This topic was fun. Let's do it again soon, guys.

Kris had a good point, this was an interesting read. Glad the email came through to sort of the answer.

I have a more thorough answer from him I'll post later today. But basically give/gain are synonymous and serve no purpose other than sentence structure.

I have a more thorough answer from him I'll post later today. But basically give/gain are synonymous and serve no purpose other than sentence structure.

Makes sense. Given that dealing damage and taking damage aren't necessarily the same in game, I thought it was fair that giving shields and gaining shields might also not be the same. At the very least, a note in the rules would be nice as gaining usually involves some sort of increase in ownership.

I have a more thorough answer from him I'll post later today. But basically give/gain are synonymous and serve no purpose other than sentence structure.

Makes sense. Given that dealing damage and taking damage aren't necessarily the same in game, I thought it was fair that giving shields and gaining shields might also not be the same. At the very least, a note in the rules would be nice as gaining usually involves some sort of increase in ownership.

I do agree that typically giving/gaining are different (ie: Dealt and Taken). I have also inquired what the mechanical function of "ignored" means, so these 2 terminology clarifications should clear up any misconceptions regarding his ability and/or the literal difference between words and how to interpret them.

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

I hope that these terminology clarifications will free up Lukas, time from answering questions and give him more developing a Kenobi card. The more we know as " fact " not only in this post but future posts here on the forums the better, imo anyways.

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

Can't speak for the opposition, but I understood both sides. I just only agree with my interpretation. I still don't think the rules text properly reflects FFG's intent. I still think errata or FAQ text is needed to avoid future confusion.

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

Can't speak for the opposition, but I understood both sides. I just only agree with my interpretation. I still don't think the rules text properly reflects FFG's intent. I still think errata or FAQ text is needed to avoid future confusion.

The thing is no one is arguing with you on this. I think we all agree, that the RRG could use some fine tuning, but that is to be expected with any game released 6 days ago. I do think however that only agreeing with your own interpretation is ignoranant even when you have been given an answer from the designer of the game. His answer is the "answer" and it disproves your interpretation.

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

Can't speak for the opposition, but I understood both sides. I just only agree with my interpretation. I still don't think the rules text properly reflects FFG's intent. I still think errata or FAQ text is needed to avoid future confusion.

The thing is no one is arguing with you on this. I think we all agree, that the RRG could use some fine tuning, but that is to be expected with any game released 6 days ago. I do think however that only agreeing with your own interpretation is ignoranant even when you have been given an answer from the designer of the game. His answer is the "answer" and it disproves your interpretation.

His answer proves intent. I obviously agree with the intent. I've said as much several times. I'm not talking about intent. I'm talking about the actual rules as written. I don't think they currently support the intent and need to be tweaked. I think this is an example of the rules not matching intent. The designers can intend X, write the rules to reflect X, but make mistakes and have the rules actually reflect Y. Happens all the time in games like this. That's why we have erratas and FAQs. If the authors were perfect at translating intent to unambiguous rules, we'd have no need for FAQs and erratas would be limited to fixing balance issues.

But yes, I think we generally agree.

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

Can't speak for the opposition, but I understood both sides. I just only agree with my interpretation. I still don't think the rules text properly reflects FFG's intent. I still think errata or FAQ text is needed to avoid future confusion.

The thing is no one is arguing with you on this. I think we all agree, that the RRG could use some fine tuning, but that is to be expected with any game released 6 days ago. I do think however that only agreeing with your own interpretation is ignoranant even when you have been given an answer from the designer of the game. His answer is the "answer" and it disproves your interpretation.

His answer proves intent. I obviously agree with the intent. I've said as much several times. I'm not talking about intent. I'm talking about the actual rules as written. I don't think they currently support the intent and need to be tweaked. I think this is an example of the rules not matching intent. The designers can intend X, write the rules to reflect X, but make mistakes and have the rules actually reflect Y. Happens all the time in games like this. That's why we have erratas and FAQs. If the authors were perfect at translating intent to unambiguous rules, we'd have no need for FAQs and erratas would be limited to fixing balance issues.

But yes, I think we generally agree.

Lukas has stated that Given and Gains are interchangeable based on sentence structer, which we all have agreed on the fact Qui-Gon has been Given a shield. Change that to Gains and we can continue as normal with his before ability. Now, granted that may not be written in the RRG and maybe it should be, but we all know for certain the intent and the reasoning for the word Gains.

I have a T-shirt with the following written on it:

"I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you".

Very applicable.

"Linda, Linda, Honey, listen!"

Can't speak for the opposition, but I understood both sides. I just only agree with my interpretation. I still don't think the rules text properly reflects FFG's intent. I still think errata or FAQ text is needed to avoid future confusion.

