Does Colzet trigger when attacking? No. Does TS trigger at any other time? No. Unless Colze is currently attacking he cannot activate TS.

5 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Does Colzet trigger when attacking? No. Does TS trigger at any other time? No. Unless Colze is currently attacking he cannot activate TS.

If you simply insert Colzet into the card text as the object, the text below is how it reads. This assumes that Colzet is the friendly ship at range 1-2.

When <Colzet> is attacking a ship you have locked, <Colzet> treats the "Attack (Target Lock)" header as "Attack:." If a game effect instructs <Colzet> to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.

5 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

If you simply insert Colzet into the card text as the object, the text below is how it reads. This assumes that Colzet is the friendly ship at range 1-2.

When <Colzet> is attacking a ship you have locked, <Colzet> treats the "Attack (Target Lock)" header as "Attack:." If a game effect instructs <Colzet> to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.

Okay, well that confirms it doesn't work.

5 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

If you simply insert Colzet into the card text as the object, the text below is how it reads. This assumes that Colzet is the friendly ship at range 1-2.

When <Colzet> is attacking a ship you have locked, <Colzet> treats the "Attack (Target Lock)" header as "Attack:." If a game effect instructs <Colzet> to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead.

You don't start reading the card at all unless Colzet is currently attacking, and at range 1-2 of the TS-carrier.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

You don't start reading the card at all unless Colzet is currently attacking, and at range 1-2 of the TS-carrier.

This, exactly. The card doesn't say "If you have ever attacked.." It says "When you are attacking.." It is only at the moment of the attack. When you are no longer attacking, the ability is no longer in effect so you can't spend the target lock at the end of the round.

3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

You don't start reading the card at all unless Colzet is currently attacking, and at range 1-2 of the TS-carrier.

7 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

This, exactly. The card doesn't say "If you have ever attacked.." It says "When you are attacking.." It is only at the moment of the attack. When you are no longer attacking, the ability is no longer in effect so you can't spend the target lock at the end of the round.

The way the card is written. there are 2 distinct sentences on the card that can be interpreted as occurring at 2 different times. As a point of reference, Hotshot Co-Pilot is a card that has 2 sentences that refer to abilities that happen at 2 different times in a round. On Hotshot Co-Pilot, those sentences are independent of each other. Most cards typically only have one effect that is detailed.

If the sentence were written differently - it would clearly detail that the abilities are restricted to the attack phase:

"If a game effect <during the attack> instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead."

My personal opinion: TS only applies during the attack. BUT - I offer this as a devil's advocate explanation of why that part of the card can be interpreted differently by some players. I am still undecided as to whether TS should allow you to use the TL to reroll attack dice. Since FFG poorly worded their answer in the FAQ relating to TS about which game effects instruct a player to spend a target lock and included Colzet, I think it's reasonable to ask that FFG clarify all of the card and not just one part of it.

You can't just read the second sentence in isolation. The timing trigger for the card is contained in the first.

I don't deny that both the card and FAQ are poorly worded, but wildly reaching devils-advocate arguments don't help anyone.

4 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

You can't just read the second sentence in isolation. The timing trigger for the card is contained in the first.

I don't deny that both the card and FAQ are poorly worded, but wildly reaching devils-advocate arguments don't help anyone.

The argument was initiated when FFG used Colzet as example in the FAQ - trying to explain what part of the card meant. That part of the Q&A does not specifically reference TS, but it's obvious they were trying to address what was on the card. Because FFG brought Colzet into it - it makes you pause and wonder why and whether he can be used that way. I did not add this until after re-reading comments by Willy Jarque - asking just that.

I'm not sure any other card has sentences written quite like this. Most lead with the trigger and the effect is included in the same sentence. If TS in intended to work like Shara Bey - I'm not sure why they just didn't write it that way.

Because it's not intended to work like Shara Bey, because Omega Leader and Advanced Targetting Computer exist.

However, it COULD have been written thusly:

"When a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking, it may:

• treat the Attack: Target Lock header as 'Attack'
• spend your target locks as though they were its own."

There was never any need for the words 'game effects' to appear anywhere on the card, all they needed to do to avoid OL and ATC breaking with it was to specify that you can only SPEND the locks as your own, not that you own them the way Shara lets you.

FFG are SO bad at writing clear rules (and clear clarifications, the Hotshot Copilot one is as obtuse as it can possibly be whilst still being technically possible to interpret in a way that means what they wanted it to and makes the upgrade actually functional) right now it's just painful sometimes.

5 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

The argument was initiated when FFG used Colzet as example in the FAQ - trying to explain what part of the card meant.

TS is not mentioned in the FAQ. What is given are examples of spending a target lock, nothing more.

16 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

TS is not mentioned in the FAQ. What is given are examples of spending a target lock, nothing more.

