Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Whippoorwills

Lt. Colzet and Targeting Synchronizer

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

No.  Targetting Synchroniser only works when Colzet is attacking.  His ability doesn't.

I disagree... Target Synchronizer says... " If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead." This is separate from the first sentence that talks about attacking. Since Lt. Colzet says.. "you may spend a target lock," this combo would work since an ability is part of a game effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

I disagree... Target Synchronizer says... " If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead." This is separate from the first sentence that talks about attacking. Since Lt. Colzet says.. "you may spend a target lock," this combo would work since an ability is part of a game effect. 

Important line from Targeting Synchronizer (I just re-read it about four times... Again), is THAT SHIP.

"That ship," in the second clause, can only refer to the ship that qualifies for the first clause.

The first clause is only applicable for friendly ship attacking a ship you have target locked.

From the card: "When a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking a ship you have target locked... [snip]. If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock... [snip]."

So Colzet's ability does not work, because it does not happen when he is attacking.

Edited by ArbitraryNerd
Re-read cards and answered my original question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaunmerritt said:

I disagree... Target Synchronizer says... " If a game effect instructs that ship to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead." This is separate from the first sentence that talks about attacking. Since Lt. Colzet says.. "you may spend a target lock," this combo would work since an ability is part of a game effect. 

You are wrong.

The card only activates when a friendly ship is attacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, I believe this was cleared up in the FAQ...

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 re-roll 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.

So, when attacking, a ship at range 1-2 of a ship with TS does not need to spend the TL as a cost, we all agree there. However, THAT SHIP, is a trigger pointing back to that ship at range 1-2, but nothing on the card says that it ONLY applies during the combat phase. So once that ship attacks, it has met the card requirement (I.E. trigger) it can may now use a TL for any game effect at any time for the remainder or the round. I think the lack of a "During the combat phase" header opens up this card to more than people realize. 

Edited by shaunmerritt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, shaunmerritt said:

Wait, I believe this was cleared up in the FAQ...

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 re-roll 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.

So, when attacking, a ship at range 1-2 of a ship with TS does not need to spend the TL as a cost, we all agree there. However, THAT SHIP, is a trigger pointing back to that ship at range 1-2, but nothing on the card says that it ONLY applies during the combat phase. So once that ship attacks, it has met the card requirement (I.E. trigger) it can may now use a TL for any game effect at any time for the remainder or the round. I think the lack of a "During the combat phase" header opens up this card to more than people realize. 

That FAQ is explaining what a Game Effect is, but, outside of defining that, has no other say on what works with Targeting Synchronizer.

Again, the text on the card does not support your position, and no part of the FAQ actually changes or addresses how Targeting Synchronizer works. It was the entry that made it clear you're allowed to spend the TL for the normal TL reroll, though, so there's that...

Now, the important words in the first clause are, "is attacking."

The card makes no reference to ships that have attacked. We only read what is on the card, not what isn't. So that ship still needs to meet the first clause to be identified by Targeting Synchronizer. If they aren't attacking, then they still do not pass Go, and the do not collect $200.

Will agree that this is a candidate for one of the most poorly worded cards in the game (Jabba beats it though, I suppose, but FFG's lazy definition of Game Effect tried to catch it back up), but I'm not guessing or giving you an opinion, I'm simply telling you how it is. If you aren't attacking, you don't meet the first clause. If you don't meet the first clause, that ship cannot apply to you.

Edited by ArbitraryNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shaunmerritt said:

So, when attacking, a ship at range 1-2 of a ship with TS does not need to spend the TL as a cost, we all agree there. However, THAT SHIP, is a trigger pointing back to that ship at range 1-2, but nothing on the card says that it ONLY applies during the combat phase. So once that ship attacks, it has met the card requirement (I.E. trigger) it can may now use a TL for any game effect at any time for the remainder or the round. I think the lack of a "During the combat phase" header opens up this card to more than people realize. 

I think the card is in need of a FAQ, because there is clearly disagreement is what 'that ship" refers to and the way they addressed game effects that instruct you to spend a target lock in the FAQ was poorly written. 