The thing is no one is arguing with you on this. I think we all agree, that the RRG could use some fine tuning, but that is to be expected with any game released 6 days ago. I do think however that only agreeing with your own interpretation is ignoranant even when you have been given an answer from the designer of the game. His answer is the "answer" and it disproves your interpretation.

His answer proves intent. I obviously agree with the intent. I've said as much several times. I'm not talking about intent. I'm talking about the actual rules as written. I don't think they currently support the intent and need to be tweaked. I think this is an example of the rules not matching intent. The designers can intend X, write the rules to reflect X, but make mistakes and have the rules actually reflect Y. Happens all the time in games like this. That's why we have erratas and FAQs. If the authors were perfect at translating intent to unambiguous rules, we'd have no need for FAQs and erratas would be limited to fixing balance issues.

But yes, I think we generally agree.

Lukas has stated that Given and Gains are interchangeable based on sentence structer, which we all have agreed on the fact Qui-Gon has been Given a shield. Change that to Gains and we can continue as normal with his before ability. Now, granted that may not be written in the RRG and maybe it should be, but we all know for certain the intent and the reasoning for the word Gains.

Totally agreed. We just need RRG wording saying that ignored shields still count as being gained. That would clear up the ambiguity and confusion.

It's not unreasonable to look at a character going from 3 shields to 3 shields and say it hasn't gained any shields regardless of how many you gave it. Not unreasonable, but also wrong given the designer's comments. Not everyone will read this thread or Lukas's email. Hopefully, everyone will read the rules. That's why I'm a big fan of clarifying the rules.

Also... how do you guys ask rules questions? I used the contact form, choosing general question, and have yet to receive a response. I just got the generic email saying my question would be forwarded to the appropriate area for review.

It is unreasonable, to consider gaining a value of +2 - 2 = not gaining a value.

It is unreasonable, to consider gaining a value of +2 - 2 = not gaining a value.

That's not what's happening though. It's more like...

1. Start at 3

2. Attempt to add +1

3. Ignore the +1 because you're already at 3

4. Remain at 3

The +1 never actually happens, so yes, I think it's reasonable to interpret that as no shield being gained. The rules don't support your +2 -2 example as there is never a -2. The rules tell us to ignore the +1, not to add a -1 to balance it back down to 0.

You are interpreting the word ignore to change the value of X. When you ignore something or someone it doesnt not mean they arent there, you just refuse to acknowledge. If I ignore a value of X, it does not make X = 0, it just means that X has no effect to the total value exceeding 3.

You are interpreting the word ignore to change the value of X. When you ignore something or someone it doesnt not mean they arent there, you just refuse to acknowledge. If I ignore a value of X, it does not make X = 0, it just means that X has no effect to the total value exceeding 3.

I'm not talking about changing the value. I'm just talking about not including it in the equation.

In other words, this is the problem we're trying to solve.

3 shields + 1 shield = ???

I'm NOT saying we do this...

3 shields + 0 shield = ???

I'm not saying to change the value to zero. I'm saying to ignore it. So, out original equation changes to this...

3 shields = ???

We ignore the '+ 1 shield' part and end up the answer being 3 shields, which I wouldn't think of as a gain over the initial 3 shields.

Your contradicting yourself If you are gaining a value of (anything) even if it is added to a total or not. It is a gain. So if i Gain 2 shields and ignore them because I am already at 3? You cant ignore a value that isnt gained because then you wouldnt have anything to compare the 3 shields total against.

If you are assuming that the 2 shield gain is immediately ignored = not existing, then you arent comparing your total of 3 shields to anything.

The equation is this: 3 + (X - (ignored = X )) = 3, did you infact gain a value, yes! it had no end result against the total value of 3.

I'm glad to see that Lukas cleared this up, but if you follow the wording on the card step by step as its written I don't see there is an issue.

1. Decide to resolve a die and give a shield to Qui Gon.

2. At this point the die resolution stops, no need to check how many shields he has.

3. Has he got any shield, if he has continue to step 4. If he hasn't then the ability cant happen and the die resolution continues.

4. Remove a shield and do one damage.

5. Ability ends so resolution of the die continues, give shield or shields to Qui Gon.

I'm glad to see that Lukas cleared this up, but if you follow the wording on the card step by step as its written I don't see there is an issue.

1. Decide to resolve a die and give a shield to Qui Gon.

2. At this point the die resolution stops, no need to check how many shields he has.

3. Has he got any shield, if he has continue to step 4. If he hasn't then the ability cant happen and the die resolution continues.

4. Remove a shield and do one damage.

5. Ability ends so resolution of the die continues, give shield or shields to Qui Gon.

The problem here is that Kris is assuming an ignored value isn't a gain. The thing is you cant ignore a value that doesnt exist. How can you ignore a gained value, if a value isnt gained to be ignored.

