With ST-321 you still have to declare a target to target lock.
FCS already states the target to your target lock.
ST-321 and FCS
But FCS is actually saying "May". In other words, you do not HAVE to gain a target lock on the defender. So there is no rule to satisfy there. You don't have to do it at all. It is an option. Hence the ST-321 effects comes in to play, allowing you to adjust your options.
After you attack, you may get a target lock on the ship you just shot at.
That is what FCS says. You don't have to get a target lock on it, that is your choice, perhaps you are holding a lock on a different ship for another time or other purposes. It does not say "You may acquire a target lock" and then stop, the "on the defender" part is mandatory as shown in the FAQ for FCS and Kagi.
When you acquire a target lock you may lock on a ship regardless of distance.
That is what ST-321 says.
You don't get to override FCS with ST-321.
Buhallin linked to an answer on BGG in this topic:
http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/94669-st-321-and-fcs/
Where Duraham asked the question via e-mail of FFG and got the answer here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/13869206#13869206
Hello (my name),
In response to your question:
> When I acquire a target lock via Fire Control System, can I use the title card to thus acquire a target lock on a target other than the defender?
The Lambda-class Shuttle must still acquire his target lock on the defender. I'll add your question to our FAQ in the next update.
Thanks!
James Kniffen
Associate Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games
To trigger FCS you must a: Attack and B: target the defender. That couldn't be any more clear.
It couldn't be ANY more clear? Honestly?
ST-321's ability is a replacement effect. When you would gain a target lock - you may use it's ability. That ability gives you access to the entire map.
With FCS youu activate FCS's ability afterward. You are gaining a target lock so you use ST-321's replacement effect. To me it's pretty far from clear.
But FCS is actually saying "May". In other words, you do not HAVE to gain a target lock on the defender. So there is no rule to satisfy there. You don't have to do it at all. It is an option. Hence the ST-321 effects comes in to play, allowing you to adjust your options.
After you attack, you may get a target lock on the ship you just shot at.
That is what FCS says. You don't have to get a target lock on it, that is your choice, perhaps you are holding a lock on a different ship for another time or other purposes. It does not say "You may acquire a target lock" and then stop, the "on the defender" part is mandatory as shown in the FAQ for FCS and Kagi.
When you acquire a target lock you may lock on a ship regardless of distance.
That is what ST-321 says.
You don't get to override FCS with ST-321.
Buhallin linked to an answer on BGG in this topic:
http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/94669-st-321-and-fcs/
Where Duraham asked the question via e-mail of FFG and got the answer here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/13869206#13869206
Hello (my name),
In response to your question:
> When I acquire a target lock via Fire Control System, can I use the title card to thus acquire a target lock on a target other than the defender?
The Lambda-class Shuttle must still acquire his target lock on the defender. I'll add your question to our FAQ in the next update.
Thanks!
James Kniffen
Associate Game Designer
Fantasy Flight Games
Thank you. This settles it. I'd like to actually see it show up in the FAQ incase someone does this at a tournament so it'll be easier to settle.
The way I see it, you have to look at the triggering conditions. FCS is triggered by attacking a target. When you do, you may acquire a target lock on the defender. However, ST-321's condition is when you acquire a target lock. They're not happening simultaneously. FCS has to go off for ST-321 to be able to do anything. So I'd say your attack allows FCS to kick in, acquiring the target lock, then ST-321 goes off allowing you to move that target lock anywhere else.
EDIT: Which is completely contradicted by that email answer above, so I'll just go away now.
Edited by DailyRichcrabby, FCS stipulates you have to target the defender. thats the end of the discussion.
the STS upgrade is fine and dandy but just like outrider and gunner, these two cards do not work together in any way
crabby, FCS stipulates you have to target the defender. thats the end of the discussion.
the STS upgrade is fine and dandy but just like outrider and gunner, these two cards do not work together in any way
To me it is NOT. The rules stipulate that you have to target lock someone within range 3. The Title changes things, hence that is why the discussion began. However, the ruling from FFG, posted earlier, is for me... the end of the discussion.
the email said the exact same thing i did.
crabby, FCS stipulates you have to target the defender. thats the end of the discussion.
the STS upgrade is fine and dandy but just like outrider and gunner, these two cards do not work together in any way
To me it is NOT. The rules stipulate that you have to target lock someone within range 3. The Title changes things, hence that is why the discussion began. However, the ruling from FFG, posted earlier, is for me... the end of the discussion.
Basically, the only thing that the title does is remove the range constriction.
Let's take it into hypothetical situations to see if that clears it up for you.
A new cannon is introduced, a gravitational mass cannon, if it hits, cancel all dice, deal one damage and the ship is pushed back 1 straight.
Your shuttle: grav mass cannon, fcs
You attack at range 2, the ship is pushed into range 3, you can acquire the lock.
You attack at range 3, the ship is pushed into range 4, you can no longer legally acquire a lock.
Add the title to the last attack and now you can.
That is all the title really does.
