Hi all

I've had a situation in a game lately that wasn't clear rules-wise, maybe you can help.

Three ships were involved: Norra Wexley, Vessery (who had Norra in Arc) and Thane Kyrell (who had M9-G8 and a target lock on Norra, to boost her offense). Thane just moved and can now take an action. This is where we realize that Vessery's ability allows him to get a target lock on Norra once he shoots at her because she already has a red target lock token on her (it doesn't matter that it's from a friendly ship). Now the rebel player obviously wants to get rid of the token. Since you can't just drop the target lock, he wants to aquire a new target lock on Vessery which would cause the TL on Norra to fall off. But Weapons Engineer allows him to maintain two TLs at the same time. Does it still work?

We came to the conclusion that it indeed does work, because the ability of Weapons Engineer is a "may" ability: "You may maintain two target locks" - so the rebel player can choose to ignore this ability.

Now this would also mean that the rebel player could choose to drop one target lock at any given point in the game - also right?

Good question.

I would probably agree that you can drop your current single lock to take a new one on Vessaery, but I'm wary about the ability to drop one of your two locks any time.

I'd ask this to the rules questions form: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/contact/rules/

I see it this way:

When you acuire new TL you have to drop old one. Timing is crucial here - first you aquire new then you need to drop one of those 2 - cause you cannot have 2, fun fact : you can drop the new one.

Now when you have WE that limit raises to 2 locks so:

-locked on Norra from previous turn

-use TL to get new TL

-check TL limit : 2 locks, pass.

-no drop

*May* raise that limit is the key point.

The argument is that Weapons Engineer isn't required to use, it's optional even if you have it equipped.

This is just the first time there's been a relevant reason to WANT not to use it.

*May* raise that limit is the key point.

The argument is that Weapons Engineer isn't required to use, it's optional even if you have it equipped.

This is just the first time there's been a relevant reason to WANT not to use it.

Yes its optional when you have zero target locks. When you already have one and with the way locks are acquired, when you do a target lock "may" does not mean "drop old one" (cause there is nothing forcing you now as you MAY have 2 locks). Optional - but you have to have second option and droping the lock is not an option by itself.

'You may maintain two locks'.

I have two. I choose to turn off the Weapons Engineer. I can now only maintain one.

Is the argument. It's a legitimate question that needs an official ruling to answer it. Hence my suggestion to seek one.

'You may maintain two locks'.

I have two. I choose to turn off the Weapons Engineer. I can now only maintain one.

Is the argument. It's a legitimate question that needs an official ruling to answer it. Hence my suggestion to seek one.

I see your point. Im my language (im not native english, but as far as im concerned in english it works the same way) the way "may" works here suggests that "may" can be used either as option or as a state.

But i totally agree - it needs some confirmation, like when we can switch WE "off" if so.

Let's ask this question: How would Weapons Engineer be worded without using "may" in it?

When I look at it the "may" is allowing you two TLs however I see nothing that makes the entire card optional so the only way to lose a TL would still be done using the normal methods.

It probably is a good question to send in.

Let's ask this question: How would Weapons Engineer be worded without using "may" in it?

Pretty clunky, but clearly not optional.

I thibk this is actually pretty clear. The exact wording is "You MAY maintain two target locks" (emphasis added)

I have one target lock.

I acquire a new target lock on a different ship.

I MAY maintain the old lock to keep 2 active.

I choose not to.

I now have one target lock on the new target.

I thibk this is actually pretty clear. The exact wording is "You MAY maintain two target locks" (emphasis added)

I have one target lock.

I acquire a new target lock on a different ship.

I MAY maintain the old lock to keep 2 active.

I choose not to.

I now have one target lock on the new target.

The problem I see with that is what's keeping a person from just dropping a TL with no reason at all? You have two target locks. Suddenly you decide you don't want one of them so you decide the "may" is no longer going to be used; now you have to lose a TL.

The problem I see with that is what's keeping a person from just dropping a TL with no reason at all? You have two target locks. Suddenly you decide you don't want one of them so you decide the "may" is no longer going to be used; now you have to lose a TL.

