What happens when Manaroo passes a target lock X on a ship who already has a target lock Y?

Does the player have the choice on which target keeping or is he forced to discard the Y to make room for the one being passed by Manaroo?

This question comes up a lot, for some reason.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/223278-manaroo-and-target-locks/

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/218009-multiple-blue-target-locks-on-the-same-ship/

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/207256-manaroo-question-i-check-qa-none-on-it-yet/

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/204739-manaroo-passing-target-locks/

You can't maintain more than one Target Lock (barring Redline, who isn't going to be flying alongside Manaroo any time soon, or Weapons Engineer), so if you find yourself with two Target Locks, you must immediately discard one of them. Which one is up to you.

You can't maintain more than one Target Lock (barring Redline, who isn't going to be flying alongside Manaroo any time soon, or Weapons Engineer), so if you find yourself with two Target Locks, you must immediately discard one of them. Which one is up to you.

That's incorrect:

If Manaroo passes you her target lock, you have to remove your old target lock and take the new one.

You can't maintain more than one Target Lock (barring Redline, who isn't going to be flying alongside Manaroo any time soon, or Weapons Engineer), so if you find yourself with two Target Locks, you must immediately discard one of them. Which one is up to you.

That's incorrect:

If Manaroo passes you her target lock, you have to remove your old target lock and take the new one.

Acquiring a Target Lock and being assigned a blue Target Lock token are not the same thing.

You can't maintain more than one Target Lock (barring Redline, who isn't going to be flying alongside Manaroo any time soon, or Weapons Engineer), so if you find yourself with two Target Locks, you must immediately discard one of them. Which one is up to you.

That's incorrect:

If Manaroo passes you her target lock, you have to remove your old target lock and take the new one.

Acquiring a Target Lock and being assigned a blue Target Lock token are not the same thing.

It still doesn't change the fact that a ship can maintain one target lock.

You can't maintain more than one Target Lock (barring Redline, who isn't going to be flying alongside Manaroo any time soon, or Weapons Engineer), so if you find yourself with two Target Locks, you must immediately discard one of them. Which one is up to you.

That's incorrect:

If Manaroo passes you her target lock, you have to remove your old target lock and take the new one.

Acquiring a Target Lock and being assigned a blue Target Lock token are not the same thing.

It still doesn't change the fact that a ship can maintain one target lock.

If I had to rule on this in a tournament, and adhere strictly to the letter of that rule, I would say that Manaroo is not passing the acquisition ability, but assigning a target lock token, so as such it would now fall to the ship with the two locks to choose which one to keep. The ship has not acquired a new lock.

If I had to rule on this in a tournament, and adhere strictly to the letter of that rule, I would say that Manaroo is not passing the acquisition ability, but assigning a target lock token, so as such it would now fall to the ship with the two locks to choose which one to keep. The ship has not acquired a new lock.

How is that the letter of that rule? That rule doesn't say anything about having a target lock passed. Now you're just making up rules that directly go against the precedent set by the rule in the book for a very similar situation.

If I had to rule on this in a tournament, and adhere strictly to the letter of that rule, I would say that Manaroo is not passing the acquisition ability, but assigning a target lock token, so as such it would now fall to the ship with the two locks to choose which one to keep. The ship has not acquired a new lock.

How is that the letter of that rule? That rule doesn't say anything about having a target lock passed. Now you're just making up rules that directly go against the precedent set by the rule in the book for a very similar situation.

The letter of the rule is: "If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock."

Acquiring a target lock and assigning a token are similar but considered to be different under the rules. And a player could argue that he did not acquire the target lock, but was assigned the token, and he'd be quite correct. So does the rule apply that requires the old target lock to be removed? Or does he now have the choice? Because he must still remove one of them.

Technically, he didn't acquire it, so I would deem the old one to be able to remain if he so chooses, which brings us back to the main part of the rule, which is: "A ship can maintain one target lock", so one must go.

I honestly see this as the fairest way to adjudicate it if the situation arose. But I'd be happy to defer to FFG.

I honestly see this as the fairest way to adjudicate it if the situation arose. But I'd be happy to defer to FFG.

I've emailed FFG support, so we should know by Christmas!

I honestly see this as the fairest way to adjudicate it if the situation arose. But I'd be happy to defer to FFG.

I've emailed FFG support, so we should know by Christmas!

At North American Championship (Gen Con), the judges ruled that a ship with a pre-existing Target Lock must accept the new Target Lock from Manaroo and discard the pre-existing Target Lock. Rules-lawyering about "acquiring" vs "assigning" is officially irrelevant.

At North American Championship (Gen Con), the judges ruled that a ship with a pre-existing Target Lock must accept the new Target Lock from Manaroo and discard the pre-existing Target Lock. Rules-lawyering about "acquiring" vs "assigning" is officially irrelevant.

Not irrelevant until there's a ruling made on it by FFG. Rulings made by judges at a tournament aren't really precedents. They are the opinion of someone that is in a position that required them to make a quick decision.

If there is a ruling that assigning is the same as acquiring, Jendon and TIE/v1s are getting a nice little buff.

I don't think they will rule that acquiring is the same thing as assigning. But they may say they have the same effect when there is Blue Lock conflict...

Right now, yes a judge must improvise... because you may rule that assigning follow the same rule or you can decide that it is not the same. This is a clear example where the ambiguity is not base on loose interpretation of "reading the card as I see fit"

There is no rule for what to do with "assigning".

How would you handle a Decimator with Weapons Engineer and Moff Jerjerrod equipped. The ship has two target locks that and gets dealt a face-up card. The player with the Decimator chooses to kick the Weapons Engineer out of the airlock to flip down the crit. The ship can no longer maintain two target locks. Which one is discarded?

