Ok, so I have been watching and learning from from the plethora of streamed matches. There are a few things that baffle me though, such as locking a target.

I see many players placing a target lock on a rock usually within the first round or two of play. It is as if they are target locking the closest thing just for the sake of doing it.

Can someone please explain why a player would target lock a rock or debris field, particularly at round one or two so far from the enemy formation?

They don’t actually care about the lock they just want a reason to put a range ruler on the map and measure distance to plan their next maneuver.

Technically speaking, the lock action only fails if there is no eligible target within range. Many players will simply opt not to place the token if said token will be meaningless.

Players who run with or against Republic Chopper astromech (I forget the designation) will often place their pointless locks on obstacles, in order to have a safe target to jam off should they get stuck with a jam token.

Quick background, in case you're unfamiliar with what happened with Target Locks in 1.0 and what is now the Lock action in 2.0:

In 1.0, players would declare a Target Lock action to measure range to opponents' ships as a way of gaining extra information. The lock failed, but players still got the info.

Fast forward to 2.0. Target Locks have become the Lock action, but FFG has built in a new set of rules that require a Lock to be placed on any object within range, after all measurements are taken. Thus, players who use this action still have to take a lock, even if it's not on any opponent's ship. There are benefits to doing this; for example, Qi'ra ( a Scum crew), allows you to ignore the effects of an obstacle that you have locked. It also allows players to have a lock in play for later use - you can reacquire Locks that are already in play.

Jam protection is usually my primary reason for it. If a lower initiative pilot jams my ship, it will remove a useless lock instead of sticking around until I take my action.

Also, if I don't have any more effective actions then it's a bit of a why not situation.

Also, some more history:

There was a vague Lock Action rule bullet point that allowed for abuse of the Composure Talent early on. It was something to the effect of “if no object is CHOSEN then the lock fails”.

FFG closed this by stating you MUST lock an object if one is eligible. Which was a silly way to fix it.... 🙄 forcing silly locks. They should have just stated “if there is an eligible target which you choose not to lock it does not count as failing.”

So some lock sardonically, waving the passive aggressive fist at our FFG overlords. But that takes me way back.... 😂 😂

8 hours ago, JBFancourt said:

They should have just stated “if there is an eligible target which you choose not to lock it does not count as failing.”

Then what does it count as? The problem with that wording, is i can see it still triggering other effects and be just as abusive. Its just mechanically easier to say it fails or force you to lock a rock (which will happen 95% of the time) and give a 'cost' for that range information than to try to complexly word it so it doesnt count as failing or performing.