great discussion! thank you, gentlepeople. (no, i didn't assume your gender) 😉

ok, i don't believe transferring a lock token constitutes acquiring a lock. it is one ship removing a lock token and one ship gaining a lock token.

this still needs clarification. up until it's clarified, both sides of the argument have valid points.

i'm still going with my interpretation of RAI and disallowing a ship having a lock on itself.

that being said, i'd be totally fine with a judge ruling it the other way. in casual games, i would ask a dice to be rolled to settle the matter and accept the outcome no questions asked.

1 minute ago, meffo said:

ok, i don't believe transferring a lock token constitutes acquiring a lock. it is one ship removing a lock token and one ship gaining a lock token.

FWIW, I don't think it does either. I just think that the way this will be ruled is as not working, regardless.

I guess it just comes down to "I think you can't do it." I think "can't acquire locks on yourself" is enough, and there isn't a necessity for Holdo/M9-G8 in order to uphold logical consistency (no-self is different from range restrictions).

7 hours ago, nitrobenz said:

Bad technical writing is also bad for X-wing

Sure. But it's also true that it exists, so we have a choice. We can break it more, demanding that FFG respond, knowing FFG has never been timely or thorough in their replies and rules revisions. Or we can fix it ourselves. I mean, I think that's kind what's already going on in pretty much all rules interpretations anyhow, so I don't have too much of a problem with being more honest about it.

The FAQ interaction for Kagi and R3 says to discard a lock if it isn't legal ( teo on the same ship, in this case). Seems like it should be the same here?