20 minutes ago, Oberron said:

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. "

The main idea would be that you can't spend a Target Lock you don't have. Without the second line ships would be limited to only several Missiles and the Synced Turret as they don't require a lock to be spent with the header.. hence why they're talking about headers, not Target Locks in General. If it was in general the header wouldn't matter at all.

17 minutes ago, D00kies said:

The main idea would be that you can't spend a Target Lock you don't have. Without the second line ships would be limited to only several Missiles and the Synced Turret as they don't require a lock to be spent with the header.. hence why they're talking about headers, not Target Locks in General. If it was in general the header wouldn't matter at all.

The first effect talks about the attack header but the 2nd line does not. I do agree with you that the first line changes the attack header. The second line talks about game effects that instruct the ship to spend target locks, re-rolling from spending a target lock works with it. You can have multiple effects that relay on the same trigger but do not have to relay on the effect of one or the other.

I do hear you, it just looks like they would have said "friendly ships at range 1-2 may use your Target Locks as if they were their own" instead of mentioning the header at all - that would be completely irrelevant!

I think it's mentioned because the TL isn't supposed to be accessible to a friendly ship beyond Attack [Target Lock] : .

Thanks for discussing it. Better here than in a game. I know people are talking about it, so I'll wait for the FAQ for anything concrete.

No, they would have not done that, because the Header is not using, so ship would have not been able to fire secondary weapon with this wording you suggest.

There is no other way to word it for the Header to work, and let you use the target lock for anything else and not let Advance Targeting Computer and Omega Leader see it.

When you can't find a way to word it, it means this is the proper way and meaning.

@D00kies

I believe the work around is to avoid making ATC and Omega leader shared. The FAQ seems to clarify that the attack[target lock]: note can be used to simply share TL's on offense.

Kind of a weird ruling, but compared to the myriad of backwards wording this game already uses, I'll take it

Interesting thought: does Targetting Synchroniser get around Biggles? It feels like it should, but RAW I'm not sure it does - it allows you to treat 'attack TL' as 'Attack' - so you lose the TL requirement, so you now have to target Biggs. But if you're using ordnance that forces you to discard your (Synchronised) TL, you can't, because it's not on Biggs.

E: this is assuming that the attacking ship has a lock on someone else and the synchronized ship has a lock on someone else as well. If the attacker has Biggs locked he can just ignore the synchroniser entirely.

@thespaceinvader Targeting Synchronizer shares it's effects with the attacker on the ship it has locked. It doesn't allow that condition to work on a different ship. Good question, though.

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

Interesting thought: does Targetting Synchroniser get around Biggles? It feels like it should, but RAW I'm not sure it does - it allows you to treat 'attack TL' as 'Attack' - so you lose the TL requirement, so you now have to target Biggs. But if you're using ordnance that forces you to discard your (Synchronised) TL, you can't, because it's not on Biggs.

E: this is assuming that the attacking ship has a lock on someone else and the synchronized ship has a lock on someone else as well. If the attacker has Biggs locked he can just ignore the synchroniser entirely.

If the attacker has a tl on someone else they can always elect to not tuse the header change part of ts but still use the spending tl part and won't have to fire at biggs that way, but if they elect to change the header then they would have to fire at biggs and spend the tl since they would be able to pay for the cost. That would be my guess anyway

1 hour ago, muribundi said:

No, they would have not done that, because the Header is not using, so ship would have not been able to fire secondary weapon with this wording you suggest.

There is no other way to word it for the Header to work, and let you use the target lock for anything else and not let Advance Targeting Computer and Omega Leader see it.

When you can't find a way to word it, it means this is the proper way and meaning.

Could have said secondary weapons instead of game effects

5 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Could have said secondary weapons instead of game effects

This is a good point. The wording does work outside of secondary weapon attacks. Works for me then!

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Interesting thought: does Targetting Synchroniser get around Biggles? It feels like it should, but RAW I'm not sure it does - it allows you to treat 'attack TL' as 'Attack' - so you lose the TL requirement, so you now have to target Biggs. But if you're using ordnance that forces you to discard your (Synchronised) TL, you can't, because it's not on Biggs.

E: this is assuming that the attacking ship has a lock on someone else and the synchronized ship has a lock on someone else as well. If the attacker has Biggs locked he can just ignore the synchroniser entirely.

I don't think that's the case, because a ship with TS allows a squadmate to treat 'attack TL' as 'Attack' only against the ship he target locked. So, per RAW the check will happen like this: 1. Select Weapon - Missile. 2. Declare Target: can you target Biggs? No, because 'Attack:TL' requirement is not satisfied (TS does not change Attack:TL to Attack because the prerequisite is not fulfilled), so declare another target. Now the prerequisite for TS is fulfilled, 'Attack:TL' becomes 'Attack' and target selection is valid.

