15 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Geez, cheery pick much? let's try being a bit more honest here:

Are you really going to try and tell me that I can't do a thing because something I might do in the future might set off a conditional effect which tells me I can't?

You can't be in an illegal game state. If you added a crit result you can't spend a target lock during the attack. If you spent a TL during the attack then you would be in an illegal gamestate if you used ATC so you can't. We even have a precedent for such a situation from accuracy corrector " Your dice cannot be modified again during this attack. " see the bolded again? it recognizes that it is making a modification so it makes the situplation that you can't modify them again.

4 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Saying you can't use a TL from TS and then ATC is bending the actual rules to do something else. We're the ones playing by the rules.

Except then you'd be breaking the rule on ATC of spending a TL during the attack. The faq makes a blanket statement

"The TIE Advanced cannot use a target

lock on the defender from a friendly ship equipped with

Targeting Synchronizer for this requirement nor can

it spend that target lock if it uses the ability of Adv.

Targeting Computer. "

If you use a TL at all during the attack, you can't use ATC.

15 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Does anyone disagree with this part?

No disagreement with any of it up to that point. But do you agree that you would be put into an illegal game state if you then try to use ATC after that?

No. Because that may be what the FAQ was intended to say but *it's not what it says*.

5 hours ago, Oberron said:

You can't be in an illegal game state.

You wouldn't be. It says you can't spend the target lock. It never says that you can't have spent a target lock.

5 hours ago, Oberron said:

Except then you'd be breaking the rule on ATC of spending a TL during the attack.

No, I wouldn't be. that's the entire point. You're inventing something that the rules do not say. Do what the rules say. Do not do what the rules don't say.

5 hours ago, Oberron said:

But do you agree that you would be put into an illegal game state if you then try to use ATC after that?

Obviously, many of us do not believe that.

2 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

No. Because that may be what the FAQ was intended to say but *it's not what it says*.

Why? Did you spend a TL during the attack?

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

You wouldn't be. It says you can't spend the target lock. It never says that you can't have spent a target lock.

Geez, cheery pick much? let's try being a bit more honest here: " If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack. "

It is a restriction on using the card, if you break that restriction you can't use the card.

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

No, I wouldn't be. that's the entire point. You're inventing something that the rules do not say. Do what the rules say. Do not do what the rules don't say.

How am I inventing something when i'm using what it states of cannot spend a target lock during the attack? The rules say cannot spend a target lock DURING THE ATTACK, so why are you trying to weasel in a way that lets you spend a target lock during the attack?

1 hour ago, InquisitorM said:

Obviously, many of us do not believe that.

That it why it was a question.

1 minute ago, Oberron said:

Why? Did you spend a TL during the attack?

It doesn't ask if you have already spent a TL during the attack. It says, once you use ATC, you cannot spend them any more.

It says nothign about what happens BEFORE using ATC.

Please point out where you think it does and I'll be pleased to point out why you're wrong.

Or do you just not understand that 'spend' and 'have spent' are different?

10 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It doesn't ask if you have already spent a TL during the attack. It says, once you use ATC, you cannot spend them any more.

It says nothign about what happens BEFORE using ATC.

Please point out where you think it does and I'll be pleased to point out why you're wrong.

Or do you just not understand that 'spend' and 'have spent' are different?

It doesn't say before or after it says "during the attack" not "can't spend a TL after you add a crit" so at face value we have to take it for what it means which is at any point during the attack. You do understand that 'during' means throughout the course or duration of (a period of time) ?

Quote

It says, once you use ATC, you cannot spend them any more.

Actually no it doesn't. Look at accuracy correcter for that precedent, or palpatine.

Quoting it again, for completeness:

Advanced Targeting Computer
Darth Vader can be equipped with the Advanced Targeting Computer Upgrade card.
A TIE Advanced equipped with Adv. Targeting Computer needs to have a target lock on the defender in order to use the ability. The TIE Advanced cannot use a target lock on the defender from a friendly ship equipped with Targeting Synchronizer for this requirement nor can it spend that target lock if it uses the ability of Adv. Targeting Computer.

