When you trigger FCS, are you acquiring a target lock? Yes. That meets the requirements for ST-321, and its effect kicks in. That's all there is to it.

I agree so far. ST-321 triggers and you can resolve it. Problem is that "on the defender" is still in effect. You have to resolve "on the defender" as well.

Consider Weapons Engineer: When you acquire a target lock, you may lock onto 2 different ships. Identical trigger, so it activates too, and works. But ST-321 doesn't.

There is one important difference: Weapons engineer overrides the rulebook. There is a rule that cards override the general rules. However, there is no rule that cards override other cards. ST-321 does not override FCS. You need to resolve both. Which you can.

Besides, if one card were to supercede the other, which of the two cards wins? Why would ST-321 supercede FCS instead of the other way round?

It's not a matter of ST-321 superseding the FCS so much as it is the effect which FCS generates meets the requirements for ST-321 to do its thing.

ST-321 says: When acquiring a target lock, you may lock onto any enemy ship in the play area.

When you trigger FCS, are you acquiring a target lock? Yes. That meets the requirements for ST-321, and its effect kicks in. That's all there is to it. Consider Weapons Engineer: When you acquire a target lock, you may lock onto 2 different ships. Identical trigger, so it activates too, and works. But ST-321 doesn't.

The ruling basically treats the target for FCS as unmodifiable, but there's absolutely nothing in the text that makes it immune to other effects. It seems that's how they want it - I have no idea why, but they do - but lacking any errata, that's just not what the card says.

Good point here. "When aquiring a target lock, you may..." does trigger both weapons engineer and ST-321 the same.

The main difference is in FCS pointing you to a single ship, and ST-321 giving you open access to every ship.

You know.... This is going to sound crazy.... but I could go so far as to suggest that you meet both criteria in an order of your choosing. IE you first satisfy the FCS, by target locking the enemy ship, then satisfy the ST-321 by then aquiring a target lock on some other ship, which erases your target lock on the defender. You will have met both criteria, and you will still end with only one target lock.

CArds interact with each other. They do not supercede each other.

Recon Specialist gives you an extra focus token, Jan turns that into an evade.

Jan says "instead". You resolve both card texts in full. There is no contradiction. There is no need for either card to supercede the other.

Why would instead matter? If you end up with an evade instead of a focus, you have not fully completed the Recon Specialist, because you don't have a focus token. Jan has superseded the Recon Specialist by changing the outcome. You're putting a ton of weight on "instead" as a term, but it's not defined anywhere in the rules, and so far as I know we don't have any rulings which either cite instead or only work if instead does what you say it does.

There are also examples which don't involve "instead". Munitions Failsafe changes the effect for some weapons, and has no "instead" in the text. That torpedo says to discard it, the Failsafe says it doesn't - which supersedes the other?

There is a rule that cards override the general rules. However, there is no rule that cards override other cards. ST-321 does not override FCS. You need to resolve both. Which you can.

Of course cards override other cards. No ability in the game is inviolable. It's true enough that most of them fall into the framework of "Can't beats can", but that doesn't mean that they're incapable of affecting each other without it.

You're creating a lot of distinctions to try to slice and dice this, but those distinctions just don't exist.

You know.... This is going to sound crazy.... but I could go so far as to suggest that you meet both criteria in an order of your choosing. IE you first satisfy the FCS, by target locking the enemy ship, then satisfy the ST-321 by then aquiring a target lock on some other ship, which erases your target lock on the defender. You will have met both criteria, and you will still end with only one target lock.

I don't agree with this. ST-321 doesn't give you an additional lock, it modifies the one you're already in the process of taking.

This is why I disagree with dvor on the "instead" - it's a term that may or may not apply based on the change that is occurring, but it's purely a grammatical thing. In the case of something like Jan, it's there because you're replacing one physical item with another, and "instead" clarifies that you don't get the original. (Jan's text with/without "instead" does very different things). But when what's being replaced is a process, the "instead" is more optional. ST-321 could say "lock on to any target in the play area instead" and it would mean exactly the same thing.

In other words, "instead" changes the actual effect in some cases - trying to take that and load it as a game term with other implications is unfounded.

Yeah the addition was a bit of a stretch

When you trigger FCS, are you acquiring a target lock? Yes. That meets the requirements for ST-321, and its effect kicks in. That's all there is to it.

I agree so far. ST-321 triggers and you can resolve it. Problem is that "on the defender" is still in effect. You have to resolve "on the defender" as well.

