New FAQ confirms spending a TL to reroll dice is a game effect

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/0f/f4/0ff434bd-c3aa-4f0f-ac36-f0703cb8f276/x-wing_faq_v432.pdf \

Quote

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

50 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

New FAQ confirms spending a TL to reroll dice is a game effect

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/0f/f4/0ff434bd-c3aa-4f0f-ac36-f0703cb8f276/x-wing_faq_v432.pdf \

Now I guess we can start arguing about whether or not the TL on the ship with Targeting Synchronizer counts as being "a target lock that you have on the defender". =)

Omega Ace, Lt. Colzet, Latts Razzi, and even the target lock dice modification effect all use language to that effect. I would assume that just about all of the pilot abilities and upgrade cards read like that.

6 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Now I guess we can start arguing about whether or not the TL on the ship with Targeting Synchronizer counts as being "a target lock that you have on the defender". =)

Omega Ace, Lt. Colzet, Latts Razzi, and even the target lock dice modification effect all use language to that effect. I would assume that just about all of the pilot abilities and upgrade cards read like that.

I would say yes IF it's something along the lines of "Spend a target lock you have on the defender" or wahtever. If it's just, "If you have a TL on the defneder" then no.

Well I'll be damned. Upgrade just got a lot better.

50 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

I would say yes IF it's something along the lines of "Spend a target lock you have on the defender" or wahtever. If it's just, "If you have a TL on the defneder" then no.

I think my initial rejection of using the TL on Targeting Synchronizer stemmed more from the cost for ordnance being the only thing that was "spend your target lock" and everything else seemed to check to see if you had a target on the defender.

I think that adding this FAQ entry is a clear indication of intent. I can't think of anything other than Targetting Synchronizer that refers to game effects that instruct you to spend target locks.

1 hour ago, VanderLegion said:

New FAQ confirms spending a TL to reroll dice is a game effect

https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/0f/f4/0ff434bd-c3aa-4f0f-ac36-f0703cb8f276/x-wing_faq_v432.pdf \

Fantastic, did that update today or something?

54 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Now I guess we can start arguing about whether or not the TL on the ship with Targeting Synchronizer counts as being "a target lock that you have on the defender". =)

Omega Ace, Lt. Colzet, Latts Razzi, and even the target lock dice modification effect all use language to that effect. I would assume that just about all of the pilot abilities and upgrade cards read like that.

This....this is a joke right? (hard to read sarcasm/jokes on text but poe's law and all that...)

7 minutes ago, Oberron said:

This....this is a joke right? (hard to read sarcasm/jokes on text but poe's law and all that...)

Mostly. I think the intention is clear now on how FFG intends the upgrade to work.

I'm not 100% sure that something like R4-B11 would work:

"When attacking, if you have a target lock on the defender, you may spend the target lock to choose any or all defense dice. The defender must reroll the chosen dice."

Since you don't have a target lock on the defender does the ability even get to the point that you can spend the target lock held by a ship with Targetting Synchronizer?

12 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Mostly. I think the intention is clear now on how FFG intends the upgrade to work.

I'm not 100% sure that something like R4-B11 would work:

"When attacking, if you have a target lock on the defender, you may spend the target lock to choose any or all defense dice. The defender must reroll the chosen dice."

Since you don't have a target lock on the defender does the ability even get to the point that you can spend the target lock held by a ship with Targetting Synchronizer?

Hmmmm. I can see if you already have a target lock on the defender you can use the TS target lock. Omega ace doesn't have the "if" clause but still talks about a target lock you have on the defender. With a very strict reading of it I would answer no since you don't meet the requirement of "If you have a target lock on the defender", but it is an ability that is done when attacking and spends a target lock. As a personal answer I'd be fine with it since the wording of it is a little antique compared to today's wording of things. ("immediately" being another example of antique wording)

As for LT colzet TS wouldn't work with him sadly because his ability isn't when attacking.

9 minutes ago, Oberron said:

As for LT colzet TS wouldn't work with him sadly because his ability isn't when attacking.

Same for R7.

Seeing a lot of arguments that the two clauses are linked. ie you have to be firing a secondary weapon (like homing missiles) to share the TL, and only if that's the case you can use the TL to reroll dice. I'm pretty sure it would be ruled like Collision Detector in that the two statements of the card are separate. As in, you can use "attack target lock" as "attack" and/OR you can use the TL just for rerolls, without having n used a secondary weapon?

8 minutes ago, Goseki1 said:

Seeing a lot of arguments that the two clauses are linked. ie you have to be firing a secondary weapon (like homing missiles) to share the TL, and only if that's the case you can use the TL to reroll dice. I'm pretty sure it would be ruled like Collision Detector in that the two statements of the card are separate. As in, you can use "attack target lock" as "attack" and/OR you can use the TL just for rerolls, without having n used a secondary weapon?

Correct. There's no link between the first part and the second.

10 minutes ago, Goseki1 said:

Seeing a lot of arguments that the two clauses are linked. ie you have to be firing a secondary weapon (like homing missiles) to share the TL, and only if that's the case you can use the TL to reroll dice. I'm pretty sure it would be ruled like Collision Detector in that the two statements of the card are separate. As in, you can use "attack target lock" as "attack" and/OR you can use the TL just for rerolls, without having n used a secondary weapon?

the only thing that connects them together is the trigger which is a friendly ship at range 1-2 attacking. If it had the wording "If that ship does, when a game effect....." then they would linked together where the attacking ship has to treat the header as just "attack".

currently you can use both parts from the same trigger if you want.

Cool. Though I thought it wouldn't go this way I'm glad it did, really opens up options on the Upsilon for me.

