So, my question with this relates specifically to this line on R3

"Each lock must be on a different target"

Question is, does this prevent Kagi from taking both of the target locks from a ship with R3? I'm not sure if this only applies when selecting targets or if R3 constantly checks and would stop Kagi from pulling both locks.

First off, please add the "Second Edition" rules heading to this thread, so we know what you're referring to (I spent a minute or two researching those cards in First Edition before realizing your question made no sense ).

Second, including the relevant game text, or (even better) the card images lets us answer the question a lot faster.

• CAPTAIN KAGI : At the start of the Engagement Phase, you may choose 1 or more friendly ships at range 0-3. If you do, transfer all enemy lock tokens from the friendly ship to you.
• R3 ASTROMECH : You can maintain up to 2 locks. Each lock must be on a different object. After you perform a Target Lock action, you may acquire a lock.

--------

Now that that's out of the way, the way I see it, there are three questions:

1. Can R3 Astromech maintain two locks on the same ship? The answer here is clearly no: R3 Astromech does not allow you to maintain a lock on one ship, twice.
2. Can Kagi take two locks that belong to the same ship? To me, the answer seems to be yes. There's nothing that prevents him from taking the lock; they were acquired legally, and his ability allows him to take them. But that raises the main question here:
3. If Kagi has two locks from the same ship on him, in violation of R3's game text, what happens? By my reasoning, Kagi would cause one of the two locks to break. He could legally take the lock, but R3 would not be allowed to maintain two locks on the same ship. Therefore, one of the two locks would fizzle, leaving Kagi with R3's single lock.

But that's just my reasoning.

I'd agree with that. Kagi sucks in all the TLs, and slims down to one-per-ship, unless the other ship is Redline (who's similar to but different from R3 Astromech).

3 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

First off, please add the "Second Edition" rules heading to this thread, so we know what you're referring to (I spent a minute or two researching those cards in First Edition before realizing your question made no sense ).

Second, including the relevant game text, or (even better) the card images lets us answer the question a lot faster.

• CAPTAIN KAGI : At the start of the Engagement Phase, you may choose 1 or more friendly ships at range 0-3. If you do, transfer all enemy lock tokens from the friendly ship to you.
• R3 ASTROMECH : You can maintain up to 2 locks. Each lock must be on a different object.  After you perform a Target Lock action, you may acquire a lock.

--------

Now that that's out of the way, the way I see it, there are three questions:

1. Can R3 Astromech maintain two locks on the same ship? The answer here is clearly no: R3 Astromech does not allow you to maintain a lock on one ship, twice.
2. Can Kagi take two locks that belong to the same ship? To me, the answer seems to be yes. There's nothing that prevents him from taking the lock; they were acquired legally, and his ability allows him to take them. But that raises the main question here:
3. If Kagi has two locks from the same ship on him, in violation of R3's game text, what happens? By my reasoning, Kagi would cause one of the two locks to break. He could legally take the lock, but R3 would not be allowed to maintain two locks on the same ship. Therefore, one of the two locks would fizzle, leaving Kagi with R3's single lock.

But that's just my reasoning.

My only problem with this interpretation is that I can't figure out why Kagi's ability is overriding the droid's and allowing 2 target locks from it's ship to be on the same object. I can't see any reason why Kagi takes precendence, overrides the droids rule about having target locks on the same object, but then also permits the rule to take effect and remove 1 of them. For example, you said "There's nothing that prevents him from taking the lock", but there definitely is "Each lock must be on a different object.".

12 hours ago, MasterShake2 said:

My only problem with this interpretation is that I can't figure out why Kagi's ability is overriding the droid's and allowing 2 target locks from it's ship to be on the same object. I can't see any reason why Kagi takes precendence, overrides the droids rule about having target locks on the same object, but then also permits the rule to take effect and remove 1 of them. For example, you said "There's nothing that prevents him from taking the lock", but there definitely is "Each lock must be on a different object.".

Kagi's ability doesn't interact with the droid's ability at all. Kagi does what Kagi does, which is move the locks. It's up to the droid to realize that the new configuration is illegal and do something about it. The droid would have to be worded differently if it were going to prevent its ships locks from being moved around.

22 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

Kagi's ability doesn't interact with the droid's ability at all. Kagi does what Kagi does, which is move the locks. It's up to the droid to realize that the new configuration is illegal and do something about it. The droid would have to be worded differently if it were going to prevent its ships locks from being moved around.