But just as the ST-321 lets you ignore the rule regarding target locking a ship within range 3, couldn't you also argue it lets you ignore the "on the defender" part of FCS? In both cases, it's excepting your from RAW.

The problem with many of the arguments above is that they imply that ST-321 let's you target lock ships regardless of range. That is the effect of ST-321, but range is never mentioned on the ST-321 card. So saying that ST-321 lets you over-rule the range requirement for a target lock but not other requirements doesn't make much sense.

Doesn't "any ship in the play area" imply a disregard for range requirements?

Anyway, "ignoring rules" was probably a bad way for me to put it. It seems more like a stacked command list:

After attacking...

... acquire target lock on defender

... when acquiring a target lock

... target any ship in play.

It just seems to flow that way to me.

The problem with many of the arguments above is that they imply that ST-321 let's you target lock ships regardless of range. That is the effect of ST-321, but range is never mentioned on the ST-321 card. So saying that ST-321 lets you over-rule the range requirement for a target lock but not other requirements doesn't make much sense.

It matters, because if what you do is target lock then assign token, you need a ship to target lock before, that way, you wouldn't be able to target lock any ship except if you had one at range 1-3, in that moment then you can target lock any ship in the table, but not beforehand.

So what is it ? You can target lock any ship in the table, or you can target lock any ship on the table the moment you gain a target lock token ?

It matters, because if what you do is target lock then assign token, you need a ship to target lock before, that way, you wouldn't be able to target lock any ship except if you had one at range 1-3, in that moment then you can target lock any ship in the table, but not beforehand.

So what is it ? You can target lock any ship in the table, or you can target lock any ship on the table the moment you gain a target lock token ?

"When" tends to have two possible meanings as a trigger word in X-wing:

1. It covers a time-spread operation, and the ability applies to the whole time in question (go-to example: "When attacking...")

2. It's used in places where they really should have used "After..."

Since target locks are a multi-step process, and we have good examples of "After" being used with target locks (e.g. Dutch), I tend to read "When acquiring a target lock" as #1 - an ability which applies to the entire process.

So as soon as you start the process of acquiring a target lock, ST-321's ability activates, and that applies throughout the entire process, saying you can select any enemy on the table. That should happen regardless of what originated the lock process, just like it does for Weapons Engineer.

When you trigger FCS, are you acquiring a target lock? Yes. That meets the requirements for ST-321, and its effect kicks in. That's all there is to it.

I agree so far. ST-321 triggers and you can resolve it. Problem is that "on the defender" is still in effect. You have to resolve "on the defender" as well.

But just as the ST-321 lets you ignore the rule regarding target locking a ship within range 3, couldn't you also argue it lets you ignore the "on the defender" part of FCS? In both cases, it's excepting your from RAW.

You can argue it to your heart's content, but you'd still be wrong as per the answer of FFG.

. That should happen regardless of what originated the lock process, just like it does for Weapons Engineer.

Last time I checked the FAQ, which was for this topic, the result of which is posted in this topic, FCS still restricts WE.

To be fair to the OP, I think strictly speaking the wording supports his suggestion. FCS lets you do a thing, and the Title says when you do that category of thing you can do it differently. However, I'm glad FFGs answer goes deeper than that since the combo probably ought not to work, and now it won't.

. That should happen regardless of what originated the lock process, just like it does for Weapons Engineer.

Last time I checked the FAQ, which was for this topic, the result of which is posted in this topic, FCS still restricts WE.

Nobody said it didn't. Weapons Engineer does nothing to change the target of the initial lock. It's actually a good example of a case where "When" should probably have been "After", but FFG's atrocious templating and lack of consistency strikes again.

Weapons Engineer was brought up as an example of an identical trigger to ST-321.

But just as the ST-321 lets you ignore the rule regarding target locking a ship within range 3, couldn't you also argue it lets you ignore the "on the defender" part of FCS? In both cases, it's excepting your from RAW.

You can argue it to your heart's content, but you'd still be wrong as per the answer of FFG.

Let's keep this in context here - FFG can tell us how to play something, but they can and often do go outside the actual rules to do so. The point of this relatively academic discussion is looking at the actual rules as they're printed, and whether they actually back up FFG's ruling. When you're trying to determine if FFG's ruling adheres to the printed rules, "FFG says so" really holds no weight.

When you trigger FCS, are you acquiring a target lock? Yes. That meets the requirements for ST-321, and its effect kicks in. That's all there is to it.

I agree so far. ST-321 triggers and you can resolve it. Problem is that "on the defender" is still in effect. You have to resolve "on the defender" as well.

