So a I was having a discussion with a friend of mine and we were theory crafting some lists. We looked at the interaction between ordnance and Shara Bey's ability. The question came up if a ship could use Shara's TL on an enemy ship to launch off another ship's ordnance. Looking at it closer by the wording of Shara Bey's ability:

Quote

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own.

Is this similar to the same case of R4 Agromech FAQ fix where I believe they clarified that the spending of a target lock for a secondary weapon is not part of the attack therefore Shara Bey's TLs CANNOT be the source of launching ordnance?

The problem with R4 Agromech is step 1.v. of the attack timing chart, "Target of the attack becomes the defender". You spend the focus token in step 1.iv., "Pay cost to perform the attack", so when the focus token is spent there's no defender to acquire a target lock on.

Shara only requires you to be "attacking", which presumably starts with step 1. That's not perfectly clear, since there are steps on the timing chart during which you're definitely not attacking, e.g., Step 8, "Identify abilities that trigger 'after attacking' or 'after defending' (that do not perform an attack)".

Quote

You must spend your target lock and discard this card to perform this attack.

The attack isn't an attack until after you spend the target lock, so Shara Bey can't be used to initiate a secondary weapon attack.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

The attack isn't an attack until after you spend the target lock

@InquisitorM I can't find any rules to support your claim. In both the Rules Reference and Timing Chart, the steps for performing an attack include paying costs. Nothing I can find in the rules states "an attack isn't an attack" until after a specific point in the attack process. Nothing I can find in the rules excludes the Declare Target step or any of its substeps from falling under the "when attacking" umbrella. It is generally accepted that abilites with the "when attacking" or "when defending" triggers may be resolved at any appropriate point in the attack process. Most of these abilities have an obvious application to a specific step.

Until someone proves otherwise with actual text from a rules document, I am asserting that Shara Bey or Esege Tuketu (same ability, different token) could be used to pay the cost for a Secondary Weapon.

4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

The attack isn't an attack until after you spend the target lock, so Shara Bey can't be used to initiate a secondary weapon attack.

Nope. When attacking is right from the beginning of the attack sequence. So as soon as you go into 'select weapon' you treat her TL as your own, and you can select your Attack:TL weapon.

R4 Agromech is an irrelevant confounder.

Attacking with a weapon I can't (or at least may not) attack with is contradictory. No rules reference required.

As for the attack timing chart, being on the chart is no synonymous with attacking. Again, this is merely abiding by the law of noncontradiction. If thinks that definitively happen 'after an attack', as well as things that happen after things that happen 'after an attack', then the chart demonstrably covers before, during, and after an attack. So being referenced on the chart is not an argument for it being 'while attacking'.

As such, asking me to prove that the attack hasn't started at the point of paying costs in order to allow the attack is merely shifting the burden of proof.

Furthermore, it seems highly dubious that I count as attacking while measuring range to see if i even have a target, which is what your suggestion implies.

I thought this would be more cut and dry in terms of answers, but I guess bringing this up has it's merits.

Rules Reference, Page 4: "A ship can perform one attack when it becomes the active ship during the combat phase. To perform an attack, the ship resolves the following steps in order:" The active ship is attacking when it begins resolving the specified steps. Declare Target is Step 1. Spending a Target Lock to use a Secondary Weapon is a substep of Declare Target. If a friendly ship at Range 1-2 is resolving those steps, then it already started to perform an attack, as described in the quote above.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Attacking with a weapon I can't (or at least may not) attack with is contradictory. No rules reference required

The first sentence here is logical in a real-world context. You're absolutely right: if I were piloting a craft with guided weapons, I would not even attempt to attack using such a weapon without using some form of guidance system. In game context your argument is conjecture without basis in the rules. It ignores the text, "the ship resolves the following steps in order." Linear steps don't have to make real-world sense as long as the game mechanic functions on the tabletop. The second statement only serves to reinforce my point: you are deliberately disregarding the Rules Reference because its text is inconvenient to your position.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

As for the attack timing chart, being on the chart is no synonymous with attacking. Again, this is merely abiding by the law of noncontradiction. If thinks that definitively happen 'after an attack', as well as things that happen after things that happen 'after an attack', then the chart demonstrably covers before, during, and after an attack. So being referenced on the chart is not an argument for it being 'while attacking'.

Your argument again ignores the Rules Reference. The Timing Chart exists to specify and clarify the Rules Reference. Use of the timing chart is dependent upon the quote I provided at the top of this post. Your logic regarding the timing chart is sound, but only so far as you keep it in the context of all applicable rules. Yes the Timing Chart covers effects that are not part of the attack, but in accordance with the Rules Reference, the first 7 steps on the Timing Chart are explicitly part of an attack. Any point at which Shara Bey's Target Lock could be used are definitively in those 7 steps.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

As such, asking me to prove that the attack hasn't started at the point of paying costs in order to allow the attack is merely shifting the burden of proof.