54 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

That FAQ is explaining what a Game Effect is, but, outside of defining that, has no other say on what works with Targeting Synchronizer.

Again, the text on the card does not support your position, and no part of the FAQ actually changes or addresses how Targeting Synchronizer works. It was the entry that made it clear you're allowed to spend the TL for the normal TL reroll, though, so there's that...

Now, the important words in the first clause are, "is attacking."

The card makes no reference to ships that have attacked. We only read what is on the card, not what isn't. So that ship still needs to meet the first clause to be identified by Targeting Synchronizer. If they aren't attacking, then they still do not pass Go, and the do not collect $200.

Will agree that this is a candidate for one of the most poorly worded cards in the game (Jabba beats it though, I suppose, but FFG's lazy definition of Game Effect tried to catch it back up), but I'm not guessing or giving you an opinion, I'm simply telling you how it is. If you aren't attacking, you don't meet the first clause. If you don't meet the first clause, that ship cannot apply to you.

Looking purely at the structure of the sentences - The ONLY descriptive words that define the ship in the first sentence are: "a friendly ship at Range 1-2."  

The words "is attacking" are words to detail WHAT the described ship is doing in the first sentence.  

"When (SHIP X) is attacking a ship you have locked, (Ship X) treats the "ATTACK (Target Lock):" header as "ATTACK."

Reworded:  "When attacking a ship you have locked, a friendly ship at Range 1-2 treats the "ATTACK (Target Lock):" header as "ATTACK."

In the second sentence, "that ship" refers back to the ship defined in the first sentence, or "a friendly ship at Range 1-2."

"If a game effect instructs (Ship X) to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead."

So as I read this, the card has 2 triggers - BECAUSE there are 2 distinct sentences.

The only thing that the second sentence refers to is the ship in question and does not specify a timing for the game effect to happen.  Assuming that it happens in the combat phase is RAI and not RAW.

1) When attacking - use the ability.

2) If a game effect instructs - use the ability.

If it said "...a game effect when attacking instructs..." it would clearly identify that it only applies to game effects that occur in combat.

Edited by USCGrad90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

I think the card is in need of a FAQ, because there is clearly disagreement is what 'that ship" refers to and the way they addressed game effects that instruct you to spend a target lock in the FAQ was poorly written. 

Looking purely at the structure of the sentences - The ONLY descriptive words that define the ship in the first sentence are: "a friendly ship at Range 1-2."  

The words "is attacking" are words to detail WHAT the described ship is doing in the first sentence.  

"When (SHIP X) is attacking a ship you have locked, (Ship X) treats the "ATTACK (Target Lock):" header as "ATTACK."

Reworded:  "When attacking a ship you have locked, a friendly ship at Range 1-2 treats the "ATTACK (Target Lock):" header as "ATTACK."

In the second sentence, "that ship" refers back to the ship defined in the first sentence, or "a friendly ship at Range 1-2."

"If a game effect instructs (Ship X) to spend a target lock, it may spend your target lock instead."

So as I read this, the card has 2 triggers - BECAUSE there are 2 distinct sentences.

The only thing that the second sentence refers to is the ship in question and does not specify a timing for the game effect to happen.  Assuming that it happens in the combat phase is RAI and not RAW.

1) When attacking - use the ability.

2) If a game effect instructs - use the ability.

If it said "...a game effect when attacking instructs..." it would clearly identify that it only applies to game effects that occur in combat.

If the friendly ship isn't attacking, it does not qualify for clause one.

If it does not qualify for clause one, then it does not qualify for clause two, because clause two only references a ship that qualified for clause one (That ship).

I agree on the sentences breaking the abilities up -- we have a direct example with Collision Detector. However, unlike in Collision Detector, the subject of clause two in TS is "That ship."

That ship = a friendly ship at range 1-2 that is attacking. If it's not attacking, the first clause criteria is not met. If the first clause criteria is not met, we have no value for "that ship."

The first part of the clause does not care about friendly ships at range 1-2, until they are attacking.

In your example, you misrepresent "ship x," because your first instance (a friendly ship at range 1-2) does not meet the full criteria to be considered eligible for clause one.