Edited by DagonetST-321 should let you pick any target with FCS. If you took every "do this" ability to mean "you are forbidden from doing anything else" then the game breaks pretty fast. The "can't beats can" rule only comes into play when something is explicitly prohibited by an ability. For an example of this, consider Jan Ors as crew. Can you use her ability if another ability (like Lando) assigns a focus token? The logic deployed here would say no - Lando says to get a focus token, so that's all you can do. Don't think anyone believes that holds.
But it is what it is, the response from FFG is clear, and by no means the worst "because I said so" ruling we've gotten. And understandable, really - I mean, with the way Jendon was tearing up the meta and dominating the tournament scene, they had to do something to rein that guy in.
Edited by BuhallinHow about we just leave it at the response from FFG. Doesn't seem like there is much point in bickering on either side beyond that.
You can target lock the defender even if he's past Range 3 where you can't shoot him. If you shot him.
That is what I thought it would be but if you refer to the words printed on the card it doesn't say that.
Fire control says, "After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender."
ST 321 says, "When acquiring a target lock, you may lock onto any enemy ship in the play area."
Fire Control System never forbids you to TL anyone besides your target, it just doesn't say that you can.
Clearly Fire Control System does satisfy the "When acquiring a target lock" clause in the ST 321
I just read the FAQ and it does not address this situation so I think you have to go with what is actually written on the cards not what the "feel like" the cards are "supposed" to do.
crabby, FCS stipulates you have to target the defender. thats the end of the discussion.
the STS upgrade is fine and dandy but just like outrider and gunner, these two cards do not work together in any way
To me it is NOT. The rules stipulate that you have to target lock someone within range 3. The Title changes things ...
Yes, the title changes something. Cards supercede the rulebook (1). No card supercedes any other card. ST-321 overrides the rulebook. It does not override FCS. "On the defender" is in effect, regardless of ST-321. The printed rules leave no doubt.
(1) Rulebook page 20:
Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules.
How about we just leave it at the response from FFG. Doesn't seem like there is much point in bickering on either side beyond that.
Where is this response?
How about we just leave it at the response from FFG. Doesn't seem like there is much point in bickering on either side beyond that.
Where is this response?
In this post:
http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/128507-st-321-and-fcs/page-2#entry1357707
crabby, FCS stipulates you have to target the defender. thats the end of the discussion.
the STS upgrade is fine and dandy but just like outrider and gunner, these two cards do not work together in any way
To me it is NOT. The rules stipulate that you have to target lock someone within range 3. The Title changes things ...
Yes, the title changes something. Cards supercede the rulebook (1). No card supercedes any other card. ST-321 overrides the rulebook. It does not override FCS. "On the defender" is in effect, regardless of ST-321. The printed rules leave no doubt.
(1) Rulebook page 20:
Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules.
No card can supersede any other card doesn't make sense. If the FCS says you have to TL the defender, and ST-321 says you may TL any ship in the play area these cards are in direct contradiction. One card has to supersede the other. If you say that you can't TL any ship you are letting the text of FCS supersede the text of ST-321, if you say that you can TL any ship you are letting the text of ST-321 supersede the text of FCS.
I think it is significant to note that ST-321 does not say when performing a TL action, nor does is say that you can extend the range of TL to the whole play area, it simply says "you may lock onto any ship in the play area."
It seems logical to me to imply that the line "you many lock onto any ship in the play area" was specifically intended as situation where these rules supersede other rules. If you don't take the above quote as intended to supersede other rules the sentence becomes meaningless. "you may lock onto any ship in the play area [as long as it isn't forbidden by some other rule]" is just plain silly.
I'm starting to agree with Royals more and more.
FFG has decided that FCS requires you to lock onto the defender, regardless of ST-321.
crabby, FCS stipulates you have to target the defender. thats the end of the discussion.
the STS upgrade is fine and dandy but just like outrider and gunner, these two cards do not work together in any way
To me it is NOT. The rules stipulate that you have to target lock someone within range 3. The Title changes things ...
Yes, the title changes something. Cards supercede the rulebook (1). No card supercedes any other card. ST-321 overrides the rulebook. It does not override FCS. "On the defender" is in effect, regardless of ST-321. The printed rules leave no doubt.
(1) Rulebook page 20:
Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules.
No card can supersede any other card doesn't make sense. If the FCS says you have to TL the defender, and ST-321 says you may TL any ship in the play area these cards are in direct contradiction.
No they are not. You can satisfy both cards by acquiring a TL on the defender.
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?
ST-321 should let you pick any target with FCS. If you took every "do this" ability to mean "you are forbidden from doing anything else" then the game breaks pretty fast. The "can't beats can" rule only comes into play when something is explicitly prohibited by an ability. For an example of this, consider Jan Ors as crew. Can you use her ability if another ability (like Lando) assigns a focus token? The logic deployed here would say no - Lando says to get a focus token, so that's all you can do. Don't think anyone believes that holds.
But it is what it is, the response from FFG is clear, and by no means the worst "because I said so" ruling we've gotten. And understandable, really - I mean, with the way Jendon was tearing up the meta and dominating the tournament scene, they had to do something to rein that guy in.
