Talk:Targeting Synchronizer/@comment-454133-20170322065036/@comment-454133-20170322164935

We don't need to interpret the rules to protect Shara's role. That's not what the rules are about. I hope that's not the drive here.

The way I see it is, there's no such limit. Spending your target lock to reroll your attack dice is a game effect that instructs you to spend a target lock. That applies to rerolling your primary weapon or your secondary weapon, and not needing the Attack line switch effect doesn't preclude the rest of the text. The trigger is "when a friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking".

Primary weapon:

1) Attack an enemy that the TS ship has locked.

2) You are a friendly ship at range 1-2 that is attacking. Treat "Attack (Target Lock)" as "Attack", if needed.

3) "That ship" (the friendly ship at range 1-2) may now spend TS ship's target lock to reroll dice.

There's nothing in that text that precludes spending the TS ship's target lock if you weapon didn't need to convert the attack line, though I get that you're saying not having an "Attack (Target Lock)" line to change means the whole card doesn't activate. There's not many complex, multi-sentence game effects out there for comparison, Bossk (Crew) being a terrible example (and I refuse to rely on its broken FAQ to make an argument). One example though is Collision Detector: the second sentence doesn't only apply to boosts, barrel rolls, and decloaks.

But because of the inconsistent way FFG does its wording, that doesn't help us, and I don't want this discussion to turn into the pedantic nightmare that the FFG discussion devolved into (bitterly fighting over the meaning of "game effect" and "instructs"; it was soul-crushing to read).

It's really unfortunate that FFG won't just do a full, overt FAQ line for TS. Why are they so afraid of being exacting and explicit?