevant here. A may as well be "inside the firing arc".)

... but I do still think you have to meet the in-arc condition.

That is the real point of this discussion.

If you are correct there is a conditional sentence with a conditional clause and a consequence clause followed by a second sentence which consists of another consequence clause. If that were the intended meaning I would expect all three clauses in one sentence. Like " If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship and you may perform a free boost action. " Which is A --> (B U ~B) ^ (C U ~C). That's not what's written, though. There are two sentences. Linking the conditional clause A to the last sentence does not seem natural to me. Linking the conditional sentence to the second sentence via IMPLIES seems fine.

EDIT:

I just realized something:

Then R7-T1 says: A --> (B U ~B) --> (C U ~C)

If you can't preform the barrel roll, you don't do the rest. Why? Because you have to do everything the card says. All or nothing.

Again, you seem to be stuck on an argument of semantics here. You clearly don't have to do everything, not if that thing is optional. Just as clearly as you have to do anything the card tells you, if it's not optional...

So functionally we're both saying the same thing. You check the condition for the action, then if that's condition is true you then do what ever else the card allows and/or tells you to do. That is the whole point I'm trying to make. There is so far only 1 condition that matters, and everything else is dependent on that condition being met.

If you can't barrel roll for some reason, you don't get stress, and you don't clear the TL.

In the case of R7-T1, if I was in the firing arc of a ship, but at range 3, I wouldn't be able to do the TL or boost, because the condition required is being range 1-2.

So functionally we're both saying the same thing.

I agree.

At least there is something in this thread someone agrees on.

I agree.

Good, I was starting to think I was being so confusing that no one was understanding what I was saying...

Part of the thing is we've never really had a card like this before. Most other cards are the following process.

Do A. Or Do A - B happens. Or even Do A, B happens, you may do C. This is the first action I can think of with 2 optional effects, and the first one with an additional condition as part of an optional effect.

But as the game goes on, we may get more cards that are as complex or perhaps more so. As such we may need to change our basic understanding of how actions actually work.

The point of my argument is there is only 1 condition that matters in term of the action as a whole, and any other conditions only matter if that effect comes into play or not.

So using R7-T1 again, the only condition that matter is the enemy ship at range 1-2. If that is true, then the rest of the text can come into effect, if that is not true, then none of the rest of the text matters.

I just realized something:

Then R7-T1 says: A --> (B U ~B) --> (C U ~C)

Assuming there is a ship at range 1-2 then the above statement is always true . Even if A (you are in the firing arc) is false the complete statement is true. You are free to do B or not. You are free to do C or not. Everything works out. I am aware that is not what you intended to say. But that logical statement says it anyway.

I think I know what the problem is. I made a mistake in post 104.

"If you are inside that ship's firing arc, you may acquire a target lock on that ship ." is not A --> (B U ~B). It is (A^(B U ~B))U(~A ^ ~B) or, equivalently, A U (~A ^ ~B) or, equivalently, ~A --> ~B. Could someone check the equivalent statements, please?

Start again from scratch. This time the first sentence is a separate statement.

A:=ship in range 1-2

B:=within firing arc

C:=acquire TL

D:=boost

IMHO the entire card reads:

A ^ (~B --> ~C) ^ (D U ~D)

Three sentences, all connected by AND.

That is equivalent to A ^ (~B --> ~C).

The other side of the discussion replaces the last AND with IMPLY. I guess that results in this:

A ^ ((~B --> ~C) --> (D U ~D)) which is equivalent to A.

Edit:

A ^ ((~B --> ~C) --> (D U ~D)) or simply A means you can TL even if you are not in the firing arc. Therefore I think that this interpretation (last sentence at the right side of IMPLY) of the card is wrong.

So using R7-T1 again, the only condition that matter is the enemy ship at range 1-2. If that is true, then the rest of the text can come into effect, if that is not true, then none of the rest of the text matters.

Nearly agreed. It is not the only condition that matters but the first condition that matters. The firing arc condition matters somehow, somewhere.

The first condition is the A ^ () at the beginning of the above statements. If A is false you do not need to read the rest of the card.

How the rest of the card works is still under discussion.

