Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sirchristopher3

Another Dutch Vander Question

Recommended Posts

sirchristopher2 said:

Can Dutch give his ability to a stressed ship?  Would it keep the lock if it moved with a red manuver after receiving the target lock?

Yes, Dutch may use his ability to give a target lock to a ship with a stress token because he is not giving the ship a target lock action. And no, ships do not lose a target lock because they perform a red maneuver. There's nothing in the rules to suggest that.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can "Dutch" Vander give a target lock to any (friendly) ship, even one that does not have target lock in it's action bar?  I don't see anything that contradicts it but wanted to toss it out to the community for verification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunsteel said:

Can "Dutch" Vander give a target lock to any (friendly) ship, even one that does not have target lock in it's action bar?  I don't see anything that contradicts it but wanted to toss it out to the community for verification.

At the moment at least, this isn't really relevant - all Rebel ships have the option to target lock.  If you're running something homebrew that mixes Imperial and Rebel ships, then it's pretty much up to you since it's all house rules anyway :)  But FWIW, I see two possible reads on this.

The rules interpretation: The action bar only dictates what actions a ship can take, nothing more.  For example, a ship with the Damaged Sensor Array critical hit can still have a Focus token passed to it by Garven, or gain one in other ways (such as Soontir Fel's ability).  It's not a perfect comparison, since the critical hit doesn't actually remove it from the action bar, but the concept is the same.

The fluff interpretation: Ships like TIE Fighters lack the Target Lock icon because they just don't have the equipment installed, because there's no need for it.  So no matter how much Dutch coordinates with them, there's simply nothing to let them lock on with.

Which you use probably depends a lot on how and why you're allowing mixed squads, but like I said, it's all house rule :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This sounds like another decent candidate to send to the FAQ actually, but I think we can reason through it…

 

Dutch's power states:

"After acquiring a target lock, choose another friendly ship at Range 1-2. The ship may immediately acquire a target lock."

 

The thing to remember here is that "Acquire a Target Lock" is an action, so the text is referring to a specific action and does not say "place a target lock token" which would be more like Garven's power:

"After spending a focus token, you may place that token on any other friendly ship at Range 1-2 (instead of discarding it)."

 

Nor is it assigned like Soonter's power:

"When you receive a stress token, you may assign 1 focus token to your ship."

 

 

The Acquire a Target Lock entry in the rules states:

"Ships with the [target lock] icon in their action bar may perform the acquire a target lock action to place a pair of target lock tokens (see below). The player can choose to spend the target lock tokens later during the Combat phase to increase his chances of hitting the targeted ship (see “Spending Target Lock Tokens” on page 11)."

 

 

"Each ship capable of performing this action can maintain only one target lock (i.e., each ship can have only one blue target lock token assigned to it). However, multiple ships can target the same ship, so it is possible for a ship to have several red target lock tokens assigned to it."

 

The part that stands out for me in this section is that each ship capable of performing this action can maintain a target lock.

 

The last rule I would cite is on the side of page 20:

Breaking the Rules

Some abilities on cards conflict with the general rules. In case of a conflict, card text overrides the general rules.

If one card ability forbids an effect, while another ability allows it, the effect is forbidden.

 

 

Though it seems a bit ambiguous, I would posit that if for some reason a rebel pilot did not have the means to acquire a target lock, they could not benefit from Dutch's ability. For instance, if a pilot took a Damaged Sensor Array critical, they would no longer be able to acquire a target lock, so Dutch couldn't grant them that ability.

 

In the case of a new pilot without the target lock ability and having no card denying the target lock ability to a ship, I could see the arguement for the other side.

 

Also, Dutch doesn't offer it as a free action (which would clear up all ambiguity). This allows a ship with a stress token to benefit from it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paradox23 said:

The thing to remember here is that "Acquire a Target Lock" is an action, so the text is referring to a specific action and does not say "place a target lock token" which would be more like Garven's power:

Except that Dutch's ability does not refer to an action, or let you take the action.  Just because it lets you do the same thing as the action would have does not mean it's an action.  Night Beast provides a good comparison for wording which would work the way you're thinking.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing to add: I think the reason it doesn't just say "Place a target lock token" is because target locks are more involved than that.  You've got two tokens, and range limitations to consider.  But so long as Dutch's ability doesn't say "action", it's not an action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like I said, I could see it argued either way and am squarely on the fence when it comes to the hypotheticals. Two reasonable, intelligent people could easily come up on opposite sides of the debate.