Kagis ability definitely interacts with that Droid. The Droid says the locks must be on different targets and Kagi is trying to put both of them on the same target.

My question is, why would the sequence of events be:

1. Kagi creates illegal game state

2. Droid resolves game state

vs.

1. Kagi tries to create illegal game state, but is prevented by the Droid.

21 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

Kagi's ability doesn't interact with the droid's ability at all. Kagi does what Kagi does, which is move the locks. It's up to the droid to realize that the new configuration is illegal and do something about it. The droid would have to be worded differently if it were going to prevent its ships locks from being moved around.

Pretty much this. As he is not the one maintaining them, Kagi doesn't care about the source of said locks; he just takes them from allies. R3, however, is quite clear; he can maintain two locks, but they need to be on different objects. Once Kagi has both locks, R3 is in violation, and one of the locks has to drop.

If, instead, R3 was worded, " You can maintain up to 2 locks. Each lock must  be acquired on a different object...  " the double-locked Lambda would be legal, because then R3 would only look at the placement of the locks today, and not any target token trading technicalities tomorrow.

2 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Kagis ability definitely interacts with that Droid. The Droid says the locks must be on different targets and Kagi is trying to put both of them on the same target.

My question is, why would the sequence of events be:

1. Kagi creates illegal game state
2. Droid resolves game state 

vs. 

1. Kagi tries to create illegal game state, but is prevented by the Droid. 

Because Kagi isn't creating an illegal game state by being locked twice. R3 is creating an illegal game state by locking the same ship twice.

24 minutes ago, emeraldbeacon said:

Because Kagi isn't creating an illegal game state by being locked twice. R3 is creating an illegal game state by locking the same ship twice.

Why is Kagi not creating an Illegal game state? He's doing something that another card on the table calls out as not being possible.

7 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

Why is Kagi not creating an Illegal game state? He's doing something that another card on the table calls out as not being possible.

It's like saying, "It's illegal to have more than 2 grapefruit. Mike gives Joe a grapefruit. Kelly gives Joe a grapefruit. Steve gives Joe a grapefruit." Neither Mike, Kelly, nor Steve are in the wrong here... but Joe is, because he has more than 2 grapefruit, which is against the letter of the law.

The same way, Kagi can be locked more than once. It's perfectly fine and permitted within the game rules. BUT, the R3 Astromech (not the game rules, but that specific card) does not allow the ship to have the same object locked twice... so R3 Astromech is the one that has to make things right.

1 minute ago, emeraldbeacon said:

It's like saying, "It's illegal to have more than 2 grapefruit. Mike gives Joe a grapefruit. Kelly gives Joe a grapefruit. Steve gives Joe a grapefruit." Neither Mike, Kelly, nor Steve are in the wrong here... but Joe is, because he has more than 2 grapefruit, which is against the letter of the law.

The same way, Kagi can be locked more than once. It's perfectly fine and permitted within the game rules. BUT, the R3 Astromech (not the game rules, but that specific card) does not allow the ship to have the same object locked twice... so R3 Astromech is the one that has to make things right.

Eh, if this is the consensus, then I'll go with it until an FAQ drops, but I'm still really not seeing why an optional ability would take precedence over a mandatory ability and allow an illegal game state that has to corrected later. I feel it would set a bad precedence for future interactions over simply having the illegal game state never occur.

R3 isn't making it illegal to have two locks on a target.

What R3 is doing is making it legal to have two locks in the first place, but with the stipulation that they must be on different things.

Kagi isn't violating a global restriction put in place by R3. Kagi is changing the game state in a way that results in R3's ability turning off. That's why it's up to R3 to clean up after Kagi, not up to Kagi to respect R3's boundaries.

We could probably still stand to have an @OfficialRules clarification on this, but I don't see a problem with that interpretation.

Yup s33ms straightforward to me. Kagi hoovers all the locks, one of R3's then falls off because it is no longer legal.

41 minutes ago, digitalbusker said:

Kagi isn't violating a global restriction put in place by R3.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement because I see " Each lock must be on a different target" and it meets all the criteria of a global restriction (or at least a global restiction for R3's ship)

1. It's not optional. There is no decision point for the player.

2. It's not conditional. There are no circumstances provided for it not working.

3. It's not triggered or activated. It doesn't turn off or on, it is always in effect.

In short, R3 doesn't allow any way for multiple target locks from it's ship to be on the same target at all and appears to constantly be checking this in the same fashion as any other global effect which would preclude any ship, not just the one he's on, from changing that.

