So now we're at "give" vs "gain"

Nope. This isn't a waste of time at all.

Sarcasm noted. We all know what Dostoyevsky had to say about it.

Would you care to explain your point? My stance is that a character who is not given a shield doesn't gain that shield. Everyone else in the thread seems to think that a character who is not given a shield due to it being ignored has still gained that shield. I have yet to see an explanation that reconciles that discrepancy.

My points have had nothing to whether he gains the shield or it is ignored, but the timing of when the checks are actually made vs his ability.

Per the example in the rulebook, his ability triggers when he's about to gain a shield.

So the order of events for adding shields seems to be:

1. Play the action or resolve the shield die, thus the character is about to gain a shield. (This is the point where I contend his ability triggers)

2. Check how many shields the character has.

3. Give the character shields, ignoring any over 3.

It doesn't all just fizzle right away, there's a structure and sequence of events that plays our when you do anything. There's nothing saying you can't target him with that gives him shields while he's at 3, so you still have to go through the steps of granting the shields, whether they are ignored or not, they aren't ignored until you check how many he has.

I think I see the core issue here. You think he's about to gain a shield as soon as you say you're going to give him one... regardless of whether or not he ultimately will gain that shield. I think he's about to gain a shield immediately before he gains a shield. The trigger is gaining one or more shields... not being given one or more shields.

Do you have rules text allowing you to ignore the portion of giving a character a shield where you decide whether or not it actually gains that shield or if you ignore it?

Well that depends.

Do *you* have rules text allowing you to skip to the end of the queue to influence triggers at the start of it?

Um... sure. The trigger condition is "gains 1 or more shields". I'm resolving the entire shield process, stopping immediately before the character gains 1 or more shields. I'm unclear as to why you're hopping out of the queue BEFORE you've completed all the steps that lead up to meeting your trigger condition.

Can you please provide the page number for that rule so I can read it?

Certainly.

Page 16 under the Triggered Abilities header.

"A triggered ability has a trigger condition and an effect. When a triggered ability meets its trigger condition, the ability resolves."

It then goes on to explain the difference between 'before' and 'after' abilities. That's not entirely relevant though, because my argument is that the trigger condition is never met. I'm not worried about when the ability is resolved. I'm worried about meeting the trigger condition, which is clearly the prerequisite for resolving the ability.

For Qui-Gon's trigger condition to be met, he would need to gain a shield. Simply being given a shield doesn't necessarily mean he will gain one. Shield tokens have additional rules, including the fact that they are sometimes ignored. My contention remains that if a shield token is ignored, the character it was given to can't be said to have gained it.

KrisWall has a valid point, can a character at three shields be considered to be "about to gain a shield" if yes, then QG's ability triggers, if no then it doesn't. We're not getting the answer to that question in this thread though. Wait for a response from FFG.

Which is what I've said several times now. I keep getting attacked though, and I'm bored, so I'm willing to argue for another 71 minutes.

pping out of the queue BEFORE you've completed all the steps that lead up to meeting your trigger condition.

Can you please provide the page number for that rule so I can read it?

Certainly.

Page 16 under the Triggered Abilities header.

"A triggered ability has a trigger condition and an effect. When a triggered ability meets its trigger condition, the ability resolves."

It then goes on to explain the difference between 'before' and 'after' abilities. That's not entirely relevant though, because my argument is that the trigger condition is never met. I'm not worried about when the ability is resolved. I'm worried about meeting the trigger condition, which is clearly the prerequisite for resolving the ability.

For Qui-Gon's trigger condition to be met, he would need to gain a shield. Simply being given a shield doesn't necessarily mean he will gain one. Shield tokens have additional rules, including the fact that they are sometimes ignored. My contention remains that if a shield token is ignored, the character it was given to can't be said to have gained it.

and which page says he isn't about to gain a shield?

Okay, pal.

Well, I sure look forward to you posting the email from FFG in response to the question you totally submitted.

Sigh. Ok. Now I'm a liar? Wow.

