No, it's just English literacy. You may spend a target lock to get a reroll or you may not. Once you commence a Proton Torpedo attack, the game instructs you to spend a target lock.

4 hours ago, Oberron said:

You do agree that in order to get the reroll you have to spend the target lock correct?

Yes. Which is exactly why you're wrong.

'You must do X in order to get Y' =/= 'You must do X'

This is basic logic. What you fail to understand is that you have no proof of any basis upon which you could spend a target lock for a voluntary purpose. The burden of proof is on you as you are advocating for something against the literal reading of the card.

6 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

No, it's just English literacy. You may spend a target lock to get a reroll or you may not. Once you commence a Proton Torpedo attack, the game instructs you to spend a target lock.

Yes. Which is exactly why you're wrong.

'You must do X in order to get Y' =/= 'You must do X'

This is basic logic. What you fail to understand is that you have no proof of any basis upon which you could spend a target lock for a voluntary purpose. The burden of proof is on you as you are advocating for something against the literal reading of the card.

The rules say I can spend the target lock for a reroll that is all the proof needed to be able to spend it, I've quoted the rule before. Omega ace is another may effect that says to spend a target lock and an example given by ffg that works with TS. You claim you are using logic yet contradict your self with your "you must do X =/= you must do X to do y" when both of them are the same thing you still must do x. You are making the card say something that it is not. You think that instruct means that it can't be optional even though it clearly can and has been shown that it can.

1 hour ago, Oberron said:

You claim you are using logic yet contradict your self with your "you must do X =/= you must do X to do y" when both of them are the same thing you still must do x.

Clearly, you do not understand logic at all. One is a conditional statement where the necessity of X is predicated on the assumption of outcome Y. You only have to do X if Y is to be the outcome, but seeking Y can be optional.

Thus, it can simultaneously be true that 'you must do X to do Y' and 'you are not required to do X'. You don't have to do X – you just won't get Y if you don't.

If you do not understand this then there probably isn't anything anyone here can do to help you.

Quote

You think that instruct means that it can't be optional even though it clearly can and has been shown that it can.

I have never said that instruct can't be optional. I specifically said that the wording and context of 'if a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock' excludes the possibility of optional use, thus I'm saying that it does not mean optional in this case . And no, you haven't shown that it can. You have claimed it but offered no reasoning or evidence.

Please stick to actual facts if you wish to argue the topic. You're dangerously close to just about an outright liar, now. The charitable assumption of ignorance will only go so far.

Quote

Clearly, you do not understand logic at all. One is a conditional statement where the necessity of X is predicated on the assumption of outcome Y. You only have to do X if Y is to be the outcome, but seeking Y can be optional.

No that isn't what you wrote. You wrote You must do x for both and claimed they are not equal. This is a false claim. The outcome of Y is irreverent if doing X is the same in your statement, you still must do X.

Quote

Thus, it can simultaneously be true that 'you must do X to do Y' and 'you are not required to do X'. You don't have to do X – you just won't get Y if you don't.

True, but not what you said with your example, and the same thing can be applied to firing secondary weapons and wanting to re-roll attack dice, you still must spend the target lock to get the effect. Look at the wording of the card

Quote

Spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack

Must do X (spend target lock) to do Y (perform this attack). Lets look at re-rolls from target lock again.

Quote

While attacking, a ship can spend a target lock that it

has on the defender to reroll any number of its attack

dice

Must do X (spend target lock) to do Y (reroll any number of its attack dice).

Here is another example from the rules that uses instruct to count optional things with the same format as Targeting Synchronizer of "If a(n) ____ instructs a/that ship to ____"

Quote

If an ability instructs a ship to “acquire a target

lock,” this is different than performing an acquire

a target lock action.

Lets see some examples of this

Colonel Vessery, Systems officer, Fire control system to name a few that are abilities that instruct a ship to aquire target locks but are also optional.

I believe that the card is intended to be only used with Ordnance* and not Target Lock Rerolls, however I understand and agree with Oberron's logic.

I am personally only going to play it with Ordnance* unless we get a FAQ stating otherwise.

* Assuming Ordnance are the only thing that mentions "Spending Target Locks", don't quote me just to mention some pilot skill or whatever.

37 minutes ago, Talamare said:

I believe that the card is intended to be only used with Ordnance* and not Target Lock Rerolls, however I understand and agree with Oberron's logic.

I am personally only going to play it with Ordnance* unless we get a FAQ stating otherwise.

* Assuming Ordnance are the only thing that mentions "Spending Target Locks", don't quote me just to mention some pilot skill or whatever.

omega ace was an example that ffg themselves used in their article. this shows the intent that it works with anything where a ship that is attacking would spend a target lock.

