This question refers to the interaction of Shara Bey and R5-K6. Shara Bey's text reads, "When another friendly ship at range 1-2 is attacking, it may treat YOUR [emphasis mine] blue target lock tockens as its own."

R5-K6 says, "After spending your target lock, roll one defense die."

For the purposes of R5-K6, does Shara still own the target lock when another ship spends it?

Argument for: Shara's ability specifies that the locks are still Shara's, it's just someone else spending it. Also, R5-K6 doesn't say "After you spend your target lock", it just says "after spending". It doesn't specify that the owning ship has to spend it; that would read, "After you spend your target lock".

Argument against: when you're basing your argument off of a wording distinction that the designers could not have foreseen when making the card, you're going to trigger some BS sensors.

Thoughts?

"After spending your target lock" is not the same, in English, as "After someone spends your target lock". I say no.

I would say "ownership" of the target lock belongs to the ship that eventually spends it. As soon as another ship uses Shara's target lock, she has no further interactions with it.

Most of the abilities I can recall follow the "condition, then effect" format. This is the same. The condition is your spending a target lock. The effect is rolling a defense die.

You can rearrange the sentence to move the prepositional phrase to the end, and it becomes clearer. "Roll one defense die after spending a target lock." The implied subject, as in pretty much all imperatives, is "you."

I would say "ownership" of the target lock belongs to the ship that eventually spends it. As soon as another ship uses Shara's target lock, she has no further interactions with it.

I'd agree.

Which raises the question, if the ship that spend's Shara's lock is equipped with R5-K6, do they get to roll to reacquire the lock?

I would say "ownership" of the target lock belongs to the ship that eventually spends it. As soon as another ship uses Shara's target lock, she has no further interactions with it.

I'd agree.

Which raises the question, if the ship that spend's Shara's lock is equipped with R5-K6, do they get to roll to reacquire the lock?

Yes, because the ship that is spending her token is instructed to treat it as their own.

It's still "her" TL, but card says "when YOU" spend TL

But it's the other dude who spends it.

So nope, Droid will re-create TLs only when it's YOU (ship that owns the droid) spend your (belonging to the ship with droid) TL

It's still "her" TL, but card says "when YOU" spend TL

But it's the other dude who spends it.

So nope, Droid will re-create TLs only when it's YOU (ship that owns the droid) spend your (belonging to the ship with droid) TL

But the ship with the droid treats the TL from Shara as belonging to it when it spends it.

Same as the ruling that lets Poe count as owning Esege's focus token if he's in range, for the purposes of his ability.

Thanks for answering my question without me asking folks!

Knew it was worth looking first.

I would say "ownership" of the target lock belongs to the ship that eventually spends it. As soon as another ship uses Shara's target lock, she has no further interactions with it.

im leaning for this.

Further going if the ship that "borrowed" the TL has R5-K6 then THEY roll to reacquire, since they "treat the targetlock as their own" - which has some interesting but someone...pointless interactions lol

It's still "her" TL, but card says "when YOU" spend TL

But it's the other dude who spends it.

So nope, Droid will re-create TLs only when it's YOU (ship that owns the droid) spend your (belonging to the ship with droid) TL

But the ship with the droid treats the TL from Shara as belonging to it when it spends it.

Same as the ruling that lets Poe count as owning Esege's focus token if he's in range, for the purposes of his ability.

Still it's hers. You can treat it as yours, but as long as blue TL is lying next to her it's owned by Shara.

Manaroo makes TLs "your" TLs. Shara lets you pretend they're yours.

It's still "her" TL, but card says "when YOU" spend TL

But it's the other dude who spends it.

So nope, Droid will re-create TLs only when it's YOU (ship that owns the droid) spend your (belonging to the ship with droid) TL

But the ship with the droid treats the TL from Shara as belonging to it when it spends it.

Same as the ruling that lets Poe count as owning Esege's focus token if he's in range, for the purposes of his ability.

Still it's hers. You can treat it as yours, but as long as blue TL is lying next to her it's owned by Shara.

Manaroo makes TLs "your" TLs. Shara lets you pretend they're yours.

And whilst you're pretending they're yours, they're yours for the purposes of any game element that refers to things being yours.

Please stop giving wrong answers to questions that have already had right ones.

It's still "her" TL, but card says "when YOU" spend TL

But it's the other dude who spends it.

So nope, Droid will re-create TLs only when it's YOU (ship that owns the droid) spend your (belonging to the ship with droid) TL

But the ship with the droid treats the TL from Shara as belonging to it when it spends it.

Same as the ruling that lets Poe count as owning Esege's focus token if he's in range, for the purposes of his ability.

Still it's hers. You can treat it as yours, but as long as blue TL is lying next to her it's owned by Shara.

Manaroo makes TLs "your" TLs. Shara lets you pretend they're yours.

And whilst you're pretending they're yours, they're yours for the purposes of any game element that refers to things being yours.

Please stop giving wrong answers to questions that have already had right ones.

As long as there's no FAQ entry or e-mail answer, it's a shady mechanic we can but speculate upon.

basic rules say "it's yours when assigned to you" and I see no implication it's otherwise.

Waiting for the Devs.

There is precedent from a pilot in existence already whose rules phrasing is exactly the same. That's why it's perfectly clear, and even if it wasn't the phrasing of the rules is unambiguous.

I'm happy to wait for an FAQ on it, but it really doesn't need one.

There's no speculation at all. It's pretty clear and only a shady player would try and read something else into it.

"After spending your target lock" is not the same, in English, as "After someone spends your target lock". I say no.

To be fair, it's also not the same as "After you spend your target lock", either.

"After spending your target lock" is not the same, in English, as "After someone spends your target lock". I say no.

To be fair, it's also not the same as "After you spend your target lock", either.

Yes, but the definition of "spend" always applies to the active ship.

"After spending your target lock" is not the same, in English, as "After someone spends your target lock". I say no.

To be fair, it's also not the same as "After you spend your target lock", either.

It's heavily implied that the subject of the sentence is the one the gerund phrase applies to. "After eating your dinner, you may have some dessert." - that doesn't mean after anyone else eats your dinner as well.

There are some situations where it could be a bit ambiguous: "After finishing your homework, your friends can come over to play." However, I don't see this as one of those cases.

So dutch can spend shara's target lock, roll R5K6 for it, and if it works, reaquire a target lock for dutch who can then trigger a target lock for shara?

So dutch can spend shara's target lock, roll R5K6 for it, and if it works, reaquire a target lock for dutch who can then trigger a target lock for shara?

That's how I see it working. [Opportunistic] synergy at its finest.