While i was looking for some combo crew+astro with the Arc170, i felt on this astromech

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die. on an evade result, immediatly aquire a target lock on that same ship. you cannot spend this target lock on this attack.

well, this was one of thoses astro that i was ignoring untill now... let's make a list with the 2 currently known ARC170

Sharra Bey + recon specialist

Norra wexley + PTL + recon specialist + R5-K6

that's my "not finished build" for the arc170

Norra say you may spend 1 of your target lock you have on the ennemy ship to add a focus result... adly, you can't use dead eye + recon spec as a combo... but...

Q1) can we use a TL from Sharra ? since the ability specify "spend a target lock you have but sharra say he may treat your target lock as his. i'd say yes.

the real question now is :

Q2 ) with R5-K6 on Norra, if i spend a TL from Sharra, does it mean i can try to get a new TL since i concider her TL as mine ?

i guess yes

Q3) what if R5K6 is on Sharra Bey ? R5k6 doesn't specify you have to spend your target lock, it say after your target lock has been spend !

if i'm correct, that would mean a TL on sharra spended by Norra would allow sharra to (potentially 3 out of 8) get a new target lock ! in this case, i would go for weapon engineers on Sharra soo i can spend 2 target lock from her by turn, having about 61% chance to get a new target lock if you spend both of the previous TL and maybe 2 if you proc on the last roll.

it sound correct to me, but quite insane at the same time !

http://xwing-builder.co.uk/view/510143/clone-wars-refit#

with this list, i can have 3 target lock and 2 focus on Norra but still maybe have one or more TL and 1 focus on Sharra and there's enough space for 2 Z95 !

but i want to know your opinion if my combo is valid or not.

"Treat her target lock as their own." Even though it is sitting on her ship, it would be the friendly ship spending the target lock. So Shara would not spend it, not being able to roll for the target lock.

Now that being said: if R5-k6 is on the friendly ship that does spend the target lock then it would get to roll for the target lock, thereby possibly getting a target lock from Sharas target lock. If all goes right, you focus, attack the ship Shara has locked, Sspend her target lock as your own, roll for r5k6, get target lock on your ship. You can also, use her target lock to fire your munitions, use your target lock to re-roll, possibly get a new target lock , use Tuketu in a k-wing for his focus as your own, guidance chips, and bam!, almost always get all hits.

not soo sure

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die. On a result, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack.

it's not after you spend your target lock...

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own.

also doesn't say it's not your target lock anymore either

Take the exemple of Poe with Esege Tuketu, Esege have the exact same effect as Shara does except it's on focus, not target lock... when Poe does use his focus, esege keep it dispite the fact he treated it as his own focus.

And this exemple is officially working that way. If the focus doesn't stop beeing esefe's, it should be the same for the TL, right ? and i believe that the text beeing "after spending" instead of "after you spend" is quite important.

The big difference with the Esege/Poe example is the focus token isn't being spent for Poe's ability to be used. Whereas with Shara and anyone else, the target lock token needs to be spent to do something. And check the text on the R5-K5 card again.

"After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die..."

The target lock needs to be spent by the ship that has R5-K6 equipped. "You" and "your" always refer to the active ship, not the player. Another friendly ship cannot spend Shara's target lock and trigger Shara's R5-K6.

well, of course i'm not english native speaker and it doesn't help but i see it that way (translated in my mind and re-explainded in english)

both esege and shara have the exact same text

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your focus tokens as its own.

just replace focus by blue target lock

While poe is using the focus as it was his own, if esege shouldn't be considered as the owner of the focus, than, the used but unspend focus should go on Poe after that...

within the cards text, there's nothing that say you should return to esege... but this is still how it works, right ?

Soo, shouldn't we consider the focus as having 2 owners ?

Esege and Poe is a really bad example to use as a comparison here, because Poe doesn't spend the focus token. With ANY other pilot, they would be spending the token.

If Poe was to treat Shara's target lock as his own, he (Poe) would be the one spending the token, and that would make using Shara's R5-K6 not possible for him.

You need to stop using Esege & Poe as a precedent, because they aren't using the same mechanic.

Sure poe's exemple is unique.

however, there's one point i totally desagree with you, R5 K6 doesn't ask the owner to spend the target lock but to be the owner of the spend target lock.