Note the implication: if a ship with TS locked Biggs, then Biggs is a valid target for ordnance shots from other ships in the range of TS ability (because TS use is not optional - there is no word 'may' in the text).

1 hour ago, pt106 said:

I don't think that's the case, because a ship with TS allows a squadmate to treat 'attack TL' as 'Attack' only against the ship he target locked. So, per RAW the check will happen like this: 1. Select Weapon - Missile. 2. Declare Target: can you target Biggs? No, because 'Attack:TL' requirement is not satisfied (TS does not change Attack:TL to Attack because the prerequisite is not fulfilled), so declare another target. Now the prerequisite for TS is fulfilled, 'Attack:TL' becomes 'Attack' and target selection is valid.

Note the implication: if a ship with TS locked Biggs, then Biggs is a valid target for ordnance shots from other ships in the range of TS ability (because TS use is not optional - there is no word 'may' in the text).

This is correct.

On 22/03/2017 at 7:02 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.

Did you get any answer ? Even if I agree TS works on primary weapond, it would be nice to have something to share... as this is not intuitive.

Unfortunately FFG has not replied.

The latest FAQ explicitly clarified that rerolling primary weapon attacks is a valid usage of TS.

1 hour ago, RampancyTW said:

The latest FAQ explicitly clarified that rerolling primary weapon attacks is a valid usage of TS.

Wait, explicitly? With what specific wording? I just looked at the 432 FAQ again, and there's no entry for Targeting Synchronizer. The entry about spending a target lock being a "game effect" is indirect and doesn't address the trigger question, so it won't stop people from rules lawyering at the table during a tournament to keep me from spending the TS ship's lock on my primary (" that ship is the ship that replaced the Attack header, not just any ship"). It's not explicit enough to stop the confusion, whatever consensus people reach in this thread. Until FFG comes out and makes it explicit, it's going to be hard to depend on a TS fleet working the way it should.

1 hour ago, Wazat said:

Wait, explicitly? With what specific wording? I just looked at the 432 FAQ again, and there's no entry for Targeting Synchronizer. The entry about spending a target lock being a "game effect" is indirect and doesn't address the trigger question, so it won't stop people from rules lawyering at the table during a tournament to keep me from spending the TS ship's lock on my primary (" that ship is the ship that replaced the Attack header, not just any ship"). It's not explicit enough to stop the confusion, whatever consensus people reach in this thread. Until FFG comes out and makes it explicit, it's going to be hard to depend on a TS fleet working the way it should.

... But how? There is nothing that connects the two sections of Targeting Synchronizer. One part changes the header, the other part allows spending for game effects. I don't see where the rule's lawyer wiggle room is. You don't need to use a secondary weapon to still satisfy the conditions of the first part of the card, since a friendly ship at range 1-2 attacking a ship you have locked is the only trigger.

Doesn't matter how obvious you think it is. I'm constantly shocked at how different players, some of whom went to Regionals or are going to Worlds, will interpret complex rules completely differently, both locally and on the x-wing wiki. Sometimes I get the impression that they've gotten different rulings from judges during games, and that's at the root of their different interpretations. The fact that FFG hasn't released a guide on how to generally interpret its rules wording doesn't help (nor does their revelation that many words mean nothing), and an apparent general consensus here doesn't convince people at the table. And frankly it shouldn't convince them, considering what I have to show. It doesn't help that I have to scroll to page 5 or 6 of a long, generally hostile-feeling and pedantic thread before people start discussing the new errata and almost reaching a consensus, but even then there's no discreet "aha" moment where I can point an opponent and convince them.

People's buy-in victories are on the line; they're not going to believe a conclusion in a forum thread posted by unofficial sources, especially one that they think I might be taking out of context, or cherry-picking out of lots of disagreeing conclusions. The correct, official source is FAQ entries, and it shouldn't be too much to ask that FFG explicitly explain the card in a FAQ entry specifically for Targeting Synchronizer. Or more generally they could add an entry at the bottom of the FAQ that explains exactly how multi-sentence effects should be handled, that explains that Bossk isn't the exception, so I can point an opponent there and resolve the matter instantly. These interpretations are non-obvious, no matter what the people here believe, and no one here is an official source. It's just not a trivial matter to resolve disputes over wording, when that wording isn't frivolously clear.

Bossk (Crew) needed a FAQ for people to interpret it consistently. I don't see why FFG is holding back on this card... perhaps because it's not as popular? Or they're still unaware that players will still argue it doesn't work with primary? Who knows, but I'm still hoping the next FAQ directly explains that there's a consistent logic behind how Bossk and TS should be interpreted, and throws all the guesswork and argument out the window.