For Qui-Gon's trigger condition to be met, he would need to gain a shield. Simply being given a shield doesn't necessarily mean he will gain one. Shield tokens have additional rules, including the fact that they are sometimes ignored. My contention remains that if a shield token is ignored, the character it was given to can't be said to have gained it.

I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong.

KrisWall has a valid point, can a character at three shields be considered to be "about to gain a shield" if yes, then QG's ability triggers, if no then it doesn't. We're not getting the answer to that question in this thread though. Wait for a response from FFG.

Which is what I've said several times now. I keep getting attacked though, and I'm bored, so I'm willing to argue for another 71 minutes.

Thus reinforcing my previous contention. You're arguing because you're bored, and refusing to acknowledge any explanation because you've already decided what you believe, not because you want anything like clarity.

Why bother denying it?

Okay, pal.

Well, I sure look forward to you posting the email from FFG in response to the question you totally submitted.

Sigh. Ok. Now I'm a liar? Wow.

I think I've already stated my strong belief that you're fairly disingenuous as to your desire for actual clarification. You'll forgive me for having my doubts.

Blame those who've come before. I know the steps of this dance.

Sarcasm noted. We all know what Dostoyevsky had to say about it.

Would you care to explain your point? My stance is that a character who is not given a shield doesn't gain that shield. Everyone else in the thread seems to think that a character who is not given a shield due to it being ignored has still gained that shield. I have yet to see an explanation that reconciles that discrepancy.

My points have had nothing to whether he gains the shield or it is ignored, but the timing of when the checks are actually made vs his ability.

Per the example in the rulebook, his ability triggers when he's about to gain a shield.

So the order of events for adding shields seems to be:

1. Play the action or resolve the shield die, thus the character is about to gain a shield. (This is the point where I contend his ability triggers)

2. Check how many shields the character has.

3. Give the character shields, ignoring any over 3.

It doesn't all just fizzle right away, there's a structure and sequence of events that plays our when you do anything. There's nothing saying you can't target him with that gives him shields while he's at 3, so you still have to go through the steps of granting the shields, whether they are ignored or not, they aren't ignored until you check how many he has.

I think I see the core issue here. You think he's about to gain a shield as soon as you say you're going to give him one... regardless of whether or not he ultimately will gain that shield. I think he's about to gain a shield immediately before he gains a shield. The trigger is gaining one or more shields... not being given one or more shields.

Do you have rules text allowing you to ignore the portion of giving a character a shield where you decide whether or not it actually gains that shield or if you ignore it?

Um... sure. The trigger condition is "gains 1 or more shields". I'm resolving the entire shield process, stopping immediately before the character gains 1 or more shields. I'm unclear as to why you're hopping out of the queue BEFORE you've completed all the steps that lead up to meeting your trigger condition.

Can you please provide the page number for that rule so I can read it?

Certainly.

Page 16 under the Triggered Abilities header.

"A triggered ability has a trigger condition and an effect. When a triggered ability meets its trigger condition, the ability resolves."

It then goes on to explain the difference between 'before' and 'after' abilities. That's not entirely relevant though, because my argument is that the trigger condition is never met. I'm not worried about when the ability is resolved. I'm worried about meeting the trigger condition, which is clearly the prerequisite for resolving the ability.

For Qui-Gon's trigger condition to be met, he would need to gain a shield. Simply being given a shield doesn't necessarily mean he will gain one. Shield tokens have additional rules, including the fact that they are sometimes ignored. My contention remains that if a shield token is ignored, the character it was given to can't be said to have gained it.

and which page says he isn't about to gain a shield?

Same page that tells me all the other things that I can't do. This is a permissive rule set. It shows us all the things we CAN do. It doesn't show us all the things we CAN'T do. If I say "your character isn't gaining a shield" and you respond with "no way... show me in the rules where it says my character isn't gaining a shield"... well, I can't because that's not how permissive rules work.

Imagine if I said "If I win, I get all your cards and dice". You'd say "that's not how the game works". I'd say "Show me which page says I don't get all your cards and dice if I win". Comical, right?

/thread

For Qui-Gon's trigger condition to be met, he would need to gain a shield. Simply being given a shield doesn't necessarily mean he will gain one. Shield tokens have additional rules, including the fact that they are sometimes ignored. My contention remains that if a shield token is ignored, the character it was given to can't be said to have gained it.

