I Broke the Transport...

[Bucknife 1,007]

I put M9G8 on my Resistance transport and locked a friendly ship on turn 1. 

Then, before my Transport engaged, I stole the lock token from the friendly ship and moved it to myself with Holdo crew. 

I then M9G8'd my own dice the rest of the game. 

@Captain LackwitLackwit

@Brunas

@jagsba

@Ablazoned

@ClassicalMoser

@Greebwahn

@GreenDragoon

Edited August 11 by Bucknife

[Bucknife 1,007]

             *The Beast*

(52) Kare Kun [T-70 X-wing]
(6) Afterburners
(1) Marksmanship
(6) BB-8
(2) Autoblasters
(2) Black One
(8) Primed Thrusters
Points: 77

(38) Cova Nell [Resistance Transport]
(7) M9-G8
(5) Lone Wolf
(9) Amilyn Holdo
(5) Kaydel Connix
(5) Pattern Analyzer
(4) Spare Parts Canisters
(4) Heavy Laser Cannon
Points: 77

(36) Greer Sonnel [RZ-2 A-wing]
(1) Heroic
(4) Advanced Optics
Points: 41

Total points: 195

[Captain Lackwit 9,833]

I've never used M9G8, what's this do exactly?

[thespaceinvader 17,361]

 

Like 3 threads down. The final post in particular. You can't transfer a token to a ship that cannot gain that token. You cannot acquire locks on yourself. 

And honestly even if it does work, it's a bare minimum of 16 points to get one reroll per attack on one ship.

Woo?

[Maui. 2,298]

50 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

 

Like 3 threads down. The final post in particular. You can't transfer a token to a ship that cannot gain that token. You cannot acquire locks on yourself. 

And honestly even if it does work, it's a bare minimum of 16 points to get one reroll per attack on one ship.

Woo?

Theoretically, if it works, you could use M9-G8 and Holdo on two ships with the same initiative and have them pass the lock token back and forth on alternating rounds so that two ships gain the benefit of M9-G8.

Probably still not broken powerful, but... you could do it

[Bucknife 1,007]

The rules say a ship cannot "aquire" a lock on themselves. 

Holdo "transfers" a token from that ship to yourself if you don't have it. 

If there can be an exception to anything, Holdo's interaction seems to purposefully be breaking certain boundaries. 

For example: many people have mentioned that you could Holdo cheat to give a Large Base ship (Resistance Bomber) the Reinforce token gained from Angled Deflectors on a Holdo Transport (small or medium base only upgrade).

Yes, other Large base ships like the Deci and Ghost have Reinforce natively, but the exact same "cheating" principal feels exactly the same....to the opponent, it feels dirty. 

Edited August 11 by Bucknife
Misspelling and idea clarification.

[Bucknife 1,007]

6 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I've never used M9G8, what's this do exactly?

Sad reacts. 

He allows you to reroll 1 attack die rolled by a ship you have locked, friendly or enemy. 

[Bucknife 1,007]

5 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

@thespaceinvader

The rules say a ship cannot "aquire" a lock on themselves. 

Holdo "transfers" a token from that ship to yourself if you don't have it. 

If there can be an exception to anything, Holdo's interaction seems to purposefully be breaking certain boundaries. 

For example: many people have mentioned that you could Holdo cheat to give a Large Base ship (Resistance Bomber) the Reinforce token gained from Angled Deflectors on a Holdo Transport (small or medium base only upgrade).

Yes, other Large base ships like the Deci and Ghost have Reinforce natively, but the "cheating" principal feels exactly the same....to the opponent, it feels dirty for either of these examples, because of how she's worded. 

 

 

Edited August 11 by Bucknife

[thespaceinvader 17,361]

If you cannot acquire a lock on yourself, you cannot gain your own lock token, which means you cannot be transferred it either.

It's a bit of a reach maybe, but I'd be pretty surprised if it's ruled any other way.

