So R5-K6 says:

After spending a target lock roll 1 def die, on an (evade) result, gain your target lock back.

and Shara Bey says:

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

EDIT (for clarification):

Assuming that Shara has R5-K6 equipped:(/EDIT)


So when another friendly ship uses Shara's target lock does R5-K6 enact?

If on that ship, yes. If on Shara's no.

Would be my interpretation, but others will disagree. It needs FAQing once the wave comes out.

Only if R5-K6 is on the other ship spending the target lock.

If another ship spends the lock, then Shara didn't spend it, did she?

well it is Shara's target lock and it doesnt say she needs to spend it, only that it needs to be spent.

'After spending' and 'after you spend' are functionally identical ('you' is the subject of both sentences), and as ever, it's really irriating that FFG chose the former as their standard wording despite the latter being only a space longer.

'After spending' and 'after you spend' are functionally identical ('you' is the subject of both sentences), and as ever, it's really irriating that FFG chose the former as their standard wording despite the latter being only a space longer.

is it though? As this is a pedantic exercise now it seems that "after spending" could mean after a blue target lock is spent (by literally anyone), and "after you spend" means after a specific pilot spends a token. the wording is very much more unclear than you make it out to be.

Is there a precedent for "after spending" to also mean "after you spend"?

No "after spending" cannot be changed to "after it is spend". The first include the you in the english language. And in X-Wing "you" is always the current ship. You cannot just decide to ignore language rule to suit your hope about a card.

'After spending' and 'after you spend' are functionally identical ('you' is the subject of both sentences), and as ever, it's really irriating that FFG chose the former as their standard wording despite the latter being only a space longer.

is it though? As this is a pedantic exercise now it seems that "after spending" could mean after a blue target lock is spent (by literally anyone), and "after you spend" means after a specific pilot spends a token. the wording is very much more unclear than you make it out to be.

Is there a precedent for "after spending" to also mean "after you spend"?

The english language is the precedent, not to mention every other instance of it on every other card that structure appears on in x-wing, for instance Captain Oicunn, who only works when HE executes a manoeuvre, to name the first one that comes to mind offhand.

You can be as pedantic as you want, but unless you intend to read the card in a way that is counter to the way the language works without any justification for that in the rules, it won't work the way you want it to.

But still, an FAQ is almost certain.

'After spending' and 'after you spend' are functionally identical ('you' is the subject of both sentences), and as ever, it's really irriating that FFG chose the former as their standard wording despite the latter being only a space longer.

is it though? As this is a pedantic exercise now it seems that "after spending" could mean after a blue target lock is spent (by literally anyone), and "after you spend" means after a specific pilot spends a token. the wording is very much more unclear than you make it out to be.

Is there a precedent for "after spending" to also mean "after you spend"?

The english language is the precedent, not to mention every other instance of it on every other card that structure appears on in x-wing, for instance Captain Oicunn, who only works when HE executes a manoeuvre, to name the first one that comes to mind offhand.

You can be as pedantic as you want, but unless you intend to read the card in a way that is counter to the way the language works without any justification for that in the rules, it won't work the way you want it to.

But still, an FAQ is almost certain.

Wow. The english language is a precident, stop being ridiculous. The only analogue right now to Shara Bey's ability is Esege. And unfortunately there is no interaction in Xwing at the moment that esege can utilize after spending a focus token.

The precedent on that basis would be Garven being able to pass on Esege's focus token after spending it, which is perfectly good precedent, and/or Poe counting as owning it, ditto..

But there's a lot about the game that breaks if you assume this construction means that other people can benefit from it other than the ship equipping the upgrade or pilot ability. Not least Oicunn, who could be read as 'enemy ships who bump you take a damage' or even 'after any ship executes a manoeuvre all ships touching you take a damage'.

But as noted several times just on this specific issue, it's self-evident that we're never going to agree, so maybe we could just leave it for now and wait for the FAQ. It probably won't be much more than a month or so.

Shara Bey

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

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.

On a <evade> result, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack.

I'd allow R5 to trigger. The "another friendly" is treating the TL token like its own, not taking ownership of it. So to me, the token still belongs to Shara, just that it can be, potentially, used by another ship. She still owns it, so by that, I'd think that the spending of the TL triggers the Astromech.

Others will disagree. Let's continue to discuss.

Shara Bey

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

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.

On a <evade> result, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack.

I'd allow R5 to trigger. The "another friendly" is treating the TL token like its own, not taking ownership of it. So to me, the token still belongs to Shara, just that it can be, potentially, used by another ship. She still owns it, so by that, I'd think that the spending of the TL triggers the Astromech.

Others will disagree. Let's continue to discuss.