I understand what you are saying, but you are wrong.

Care to elaborate? I assume you're referring to my contention? So, to clarify, you think that if a character is given a shield, which is ignored due to him already having three, that we can still say he gained a shield?

/thread

All that email shows is that they intended Qui-Gon's ability to work when he is at three shields. The rules still need an Errata clarifying that ignored shields are still considered to have been gained.

Which is fine with me. As I've said several times, this is the expected outcome. The rules have an issue and need clarification. As written, they don't jive with what the intent seems to be.

/thread

I hope your overwhelming sense of self-satisfaction helps you sleep at night.

All that email shows is that they intended Qui-Gon's ability to work when he is at three shields. The rules still need an Errata clarifying that ignored shields are still considered to have been gained.

Which is fine with me. As I've said several times, this is the expected outcome. The rules have an issue and need clarification. As written, they don't jive with what the intent seems to be.

Yes, I imagine 50% of the rules are going to need to be errata'd, patience on this matter. I did inquire to him as to what gain and give actually mean so we shall see.

KrisWall has a valid point, can a character at three shields be considered to be "about to gain a shield" if yes, then QG's ability triggers, if no then it doesn't. We're not getting the answer to that question in this thread though. Wait for a response from FFG.

He is considered about to gain a shield.

Qui-gon has 3 shields, you resolve a shield dice you can target Qui-gon for the shield. He is now about to gain a shield. He can trigger his affect before he gains the shield.

If he was an invalid target for the shield that would be different. But he is a valid target, the shield wouldn't be ignored until you actually attempted to place a 4th shield.

One thing about Destiny is, you can attempt to resolve an action as far as you can, even if you can't fully complete. I know most other games like the Star wars Lcg you can't do the action if he can't be completed.

I really don't think the rules need an errata.

Let's see:

- Person has issue with rule wording.
- Person receives clarification from multiple sources.
- Person refuses to accept clarification in favor of personal interpretation.
- FFG agrees with clarifications given.

I'm gonna go with "Might get an FAQ nod in a few months"

Nothing is going to be errata'd.

KrisWall has a valid point, can a character at three shields be considered to be "about to gain a shield" if yes, then QG's ability triggers, if no then it doesn't. We're not getting the answer to that question in this thread though. Wait for a response from FFG.

He is considered about to gain a shield.

Qui-gon has 3 shields, you resolve a shield dice you can target Qui-gon for the shield. He is now about to gain a shield. He can trigger his affect before he gains the shield.

If he was an invalid target for the shield that would be different. But he is a valid target, the shield wouldn't be ignored until you actually attempted to place a 4th shield.

One thing about Destiny is, you can attempt to resolve an action as far as you can, even if you can't fully complete. I know most other games like the Star wars Lcg you can't do the action if he can't be completed.

I really don't think the rules need an errata.

I do think the rules need some consistency, clarifying the difference between gains, given, and receives, if any.

KrisWall has a valid point, can a character at three shields be considered to be "about to gain a shield" if yes, then QG's ability triggers, if no then it doesn't. We're not getting the answer to that question in this thread though. Wait for a response from FFG.

He is considered about to gain a shield.

Qui-gon has 3 shields, you resolve a shield dice you can target Qui-gon for the shield. He is now about to gain a shield. He can trigger his affect before he gains the shield.

If he was an invalid target for the shield that would be different. But he is a valid target, the shield wouldn't be ignored until you actually attempted to place a 4th shield.

One thing about Destiny is, you can attempt to resolve an action as far as you can, even if you can't fully complete. I know most other games like the Star wars Lcg you can't do the action if he can't be completed.

I really don't think the rules need an errata.

I do think the rules need some consistency, clarifying the difference between gains, given, and receives, if any.

I think they'd be better served just keeping an eye on ability triggers, or clarifying (at most) the idea of "ignoring" effects and how that influences a trigger.

We already have a glossary of necessary game terms, if we start expanding it to include every verb, noun and pronoun in the English language the rulebook will rapidly become cumbersome.