I love this post. Love it.
No card can supersede any other card doesn't make sense. If the FCS says you have to TL the defender, and ST-321 says you may TL any ship in the play area these cards are in direct contradiction. One card has to supersede the other. If you say that you can't TL any ship you are letting the text of FCS supersede the text of ST-321, if you say that you can TL any ship you are letting the text of ST-321 supersede the text of FCS.
Good point.
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?
Because of the keyword "May".
No card supercedes any other card. ST-321 overrides the rulebook. It does not override FCS.
Sorry dvor, but this isn't even close to right.
Cards override other cards all the time. Recon Specialist gives you an extra focus token, Jan turns that into an evade. Push the Limit gives you a stress, Yorr takes it instead. Night Beast lets you take a free focus action, Carnor Jax prohibits it.
Every ability interacts with every other ability, and there's nothing that says ST-321 shouldn't be able to act on the target lock triggered by FCS. The "can't beats can" only applies in cases where something is explicitly prohibited. You really can't try and extend "Do X" to "You cannot do anything but X", because that makes every ability in the game unmodifiable.
Again, FFG has said this is how it works, but this is becoming a case study in why these kinds of rulings are a bad idea in a vague rules environment. There's no actual rules justification for this, but people are trying so hard to find one that they're creating precedents that will break the entire game system.
Notably, there is interaction between FCS and the ST-321 title:
If they ever give the shuttle a way to fire at a target farther than Range 3, FCS would still be able to target lock it, even though it wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
How about we just leave it at the response from FFG. Doesn't seem like there is much point in bickering on either side beyond that.
Where is this response?
In this post:
http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/128507-st-321-and-fcs/page-2#entry1357707
The problem is that this is a email to an individual not a official post from FFG. I don't think anyone can be held responsible to follow rules that are only found in emails sent out individuals and not to themselves.
Personal Email from FFG do not constitute official rules. They can't, otherwise every player would be responsible for know the content of every email that FFG sent out to anyone regarding rules. That is clearly impossible.
The email clearly says that it needs to be put in the FAQ. And if you go to the FAQ now, they haven't answered the question yet. In other words this is an unresolved matter. Just the sort of matter that is open to discussion and debate on forums like these. If you don't enjoy these sort of discussions I can recommend some other threads that you might enjoy more.
I will admit that the email does clarify the way that FFG intends these cards to interact. It also clearly tells us the direction they will go once they update the FAQ and this is probably enough if all you want is a quick answer.
If this matter ever came up in a tournament I am pretty sure that it would be up to the TO to make the call. I find it unlikely that the TO will have read this thread or the email sent out from FFG, so the TO could go either way. For that reason I would not recommend trying to use ST-321 to target any ship in the play area after you fire a ship with a FCS. However, if I went to my LGS for a friendly game and a friend showed up with this combo, I would not want to telling him that his list (or at least the way he intended to use it) was illegal since the rules simply aren't clear.
I would concede that if FCS stated that you MUST gain a TL on the Defender, then we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Or if the ST-321 stated that it's effect took place when performing a Target Lock ACTION.
However because they are both "May" abilities
Notably, there is interaction between FCS and the ST-321 title:
If they ever give the shuttle a way to fire at a target farther than Range 3, FCS would still be able to target lock it, even though it wouldn't have been possible otherwise.
And I would argue that even If you somehow managed to attack a ship at Range 4 with a non-ST-321 Shuttle (Maybe a range 4 cannon), you would STILL be able to get the TL on him simply from the FCS, due to it's wording. The rules say range 3, but FCS would supercede the rules in this case, because it specifically points to the defender, regardless of range.
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.
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.
Push the Limit gives you a stress, Yorr takes it instead.
"Instead". Again, you resolve both card texts in full. There is no contradiction. There is no need for either card to supercede the other.
Night Beast lets you take a free focus action, Carnor Jax prohibits it.
Forbidden supercedes allowed. The rulebook disallows the card effect, not the other card.
With ST-321 and FCS you do the same you do in the first two examples: You resolve both card texts. Every single word. Resolving only half the text of one card is not an option.
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?
Because of the keyword "May".
"May" makes the entire effect optional (1). If you choose to not exercise that option FCS does not resolve. You do not acquire a TL. ST-321 does not trigger.
(1) Rulebook page 19.
.No card can supersede any other card doesn't make sense. If the FCS says you have to TL the defender, and ST-321 says you may TL any ship in the play area these cards are in direct contradiction.
No they are not. You can satisfy both cards by acquiring a TL on the defender.
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?
If you interpret "may lock on to any" as giving permission to TL ships that you couldn't otherwise TL then their is a contradiction. If don't imply the "may lock onto any" as not intended to supersede other rules then it is meaningless. "You can TL any ship you want [as long as it is also allowed by other rules as well]" is a pretty silly rule.
Any ruling that says that if you have a FCS and ST-321, but you cannot use the ST-321 ability when you use FCS is a ruling that in implying rules that are not written in rules or the FAQ. I am not say that it is a wrong ruling, I am just saying that it isn't completely justified by the rules we have.