I really don't think there's any guesswork or argument to be had, though. Nothing in the wording requires a secondary weapon with the Attack: TL header to be used, it just has that affect for the ship. And for the second clause, the FAQ is explicit that spending for rerolls is a game effect.

You have to intentionally ignore the wording on the card and the rules of the game to reach the conclusion that spending for primary weapon rerolls is not allowed. For a ship attacking a ship you have locked at range 1-2, the header rules are different, and that ship can also spend your TL. There's literally no other way to interpret it without adding or subtracting things to the card description.

I mean I totally understand why players looking for an edge would argue otherwise, but it IS a clear ruling. You have to ignore the way other cards work, AND the wording on the card itself to reach the opposite conclusion.

Yea, hence my frustration.

Quote

Target Lock

Ships with the target lock icon in their action bar may perform the ACQUIRE A TARGET LOCK action to acquire a target lock on an enemy ship at Range 1-3. While attacking, a ship can spend a target lock that it has on the defender to reroll any number of its attack dice.

A target lock consists of a red target lock token and a blue target lock token displaying the same letter. When a target lock is acquired, assign the blue target lock token to the ship performing the action (the locking ship), and assign the red target lock token on the target (the locked ship).

Target locks are not removed during the End phase.

A ship can maintain one target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock.

A ship that does not have the target icon in its action bar can acquire and maintain a target lock granted by another game effect.

If a ship spends a target lock as part of the cost of an ability, that target lock does not also allow the ship to reroll attack dice.

If a player declares an acquire a target lock action for his ship and the enemy ship he wants to lock is not at range, he may choose a different ship to lock or a different action entirety.

If an ability instructs a ship to "acquire a target lock", this is different than performing an acquire a target lock action. The ship acquires the target lock without performing an action, and it may do so even if it has already performed the acquire a target lock action during this round.04:02

FFG- Star Wars- X-Wing Miniatures Tutorial - Using Target Locks

A ship can acquire a new target lock on a ship that it already has locked; the old target lock is removed.

A ship can spend a target lock and choose not to reroll any dice.

If an effect removes a blue or red target lock token from a ship, the matching red or blue target lock token is also removed (unless the blue target lock is assigned to another ship).

A ship can be locked by more than one enemy ship.

When an ability instructs you to acquire a target lock, the locked ship needs to be at Range 1-3, unless the ability explicitly states otherwise or another ability modifies the range at which the ship can acquire target locks. (FAQ, v.4.1.2, 4/25/2016)

so No where in the actual usage of the target lock action does it instruct you to spend a target lock

Again today I couldn't use Targeting Synchronizer because my opponent said his friend who work at FFG told him it's not made to reroll dice on primary or secondary weapond...

I send mail to FFG to got some official evidence of this, because even if I'm agree with the consensus on this tread, most of the people are not at this time.

9 minutes ago, Eythau said:

Again today I couldn't use Targeting Synchronizer because my opponent said his friend who work at FFG told him it's not made to reroll dice on primary or secondary weapond...

I send mail to FFG to got some official evidence of this, because even if I'm agree with the consensus on this tread, most of the people are not at this time.

Just tell your friend that your uncle works for Disney and says so. What was your opponent's reasoning for saying you couldn't use ts for rerolling? Because the faq says otherwise for what counts as a game effect that instructs a player to spend a tl

2 hours ago, Eythau said:

Again today I couldn't use Targeting Synchronizer because my opponent said his friend who work at FFG told him it's not made to reroll dice on primary or secondary weapond...

I send mail to FFG to got some official evidence of this, because even if I'm agree with the consensus on this tread, most of the people are not at this time.

What it is made to do isn't really an issue. What the card says (in terms of literal wording) is that you can't. What is rules is... inconclusive. Sadly, the FAQ entry doesn't actually answer the necessary question; it only tells us what constitutes spending a target lock. There is the general implication that you can (without explanation of why), but that isn't helping with clarity.

We'll get clarification eventually. And hell... maybe it'll even make sense!

2 hours ago, Eythau said:

Again today I couldn't use Targeting Synchronizer because my opponent said his friend who work at FFG told him it's not made to reroll dice on primary or secondary weapond...

I send mail to FFG to got some official evidence of this, because even if I'm agree with the consensus on this tread, most of the people are not at this time.

I'm sorry to hear that. Similar to what's making me avoid the card, though no one has yet claimed to me that they know a guy at FFG (which is remarkably unverifiable -- for all they know, you're chummy with the CEO, and he backs any rules interpretation you like). You may be able to turn this into an opportunity though, if you can ask that guy to get his FFG buddy to release an official statement... really put his claim to the test, and benefit the community!

4 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

And hell... maybe it'll even make sense!

That's crazy talk! I expect the clarification to curdle the blood of even Cthulhu. (that way I won't be disappointed if the answer has at least some sense to it)