EDIT: And I wouldn't count on FFG's being able to use more specific language as a support for your stance -- this is an issue they often struggle with. If they wanted the subject of the second clause to be independent of the first, there are plenty of ways that could have been written as well. Specifically, I imagine they would reverse the order of the clause effects, though, again, this isn't useful in attempting to discern meaning.

 

 

Edited by ArbitraryNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

That ship = a friendly ship at range 1-2 that is attacking. 

But that's not how the card is worded.  It is not fully described as a "friendly ship at range 1-2 that is attacking."  

"That ship" is only described as a "friendly ship at range 1-2."  When "that ship" is attacking, it can change the Attack TL header to Attack.

It's a small distinction of breaking down the grammar in the sentence, but I think it makes it valid for asking FFG to clarify both sentences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

You are quite simply wrong.

'When a friendly ship is attacking' is the trigger for the entire card.

If that isn't happening, the whole card doesn't happen.

Perhaps, but until FFG clarifies the wording of the card for this and whether you can use it to reroll dice, it is a matter of opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, USCGrad90 said:

Perhaps, but until FFG clarifies the wording of the card for this and whether you can use it to reroll dice, it is a matter of opinion. 

No, it is a matter of reading comprehension.

That sounds snarky, but that is not my attempt, as I don't think you're being intentionally stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

If you agree that "that ship" refers to the ship in the first clause, you should see that the first clause is identifying a ship that is being allowed to treat the Attack (Target Lock) header as Attack, as that's the whole purpose of the first clause. It doesn't matter if they need to or not, that's simply what the first clause is allowing, while he second clause is directly referencing that ship. The second clause can never be considered on it's own because of the words, "that ship." If I ship isn't qualifying for the first clause, Targeting Synchronizer isn't triggering, and it's not creating a legal entity for "that ship."

It's also very clear in the FAQ that you are allowed to re-roll dice, as it's identified as a game effect. As long as the ship is in range 1-2 and attacking, it can spend the target lock for that game effect.

 

 

Edited by ArbitraryNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

No, it is a matter of reading comprehension.

That sounds snarky, but that is not my attempt, as I don't think you're being intentionally stubborn for the sake of being stubborn.

If you agree that "that ship" refers to the ship in the first clause, you should see that the first clause is identifying a ship that is being allowed to treat the Attack (Target Lock) header as Attack, as that's the whole purpose of the first clause. It doesn't matter if they need to or not, that's simply what the first clause is allowing, while he second clause is directly referencing that ship. The second clause can never be considered on it's own because of the words, "that ship." If I ship isn't qualifying for the first clause, Targeting Synchronizer isn't triggering, and it's not creating a legal entity for "that ship."

It's also very clear in the FAQ that you are allowed to re-roll dice, as it's identified as a game effect. As long as the ship is in range 1-2 and attacking, it can spend the target lock for that game effect.

I can agree that the first clause is about attacking, I am just pointing out that the ship is the same one described in the first sentence regardless of whether it's attacking in the second or not.  The timing may be intended to be part of the attack, but it's not explicitly written that way. The sentences are linked, but the timing of the second sentence can still be questioned.

As far as re-rolling dice goes, the main question there is whether "a game effect that instructs a player to spend a target lock" means the same as "spending a target lock."  FFG did a poor job writing that answer, because the main question was exactly what game effects were "instructing" you to do it.  They answered by stating what spending A TL was and was not.  Using a TL to fire a missle or torp as instructed on the card is one thing, but a lot of people still debate that choosing to use a TL to reroll is not the same thing as being instructed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To further clarify, the first sentence on this card is a complex sentence made up of a dependent and independent clause.

"A friendly ship at range 1-2" is the object of the dependent clause. The "friendly ship" is the object of the independent clause of the first sentence.

"That ship" is the object of the dependent clause of the second sentence.  "It" is the object of the independent clause in the second sentence.   

The object of the second sentence is the same object referred to in the first sentence, which is "a friendly ship at Range 1-2."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ship isn't eligible for the first clause, then that portion of Targeting Synchronizer doesn't acknowledge a ship.