[nitrobenz 815]

1 hour ago, thespaceinvader said:

If you cannot acquire a lock on yourself, you cannot gain your own lock token, which means you cannot be transferred it either.

It's a bit of a reach maybe, but I'd be pretty surprised if it's ruled any other way.

So what if Holdo were to transfer an enemy Lock belonging to a ship that is beyond range 3? That ship can't Aquire a lock on Holdo any more than she can Aquire one on herself...

I'm with @Bucknife in that even though this Lock-transfer sounds sketchy I'm just not convinced that the rules support Aquire=Gain so I can't rule out this combo.

But as was said earlier:

7 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

...

And honestly even if it does work, it's a bare minimum of 16 points to get one reroll per attack on one ship.

Woo?

 

[thespaceinvader 17,361]

That ship can (I.e. is able to given the opportunity) apply its lock to her tho.

[nitrobenz 815]

That ship is being forced to apply its lock outside normal Aquire perameters by Holdo's token transfer ability. How is that different from applying her own lock to herself?

[Greebwahn 862]

I see no reason why it cannot work. Being transferred the token is not acquiring the lock

[Bucknife 1,007]

Well... If it works (and I think it does), then The Beast in my back pocket is perma-triple-mods Cova, thank you very much. 

____________________

38) Cova Nell [Resistance Transport]
(7) M9-G8 (thanks, ffg)
(5) Lone Wolf (wokanda foreva)
(9) Amilyn Holdo (thanks, ep8)
(5) Kaydel Connix (change move to red)
(5) Pattern Analyzer (action during reds)
(4) Spare Parts Canisters (action)
(4) Heavy Laser Cannon (mo dice)
Points: 77

[theBitterFig 6,049]

Count me among those who don't think it works.  With the adjacent ruling of Kagi vs. R3 double-locks (when pulled onto Kagi, one Lock becomes invalid and must break), there's context for invalid locks being discarded rather than transferred.

On top of that, the argument that "it works" is so ****ing clearly an argument which takes *at best* a tiny loophole (cannot acquire a lock on yourself treated as a range-thing {utter bull****} and not as an invalid ship thing {sane and rational}) and attempts to drive a gigantic space freighter through it.  Not just a Rules Lawyer sort of interpretation--it's full on Rules Shyster.

[Hobologist 22]

I'm in the camp that Amilyn Holdo cannot cause a ship to be transferred its own lock token, even if it's technically "gaining" the token instead of "acquiring a lock". Rules as written, there's nothing forbidding it explicitly, but it seems like yet another oversight in FFG's technical writing. I'll be ruling that a ship cannot acquire, gain, or otherwise maintain a Lock on itself.

Also, just for posterity...

31 minutes ago, Bucknife said:

Well... If it works (and I think it does), then The Beast in my back pocket is perma-triple-mods Cova, thank you very much. 

____________________

38) Cova Nell [Resistance Transport]
(7) M9-G8 (thanks, ffg)
(5) Lone Wolf (wokanda foreva)
(9) Amilyn Holdo (thanks, ep8)
(5) Kaydel Connix (change move to red)
(5) Pattern Analyzer (action during reds)
(4) Spare Parts Canisters (action)
(4) Heavy Laser Cannon (mo dice)
Points: 77

Kaydel Connix does not make Cova Nell's revealed maneuver red; it only increases the difficulty of the maneuver while it's being executed. While Cova Nell defends or performs a primary attack, the revealed maneuver is considered its original difficulty.

Edited August 11 by Hobologist

[Bucknife 1,007]

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

... Not just a Rules Lawyer sort of interpretation--it's full on Rules Shyster.

Yus! I like Shyster. Shyster is fun. 

1 hour ago, Hobologist said:

...

Also, just for posterity...

Kaydel Connix does not make Cova Nell's revealed maneuver red; it only increases the difficulty of the maneuver while it's being executed. While Cova Nell defends or performs a primary attack, the revealed maneuver is considered its original difficulty.