I like it better on backdraft or another TIE SF with fcs personally

On 12/03/2017 at 7:54 AM, 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.

And as predicted, semantic of detail about supposed definition of "Instruct" meant absolutely nothing, and this was only base on what is a game effect.

Be it a lesson next time, don't try to find perfect word usage to find card functionality...

7 hours ago, muribundi said:

And as predicted, semantic of detail about supposed definition of "Instruct" meant absolutely nothing, and this was only base on what is a game effect.

Be it a lesson next time, don't try to find perfect word usage to find card functionality...

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.

Welp, because FFG is too reserved to provide a full, explicit FAQ for TS, it's apparently still unclear. A player is claiming to me that you can't use this card for re-rolls with your primary weapon, or secondary weapons that don't require a target lock, because "that ship" can only refer to a ship that took advantage of the Attack line change (which it presumably cannot do unless its attack line was Target Lock). I get what he's saying, but I strongly disagree. I could argue with him, but FAQ entries are supposed to resolve having to argue over the rules every time you go to the table. It doesn't matter what the consensus is here in this thread since it's not official, and forum talk is a weak response to someone's argument; until FFG gives us a real FAQ for TS, we can't bring any interpretations to the table with any hope of reliable agreement.

I hate this pedantic wordplay nightmare anyway; it shouldn't even be necessary. I don't get it, why can't FFG just provide a FAQ entry for TS, explicitly explaining how & when it can be used? Are they afraid of committing to an interpretation they haven't tested thoroughly yet? (and if so, why aren't they testing it?) A problem only partially solved is still a problem. I get the caution about commitment, but this card has been out for a while. They ought to have its effects clear in their heads by now!

But perhaps it's related to what we have/haven't asked. Have people not sent in questions specifically asking if you can do this with a primary weapon, etc? Because the FAQ line seems to indicate we were specifically asking what "game effect" means, and so that's what FFG answered.

How does one ask FFG these questions? If we need to ask about primary weapon etc, let's do it.

But they're wrong as per the new FAQ. Explicitly and specifically wrong. Gosh what a pain in the butt

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:

Quote

Targeting Synchronizer is still causing disagreement and I'd like to get another question resolved: can it be used by a friendly ship to reroll its Primary Weapon, Proton Rocket, etc dice?

One side argues that the friendly ship must be using an attack with the "attack(target lock)" header, or else the 2nd sentence cannot activate. Because the first sentence failed, the condition wasn't met and the card never triggers.

The other camp argues that you can use the 2nd sentence; the actual trigger is "when a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked", and not being able switch the attack header doesn't preclude getting the 2nd effect (able to spend your target lock instead of their own).

How exactly can Targeting Synchronizer be used? The new FAQ resolved what "game effect instructs" means, but there's still this ambiguity/argument that will make using the card during actual play risky.

Thanks for your time!

Wish me luck.

1 hour ago, Wazat said:

But perhaps it's related to what we have/haven't asked. Have people not sent in questions specifically asking if you can do this with a primary weapon, etc? Because the FAQ line seems to indicate we were specifically asking what "game effect" means, and so that's what FFG answered.

Because there was no need. Like many other card, it is clearly state when effect are linked.

They are not, it is two sentences, and the second sentence make no reference to the first sentence. No where does it say, for this attack, or if using this attack...

People have to stop wanting to put interpretation of intent on card. You do what is written...

The first sentence does not fail, there is ONE condition: "When a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked"

The rest is not a condition, it is result happenning if the condition is met.

It is like saying: If some one is in the kitchen, he may drink a glass of water. If there is orange juice, this person can drink it.

The fact that this person did not drink the glass of water does not prevent him from drinking orange juice... this is common sense at this point...

Edit: To be like they pretend, it would have to be worded like that: "When a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked with a secondary weapon with the header...."

I agree... But in game rules, as in life, there is nothing common about common sense. And as much as people see rules text and think "it's obvious", the first two pages of this discussion are a testament to how that assumption goes terribly, terribly wrong. I hate having to resort to wordplay or argumentation just to be able to play the game as intended; it's a soul-crushing discussion to have, and during play you just don't have the time to spend arguing.

I'm operating under the assumption that our interpretation is correct, but that doesn't help if someone at the table disagrees and I can't point to a clear line in the FAQ and say "here, they addressed that... now let's just play! ". edit: this gets even uglier during a tournament, and you're at the mercy of a judge who doesn't have a clear ruling to reference.

Bossk (Crew) still feels like dirty wording; I'm glad it got a FAQ making its interpretation explicit. Sure you can reason your way through it (for the "not stressed" to be part of the trigger it would have to be preceded by "and"), but that doesn't mean it's okay for the card to be less than crystal clear (it would be better if the trigger was followed by a colon, for example). A good FAQ clarification takes all the argument and guesswork and wordplay away and focuses people back on playing the game instead of rules-laywering. I'm intensely in favor of cutting all that short and just playing.

I'm pretty sure the whole reason for the wonky wording is Omega Leader and Advanced Targeting Computer. The Rebels have Shara Bey who just says "When another friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own." I'm pretty sure targeting synchronizer was meant to be essentially that, but if it was kept that simply worded then OL would be even more annoying than he already is and a jousting list of generic TIE Advanced who can focus and then use a separate lock to proc ATC would likely be too powerful.

Good guess Sherlock, it was said already many time in this very thread and other thread...

Eh.... It's not fair to expect him to dig through the thread and get the full discussion... He'd have to dig through a lot of awful, meaningless fights over word definitions that don't go anywhere. I tried and gave up, miserable for the attempt. If people skip that and post redundant info, that's because they want to keep their sanity.