So the FAQ comes out shortly after the release of the Upsilon Shuttle, has a question addressing the exact wording used on the TS upgrade, and you don't think they are related?

56 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

So the FAQ comes out shortly after the release of the Upsilon Shuttle, has a question addressing the exact wording used on the TS upgrade, and you don't think they are related?

I didn't say anything about whether they are related. I stated something I believe to be fact. I was either correct or I was not.

Sorry if these were already mentioned, but couldn't hurt to double up on asking right?

1.) How exactly does Jabba work for his squad and if he is removed from play?

2.) Can a cloaked ship use feedback array?

3.) Can you use palpatine on the second roll of Light Weight Frame?

4.) Is Lowhrick's ability him modifying his friendly ships dice, or is that ship modifying his own dice with regards to Omega Leader?

5.) If Rebel Nym prevents a mine from going off that round when an enemy ship is sitting on it, does that bomb go off again at the start of the next round?

6.) Does Minefield mapper work with Extra Munition tokens and the bomb underneath it?

As for some personal opinions on cards that should be addressed: TLT should get range 3 bonus, Dengar's ability should only trigger if he takes damage, Punishing One should be once per round, Attani Mindlink should allow focus actions to the squad so to make stress more detrimental. Bigg's ability should be able to be ignored if you have a different ship target locked so you can shoot that ship.Miranda's ability should affect both rolls of multi-type attacks, and not just one of the rolls. Accuracy corrector should be once per round to limit Ghost title double tap. K4 Securit Droid should not work if you bump.

Also gonna request some added text buffs to A-wing Test Pilot (maybe a range one attack bonus), Royal Guard Tie (maybe a shield upgrade), B-wing/E2 (maybe agility upgrade)

34 minutes ago, Sir13scott said:

Sorry if these were already mentioned, but couldn't hurt to double up on asking right?

1.) How exactly does Jabba work for his squad and if he is removed from play?

-Insert with C-ROC has rules that make Jabba effectively a reference card, so he does not need to be in play for Illicit tokens to be spent (this is also how the poor wording on Jabba himself is addressed).

2.) Can a cloaked ship use feedback array?

-Currently, we got some unofficial feedback from an official source that says it's kosher... Though this isn't likely to hold up.

3.) Can you use palpatine on the second roll of Light Weight Frame?

-This works based on rules as written, and was confirmed by an official source (though in an unofficial medium).

4.) Is Lowhrick's ability him modifying his friendly ships dice, or is that ship modifying his own dice with regards to Omega Leader?

-Lowhrick says, "the Defender adds..." This means Omega Leader doesn't allow it. It would need to specifically say Lowhrick adds (or say "you add" on Lowhrick's card) to work.

5.) If Rebel Nym prevents a mine from going off that round when an enemy ship is sitting on it, does that bomb go off again at the start of the next round?

-There is no rules to suggest this happens. Bombs only detonate at the moment a ship overlaps it, which only happens after a ship moves. Rules had to be added to bombs to detonate when dropped ON TOP OF someone because, otherwise, they wouldn't detonate (because the ship didn't move).

6.) Does Minefield mapper work with Extra Munition tokens and the bomb underneath it?

-This is pretty hotly contested, though every store I've seen publishing their own mini-FAQs agrees with that the important factor is the number of bomb upgrade cards you have equipped, meaning you would only be able to discard each bomb upgrade card once (at which time, you remove the token and are left with the token-less bomb card for later in the round). This is still something many people will argue with, but I've seen zero TOs supporting any other interpretations atm.

Answers bolded in the body of the text.

6 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

Answers bolded in the body of the text.

See I've shown that reference from the C-ROC to TOs and they still don't think he works beyond the grave because Jabba is removed from play so you don't even have instructions on whether or not the tokens are spendable. They agree it fixes Jabbas wording, but the beyond the grave seems to still be contested.

The rest that you say are from unofficial sources often doesn't pass the scrutiny of TOs especially when the only material they have to reference is the rules and FAQ.

So either way we need an FAQ on all of them no?

36 minutes ago, Sir13scott said:

See I've shown that reference from the C-ROC to TOs and they still don't think he works beyond the grave because Jabba is removed from play so you don't even have instructions on whether or not the tokens are spendable. They agree it fixes Jabbas wording, but the beyond the grave seems to still be contested.

The rest that you say are from unofficial sources often doesn't pass the scrutiny of TOs especially when the only material they have to reference is the rules and FAQ.

So either way we need an FAQ on all of them no?

Well, the TOs are doing Jabba wrong. They literally cannot show you rules text that supports him not working from the grave, when the rules clearly say that, to use Illicit tokens, you refer to the text on his card. It does not say his card has to be in play -- this is exactly how bombs work via reference cards. But, yes, I'm sure an FAQ will be issued eventually.