This is the same situation from a rules perspective as Manaroo passing a target lock to a ship that all ready has one.

How would you handle a Decimator with Weapons Engineer and Moff Jerjerrod equipped. The ship has two target locks that and gets dealt a face-up card. The player with the Decimator chooses to kick the Weapons Engineer out of the airlock to flip down the crit. The ship can no longer maintain two target locks. Which one is discarded?

This is the same situation from a rules perspective as Manaroo passing a target lock to a ship that all ready has one.

no it's not. there's a clear indication with Manaroo of which one is new and which one is old and a clear rules precedent on what happens when you get a new one and have an old one.

How would you handle a Decimator with Weapons Engineer and Moff Jerjerrod equipped. The ship has two target locks that and gets dealt a face-up card. The player with the Decimator chooses to kick the Weapons Engineer out of the airlock to flip down the crit. The ship can no longer maintain two target locks. Which one is discarded?

This is the same situation from a rules perspective as Manaroo passing a target lock to a ship that all ready has one.

no it's not. there's a clear indication with Manaroo of which one is new and which one is old and a clear rules precedent on what happens when you get a new one and have an old one.

There's not a clear ruling. There's a clear ruling on what happens when you acquire a target lock when you already are maintaining one but there isn't a ruling on what happens if you end up with more target locks than you can legally maintain, which is what is happening with both Manaroo and in the example I described.

I honestly see this as the fairest way to adjudicate it if the situation arose. But I'd be happy to defer to FFG.

I've emailed FFG support, so we should know by Christmas!

I know we're still a few months away from Christmas, but have you had an official word back at all?

There's a difference between being assigned a target lock (Manaroo) and acquiring a target lock (ie. Thread Chasers). The ship being "assigned" the Target Lock does not have to meet the range restrictions cited in the FAQ (page 18 top of right hand coloumn) for ACQUIRING a Target Lock.

I think just quoting the last sentence under the "ACQUIRE A TARGET LOCK" section is a little misleading. The section as a whole refers to the action of Acquiring a Target Lock. The last paragraph of that section merely clarifies that if I choose to Target Lock another ship, the existing Target Lock I have must be removed. The first sentence of the third paragraph states a ship can maintain only one Target Lock.

In the situation the OP brought up, the ship that receives all the tokens from Manaroo, is not "acquiring" (performing the Target Lock Action) and is not required to remove the previous Target Lock but can only maintain one Target Lock. He has a choice of Target Locks to remove.

In the situation the OP brought up, the ship that receives all the tokens from Manaroo, is not "acquiring" (performing the Target Lock Action)

I think we're all agreed on that.

and is not required to remove the previous Target Lock but can only maintain one Target Lock. He has a choice of Target Locks to remove.

Still no rules justification for this, so just repeating it again doesn't add any weight to the argument.

In the situation the OP brought up, the ship that receives all the tokens from Manaroo, is not "acquiring" (performing the Target Lock Action)

I think we're all agreed on that.

and is not required to remove the previous Target Lock but can only maintain one Target Lock. He has a choice of Target Locks to remove.

Still no rules justification for this, so just repeating it again doesn't add any weight to the argument.

Re-read the entire section on Target Lock Action. The last paragraph states two things.

1) "Each ship can maintain only one target lock".

2) "If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove the previous target lock".

Example:ship A (me) has ship B (you) locked. Ship B moves out of range but ship C (Parravon) moves into range and arc of ship A. Ship A decides that ship C is a better target and Target Locks (performs the Target Lock Action) ship C. Since ship A can only maintain one Target Lock, it must drop (remove) the TL on ship B. But why must I remove the Target Lock on ship B? Two reasons.

1) Ship A can only maintain one Target Lock. (RULE)

2) It makes no sense for ship A to target lock ship C then remove that target lock so it only has one target lock. This is where the last sentence of the rules section applies.

The argument that the ship receiving the TL and tokens from Manaroo must discard an existing Target Lock is based on one sentence taken out of context. Considering all the things a player can do with a Target Lock like: reacquire on the same ship to trigger an effect, just drop it and my favorite, absolutely nothing and then argue that an existing Target Lock must be dropped when receiving the tokens from Manaroo based on one sentence is strange.

In other words:

1) "Each ship can maintain only one target lock".
2) "If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove the previous target lock".

BUT

If a ship obtains a new target lock (through any other means, i.e. Manaroo), it must remove a target lock (to comply to the 1st part of the rule).

It is like Condition -> Action -> Result: If a ship acquire -> remove previous -> maintain one / ship get [not acquire] -> remove one -> maintain one).

The argument that the ship receiving the TL and tokens from Manaroo must discard an existing Target Lock is based on one sentence taken out of context.

The argument that you get to choose is, as far as I've seen in this thread, based on no sentences taken from the rules at all.

The argument that the ship receiving the TL and tokens from Manaroo must discard an existing Target Lock is based on one sentence taken out of context.

The argument that you get to choose is, as far as I've seen in this thread, based on no sentences taken from the rules at all.

It's the argument that you DON'T get to choose that's based on the last sentence in the section on Acquire a Target Lock that's being used. That's what I was trying to get across in my example. The rule basically says if you have a Target Lock on a ship and Target Lock another ship you must remove the previous Target Lock. That last sentence is being used to argue that if you receive a TL from Manaroo and already have a TL then you MUST remove the TL you have originally.

That last sentence is being used to argue that if you receive a TL from Manaroo and already have a TL then you MUST remove the TL you have originally.

And no sentences at all are being used to argue that if you receive a TL from Manaroo and already have a TL then you CAN CHOOSE the TL to remove.