You answered a question. As the person providing an answer, the burden of proof was always on you. There was no shift.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Furthermore, it seems highly dubious that I count as attacking while measuring range to see if i even have a target, which is what your suggestion implies.

Your impressions of the rules are not admissable in the face of facts. My suggestion implicitly gave anyone with Rules Reference and FAQ an opportunity to identify those facts independently. I don't like directly quoting rules. I prefer to encourage people to use the resources provided by FFG when answering other people's questions, instead of making statements that imply the Rules are not necessary.

28 minutes ago, RStan said:

I thought this would be more cut and dry in terms of answers, but I guess bringing this up has it's merits.

Every question merits an answer. Not every answer has merit.

This part is factually true:

9 hours ago, jmswood said:

Rules Reference, Page 4: "A ship can perform one attack when it becomes the active ship during the combat phase. To perform an attack, the ship resolves the following steps in order:"

This part is unsupported supposition:

9 hours ago, jmswood said:

The active ship is attacking when it begins resolving the specified steps.

I believe your statement of "Your impressions of the rules are not admissible in the face of facts" is appropriate here.

However, since I actually care about facts, I went looking for a parallel and found one (and only one): Targeting Synchroniser .

Quote

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.

For this to function, a ship must be classed as attacking when selecting a weapon/target. Precedent found, case closed.

9 hours ago, jmswood said:

Your argument again ignores the Rules Reference. The Timing Chart exists to specify and clarify the Rules Reference. Use of the timing chart is dependent upon the quote I provided at the top of this post. Your logic regarding the timing chart is sound, but only so far as you keep it in the context of all applicable rules. Yes the Timing Chart covers effects that are not part of the attack, but in accordance with the Rules Reference, the first 7 steps on the Timing Chart are explicitly part of an attack. Any point at which Shara Bey's Target Lock could be used are definitively in those 7 steps.

No, it didn't. The rules reference you quoted does not explicitly state what you claim it does. In fact, the quote you gave is of exactly zero value in terms of explanatory value. The 'applicable rules' you referred to were an assumption, which is what I was questioning. I cannot find anywhere in the rules that explicitly state at what point a ship constitutes 'attacking' (which isn't to say I just haven't found it, of course).

I was about to say that what we really need for this game is a glossary of terms, but then I realised that that's kind of what the RR is supposed to be and remembered there is an entry for 'Attacker':

Quote

ATTACKER

The ship that is performing an attack is the attacker.

This is what I was thinking of when I answered the question first time round (hence quoted the secondary weapon cost text). So attacking, attacker, and performing an attack, are all subtly different. You're not performing a secondary weapon attack until you've paid the cost, so you are not an attack er as defined above, and yet you are attack ing in order for Pattern Analyser to work. After which, you can 'perform the attack'.

Can you really tell me that that's a clear cut as you thought it was?

Geez, as if touching ships not touching wasn't bad enough already...

Am I missing something? It appears, to me, that the question can answered by reading the first box on the Attack Timing Chart.

23 minutes ago, Stoneface said:

Am I missing something? It appears, to me, that the question can answered by reading the first box on the Attack Timing Chart.

I readily agree and think there is questioning because of the changes a while back that changed how the FAQ redifined when a ship became the defender in the process.

The Rules Reference defines the "Attacker" as the "ship that is performing an attack" so I think this all comes down to addressing the main question being asked of "When does a ship become defined as the Attacker?"

To me this means you have started "the process of" making an attack. As you point out, the first box is the "Declare Target" step, which includes measuring range to potential targets, chossing a weapon and declaring a target.

When a ship becomes the active ship in the combat phase you make a decision on whether or not that ship will attack or not. Paying the cost to perform the attack is a step within in the attack process which happens at a point AFTER the process of attacking has begun. So - as soon as you declare the target of the attack - the ability to use Shara Bey's target lock on that target should come in to play.

As this happens - it is immediately prior to Pay the cost for the attack - so IMO, you may use Shara Bey's target lock to pay the required cost for the munition.

@InquisitorM I agree with the Targeting Synchronizer precedent. However, that precedent is consistent with the same statement you called, "unsupported supposition."

5 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

The rules reference you quoted does not explicitly state what you claim it does. In fact, the quote you gave is of exactly zero value in terms of explanatory value. The 'applicable rules' you referred to were an assumption, which is what I was questioning. I cannot find anywhere in the rules that explicitly state at what point a ship constitutes 'attacking' (which isn't to say I just haven't found it, of course).

