On 3/22/2017 at 1:51 AM, InquisitorM said:

Yeeeeeeah... except for all the times it provided the correct answer against popular opinion. I'll pass and keep doing what the card actually says until rules say otherwise.

Well the rules say that spending a target lock for a re-roll is instructing a player to spend a target lock, per the FAQ posted. Your interpretation of what instruct means to the game was incorrect

On 3/22/2017 at 1:02 PM, Wazat said:

He's arguing that "that ship" it the reason the 2nd sentence cannot activate. If the friendly ship didn't have an "Attack (Target Lock)" line to modify, then he's claiming the whole card fails to activate, because the 2nd line references the first, and the first line didn't do anything.

Again, I disagree with him, but he's no villain. This is what happens when FFG shies away from providing explicit clarity through the FAQ. It's not hard to include an entry for Targeting Synchronizer to clearly explain what it does, but they're avoiding doing that for now. I suppose I need to dial back my frustration and assume they're not lazy; it's because we haven't asked the right question.

I found the link to send questions to customer support, and fired this off:

Wish me luck.

As posted above from what Muribundi said the trigger for TS is "A friendly ship at range 1-2 attacking a ship you have locked...". There are cards out there that work according to how your friend thinks it works, such as accuracy correcter but that uses a different wording such as "then" or other cards that use "If you do..."(like countdown) and thel ike that talk about doing the effect of the previous sentence not the trigger. But good luck with getting an e-mail.

2 hours ago, Oberron said:

Well the rules say that spending a target lock for a re-roll is instructing a player to spend a target lock, per the FAQ posted. Your interpretation of what instruct means to the game was incorrect

Oh look, a logical fallacy. Colour me surprised. The printed card doesn't change wording because a ruling is made.

Of course, the fact that some people are still unclear after the FAQ entry goes along way to showing how counter-intuitive it was.

26 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

Oh look, a logical fallacy. Colour me surprised. The printed card doesn't change wording because a ruling is made.

Of course, the fact that some people are still unclear after the FAQ entry goes along way to showing how counter-intuitive it was.

Thought we were done with the pedantic game.... What logical fallacy did I use? And I never said anything about printed wording on the card but the meaning of the wording does change because a rule is made. Are you reading things that aren't there again?

As for people still being unclear, that doesn't mean the FAQ was counter-intuitive, it can also mean people reading it either don't understand what things mean in game terms or don't understand other fundamentals/structure/order of operations of the game.

12 hours ago, Oberron said:

Thought we were done with the pedantic game....

You're the one who continued it.

Anyway... False cause. The fact that the ruling was not in accordance with my reading of the text does not imply the causation that my reading of the text was in any way flawed. It is quite possible for my interpretation to be correct and for the ruling to have been made otherwise. In fact, you have still not provided any evidence that this is the case.

But we're done here. You have still to raise even a single factual point to back up your assertions. I will not be posting here again as you have shown no desire to apply reason to your bias.

2 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

You're the one who continued it.

Anyway... False cause. The fact that the ruling was not in accordance with my reading of the text does not imply the causation that my reading of the text was in any way flawed. It is quite possible for my interpretation to be correct and for the ruling to have been made otherwise. In fact, you have still not provided any evidence that this is the case.

But we're done here. You have still to raise even a single factual point to back up your assertions. I will not be posting here again as you have shown no desire to apply reason to your bias.

DUDE.

You are simultaneously wrong, and being an extremely sore loser about it. The FAQ EXPLICITLY states that spending a TL to reroll dice is a game effect. That's the only thing that mattered-- using that game effect instructs you to spend the TL.

I've made a couple of threads where I've dug my heels in hard like you, and when a FAQ proved me wrong... I liked the dude's post, admitted to myself I was wrong, and moved on with my life. It's the adult thing to do, and the only way the community as a whole can function as well as it does.

There's no shame in being wrong, and a lot of strength in admitting it. It's okay. Just learn from this and... let it go.

It is entirely possible to simultaneously recognize the FAQ ruling and not pretend that the card was clearly worded before.

2 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

DUDE.