EDIT: Cross-posted with dvor. We realized the same error at the same time...!

I just realized something:

Then R7-T1 says: A --> (B U ~B) --> (C U ~C)

Assuming there is a ship at range 1-2 then the above statement is always true . Even if A (you are in the firing arc) is false the complete statement is true. You are free to do B or not. You are free to do C or not. Everything works out. I am aware that is not what you intended to say. But that logical statement says it anyway.

I think that points to a problem in the specification, actually. Consider ~A: according to the card and the problem as we've specified it, ~A -> ~B. But that is simultaneous with A -> (B U ~B), which means ~B is a consequent of both A and ~A.

That's not a formal problem, but it's difficult to interpret in context, and suggests the possibility that we've incorrectly identified B (and therefore ~B). We can fix it by distinguishing between the ~B implied by ~A and the ~B implied by A:

Let A: "[You are at Range 1-2 of a particular enemy ship, and] inside that ship's firing arc."
Let B: " You have the opportunity to acquire a target lock on that ship."
Let C: " You have the opportunity to perform a free boost action."

Now ~B doesn't mean you don't acquire a lock, it means you weren't allowed to acquire a lock; we can meaningfully interpret ~B -> ~A, and all is right with the world.

The heart of the matter is that it's not perfectly clear whether A -> C in this restatement, due to the use of a period instead of a comma. But it's grammatically beyond question that starting the last sentence with the conjunct "Then" indicates that the second third sentence has to be understood in reference to the first second ; you can attempt to interpret it strictly as a timing direction, but that means you're forced to specify the event that precedes C--namely, B. Without B, there's nothing for C to happen after, and accordingly B -> C.

So we have A -> B and B -> C, and it follows trivially that A -> C: if the conditions of range and firing arc are met, you get to choose whether to acquire a target lock, and then you get to choose whether to boost.

But the Inside that ship's firing arc is part of B not A.

The text says "Pick an enemy ship at range 1-2(period). So the condition of being in the fire arc has to be part of B, because it's part of that sentence. What you're saying doesn't fit with the grammar of the text.

Yes, it does. You can break my A down into this:
P: You are at Range 1-2 of a designated ship.
Q: You are inside that ship's firing arc.

And now you can substitute Q for A in the rest of my post. (Notably, that changes my claim to Q -> B, B -> C, and therefore Q -> C.)

But in the context of R7-T1, ~P doesn't have a meaning--from the perspective of the rest of the card, P is always true. (If the ship you choose isn't at Range 1-2, you either choose another ship or choose another action.) And if P is always true, it's not a meaningful antecedent of anything else.

So we can say P U Q -> Q, we let A: (P U Q), and accordingly A -> Q. So we can say A -> Q, Q -> B, and therefore A -> B, etc.

Nearly agreed. It is not the only condition that matters but the first condition that matters. The firing arc condition matters somehow, somewhere.

Ok I'll agree that's a more accurate statement. But I think we'll agree that any other conditions that follow don't matter if the first one isn't fulfilled.

In this case the firing arc condition only matters if you're trying to preform the TL part of the action. If you're not in the firing arc of the ship that you chose that fulfills the first condition, you can not preform the rest of that action.

But that 2nd condition has nothing to do with the 2nd optional effect, the boost action. If it did, that 2nd condition would be part of the first sentence and not in the same sentence as the TL action.

So the way I look at it, in pesdu-code because I'll be honesty I don't understand what you and VS are saying.

If [ship is range 1-2]

May [if in fire arc] obtain a TL

May preform boost action

Going by RAW, you can not conclude that the firing arc is part of the conditions for the boost, because of the periods. Periods mean something, and the only way you can link the TL action to the Boost action is if you use Then to imply a connection. But in this case it can be read as written, that Then is a statement of timing.

This works because the it mean the intent is that you can only gain the TL if you're ready in the firing arc, instead of letting you boost your way into it, then gaining the TL.

you can attempt to interpret it strictly as a timing direction, but that means you're forced to specify the event that precedes C--namely, B. Without B, there's nothing for C to happen after, and accordingly B -> C.

