A weird question came up last night while looking at Synced Turret. We came to the conclusion, upon reading some other cards, that it didn't work the way we feared that it might... but figured it was still worth bringing up.

It's pretty clear that Synced Turret's second sentence is designed to work within the scope of the turret attack itself, but we got to thinking... was that second sentence locked (no pun intended) to the secondary weapon itself, or could it be interpreted as a separate clause that worked all on its own, regardless of what weapon you were using? We pretty quickly realized that it would make other secondary weapons fairly broken, as far as attacks go... Concussion Missiles and Proton Torpedoes would act much like Guidance Chips, but for every primary attack. Proton Rockets would turn the Inquisitor's primary attack into a 6-dice monstrosity, and the like. Obviously, not an intended use of the cards.

Still, it was an interesting thought experiment. What's your take... could the game use more cards with independent clauses and unusual uses?

It' s locked to the weapon. You don't read secondary weapons that start with the attack header at all unless you're currently firing them.

Every card has a trigger, something that makes its text relevant. In this case the trigger is "Attack [Target Lock]: Attack 1 ship (even a ship outside your firing arc)." Unless this clause is triggered the rest of the card remains inert and irrelevant to gameplay.

I suppose that, in theory, this would work if the sentence order was flipped.

In theory, I agree - but it would feel really weird...

14 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

It' s locked to the weapon. You don't read secondary weapons that start with the attack header at all unless you're currently firing them.

Before you flip, I agree with you. Just want to follow up:

but what about the FAQ interaction of Targeting Synchronizer?
"...If an enemy ship is locked by a friendly ship equipped with Targeting Synchronizer, although a friendly ship may not actually have the target lock, it can spend the target lock from the ship with Targeting Synchronizer as though it did. (X-Wing FAQ, Version 4.4.0, Updated 10/25/2017)

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.

doesn't this constitute the same type of secondary clause interaction that @emeraldbeacon was proposing?

No, because Targeting Synchronizer isn't a secondary weapon and its effect isn't prefaced with the Attack: trigger.

55 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

No, because Targeting Synchronizer isn't a secondary weapon and its effect isn't prefaced with the Attack: trigger.

Yup, this.

There's a reason I mentioned 'secondary weapons which begin with the attack: header' specifically.

You also don't read byond that ATtack: header unless you're actually firing the weapon at the time.

Or do you want to block all your attack mods ever just by equipping Snap Shot?

Or to turn up to 3 blanks to eyeballs with APT?

Heck, honestly, this might be a balanced way to make torpedoes better lol.

But no, it doesn't work.

Men... I would love the Autoblaster weapon with this rules!!!!

8 hours ago, nexttwelveexits said:

No, because Targeting Synchronizer isn't a secondary weapon and its effect isn't prefaced with the Attack: trigger.

Despite that Targeting Synchronizer has the trigger clause at the beginning of "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."

Until the FAQ for this card, we always played it that unless the friendly ship was using a secondary weapon to attack (i.e. preforming an attack that normally required Attack (Target Lock), it was unable to gain the benefits of TS.

That changed with the FAQ allowing other friendly ships to spend the TL (via TS) to reroll attacks that do not have the header Attack (Target Lock).

That seemed to create a secondary clause in the card (which is why I brought it up) that matched what @emeraldbeacon appeared to be getting at.

I think the difference there is that secondary weapons have a gateway to the rest of the game text... you have to activate the "attack" part of the card to access the remaining effects. Target Sync is not a secondary weapon, so all sides of the card are functional.

By the same principle, Maul can still remove stress from his ship, even if he didn't cause a reroll on that attack.

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 5:06 PM, emeraldbeacon said:

I think the difference there is that secondary weapons have a gateway to the rest of the game text... you have to activate the "attack" part of the card to access the remaining effects. Target Sync is not a secondary weapon, so all sides of the card are functional.

By the same principle, Maul can still remove stress from his ship, even if he didn't cause a reroll on that attack.

Logical progression for the win.