RAW, it seems that I can assign a target lock to a Tie Fighter or Interceptor which doesn't normally have the ability to target lock. I'm wondering if this is legit, or if there is another rule somewhere that would prevent the token moving to a ship without the target lock action.

Thanks!

yes this is correct. Giving a token is not the same thing as allowing them to 'acquire a target lock'.

A TIE can have a TL Token given to them.

RAW, it seems that I can assign a target lock to a Tie Fighter or Interceptor which doesn't normally have the ability to target lock. I'm wondering if this is legit, or if there is another rule somewhere that would prevent the token moving to a ship without the target lock action.

Thanks!

Yes, that's why it says to assign the token rather than allow them to perform a free target lock or something (like Dutch's ability).

He's essentially performing kind of an AWACS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awacs ) role for them, using the superior sensors and targeting equipment in the Lambda to feed them info in real time and boost their targeting capabilities beyond what the TIE onboard computers are normally capable of.

Interceptors with TL are fun

Since we're discussing target locks here, if you have a weapons engineer (you can acquire 2 target locks) how does that interact with Fire Control Systems? Do you get to TL second ship when you use Fire Control systems, or since you an only target lock the defender, you don't get any locks?

Since we're discussing target locks here, if you have a weapons engineer (you can acquire 2 target locks) how does that interact with Fire Control Systems? Do you get to TL second ship when you use Fire Control systems, or since you an only target lock the defender, you don't get any locks?

The Weapons Engineer doesn't have any restrictions on the second target lock, so the first (from the FCS) would have to be on the target, but the second could be any legal target.

It's only the Lambda that could currently pull off that combo legally, though, right?

Correct, at least for now

It's only the Lambda that could currently pull off that combo legally, though, right?

Yes. The only other ship with a sensor upgrade is the B-Wing, and it doesn't have a crew slot.

I said "currently." I was pretty sure that was correct so far, but paranoid I was missing another ship and was going to feel like an idiot when it got pointed out.

Actually speaking of the weapon engineer and target locks how does that interact with Kagi? The ship would be forced to target lock Kagi with the first lock and then it would no longer be able to target lock him so it would be able to use the second lock on someone else. Does that seem right? Actually by that logic if a ship target locks him then the next turn they could freely target lock whoever they want because you can't assign a target lock to a ship you have already put a token onto.

Actually speaking of the weapon engineer and target locks how does that interact with Kagi? The ship would be forced to target lock Kagi with the first lock and then it would no longer be able to target lock him so it would be able to use the second lock on someone else. Does that seem right? Actually by that logic if a ship target locks him then the next turn they could freely target lock whoever they want because you can't assign a target lock to a ship you have already put a token onto.

Everything seems correct.

Actually by that logic if a ship target locks him then the next turn they could freely target lock whoever they want because you can't assign a target lock to a ship you have already put a token onto.

I'm not sure I agree. If you drop your target lock on any ship, then the restrictions might apply so you would have to reaquire him? Though this may not be fully correct.

Technically, you can aquire a target lock on the same ship twice. The first lock expires when the second one goes out. Is it possible that Kagi would have to be the target of both locks, and therefore effectively cancels the weapons engi?

Actually by that logic if a ship target locks him then the next turn they could freely target lock whoever they want because you can't assign a target lock to a ship you have already put a token onto.

I'm not sure I agree. If you drop your target lock on any ship, then the restrictions might apply so you would have to reaquire him? Though this may not be fully correct.

I double checked the FAQ because I thought there might be a relevant ruling to base off of and I got this. I feel like there is another rule/ruling somewhere else that also states something similar about not being able to target lock a ship you've already target locked.

Q: If a ship already has a lock on an enemy ship, can the locking ship acquire a target lock again on the same enemy ship in order to trigger an effect (such as “Dutch” Vander)?

A: No.

Yes, the FAQ talks about cancelling Dutch's TL and relock to re-trigger his ability.

Not allowed per FAQ.

You cannot target lock a ship you already have a target lock on. On the other hand, you can expend a Target Lock and choose to reroll zero dice just like you can use a focus even if you didn't roll any eyeballs. For example, Dutch with R5K6 rolls all hits and doesn't want to reroll, but would like to burn his TL so he has a chance to throw a new TL out. He can use his TL, then when he rerolls "any number" of dice he rerolls zero. Then he can check if R5K6 gives him a new lock. But, he cannot just "relock" the same ship he has a target lock on as an action in order to generate a "free lock" to give someone. He could lock a different ship, losing his original lock and throwing a free lock out.

Technically, you can aquire a target lock on the same ship twice. The first lock expires when the second one goes out. Is it possible that Kagi would have to be the target of both locks, and therefore effectively cancels the weapons engi?

Not sure what you meant by expire???

Is this what you meant? Target Lock, unlike Focus, are not removed at the end of a turn. They are maintained until spent or a new TL is acquired on a different target.

You cannot target lock a ship you already have a target lock on. On the other hand, you can expend a Target Lock and choose to reroll zero dice just like you can use a focus even if you didn't roll any eyeballs. For example, Dutch with R5K6 rolls all hits and doesn't want to reroll, but would like to burn his TL so he has a chance to throw a new TL out. He can use his TL, then when he rerolls "any number" of dice he rerolls zero. Then he can check if R5K6 gives him a new lock. But, he cannot just "relock" the same ship he has a target lock on as an action in order to generate a "free lock" to give someone. He could lock a different ship, losing his original lock and throwing a free lock out.

True but you have to be actually attacking in order to spend it don't you?

Lizrrdbreath quotes the relevant FAQ entry that covers all these questions. If you have a lock on Kagi, you can't acquire another one. That means both the Weapons Engineer or an every-other-turn locking can give you some freedom in who you lock.

Here's another one for you, along similar lines. What happens if you give a Lamda the ST-321 title and Fire Control System, then take a potshot at an enemy ship. Similar dilemma, but ST-321 removes the 'if able' bit that Kagi has.

Here's another one for you, along similar lines. What happens if you give a Lamda the ST-321 title and Fire Control System, then take a potshot at an enemy ship. Similar dilemma, but ST-321 removes the 'if able' bit that Kagi has.

Hm. I think that this would work. You're definitely acquiring a lock, and ST-321 removes any restrictions on who you can select for that. So you'd be able to select any ship in play to lock on to, not just the one you targeted.

That would also mean you could (and therefore would have to) lock Kagi if he were in play in this situation.

Does ST 321 remove all restrictions, even the ones created by other special cards / text? That is an interesting question. Unlike the Kagi / FCS interaction, here we do have two cards that directly contradict one another. I would lean towards the FCS winning, only because elsewhere we have the "makes more difficult" trumps "makes easier" precedent, but that is a pretty weak connection to say the least.

Kagi vs. ST 321 with a FCS? The interactions there are messy.

If I were at a tournament I would just ask the TO, and regardless of which way he went with it I wouldn't have a problem. If my opponent had a particular reading he felt strongly about, I would be happy to go with that also so long as it stayed consistent throughout the event.

It's less aggravating when they spread weird rules conflicts out across the different waves. I find it more frustrating when all of these questions come up from how new cards in the same wave affect one another. This never came up in playtesting?