Well, not really needed to FAQ, since the Rules Reference already reads: "If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock" ("Acquire a Target Lock", page 3). But if a specific call out is needed for Manaroo, sure.

I don't think that text applies because the ship receiving the tokens is not "acquiring a new lock." I can totally see this going either way and I think I would have gone the other way.

Well the new target lock is "assigned" no acquired, as such, that part of the rules does not apply.

So the answer from Frank Brooks does not apply? The official response from the FFG Rules team is just an opinion? I'm glad I don't game with you guys.

This sound less of an issue with FFG's FAQ and more of the players and judge not being familiar enough with the Rules and the FAQ. I find most of the people in my group who have trouble with these interactions have never read the FAQ when I question them. Which is really annoying because it's almost always me who gets asked to pause their game and make a ruling.

When a new FAQ comes out, I print them out and bring it with me for players such as these. I know it doesn't help with the Manny question, but it should. There isn't a reason as to why these sort of things can't be in the FAQ.

Yeah, printing it out is a smart idea. I guess I'm just stingy with my printer ink, lol.

As for the FAQ, there's got to be a line drawn with how much you add to it. As it stands, it's only a couple pages less than the rules reference. If you add every possible confusing interaction it's just going to blow up, and in this case, there's no need because the rules ref already has everything you need:

Manaroo

"At the start of the Combat phase, you may assign all focus, evade, and target lock tokens assigned to you to another friendly ship."

Rules Reference

p3

A ship can maintain one target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock.

p10

• If an ability instructs a player to assign an evade token to a ship, this is different than performing an evade action. The ship is assigned the token without performing an action and may still perform the evade action this round.

p11

• If a card ability instructs a player to assign a focus token to a ship, this is different than performing a focus action. The ship is assigned the token without performing an action and may still perform the focus action this round.

FAQ

p4

a ssigning a t oken to y our s hip

When an ability instructs you to assign a token to your ship, this is different than performing a free action that provides the same token. For example, Kyle Katarn’s (pilot) ability allows you to “assign 1 of your focus tokens to another friendly ship at range 1–3.” A ship that has a focus or evade token assigned to it can still perform that action during the round.

Well, not really needed to FAQ, since the Rules Reference already reads: "If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock" ("Acquire a Target Lock", page 3). But if a specific call out is needed for Manaroo, sure.

I don't think that text applies because the ship receiving the tokens is not "acquiring a new lock." I can totally see this going either way and I think I would have gone the other way.

Well the new target lock is "assigned" no acquired, as such, that part of the rules does not apply.

So the answer from Frank Brooks does not apply? The official response from the FFG Rules team is just an opinion? I'm glad I don't game with you guys.

The problem is that Frank Brook's didn't say that to them- All they have is "Some Dude on the Internet's" word that Brooks said as much. I don't mean to suggest that LouisCypher is lying of course, but unfortunately there are unscrupulous people who would do such a thing. Hence why some people don't consider people citing those e-mails to be valid proof. My argument would be to look at the reasoning provided in the e-mail, which seems pretty unambiguous here, but then again, I leaned toward the OP's position to begin with.

...there's no need because the rules ref already has everything you need:

Manaroo

"At the start of the Combat phase, you may assign all focus, evade, and target lock tokens assigned to you to another friendly ship."

Rules Reference

p3

A ship can maintain one target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock.

FAQ

p4

assigning a token to your ship

When an ability instructs you to assign a token to your ship, this is different than performing a free action that provides the same token. For example, Kyle Katarn’s (pilot) ability allows you to “assign 1 of your focus tokens to another friendly ship at range 1–3.” A ship that has a focus or evade token assigned to it can still perform that action during the round.

And what is your personal conclusion, from the quoted text above, in relation to whether the receiving ship must replace it's blue TL with the one from Manaroo?

"-- you may assign ALL -- Tokens--"

" A ship can maintain ONE target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock."

If you choose to use Manaroo's ability, you must assign all focus, evade, and Target Lock tokens to the other ship. A ship can only maintain one target lock, if it's assigned another one it removes the old old one. I really don't see how this is even the slightest bit confusing.

"-- you may assign ALL -- Tokens--"

" A ship can maintain ONE target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock."

If you choose to use Manaroo's ability, you must assign all focus, evade, and Target Lock tokens to the other ship. A ship can only maintain one target lock, if it's assigned another one it removes the old old one. I really don't see how this is even the slightest bit confusing.

It's confusing because it's not the answer he wants to hear?

While I love all the crazy combos the game allows for now, sometimes I miss the days when the most confusing rule was that you can spend a focus token during an attack without rolling any (eye) results, or that performing a focus action and being assigned a focus token were two entirely different things.

... I really don't see how this is even the slightest bit confusing.

Oh - I agree - that's how I've been playing it.

It's confusing because it's not the answer he wants to hear?

If this is directed at me, then that's not the case - in my first response I stated that's how I believed it worked (and should work for balance as well).

The problem is FFG codifies certain words, and when those words are used in layman's terms, people start second guessing whether the codified or generic usage applies.

Well the new target lock is "assigned" no acquired, as such, that part of the rules does not apply.

assigned and acquired mean the same thing.

When you're assigned a target lock token, you've acquired a target lock.

Question, in the instance of colonel jendon passing a target lock to redline.

Does redline get the extra target lock from his ability? Or just the one that he was passed?

It's confusing because it's not the answer he wants to hear?

If this is directed at me, then that's not the case - in my first response I stated that's how I believed it worked (and should work for balance as well).

The problem is FFG codifies certain words, and when those words are used in layman's terms, people start second guessing whether the codified or generic usage applies.

Exactly, FFG has an very specific meanings for several words, and the confusion over card text is frequently due to players not using or knowing those specific definitions.

