So then no, you can't actually cite any rules. Glad we got that cleared up at least.

Yes, because FCS doesn't forbid you from target locking anyone but the defender. No wonder the Kagi ruling seems to come from left field. The word can't isn't the only way to forbid things.

Of course not. There are any number of synonyms for "can't". None of them are used in the FCS text.

Any statement can be inverted in the way you're trying to read FCS. In effect, anything can be both a positive (can) and a negative (can't) at the same time. If you allow them to be read either way, then the can't-beats-can becomes meaningless, because you can just flip from one version to the other at will.

You don't need a synonym. Are you seriously arguing that FCS is saying that targeting the defender is optional if you choose to activate it?

Are you seriously arguing that FCS is saying that targeting the defender is optional if you choose to activate it?

No, of course not. The ability tells you what to do, and you operate within those constraints, barring the influence of other abilities .

But invoking the "forbidden" rule basically means that it becomes immune to modification by other abilities, because most abilities tell you what to do. If you read something like FCS as a "can't" then other abilities, which tell you what to do, can't touch it.

That's why prohibiting ability DO need to have an explicit statement telling you what isn't allowed. There are plenty of examples of prohibiting abilities in the game, and they all use a nicely explicit "cannot". Pretty consistently, too, since I count more than a dozen.

You disregarded the examples I gave above because it was core rules vs. abilities, but what about Nien vs. Ion Maneuvers? Neither is a core rule. The ion token says you perform a white 1 ahead, which by your flip read would mean that you can't do anything BUT a white 1 ahead. Same thing, right? No choice, so it's a "can't"? Except that we know conclusively that Nien can turn it green.

In order for the "forbidden" rule to come into play, the ability must actually forbid something. FCS may give you a narrow field of choices, but the text does nothing to forbid anything else.

I'm not doing any "flip reading," so I'd ask you to stop insisting that I am. I'm reading the rules as they're presented and as they make sense in the plain English provided. FCS gives you a "narrow field of choices" which somehow doesn't exclude anything else? What a strange contrary world we live in.

It doesn't EXPLICITLY exclude anything else, which is what's required for the "can't beats can" rule to come into play. If you're not flipping the read, I have no idea what rules you're trying to invoke.

Would you care to deal with the Nien vs. Ion question above, and how it fits into your "narrow field of choices" view?

Oh, that's easy. You're forced to "assign" a white forward as if it was on your dial. It does not conflict with Nien Nunb. Nien Nunb modifies what happens when a straight manuever is executed. In essence Ion modifies your planning phase, while Nien modifies the execution of the manoeuvre.

Uhm, no, that's not what it does at all. You might want to review the ion token rules.

I did before posting. It's what it does. It tells you to move as if a straight white 1 manoeuvre were assigned after skipping the planning phase. After that, Nien Nunb tells you to treat the straight manoeuvre that was assigned as if it were green.

What it seems to me you are suggesting is that you assign a manoeuvre, then Ion modifies it and Nien Nunb attempts to modify it too. That is not how it works. Ion doesn't modify the manoeuvre you choose; Ion tells you what you what manoeuvre you execute. Then Nien Nunb modifies the difficulty without conflict.

This is pretty epic.

I'm not suggesting that the ion modifies anything. It tells you what to execute - a white ahead 1. Just like the FCS tells you what to do - lock the defender. Your reasoning for FCS says that since it tells you what to do, it prohibits anything else. Why doesn't the same apply to the ion token? It tells you what to do, thereby prohibiting anything else If Nien can change the one option for the maneuver, why couldn't ST-321 change the one allowable target granted by the FCS?

<shrug> I surrender and I, for one, welcome our new Forbidden Rule overlords and its copious application to prohibit anything from changing anything.

Part of it is that the Ion Reference is basically adding a Core rule. Then cards supersede it.

Part of it is that the Ion Reference is basically adding a Core rule. Then cards supersede it.

So bombs are core rules too, then? Oh, even better, bomb dropping is NOT a core rule, because it's part of the ability, but bomb detonation IS a core rule, because it's presented on a supplementary card?

And what about turrets? Ion Cannot Turret is an ability, which will win vs. core rules, but the Falcon's turret is just a core rule, so it loses to other abilities?

The gymnastics on display here as you work so very, very hard to avoid anything resembling a consistent interpretation are absolutely staggering.

You're the only one having a problem, Buhallin. Maybe you should step back and consider why.

And what about turrets? Ion Cannot Turret is an ability, which will win vs. core rules, but the Falcon's turret is just a core rule, so it loses to other abilities?

I'm curious what conflicts you've seen with these.

Edit: Frex:

If some effect made you fire only within the front arc, I'd expect it to win in both cases. In the case of the Falcon, we already know that its secondary weapons do just that. If something restricted the Falcon's Turret range to 1-2, that would work.

If something extended the range of a secondary weapon by one (max 3), then I'd also expect it to win v. Ion Turret. Why? For the same reason that Nien Nunb works even without calling the Ion reference a core rule: The ranges presented on the secondary weapons present you an initial condition, not a modified value. All secondary weapons present a range that they are effective. Only Primary Weapons have a default value of 1-3.

No direct conflict on the turret, with current rules - I just find the suggestion that you'd have to handle two identical effects differently based on whether the text fit on the upgrade or not to be highly amusing.

reason that Nien Nunb works even without calling the Ion reference a core rule: The ranges presented on the secondary weapons present you an initial condition, not a modified value. All secondary weapons present a range that they are effective. Only Primary Weapons have a default value of 1-3.

So to tie this all back in to the original question, how is the FCS different? It presents an initial condition, not a modified one, just like your examples here. Yet the FCS is for some reason immune to other effects, but nothing else is. You keep trying to invent distinctions that seem to have a hard time staying distinct.

No, FCS modifies who you can target lock. Clearly.

No direct conflict on the turret, with current rules - I just find the suggestion that you'd have to handle two identical effects differently based on whether the text fit on the upgrade or not to be highly amusing.

So you find the rule on Page 18 to be amusing. Fun times.

Fire-Control System (2)
After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender.

it clearly and precisely states that you may acquire a TL the defender .. I don't see any confusion here.. or where this needed 3 pages to figure out..

Fire-Control System (2)

After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender.

it clearly and precisely states that you may acquire a TL the defender .. I don't see any confusion here.. or where this needed 3 pages to figure out..

Oh, I see the confusion. You do NOT need to TL the defender. You may TL the Defender but you don't have to which I guess could be interpreted to mean you could target lock something else instead.

When you have a FCS and attack someone you have exactly two options:

1. TL on the defender of your attack.

2. Do nothing with FCS.

Lol..

Yeah that's how I see it.. if the defender still lives, TL again for next round..

You're the only one having a problem, Buhallin. Maybe you should step back and consider why.

Being the only one posting about it doesn't necessarily make him the only one "having a problem". It's just he does such a good job in these kinds of discussions, I rearly feel there is anything I can contribute with and so I stay quiet.

Buhallin is just pointing out that we have to take a leap of faith to arrive at the conclusion.

His blog is pretty interesting regarding asteroids and barrel rolls.

Ugh as a frequent "B-Wing with Advanced Sensors" player, I feel like I should have a t-shirt that says "Yes, I can barrel roll off of this asteroid."