No, because B is optional, there is nothing in the text that says you have to fulfill B in order for C to be valid. If you read it that way, you're forced to gain a TL before you can boost. So either B is optional, and as such it has no effect on C. Or else it's a requirement at which case the word May no longer has any meaning.

It also makes the whole text poorly writen, because there would be a much cleaner way to write it.

"Action: Pick ship at range 1-2, that you are in the firing arc of, and gain a TL on that ship. After gaining the TL you may preform a boost action."

If it was written that way, what you're saying would make sense. But that's not what the text says. It lists 1 condition, with 2 optional actions, one with a additional condition.

You quite simply can not add the Firing Arc condition to the first sentence though, not without breaking the way it's writen.

Now ~B doesn't mean you don't acquire a lock, it means you weren't allowed to acquire a lock; we can meaningfully interpret ~B -> ~A, and all is right with the world.

What does ~B -> ~A mean? Let's see:

With B true and A false the statement (~B -> ~A) is true. In game terms this means: You have the opportunity to acquire a target lock. You are not in the firing arc. That obviously contradicts the card. So (~B -> ~A) does not describe the issue at hand.

The heart of the matter is that it's not perfectly clear whether A -> C in this restatement, due to the use of a period instead of a comma. But it's grammatically beyond question that starting the last sentence with the conjunct "Then" indicates that the second third sentence has to be understood in reference to the first second ; you can attempt to interpret it strictly as a timing direction, but that means you're forced to specify the event that precedes C ...

Agreed.

... --namely, B. Without B, there's nothing for C to happen after, and accordingly B -> C.

No. The event C happens after is not B. It is the entire second sentence. First sentence first, second sentence second, and third sentence last.

Thought this was X-Wing forums not Coding forums

I don't understand coding. Anyhow, E-Wings with Advanced Sensors and R7-T1 will be amazingness.

The actual wording on the card does imply you must TL first in order to boost.

You may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then you may perform a free boost action.

The 'Then' in the boost statement makes the act sequential with the prior act.

It is however a non issue, because why would you not take the TL. As I stated earlier, this droid uses your action so taking the target lock has no downside. Then you may or may not boost.

First of all it's not always beneficial to take the TL. If you have a TL on another ship that you actually would get a shot on and you only want to dodge the arc of fire you are in at the moment of the action. Then it would be a bad idea to actually take another TL.

Also i would say being in the arc of fire is the only trigger on this card.

You are in the arc? YES

-> You may have the TL

-> You can boost.

Two different free actions that you may do. Or not. They are even in different sentences. The word "then" can as well mean that it's just a word indicating the temporal order, not a causal order. That's how i understand it at least.

The actual wording on the card does imply you must TL first in order to boost.

You may acquire a target lock on that ship. Then you may perform a free boost action.

The 'Then' in the boost statement makes the act sequential with the prior act.

It is however a non issue, because why would you not take the TL. As I stated earlier, this droid uses your action so taking the target lock has no downside. Then you may or may not boost.

The only case I can think of where you CAN'T take a target lock is:

-Enemy ship at range 1-2 is the only ship in TL range

-You already have a TL on that ship

In this case, you cannot perform another TL (Per the FAQ I believe...looking at YOU Dutch).

So depending on how the card is ultimately ruled, you MIGHT not get to boost if this is the case.

Correct me if I'm wrong

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.

Actually, no, I didn't repeat what you said. You stated that you could be out of the enemy's arc and still boost. I'm saying that being in the enemy's arc is the second condition and that failing that condition prohibits any further text on the card from taking effect, including the boost. You must meet that condition in order to choose to acquire a TL. Once you've chosen you get to choose to boost or not regardless of whether you acquired TL or not.

If you're out of the enemy's arc and still boosting you're choosing to ignore a condition on the card itself. That's what I consider choosing the bits you like.

This card says to choose an enemy at range 1-2 and if within their fire arc you may acquire a target lock, then perform a free boost action.

My question is do you have to be able to do the first part of that to be able to do the second?

I'd assume yes otherwise we have just been given a cheaper engine upgrade for X & Ys but at the cost of the astro slot.

I would say no. It says you MAY acquire a target lock, then perform the boost. May implies a choice.

Do i? No, ok i can boost now.

