*they're

(Yes, I know I'm a pedant, but grammar is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse; and helping your uncle jack off a horse.)

Was going to post:

[insert rules of there, their, they're here]

but yours is good enough.

"At the end of each round, you may spend 1 energy to recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)."

To be honest, if it was intended to work differently I would have expected the following wording (based on similar FFG wordings elsewere):

"At the end of each round, you may spend any number of enery. For each energy spent this way recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)".

And though they sometimes slip up and though interaction between different unique abilities often need to be FAQ'd, I would not have expected them to use an inferior (as in less clear) wording for an effect where another more clear format of wording such an ability already exists (if it indeed was meant to allow recovering several shields). Since that is not the case, it is reasonable to expect that not to be the case.

Maybe. Maybe a little more verbosity would have better illustrated the intent or they could have left off the last 5 words and been done with it. I was looking at BSG in light of the wording used to describe and define the Recover Action used by Huge Ships.

I don't want to rehash the arguments for or against the wording on the card. This was just being used as an example that I thought fit this thread topic, minus the grammatical error. There have been several cards which have been the topic of discussion relating to their intent. FFG does do a good job with the rules, upgrades and card interactions but on occasion one slips through. I felt that this was one of those occasions.

My point is just that when in doubt about a rule, and if there is no answer in the RRG or the FAQ, then it is often a good idea to not only consider how to read the rule, but also to consider how the interpretation you have on it would ideally have been worded (as in my example above); and if the two of them seem to far apart, then it is probably not the intended interpretation. Granted, this is easier the better you know X-Wing (or some of FFGs other related games).

Btw, 'Gonk' has a very similar wording, but I have no idea if it caused the same confusion.

My point is just that when in doubt about a rule, and if there is no answer in the RRG or the FAQ, then it is often a good idea to not only consider how to read the rule, but also to consider how the interpretation you have on it would ideally have been worded (as in my example above); and if the two of them seem to far apart, then it is probably not the intended interpretation. Granted, this is easier the better you know X-Wing (or some of FFGs other related games).

Btw, 'Gonk' has a very similar wording, but I have no idea if it caused the same confusion.

That was the problem. I had no doubt that BSG allowed you to recover more than one shield until it was brought up in a casual game. Then it became a difference of opinion which lead to the forum which lead to asking FFG which resulted in an answer.

Gonk is an action so it can only be performed once per round. In fact, at one time, it was considered to be one action that allowed either adding a shield token or removing one from the card. This was verified in an email response by Frank Brooks only to be reversed and clarified later in an FAQ>

Also with shield thing goingon thread and people saying it a house rule no its not the card says I get one shield for one energy up to my max shield value so that how I play it

Why would i only get one shield then the card would be point less

Also with shield thing goingon thread and people saying it a house rule no its not the card says I get one shield for one energy up to my max shield value so that how I play it

Why would i only get one shield then the card would be point less

Shield regen is never pointless.

Also with shield thing goingon thread and people saying it a house rule no its not the card says I get one shield for one energy up to my max shield value so that how I play it

Why would i only get one shield then the card would be point less

The card isn't 'pontless', but it only lets you use it's ability once; the ability is "spend 1 energy, gain one shield", not "spend as much energy as you like/have, regain one shield spent".

Compare it with the wording of the 'recover' action:

For each energy token removed, the ship recovers one shield, up to its maximum shield value.

"Up to your shield value" is that you can't recover shields beyond your starting value (note that R2-D2 and other shield regeneration methods include the same phrase).

It's still useful, because it allows you to spend only 1 energy (instead of everything), and it doesn't require your action.

Them 2 cards do same thing one forces you to use all engery to get shields other let's you spend one for one

Dont you love rules interpretation

Because I just can't see our understand it to mean anything else

Them 2 cards do same thing one forces you to use all engery to get shields other let's you spend one for one

Dont you love rules interpretation

Because I just can't see our understand it to mean anything else

1 for 1 means 1 and only 1. So you cannot choose to do 2 for 2 because the card only says 1.

No interpretation, you just have to read the card exactly as it is written.

And have to me I can spend one energy for one shield up to your shield value. that how card works to me I dont see how interpret it any other way

So we have established that the Upgrade does not do the same thing as the Reinforce action. 1 uses up your action for the turn and your energy but allows you to recover multiple shields. The other does not use an action and provides 1 shield in exchange for 1 energy, no more, no less.

Actions are valuable in X-wing and an upgrade that does something without requiring an action to trigger is useful. Also you may want to spend your energy on other upgrades such as secondary weapons.

To say they are the same is like saying a car is the same as a bicycle. Sure they both have wheels and will allow you to get around faster than walking but there is a big difference in how you use them and how much they cost to run.

"At the end of each round, you may spend 1 energy to recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)."

To be honest, if it was intended to work differently I would have expected the following wording (based on similar FFG wordings elsewere):

"At the end of each round, you may spend any number of enery. For each energy spent this way recover 1 shield (up to your shield value)".

There would also be (almost) no reason for it to be "Limited" , because then taking multiple would provide no additional benefit. As written, if it wasn't limited, then you could equip multiple and trigger each one separately (e.g. if you had 3 BSGs you could spend 3 energy to get 3 shields. If I was house ruling to improve the card, this is what I'd do),

And though they sometimes slip up and though interaction between different unique abilities often need to be FAQ'd, I would not have expected them to use an inferior (as in less clear) wording for an effect where another more clear format of wording such an ability already exists (if it indeed was meant to allow recovering several shields). Since that is not the case, it is reasonable to expect that not to be the case.