Sure poe's exemple is unique.

however, there's one point i totally desagree with you, R5 K6 doesn't ask the owner to spend the target lock but to be the owner of the spend target lock.

It does ask the owner of the R5-K6 to be the owner of the target lock. Shara's ability allows any friendly ship at Range 1-2 to use her target lock, but not her R5-K6. If you are trying to establish ownership of the target lock, then that belongs to whoever spent it, not whoever performed the action to get it in the first place.

Rulebook, page 2:

CARD INTERPRETATIONS

you and your are two differents words

your quote doesn't refer to your and my definition of your is : "that belong to you"

Esege and shara say

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your X tokens as its own.

i don't know the english equivalent of this expression but when i have some guest a home i usualy say "Faite comme chez vous" wich could be literally translated as "do like at your home" (most probably something more like "feel at home")

i hope that if you say that, you don't consider it's not your home anymore

Sure poe's exemple is unique.

however, there's one point i totally desagree with you, R5 K6 doesn't ask the owner to spend the target lock but to be the owner of the spend target lock.

R5-K6 clearly demands that you are the one spending the token. It says 'after spending your target lock', not 'after your target lock is spent'. There can be no mistaking that the ship spending the token must be the ship equipped with R5-K6.

Is there an actual FAQ on this? It seems most likely to me that R5K6 will not trigger if another ship uses her target lock, but despite claims to the contrary the grammar here does not indicate any such requirement.

"You spend" would make "you" the object, indicating who/what is performing the action and placing restrictions on who could spend the target lock. It does not say that here, however, so it is up to contextual understandings to know what the subject of the sentence is.

"Your target lock" makes "your" an adjective, indicating who/what owns the target lock and placing restrictions on which target lock has to be spent. That is exactly what it says here, so it is clear that you only roll when a target lock belonging to this ship is spent. The use of "your" as an adjective does not place any restrictions or imply the subject of the sentence. For example "When your car is wrecked the insurance company will pay" does not require that "You" be the one to wreck "your car", it only requires that the car involved must be your own.

There is no context provided on the card to determine definitively who/what the subject is. It COULD be "you", it could also be "anyone", or even "your opponent". Non-contextual statements in English are properly applied in the most broad manner, so literally speaking this upgrade will work just fine as a combo.

But then again, FFG has made it clear they are using conversational English, not legalistic English, so it certainly is possible (and I think likely) that the combo will not be allowed.

While i was looking for some combo crew+astro with the Arc170, i felt on this astromech

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die. on an evade result, immediatly aquire a target lock on that same ship. you cannot spend this target lock on this attack.

well, this was one of thoses astro that i was ignoring untill now... let's make a list with the 2 currently known ARC170

Sharra Bey + recon specialist

Norra wexley + PTL + recon specialist + R5-K6

that's my "not finished build" for the arc170

Norra say you may spend 1 of your target lock you have on the ennemy ship to add a focus result... adly, you can't use dead eye + recon spec as a combo... but...

Q1) can we use a TL from Sharra ? since the ability specify "spend a target lock you have but sharra say he may treat your target lock as his. i'd say yes.

the real question now is :

Q2 ) with R5-K6 on Norra, if i spend a TL from Sharra, does it mean i can try to get a new TL since i concider her TL as mine ?

i guess yes

Q3) what if R5K6 is on Sharra Bey ? R5k6 doesn't specify you have to spend your target lock, it say after your target lock has been spend !

if i'm correct, that would mean a TL on sharra spended by Norra would allow sharra to (potentially 3 out of 8) get a new target lock ! in this case, i would go for weapon engineers on Sharra soo i can spend 2 target lock from her by turn, having about 61% chance to get a new target lock if you spend both of the previous TL and maybe 2 if you proc on the last roll.

it sound correct to me, but quite insane at the same time !

http://xwing-builder.co.uk/view/510143/clone-wars-refit#

with this list, i can have 3 target lock and 2 focus on Norra but still maybe have one or more TL and 1 focus on Sharra and there's enough space for 2 Z95 !

but i want to know your opinion if my combo is valid or not.

Q1) Yes, you may.

Q2) In the example you gave

Norra Attacks

Norra Spends her target lock to add an eyeball result to the roll

Roll Evade Die - Evade result - Norra Aquires a Target Lock that may not be spent this attack.

