1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

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!

and in terms of the FAQ you can, as for explanation why because that is what the card says with the FAQ showing what counts as a game effect that instructs spending a target lock.

Thought you were done with this thread anyway?

3 hours ago, Oberron said:

Thought you were done with this thread anyway?

So did I.

13 hours ago, Oberron said:

and in terms of the FAQ you can, as for explanation why because that is what the card says with the FAQ showing what counts as a game effect that instructs spending a target lock.

Thought you were done with this thread anyway?

First of all, i'll say that when i'm asked i say that TS can be used to reroll, although i am one of those who think it shouldnt, the way the card is written.

That said, i must disagree with those who said now the way it works is clear. Sure, the recent FAQs came with a question about examples of game effects that instructs you to spend a target lock. But the answer is not about what has been asked! The answer says that paying costs, using some abilities and using the TL to reroll "are examples of spending the target lock". That is not the answer to the question done!

Also, nobody doubted what was the meaning of "spending a target lock". We wanted them to clarify what wad the meaning of "a game effect that instructs you to".

And there are more questions. Is it only usable when the ship is attacking, like the first sentence of the card reads? Because in that answer they mention colzet, and his ability is not during an attack...

Not to mention that the question never explicitly talks about Target Synchronizer.

Anyway, like i said at the start of my post, i understand what they tried to do with the said question. At least part of it. And, although i dont think thats correct and could argue, i apply that and allow the rerolling for the good of the game, as i think the purpose of the rules is to have everybody playing the same way, not to benefit ones or others, or being what we whish them to be.

But i wanted to say (and has written an awful long post just to say it, sorry about that) that the rule is very far from being clear.

Quote

Also, nobody doubted what was the meaning of "spending a target lock". We wanted them to clarify what wad the meaning of "a game effect that instructs you to".

The faq clarifies that with the latest update in relation to target locks, since TS only cares about game effects that instruct you to spend a target lock there should be no confusion on what counts for it. Here it is for you to read

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.

Am I the only one who sees that that's not the answer to the question?

It's like if I ask you to give me an example of an ability that let you perform a free action and you give me an example of free action.

I have read it several times, thanks. It IS confusing.

In fact, this thread was opened to clarify what a "game effect" is. In others, the discussion was about what "instruct" means. Those expressions are actually in the question. Neither of them are in the answer. How could that be clarifying?

You can look at the "examples of... instruct" / "examples of spending" disconnect as an indication that the FAQ author didn't understand the question asked and answered the wrong one, but doesn't it seem more likely that it's because they really don't think that there's a difference between having an opportunity to spend a Target Lock and being instructed to spend a Target Lock?

I mean, sure, errors have made it into the FAQ before, and new versions of the FAQ have reversed things that were spelled out in old ones, but most of the time we can't base our play on that.

1 hour ago, Willy Jarque said:

Am I the only one who sees that that's not the answer to the question?

It's like if I ask you to give me an example of an ability that let you perform a free action and you give me an example of free action.

Nope. But this has been mentioned time and time again and people just don't seem to care about the actual meaning of words.

57 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

You can look at the "examples of... instruct" / "examples of spending" disconnect as an indication that the FAQ author didn't understand the question asked and answered the wrong one, but doesn't it seem more likely that it's because they really don't think that there's a difference between having an opportunity to spend a Target Lock and being instructed to spend a Target Lock?

I mean, sure, errors have made it into the FAQ before, and new versions of the FAQ have reversed things that were spelled out in old ones, but most of the time we can't base our play on that.

The problem is that thinking that there is no distinction having an opportunity to spend a target lock and being instructed to spend a target lock is that there is no reasonable way that a person could arrive at that logically. I haven't found a single player locally who thought TS could be used for rerolls. If FFG want it to work that way, then they will need to issue an errata as it is contradictory to the written card. It doesn't really matter how many times it is asserted and by how many people: if you were to ask if you had been instructed to spend a target lock in order to reroll your attack dice, the only true answer would be 'no'. There is no wiggle room here. This is the meaning (linguistically speaking) of the words on the card. This is not a matter of interpretation or perspective. The text on the card cannot support the alternative being asserted.

Which is, of course, entirely separate from how FFG want it to work and how they rule it. However, no such rule is going to stick at this point unless the text is clearly restated to function as intended. I don't see that many people are going to accept that it does one thing when it clearly says something else.

First thing I said: I'm playing as everyone here because I understand that was the intention of that Q/A.

I'm not basing my play in what I think is an error.

I just wanted to point that the matter is far from clear, and doubt is understandable, although we can supose what they meant.

For those seeking further "official" confirmation that you can use the normal TL action off of Targetting Synchronizer, Max Brook confirmed it on the Gold Squadron Podcast episode from the Coruscant Open.

On 4/17/2017 at 6:16 PM, InquisitorM said:

The problem is that thinking that there is no distinction having an opportunity to spend a target lock and being instructed to spend a target lock is that there is no reasonable way that a person could arrive at that logically.

Oh god. This still.

You're stuck in this loop where you had a thought ---> therefore it must be logical ---> therefore anything that contradicts your thought is illogical. Not how this works.

Using a target lock to reroll attack dice requires you to spend that target lock. "I have the opportunity to use my TL to reroll 2 of my attack dice." ---> "To trigger this game effect, I am instructed to spend the TL I have on an opponent." This is logical. It is not the thought process YOU prefer, but that doesn't make it not logical. And luckily for the community, FFG clarified that using your TL to reroll attack dice qualifies as a game effect! Huzzah! Logic vindicated!

You are not the final arbiter on what is logical and what is not.

7 hours ago, ID X T said:

For those seeking further "official" confirmation that you can use the normal TL action off of Targetting Synchronizer, Max Brook confirmed it on the Gold Squadron Podcast episode from the Coruscant Open.

This bears repeating, to starve off further discussion

2 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

You're stuck in this loop where you had a thought ---> therefore it must be logical ---> therefore anything that contradicts your thought is illogical. Not how this works.

I smell projection.

27 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

I smell projection.

Look, whatever helps you sleep at night. Like I said, I've been bull-headed before, too, but when you're refusing to admit that the alternative interpretation even has validity, even though it's been explicitly spelled out for you why it makes sense and it has been 100% validated as the correct interpretation by FFG, you might want to consider opening up your perspective a little bit.

I get it. You dug in. You made some pretty strong assertions. You made some pretty not-nice comments. Confronting that your position wasn't as strong as it you thought it was means facing the fact that you were kinda a jerk for no real reason over something as trivial as board game rules. That's okay, though! Most of us have been there before! What isn't okay is not learning from our mistakes. Since it means we'll almost definitely repeat them.

I also argued strongly against TS working the way it does, and stopped as soon as it was clear I was wrong. I know it sucks to have something ruled opposite to how you expected, but it is getting a bit silly now.

On 21/04/2017 at 0:05 AM, ID X T said:

For those seeking further "official" confirmation that you can use the normal TL action off of Targetting Synchronizer, Max Brook confirmed it on the Gold Squadron Podcast episode from the Coruscant Open.

Thanks for the info. That will make the job during bad ruling tourment.