But just as the ST-321 lets you ignore the rule regarding target locking a ship within range 3, couldn't you also argue it lets you ignore the "on the defender" part of FCS? In both cases, it's excepting your from RAW.

The problem with many of the arguments above is that they imply that ST-321 let's you target lock ships regardless of range. That is the effect of ST-321, but range is never mentioned on the ST-321 card. So saying that ST-321 lets you over-rule the range requirement for a target lock but not other requirements doesn't make much sense.

There is a key difference between overriding core rules (range 1-3) and overriding a card (the defender): The rulebook says cards override the core rules. There is no rule that cards override other cards. You cannot ignore "on the defender". In addition to that, FCS and ST-321 do not even contradict each other. Just like "X=1" and "X>0" do not contradict each other. You resolve both cards.

Jan has superseded the Recon Specialist by changing the outcome.

In order for Jan to trigger Recon Specialist needs to have resolved. You resolve both card texts.

With FCS and ST-321 you suggest to terminate the execution of FCS after half the text. That's not the way cards work. You resolve the entire ability or nothing.

In addition to that, FCS and ST-321 do not even contradict each other. Just like "X=1" and "X>0" do not contradict each other. You resolve both cards.

ST-321 says you can pick any target. If you're restricted to a specific target, then you can't pick any target. By your logic, you shouldn't be able to pick an out-of-range target at all, because that one target in range qualifies as one anywhere on the board. I really don't know how you can think that "You can't pick anything you want, but you've resolved that ability that says you can pick anything you want, because you could have picked the one I let you" works.

Your math example is just as wonky. You can pick a single number that satisfies both, but not that satisfies the full range of x > 0. You're restricting it, and claiming that 1 is the same as > 0. Which it's not.

In order for Jan to trigger Recon Specialist needs to have resolved. You resolve both card texts.

No. Jan triggers "When...performs a focus action or would be assigned a focus token..." "Would be" means it happens before the token actually lands. "Instead" also means that it's replacing the original effect entirely - you can't assign an evade token instead of focus if the focus process is complete. Jan has to interrupt it in order to change what happens. If the process completes before Jan triggers, then you'd have situations like Kyle giving Jake a focus, Jake triggering his barrel roll, then Jan turning the focus into an evade. Do you really think that's how it works? The focus never lands at all, because Jan changes it mid-flight, and the end result is not what Recon Specialist says it should be.

There is no rule that cards override other cards.

So again, then, how do you explain Munitions Failure? It's rather clearly overriding some of the missile's effect. That shouldn't be possible, per your understanding.

Abilities can act on the effects of other abilities because you resolve them - that's the only rule that you need. There's no rule that says a card can grant a focus token, or a boost, or change a die, because you don't need them - you just do what the card says. You've got it backwards - we have a rule that says you resolve abilities, and there's no rule that says you don't do so if it would interact with another card ability. A rule that cards override base rules is not the same as a rule saying cards can't override other cards.

. That should happen regardless of what originated the lock process, just like it does for Weapons Engineer.

Last time I checked the FAQ, which was for this topic, the result of which is posted in this topic, FCS still restricts WE.

Nobody said it didn't. Weapons Engineer does nothing to change the target of the initial lock. It's actually a good example of a case where "When" should probably have been "After", but FFG's atrocious templating and lack of consistency strikes again.

Weapons Engineer was brought up as an example of an identical trigger to ST-321.

But just as the ST-321 lets you ignore the rule regarding target locking a ship within range 3, couldn't you also argue it lets you ignore the "on the defender" part of FCS? In both cases, it's excepting your from RAW.

You can argue it to your heart's content, but you'd still be wrong as per the answer of FFG.

Let's keep this in context here - FFG can tell us how to play something, but they can and often do go outside the actual rules to do so. The point of this relatively academic discussion is looking at the actual rules as they're printed, and whether they actually back up FFG's ruling. When you're trying to determine if FFG's ruling adheres to the printed rules, "FFG says so" really holds no weight.

Regarding Point 1:

In all the FFG games I have played I noticed neither a lack of consistency or atrocious templating (whatever that is.) This is the first true rules issue I have personally seen pop up...if you think this is bad go play 40K...seriously dude. Poster children for your complaint they are. The designers cant predict ABSOLUTELY everything...you think you could do better?