Norra spends Sharra's Target Lock to add an eyeball result to the roll

Roll Evade Die - Evade result - Norra Aquires a target lock that may not be spent this attack, the previous target lock is discarded due to illegal game state.

or

Norra Attacks

Norra Spends Shara's Target lock to add an eyeball result to the roll

Roll Evade die - evade result - Norra Aquires a target lock that may not be spent this attack, if Norra had a previous target lock it is discarded due to illegal game state.

Q3)

Norra attacks

Norra spends Shara's Target lock to add an eyeball result to the roll.

R5K6 "after spending your target lock" - Doesn't trigger, Sharra did not spend her target lock, Norra did.

I will agree this could be cleaned up via FAQ, however the intent is pretty clear here. Don't be that guy.

Is there an actual FAQ on this? It seems most likely to me that R5K6 will not trigger if another ship uses her target lock, but despite claims to the contrary the grammar here does not indicate any such requirement.

"You spend" would make "you" the object, indicating who/what is performing the action and placing restrictions on who could spend the target lock. It does not say that here, however, so it is up to contextual understandings to know what the subject of the sentence is.

"Your target lock" makes "your" an adjective, indicating who/what owns the target lock and placing restrictions on which target lock has to be spent. That is exactly what it says here, so it is clear that you only roll when a target lock belonging to this ship is spent. The use of "your" as an adjective does not place any restrictions or imply the subject of the sentence. For example "When your car is wrecked the insurance company will pay" does not require that "You" be the one to wreck "your car", it only requires that the car involved must be your own.

There is no context provided on the card to determine definitively who/what the subject is. It COULD be "you", it could also be "anyone", or even "your opponent". Non-contextual statements in English are properly applied in the most broad manner, so literally speaking this upgrade will work just fine as a combo.

But then again, FFG has made it clear they are using conversational English, not legalistic English, so it certainly is possible (and I think likely) that the combo will not be allowed.

I don't disagree that adding a FAQ entry would be a nice thing to do, but I think it's clear that they subject of the first sentence is "you". The card says "After spending your target lock ..." and then gives some instructions, none of which identify a subject until the very end when you get to the prohibition on spending the Target Lock.

If Norra has the droid, she should get the to roll when she spends Shara's TL and Nora will be the recipient of the replacement TL, not Shara. Nora will not be able to spend that TL during the attack.

If Shara has the droid, it will not trigger when Norra spends the TL.

If Shara has the droid and you don't read that with an implied "you" as the subject of that sentence, Norra would be able to spend Shara's TL, roll to replace it with R5-K6, and if successful spend the TL to modify her attack since only Shara is the only pilot on the board that is prevented from spending the TL.

WWHSD - To be clear, I agree with you as far as how I think it should be used. I just wanted to point out that a strict reading does not have the restrictions I have seen several claim as fact. It would be one of those things you would want to clarify with a TO before a tournament if you want to use the combination this way, because as-is it could legitimately be understood either way.

WWHSD - To be clear, I agree with you as far as how I think it should be used. I just wanted to point out that a strict reading does not have the restrictions I have seen several claim as fact. It would be one of those things you would want to clarify with a TO before a tournament if you want to use the combination this way, because as-is it could legitimately be understood either way.

No it can't. That is the misunderstanding a lot of people is making. The text does not say after your TL is spent. It says 'after spending your target lock'. You can only be spending your target lock if you are the active ship.

WWHSD - To be clear, I agree with you as far as how I think it should be used. I just wanted to point out that a strict reading does not have the restrictions I have seen several claim as fact. It would be one of those things you would want to clarify with a TO before a tournament if you want to use the combination this way, because as-is it could legitimately be understood either way.

No it can't. That is the misunderstanding a lot of people is making. The text does not say after your TL is spent. It says 'after spending your target lock'. You can only be spending your target lock if you are the active ship.

What? That is exactly what the text says. "After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die" is a sentence with a contextual subject, as I noted earlier, on a card/in a paragraph that fails to provide context. If it were preceded with "Other ships may spend your target lock. After spending your target lock, roll ..." it would clearly indicate that they roll. The necessary context for a definitive understanding simply doesn't exist and we are left with inference.

