I haven't seen this question yet, but while squad building it struck me as a possible legal interpretation. ST-321 says "when acquiring a target lock, you may lock onto any ship in the play area". FCS says "After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender".
I understand the intention of ST-321, but the card also says "Any ship", and it takes precedence in the stack, so can I declare a ship other than the defender as the recipient of the target lock?
There is not a "stack" here....
FCS limits the target lock just to the defender of the prior attack explicitly.
I see where you're coming from. It is a bit vague. However, as far as I can tell, FCS requires you to target the defender only. It's your only valid target for this ability, so ST-321 doesn't help. However, if you add Weapon's Engineer, that second target lock can be on any ship in the area.
I don't actually agree with it, since I don't think there's any reason rules-wise that ST-321 couldn't add more possible targets for FCS the way it does for any other, but we do have an answer on this from FFG. That answer is no - the FCS only lets you lock the target you just attacked, even if you have ST-321.
There is not a "stack" here....
FCS limits the target lock just to the defender of the prior attack explicitly.
I didn't explain it very well, sorry about that. My thought was that the Text of ST-321 would remove that explicit limitation through the use of the words "any ship", and there would be a stack at that point because ST-321 would come into affect any instance in which you were acquiring a target lock. Doesn't matter at this point since there is an official ruling, but thanks for the response.
I see where you're coming from. It is a bit vague. However, as far as I can tell, FCS requires you to target the defender only. It's your only valid target for this ability, so ST-321 doesn't help. However, if you add Weapon's Engineer, that second target lock can be on any ship in the area.
I find a lot of the "Acquire a target lock" action to be vague since it's both the name of the action, and the end result of the action rolled into one. Thanks for the info on Weapons Engineer, I'll keep that in mind.
I don't actually agree with it, since I don't think there's any reason rules-wise that ST-321 couldn't add more possible targets for FCS the way it does for any other, but we do have an answer on this from FFG. That answer is no - the FCS only lets you lock the target you just attacked, even if you have ST-321.
The best I could come up with rules wise was the competitive play addendum lists the order as declare target first, measure range, then acquire lock. If the CPA isn't in affect I didn't see an issue with it either. It seem like a case where they tried to keep a rule simple, but made it more complex by doing so.
Anyway, thanks for the responses everyone.
Honestly, I think it's just another in FFG's long line of intent-based rulings and their laziness when it comes to errata. I've long since given up hope of any coherent and consistent rules set. The game's still very playable, primarily due to the very low number of actual abilities, but it's largely impossible to resolve many rules questions without FFG's input.
Ugh, this has come up time and time again. There is a difference between "acquiring a target lock" and "acquiring a target lock on the defender". ST321 does not affect this, it only affects locking onto ships outside range 3. Acquiring a target lock on the defender is not up for modification. It is on the defender and that is it.
but it's largely impossible to resolve many rules questions without FFG's input.
Let's be fair, at least a couple of those it's entirely possible to resolve within the rules, just not in the way that FFG ruled in the FAQ (looking at you boost/barrel roll vs obstacles/prox mines).
Cannot always trumps can. FCS means "You may acquire a target lock, you cannot lock onto anything other than the defender." Problem solved, internal logic remains consistent.
Cannot always trumps can. FCS means "You may acquire a target lock, you cannot lock onto anything other than the defender." Problem solved, internal logic remains consistent.
If the FCS said that, then it wouldn't be a problem. Except that it doesn't.
ANY ability which allows you to do something can be flipped to read as "cannot do anything else". But if that were the case, then "can't beats can" always wins, and makes every rule in the game unmodifiable. That's obviously not the way things work.
You can't (pun intended) just insert "can't" into abilities as a convenient trump card.
More restrictive beats less restrictive. Regardless of how it's worded, FCS is more restrictive than the ST-321.
More restrictive beats less restrictive. Regardless of how it's worded, FCS is more restrictive than the ST-321.
Exactly. You worded it much better than I did.
Normally, you can Target Lock any ship within Range 3. ST-321 over rides the range restriction for that "any" but it does nothing to remove the very specific restriction on what FCS locks on to.
In so many ways this question mirrors the one asked where some people believe that Captain Kagi will pull ANY target lock to him such that FCS would not lock on the target attacked but would instead mysteriously get pulled to Kagi.
No, more restrictive does not beat less restrictive. If it did, ST-321 would not work at all. Nor would Nien Numb, Adrenaline Rush, or the R2 Astromech. This is probably the most commonly invented rule in the game, but it just doesn't exist, for good reason - if more restrictive (or worse) always beats less restrictive (better), then abilities that make things better simply can't function. R2 makes a white maneuver green, which do you get? Well, white is worse than green, so white, right?
There's also nothing in ST-321 that says it removes range restrictions. It says you can lock on to any target. That's a very different thing. It looks like there's a good chance FFG intended it to only be range restriction, given the rulings we've got on it, but there's no way to read "may lock onto any ship in the play area" as only being about range. If a weapon said "may target any ship in the play area" would you expect that to only apply for range, or would you expect it to include firing arc as well?
No, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Kagi issue. Kagi addressed interaction issues specifically in his game text by adding "if able". Leave that out, and there may be some similarity, but as it is they have nothing to do with each other.
<shrug> They've answered it, but if you try and draw a precedent from this ruling you break at least 3 other cards that I can think of, and probably more. Despite some impressively creative readings of ST-321's text, you simply cannot limit it to range, or not affecting FCS, based on what's printed on the card.
No, more restrictive does not beat less restrictive. If it did, ST-321 would not work at all. Nor would Nien Numb, Adrenaline Rush, or the R2 Astromech. This is probably the most commonly invented rule in the game, but it just doesn't exist, for good reason - if more restrictive (or worse) always beats less restrictive (better), then abilities that make things better simply can't function. R2 makes a white maneuver green, which do you get? Well, white is worse than green, so white, right?
No. It only comes into play when two conflicting rules come into play. And Core rules are specifically allowed to be overridden by card rules, so it's only when two specific cards conflict, such as FCS v. ST-321.
No. It only comes into play when two conflicting rules come into play. And Core rules are specifically allowed to be overridden by card rules, so it's only when two specific cards conflict, such as FCS v. ST-321.
This would indeed solve the problem - if this rule existed. Again, the rule you're citing (and I use the term loosely) simply doesn't exist. We have a "can't beats can" and one specific situation where we know "worse beats better" applies (maneuver difficulty) and that's it. Trying to extrapolate that to a broad "worse beats better" rule has no foundation even before you start expanding it to apply distinction based on rule origin.
Feel free to point out where it doesn't apply in the rules we have and the rulings FFG has made.
Some abilities on cards conflict with
the general rules. In case of a conflict,card text overrides the general rules.If one card ability forbids an effect,while another ability allows it, the effectis forbidden (Core 20).When acquring a target lock, you may lock onto any enemy ship in the play area (ST-321 Card).After you perform an attack, you may acquire a target lock on the defender (Fire Control System Card).
Thanks, onebit. I looked over the rules quickly and didn't see it. I guess I should have slowed down.
Q: If a ship equipped with Weapons Engineerand Fire-Control System performs anattack, which enemy ships can be locked?A: One of the two target locks that the locking shipcan acquire must be acquired on the defender. Theother target lock can be on any enemy ship withinrange.
Q: If a ship acquires a target lock by using
Fire-Control System, and that ship is withinrange of Captain Kagi, is the locking shiprequired to lock onto Captain Kagi?A: No. The target lock granted by Fire-Control Systemmust be acquired on the defender. If the attackeracquires an additional target lock, such as fromWeapons Engineer, that target lock must beacquired on Captain Kagi if possible (FAQ 7).
It's worth noting that FFG has ruled twice that the FCS target lock goes on the defender.
Edited by onebit
"Can't beats can" is not the same as "worse beats better". It's just not - the terms don't mean the same thing, the concepts are different, and they simply don't have anything to do with each other.
The ruling is plain, obviously, and we know how to play it. But please stop making up rules to try and justify it.
Not liking the rules doesn't justify throwing them out, Buhallin.
The ruling is plain, obviously, and we know how to play it. But please stop making up rules to try and justify it.
After reading the rule in post #18 do you reach a different conclusion?
"You can do X" does not imply "Anything other than X is forbidden." Again, if you like you can take any ability in the game, invert it, and claim that it can't be modified because it's a "forbidden." An R2 Astromech lets you change a maneuver to green - which means it forbids changing the maneuver to anything other than green, right? Now, since the Astromech forbids the color to change to anything but green, it beats Damaged Engine.
If you consider "Can do X" and "Forbidden to be anything but X" to be equivalent and interchangeable at will, the rules fall to chaos. A ship can't perform and actions while stressed, right? Well, if I have an ability that lets me perform an action, I can say "I can't do anything but perform this action" and now we don't have a can/can't - we've got two can'ts, and the can't-beats-can rule no longer applies, so I can take my action. This applies to ANY prohibition - they become unenforceable.
Does the FCS forbid anything? No, it doesn't - the word "can't" isn't in the text anywhere, nor is any possible synonym of it. This is easy enough to compare to other abilities which DO prohibit something - Biggs, Dark Curse, Damaged Sensor Array... When a card prohibits something, it does so directly and explicitly. Normally, you can reverse boolean logic and arrive at an equivalent statement. But not when different rules apply to the two. So - no explicit prohibition, and the can't-beats-can doesn't apply.
Honestly, if I am throwing out rules, it should be easy enough to tell me which ones I'm ignoring, right? I'll save us the obvious and point out that the can't-beats-can still doesn't apply, but please - what, exactly, am I throwing out? And on the flip side, if I'm accusing you of making up rules, it should be simple enough to provide a citation for them, right? Some reason why a card that doesn't prohibit anything is covered by the can't-beats-can? Or the source for the worse-beats-better rule?
Well, if you throw out the rule you claim you aren't then ask for what rule you're throwing out, I can't help you.