And I agree, Dutch's ability is not a free action. If it was, the whole thing would be super clear. But there are about a dozen clearer ways they could have stated it if it were meant to resemble Garven's ability, that is why there is a question about it.

 

However, in what is currently the only possible application of it (via Damaged Sensor Array), I'd rule against it because a card that takes away the ability to do something supersedes a card that allows it. It's still ambiguous and I'd love a FAQ entry on it, but the arguement against seems just a little stronger (and even then, only by a little).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm a little confused at this point.

You agree that Dutch doesn't pass a free action.  He obviously can't let it be any other kind of action, so it's not an action.  The only thing that Damaged Sensor Array does is prevent you from performing the actions listed on the action bar.  So you say that Dutch doesn't give a free action, but you'd rule that a damage effect that prevents actions stops it?  How exactly would that work?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it is not a FREE action.

The part that makes me lean the way I do is that "Acquiring a Target" lock is an action. To clarify, that is the actual stated name of the action in the rules. And if you are no longer allowed to "Acquire a Target Lock", someone else cannot allow you to "Acquire a Target Lock".

 

Just going purely on the grammar of the rules and cards…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paradox23 said:

 

Like I said, I could see it argued either way and am squarely on the fence when it comes to the hypotheticals. Two reasonable, intelligent people could easily come up on opposite sides of the debate.

And I agree, Dutch's ability is not a free action. If it was, the whole thing would be super clear. But there are about a dozen clearer ways they could have stated it if it were meant to resemble Garven's ability, that is why there is a question about it.

 

However, in what is currently the only possible application of it (via Damaged Sensor Array), I'd rule against it because a card that takes away the ability to do something supersedes a card that allows it. It's still ambiguous and I'd love a FAQ entry on it, but the arguement against seems just a little stronger (and even then, only by a little).

paradox23 said:

 

Like I said, I could see it argued either way and am squarely on the fence when it comes to the hypotheticals. Two reasonable, intelligent people could easily come up on opposite sides of the debate.

And I agree, Dutch's ability is not a free action. If it was, the whole thing would be super clear. But there are about a dozen clearer ways they could have stated it if it were meant to resemble Garven's ability, that is why there is a question about it.

 

However, in what is currently the only possible application of it (via Damaged Sensor Array), I'd rule against it because a card that takes away the ability to do something supersedes a card that allows it. It's still ambiguous and I'd love a FAQ entry on it, but the arguement against seems just a little stronger (and even then, only by a little).

Damaged Sensor array doesn't actually "remove" actions from the action bar though. The card says "You cannot perform the actions listed in your action bar." So Dutch should still be able to give a free target lock because the ship with the Damaged Array isn't performing the action.  If the card actually said remove the actions, I'd agree, but that isn't what it says.  Would you prevent a ship with the Damaged Sensor Array from gaining a Focus token via Garven?  If no, why would you think Dutch couldn't pass a Target Lock?  The Damaged Sensor Array also wouldn't make an existing Target Lock disappear either.  I'm not sure an FAQ is actually needed here.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emrico said:

 

Damaged Sensor array doesn't actually "remove" actions from the action bar though. The card says "You cannot perform the actions listed in your action bar." So Dutch should still be able to give a free target lock because the ship with the Damaged Array isn't performing the action.  If the card actually said remove the actions, I'd agree, but that isn't what it says.  Would you prevent a ship with the Damaged Sensor Array from gaining a Focus token via Garven?  If no, why would you think Dutch couldn't pass a Target Lock?  The Damaged Sensor Array also wouldn't make an existing Target Lock disappear either.  I'm not sure an FAQ is actually needed here.

Jim

 

 

 

"Target Lock" is not an action.  "Acquire a Target Lock" is actually the name of the action depicted by what we casually refer to as the Target Lock icon.

 

Damaged Sensor array says:

You cannot perform the actions listed in your action bar.

 

One of the actions listed on your action bar is called "Acquire a Target Lock".

Damaged Sensor array forbids you to "Acquire a Target Lock".