Sorry. no. Grammar. "After spending your lunch money you get to go hungry." Doesn't matter if you spent it, your girlfriend spent it, or some bully spent it, you are still going hungry because it was YOUR lunch money that was spent. "After you spend lunch money you can eat." means you get to eat regardless of whether it was your money, your girlfriends money, or you were the bully who stole it. "After you spend your lunch money" means you get to eat only if you spent the lunch money yourself and the money belonged to you.

So after spending your lunch money you get to eat. It doesn't matter who spent your lunch money?

What? That is exactly what the text says. "After spending your target lock" is a sentence with a contextual subject, as I noted earlier, on a card/in a paragraph that fails to provide context. If it were preceded with "Other ships may spend your target lock. After spending your target lock, roll ..." it would clearly indicate that they roll. Context...

"Roll 1 defense die" is a command. Commands have an implicit subject (you). "Roll 1 defense die." means "(You) roll 1 defense die." It does not mean "(The last noun I mentioned should) roll 1 defense die." If I said "Your Aunt Mabel is coming to town. Go to the store and get a cake." you would not think I meant that Aunt Mabel should go to the store and get a cake. Not even if I included a timing clause, as in: "Your Aunt Mabel is coming to town. After you finish your homework, go to the store and get a cake."

Edit: Let's tweak the example a little to make it less ambiguous. "Your Aunt Mabel is coming to town. After finishing your homework, go to the store and get a cake." This does not mean Mabel is going to do your homework, and then buy you a cake.

Sorry. no. Grammar. "After spending your lunch money you get to go hungry." Doesn't matter if you spent it, your girlfriend spent it, or some bully spent it, you are still going hungry because it was YOUR lunch money that got spent. "After you spend lunch money you can eat." means you get to eat regardless of whether it was your money, your girlfriends money, or you were the bully who stole it.

You go hungry, but that's because of the way money works, not because of the way sentences work. "After spending your lunch money you get to go hungry" is not a sentence that has anything to say about what happens if your lunch money goes away through any means other than you spending it (presumably on something other than lunch, natch). You can, upon learning that the lunch money was spent by a bully on cigarettes, infer that it will not be available to purchase lunch and therefore lunch will not be purchased, but that's information and interpretation that you're bringing to the sentence. It's not in the sentence itself.

The passive voice is not the same as the active voice. If R5-K6 said "After your Target Lock is spent, roll 1 defense die." I would agree that it doesn't matter who spent it, but that the ship with R5-K6 is doing the rolling. But it doesn't.

While i was looking for some combo crew+astro with the Arc170, i felt on this astromech

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die. on an evade result, immediatly aquire a target lock on that same ship. you cannot spend this target lock on this attack.

well, this was one of thoses astro that i was ignoring untill now... let's make a list with the 2 currently known ARC170

Sharra Bey + recon specialist

Norra wexley + PTL + recon specialist + R5-K6

that's my "not finished build" for the arc170

Norra say you may spend 1 of your target lock you have on the ennemy ship to add a focus result... adly, you can't use dead eye + recon spec as a combo... but...

Q1) can we use a TL from Sharra ? since the ability specify "spend a target lock you have but sharra say he may treat your target lock as his. i'd say yes.

the real question now is :

Q2 ) with R5-K6 on Norra, if i spend a TL from Sharra, does it mean i can try to get a new TL since i concider her TL as mine ?

i guess yes

Q3) what if R5K6 is on Sharra Bey ? R5k6 doesn't specify you have to spend your target lock, it say after your target lock has been spend !

if i'm correct, that would mean a TL on sharra spended by Norra would allow sharra to (potentially 3 out of 8) get a new target lock ! in this case, i would go for weapon engineers on Sharra soo i can spend 2 target lock from her by turn, having about 61% chance to get a new target lock if you spend both of the previous TL and maybe 2 if you proc on the last roll.

it sound correct to me, but quite insane at the same time !

http://xwing-builder.co.uk/view/510143/clone-wars-refit#

with this list, i can have 3 target lock and 2 focus on Norra but still maybe have one or more TL and 1 focus on Sharra and there's enough space for 2 Z95 !

but i want to know your opinion if my combo is valid or not.

Q1) Yes, you may.

Q2) In the example you gave

Norra Attacks

Norra Spends her target lock to add an eyeball result to the roll

Roll Evade Die - Evade result - Norra Aquires a Target Lock that may not be spent this attack.