The restriction from ATC is only established at the point you use ATC. The modification step is a sequence of things happening in order, and you're only blocked from using TLs AFTER you use ATC, not before. NOTHING here blocks you using them before you use ATC. Please point out the words you think make ATC somehow retroactive. Quote the FAQ and bold the words that tell you ATC blocks TLs before it's used.

10 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Quoting it again, for completeness:

Advanced Targeting Computer
Darth Vader can be equipped with the Advanced Targeting Computer Upgrade card.
A TIE Advanced equipped with Adv. Targeting Computer needs to have a target lock on the defender in order to use the ability. The TIE Advanced cannot use a target lock on the defender from a friendly ship equipped with Targeting Synchronizer for this requirement nor can it spend that target lock if it uses the ability of Adv. Targeting Computer.

The restriction from ATC is only established at the point you use ATC. The modification step is a sequence of things happening in order, and you're only blocked from using TLs AFTER you use ATC, not before. NOTHING here blocks you using them before you use ATC. Please point out the words you think make ATC somehow retroactive. Quote the FAQ and bold the words that tell you ATC blocks TLs before it's used.

Quote

When attacking with your primary weapon , if you have a target lock on the defender, you may add 1 critical result to your roll. If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack.

During this attack is pretty clear on when you cannot spend target locks. If you spend a TL before atc is used then you would be breaking the restriction on ATC and be in an illegal game state, because you spent a TL during the attack. So to prevent from being in an illegal game state you can't use ATC. If it said "If you do, you cannot spend target locks again during this attack." then you could because of the word again which refers to a previous time, which ATC doesn't use.

9 minutes ago, Oberron said:

Actually no it doesn't. Look at accuracy correcter for that precedent, or palpatine.

Palpatine stops you modifying the die he changes after using him. He's also a slightly different case, because he takes place before the relevant Modify Dice step, his modification has the same timing as C-3PO or HLC.

AC stops you modifying dice you after you use it.

ATC stops you spending TLs after you us it.

None of them do anything BEFORE you use them. Because you haven't used them yet, and they have no way to know if you will, until you do.

Just now, Oberron said:

During this attack is pretty clear on when you cannot spend target locks. If you spend a TL before atc is used then you would be breaking the restriction on ATC and be in an illegal game state, because you spent a TL during the attack. So to prevent from being in an illegal game state you can't use ATC.

You're missing the 'if you do' part. It's a conditional statement, conditional upon the use of ATC, which happens at a specific point in the modify dice step. You're reading retroactivity that just doesn't exist. And retroactivity is a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE precedent to set, it's literally broken, as in non-functional, as in violating the rules of cause and effect, because the effect of it is happening before the cause.

Or, to put it another way, say Vader HAS spent QD's lock, and hasn't yet used ATC. Where does it say he can't use ATC because of that? Note that we've not started to read ATC, or its associated FAQ entry, at all. We've check that we have a lock, so we meet its requirements, and we're attacking. Nothing yet has said we can't use it. So again, quote and bold please, what stops us?

--

My core point is that I agree that this *shouldn't* be possible. It's obvious that FFG don't intend it to be possible. I just disagree that the current wording in the FAQ has made that the case.

It is an easy fix. Errata ATC to either force it to be used first, or to confirm that it doesn't work if a lock has already been spent:

'When attacking with your primary weapon, if you have a target lock on the defender and have not spent a target lock during this attack , you may add 1 [crit] result to your roll. If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack.'

OR

'When attacking with your primary weapon, if you have a target lock on the defender, at the start of the 'attacker modifies attack dice' step, you may add 1 [crit] result to your roll. If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack.'

Additions in bold. Either works fine, though the latter is preferable. Or you change the FAQ to actually say one of those things - though card errata would be preferred, so the card actually says what it is intended to say, the the 'clarification' in the FAQ isn't functionally errata that's not actually changing the card.

(It's also worth noting that I've never run this combo, nor do I ever intend to. It's not actually that good.)

I want FFG to fix this mistake. Intention is obvious. But writing does not match intention. I want writing to match intention.

It's a trivial fix. It's just that it still needs implementing properly.

