If you have a red target lock A on ship 1, and decide to aquire a lock on ship 2,when you remove A from ship 1 to place it on ship 2,the target lock isn't destroyed.

100% incorrect. According to the rules reference:

'A target lock consists of a red target lock token and a blue target lock token displaying the same letter.

[...]

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

Per the rules when you acquire a target lock on ship B you must discard your target lock on ship A completely (red and blue token). You might be simply moving the red token physically,but rules wise it's a brand new target lock altogether.

There is absolutely no reason to attack LordBlades. He is not trying to rules-lawyer for an advantage. What he is doing here is absolutely healthy and necessary for the community. These sorts of discussions help the rules to become clearer through subsequent FAQs. If this discussion were taking place in the rules forum where it belongs, half of you folks wouldn't even be here and wouldn't realize that this sort of discussion takes place all the time there. If you can't handle the hypothetical nature of this discussion, then just leave, because "you're being a rules lawyer!" is not a valid solution to the rules questions at hand.

It is far better for us to have this discussion civilly on the FFG forums where there is no pressure for a quick decision to be made than it is to assume nobody will rule it the way you think is ridiculous. Sure, we all think everyone knows how it work, but if this discussion leads to a line in the FAQ that makes it 100% clear, then this situation can be stopped if it ever does come up in a tournament setting. Plus, LordBlades makes a fantastic point that not all games take place with a TO present, so we need an official word from FFG to close all the possible loops in the rules.

I'd say these kinds of questions about things no-one but the OP is unclear about are the reason the FAQ is so big already.

More coffee needed.

So the claim is that RAW say assigning is the same as removing, therefore the blue gets removed. If we accept this hilarious claim, then our contortions also require us to note that we're not instructed to remove the red lock from play; the only mention the rules make of it is in manaroo's card text, which instructs us to assign it elsewhere.

So our position is that manaroo's friend can be assigned a limitless number of red locks that can never be spent, because RAW, and that this is something that requires clarification.

I mean, okay. Have fun with that.

Guys guys, I found a way for Manaroo to destroy a TL!!!

A Shuttle with Weapons Engineer TLs Dengar and Manaroo, Manaroo passes (but since WE prohibits two TLs on the same ship) then the TL that was on Manaroo is destroyed.

I did it!!

So the claim is that RAW say assigning is the same as removing, therefore the blue gets removed.

No, the claim is that when reassigning one of Manaroo's tokens, it has to be "removed from the ship". The rules then go on to say that if you put a blue target lock token on another ship, you don't lose the TL. But what was omitted was that this should also hold true for red target lock tokens. Probably because when this rule was written, Manaroo wasn't considered.

I can't think of any effect that reassigns red TL tokens that was around before the Rules Reference was published, by the way. Were there any?

It's adding to the ridiculousness of this entire discussion. The fact you need every word and nuance defined when it is stated on said card that the tokens are assigned from Manaroo.

You are blowing everyone's minds with this stupidity.

I'm not contesting that tokens are assigned and fir the record I think the RAI is that Manaroo shouldn't destroy red target locks

I'm simply wondering if tokens assigned to another ship count as removed from the source ship or not.

The rules however, state that the red TL token is destroyed when it is removed "from the ship". It doesn't matter that it is not removed from play. All that is required is that it is removed from Manaroo, i.e. "the ship".

Removed is a gamestate just like touching. You can touch a ship just fine without touching either. But if you overlap THAN you game state is touching and all the rules attached to touching apply. In this case the token is not removed, which means removed from the play area, but it is assigned.

This is the whole point. The token is not being removed from play it is being assigned by Manaroo to another ship she decides. Red TL's are removed when a player spends them for a reroll. Ask for a clarification all you like, but needing one might indicate that this game is a bit advanced for you.

It's adding to the ridiculousness of this entire discussion. The fact you need every word and nuance defined when it is stated on said card that the tokens are assigned from Manaroo.

You are blowing everyone's minds with this stupidity.

I'm not contesting that tokens are assigned and fir the record I think the RAI is that Manaroo shouldn't destroy red target locks

I'm simply wondering if tokens assigned to another ship count as removed from the source ship or not.

The rules however, state that the red TL token is destroyed when it is removed "from the ship". It doesn't matter that it is not removed from play. All that is required is that it is removed from Manaroo, i.e. "the ship".