Do i? Yep, (places TL token next to ship). Ok, i can boost now.

Maybe it will change in the future, but i believe all ships that have an astromech slot have the ability to TL.

i have to disagree with this response.

the card says if at range 1-2 and if in their fire arc you may target lock, so you do have a choice to target lock or not, but the wording says then perform a free boost action, to me this is conditional of taking the lock then boost.

Actually, like KineticOperator stated, it ends the sentence after the first part. The next sentence says "Then, you may perform a free boost action."

It gives a choice to the first part and to the second part, partitioned by a period and the word Then, signifying one does not effect whether you can do the other.

Let's try reasoning it out this way since some of you seem to think it's an If/Then statement: Let's take Then out of the wording and see what happens to it.

"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. You may perform a free boost action."

Okay, so now what we have here is a target lock if conditions are met and a boost, both are optional but it doesn't say when to do each one. Now it would fall under the simultaneous effects rule and I get to choose when each effect happens. I don't think that FFG would have written this the way they did if they intended you to choose when each effect happened.

I'm fairly certain that the word "Then" is included to specify the timing of the effects. I'm also pretty confident that choosing to use or skip the first effect does not mean you can or cannot use the second effect.

They are two effects, separated only to specify which happens first.

By this logic, any ship with Push the Limit will gain a stress token after an action, independent of taking a second action.

The "Then" is not only separated by a period from the previous statement, it's in an entirely new paragraph. By the above logic, this would imply that after an action is performed you may perform a second action. Regardless of the second action being taken, you then receive a stress token.

I get that it's a little vague, but lets apply a bit of common sense here.

By this logic, any ship with Push the Limit will gain a stress token after an action, independent of taking a second action.

The "Then" is not only separated by a period from the previous statement, it's in an entirely new paragraph. By the above logic, this would imply that after an action is performed you may perform a second action. Regardless of the second action being taken, you then receive a stress token.

I get that it's a little vague, but lets apply a bit of common sense here.

Thanks for finding this - it's a good reinforcement to what I've been trying to say.

"Then" is a conditional in X-wing. It's timing, but not JUST timing - it says that if you don't complete what came before, you don't do that part.

All the conditional logic (which I've admittedly skimmed, because we have no idea if that's how we should read the groupings) seem to be ignoring this. IMHO, this is the core of the question - if you can't do B, can you "then" do C? We have FAQ an example that you can't (Expert Handling), and at least one very obvious no with Push the Limit.

Barring some pretty good evidence, I don't see any reason to think R7-T1 shouldn't follow the evidence we have, meaning you can't do C (boost) unless you successfully do B (which means being in arc).

All the conditional logic (which I've admittedly skimmed, because we have no idea if that's how we should read the groupings) seem to be ignoring this. IMHO, this is the core of the question - if you can't do B, can you "then" do C?

The logic does not ignore it. One point of disagreement is what exactly constitutes doing one part if that part is optional (may).

By this logic, any ship with Push the Limit will gain a stress token after an action, independent of taking a second action.

The "Then" is not only separated by a period from the previous statement, it's in an entirely new paragraph. By the above logic, this would imply that after an action is performed you may perform a second action. Regardless of the second action being taken, you then receive a stress token.

I get that it's a little vague, but lets apply a bit of common sense here.

Thanks for finding this - it's a good reinforcement to what I've been trying to say.

"Then" is a conditional in X-wing. It's timing, but not JUST timing - it says that if you don't complete what came before, you don't do that part.

All the conditional logic (which I've admittedly skimmed, because we have no idea if that's how we should read the groupings) seem to be ignoring this. IMHO, this is the core of the question - if you can't do B, can you "then" do C? We have FAQ an example that you can't (Expert Handling), and at least one very obvious no with Push the Limit.

Barring some pretty good evidence, I don't see any reason to think R7-T1 shouldn't follow the evidence we have, meaning you can't do C (boost) unless you successfully do B (which means being in arc).

Except for the little fact that in 'Push the limit', performing the second action is part of the first sentece, the prerequisite.

Thus, if you don't perform the second action, the prerequisite is not met, the card fails in its entirety, and you never get to 'Then' clause.