More opportunities for red and still getting an action through PA. 

Also, I love dialing a reverse bank 1, then changing it to a red two turn that drops a spare parts on somebody's head with PA. 

[Bort 121]

I'm in the camp of: "It works"

But it seems like a very scum thing thing to do. Over cost, over elaborate, and hardly worth doing.

And the reason I say it can work is because Cikatro Vizago can swap a small/medium ship only illicit  "Cloaking device" with a large/medium ship only illicit  "Rigged Cargo Chute"

But then again the FAQ specifically states that {upgrade card} restrictions are ignored after setup, not tokens.  So donno, maybe I'm wrong.

[missileaway 26]

I don't see any way this works. What has a ship done when a token is transferred to it? It has acquired that token. Vizago works because card restrictions are ignored after setup. "A ship cannot acquire a lock on itself" is pretty explicit. 

[nitrobenz 815]

3 hours ago, missileaway said:

I don't see any way this works. What has a ship done when a token is transferred to it? It has acquired that token. Vizago works because card restrictions are ignored after setup. "A ship cannot acquire a lock on itself" is pretty explicit. 

As a counterpoint: how would you rule if someone wanted to use Holdo to transfer a lock token belonging to a enemy ship beyond range 3?

"A ship cannot aquire a lock on itself" is very specific and is not equivalent to "a ship cannot have itself locked" When a transfer occurs one ship Removes the specified token and the other Gains that token. I have so far been unable to find where Gain=Aquire in the Rules Reference or other officially published material. Aquire is a keyword that specifies assigning a lock following range restrictions to the object, but Gain is merely the assigning of a token with no inherent restrictions.

[theBitterFig 6,049]

24 minutes ago, nitrobenz said:

As a counterpoint: how would you rule if someone wanted to use Holdo to transfer a lock token belonging to a enemy ship beyond range 3?

"A ship cannot aquire a lock on itself" is very specific and is not equivalent to "a ship cannot have itself locked" When a transfer occurs one ship Removes the specified token and the other Gains that token. I have so far been unable to find where Gain=Aquire in the Rules Reference or other officially published material. Aquire is a keyword that specifies assigning a lock following range restrictions to the object, but Gain is merely the assigning of a token with no inherent restrictions.

 

I don't think "beyond range 3" is an issue.  There's a bunch of effects which clearly can grant locks beyond the normal 0-3 range, and leaving the possibility of Holdo aside for a second, literally *NOTHING* in the game lets you lock yourself, because the concept is, frankly, ludicrous.

[Maui. 2,298]

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

I don't think "beyond range 3" is an issue.  There's a bunch of effects which clearly can grant locks beyond the normal 0-3 range, and leaving the possibility of Holdo aside for a second, literally *NOTHING* in the game lets you lock yourself, because the concept is, frankly, ludicrous.

But the point is that they *clearly* grant locks beyond normal range. Remember, rules have to be specifically excepted. Holdo doesn't exempt you from the lock range restriction, so logically speaking, if you argue that taking your own lock token means that you are acquiring a lock on yourself, then it must follow that taking someone else's lock token means they are acquiring a lock on you, which they can't do from beyond range 3, which means that Holdo can break locks by stealing a lock token when the enemy ship is beyond range 3 of her.

[theBitterFig 6,049]

4 minutes ago, Maui. said:

[...] then it must follow that taking someone else's lock token means they are acquiring a lock on you, which they can't do from beyond range 3, which means that Holdo can break locks by stealing a lock token when the enemy ship is beyond range 3 of her.

Utter hogwash.  I don't have to accept your premise.  The *ENTIRE* point of Captain Kagi is to steal locks, frequently to pull them out-of-range to be used.  Even if I agree that Kagi doesn't break locks (unless R3, etc etc), that doesn't mean I have to agree with this Holdo argument.

