The obvious one is firing and modifying your ordnance. That seems the obvious use of it for me - allowing ships to not need a lock to fire their ordnance, or if they can get a lock, to be able to fire their ordnance with mods.
If we get some kind of TFA-era ordnance ship I expect it'll take off at that point.
56 minutes ago, Stay On The Leader said:Not sure about that, giving Soontir/Carnor/Duchess a target lock to reroll their attack dice when they blank out is far from limited jank. It's already placed (won?) a big tournament a couple of weeks ago with Quickdraw's FCS feeding TLs to Carnor.
Ooh, what was the list?
Please guys, help out the ignorant (me) on what the FAQ 4.3.2.4.2.3.4 did to TS? ....I'm obviously not bright.
It confirmed that it can be used to allow friendly ships to spend your target lock to reroll their attack dice.
Edited by thespaceinvaderWhen a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked, the friendly ship treats the "Attack (Target Lock}:" header as "Attack:". If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.
People are still saying you can't re roll primaries with the TL because you haven't done the first part. There's quite the debate about it again. Dunno where I'm going with this. I though it was clear they were outlining 2 unrelated (sometimes related) scenarios. Seems people here think that too but I lack the will power to keep arguing.
Now see, you make it perfectly clear. I was confused for no reason. I am now informed, thanks!!
Where's my tea?
6 hours ago, WWHSD said:I'd had some luck with it and FCS on Backdraft flying with ordnance carriers. Allowing Targeting Sync to work when using TLs for dice modification as well will be great for Homing Missiles on lower PS ships.
I can almost see tossing a TIE/fo with Targetting Sync into a squad just to get a bit of action efficiency for other ships.
Yep. Epsilon Ace now has a reason to be. TLs at PS 12.
I could see an interesting application for sychronizer paired with omega leader or Vader. Let them reroll their stuff while still keeping the important locks they have intact.
It doesn't work for Vader (at least, I'm pretty sure that's the intention, there's a strong argument that it DOES work RAW) but for OL it's a great boon actually. His biggest issue is blank dice.
2 minutes ago, nigeltastic said:I could see an interesting application for sychronizer paired with omega leader or Vader. Let them reroll their stuff while still keeping the important locks they have intact.
Vader ATC prevents him from using target locks for rerolls. (If the crit result is added, he cannot spend target locks to reroll per ATC wording)
1 minute ago, pt106 said:Vader ATC prevents him from using target locks for rerolls. (If the crit result is added, he cannot spend target locks to reroll per ATC wording)
The argument otherwise being that he can spend the TL first...
1 minute ago, pt106 said:Vader ATC prevents him from using target locks for rerolls. (If the crit result is added, he cannot spend target locks to reroll per ATC wording)
You're totally correct, I assumed on the wording of atc that it just prevented the lock you maintained from being spent. Good catch.
1 minute ago, thespaceinvader said:The argument otherwise being that he can spend the TL first...
Good trick. I agree that RAW would allow it then, it seems
Yeah. I've been meaning to put this into a rules question to bring it to dev attention. What better time than now?
1 hour ago, Sk3tch said:When a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have locked, the friendly ship treats the "Attack (Target Lock}:" header as "Attack:". If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.
People are still saying you can't re roll primaries with the TL because you haven't done the first part. There's quite the debate about it again. Dunno where I'm going with this. I though it was clear they were outlining 2 unrelated (sometimes related) scenarios. Seems people here think that too but I lack the will power to keep arguing.
For me it was more the word "instructs" that made me think it could only be used for ordinance. For the points I didn't think it was worth it. I think the card is much more useful now and I think FFG made the right call. I'm curious to see how people use it now
I am positive Targeting Synch doesnt allow "If you have a targetlock" effects ala OL or ATC. If they did want to allow that, they would literally word it the same way Shara is worded. The targetlock is not theirs.
2 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:I am positive Targeting Synch doesnt allow "If you have a targetlock" effects ala OL or ATC. If they did want to allow that, they would literally word it the same way Shara is worded. The targetlock is not theirs.
Correct, I don't think anyone suggested they do. I was saying it allows omega leader to keep his normal lock on someone then reroll someone else's lock via ts so he doesn't hit like a freaking nerd.
3 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:I am positive Targeting Synch doesnt allow "If you have a targetlock" effects ala OL or ATC. If they did want to allow that, they would literally word it the same way Shara is worded. The targetlock is not theirs.
It doesn't. That's not what's being said.
It does however allow OL to reroll dice using the synced lock AND still maintain his own. And arguably it allows ships with ATC to do the same and still use the ATC by RAW, albeit, I suspect not by intent.
9 hours ago, WWHSD said:I don't know what you're talking about. There's totally a link in the OP.
Revisionist, didn't like what the history said so you change it to something that agrees with you.
At least this forum does mention when edits are made. 
Someone can make any sense on the Hotshot copilot ?
*the 'with' in these two cases is used in the sense of 'when you have' - i.e. when you are attacking a ship when you have HSCP equipped, the defender must... when you are defending against a ship when you have HSCP equipped, the attacker must... etc.
It's still written in probably the most obscure possible way that still allows it to actually mean what it's meant to. This is how I'd word it if I were them:
I noticed something for their next FAQ update: When the CROC Cruiser becomes available, they'll have to nerf Zuckuss again as huge ships don't get stressed. Would be a no-brainer to put him onboard.
20 minutes ago, KaLeu said:I noticed something for their next FAQ update: When the CROC Cruiser becomes available, they'll have to nerf Zuckuss again as huge ships don't get stressed. Would be a no-brainer to put him onboard.
I don't think it needs fixing. Huge ships are already considered kind of a liability in epic matches by a lot of people. Zuckuss being awesome on the C-ROC isn't really a problem.
22 minutes ago, KaLeu said:I noticed something for their next FAQ update: When the CROC Cruiser becomes available, they'll have to nerf Zuckuss again as huge ships don't get stressed. Would be a no-brainer to put him onboard.
They will either a) not care or b) make him have no effect on epic ships in epic document for Biggs.
Huge ships lack the ability to fully mod their attacks to begin with. Zuckuss would not only be taking one of the CROC's very valuable crew slots but it would only at best make him on par with nonhuge ship damage output - personally i wouldnt even bother, huge ships are there to support and ram not shoot.