If a ship isn't attacking, it's not eligible for the first clause. There is no other way to read this card.

If the first clause doesn't have a legal target, then there is no ship for "that ship" to reference, because it's referring to the ship in the front clause... Which again, doesn't exist if it isn't attacking.

That ship is the ship benefiting from the first clause. Period. The second clause is literally meaningless in-game when taken by itself, as it gives no qualifier for "that ship."

You are willingly ignoring part of the qualifier in the first clause to make your argument work.

The first clause does not trigger if you are not attacking, it has no blanket passive ability just because a ship is friendly and at range 1-2.

Draw a flowchart, if it helps having something visual in front of you.

Targeting Synchronizer
[Clause 1]

|

1. (Are you a friendly ship at range 1-2?) (Yes -- continue to 2) (No -- Full stop, clause 1 doesn't)

2. (Are you attacking?) (Yes -- continue to 3) (No -- Full stop, clause 1 does nothing)

3. (You may treat... blah blah effect of clause 1) <-- This is "that ship," because clause one doesn't trigger for anything else. If it doesn't trigger, the upgrade card does nothing at this point, meaning no target for "that ship" has been identified.

[Clause 2]

4. (Are you that ship identified in clause 1?) (Yes -- continue to 5) (No -- Full stop, clause 2  does nothing)

5. (You may spend... blah blah effect of clause 2)

 

Your version only qualifies for part of the trigger of clause 1, therefore does not actually trigger clause 1, meaning clause 1 does not acknowledge that ship. Clause 2 does not offer any further clarification as to which part of clause 1 is important, so all of clause one is important.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, USCGrad90 said:

To further clarify, the first sentence on this card is a complex sentence made up of a dependent and independent clause.

"A friendly ship at range 1-2" is the object of the dependent clause. The "friendly ship" is the object of the independent clause of the first sentence.

Wong.  A friendly ship *that is currently attacking* is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

Wong.  A friendly ship *that is currently attacking* is.

"is attacking" is the action/verb of the clause.

The words "that" and "currently" do not appear on the card

At this point, I'm just going to state that that I think the card should have been worded better to start with to avoid any need for clarification, but because it was released, it should at least be addressed in the Q&A section of a future FAQ.

P.S. - Please don't call me Wong. ;)

Edited by USCGrad90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, USCGrad90 said:

"is attacking" is the action/verb of the clause.

The words "that" and "currently" do not appear on the card

At this point, I'm just going to state that that I think the card should have been worded better to start with to avoid any need for clarification, but because it was released, it should at least be addressed in the Q&A section of a future FAQ.

P.S. - Please don't call me Wong. ;)

I'll call you whatever I want :P

Besides, Wong is awesome.

I don't disagree that it could be worded more clearly, and would be better worded more clearly.  I've said it before and I'll say it again:

'When attacking a ship you have locked, friendly ships at range 1-2 may:
- treat the 'Attack: Target Lock' header as 'Attack:'
- Spend your target locks as if they were their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree there is some wiggle room in exactly how the card is phrased, but barring an official ruling to the contrary I think you've got to disallow it's use outside of an attack.

Which also thematically makes sense with the name of the card, not that that actually means anything in rules terms but it's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ImperialOfficer said:

The FAQ uses Colzet as an example of a game effect spending the lock.  Isn't this already settled? 

He IS an example of a game effect spending a lock.

He's no an example of a game effect spending a lock which works with Targetting Synchroniser, and he's a dumb example for them to include in the FAQ intended to answer how TS works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ImperialOfficer said:

The FAQ uses Colzet as an example of a game effect spending the lock.  Isn't this already settled? 

The FAQ defines a game effect, nothing more. It does not provide any context for Targeting Synchronizer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ArbitraryNerd said:

The FAQ defines a game effect, nothing more. It does not provide any context for Targeting Synchronizer.

 

I see what you're saying.  In reading the thread it seems like some players are trying to over complicate it, but maybe not.  

How are local TO's ruling it for you?   It hasn't come up yet in my local area.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...