Let's not. There really is nothing to discuss, there is a difference of opinion that won't be resolved without official input.

Shara Bey

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

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.

On a <evade> result, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack.

I'd allow R5 to trigger. The "another friendly" is treating the TL token like its own, not taking ownership of it. So to me, the token still belongs to Shara, just that it can be, potentially, used by another ship. She still owns it, so by that, I'd think that the spending of the TL triggers the Astromech.

Others will disagree. Let's continue to discuss.

Let's not. There really is nothing to discuss, there is a difference of opinion that won't be resolved without official input.

Wow. Kind of kills a huge point of a forum if no one wants to discuss things.

Two things have to be true for Shara to be able to trigger R5-K6 on an ally's expenditure of her Target Lock.

One: the Target Lock has to still be Shara's, even though another ship is "treating it" as their own.

Two: "After spending your Target Lock" has to be equivalent to "After your Target Lock gets spent, we don't know how or who spent it, but everybody's saying it's been spent, you can look that up--I don't know who spent it, you tell me..."

Point one I think is doubtful. My default assumption is that ownership is a singular condition, and that at any given time a Target Lock has one and only one owner. But we don't really have a precedent to test this, as far as I know, so I could easily be wrong about that.

Point two is where I stop. "After spending your Target Lock, do this" is equivalent to "After you spend your Target Lock, you do this". It's not equivalent to "After somebody else spends your Target Lock, you do this". Of course that could be ruled the other way too, and if it is, we have a precedent. But until then....

i dont know of a single card or ability that doesnt specifically mention "other ships" that can trigger from another ship. Even if they dont say "you" if they dont say "other/another ship" its still YOU that is the clause for the ability/upgrade.

Shara did not spend the targetlock, so no astromech for her. However it does work the other way around: if the guy that took her TL has said astromech, "you have spent a targetlock" so he can trigger it and reacquire one for himself, while Shara will be TL-less.

Shara says others may treat the TL as their own. That means if you chose to use her ability, the TL is technically NOT assigned to her to begin with before its even spent, as it belongs to the other person.

Shara Bey

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

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.

On a <evade> result, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack.

I'd allow R5 to trigger. The "another friendly" is treating the TL token like its own, not taking ownership of it. So to me, the token still belongs to Shara, just that it can be, potentially, used by another ship. She still owns it, so by that, I'd think that the spending of the TL triggers the Astromech.

Others will disagree. Let's continue to discuss.

Let's not. There really is nothing to discuss, there is a difference of opinion that won't be resolved without official input.

Wow. Kind of kills a huge point of a forum if no one wants to discuss things.

It's a rules Q&A forum. When there's no clear A, and no-one's going to budge from their strongly held opinion what's the point of arguing for another three pages?

Shara Bey

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

R5-K6

After spending your target lock, roll 1 defense die.

On a <evade> result, immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship. You cannot spend this target lock during this attack.

I'd allow R5 to trigger. The "another friendly" is treating the TL token like its own, not taking ownership of it. So to me, the token still belongs to Shara, just that it can be, potentially, used by another ship. She still owns it, so by that, I'd think that the spending of the TL triggers the Astromech.

Others will disagree. Let's continue to discuss.

Let's not. There really is nothing to discuss, there is a difference of opinion that won't be resolved without official input.

Wow. Kind of kills a huge point of a forum if no one wants to discuss things.

It's a rules Q&A forum. When there's no clear A, and no-one's going to budge from their strongly held opinion what's the point of arguing for another three pages?

you are free to leave whenever you want. Its not your thread.

It's a rules Q&A forum. When there's no clear A, and no-one's going to budge from their strongly held opinion what's the point of arguing for another three pages?

That's the point of reasonable discourse. To approach a discussion with an open mind, allow others to offer their opinion, and adapt your opinion as new and persuasive arguments arise. Or, be entirely irrational and cling to the original set belief and be unable to every admit any kind of position change as though it's some kind of personal weakness. Or something like that.

So either be reasonable and be part of the discussion, or be unreasonable and be apart from the discussion.

Point one I think is doubtful. My default assumption is that ownership is a singular condition, and that at any given time a Target Lock has one and only one owner. But we don't really have a precedent to test this, as far as I know, so I could easily be wrong about that.

Except that Shara Bey say textually on the card that it is their own. "it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its >>>>>>>>>own<<<<<<<<<."

So they are the OWNER when they choose to use it. People really ask for FAQ just to argue. There is absoluty nothing not clear about this card. And we even have a precedent with Eseg versus Poe where Poe can use his pilot ability if Eseg is in range and have a token. So past this point people just argue for the fun of trolling...