You are simultaneously wrong, and being an extremely sore loser about it. The FAQ EXPLICITLY states that spending a TL to reroll dice is a game effect. That's the only thing that mattered-- using that game effect instructs you to spend the TL.

I've made a couple of threads where I've dug my heels in hard like you, and when a FAQ proved me wrong... I liked the dude's post, admitted to myself I was wrong, and moved on with my life. It's the adult thing to do, and the only way the community as a whole can function as well as it does.

There's no shame in being wrong, and a lot of strength in admitting it. It's okay. Just learn from this and... let it go.

Don't worry about him, he has shown his colors and it is just best to ignore him at this point. I don't want this thread to turn into off topic mudslinging now that we have an answer.

Is there a way I can request to lock the thread?

13 hours ago, Oberron said:

Don't worry about him, he has shown his colors and it is just best to ignore him at this point. I don't want this thread to turn into off topic mudslinging now that we have an answer.

Is there a way I can request to lock the thread?

Typically any time someone resorts to the "logical fallacy" argument there's nothing to be done. I usually just stop reading when I hit those words because they're just a weak counter point when there is no better argument. I want the "logical fallacy fallacy" to start making its rounds so we can go full circle.

13 hours ago, nigeltastic said:

Typically any time someone resorts to the "logical fallacy" argument there's nothing to be done. I usually just stop reading when I hit those words because they're just a weak counter point when there is no better argument. I want the "logical fallacy fallacy" to start making its rounds so we can go full circle.

lol, so typical. Using a logical fallacy to call out someone using logical fallacies... #LEARN2DEBATZ

32 minutes ago, Klutz said:

lol, so typical. Using a logical fallacy to call out someone using logical fallacies... #LEARN2DEBATZ

It only makes sense when someone who claims another is using a logical fallacy is an actual logical fallacy and makes a point with it. But if someone just claims "Thats a logical fallacy!" and nothing else it doesn't magically 'defeat' the person or any kind of effort to rebuttal a point that is made.

1 minute ago, Oberron said:

It only makes sense when someone who claims another is using a logical fallacy is an actual logical fallacy and makes a point with it. But if someone just claims "Thats a logical fallacy!" and nothing else it doesn't magically 'defeat' the person or any kind of effort to rebuttal a point that is made.

In case you missed it, my comment was sarcastic. Very sarcastic. I thought the hashtag would be a big enough hint

30 minutes ago, Klutz said:

In case you missed it, my comment was sarcastic. Very sarcastic. I thought the hashtag would be a big enough hint

Indeed I did then. Hard to read sarcasm in text. Unfortunatly Poe's law is a thing where there are some people that are serious with comments like yours.

This thread had a lot of salt, sounds like some parties got smoked by a homing missile proc'd off of a friendly ships FCS .

Let's move on and celebrate the age of TIE/SF and how wonderful TS is!

It really is wonderful. I've been using a great janky list with Backdraft, Tomax and Kylo /Stridan

Aside from the salt here, Targeting Synchronizer requires the "header" clause. The Learn to Play rulebook and FAQ do not state any header under Modifying Attack Dice: Spending a Target Lock/Tokens . Also, to restate, a basic attack does not require a target lock to perform. Attack[Target Lock] does.

1 hour ago, D00kies said:

Aside from the salt here, Targeting Synchronizer requires the "header" clause. The Learn to Play rulebook and FAQ do not state any header under Modifying Attack Dice: Spending a Target Lock/Tokens . Also, to restate, a basic attack does not require a target lock to perform. Attack[Target Lock] does.

I was under the impression that part had been settled...

AFAIK, the second part of the card is not dependant on the first. The card doesn't say "When [...], you may [...]. then [...]" nor does it say "When [...], you may [...]. If you do, [...]."

2 hours ago, D00kies said:

Aside from the salt here, Targeting Synchronizer requires the "header" clause. The Learn to Play rulebook and FAQ do not state any header under Modifying Attack Dice: Spending a Target Lock/Tokens . Also, to restate, a basic attack does not require a target lock to perform. Attack[Target Lock] does.