Or in the exact scenario the OP presented, would allow him to maintain the lock on Norra until after she shoots, then decides he wants to turn off the MAY on the card, so now has to drop a TL, and drops the one on Norra to deny Vessery's ability. I don't think that was ever intended, but do remember that you are taking cards from different waves, and the game state was different in all of those game states. So these oddball interactions may not have been thought of at the time the cards were being created. I'm glad the OP was able to come to a compromise, but I would think for tournament rules, this one should absolutely be looked at.

We actually have an interesting FAQ precedent for this: there is another ability which uses 'may' passively to allow you to exist in a normally illegal state, which is that of dash pilot. On that FAQ you have the option to turn on or off whether he ignores obstacles but only when you immediately encounter them, ie when trying to boost or barrel roll into a normally illegal position. Due to this I would say you can choose to only maintain a single target lock but you can choose to do so only when you are taking a target lock (the thing which would lead you to ignoring/using your capability to ignore an illegal state).

The other valid interpretation I see is that the first 'may' on that card is meaning 'you are allowed to' so it isn't actually an optional choice it just gives you the ability to hold 2 locks in which case Vessery makes you pay.

We actually have an interesting FAQ precedent for this: there is another ability which uses 'may' passively to allow you to exist in a normally illegal state, which is that of dash pilot. On that FAQ you have the option to turn on or off whether he ignores obstacles but only when you immediately encounter them, ie when trying to boost or barrel roll into a normally illegal position. Due to this I would say you can choose to only maintain a single target lock but you can choose to do so only when you are taking a target lock (the thing which would lead you to ignoring/using your capability to ignore an illegal state).

The other valid interpretation I see is that the first 'may' on that card is meaning 'you are allowed to' so it isn't actually an optional choice it just gives you the ability to hold 2 locks in which case Vessery makes you pay.

So, to take the last point first, in either the rules reference or the FAQ I don't remember for sure which, it explicitly states that any card with the word may in it denotes an optional ability. Unless we are specifically told otherwise I think you have to assume that definition in all cases. If they FAQ it later and change the definitions on this card then fair enough but as of now I don't think we can change it ourselves.

On the first half of your post that is how I would rule it as well. The only time you can manually just remove a target lock is when acquiring a new one under normal rules. Weapons engineer allows you to break the rule of only being able to hold one but says nothing about being able to manipulate your target locks at times other than the normal perform action step or after fire control system is triggered or whatever. So I stand by my earlier post and just add clarification that you can only choose to do that at the time you would normally acquire a target lock.

This is a bit of a weird edge case because I'm pretty sure the only time you would ever want to drop the extra lock without moving it is specifically if you're using that Astromech, with weapons engineer, and playing against Colonel vessery all at the same time. So I wouldn't be surprised if this specific scenario never came up during development.

I would not be opposed to an official ruling but with the rules as written currently I think this is really the way to do it.

We actually have an interesting FAQ precedent for this: there is another ability which uses 'may' passively to allow you to exist in a normally illegal state, which is that of dash pilot. On that FAQ you have the option to turn on or off whether he ignores obstacles but only when you immediately encounter them, ie when trying to boost or barrel roll into a normally illegal position. Due to this I would say you can choose to only maintain a single target lock but you can choose to do so only when you are taking a target lock (the thing which would lead you to ignoring/using your capability to ignore an illegal state).

The other valid interpretation I see is that the first 'may' on that card is meaning 'you are allowed to' so it isn't actually an optional choice it just gives you the ability to hold 2 locks in which case Vessery makes you pay.

It's that "other interpretation" that I see applying here.

The ability of Dash is a one shot thing so you're either using it or you're not but outside of those times it doesn't matter if his ability would be active or not. In the case of Weapons Engineer the ability NEEDS to be on all the time otherwise you'd instantly drop that second target lock anytime you don't say you're keeping it. The game rules say you can only have one so you need permission to break the rule.