I would lean towards the FCS winning, only because elsewhere we have the "makes more difficult" trumps "makes easier" precedent, but that is a pretty weak connection to say the least.

Leaving aside the strength of the precedent itself (it's very tenuous) I don't think it actually applies in this case.

The FCS is not making a target lock "more difficult" or harder. It's generating a specific operation. There's nothing that locks that operation into an unchanging state. This is the exact same error people were making in the R2/Daredevil discussions. Daredevil didn't change an existent maneuver, it created a new one.

There may be a possible justification for "can't beats can", but I don't think so. The FCS doesn't actually prohibit anything directly. If we had a hypothetical ship that said "Enemy ships may not acquire a target lock on this ship" then ST-321 would be trumped by that. FCS overrides the normal target selection to tell you who you CAN lock - it says nothing about who you CAN'T. So the FCS says "You can lock this target" and ST-321 says "You can lock anyone". Those two don't really conflict.

All good points, and if you and I were playing Buhallin I would happily do it that way. Like I said, its a pretty flimsy precedent, and I don't have much here besides a gut feeling and a mental image of what FCS is doing.

I imagine FCS as having your computer refine its firing solution by analyzing where your shots go compared to their intended target. It wouldn't make sense for that data to provide a more accurate solution to a second ship you aren't even shooting at. Which of course has nothing at all to do with rules.

And, just theorizing.... What would happen if Jendon tried to pass a blue token to a ship that has a Weapons Engineer as crew and that happens to already have a single blue target lock? The recieving ship has capacity to maintain 2 target locks.

If we follow the strict, holy, unbendable letter of the rules Jendon could not pass the 2nd blue token. But how about the functionality of the cards, and the intent of the rules? Can this case be considered an oversight of the Devs? Just curious.

And, just theorizing.... What would happen if Jendon tried to pass a blue token to a ship that has a Weapons Engineer as crew and that happens to already have a single blue target lock? The recieving ship has capacity to maintain 2 target locks.

If we follow the strict, holy, unbendable letter of the rules Jendon could not pass the 2nd blue token. But how about the functionality of the cards, and the intent of the rules? Can this case be considered an oversight of the Devs? Just curious.

I'm going to change hats here and say no... Jendon cannot pass a Target Lock to a ship with a current Target Lock even if it has a Weapons Engineer.

Two reasons.

1. Jendon specifically states that you can only pass a Target Lock to a ship that does not have one.
2. Weapons Engineer states when you " acquire " a lock you may "acquire" a second one.

In the case of Jendon, he is passing a token NOT allowing the friendly ship to "acquire" a lock which is what 'Dutch' does. Item 1 says he can't pass it and Item 2 doesn't apply since the friendly ship is not "acquiring".

If you note I usually fall on the side of "common sense" if there is ambiguity but here, imho, I don't think there is any ambiguity. It is pretty clear. I could have missed something.

Thoughts???

P.S. Engineer DOES state "You may maintain 2 Target Locks". Shame Jendon didn't say 'you may pass one of your Target Locks to a friendly ship at range 1 that is not at their maximum limit.' But alas.

[Edited for spelling]

I don't think there's any ambiguity on that one. Ken has it right. Jendon says "...if it does not already have one." He doesn't say "If the ship can handle another lock". The fact that Weapons Engineer lets you maintain two locks doesn't change Jendon's limitation.

Jendon: Fett, I'm locking on and.. oh, wait, I see you're at capacity. Passing telemetry to Beta-1.

Boba Fett: I've got it, Sli'sa'kask is running targeting.

Jendon: No, you really can't.

Boba Fett: What do you mean I can't? Haven't you heard? I'm Boba Fett!

Jendon: Sorry, one per customer.

Boba Fett: I will disintegrate you.

That probably sounded funnier in my head.

No disintegrations.

maybe I am late on this, but since Kagi says "When an enemy ship acquires a target lock, it must lock onto your ship if able.

" since one ship can't have to target locks on the same ship, that means you are not able to acquire a target lock onto Kagi so the 2nd target lock you would gain from the weapons engineer can be placed on any legal target

Actually speaking of the weapon engineer and target locks how does that interact with Kagi? The ship would be forced to target lock Kagi with the first lock and then it would no longer be able to target lock him so it would be able to use the second lock on someone else. Does that seem right? Actually by that logic if a ship target locks him then the next turn they could freely target lock whoever they want because you can't assign a target lock to a ship you have already put a token onto.