Nested Query Question

Trying to implement a nested query and running into some trouble.  Tried following the example from the wiki and from what I could find in a couple other threads, but I'm not seeing my error.   /roll ?{4+ Crew shooting?|      Yes,?{Cover?|           No,3t[AttackDice3+] + (?{Number of Crew Shooting}-3)t[AttackDice4+]|           Yes,3t[AttackDice4+] + (?{Number of Crew Shooting}-3)t[AttackDice5+]}|      No,?{Cover?|           No,?{Number of Crew Shooting}t[AttackDice3+]|           Yes,?{Number of Crew Shooting}t[AttackDice4+]}} Any help would be appreciated!

I think you're going to have to escape the ampersands in the 3rd layer of nesting, or the } will break the 2nd layer of nesting. Thusly: /roll ?{4+ Crew shooting?| Yes,?{Cover?| No,3t[AttackDice3+] + (?{Number of Crew Shooting}-3)t[AttackDice4+]| Yes,3t[AttackDice4+] + (?{Number of Crew Shooting}-3)t[AttackDice5+]}| No,?{Cover?| No,?{Number of Crew Shooting}t[AttackDice3+]| Yes,?{Number of Crew Shooting}t[AttackDice4+]}} ... are you serving penance for some heinous crime?

Thank you;  that works like a charm! But I'm very confused...  Why does the ampersand in }  break the nesting but the ampersand in }  not break it?

Because "}" can't be  isn't parsed in one go by R20, it's an extra iteration the parser has to make to pick up the } character. So on the first pass it'll pick up the & and turn it into a &. It ignores the #125; because it didn't start with a & on this pass. The next pass will pick up the } and turn it into a }. That extra step means on the third pass, it finally picks up that"Number of crew" Query and the } ending it - but by that third pass, it's resolved the two outer Queries. Without the extra step to substitute the &, the parser will pick up that } on the second iteration while it's dealing with the ?{Cover? Yes/No} Query, ending that Query early. We need it to still be a } at that stage, so the parser keeps reading through the -3)t[Attackdice5+] and gets to the next }... which is already a } brace, because its ampersand wasn't escaped so it's resolved one iteration earlier. Clear as mud? :) Sorry, not very good at explaining. Probably needs a GiGs or Aaron lecture. Here's the Order of Operations . The second sentence in step 5 is the relevant one... it's probably clearer than all my babble above.

Huh -- thank you for the explanation!  That makes a lot of sense.  More importantly, it makes my macro work, so my thanks for the help!