Structurally, this hinges on one issue: is the injunction against acquiring a lock on yourself the same as the injunction against acquiring a lock outside of Range 3, or is it different.  To me, it reads as different, that no-self-locks doesn't seem to be a range issue but a structural issue.  I think FFG was trying to tell us you cannot lock yourself at all, but in their standard way of putting as little money into these games as they can get away with, they didn't 100% future proof the wording, and now we've got munchkins trying to break things.

 

I know I haven't been super polite, but that's because I think the "M9-G8/Holdo works" side is the worst kind of greedy, rules-twisting, loophole-abusing interpretation, and it's bad for X-Wing.

[Maui. 2,298]

Just now, theBitterFig said:

Utter hogwash.  I don't have to accept your premise.  The *ENTIRE* point of Captain Kagi is to steal locks, frequently to pull them out-of-range to be used.  Even if I agree that Kagi doesn't break locks (unless R3, etc etc), that doesn't mean I have to agree with this Holdo argument.

Structurally, this hinges on one issue: is the injunction against acquiring a lock on yourself the same as the injunction against acquiring a lock outside of Range 3, or is it different.  To me, it reads as different, that no-self-locks doesn't seem to be a range issue but a structural issue.  I think FFG was trying to tell us you cannot lock yourself at all, but in their standard way of putting as little money into these games as they can get away with, they didn't 100% future proof the wording, and now we've got munchkins trying to break things.

 

I know I haven't been super polite, but that's because I think the "M9-G8/Holdo works" side is the worst kind of greedy, rules-twisting, loophole-abusing interpretation, and it's bad for X-Wing.

For the record, I don't have a particular side in the Holdo/M9 argument. I think that what you're saying here is a good argument: that the lock rules weren't written with token-passing in mind, and that ships were never intended to be able to have a lock on themselves, and that Holdo should not be able to violate that principle unless FFG comes out and specifically says she does. I don't have a problem with that reasoning at all.

I do have a problem with the argument that Holdo taking her own lock token is a lock is being acquired on herself, while Holdo taking another lock token is not a lock being acquired on her. That's not logically consistent, so it's a far weaker argument in my opinion.

[nitrobenz 815]

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

Utter hogwash.  I don't have to accept your premise.  The *ENTIRE* point of Captain Kagi is to steal locks, frequently to pull them out-of-range to be used.  Even if I agree that Kagi doesn't break locks (unless R3, etc etc), that doesn't mean I have to agree with this Holdo argument.

...

It's true that you don't have to agree with me! But you will have to agree with somebody you actually play the game with. If nothing else you are getting practice for your argument so when a new player brings it up you're ready

I think we can at least agree that there is a legitimate use of Holdo to mimic Kagi by taking a lock out of range without breaking it. I respect that you do not see that as an issue and had no interaction with the self locking rule which is an issue for you because of the word cannot. To me the precedent set by Kagi is that Aquire does not equal Gain and therefore a transfer does not run afoul of any restrictions on Aquiring a lock, including on oneself.

1 hour ago, theBitterFig said:

...

I know I haven't been super polite, but that's because I think the "M9-G8/Holdo works" side is the worst kind of greedy, rules-twisting, loophole-abusing interpretation, and it's bad for X-Wing.

Thank you for putting up with my persistence and expressing why my point of view bothers you. Unfortunately i dropped out of Resistance for 2e and will not get a direct benefit from a settlement of this one way or the other.

I'm arguing in favor of Holdo's self lock because I believe it is more logically consistent, but also in the hope that it gets official attention because I want FFG to fix their wording (on this and other issues) so it is clear and consistent. I greatly dislike when new cards require community consensus to make an interaction work "as intended" or to restrict a logically consistent interaction that just "feels wrong".

TL:DR: This is a problem because I will likely never use this card and so will be out of the loop on what "consensus" decides, and by extension I could be unaware of the precedent it sets when another similar interaction arrives in the future. More broadly this is a problem because different locales often come to different conclusions and when they interact at a major event somebody will be wrong with a list they may have put lots of practice into.

Bad technical writing is also bad for X-wing