Regarding Point 2:

Ah a rules lawyer. The very best the hobby has to offer. *Sigh* I though I left you guys back in the GW pit...FFG can rule to override rules to their hearts content...one of the reasons I find "professional gaming" and "premier players" so comical...the whole world can be turned upside down with 0 notice and in a matter of seconds. They can completely change the game anytime they want...and it doesnt have to be fair. Not that that is the case here. So yes it does hold weight as that is now how the game is now played. You can house rule that it does not...but unless FFG has a policy regarding rules changes that is similar to GWs (ie the printed rules always override anything we may say later...until that is printed in another $120 book) then that is the new rule. You can house rule that it isnt the case of course. I am hoping this was purely an academic argument on your part and, if so, I apologize if I seem a bit harsh. I can understand arguing a position you may not agree with for the sake of discussion continuing.

My personal opinion:

The way it was ruled was they way I had always interpreted it. As one card cannot override the other you must satisfy both requirements...which would preclude you to target the defender as they are A the defender and B on the table. You have satisfied both. I can see how one could jump through some mental hoops to rule as Crabby did at the beginning and that is fine. I would explain it and if an agreement could not be reached then a roll off would be called for.

There is a problem with FFG not using keywords consitently, that I fully agree with, Jan crew being a good example.

That's why we have to rely on FAQ's.

There is a problem with FFG not using keywords consitently, that I fully agree with, Jan crew being a good example.

That's why we have to rely on FAQ's.

I havent noticed...but that isnt to say thats not the case. If we assume you are correct this is an issue throughout the industry and really any game that has rules more complicated than chess or checkers. Constant expansion of the game also catalyzes this type of issue. Take Relic for example (not sure if you have played it), they print a small FAQ directly in their initial rulebooks.

I cant think of a single minis game that doesnt put out FAQs.

In all the FFG games I have played I noticed neither a lack of consistency or atrocious templating (whatever that is.) This is the first true rules issue I have personally seen pop up...if you think this is bad go play 40K...seriously dude. Poster children for your complaint they are. The designers cant predict ABSOLUTELY everything...you think you could do better?

Well, first off, yeah, I probably could do better. 20 years in software systems and formal modeling tends to provide a lot of experience in designing systems like this. But that really doesn't matter, does it? Because "you think you could do better!" is never really a serious arguing point, is it? It's a meaningless snipe meant to delegitimize without actually addressing the point, right?

So on to the more real point (which isn't saying much)... Is 40K worse? Yes. But there are games out there with worse rules than 40K, too, so does that make 40K good? No. So, pretty flawed point there.

I havent noticed...but that isnt to say thats not the case. If we assume you are correct this is an issue throughout the industry and really any game that has rules more complicated than chess or checkers. Constant expansion of the game also catalyzes this type of issue. Take Relic for example (not sure if you have played it), they print a small FAQ directly in their initial rulebooks.

I cant think of a single minis game that doesnt put out FAQs.

So you haven't bothered to observe the level of the problem, so you don't think it exists, but if it does then you're sure it's perfectly normal? How does that work, exactly?

Yes, all games put out FAQs. Is X-wing better or worse? Despite the rather classic (and boring, honestly, you couldn't come up with anything better?) "you think you can do better?" the bar I use is "Could FFG do better?" And if you actually bothered to look rather than swinging blindly into the discussion, you'd find that FFG can and does do better. Conquest is a great example of a tightly-defined system with excellent templating. The SWLCG has horrible balance, but the game structure itself is outstanding. Every one of FFG's LCGs have FAQs to them, but if you look at the density of those FAQs rather than just the length - that is, the length of the FAQ based on the number of abilities in the game - X-wing's is between 3 and 10 times larger than any of their other LCGs. And that doesn't even tell the whole story, because complexity growth is not linear. Larger numbers of abilities compound, so that 10x difference in FAQ length is closer to a 50 or even 100 times indicator for rules quality.

And we'll just leave off the many examples of contradicted rules in FFG's own rulings.

I don't consider myself a rules lawyer. You honestly don't know whether I am or not, but it's a convenient insult to fling around. But if you're going to show up in blind fanboy defense mode, you should probably try and do at least a LITTLE research first. Because even if you happened to be right, "I haven't bothered to look but I'm sure it's fine" isn't a winning argument.

Guys. The only way to satisfy both cards is to target the defender.

Shut up and go roll some dice.

Guys. The only way to satisfy both cards is to target the defender.

Shut up and go roll some dice.

No, YOU shut up!

The sad part is, the "just shut up" was probably the more intelligent part of that post.