Probably not worth sticking my nose into it, but since all attack dice mods or at least all the ones present in this case have the same timing window, is it fair to say that the modifications happen simultaneously? Sure they are resolved one before the other, but that's just because we're human and it's easier to understand doing one change before the other. The errata does say " The TIE Advanced cannot use a target lock on the defender from a friendly ship equipped with Targeting Synchronizer for this requirement nor can it spend that target lock if it uses the ability of Adv. Targeting Computer. " Assuming the bolded section is referring to the target lock shared by Targeting Sync and the effects would happen simultaneously, would that not present an A or B option in the modification step?

Just my 2 cents and pointing out a point of view that I don't think was covered yet. Good debate though!

Mods explicitly don't happen simultaneously; they have an order.

You could in theory, if you wanted to, add the crit with ATC and reroll it with Predator.

You can definitely, for instance, spend a focus token, then reroll with a TL (e.g. with R4 Agromech).

Modifications definitely have an order and a discrete nature from one another.

I know they are resolved one before the other, but do they or do they not all trigger at the same time? As far as I know, the timing to spend target locks doesn't trigger before you have the option of spending a focus, preventing you from spending a target lock after a focus. That is the point I'm trying to get to. Yes, you would absolutely handle all the rerolls of a target lock before moving on to a focus or ATC, but they do all trigger at the same time, specifically as soon as you get into the modify dice step. It's like resolving effects with the same trigger, you choose what order to resolve them in, but they do happen at the same time. Is that not an appropriate way to look at it? It would fit in line with the wording and the intent behind the ATC/TS errata.

They trigger whenever you want them to trigger; you're the controlling player, you choose their order.

It would all be a lot simpler if ATC had to happen at the start of the step (see my post above with potential errata to solve the problem), or even if it had a timing like Palp, before the step even starts, but it doesn't.

21 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

They trigger whenever you want them to trigger ; you're the controlling player, you choose their order.

I think this must be incorrect. Surely they all have the trigger; when you get to the substep of attacker modifies attack dice, why would you not have met the trigger for all of these functions? By having a choice of what order to resolve them in, that choice would only be because they all triggered at the same time and as the controlling player you are allowed to choose that order. By all reasoning, these effects should be simultaneous in the same manner as simultaneous attacks or effects are classified in the rules. So there is no retroactive clause within the errata, merely an exclusive, simultaneous choice of target lock or ATC.

Even if that's correct, resolution order is still the player's choice, I simply choose to resolve ATC after TS, the same way I can resolve Gunner after IGGy B.

The errata makes it clear that you can't use both, and as there is a good case that both effects must be chosen to be used at the same time, the order of resolution actually wouldn't matter. You roll dice, defender modifies, then you come to your trigger point at the start of the attacker modifies dice substep. You have the option to use a focus, spend a target lock and use ATC and that choice, once made, cannot be changed later. ATC specifically calls out that you cannot use it along with a target lock, so you must choose at the same time for both effects that you are using ATC and not using a target lock or using a target lock and not using ATC. You therefore can't choose to use both, as that choice is what leads to an illegal game state, before you even have the opportunity to resolve any effects.

Except that that fails when you look at it with regard to R4 Agromech. You can start the modification step with no lock to spend and therefore, couldn't decide to spend one at that point), spend a focus, gain a lock, and spend it. It MUST be sequential for that to work, and it does.

Similarly, you don't have to decide whether you want to spend focus until after you see the outcomes of your rerolls - you can choose to spend your lock, then once you know what the outcome of that is, choose whether or not to focus. And again, it must be sequential for this to work, not just the modification, but the choice of whether to do it.

---

The FAQ for this card interaction is badly written and should be improved to work properly.

22 hours ago, Oberron said:

Why? Did you spend a TL during the attack?

Yes. Now show me where that's relevant to the ability.

22 hours ago, Oberron said:

Geez, cheery pick much? let's try being a bit more honest here: " If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack. "

Aww, that's cute. It's also completely wrong. My position is completely consistent with that quote. Adding it changes nothing. Don't copy someone argument if you don't understand the argument.

