The only way Manaroo would destroy a red targetlock is if she passes it to a ship that already has a red targetlock from the same ship via Weapons Engineer. As Weapons Engineer states it cant be the same ship, one goes away as they are now on the same 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.

I could be wrong but I was under the impression they changed it to "perform a free barrel roll action." not because there was confusion in doing the barrel roll but because originally people put it on someone like Vader and performed the card action then performed the barrel roll action to do 2 barrel rolls. They changed it because once it was a free barrel roll action you could no longer do the barrel roll action again.

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".

Less ridiculous than all fix for x topics. ;-)

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.

Does a literal reading actually support that last part, though?

Manaroo assigns the lock, removing its blue partner. Arguably the rules are recursive; the removal of the red triggers the clause about removing the partner token, removing the partner token triggers the clause again and removes the red token a "second" time and now nothing is on the board. But even if that's so, what's the timing window? Is the red removed and then assigned? Does the removal recursion trigger only once the token has been assigned, so it's destroyed? Does it trigger after it's removed but before it's assigned? Does the player with initiative decide the order of operations?

If we're going this deep into the weeds, what's the firm textual argument that confirms the red does not stay on the table?

I don't understand why anyone would think the target lock would be removed, when Manaroo's card specifically says to assign a target lock to another ship. The rules also state cards override basic rules. If you had to remove both lock tokens, or only keep one, the ability would be completely useless.

It's quite useful if a red target lock on Manaroo is destroyed.

The rules are not completely clear when cards override rules. For example, if I fly a stressed ship next to Lando (pilot), Lando cannot grant the stressed ship the ability to take an action. Lando's ability does not override the stress rules.

In this case, I think Manaroo's card text does override the Rules Reference, but it's a hunch based on how I think the rules should work.

The difference between Lando and Manaroo, is Lando says "Choose a ship at range one". Then the "may" comes in reference to a free action, which is used with many cards and specifically mentioned in the rules. With Manaroo, the "may" comes before the "assign all....". While the rules give exception to destroying target locks only to assigning blue ones, the Manaroo cards specifically says to assign all tokens. With Lando, the only guarantee is choosing a ship at range one. Once that guarantee is over, the may comes in and the rules take effect.

This topic isn't dead yet?

This topic isn't dead yet?

Not until we get an official ruling. Why would you think it would die before the problem was resolved?

Because this agrument is absolutely ridiculous. Just do what the card says and stop trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Not entertaining any other comments from this.

Because this agrument is absolutely ridiculous. Just do what the card says and stop trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Not entertaining any other comments from this.

As more effects triggered on 'removing a token from a ship' will certainly occur in the game, I think an official definition of what constitutes 'removing' is needed.

Manaroo vs. Rules Reference is a technicality (I have yet to see anyone arguing Manaroo should destroy red TLs, we're arguing for rules clarity). 4LOM vs. Inspiring Recruit is an actual in-game issue, and one thst IMO is likely to be repeated in the future.

Isn't there a rules sub forum? Or are we awaiting a ruling on what a rule is so we know what to post in the rules sub forum?

two relevant passages from literally the first page of the RRG:

and

This topic isn't dead yet?

Not until we get an official ruling. Why would you think it would die before the problem was resolved?

It's only a problem if you've the reading comprehension of a potato. It's quite clear what Manaroo does with red locks (hint: it's not removing them from play).

As someone surprised this thread has legs at all I can see most people are simply wanting wording tightening / clarifying to prevent rules lawyering at an event etc. I was o e of the people agreeing R3A2 probably should be faq'd after the timing chart came out after all.

I can get that and of course have no issue with it getting a FAQ if deemed necessary by fff.

Easily changed by FAQ'ing the passage in the rules reference to say when removed from play instead of from a ship.

However.. I have a Sneaky suspicion that least a couple of posters actually think that removing is how it should be played despite it being played the same way since release at every event I've seen matches from. I find d this ti be rather odd thinking.