4 hours ago, Oberron said:

True, but not what you said with your example, and the same thing can be applied to firing secondary weapons and wanting to re-roll attack dice, you still must spend the target lock to get the effect. Look at the wording of the card

That's literally exactly what I said with my example. It's right there in black and white. You have no proved a false claim by falsely claiming I said something I didn't.

4 hours ago, Oberron said:

Must do X (spend target lock) to do Y (reroll any number of its attack dice).

You may spend a target lock to reroll any number of attack dice. You can only phrase it as a 'must' if you change it to a conditional statement as I did: "You must spend a target lock to use the standard rule allowing you to reroll your attack dice during an attack'. It's a conditional statement because you don't have to spend the target lock, but you must spend the target lock if you want to get the other part of the effect. In gaming, this is what we commonly call a cost. In this case, it is a cost to an optional game effect. It is not mandatory, and this is why you are not being instructed to spend a target lock.

As for Omega Ace, he literally cannot work with the ability as written and being included in an article mens exactly zero. I would hope that we all know that FFG articles have no value in rulings whatsoever. Sure, if it's ruled that Omega Ace works with Targeting Synchroniser , then you will be able to spend target looks as well, but that'll be because they ruled outside of what the card says.

4 hours ago, Oberron said:

Colonel Vessery, Systems officer, Fire control system to name a few that are abilities that instruct a ship to aquire target locks but are also optional.

But do they? because I'm reading them and they don't instruct you to acquire a target lock. All three of these cards allow a ship to acquire a target lock. None of them instruct you to.

Again, this is a literally issue. Let me rephrase it as questions:

1. If there is a cake on the table and I tell you that you may have some if you wish, have I told you to eat some of the cake?

2. If I tell you that you may have some of the cake if you put £1 in the box beside it, have I told you to put £1 in the box?

(audience participation is encouraged)

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

2. If I tell you that you may have some of the cake if you put £1 in the box beside it, have I told you to put £1 in the box?

(audience participation is encouraged)

The same logic could be applied to ordinance, as stated previously, firing a torpedo and rerolling dice both cost a target lock. Also the third question in the Q&A under general states that rolling dice and rerolling dice are both game effects.

1 hour ago, Orcdruid said:

The same logic could be applied to ordinance, as stated previously, firing a torpedo and rerolling dice both cost a target lock. Also the third question in the Q&A under general states that rolling dice and rerolling dice are both game effects.

Ahh, good point. I don't think it holds up under scrutiny, but at least that makes sense as an argument.

However, it still conforms to the way I laid things out above. After an attack has been initiated, you still have the choice to spend your target lock to reroll your dice or not to spend it. If, however, you choose a secondary weapon for which you meet the requirement (the part where Targeting Synchroniser removes the TL requirement), then you have already committed to the action and spending the target lock is mandatory. The choice to use that card comes before the cost is paid, making that cost mandatory in a way that spending a TL for rerolls is not.

When the game text for cards like Proton Torpedoes is being executed, you do not have the option not to spend the TL. If you don't want to spend the TL, don't activate the card. One is choosing to pay a cost to produce an effect, and the other is being told to pay a cost after declaring an action. These are not the same thing.

I do accept they are both costs, though – even if in the case of paying the cost for an attack it is 'do this or cancel the attack', which does conform to 'instructed to spend a target lock'.

10 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

But do they? because I'm reading them and they don't instruct you to acquire a target lock. All three of these cards allow a ship to acquire a target lock. None of them instruct you to.

Again, this is a literally issue. Let me rephrase it as questions:

1. If there is a cake on the table and I tell you that you may have some if you wish, have I told you to eat some of the cake?

2. If I tell you that you may have some of the cake if you put £1 in the box beside it, have I told you to put £1 in the box?

(audience participation is encouraged)

Yes, they do. Other wise you can't use any of those abilities if you used the target lock action. Which has never been a problem according to ffg. Instruct does not mean just forced to do something. All game rules are instructions.

As for your cake analogy for number 2 you have told me that in order to get cake I must put money In the box, but doing so is optional. And this can apply to both Rerolling and ordnance as well.

Your example was "you must do X =/= you must do X to do y" none of that says anything about "you are not required to do x" both according to your example is must do x. so no, you did not say that with your example

13 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Yes, they do. Other wise you can't use any of those abilities if you used the target lock action. Which has never been a problem according to ffg.

No, they don't. It's there in black and white, printed on the cards for all to see. They don't instruct you to acquire a target lock. They give you the option to acquire a target lock.

16 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Which has never been a problem according to ffg. Instruct does not mean just forced to do something. All game rules are instructions.