So, if Dutch offers you the ability to "Acquire a Target Lock" the damage should trump.

 

 

That's my reasoning at least. I agree that it is not perfect, but it seems to be more in line with the rulings I've seen thus far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paradox23 said:

I agree that it is not a FREE action.

The part that makes me lean the way I do is that "Acquiring a Target" lock is an action. To clarify, that is the actual stated name of the action in the rules. And if you are no longer allowed to "Acquire a Target Lock", someone else cannot allow you to "Acquire a Target Lock".

Just going purely on the grammar of the rules and cards…

The only difference between an Action and a Free Action is that "this action DOES NOT count as the one action allowed during the "Perform Action" step.  I'm not even sure it's possible for an action taken outside the perform action step to be anything but free.  I can't seem to find any examples of it.

You're conflating the steps you take to go through the action with the action itself.  If it doesn't say it's an action, it's not an action, no matter how similar the wording is.  By your interpretation, Dutch's ability would count against the 1 allowed action.  So if I were to move a Rookie Pilot and take a Focus action, then later move Dutch, Dutch couldn't let him Target Lock.

We also have a very solid precedent for this in the FAQ thanks to R5-K6.  The wording ("immediately acquire a target lock") is identical between Dutch and R5-K6.  The FAQ entry for R5-K6 explicitly says that this is not an action, allowing it to double up wtih the actual target lock action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your arguement on taking actions is sound, but I don't think a ship that is incapable of performing this action can maintain a target lock. I think that the damage card trumps the ability to acquire a target lock and that the rules for target lock mention that ships capable of performing the "Acquire a Target Lock" action can maintain a target lock. 

 

That said, I concede that you could be spot on.  I just want official clarification because it is ambiguous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would directly violate the R5-K6 ruling in the FAQ.  If "acquire a target lock" could only be done when you could perform the action, then you wouldn't be able to use R5-K6 at all - you would be prohibited from taking the action because of the once-per-turn rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buhallin said:

That would directly violate the R5-K6 ruling in the FAQ.  If "acquire a target lock" could only be done when you could perform the action, then you wouldn't be able to use R5-K6 at all - you would be prohibited from taking the action because of the once-per-turn rule.

 

That faq entry was about the type of actions that can be performed. And since it was not a free action it was OK to do it again. You are 100% correct on how actions and free actions work. The broader part of my arguement that I think you may be missing is that the section on Acquiring a Target Lock states:

"Each ship capable of performing this action can maintain only one target lock (i.e., each ship can have only one blue target lock token assigned to it). However, multiple ships can target the same ship, so it is possible for a ship to have several red target lock tokens assigned to it."

I think that means you have to be able to perform that action to be able to maintain a lock. And even if Dutch temporarily allows them to perform that action, the damage card taketh it away.

I could be wrong. But I think once Damaged Sensor Array takes away your ability to Acquire a Target Lock is also takes away your abillity to maintain that lock.  Either way, I sent it in to the rules questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, technically, the line you quote doesn't say anything about how many locks can be maintained by a ship that can't perform the target lock action.  It says that a ship that CAN can only maintain one, but nothing about how many can be maintained by a ship that can't.

<shrug>  Submit away, it's pretty clear at this point that nobody outside of FFG is going to convince you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<shrug indeed>

Seriously I want to agree with you, but it just doesn't feel right. I want to justify making it work through the concept of it not being an action that is taken. But then the following issue is raised…

 

 

Buhallin said:

Actually, technically, the line you quote doesn't say anything about how many locks can be maintained by a ship that can't perform the target lock action.  It says that a ship that CAN can only maintain one, but nothing about how many can be maintained by a ship that can't.

 

 

So by that rational, a ship that has the target lock action can maintain only 1 target lock unless a card grants additional ones. But a ship that is not capable of acquiring target locks can be given an infitite amount of target locks on any amount of targets?  That makes no sense at all. And that is why I remain unconvinced that ships incapable of acquiring target locks can maintain them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paradox23 said:

So by that rational, a ship that has the target lock action can maintain only 1 target lock unless a card grants additional ones. But a ship that is not capable of acquiring target locks can be given an infitite amount of target locks on any amount of targets?  That makes no sense at all. And that is why I remain unconvinced that ships incapable of acquiring target locks can maintain them.

