I have a question, i'm sure there is a plain answer to it but i could not find it.

Firing Ordnance, (torps and missiles), the card often says you need a TL.

I checked but no card says you need to have the TL ON THE DEFENDER (which makes a lot of sense, honestly), just you need a TL.

So, my question is:

May I fire my (say) Ion pulse Missiles on a Target i don't have TL on, if I have a TL on another enemy?

Of course i won't be able to use my TL to modify dice, but can i still fire it?

If it's Faq'd or forbidden, please give me the reference.

Thanks in advance

L.

Ok, i found a word in page 9 and 19 of core set rulebook:

Page 9: Some secondary weapons, such as proton torpedoes, can only be used if the ship spends a target lock on the targeted ship (see “Secondary Weapons” on page 19).

page 19: Example: The “Proton Torpedoes” card specifies “Attack (Target Lock):” In order to attack with this secondary weapon, the attacker must have already acquired a target lock on the defender.

So i guess the answer to my question is NO, you can't.

Do you agree?

Correct.

Even if i understand that's the way they're intended to be used, speaking from the strict wording of the cards and rules it should not be necessary have the TL on the intended target ship.

Homing missiles are Faq'd and say you need a TL on the defender, but IPM are not.

Maybe FFG should add some wording to the rules or to the cards, or Faq'ing IPM too

Even if i understand that's the way they're intended to be used, speaking from the strict wording of the cards and rules it should not be necessary have the TL on the intended target ship.

Homing missiles are Faq'd and say you need a TL on the defender, but IPM are not.

The Homing Missiles FAQ doesn't establish that you need a TL on the defender, but that you don't have to spend your TL to fire the missiles.

I agree with you that the rule itself could be written better (and placed more prominently), but the intent of Attack (Target Lock) is clear and well established. Please don't try to make this argument at the table.

Surely I won't

But I know some RulesLawyerA$$h0l£s that may

That's why I think they should either expand the rules or Faq IPM

(They Faq'd the obvious TL reroll for HLC, so one more should not change much)

There is however a point in which a RulesLawyer always loses. In the tournament rules it says the TO has the final say over all interpretations of the rules.

So there is a point in which the RAW argument will only go so far.

That's not an excuse for sloppy rules on FFG's part and I think everyone just assumed it worked a given way, but as you point out the rules could be more clear.

You could email FFG directly, and ask them about it. That seems to be one of the ways stuff gets into the FAQ, someone here emails them a question and that question shows up in the next version.

That's why I think they should either expand the rules or Faq IPM

It's not adding a FAQ entry for Ion Pulse Missiles that would be the problem. It's that you'd need to add a FAQ entry for Advanced Proton Torpedoes, Assault Missiles, Concussion Missiles, Ion Pulse Missiles, Ion Torpedoes, the spoiled-but-unreleased Plasma Torpedoes, and Proton Torpedoes, plus changing the entries for Cluster Missiles, Flechette Torpedoes, and Homing Missiles.

That seems like a lot of work to do to clarify a rule that's already pretty clear.

That's why I think they should either expand the rules or Faq IPM

It's not adding a FAQ entry for Ion Pulse Missiles that would be the problem. It's that you'd need to add a FAQ entry for Advanced Proton Torpedoes, Assault Missiles, Concussion Missiles, Ion Pulse Missiles, Ion Torpedoes, the spoiled-but-unreleased Plasma Torpedoes, and Proton Torpedoes, plus changing the entries for Cluster Missiles, Flechette Torpedoes, and Homing Missiles.

That seems like a lot of work to do to clarify a rule that's already pretty clear.

So, just expand the rules (as they did before) with a couple of lines saying:

"To fire missiles or Torpedos you need to have a TL on the target ship"

That's why I think they should either expand the rules or Faq IPM

It's not adding a FAQ entry for Ion Pulse Missiles that would be the problem. It's that you'd need to add a FAQ entry for Advanced Proton Torpedoes, Assault Missiles, Concussion Missiles, Ion Pulse Missiles, Ion Torpedoes, the spoiled-but-unreleased Plasma Torpedoes, and Proton Torpedoes, plus changing the entries for Cluster Missiles, Flechette Torpedoes, and Homing Missiles.

That seems like a lot of work to do to clarify a rule that's already pretty clear.

So, just expand the rules (as they did before) with a couple of lines saying:

"To fire missiles or Torpedos you need to have a TL on the target ship"

Won't work for proton rockets.

This is just turning into another case of "they should FAQ every possible option that may arise". The rules are clear enough on secondary weapons. Some may require a target lock, and if they do, it must be on the targeted ship.

Lack of use of some ordnance has seen newer ordnance with different requirements, so rewording the rules wouldn't be the ideal solution either.

That's why I think they should either expand the rules or Faq IPM

It's not adding a FAQ entry for Ion Pulse Missiles that would be the problem. It's that you'd need to add a FAQ entry for Advanced Proton Torpedoes, Assault Missiles, Concussion Missiles, Ion Pulse Missiles, Ion Torpedoes, the spoiled-but-unreleased Plasma Torpedoes, and Proton Torpedoes, plus changing the entries for Cluster Missiles, Flechette Torpedoes, and Homing Missiles.

That seems like a lot of work to do to clarify a rule that's already pretty clear.

So, just expand the rules (as they did before) with a couple of lines saying:

"To fire missiles or Torpedos you need to have a TL on the target ship"

Won't work for proton rockets.

Prockets need a focus, so it's not target-specific.

You may add "If they require TL to be shot, this must be on target ship" if you prefer

I think stating that Target Locks only affect attacks between the ships on either end of the lock should work. Is there anything that allows spending a TL that does NOT affect rolls made between the ships with either token on them? It should be clear that in any attack the TL only works towards the ship that the lock is assigned to; I believe this is also true for all of the defensive applications of a TL.

I think stating that Target Locks only affect attacks between the ships on either end of the lock should work. Is there anything that allows spending a TL that does NOT affect rolls made between the ships with either token on them?

Yes, there is:

You may add "If they require TL to be shot, this must be on target ship" if you prefer

Something like this, maybe?

Some secondary weapons specify other requirements in parentheses after the word "Attack."

Example: The "Proton Torpedoes" card specifies "Attack (Target Lock)" In order to attack with this secondary weapon, the attacker must have already acquired a target lock on the defender.

It's not well written. It's not quite where I'd put it in the rulebook. It doesn't define what "other requirements" might mean. But it does make very clear what "Attack (Target Lock)" means, and if you run into someone who thinks they can rules-lawyer their way out of it, you should feel free to send them our way.

I think stating that Target Locks only affect attacks between the ships on either end of the lock should work. Is there anything that allows spending a TL that does NOT affect rolls made between the ships with either token on them?

Yes, there is:

I'll give you that it doesn't affect rolls made between the two ships in the TL but it is still restricted to the ship caught at the other end of the TL.