Why would you think you could have a fifth target lock?

Because without any Weapons Engineer cards you can maintain one target lock.

If the second WE adds two to the number of target locks you can maintain, surely the first WE does too?

So surely this means you can maintain 3 target locks with one Weapons Engineer, and 5 with two?

Weapons Engineers don't stack so the whole discussion is moot...

Why would you think you could have a fifth target lock?

Because without any Weapons Engineer cards you can maintain one target lock.

If the second WE adds two to the number of target locks you can maintain, surely the first WE does too?

So surely this means you can maintain 3 target locks with one Weapons Engineer, and 5 with two?

Surely you jest. Your logic argument resembles the Modern Math I had in the sixth grade. Rather than trying to baffle me with a Fibonacci sequence explain why my argument is flawed.

Weapons Engineers don't stack so the whole discussion is moot...

Where is this mentioned?

Surely you jest. Your logic argument resembles the Modern Math I had in the sixth grade. Rather than trying to baffle me with a Fibonacci sequence explain why my argument is flawed.

Your argument is that your second Weapons Engineer card allows you to maintain two more target locks than you could maintain without it.

Is this the point you are disputing?

I am trying to point out that, if this is the case, the first Weapons Engineer card should also allow you to maintain two more target locks than you could maintain without it.

Is that the point you are disputing? That two copies of the same card should behave the same way?

Weapons Engineers don't stack so the whole discussion is moot...

Where is this mentioned?

It says 'you can maintain two target locks' not 'you can maintain one extra target lock'.

Two WEs each state 'you can maintain two target locks', that's not additive, they both set the number of locks you can maintain at two. The first one sets it at two. The second one also sets it at two, so the second one does nothing. Ditto the third and the fourth.

Compare and contrast with Recon Specialist, which does stack the way you think it would.

I'm not about to discuss this for two pages, if you disagree, you're more than welcome to send a rules support question about it to FFG yourself.

Weapons Engineers don't stack so the whole discussion is moot...

Where is this mentioned?

It says 'you can maintain two target locks' not 'you can maintain one extra target lock'.

Two WEs each state 'you can maintain two target locks', that's not additive, they both set the number of locks you can maintain at two. The first one sets it at two. The second one also sets it at two, so the second one does nothing. Ditto the third and the fourth.

Compare and contrast with Recon Specialist, which does stack the way you think it would.

I'm not about to discuss this for two pages, if you disagree, you're more than welcome to send a rules support question about it to FFG yourself.

I took your advice and reread Rec Spec. I see your point and have to agree. This was much easier than trying to decipher the other guy's math.