Removed is a gamestate just like touching. You can touch a ship just fine without touching either. But if you overlap THAN you game state is touching and all the rules attached to touching apply. In this case the token is not removed, which means removed from the play area, but it is assigned.

This is the whole point. The token is not being removed from play it is being assigned by Manaroo to another ship she decides. Red TL's are removed when a player spends them for a reroll. Ask for a clarification all you like, but needing one might indicate that this game is a bit advanced for you.

I really want this to be true, but the text refers to removal relative to the ship. So all that is needed is that the token is removed from Manaroo, and RAW you've met the requirement. If you can find a formal definition of removing a token that falsifies this, then give it, because that's what we're all looking for here.

However, because a proviso was made for blue target locks - they're explicitly not destroyed if you assign them to another ship - I don't think such a definition exists. Removing from a ship entails nothing more than taking the token from the ship. It doesn't matter if that token is then put on another ship, I suspect. Many have said that formally 'removing' means something else, but the actual quotes from the rules to underpin this have been lacking.

Taking a token from ship A and putting it on ship B means that it is removed from ship A. I don't see any way to circumvent this in the rules as they are written now. So I'm not really asking for a clarification, because it's actually quite clear. If the text just said 'removed' without any 'from' then I'd probably go with your interpretation.

And again: I'd like that to be true. Otherwise, there seems to be a discrepancy between the obvious way to play this and the RAW. This leads to a rather dry discussion about the exact way something is phrased in the rules. So that's what we should be looking at.

Wow this thread is still going?

Seriously any grey area is removed by the fact that card rules over rule the game rules. This is explicitly stated. Therefore Manaroo supercedes the bit in the rule reference about removing the matching token.

The rule reference saying one thing is literally irrelevant if a pilot or upgrade card says otherwise. Manaroo uses the word assign which we have a clear definition and uerstanding of as far as rules go.

Let it go. Life's to short!

It's adding to the ridiculousness of this entire discussion. The fact you need every word and nuance defined when it is stated on said card that the tokens are assigned from Manaroo.

You are blowing everyone's minds with this stupidity.

I'm not contesting that tokens are assigned and fir the record I think the RAI is that Manaroo shouldn't destroy red target locks

I'm simply wondering if tokens assigned to another ship count as removed from the source ship or not.

The rules however, state that the red TL token is destroyed when it is removed "from the ship". It doesn't matter that it is not removed from play. All that is required is that it is removed from Manaroo, i.e. "the ship".

Removed is a gamestate just like touching. You can touch a ship just fine without touching either. But if you overlap THAN you game state is touching and all the rules attached to touching apply. In this case the token is not removed, which means removed from the play area, but it is assigned.

This is the whole point. The token is not being removed from play it is being assigned by Manaroo to another ship she decides. Red TL's are removed when a player spends them for a reroll. Ask for a clarification all you like, but needing one might indicate that this game is a bit advanced for you.

I really want this to be true, but the text refers to removal relative to the ship. So all that is needed is that the token is removed from Manaroo, and RAW you've met the requirement. If you can find a formal definition of removing a token that falsifies this, then give it, because that's what we're all looking for here.

However, because a proviso was made for blue target locks - they're explicitly not destroyed if you assign them to another ship - I don't think such a definition exists. Removing from a ship entails nothing more than taking the token from the ship. It doesn't matter if that token is then put on another ship, I suspect. Many have said that formally 'removing' means something else, but the actual quotes from the rules to underpin this have been lacking.

Taking a token from ship A and putting it on ship B means that it is removed from ship A. I don't see any way to circumvent this in the rules as they are written now. So I'm not really asking for a clarification, because it's actually quite clear. If the text just said 'removed' without any 'from' then I'd probably go with your interpretation.

And again: I'd like that to be true. Otherwise, there seems to be a discrepancy between the obvious way to play this and the RAW. This leads to a rather dry discussion about the exact way something is phrased in the rules. So that's what we should be looking at.

You can make the same claim about touching, as it never defined clearly as game state, but it is handled that way at worlds. So practise in ruling by FFG stuff does support the game state definition even when FFG never bothered the actually write it in the rules. FFG is notorious for writing bad rules anyway, so I am afraid you have to accept this, Feel free to call them out on it via rules questions, but keeping the discussion going on will just lead to circles, as it never gots a better definition. And btw,Colonel Jendon assigns his tokens too, plenty of other examples there I am sure. His ability does not make any sense the red token would be destroyed.