No, but being instructed to , does. This is the context you keep ignoring (for reasons i can't fathom). Just because instructions are not always absolute directives, you do not get to assume that no instructions are absolute directives. This is fallacious thinking.

19 minutes ago, Oberron said:

As for your cake analogy for number 2 you have told me that in order to get cake I must put money In the box, but doing so is optional.

They are yes or no questions. If you are unwilling to answer them, I have little choice to to take that as a measure of capitulation.

Have I told you to 1) eat the cake, 2) put £1 in the box? Yes or no.

20 minutes ago, Oberron said:

And this can apply to both Rerolling and ordnance as well.

No, as demonstrated above. Spending the target lock as a cost is for secondary weapon attacks is mandatory because the attack is already triggered when it occurs.

22 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Your example was "you must do X =/= you must do X to do y" none of that says anything about "you are not required to do x" both according to your example is must do x. so no, you did not say that with your example

Incorrect. In the case of 'you must do X in order to get Y' you do not have to do X. You just don't get Y if you don't do X. This is spending a target lock for rerolls. This does not apply to spending a target lock for an initiated Proton Torpedoes attack, since the game rules instruct you to pay the cost with no option to decline once the secondary weapon is chosen.

Quote

No, they don't. It's there in black and white, printed on the cards for all to see. They don't instruct you to acquire a target lock. They give you the option to acquire a target lock.

Except they do. All rules are instructions. those rules say that you can acquire a target lock. Unless you are saying those cards don't work if you use the target lock action which is wrong since i've posted the rule that says otherwise

Quote

No, but being instructed to , does. This is the context you keep ignoring (for reasons i can't fathom). Just because instructions are not always absolute directives, you do not get to assume that no instructions are absolute directives. This is fallacious thinking.

If you are instructed to do something or even been instructed that you can do something it is still an instruction. All Game rules are instructions.

Quote

They are yes or no questions. If you are unwilling to answer them, I have little choice to to take that as a measure of capitulation.

Have I told you to 1) eat the cake, 2) put £1 in the box? Yes or no.

Now this is a perfect example of a logical fallacy, complex question . There is more to it then a simple yes or no.

Quote

No, as demonstrated above. Spending the target lock as a cost is for secondary weapon attacks is mandatory because the attack is already triggered when it occurs.

Yes it can, and spending the target lock for the re-roll is mandatory if you decide you want the reroll just like if you decide if you want to fire secondary weapons. Here i'll use your example:

If I tell you that you may fire ordnance if you spend your target lock and discard this card, have I told you to spend your target lock and discard this card?

If I tell you that you may re-roll all attack dice if you spend your target lock, have I told you to spend your target lock?

Quote

Incorrect. In the case of 'you must do X in order to get Y' you do not have to do X. You just don't get Y if you don't do X. This is spending a target lock for rerolls. This does not apply to spending a target lock for an initiated Proton Torpedoes attack, since the game rules instruct you to pay the cost with no option to decline once the secondary weapon is chosen.

You need to slowly reread what you wrote, you didn't give the option to not do x you literally just said "must do x" with both parts. "you must do X =/= you must do X to do y" none of that says anything about "you are not required to do x"

Nope. If you can't understand the basic difference between the existence of instructions and the specific construction 'instructed to', then you're either willfully ignorant or willfully obtuse. There is no point correcting you again.

And no, it wasn't a logical fallacy; it's just an answer you don't like. Logic doesn't care how much you dislike the answer.

Side Question

If a Ship has Deadeye, can you reroll dice by using a focus?

15 minutes ago, Talamare said:

Side Question

If a Ship has Deadeye, can you reroll dice by using a focus?

No it, it just lets you use focus in place of target lock for secondary weapon attacks that require you to have or pay a lock as the cost of weapon use. It doesn't change the normal use of focus if you have a second focus.

2 hours ago, Talamare said:

Side Question

If a Ship has Deadeye, can you reroll dice by using a focus?

For the text of deadeye we have

"SMALL SHIP ONLY"

You may treat the "ATTACK (TARGET LOCK):" header as ' "ATTACK (FOCUS):" .

When an attack instructs you to spend a target lock , you may spend a focus token instead.

The re-roll is not a type of attack, but secondary weapons are.

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Nope. If you can't understand the basic difference between the existence of instructions and the specific construction 'instructed to', then you're either willfully ignorant or willfully obtuse. There is no point correcting you again.

And no, it wasn't a logical fallacy; it's just an answer you don't like. Logic doesn't care how much you dislike the answer.

"Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident " Jean-Jacques Rousseau

5 hours ago, Oberron said:

"Insults are the last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident " Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It wasn't an insult. If you choose to be insulted, that's on you.

Seriously, you two have turned this thread in the stupidest thing ever.

First, whatever the stupid word definition you finally stupidly agree on would still mean nothing. This game have time and again shown that it don't care about word definition.

"Immediately" mean nothing on card.

"free" does not really mean free.

"touching" is touching but not always.

"roll" and "reroll" are two thing when according to language, a reroll is clearly a roll.

So seriously, this will not be about the **** stupid **** idiot instruct word. It will only be about what is exactly a Game Effect, end of story.

You guys are spending an awful lot of effort arguing about something where both sides have a 50/50 chance of being correct.

I suggest looking at it from the other direction...

Assuming you are able to use both Omega Ace and the normal Target Lock rerolls, how would you rewrite the card to make this possible? (While also conserving text space since it is already potentially the card with the most text.)

Bonus points if you do the same, but with neither of those effects working and you use less words than the current wording without using "instructs".

6 hours ago, muribundi said:

Seriously, you two have turned this thread in the stupidest thing ever.

First, whatever the stupid word definition you finally stupidly agree on would still mean nothing. This game have time and again shown that it don't care about word definition.

"Immediately" mean nothing on card.

"free" does not really mean free.

"touching" is touching but not always.

"roll" and "reroll" are two thing when according to language, a reroll is clearly a roll.

So seriously, this will not be about the **** stupid **** idiot instruct word. It will only be about what is exactly a Game Effect, end of story.

Ty that was supposed to be the entire point of the thread.

So what do you think game effect means and why?

Dear gods ... I came here wanting to contribute to the discussion, but I do not want do be dragged into the awful war that's going on in this thread. When I followed the link from the FAQ discussion, I expected something much more interesting than a mutually aggressive curb-stomping over the slanted meaning of words like "instruct" and "the" and "jesuschristFFGjustreplytothequestion".

I think arguing about specific words takes us down a rabbit hole of horror with no bottom. FFG doesn't use words consistently. There's no answer down there, and it hurts watching the conversation tumble deeper and deeper into the ugly abyss.

My guess was always that a game effect is simply any effect that triggers in the game, but I don't want to invite deterministic curb stomping. I always saw the opportunity to spend a focus token for focus->hit, or spend a target lock to reroll, as a game effect that triggers during the Modify Attack/Defense Dice steps, no different from Calculation. But I don't want to invite aggressive curb stomping. At this point, contributing or discussing my thoughts here is not an option. There's no way to step into this thread to share ideas; all anyone can look forward to is getting picked apart with clever non-answers designed to exhaust the "opponent", not to resolve the question.

You could threaten someone's life on the internet, but if you really want to hurt them, pick apart every word they say in the most petty, tedious way possible. Oldest trick in the book. I really thought this could be an interesting discussion, but dear lord this was a rotten read; I just started skimming and finally skipping posts. It's like watching two grammar nazis go at it, and feeling sick to my stomach instead of entertained or enlightened. I have no optimism for future posts, especially replies to my own post. Grammar nazis love nothing more than fresh blood.

This above all else is why FFG needs to address basic questions like this in their FAQs... the forums cannot resolve such questions by picking apart flawed language and arguing over its "perfectly obvious meaning", and never will. This discussion will always devolve to awful pedantry and pettiness. Not even "Frank" can resolve this, whatever his answer; unless it's the official FAQ, it won't be something you can take to the table to settle the question with someone who disagrees.

Especially someone who loves to argue...

22 minutes ago, Wazat said:

My guess was always that a game effect is simply any effect that triggers in the game, but I don't want to invite deterministic curb stomping. I always saw the opportunity to spend a focus token for focus->hit, or spend a target lock to reroll, as a game effect that triggers during the Modify Attack/Defense Dice steps, no different from Calculation.

This is perfectly reasonable post right here. You post what you think it means and an example to follow. This ispretty muxh my stance on it as well for game effect.

As for the rest of it I'm sorry if you think you be torn apart by Grammer nazi and such the thread did take a dark turn there and I apologize if you thought that way about any of my post.

Eh. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The language we have is all we get to work with. There's no guarantees we will ever get a FAQ update on it at all.

42 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Eh. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The language we have is all we get to work with. There's no guarantees we will ever get a FAQ update on it at all.

A little off topic but are you from Europe/British area? Because that also could have been a reason for the impass since there are differences with American English and British English.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Eh. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The language we have is all we get to work with. There's no guarantees we will ever get a FAQ update on it at all.

When you can be in physical contact but not "touching" in game terms, linguistics really mean nothing for determining how cards actually work.