The trick lies in realizing that R3 Astromech creates an exception to the global rule, which is "a ship can only maintain one lock". A local rule, if you will. That exception comes with the caveat, "must be on different ships." Because R3 Astromech created that exception (two locks instead of one), it is solely responsible for keeping that condition in effect, by obeying the local rule (by keeping those locks on different ships). Kagi, on the other hand, is not violating any global rules by sucking up all the Locks... but he creates a violation within R3 Astromech's local rule. Because that local rule affects only R3 Astromech's ship, only R3 is responsible for obeying and cleaning up after that rule.

Here's an X-Wing analogy. I dial in a 4-K-Turn. My opponent drops a rigged cargo chute on me before I activate, dealing me a stress token. That creates an "illegal" dial situation, where I reveal a red maneuver while stressed. Following your argument, because I was not stressed when I placed the dial, but was stressed when I revealed it, dropping cargo on me creates a violation of the rules, therefore it can't be allowed. This isn't the case, though... instead, I'm required to forfeit my 4-K, and instead perform a 2-straight, while remaining stressed.

1 hour ago, emeraldbeacon said:

The trick lies in realizing that R3 Astromech creates an exception to the global rule, which is "a ship can only maintain one lock". A local rule, if you will. That exception comes with the caveat, "must be on different ships." Because R3 Astromech created that exception (two locks instead of one), it is solely responsible for keeping that condition in effect, by obeying the local rule (by keeping those locks on different ships). Kagi, on the other hand, is not violating any global rules by sucking up all the Locks... but he creates a violation within R3 Astromech's local rule. Because that local rule affects only R3 Astromech's ship, only R3 is responsible for obeying and cleaning up after that rule.

Here's an X-Wing analogy. I dial in a 4-K-Turn. My opponent drops a rigged cargo chute on me before I activate, dealing me a stress token. That creates an "illegal" dial situation, where I reveal a red maneuver while stressed. Following your argument, because I was not stressed when I placed the dial, but was stressed when I revealed it, dropping cargo on me creates a violation of the rules, therefore it can't be allowed. This isn't the case, though... instead, I'm required to forfeit my 4-K, and instead perform a 2-straight, while remaining stressed.

Faulty analogy, dialing in a red maneuver while stressed is covered by the rules and also not illegal, a player can do it and a specific things happens when they do.

Meh, I'll go with the consensus but this is a really weird way to look at. R3's ability is in effect at every point in this process, but Kagi is allowed to do something R3 specifically says cannot happen, then R3 has to clean up after him? Call it a minority report that I think this is an incorrect way to resolve these rules.

1 hour ago, MasterShake2 said:

I think this is the crux of the disagreement because I see " Each lock must be on a different target" and it meets all the criteria of a global restriction (or at least a global restiction for R3's ship)

1. It's not optional. There is no decision point for the player.

2. It's not conditional. There are no circumstances provided for it not working.

3. It's not triggered or activated. It doesn't turn off or on, it is always in effect.

In short, R3 doesn't allow any way for multiple target locks from it's ship to be on the same target at all and appears to constantly be checking this in the same fashion as any other global effect which would preclude any ship, not just the one he's on, from changing that.

Kagi says *all* locks, however. In effect, for your argument to work Kagi's all doesn't mean all, and that won't fly with me. I just don't find that a convincing argument, and it seems like most folks here also agree that Kagi's all means all, and R3 is a little hosed.

Throughout 1e, when a ship's target locks are made illegal (stuff like Manaroo, for example) target locks are discarded until they're legal. I don't see why 2e should be different.

But that's like, one ship. Against the other 99 ships or such in the game, R3 is fine. Or if Kagi isn't close enough to all the friendly ships who are locked.

//

Off to the side: I just noticed something in the 2e Target Lock rules. You don't declare the target right away, you instead measure to any number of objects, then can choose one to acquire a lock on. The action only fails if you don't chose an object. So if you really want to lock Ship F, but it turns out to be beyond range 3, you can still get a target lock on Ship C if it is within range. A nice quality of life change to balance the fact that if both ships--F and C--are out of range, and you don't want to lock an asteroid (most ships don't), you've lost your action. The fact that you can decline to chose an object to lock is also of relevance to Composure (I think that's the name, right?).