And btw,Colonel Jendon assigns his tokens too, plenty of other examples there I am sure. His ability does not make any sense the red token would be destroyed.

Jendon assigns blue target lock tokens, and the rule reference addresses this apecifically: the matching red token is not destroyed if the removed blue token is assigned to another ship.

It's adding to the ridiculousness of this entire discussion. The fact you need every word and nuance defined when it is stated on said card that the tokens are assigned from Manaroo.

You are blowing everyone's minds with this stupidity.

I'm not contesting that tokens are assigned and fir the record I think the RAI is that Manaroo shouldn't destroy red target locks

I'm simply wondering if tokens assigned to another ship count as removed from the source ship or not.

If they don't, then what's the point of the clarification in brackets on the rules reference ? (The matching token is lost unless you are assigning the removed blue target lock to another ship).

I honestly fail to see how asking for an answer from FFG on this issue is doing a disservice to anyone.

First of all: this topic and that lawyering brought rules lawyering to whole another level. I still cant believe it, geeez.

Second of all: its has been stated by some official source not long ago that physical tokens are irrelevant. The could not even be there and none has the right to insist they should - they are there to keep the game easy to read and so you don't have to remember every action you did. So target lock is just an abstract thing in our minds - the token is just a reminder.

Abstract TL is assigned to another ship - you may stick that token where the light does not shine if you like now. The lock was not removed in any way just by removing token.

So now what were you saying about removing the locks again?

PS. that official response was regarding focusing swarm - "do i have to put focus tokens one by one or may i batch them" response was that the tokens are irrelevant - focus happens when you declare it without a token.

And btw,Colonel Jendon assigns his tokens too, plenty of other examples there I am sure. His ability does not make any sense the red token would be destroyed.

Jendon assigns blue target lock tokens, and the rule reference addresses this apecifically: the matching red token is not destroyed if the removed blue token is assigned to another ship.

The rules explicitly state that card rules overwrite general rules. Manaroo says to assign the target lock to another ship, ergo, it is not destroyed.

The rules explicitly state that card rules overwrite general rules. Manaroo says to assign the target lock to another ship, ergo, it is not destroyed.

That really should be the end of it right there.

This whole thing reminds me of the r3a2 thread on the rules forum a bit ago. It looks to me that the OP is likely correct RAW. Interestingly I don't recall seeing anyone who agrees with the original post suggesting the game should be played that way. Unfortunately rather than discussing the interesting point raised and pushing FFG for clearer and tighter rules most have turned to name calling and vitriol and that's a little sad.

The rules explicitly state that card rules overwrite general rules. Manaroo says to assign the target lock to another ship, ergo, it is not destroyed.

That really should be the end of it right there.

The rules explicitly state that card rules overwrite general rules. Manaroo says to assign the target lock to another ship, ergo, it is not destroyed.

The question at the root of this is "When one ship assigns one of their tokens to a second ship, does that token count as being removed from the first ship?". I don't believe that it does but there is nothing in the rules that clearly backs my opinion up.

If the token does count as being removed then by the rules, when Manaroo passes a blue token, the target lock would stay in play as the rules have an allowance for that but when she passes a red target lock, the blue target lock would be removed from the ship that it is on which would cause the red token that as just assigned by Manaroo to also be removed.

In as much as we can guess the intent of Manaroo's ability, it seems that the bit in the rules about "unless the blue

This whole thing reminds me of the r3a2 thread on the rules forum a bit ago...

...which is really the ONLY reason why this topic isn't a shoe in for "Most Ridiculous Topic Of The Year".

This whole thing reminds me of the r3a2 thread on the rules forum a bit ago...

...which is really the ONLY reason why this topic isn't a shoe in for "Most Ridiculous Topic Of The Year".

I mean I find discussions on strange rules cases less ridiculous than things like that one thread about how interceptors and xwings should all fly the same and focus firing is unfair.

It just always strikes me funny that in the debate between "interpretation that makes the game fun and is consistent with other rulings" and "interpretation that makes it less fun and goes against everything else we've seen," people still want to vehemently argue in favor of the second point because, well, you COULD read it that way....

Removed is a gamestate just like touching. You can touch a ship just fine without touching either. But if you overlap THAN you game state is touching and all the rules attached to touching apply. In this case the token is not removed, which means removed from the play area, but it is assigned.

Exactly.

The problem with expecting absolutely perfect fool-proof rules is that players actually train themselves to stop using common sense. And since it's impossible to have perfect rules, something like this -- incredibly obvious, but not a perfect rules -- makes brains explode.

