Can TLT fire on Two different targets? Thanks... Am leaning toward no but cant find anything to support that except for the somewhat convoluted TLT shield regen thread? Is it just me or does wave 7 really need an FAQ more so then the others did???

NO both attacks have to be against the same target.

The closest we have to a ruling on it is the Cluster missiles. They allso have the wording "perform this attack twice" and is ruled in the FAQ to only apply to the same target.

Nope it's one attack in two parts.

Nope it's one attack in two parts.

Based on the ruling on Cluster Missiles (worded the same way), it is 2 attacks but still limited to one target.

Nope it's one attack in two parts.

Based on the ruling on Cluster Missiles (worded the same way), it is 2 attacks but still limited to one target.

Yup. FFG could rule that it's a single attack, but if so they'd either have to reverse the FAQ ruling on Cluster Missiles, or they'd have two upgrades with almost identical rules text and very different FAQ rulings.

Thanks thats what i figured..

Is it just me or does wave 7 really need an FAQ more so then the others did???

TLT needs a FAQ entry, mostly because it copies the (unhelpful) "make this attack twice" language from Cluster Missiles.

Conner Nets need a FAQ entry, because the ion rules aren't designed to deal with ion tokens showing up in the Activation phase.

Bossk (crew) needs a FAQ entry, because apparently unlike me most people never had to diagram sentences while their high-school composition and rhetoric teachers timed them with stopwatches.

SLAM needs a FAQ because the preview article introduced a huge RAI question to an otherwise unambiguous RAW interaction.

I don't know if Wave 7 needs a FAQ more than other waves, and in fact I think it's possible it has fewer serious issues. But the issues that are here are fairly fundamental, and make it hard to use the upgrades without an official word.

Strictly as written, TLT can fire at twice separate targets. Step 1 of an attack is Declare Target. And since you do the attack twice, you do step 1 twice. I asked Alex Davy about this (er, specifically about R3-A2, which happens when you declare target) at Gencon, and he said he hadn't decided how he wanted to rule on the card.

That said, the overwhelming opinion right now is that it only works on 1 target, so when I use it, I'm not arguing that I can select two targets.

Strictly as written, TLT can fire at twice separate targets. Step 1 of an attack is Declare Target. And since you do the attack twice, you do step 1 twice.

"Perform THIS attack twice"

- declare target;

- perform "this" attack twice.

Wouldnt the "this" word defines the situation instead of an "a"?

?

If nothing else, precedent from Cluster Missiles with Deadeye being limited to 1 target is enough to limit TLT to 1 target unless FAQ says otherwise. However, I think one of the rules email responses we've gotten from FFG so far indirectly referenced losing the 2nd attack if the first attack destroyed the target.

If nothing else, precedent from Cluster Missiles with Deadeye being limited to 1 target is enough to limit TLT to 1 target unless FAQ says otherwise. However, I think one of the rules email responses we've gotten from FFG so far indirectly referenced losing the 2nd attack if the first attack destroyed the target.

Cluster Missiles is a really bad thing to use as an inference. Technically, the way the card is worded, you can NEVER perform the second attack (assuming you're not Redline/have a FCS) since you don't have a Target Lock in order to perform the attack a second time. But we all ignore that because we know what the card is intended to do.

The same is true for secondary turrets - you declare your target in step 1, and then the weapon in step 2. But ships outside of your primary firing arc aren't legal targets during step 1. It's not until step 2 of declare weapon, that you actually can break the rules of step 1.

*Shrug. As I said, not even Alex Davy knows how TLT is supposed to work, so the rest of us speculating on the rules and using surrogates and the like isn't actually useful. Alex is going to declare whatever he wants to based on how he feels it should, not based on the rules as written wording. It's why we have so many inconsistent rulings in the FAQ.

Cluster Missiles is a really bad thing to use as an inference. Technically, the way the card is worded, you can NEVER perform the second attack (assuming you're not Redline/have a FCS) since you don't have a Target Lock in order to perform the attack a second time. But we all ignore that because we know what the card is intended to do.

Are you saying that because of the "Attack (target lock):" header, or because you think somehow "Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack twice" is semantically equivalent to "Send your target lock, perform this attack, spend another target lock, and perform this attack"?

*Shrug. As I said, not even Alex Davy knows how TLT is supposed to work, so the rest of us speculating on the rules and using surrogates and the like isn't actually useful. Alex is going to declare whatever he wants to based on how he feels it should, not based on the rules as written wording. It's why we have so many inconsistent rulings in the FAQ.

So they made a card without any idea of how they wanted it to work? Well, that's an interesting approach to game making... I honestly thought they worked from the opposite end. First come up with an idea for how something should work and then try to write the text for it so that it does what they want it to do.

*Shrug. As I said, not even Alex Davy knows how TLT is supposed to work, so the rest of us speculating on the rules and using surrogates and the like isn't actually useful. Alex is going to declare whatever he wants to based on how he feels it should, not based on the rules as written wording. It's why we have so many inconsistent rulings in the FAQ.

So they made a card without any idea of how they wanted it to work? Well, that's an interesting aproac to game making... I honestly thought they worked from the opposite end. First come up with an idea for how something should work and then try to write the text for it so that it does what they want it to do.

I'm not sure it's quite that easy. In th ideal case, the designer has a particular idea, which he turns into rules text. That rules text gets tweaked, potentially by other people. Playtesters get their hands on it, and find all of the issues and weird interactions. The rules text gets tweaked again, and then it goes back to the playtesters, and so on until there aren't any major issues.

But reality intrudes. I won't speculate on what Alex was thinking when he spoke to Khyros, but I can imagine a lot of reasons he might have wanted to find a diplomatic way to say "we're working on that."