Let's see:

- Person has issue with rule wording.

- Person receives clarification from multiple sources.

- Person refuses to accept clarification in favor of personal interpretation.

- FFG agrees with clarifications given.

I'm gonna go with "Might get an FAQ nod in a few months"

Nothing is going to be errata'd.

Ok, I assume I'm the person in your comment. I did accept the email from FFG immediately. I'm not going to accept some random troll's word who keeps insulting me over and over, so I apologize if I didn't take your word for things. The very fact that there are multiple people on both sides of this debate prove that a clarification is needed. It's not straightforward. It's not worded well. Smaller things have been errata'd.

Let's see:

- Person has issue with rule wording.

- Person receives clarification from multiple sources.

- Person refuses to accept clarification in favor of personal interpretation.

- FFG agrees with clarifications given.

I'm gonna go with "Might get an FAQ nod in a few months"

Nothing is going to be errata'd.

Ok, I assume I'm the person in your comment. I did accept the email from FFG immediately. I'm not going to accept some random troll's word who keeps insulting me over and over, so I apologize if I didn't take your word for things. The very fact that there are multiple people on both sides of this debate prove that a clarification is needed. It's not straightforward. It's not worded well. Smaller things have been errata'd.

Apology accepted.

KrisWall has a valid point, can a character at three shields be considered to be "about to gain a shield" if yes, then QG's ability triggers, if no then it doesn't. We're not getting the answer to that question in this thread though. Wait for a response from FFG.

He is considered about to gain a shield.

Qui-gon has 3 shields, you resolve a shield dice you can target Qui-gon for the shield. He is now about to gain a shield. He can trigger his affect before he gains the shield.

If he was an invalid target for the shield that would be different. But he is a valid target, the shield wouldn't be ignored until you actually attempted to place a 4th shield.

One thing about Destiny is, you can attempt to resolve an action as far as you can, even if you can't fully complete. I know most other games like the Star wars Lcg you can't do the action if he can't be completed.

I really don't think the rules need an errata.

I do think the rules need some consistency, clarifying the difference between gains, given, and receives, if any.

I think they'd be better served just keeping an eye on ability triggers, or clarifying (at most) the idea of "ignoring" effects and how that influences a trigger.

We already have a glossary of necessary game terms, if we start expanding it to include every verb, noun and pronoun in the English language the rulebook will rapidly become cumbersome.

Well, we should at least define the words that are used in a non standard way. Going from 3 shields to 3 shields is normally not referred to in common English usage as gaining a shield. We either need to redefine the word gain OR just change Qui-Gon's ability to trigger off of being given a shield and not actually gaining a shield.

Let's see:

- Person has issue with rule wording.

- Person receives clarification from multiple sources.

- Person refuses to accept clarification in favor of personal interpretation.

- FFG agrees with clarifications given.

I'm gonna go with "Might get an FAQ nod in a few months"

Nothing is going to be errata'd.

Ok, I assume I'm the person in your comment. I did accept the email from FFG immediately. I'm not going to accept some random troll's word who keeps insulting me over and over, so I apologize if I didn't take your word for things. The very fact that there are multiple people on both sides of this debate prove that a clarification is needed. It's not straightforward. It's not worded well. Smaller things have been errata'd.

Apology accepted.

This made me laugh out loud. Thanks. I needed that.

How did this go to six pa....

Oh.

This went to 7 pages because of you.

Like how I both complained about the length and pointlessness of the post while simultaneously contributing to both?

I freely admit to my boredom this afternoon.

Like how I both complained about the length and pointlessness of the post while simultaneously contributing to both?

I freely admit to my boredom this afternoon.

This satisfied my boredom lol, Lukas even got in on this. Any else know how the lead developer on a lucas arts game's name is lukas?

/thread

All that email shows is that they intended Qui-Gon's ability to work when he is at three shields. The rules still need an Errata clarifying that ignored shields are still considered to have been gained.

Which is fine with me. As I've said several times, this is the expected outcome. The rules have an issue and need clarification. As written, they don't jive with what the intent seems to be.