So as part of your position on this argument, you are saying that if a ship is dealt the Damaged Sensor Array card, and it has previously acquired a target lock, that it must now discard that target lock?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paradox, I'm with you on this. The thing to keep in mind is Dutch doesn't "give a free" target lock. Look at Dutch's card. "The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock." In doing so, you are performing a free "acquire a target lock" action, as listed on page 9. The Damaged Sensor Array prevents you from taking the actions listed in your action bar, even if they're free, and thus will supercede Dutch's ability. I say no the ship with the DSA card won't be able to take the acquire a target lock action granted by Dutch.

UNLESS we're talking about hypothetical Rebel ship that doesn't have the acquire a target lock icon in its action bar. If said ship does not have the icon, then I would go by the letter of the DSA card and say technically you're performing an action that is not listed in your action bar, so the card wouldn't apply to it, so then it would be allowed. Said ship doesn't currently exist, so my paragraph above is what I'm standing by until such a ship is made.

Or, to put it another way, say Biggs is equipped with R2F2 and gets the DSA card. I would say he is allowed to perform his R2F2 action even with the DSA card, because technically R2F2 is not an action in his action bar.

Now, if a YT has the Millenium Falcon title card and gets the DSA card, I would say it would not be allowed to take the Evade action, because the MF title card specifically states "your action bar gains the Evade action". In that case, the DSA card would supercede the MF title card.

Garven, on the other hand, passes a token, which is different than allowing a free action. Garven could pass a focus token to a ship with a DSA card.

And Zig, I think no, the ship would not have to discard its tokens. Also looking at page 9, "Target lock tokens are only removed…" The ship has already taken the acquire a target lock action before receiving the DSA card, which prevents it from taking that action afterwards. I think the DSA card would only prevent you from acquiring a target lock afterwards, but would not affect the existing target lock that has already been acquired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ziggy2000 said:

So as part of your position on this argument, you are saying that if a ship is dealt the Damaged Sensor Array card, and it has previously acquired a target lock, that it must now discard that target lock?

 

As Hothie pointed out, it is very clear in the rules how a target lock token can be removed. And though the rules are vague as to the mechanics of Acquiring a Target Lock, they seem pretty straight forward about removing them.

 

"Target lock tokens are only removed if the locking ship either acquires a target lock on a different ship or spends the target lock during the Combat phase.

Exception:
Certain abilities may also allow a targeted ship to remove a target lock.
Some secondary weapons, such as proton torpedoes, can only be used if the ship spends a target lock on the targeted ship (see “Secondary Weapons” on page 19)"

 

There are two primary reasons that I am not certain about Dutch being able to give a ship with a damaged sensor array are grammatically influenced.

  1. The way that Dutch's power is written leaves some ambiguity as to how it is to be implaments.

But for the sake of arguement, let's say that you can give a ship without the Acquire a Target Lock action an AaTL action.

  1. The wording on Damaged Sensor Array states "You cannot perform the actions listed in your action bar."
  2. The wording on Acquiring a Target Lock states: "Each ship capable of performing this action can maintain only one target lock."

What does this imply about ships that are not capable of performing this action?  Is it worded this way to restrict the number of target locks for ships capable of performing target locks, thus allowing ships otherwise incapable of taking this action to be given as many target locks as Dutch can give them? Is it implying that only ships that can take a target lock action can maintain target locks?

I'm really not certain, but some of these questions seem like a pretty obvious 'no'. What I do know is that it was worth asking for clarification.

 

<shrugs some more>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paradox23 said:

That faq entry was about the type of actions that can be performed. And since it was not a free action it was OK to do it again. You are 100% correct on how actions and free actions work. The broader part of my arguement that I think you may be missing is that the section on Acquiring a Target Lock states:

"Each ship capable of performing this action can maintain only one target lock (i.e., each ship can have only one blue target lock token assigned to it). However, multiple ships can target the same ship, so it is possible for a ship to have several red target lock tokens assigned to it."

I think that means you have to be able to perform that action to be able to maintain a lock. And even if Dutch temporarily allows them to perform that action, the damage card taketh it away.

