Can you take the targeting computer upgrade on an E wing, if so then how does it work. Would the targeting computer work with the Experimental Scanners so that you can get locks anywhere on the board, or would it shut down Experimental Scanners so you just get normal locks

It would be entirely redundant, since the E Wing already has a Lock action. It would have no effect on Experimental Scanners.

you cannot get locks at range 1 with E S so with targeting computer you get locks at range 1 to 3 and also get locks beyond range 3 with E S just not on same turn

3 minutes ago, wsmith32 said:

you cannot get locks at range 1 with E S so with targeting computer you get locks at range 1 to 3 and also get locks beyond range 3 with E S just not on same turn

No.

Targetting computer just gives you a lock action. It has absolutely no effect on the restrictions from Experimental Scanners.

Experimental Scanners: You can acquire locks beyond range 3. You cannot acquire locks at range 1.

Targetting computer gives you a lock action (which you already have, so functionally, does nothing) - and a lock action allows you to acquire a lock, which Experimental Scanners restricts.

It doesn't let you avoid the restriction, as I've already noted.

@thespaceinvader is correct.

If Exp Scan was a special action that read like Quadrijets special action then yes.

So if it said “Exp Scan Action:” then it could work. But Exp Scan just modifies the rules of the standard lock action.

20 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

@thespaceinvader is correct.

If Exp Scan was a special action that read like Quadrijets special action then yes.

So if it said “Exp Scan Action:” then it could work. But Exp Scan just modifies the rules of the standard lock action.

It's more general than that; it modifies the rules for acquiring locks in general, so if it were granted the ability to acquire a lock without using an action to do it, it would apply to that to. So, for instance, if Horton gave an E-wing a lock, and it was on a ship at R1, that E-wing couldn't take the lock, because the cannot on Scanners overrides Horton's ability.

47 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

It's more general than that; it modifies the rules for acquiring locks in general, so if it were granted the ability to acquire a lock without using an action to do it, it would apply to that to. So, for instance, if Horton gave an E-wing a lock, and it was on a ship at R1, that E-wing couldn't take the lock, because the cannot on Scanners overrides Horton's ability.

I was implying if the ability read differently with an action header.

But yes it’s absolutely locked down as is.

heheh no pun intended

It helps to remember the game-defined rules of can and cannot . There's a specific hierarchy of permissions and denials of what you're able to do: card effects overrule game rules, and "cannots" override "cans." In a nutshell:

• HIGHEST PRIORITY: If any card effect states you CANNOT do something, you cannot. In this case, the E-Wing ability prohibits locks at Range 1, so nothing would be gained, regardless of any other ability.
• 2ND PRIORITY: If any card effect states you CAN do something, you can, UNLESS a card effect states that you cannot. Here, consider the E-Wing ability to gain locks outside of Range 3; it violates the game rule of Range 0-3, but because it's a card effect, it overrides the rules.
• 3RD PRIORITY: If a game rule says you CANNOT do something, you cannot, UNLESS a card effect states that you can. An example of this is barrel rolling onto an obstacle. Collision Detector directly permits this, so as a card effect, it would override the rule.
• LOWEST PRIORITY: If a game rule says you can do something, you can, UNLESS a different game rule states you cannot. A good example of this is attacking during your engagement, while on an asteroid... you can attack during your engagement, but you can't attack while on an rock.

(Side note: Would "Dutch" Vander allow an E-Wing to acquire a lock at Range 1, since he ignores range restrictions, or does the E-Wing "cannot" clause override even that?)

.

35 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

(Side note: Would "Dutch" Vander allow an E-Wing to acquire a lock at Range 1, since he ignores range restrictions, or does the E-Wing "cannot" clause override even that?)

.

For that matter, Would Bodhi allow you to avoid the restriction if you 'measure from another friendly ship'? and not the E-wing itself? Or would that still count as "you" aquiring a lock and thus imposing the restriction?

Bodhi definitely gets overriden; Cannot on a card >can on a card.

Horton is more arguable, but i'd argue he only overrides the range restrictions imposed by the base rules for the same reason.

Card Text > Rules Text

Cannot Card Text > Can Card Text

I've always felt the cannot on the E-Wing cards overrides anything that says can.