Your contradicting yourself If you are gaining a value of (anything) even if it is added to a total or not. It is a gain. So if i Gain 2 shields and ignore them because I am already at 3? You cant ignore a value that isnt gained because then you wouldnt have anything to compare the 3 shields total against.

If you are assuming that the 2 shield gain is immediately ignored = not existing, then you arent comparing your total of 3 shields to anything.

The equation is this: 3 + (X - (ignored = X )) = 3, did you infact gain a value, yes! it had no end result against the total value of 3.

Yet again, you use + X - X. The rules don't support the - X part. At no point in the rules are we told that if a character goes to 4 or higher that we should take shields away until the character is back down to 3. That's what you're trying to do. The rules instead tell us that if we try to make a character go to 4 or higher to ignore that effort and stay at 3.

0 -> 1 is a gain

1 -> 2 is a gain

2 -> 3 is a gain

3 -> 3 is not a gain

Again... I realize that the powers that be have spoken. I realize that the intent is to consider 3 -> 3 to be a gain if a shield was given and ignored. It's just really counter-intuitive and doesn't use the normal definition of gain.

If I have 3 apples and you toss me one, but I ignore it because I can't carry more than 3... you wouldn't say that I'd gained an apple. I think you could interview a thousand everyday English speakers and 999 of them would say I hadn't gained an apple. Same exact situation. The game terms just need to be clarified because they don't line up with common English usage.

Your contradicting yourself If you are gaining a value of (anything) even if it is added to a total or not. It is a gain. So if i Gain 2 shields and ignore them because I am already at 3? You cant ignore a value that isnt gained because then you wouldnt have anything to compare the 3 shields total against.

If you are assuming that the 2 shield gain is immediately ignored = not existing, then you arent comparing your total of 3 shields to anything.

The equation is this: 3 + (X - (ignored = X )) = 3, did you infact gain a value, yes! it had no end result against the total value of 3.

Yet again, you use + X - X. The rules don't support the - X part. At no point in the rules are we told that if a character goes to 4 or higher that we should take shields away until the character is back down to 3. That's what you're trying to do. The rules instead tell us that if we try to make a character go to 4 or higher to ignore that effort and stay at 3.

0 -> 1 is a gain

1 -> 2 is a gain

2 -> 3 is a gain

3 -> 3 is not a gain

Again... I realize that the powers that be have spoken. I realize that the intent is to consider 3 -> 3 to be a gain if a shield was given and ignored. It's just really counter-intuitive and doesn't use the normal definition of gain.

If I have 3 apples and you toss me one, but I ignore it because I can't carry more than 3... you wouldn't say that I'd gained an apple. I think you could interview a thousand everyday English speakers and 999 of them would say I hadn't gained an apple. Same exact situation. The game terms just need to be clarified because they don't line up with common English usage.

Your equation shows no evidence of an ignored value. The end result is the same, but the fact is you are resolving a value hence gaining/ being given a value why is it not shown in your equation?

I'm glad to see that Lukas cleared this up, but if you follow the wording on the card step by step as its written I don't see there is an issue.

1. Decide to resolve a die and give a shield to Qui Gon.

2. At this point the die resolution stops, no need to check how many shields he has.

3. Has he got any shield, if he has continue to step 4. If he hasn't then the ability cant happen and the die resolution continues.

4. Remove a shield and do one damage.

5. Ability ends so resolution of the die continues, give shield or shields to Qui Gon.

The problem here is that Kris is assuming an ignored value isn't a gain. The thing is you cant ignore a value that doesnt exist. How can you ignore a gained value, if a value isnt gained to be ignored.

Again, semantic differences and the reason we need clarity in the RRG. The rules tell us that shields can be given and that sometimes a given shield is ignored. We are left to interpret whether or not a given shield has been gained. In much the same way that dealt damage isn't always taken, it seems very reasonable to assume that sometimes given shields aren't always gained (specifically when they are instead ignored).

I'm not crazy and I understand that Lukas has opined. I just think there is an ambiguity in the rules that can very easily and very reasonably be misinterpreted.

If I put an apple on your desk and you ignore it. have you gained an apple? Yes.

If I put an apple on your desk and you ignore it. have you gained an apple? Yes.

The apple isn't staying on my desk. The Shield token is going back to the Supply. Your analogy would be more like...

If I put an apply on your desk, you ignore it and I return it back to the store I got it from, have you gained an apple? I still say no.

If I put an apple on your desk and you ignore it. have you gained an apple? Yes.

The apple isn't staying on my desk. The Shield token is going back to the Supply. Your analogy would be more like...

If I put an apply on your desk, you ignore it and I return it back to the store I got it from, have you gained an apple? I still say no.

You gained an apple and returned it. how is that not a gain? the net result is not a "gain", but the net result doesnt need to happen in order to trigger qui-gons ability.

I set an apple on your desk (Gain), Qui gon ability goes off remove apple add apple, You have gained an apple.