In all the FFG games I have played I noticed neither a lack of consistency or atrocious templating (whatever that is.) This is the first true rules issue I have personally seen pop up...if you think this is bad go play 40K...seriously dude. Poster children for your complaint they are. The designers cant predict ABSOLUTELY everything...you think you could do better?

Well, first off, yeah, I probably could do better. 20 years in software systems and formal modeling tends to provide a lot of experience in designing systems like this. But that really doesn't matter, does it? Because "you think you could do better!" is never really a serious arguing point, is it? It's a meaningless snipe meant to delegitimize without actually addressing the point, right?

So on to the more real point (which isn't saying much)... Is 40K worse? Yes. But there are games out there with worse rules than 40K, too, so does that make 40K good? No. So, pretty flawed point there.

I havent noticed...but that isnt to say thats not the case. If we assume you are correct this is an issue throughout the industry and really any game that has rules more complicated than chess or checkers. Constant expansion of the game also catalyzes this type of issue. Take Relic for example (not sure if you have played it), they print a small FAQ directly in their initial rulebooks.

I cant think of a single minis game that doesnt put out FAQs.

So you haven't bothered to observe the level of the problem, so you don't think it exists, but if it does then you're sure it's perfectly normal? How does that work, exactly?

Yes, all games put out FAQs. Is X-wing better or worse? Despite the rather classic (and boring, honestly, you couldn't come up with anything better?) "you think you can do better?" the bar I use is "Could FFG do better?" And if you actually bothered to look rather than swinging blindly into the discussion, you'd find that FFG can and does do better. Conquest is a great example of a tightly-defined system with excellent templating. The SWLCG has horrible balance, but the game structure itself is outstanding. Every one of FFG's LCGs have FAQs to them, but if you look at the density of those FAQs rather than just the length - that is, the length of the FAQ based on the number of abilities in the game - X-wing's is between 3 and 10 times larger than any of their other LCGs. And that doesn't even tell the whole story, because complexity growth is not linear. Larger numbers of abilities compound, so that 10x difference in FAQ length is closer to a 50 or even 100 times indicator for rules quality.

And we'll just leave off the many examples of contradicted rules in FFG's own rulings.

I don't consider myself a rules lawyer. You honestly don't know whether I am or not, but it's a convenient insult to fling around. But if you're going to show up in blind fanboy defense mode, you should probably try and do at least a LITTLE research first. Because even if you happened to be right, "I haven't bothered to look but I'm sure it's fine" isn't a winning argument.

Firstly,

I would ask that you forgive the slight personal attack. I was wrong to deliver it and I try to be better than petty personal attacks...so accept my apologies on that front. Though if I may add a general observation, your comment that you could "probably do better" is indicative of one of the more prevelant and distasteful aspects of this forum. So many people in here seem to think they can do so much better...yet none of them are applying to work as game designers or testers or anything else at the company for that matter, and none of us have any idea of what is coming down the pipe or what has been axed. Please keep in mind, that is not meant to be a swipe at you...just a general observation, so dont take it as personal. I did deserve your personal swipes back as I did start it...so again apologies.

I didnt jump into this blindly. I did read the entire thread before posting (as I always do.) And have compared my observations to my experience as a whole. You would also note that I never said this wasnt a problem...I just simply havent noticed it in this game. And it is an industry wide problem...thats what happens when you have humans designing complicated games that other humans will then try to warp, break, and tinker with.

I work quite a bit and have a family...I am only able to play once every 2 weeks and have 0 desire or drive to play in anything competitive...I have found the tourney people tend to suck the fun out of the game for me. I have not played any of the above games you mentioned...though I have extensive experience in both Relic and Civilization...both of which I was highly impressed with (though Relic seems very dependent on luck.) You obviously have a different experience...you are welcome to your opinion as I am mine. Having spent almost a decade in 40K this rules system is like night and day, I would take this any day...so by that comparison yes this is a good rule set as far as I am concerned. Humans make these games and I dont demand perfection...I just ask for the best they can do and as far as I am concerned that is what they have delivered thus far. I dont mind if rules are clarified for balance over consistency, you might, but what ultimately happens is up to neither of us.

I do have some egg on my face due to your mention of munitions failsafe, I hadnt considered that card. I can see how ST-321 might be construed to allow FCS to let you target whatever you want...so you were correct there. Again apologies. However, the response from FFG, I believe, proves the intent of the cards and how the designers felt they should interact. It certainly could have been worded better...but now we have the clarification.

May I ask what you mean by "templating?" This term is unknown to me. Again sorry for the personal swipe as it seems that was what set off the tone for the rest of your post. I can understand the aggrevation.