If at the start of a match, I lock Holo with say Kylo.

Can Holo pass the lock back to Kylo.

Nope, Rules Reference, Page 13: “A ship cannot acquire or have a lock on itself.”

wouldn't the lock just happen to be broken in that instance? I thought this was what happen with Holdo too?

The lock can be transfered but immediately breaks as per Holdos ruling (p. 32):

„Q: What happens if a ship transfers its own lock to itself (such as by using Admiral Holdo [Crew])?
A: A ship cannot have a lock on itself (see Lock), so that lock breaks.“

I'm 99% sure, @Singulativ has it right... Holo can pass the lock TOKEN from Kylo back to Kylo himself, but since a ship cannot have a lock on itself, the lock would instantly be broken (and the lock token removed).

That said, there is still some debate over whether or not a lock TOKEN is something that Holo can pass. There are a couple different beliefs:

• Some people claim that, since the lock itself belongs to the ship that initially acquired the lock in the first place, so too does the lock token belong to the locking (not the locked ) ship.
• Others (like myself) believe that the lock belongs to the ship that acquired the lock, but the token that represents the lock is considered to "belong" to the targeted ship, that had the lock assigned to it.

The latter explaination seems to be the prevailing consensus, but your mileage may vary... check with your TO before banking on that tactic, if you're playing competitively.

15 hours ago, emeraldbeacon said:

I'm 99% sure, @Singulativ has it right... Holo can pass the lock TOKEN from Kylo back to Kylo himself, but since a ship cannot have a lock on itself, the lock would instantly be broken (and the lock token removed).

That said, there is still some debate over whether or not a lock TOKEN is something that Holo can pass. There are a couple different beliefs:

• Some people claim that, since the lock itself belongs to the ship that initially acquired the lock in the first place, so too does the lock token belong to the locking (not the locked ) ship.
• Others (like myself) believe that the lock belongs to the ship that acquired the lock, but the token that represents the lock is considered to "belong" to the targeted ship, that had the lock assigned to it.

The latter explaination seems to be the prevailing consensus, but your mileage may vary... check with your TO before banking on that tactic, if you're playing competitively.

The latter explanation is 100% how it works based on how Matchstick, Rivas and Outrider have been ruled. No previous precedent supports belief number one.

Some TOs may rule differently, but friendly locks work for Matchstick, friendly locks on opponents trigger Rivas, and enemy locks can be removed by Outrider, which all use the same language of token ownership.

7 hours ago, RampancyTW said:

The latter explanation is 100% how it works based on how Matchstick, Rivas and Outrider have been ruled. No previous precedent supports belief number one.

Some TOs may rule differently, but friendly locks work for Matchstick, friendly locks on opponents trigger Rivas, and enemy locks can be removed by Outrider, which all use the same language of token ownership.

Oh, I absolutely agree that, based on previous precedent, the latter description (lock tokens belong to the ship that is locked, so long as the lock is active) is correct. I'm just pointing out that there are those who argue otherwise, and lacking an absolutely clear, official definition of the word "your" (either generally, or in regards to tokens), these debates will continue to pop up.

I'm only pointing out that the debate exists, so that everyone is prepared to debate them when needed.

On 3/10/2020 at 1:14 PM, RampancyTW said:

The latter explanation is 100% how it works based on how Matchstick, Rivas and Outrider have been ruled. No previous precedent supports belief number one.

Some TOs may rule differently, but friendly locks work for Matchstick, friendly locks on opponents trigger Rivas, and enemy locks can be removed by Outrider, which all use the same language of token ownership.

Holup. If I lock a ship with my FO, Rivas can also take a free lock on that ship? Is a lock token counted as a "red or orange token"?

5 minutes ago, Goseki1 said:

Holup. If I lock a ship with my FO, Rivas can also take a free lock on that ship? Is a lock token counted as a "red or orange token"?

Yes, lock tokens are red tokens, rules ref. page 13.

Can Holo really transfer the lock back to Kylo?!?

😳

Hm, what about ‘the transfer cannot take place'?? As per RR p. 20?

...it directly contradicts the Holdo ruling...

Plus: Holo would benefit from it! For Holdo it’s near irrelevant, because it’s all a 'may' in Holdo and no one benefits from the breaking lock.

27 minutes ago, Tellonius said:

Can Holo really transfer the lock back to Kylo?!?

😳

Hm, what about ‘the transfer cannot take place'?? As per RR p. 20?

...it directly contradicts the Holdo ruling...

Plus: Holo would benefit from it! For Holdo it’s near irrelevant, because it’s all a 'may' in Holdo and no one benefits from the breaking lock.

On 3/9/2020 at 8:12 PM, Singulativ said:

The lock can be transfered but immediately breaks as per Holdos ruling (p. 32):

„Q: What happens if a ship transfers its own lock to itself (such as by using Admiral Holdo [Crew])?
A: A ship cannot have a lock on itself (see Lock), so that lock breaks.“

or in other words, according to the holdo ruling, holo can transfer a lock onto a ship so that that ship would lock itself. the lock then breaks.

interesting can of worms.

3 hours ago, meffo said:

interesting can of worms.

Yes, thank you ffg! 😭

...so the p. 20 rule 'can not take place' is just ignored? Outdated?

i thought 'can not' is ubiquitous?!

or is this case (can not gain = can not take place) referring to something completely different...?

PS: thanks for the fast answer Meffo!

we have to view it as it is. the rules on locks say " • A ship cannot acquire or have a lock on itself. " (page 13 under Lock). it goes on to describe what constitutes acquiring a lock. it does not deal with transfers. thus, being transferred a lock is not acquiring a lock.

the rules on transferring say " ◊ If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved, the transfer c annot take place." (page 20 under Tokens) . it doesn't say anywhere that a ship cannot gain a lock on itself, just that it cannot have it. therefore it breaks when it's gained.

i know that's really stretching the phrasing of the rules to make specific interactions work (yay, thanks FFG!), but we have to deal with the beloved rules clarification method of "because we say so", because they said so.

at least the golden rules are well made.



"cannot" is only ubiquitous if it's printed on a card, not if it's printed in the rules.

3 hours ago, meffo said:

i know that's really stretching the phrasing of the rules to make specific interactions work (yay, thanks FFG!), but we have to deal with the beloved rules clarification method of "because we say so", because they said so.

No, i agree with it. Gaining and Acquiring are two different things. So while the ship can still gain it, mechanically speaking, it doesn't stay. So mechanically speaking, it would trigger any abilities that would trigger off 'gaining' that token.
Dont think its stretching really just...differentiating.