I could be wrong. But I think once Damaged Sensor Array takes away your ability to Acquire a Target Lock is also takes away your abillity to maintain that lock.  Either way, I sent it in to the rules questions.

I appreciate your response, and I always value hothie's opinon as well. And I hope that there will be clarification soon. But your statement above gets to the root of my question - what is meant by "maintaining" a target lock? If, once it is a acquired, a TL is maintained until one of the conditions specified on page 9 occurs (acquiring on a different ship or spending), then how can you say that DSA takes away the ability to maintain the TL? Isn't keeping it until spent maintaining it?

Mind you, I'm in agreement that DSA takes the action away, and Dutch can't give a new TL to the ship. But if it already has one it can indeed "maintain" it until spent. That's the only gripe I have with your statements above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ziggy2000 said:

 

I appreciate your response, and I always value hothie's opinon as well. And I hope that there will be clarification soon. But your statement above gets to the root of my question - what is meant by "maintaining" a target lock? If, once it is a acquired, a TL is maintained until one of the conditions specified on page 9 occurs (acquiring on a different ship or spending), then how can you say that DSA takes away the ability to maintain the TL? Isn't keeping it until spent maintaining it?

Mind you, I'm in agreement that DSA takes the action away, and Dutch can't give a new TL to the ship. But if it already has one it can indeed "maintain" it until spent. That's the only gripe I have with your statements above.

 

 

My main gripe is that the whole process is questionable because of ambiguous wording.

Does maintaining a target lock equate with acquiring one? Is the maintaining of a target lock contingent on being able to acquire a target lock? I just don't know. What I know for sure is that DSA  makes it so that you cannot perform the Acquire a Target Lock action… I am totally uncertain as to the scope of the implications.

I suppose it's possibly that it could cause the target lock to get removed, but that seems to completely contradict a very straight-forward section about how to remove TLs. I'd rule that the lock tokens remain until they are removed in the normal ways. 

But my statement in that quoted text was mainly to reinforce the notion that DSA overrides Dutch's ability to grant TLs in the same way we assume that Damaged Cockpit overrides Veteran Instincts.

I've looked over it again and again and can't seem to find anything that clears it up or provides a direct precedent, so I'm just waiting it out. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

paradox23 said:

So by that rational, a ship that has the target lock action can maintain only 1 target lock unless a card grants additional ones. But a ship that is not capable of acquiring target locks can be given an infitite amount of target locks on any amount of targets?  That makes no sense at all. And that is why I remain unconvinced that ships incapable of acquiring target locks can maintain them.

Yeah, I know it makes no sense at all, but that's what happens when you take lines out of context.  You're trying to take a line which is pretty clearly intended to say that you can only have one target lock, and twist the wording into being about whether you can take the action.  You're trying to get hyper-literal with it - I'm just pointing out that hyper-literal has side effects.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hothie said:

Paradox, I'm with you on this. The thing to keep in mind is Dutch doesn't "give a free" target lock. Look at Dutch's card. "The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock." In doing so, you are performing a free "acquire a target lock" action, as listed on page 9.

Except that you're NOT performing the action.  The wording and presentation for Dutch's ability is identical to that for R5-K6, and the FAQ explicitly says that you are not taking an action of any sort when you use it.  For reference:

Dutch: "The chosen ship may immediately acquire a target lock"

R5-K6: "…immediately acquire a target lock on that same ship"

R5-K6 FAQ: "This effect does not instruct the player to perofrm a free acquire a target lock action, so the player does not violate the rule restricting a ship to one instance of each action per round."

I'm honestly not sure what else you could ask for as far as a precedent goes.

If it doesn't say it's an action, it's not an action, whether it has the same name or not.  This is why Expert Handling needed errata - it said you could barrel roll, but didn't say it was an action.  Therefore you would have been able to barrel roll twice, once from Expert Handling and once from the Barrel Roll action.  This wasn't intended, so it got errata'ed to make it an action.

I do understand the case paradox is trying to make, but IMHO he's pulling random sentence structure out and trying to make them declarative.  We have two possible ways to read the rule in question: That "Each ship capable of performing this action" is a strict rule, in which case ships that can't do the action can have unlimited locks.  Or we can read it as a structural part of the way they wrote the rules, and the rule basically says "Ships can only maintain one target lock".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...