I'm not sure the entirety of the point you are trying to make here. Are you saying the the "Attack(Target lock)" is a trigger for Targeting Synchronizer to work?

3 minutes ago, Oberron said:

I'm not sure the entirety of the point you are trying to make here. Are you saying the the "Attack(Target lock)" is a trigger for Targeting Synchronizer to work?

Not a trigger, just a modification on the requirement. I'm differentiating the header from dice modification.

22 minutes ago, D00kies said:

Not a trigger, just a modification on the requirement. I'm differentiating the header from dice modification.

Requirement for what part though? There are two parts to TS.

2 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Requirement for what part though? There are two parts to TS.

Well, it describes "that ship" by the one treating the Attack[Target Lock]: as Attack: . It looks like they're trying to tip toe around it from being a generic TL for friendly ships. FFG could have simply stated "Friendly ships at Range 1-2 may treat your Target Lock as if it was their own" instead of writing the whole thing.

I am with you on "game effect", though. That description is so broad that it seems like it could affect other uses.

27 minutes ago, D00kies said:

Well, it describes "that ship" by the one treating the Attack[Target Lock]: as Attack: . It looks like they're trying to tip toe around it from being a generic TL for friendly ships. FFG could have simply stated "Friendly ships at Range 1-2 may treat your Target Lock as if it was their own" instead of writing the whole thing.

I am with you on "game effect", though. That description is so broad that it seems like it could affect other uses.

"That ship" doesn't require the "Attack(target lock)", "that ship" is "a friendly ship at range 1-2 attacking a target you have a lock on" If "that ship" was to have the requirement of the replacing attack TL as attack then it would say "If it does..." means that the ship in question did the previosu effect.

As for the "Friendly ships at Range 1-2 may treat your Target Lock as if it was their own" instead of writing the whole thing. part FFG most than likely wants to prevent imperial abuse with it like from ATC and omega leader

It modifies the Attack[Target Lock]: "requirement" into Attack: .

As for "a game effect", it's very broad but I would say that "that ship" implies the ship -using the effect-, NOT any friendly ship at Range 1-2 attacking a ship you have locked. Even though it's two sentences, it looks as if the following line is speaking of the first line.

11 minutes ago, D00kies said:

As for "a game effect", it's very broad but I would say that "that ship" implies the ship -using the effect-, NOT any friendly ship at Range 1-2 attacking a ship you have locked. Even though it's two sentences, it looks as if the following line is speaking of the first line.

Nope.

11 minutes ago, Klutz said:

Nope.

The second line isn't a stand alone sentence, but I'm comfortable with that. Hopefully there's a FAQ to expand upon it.

BTW a prime example of why it could have been worded this way is because you can't spend a TL you don't have.

There are several missiles that don't require TL's to be spent and also the Synced Turret, leading that if they didn't add the second line ONLY those upgrades would be usable.

19 minutes ago, D00kies said:

It modifies the Attack[Target Lock]: "requirement" into Attack: .

As for "a game effect", it's very broad but I would say that "that ship" implies the ship -using the effect-, NOT any friendly ship at Range 1-2 attacking a ship you have locked. Even though it's two sentences, it looks as if the following line is speaking of the first line.

There are examples already of wording that says otherwise. look at countdown for instances " When defending, if you are not stressed during the "Compare Results" step, you may suffer 1 damage to cancel all dice results. if you do, receive 1 stress token. " The trigger for receiving the stress isn't "When defending..." but rather it is "may suffer 1 damage to cancel all dice results". The trigger for TS is " When a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked, ..." not "... the friendly ship treats the ' ATTACK (TARGET LOCK): ' header as ' ATTACK: ' ". There are distinct differences in the two cases. I'll find more examples later.

A game effect is very broad but has been FAQ to show that spending it for re-roll is such an effect from the faq " Q: What are examples of game effects that instruct a player to spend a target lock? A: The cost for a secondary weapon such as Proton Torpedoes, using pilot abilities like Lieutenant Colzet, or spending a target lock during the "Modify Attack Dice" step to reroll attack dice are all examples of spending a target lock. Removing a target lock or assigning a blue target lock token to another ship are not examples of spending a target lock. "