TOs should generally listen to the most recent "official" ruling from FFG, even if it comes from an unofficial format - iirc, it was Frank Brooks who confirmed both the Palp on LWF rolls (this one at worlds) and the Feedback Array while cloaked (don't recall, maybe also at Worlds). That being said, it is always best to confirm with TOs before an event.

I truly think, however, that this game has gone beyond the point where "untrained" TOs are acceptable. As even rules with clearly functions are being contested and changed in some cases, not every Store Tournament is created equal.

"4.) Is Lowhrick's ability him modifying his friendly ships dice, or is that ship modifying his own dice with regards to Omega Leader?

-Lowhrick says, "the Defender adds..." This means Omega Leader doesn't allow it. It would need to specifically say Lowhrick adds (or say "you add" on Lowhrick's card) to work."

Same as m9G8, and we know per FaQ that it works against OL (while in a third ship). I say the precedent allows it. So it's worth asking for clarification.

To be specific, the 'attacker/defender adds/changes' format is not an indicator of who is modding. It only means that the player owning the dice is the only one ever asked to touch them. Palp lacks this wording as he can only mod dice belonging to the player controlling him anyway, just as cards like Mercenary Copilot do. Whenever an ability could target another players dice, however, it will always phrase it that the attacker or defender does the modification to indicate the player.

Unfortunately, this has lead to a distinct lack of clarity on the issue. Serrisu, for example, is an extremely grey area. She is definitely the one generating the ability, but is she granting an ability that the defender can use, or is she directly allowing the player to reroll a defence die and thus circumvents OL? Without an explicit description of why it works the way it does, we may simply never know. Lowhhrick and M9-G8 are clear examples of when an ability will still work when defending against OL, but much of the rest is guesswork.

Yeah, Low is definitely in a grey area when it comes to OL. Howlrunner is blocked, M9G8 isn't. Serissu probably is (same wording as Howl) but Low probably isn't. Elusiveness is blocked despite the card saying that OL is the one modding the dice, not his target. Palp is the only case where it's actually CLEAR that he works in some contexts and is blocked in others.

If (and it is a very important "if) rules are consistent, it is easy to know who is doing the modification, and it is the ship that takes the decission.
If a ship chooses a die and instructs someone to reroll it (like m9g8), that ship (the one that chooses) is doing the modification.
If a ship allows another one to reroll a die (like howlrunner), the one that wants to do the reroll is the one choosing, and so the one doing the modification.

I think this can apply to every example that are officially explained, and we can asume it works the same with the ones not explained.

Except that this is a whole new thing, a ship choosing an allied ship and causing a result to be added. It doesn't have a perfect precedent otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion.

I don't think it's as grey as folks think.

M9-G8's language seems to be approved because he's choosing the die, and the "attacker" seems to strictly be referencing the player who re-rolls the die, which prevents the shenanigans of a player ever touching another player's die (tournament rules for shared materials not withstanding).

Howlrunner is strictly letting the friendly ship do something, which OL shuts down.

The only thing Low does is spend his Reinforce Token, which is fine. But the Defender is adding the result, which is blocked. If Low specifically targeted a die, then he'd be covered similar to M9. If HE added the result, he'd be covered like Palp. Since he doesn't, the only other examples we have are things OL shuts down -- which is to say, the defender spending an evade token to add an evade result.

For the time being, we have no reason to believe otherwise -we are told who is adding the result, and it's someone who can't do that (the defender [target locked by OL]).

Now, do I have any idea if FFG intended this, or will address this in a later FAQ? Of course not, they clearly have no idea what they want to do with OL. But RAW isn't grey at all.

If Sunny Bounder rolls zero dice (multiple tractor beam tokens; weapons failure plus suppressive fire) can she use her ability to add a result since all her dice now show the same result? If so, what result will she add?

3 hours ago, Bascaria said:

If Sunny Bounder rolls zero dice (multiple tractor beam tokens; weapons failure plus suppressive fire) can she use her ability to add a result since all her dice now show the same result? If so, what result will she add?

A matching one.

As your result is nothing, you add another nothing.

If your argument is that her non-rolled dice count as a result (I'm ok with it), then the same argument holds true for the non-result she adds...

Nothing begets nothing.

3 hours ago, Bascaria said:

If Sunny Bounder rolls zero dice (multiple tractor beam tokens; weapons failure plus suppressive fire) can she use her ability to add a result since all her dice now show the same result? If so, what result will she add?

Can you physically roll zero dice? There is no roll, so I would say her ability does not trigger. Even if you get past that, there are no results or dice present, so there is nothing to match up to. If you did say you matched it, it would be to simply add a non-existing result, which is saying you add another nothing to nothing.