I see it a lot with ships and templates overlapping obstacles and other ships. You know those types that say "my ship flew over the asteroid" rather than "my template overlapped the asteroid" are also those inclined to think you can execute a maneuver, landing off the playmat, then boost of barrel roll back on, and think the it's ok because their final position is on the mat.

I've been trying to correct their usage of ffg's terminology, I hate being so pedantic, but seriously, learn the rules and stop wasting other people's time.

It's confusing because it's not the answer he wants to hear?

If this is directed at me, then that's not the case - in my first response I stated that's how I believed it worked (and should work for balance as well).

The problem is FFG codifies certain words, and when those words are used in layman's terms, people start second guessing whether the codified or generic usage applies.

Exactly, FFG has an very specific meanings for several words, and the confusion over card text is frequently due to players not using or knowing those specific definitions.

I see it a lot with ships and templates overlapping obstacles and other ships. You know those types that say "my ship flew over the asteroid" rather than "my template overlapped the asteroid" are also those inclined to think you can execute a maneuver, landing off the playmat, then boost of barrel roll back on, and think the it's ok because their final position is on the mat.

I've been trying to correct their usage of ffg's terminology, I hate being so pedantic, but seriously, learn the rules and stop wasting other people's time.

Rules Ref; p. 3:

Ships with the [TL] icon in their action bar may perform the Acquire A Target Lock Action to acquire a target lock on an enemy ship at Range 1–3.

Jendon :

At the start of the Combat phase, you may A ssign 1 of your blue target lock tokens to a friendly ship at Range 1 if it does not have a blue target lock token.

Jendon :

You may maintain 2 target locks on the same ship. When you acquire a target lock , you may acquire a second lock on that ship.

No, Redline never acquired a Target Lock, he's assigned the blue token after Jendon acquires the TL.

Also notice that if Redline already has a blue TL token assigned to him, Jendon can't assign a new one to him.

but seriously, learn the rules and stop wasting other people's time.

I sometimes wish we could say that to the Fantasy Flight play testers/technical writers.

but seriously, learn the rules and stop wasting other people's time.

I sometimes wish we could say that to the Fantasy Flight play testers/technical writers.

I don't follow. Are you referring to the people that write the news articles making mistakes like in that K-wing preview?

"-- you may assign ALL -- Tokens--"

" A ship can maintain ONE target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock."

If you choose to use Manaroo's ability, you must assign all focus, evade, and Target Lock tokens to the other ship. A ship can only maintain one target lock, if it's assigned another one it removes the old old one. I really don't see how this is even the slightest bit confusing.

It is problematic because your quotes do not include the same verb. Manaroo assigns a blue token, The rules reference says when you acquire a new lock you must discard the old. As the Redline example shows, these are not identical processes. The rules reference should read "If a ship acquires or is assigned a new target lock..."

You can argue about whether the intent is clear or not but a clarification was required.

I'm glad that the ruling went the way it did but it should be communicated more widely in a more verifiable manner.

but seriously, learn the rules and stop wasting other people's time.

I sometimes wish we could say that to the Fantasy Flight play testers/technical writers.

I don't follow. Are you referring to the people that write the news articles making mistakes like in that K-wing preview?

It was a snarky comment about the preview writers, and the flaky, sometimes bad wording for cards and rules.

"-- you may assign ALL -- Tokens--"

" A ship can maintain ONE target lock. If a ship acquires a new target lock, it must remove its old target lock."

If you choose to use Manaroo's ability, you must assign all focus, evade, and Target Lock tokens to the other ship. A ship can only maintain one target lock, if it's assigned another one it removes the old old one. I really don't see how this is even the slightest bit confusing.

It is problematic because your quotes do not include the same verb. Manaroo assigns a blue token, The rules reference says when you acquire a new lock you must discard the old. As the Redline example shows, these are not identical processes. The rules reference should read "If a ship acquires or is assigned a new target lock..."

You can argue about whether the intent is clear or not but a clarification was required.

I'm glad that the ruling went the way it did but it should be communicated more widely in a more verifiable manner.

Then don't look at the snipped version where I'm emphasizing those elements, look at the full version I posted earlier.

Also "When a target lock is acquired, assign the blue target lock token to the ship performing the action (the locking ship), and assign the red target lock token on the target (the locked ship)."

So assigning a TL is nested within the Acquire A Target Lock action.

I don't know, it's early and I'm not seeing what you're seeing. To me the interaction is plainly clear. I'm more concerned about the FAQ turning into a 40k codex over the course of the next year or two.

Well I agree. But some judges don't. This is where the disconnect is.

I agree too, and i don't see how this could be interpreted otherwise than giving a ship ALL your Focus and TL's. Since Manaroo says exactly that! And unless your ship can have more than 1TL, the other one is lost!

Well I agree. But some judges don't. This is where the disconnect is.

I agree too, and i don't see how this could be interpreted otherwise than giving a ship ALL your Focus and TL's. Since Manaroo says exactly that! And unless your ship can have more than 1TL, the other one is lost!

If I was a card writer, I would have thought the two main triggers for Manaroo's were crystal clear.

MAY

ALL

There isn't a need for clarification, unless you are a rules lawyer who needs a circumstance to go a certain way. That judge needs to be taken back to the salt mines for reeducation. It still baffles me that the player was allowed to choose what tokens to keep when its black and white in her ability what must happen.

Right or wrong, I can see the argument for allowing the choice. Personally I think it's pretty clear that you don't get the choice. Now put me in a loud room and give me a fraction of a second to come up with an answer with no specific FAQ entry, hopefully I'd come up with that. No reason to come down on the judge for this. I'm glad we've come to a place where our judge complaints are about vague or arguable rules and not pairing issues like the old days, before the empire...