22 hours ago, Oberron said:

It is a restriction on using the card, if you break that restriction you can't use the card.

No it isn't. That's the bit you've invented.

22 hours ago, Oberron said:

How am I inventing something when i'm using what it states of cannot spend a target lock during the attack?

It does say that, which doesn't prevent you from having already spent a target lock. It's the fact that you're trying to 'add in' the denial/restriction part that makes it your invention.

22 hours ago, Oberron said:

The rules say cannot spend a target lock DURING THE ATTACK, so why are you trying to weasel in a way that lets you spend a target lock during the attack?

I'm not. You're trying to weasel in a way that says you can't.

The fact that the ability says you can't spend a target lock during the attack has absolutely no reason to affect what you can do before the ability is played. You could spend target locks before, you can't spend target locks after. Anything more is an unwarranted assumption not conveyed by the actual words.

@thespaceinvader , @InquisitorM You guys are missing an important part-- you may add one critical result to your roll. The wording is different, but it happens in the same timing window as C-3PO, namely after the roll and before any other modifications happen.

So you roll your dice, add a crit result to the roll, then proceed as normal.

2 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

@thespaceinvader , @InquisitorM You guys are missing an important part-- you may add one critical result to your roll. The wording is different, but it happens in the same timing window as C-3PO, namely after the roll and before any other modifications happen.

So you roll your dice, add a crit result to the roll, then proceed as normal.

Nope, that's the same wording as every other 'add a result' ability (c.f. Norra, Finn). C-3PO specifically says to add the result before modifying dice. His wording is not the same, nor is his timing.

2 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

@thespaceinvader , @InquisitorM You guys are missing an important part-- you may add one critical result to your roll. The wording is different, but it happens in the same timing window as C-3PO, namely after the roll and before any other modifications happen.

So you roll your dice, add a crit result to the roll, then proceed as normal.

No, you don't. Abilities like C-3PO or Sunny Bounder have a timing triggers: 'Before you roll 1 or more defence dice'; 'After you roll or reroll dice'.

ATC is a dice modification and happens at the same time all other dice modifications do, hence being able to choose the order of play.

I stand corrected. Just pure sloppy wording, then. FFG's intent is clear, but they clearly didn't understand where the source of confusion was for TS vs. ATC.

Let us all take a moment to feign shock and surprise.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, InquisitorM said:

Yes. Now show me where that's relevant to the ability.

On ATC "If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack." You can not spend a TL during the attack if you want to add a crit by ATC.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, InquisitorM said:

Aww, that's cute. It's also completely wrong. My position is completely consistent with that quote. Adding it changes nothing. Don't copy someone argument if you don't understand the argument.

So the card and what the rules say is completely wrong? Your position is that you can do something during a certain period that a card says you cannot do.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, InquisitorM said:

No it isn't. That's the bit you've invented.

So if it isn't a restriction then what is "If you do, you cannot spend target locks during this attack."? It is at the very least a requirement that must be fulfilled, that requirement is cannot spend target locks during this attack.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, InquisitorM said:

No it isn't. That's the bit you've invented.

I didn't invent ATC nor the rules for x-wing.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, InquisitorM said:

It does say that, which doesn't prevent you from having already spent a target lock. It's the fact that you're trying to 'add in' the denial/restriction part that makes it your invention.

I'm not trying to "add in" anything. It prevents you from spending target locks DURING the attack. The attack is still going on if you use ATC or spend a TL. It is the same time frame.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:43 AM, InquisitorM said:

I'm not. You're trying to weasel in a way that says you can't.

The fact that the ability says you can't spend a target lock during the attack has absolutely no reason to affect what you can do before the ability is played. You could spend target locks before, you can't spend target locks after. Anything more is an unwarranted assumption not conveyed by the actual words.

Awww that's cute. Its also completely wrong. The ability says what you can't do during an entire segment (the attack) it doesn't matter 'when' atc is used you still can not spend target locks during that segment. Assuming you can do something when a card says you can't is unwarranted assumption not conveyed by the actual words. Don't copy someone argument if you don't understand the argument.