Can you really tell me that that's a clear cut as you thought it was?

The rule I quoted does not explicitly state a ship performing steps 1-7 is attacking, but if we need it to be that explicit, then we are descending to new lows in rules lawyering. I can tell you it is clear cut, and I can tell you the additional rule you quoted makes it more so.

The two quotes from the Rules Reference:

"To perform an attack, a ship resolves the following steps in order:"

"The ship that is performing an attack is the attacker."

The definition of attacker might be a little simplistic, but there is nothing confusing about either of these rule statements. Taken together, there should be no doubt a ship is attacking when resolving steps 1-7. A ship "resolving the follwing steps" is "performing an attack" and by definition "is the attacker." If a ship is performing an attack, and it is the attacker, then it is therefore attacking. This is Boolean Logic using AND statements. If the input statements are true, then the result is true. The Targeting Synchronizer precedent functions by the same Boolean Logic.

13 hours ago, jmswood said:

The active ship is attacking when it begins resolving the specified steps.

My statement coexists with the same logic test. It isn't "unsupported supposition." It is a true statement based on principles described above.

Yes, your statement is true using the logic you propose, but the ' principles described above' are asserted without logic or evidence.

To say that a ship must follow a list of steps to perform an attack does not imply that any or all of these steps mean a ship is performing an attack, and the direct inference from secondary weapon cost wording is that you're not performing the attack until after you pay costs. Your quotations do not show what you think they show. You can claim it is clear cut, but your own words show that that is simply a lack of understanding.

3 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Yes, your statement is true using the logic you propose, but the ' principles described above' are asserted without logic or evidence.

I see no grounds for claiming I presented no evidence after I used direct quotes from the Rules Reference to support my position. Maybe I did not apply the rules correctly. I'll let others, including you, be the judge of that. That's the nature of a public forum.

Raising the issue of wording on secondary weapon cards is one of your better points, but that wording is an exception, not the norm. It also is not without reasonable explanation. Timing Chart, step 1, substep iv says, "Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable.)" The substep is not applicable to Primary Weapons, nor is it applicable to every Secondary Weapon. Applicable or not; substep iv is after substep ii, which states: "Attacker chooses weapon." That brings us back to the definition of attacker: "The ship that is performing an attack is the attacker." If a ship is called the attacker at substep ii, then according to the definition it is already performing an attack. Bring back the other rules quote, "To perform an attack, a ship resolves the following steps in order:" Unless the ship skipped substep i, it got to substep ii by resolving steps in order. By every indication I can see, the ship is attacking. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and type it as loud as you can, but please quote the rules to prove me wrong when you do it.

4 hours ago, jmswood said:

I see no grounds for claiming I presented no evidence after I used direct quotes from the Rules Reference to support my position. Maybe I did not apply the rules correctly. I'll let others, including you, be the judge of that. That's the nature of a public forum.

Raising the issue of wording on secondary weapon cards is one of your better points, but that wording is an exception, not the norm. It also is not without reasonable explanation. Timing Chart, step 1, substep iv says, "Pay cost to perform the attack (if applicable.)" The substep is not applicable to Primary Weapons, nor is it applicable to every Secondary Weapon. Applicable or not; substep iv is after substep ii, which states: "Attacker chooses weapon." That brings us back to the definition of attacker: "The ship that is performing an attack is the attacker." If a ship is called the attacker at substep ii, then according to the definition it is already performing an attack. Bring back the other rules quote, "To perform an attack, a ship resolves the following steps in order:" Unless the ship skipped substep i, it got to substep ii by resolving steps in order. By every indication I can see, the ship is attacking. If you think I'm wrong, go ahead and type it as loud as you can, but please quote the rules to prove me wrong when you do it.

Good luck.

I see it as no different than using targeting syncronizer to give the other ship a target lock to use for ordnance . As for the R4 errata, remember that you can't use r4 because it talks about the defender which is only the defender at step 1.v, after cost are paid to fire a weapon if applicable. Here is the ruling for it.

Quote

If a ship equipped with R4 Agromech is attacking with a secondary weapon that requires the ship to spend a focus token (such as a Blaster Turret or any weapon used with Deadeye ), that ship cannot acquire a target lock on the defender because the enemy ship becomes the defender after the cost for the attack is paid (see Timing Chart for Performing an Attack .

says nothing about paying cost is not part of the attack. In fact the timing chart states otherwise that paying cost is part of the attack.

2 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Good luck.

In my experience, there's no such thing as luck.

I think it's tough to argue that an attacker performing an attack is not attacking. I guess it's theoretically possible, but it's a stretch without a precedent that indicates this is ever the case.