Norra spends Sharra's Target Lock to add an eyeball result to the roll

Roll Evade Die - Evade result - Norra Aquires a target lock that may not be spent this attack, the previous target lock is discarded due to illegal game state.

<snip>

I will agree this could be cleaned up via FAQ, however the intent is pretty clear here. Don't be that guy.

Actually this second bit won't work because a card ability cannot be resolved more than once during the timing specified on the card. (Card Abilities, Page 8)

I had a long response, didn't want to be "that guy". Thanks for the reminder. My point is that you should clarify this before hand if you expect to see the combination, because it isn't as clear as some folks would like to claim it is. As I said, I agree it should not work but that is based in large part on what I believe they meant, not solely on what they wrote.

https://www.grammarly.com/handbook/sentences/conditional-sentences/

Thanks for the reminder. My point is that you should clarify this before hand if you expect to see the combination, because it isn't as clear as some folks would like to claim it is.

I think that is solid advice and not just for this issue. Check with TOs in advance whenever there is an interaction that you are counting on working a certain way that is not clearly called out in the FAQ.

Actually, I think I would argue that it does NOT work.

I know it's been spelled out before, but I'll duplicate for the sake of completeness:

Shara's pilot ability says:

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own.

It does not say that Shara's target locks change ownership, only that other pilots may spend or otherwise manipulate them for game effects.

R5-K6 says 'After spending your target lock'. Yours. Not someone else's target lock that you happen to have the ability to use.

If she is in range and attacking, Norra can totally use Shara's target lock toward her own pilot ability, or for its default effect of re-rolling dice, or to fire a torpedo. In any case, it is is not and never was Norra's target lock, so if Norra has R5-K6, R5-K6 does not trigger. Likewise Shara wasn't the one spending the target lock, so if Shara has the astromech then R5-K6 doesn't trigger then either.

Actually, I think I would argue that it does NOT work.

I know it's been spelled out before, but I'll duplicate for the sake of completeness:

Shara's pilot ability says:

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own.

It does not say that Shara's target locks change ownership, only that other pilots may spend or otherwise manipulate them for game effects.

R5-K6 says 'After spending your target lock'. Yours. Not someone else's target lock that you happen to have the ability to use.

If she is in range and attacking, Norra can totally use Shara's target lock toward her own pilot ability, or for its default effect of re-rolling dice, or to fire a torpedo. In any case, it is is not and never was Norra's target lock, so if Norra has R5-K6, R5-K6 does not trigger. Likewise Shara wasn't the one spending the target lock, so if Shara has the astromech then R5-K6 doesn't trigger then either.

I beg to differ with your logic here. Shara's text does mention ownership in that another ship may treat the TL as its own. So from Norra's point of view, that TL has now become her own to use when and how she chooses to do so, and when she spends it, her R5-K6 droid would most definitely trigger because it's now her TL, as per Shara's text.

Actually, I think I would argue that it does NOT work.

I know it's been spelled out before, but I'll duplicate for the sake of completeness:

Shara's pilot ability says:

When another friendly ship at Range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its own.

It does not say that Shara's target locks change ownership, only that other pilots may spend or otherwise manipulate them for game effects.

R5-K6 says 'After spending your target lock'. Yours. Not someone else's target lock that you happen to have the ability to use.

If she is in range and attacking, Norra can totally use Shara's target lock toward her own pilot ability, or for its default effect of re-rolling dice, or to fire a torpedo. In any case, it is is not and never was Norra's target lock, so if Norra has R5-K6, R5-K6 does not trigger. Likewise Shara wasn't the one spending the target lock, so if Shara has the astromech then R5-K6 doesn't trigger then either.

I beg to differ with your logic here. Shara's text does mention ownership in that another ship may treat the TL as its own. So from Norra's point of view, that TL has now become her own to use when and how she chooses to do so, and when she spends it, her R5-K6 droid would most definitely trigger because it's now her TL, as per Shara's text.

Then, respectfully, we're going to have to agree to disagree. No effect of Shara's ability says the blue target lock token gets assigned to any other ship. Therefor, ownership has NOT changed. 'treat as' is not the same thing as 'becomes'.

No but treat as does mean it counts as her for ALL effects. Not just some. So if she spends Shara's TL you treat it as her TL for both Torpedoes, rerolls, pilot abilities, and R5-K6