Edit: And we also have Eseg versus Overclocked R4. If someone with Overclocked R4 spend the token from Eseg it will trigger its Overclocked R4.

Two things have to be true for Shara to be able to trigger R5-K6 on an ally's expenditure of her Target Lock.

One: the Target Lock has to still be Shara's, even though another ship is "treating it" as their own.

Two: "After spending your Target Lock" has to be equivalent to "After your Target Lock gets spent, we don't know how or who spent it, but everybody's saying it's been spent, you can look that up--I don't know who spent it, you tell me..."

Point one I think is doubtful. My default assumption is that ownership is a singular condition, and that at any given time a Target Lock has one and only one owner. But we don't really have a precedent to test this, as far as I know, so I could easily be wrong about that.

Point two is where I stop. "After spending your Target Lock, do this" is equivalent to "After you spend your Target Lock, you do this". It's not equivalent to "After somebody else spends your Target Lock, you do this". Of course that could be ruled the other way too, and if it is, we have a precedent. But until then....

I agree point one is possible. It's the whole considering how "treat" (as a word that's introduced but - as yet - unknown how to manage it) should be handled. To me, it suggests that the ownership stays with Shara.

Which leads to point two. I think it could be looked at in a nested structure with the TL being spent, regardless of who spent it.

Other Ship: Treat Shara's TL as theirs and spends it, thus creating a "Spend" event on the TL

>>Shara: "Your" (meaning her> TL has been spent, thus triggering the astromech. The sticking point, I agree, is the question of ownership of the spend event.

Of course, all of this gets avoided if everyone other than Shara just uses Homing Missiles and doesn't actually spend the TL...

Point one I think is doubtful. My default assumption is that ownership is a singular condition, and that at any given time a Target Lock has one and only one owner. But we don't really have a precedent to test this, as far as I know, so I could easily be wrong about that.

Except that Shara Bey say textually on the card that it is their own. "it may treat your blue target lock tokens as its >>>>>>>>>own<<<<<<<<<."

So they are the OWNER when they choose to use it. People really ask for FAQ just to argue. There is absoluty nothing not clear about this card. And we even have a precedent with Eseg versus Poe where Poe can use his pilot ability if Eseg is in range and have a token. So past this point people just argue for the fun of trolling...

Or we just like logic puzzles and attempting to reason things out, in a fun and spirited manner. You know.. fun and stuff.

So R5-K6 says:

After spending a target lock roll 1 def die, on an (evade) result, gain your target lock back.

and Shara Bey says:

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

EDIT (for clarification):

Assuming that Shara has R5-K6 equipped:(/EDIT)

So when another friendly ship uses Shara's target lock does R5-K6 enact?

Something that seems to have kicked this argument into high gear, is actually an incorrect quote:

"So R5-K6 says:

After spending a target lock roll 1 def die, on an (evade) result, gain your target lock back. "

When the card actually says:

"After spending your target lock..."

We all know that "you" or "your" indicates the active ship, and the only way I can see this working is when the active ship (with R5-K6 equipped) spends the target lock, regardless of where that ship got the target lock. Shara allows another ship to spend the target lock, so she's not the active ship spending the target lock when that happens.

If it was going to work when another ship spent the lock, it would state that. But considering this is a Wave 1 upgrade, and no one back then were treating other ship's tokens as their own, it wasn't written like that. It's wrtten with the basic assumption that the active ship is spending the target lock, hence the word "your" in the text.

The only basis for any kind of argument otherwise would be if a player considered "you" or "your" to mean the player and not the active ship.

Look up Spend in the RRG. This clearly states you can not spend tokens assigned to other ships unless an effect allows this. Sara is one such effect. More importantly this clearly states that the ship still owns the component but you are spending it.

R5-K6 is clearly worded so that it triggers only for the ship spending the TL. So it will not trigger if Shara has it it will trigger if the other ship that spent the token has is.

More importantly this clearly states that the ship still owns the component but you are spending it.

Funny how people make up rule by stating false reference to try to prove their point.

No where in the Spend rule is it clear that it still own it.

More importantly this clearly states that the ship still owns the component but you are spending it.

Funny how people make up rule by stating false reference to try to prove their point.

No where in the Spend rule is it clear that it still own it.

SPEND

When a ship spends a token or other component,

that component is removed from the ship and

returned to the supply. A ship cannot spend a

component that is assigned to another ship unless an

effect specifies otherwise.

Related Topics: Card Abilities

In fact no where in the rule do they define owner of token or effect. The only reference is about player owning something.

And like I stated in bold previously, Shara even state that they own her token when using it.

or it means that you can treat it as your own, and have it not be your own. Like if I loaned you my TV and said, treat this as your own, you could do stuff with it, but it still belongs to me.