And then the response, instead of being, "Oh, right, of course that makes sense and is the way it works," is, "Well, just make the rules perfect."

And the cycle perpetuates itself.

"Touching" though, has been defined in a very clear manner. The difference with "removed" is obvious - it has no such definition. If I take a stress token from 4-LOM and put it on another ship, have I just removed a stress token from 4-LOM? If the answer is 'yes' then there's a *formal* problem with removing red TL tokens from Manaroo. Not an *actual* problem, I think, because we know how to play.

But then again, I said the same thing about Slam & Bomb.

I enjoy how the "common sense" position in this argument is that removing a token from a ship isn't "removing a token from a ship".

The rules explicitly state that card rules overwrite general rules. Manaroo says to assign the target lock to another ship, ergo, it is not destroyed.

No, actually. Cards have to specifically state that they overwrite general rules in order for you to invoke that rule. Manaroo still does reassign the red target lock, but since the red got removed in the process, the blue one disappears, so when the red one gets assigned, there is no corresponding blue one, and it is therefore destroyed. Manaroo would have to state that the blue lock is not removed when the red lock assigned in order for it to overwrite the general rules. It clearly doesn't do this. As an example, look at Expert Handling. It originally said: "Action: Perform a barrel roll." But a barrel roll is an action and the rules clearly stated that you may only perform 1 action. You already used your action to trigger Expert Handling, so you can't perform the barrel roll it tells you to perform. You may say that the card rule is overwriting the general rules and letting you perform 2 actions during your turn, but then why did the rules mention these things called free actions? Are those superfluous? But FFG did change Expert Handling to say "perform a free barrel roll action." The fact that they did change it shows that they agree that the card was not working as intended. I demonstrates that the card rule did not unambiguously overrule the general rule. The same is true in this situation.

And please, please, PLEASE, people, understand that nobody here is trying argue that this is the way we would should play the game. Nobody here is being rules lawyer. We are just saying that rules as written and rules as intended should match. They currently don't, and therefore the rules need to be changed. I am 100% in favor of accurate rules. If we don't change this rule and just say we all know how to play it, then why should rules receive an errata the next time we disagree on them?

Look at Expert Handling, Lone Wolf, or "Genius". These cards do not work as originally written. The FAQ had to issue an errata to them. Now you may say it was obvious how they were intended to work, so there was no need for errata to be issued for these cards. But let's say we didn't have an erratum issued for Expert Handling. Instead we just said we should play as the rule was intended, because we all knew Expert Handling was supposed to let you perform a barrel roll, even though the rules didn't allow it as written. So then we get a card like Gunner, which basically says that if you perform an attack that doesn't hit, you MUST perform a second attack. It never said "must," but it didn't say "may," either. So you just assume nobody would ever not want to attack a second time, so it's fine. And if somebody chose not to take the second attack, who cares? No harm done. But then there is Rebel Captive. Suddenly you have a situation where one player wants very much to not take the second attack and the other really wants the second attack to happen. In other words, one player wants the card to read "may immediately perform a primary weapon attack," and the other player wants the card to read "must immediately perform a primary weapon attack." The original card read "immediately perform a primary weapon attack," implying there was no choice. Clarification had to be made one way or the other, and FFG did. "But that one actually mattered, unlike Expert Handling, Lone Wolf, or "Genius"," you might say. But who is to say what does and does not matter? Imagine a local group where one player is "that guy" that tries to rules-lawyer everything. He would then deny you the barrel roll action from Expert Handling, or the rerolls from Lone Wolf, or tell you that you can't use "Genius" to drop that bomb before you reveal your maneuver. This person legitimately thinks they are right while everyone else thinks they're a jerk, but the truth is, they are right, because that's how the rules are written. As much as everyone else thinks that person is a jerk, they're the ones actually following the rules, because rules only exist as written. If a rule is intended to work one way, but is written another way, then it isn't even a rule because there is no place we can look to verify it. The FAQ exists as a source to tell us that certain rules as written were incorrect and gives us the proper rules as intended, but gives us those as new written rules, so that we now have actual written rules to reference. This is important for way more than just tournament games. This is how we make sure we all understand how the game is played.

As suggested above, the only thing that needs to change is that the second-to-last bullet on page 3 of the rules reference, under Target Locks say:

"If an effect removes a blue or red target lock