A specific statement to ignore range restrictions IS interesting. I’m unsure how I feel about this 🤔

5 hours ago, InterceptorMad said:

I've always felt the cannot on the E-Wing cards overrides anything that says can.

This is correct. "Cannot" is absolute when it's on a card ability.

The example I always use to demonstrate the difference is Colonel Jendon and ST-321. Both Experimental Scanners and Jendon impose additional range restrictions, but as Jendon does not use the word "cannot", he can be overridden by ST-321. But because the E-wing does use the word "cannot", it cannot be overridden by Dutch.

Isn’t MUST the affirmative way of saying CAN NOT?

I think I’m unsure of Jendon / ST-321 now.

😱

13 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

A specific statement to ignore range restrictions IS interesting. I’m unsure how I feel about this 🤔

Yeah, "Cannot" takes precedent, but it doesnt say anything about where "ignore" is on that tree. Does "ignore" override "cannot" or does "cannot" override even "ignore".

18 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

Bodhi definitely gets overriden; Cannot on a card >can on a card.

Horton is more arguable, but i'd argue he only overrides the range restrictions imposed by the base rules for the same reason.

Yeah, i was pretty sure this was the case too, but wanted to toss that out there.

RR, Page 2, Golden Rules, Pertinent section bolded:

"GOLDEN RULES
If a rule in this guide contradicts the Rulebook, the rule in this guide takes
precedence.
If the ability of a card conflicts with the rules in this guide, the card ability
takes precedence.
If a card ability uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute and cannot be
overridden by other effects.
During an attack or while otherwise resolving an effect involving dice, each die
cannot be rerolled more than once."

E-Wing's ship ability says it cannot acquire locks at range 1 so even with Vander's ability tossing the E-Wing the lock the E-Wing still cannot acquire that lock on a target at range 1 of the E-Wing.

@Hiemfire I’m good with that.

What's your thought on Jendon / ST-321?

15 minutes ago, JBFancourt said:

@Hiemfire I’m good with that.

What's your thought on Jendon / ST-321?

First for reference:

I see what you meant by "must" = "affirmative cannot"... I think you and I are on the same page with this one. If the "must" in Jendon's ability is being used as the affirmative form of "cannot" then the granted lock acquisition from ST-321 would be restricted to beyond range 3 of Jendon (when he's spent a charge to trigger his ability) but within range 0-3 of the coordinated ship. The issue is that "cannot" isn't used so, while I lean towards the more restrictive interpretation that I outlined, the argument for Jendon's range restriction being ignored by ST-321 does have merit RAW.

I couldn't understand why this thread had so many replies but now I get it.

I'm not sure how I would rule either of those cases. I don't see how you must follow a particular set of ignored range restrictions for ST-321. Seems to me that ignoring range restrictions supercedes all card text that alters range restrictions. Oh good force. This one is a doozy... Judge!?!!?!

With respect, I think you're all drastically overthinking this.

Game rules have very specific verbiage, and while another word might mean the same thing in real English, that doesn't matter in the game.

The rule is that if a card uses the word "cannot", it is absolute. The rule is not : if a card uses the word "cannot" or any other word that means the same thing, that effect is absolute.

Jendon does not use the word "cannot", therefore his effect is not absolute and can be overridden. The E-wing does use the word "cannot", therefore it is absolute cannot be overridden. It's as simple as that.

10 hours ago, DR4CO said:

With respect, I think you're all drastically overthinking this.

Game rules have very specific verbiage, and while another word might mean the same thing in real English, that doesn't matter in the game.

The rule is that if a card uses the word "cannot", it is absolute. The rule is not : if a card uses the word "cannot" or any other word that means the same thing, that effect is absolute.

Jendon does not use the word "cannot", therefore his effect is not absolute and can be overridden. The E-wing does use the word "cannot", therefore it is absolute cannot be overridden. It's as simple as that.

Why is a Jendon being overridden instead of Jendon doing the overriding?

I think this is what we’re getting at. You are absolutely right about the lingo tho.

During one of the tournaments, the situation popped up on stream. Jendon with ST-321. Judge ruled that his pilot ability overrides the title limitations. Title is a passive trigger, when he coordinates. But his pilot ability swaps the range restriction from the title's 0-3 to beyond 3 of the coordinated ship.