Emphasis added.

I guess I have different understanding of how it works

You keep thinking you NEED to interpret the rules, rather than just taking them at face value.

I am taking card at face value am doing what it says up to shield value

That how card reads why would I do it any different

And who dont interpret rules ever one I ever played a game with reads rules interpret how they work our how to best fellow rules

The GW school of games have (generally) used the I go - You go system, I do all my stuff (you react) and then you do all your stuff (and I react). X-Wing uses turn based initiative (on PS) so the turn order isn't straight forward, we also have a large number of reactionary and condition based abilities (Snap shot for instance or Ion projector). Because these abilities can also trigger other abilities (when you receive a damage..... for instance) the order in which things are resolved becomes more critical.

Currently (I don't believe it's in the FAQ) people have been discussing the new Tie Striker pilot "Countdown" and his ability when he is attacked by "Wampa" (a Tie Fighter pilot). To me the order of resolution appears straight forward, Wampa's ability occurs AT THE START of the "Compare Results Step" where as Countdown's ability occurs "during the compare results step". So, to me, Wampa's ability will trigger first (at the start), Countdowns ability would trigger after Wampa's ability, but as Wampa's ability cancels all the dice and scores 1 damage if he cancelled a crit, Countdown's ability can't trigger.

But these interactions are why the X-Wing rules can appear more complex than say, 40k. When I started playing Rogue Trader in the late '80's the rules were complex (certainly detailed) and became more complex over the next couple of versions of 40K until they decided to simplify the rules, which they then had to make more complex because they were to simple. Fast forward to today and 40k seems to have devolved to "whoever uses the most recent Codex and biggest models wins".... kind of boring and the reason I stopped playing those games about 20 years ago...

All have now for games till I found a xwing box in Target few yrs ago is games workshop games with models and only maigc as only real card based game out there. heck I didn't now there more xwing ships till my brother went in to a Barnes and nobles and found more

So am sorry all games I ever know our played with need rules interpretation to understand them

Also I dont care for our get x wing turn order system

The reason I thought Backup Shield Generator worked for recovering more than one shield, besides the wording, was how the Recover Action is worded. The Recover Action allows you to spend ALL your energy to recover shield value. Have 4 energy but only lost 3 shields? Tough, you use all the energy to recover those 3 shields. Have 4 energy but lost 6 shields? You only get 4 shields back. I thought it was a simple "reward" for lasting to the end of the round with some energy.

Backup Shield Generator is at the end of each round you may spend one energy to recover one shield (up to your shield value). What "up to your shield value" means here is that you can't exceed the printed shield value: it's used on R2-D2 and R5-P9 also.

The reason it only works once is the once per opportunity rule: a card can only be resolved for its effect once per opportunity: in this case the end of the round is the opportunity and the effect is 1 Energy -> 1 Shield.

Also I dont care for our get x wing turn order system

Am dont get our carry for a PS order movement it should be you go I go and all combat is treated as being done at same time so say I move first then opposition then I shoot any ships killed stay on table my opposition shoots all killed ship are now removed and we go to next turn

Am dont get our carry for a PS order movement it should be you go I go and all combat is treated as being done at same time so say I move first then opposition then I shoot any ships killed stay on table my opposition shoots all killed ship are now removed and we go to next turn

Why? The pilot skill mechanic exists to prevent this: otherwise a TIE swarm would gain a huge information advantage over an elite pilot.

Am dont get our carry for a PS order movement it should be you go I go and all combat is treated as being done at same time so say I move first then opposition then I shoot any ships killed stay on table my opposition shoots all killed ship are now removed and we go to next turn

No that's a terrible idea it shouldn't even still exist in 40k.

OK explaine to me why then because ever game I ever played is that way.

Only thing I think in a you go I go system i shooting/combat should be considered to be happening at same time

OK explaine to me why then because ever game I ever played is that way.

Only thing I think in a you go I go system i shooting/combat should be considered to be happening at same time

Because every game is not the same. That would defeat the point of having different games. If you don't want to play X-Wing the way is designed to be played and the way most people play it, go ahead. Do what you enjoy doing. X-Wing is about having fun. Just don't expect your games to play out the same way as other games, such as those on Youtube, because you are playing by a different ruleset, your ruleset.

OK explaine to me why then because ever game I ever played is that way.

Only thing I think in a you go I go system i shooting/combat should be considered to be happening at same time

Plenty of games use initiative based systems (rather than Player 1 goes then player 2). Even some GW games have simultaneous turns (Epic for example).

If you try to play X-wing using the 40K turn system then it just breaks down. Pilot skill becomes an irrelevant stat and the whole system of setting your dials in secret and then revealing them in PS order becomes pointless.

You need to stop trying to bring 40K ideas and concepts into X-wing. They are very different games that are intended to be played differently. Once you accept that even the basics like turns are totally different to 40K, then all the other stuff will start to make more sense. Stop trying to interpret rules, just follow them as they are written.

As Yoda tells Luke:

"You must unlearn what you have learned."