Just checked the FAQ.

MOVE

Some effects allow players to move cards or tokens.

• When something moves, it cannot move to its same (current) placement. If there is no valid destination for a move, the move cannot resolve.

• When damage is moved to a new character, it ignores shields and the character is not considered to have taken damage.

As the damage is not taken or dealt, Dooku cannot use shields.

I consider this matter resolved.

Just checked the FAQ.

MOVE

Some effects allow players to move cards or tokens.

• When something moves, it cannot move to its same (current) placement. If there is no valid destination for a move, the move cannot resolve.

• When damage is moved to a new character, it ignores shields and the character is not considered to have taken damage.

As the damage is not taken or dealt, Dooku cannot use shields.

I consider this matter resolved.

Wheras I won't rest until FFG specifically defines 'dealt' and how it applies to Dooku, Backup muscle and any other situations that may arise.

In fact the FAQ should be a word-for-word breakdown of every card and every possible interaction available.

As you may be able to tell I've gone full sarcastic wanker in this thread.

Just checked the FAQ.

MOVE

Some effects allow players to move cards or tokens.

• When something moves, it cannot move to its same (current) placement. If there is no valid destination for a move, the move cannot resolve.

• When damage is moved to a new character, it ignores shields and the character is not considered to have taken damage.

As the damage is not taken or dealt, Dooku cannot use shields.

I consider this matter resolved.

Wheras I won't rest until FFG specifically defines 'dealt' and how it applies to Dooku, Backup muscle and any other situations that may arise.

In fact the FAQ should be a word-for-word breakdown of every card and every possible interaction available.

As you may be able to tell I've gone full sarcastic wanker in this thread.

To the point where I don't even know which side you agree with..

Just checked the FAQ.

MOVE

Some effects allow players to move cards or tokens.

• When something moves, it cannot move to its same (current) placement. If there is no valid destination for a move, the move cannot resolve.

• When damage is moved to a new character, it ignores shields and the character is not considered to have taken damage.

As the damage is not taken or dealt, Dooku cannot use shields.

I consider this matter resolved.

Wheras I won't rest until FFG specifically defines 'dealt' and how it applies to Dooku, Backup muscle and any other situations that may arise.

In fact the FAQ should be a word-for-word breakdown of every card and every possible interaction available.

As you may be able to tell I've gone full sarcastic wanker in this thread.

Guess what? Full rules are made for this purpose so the sarcasm is not a point here. Again what is obvious for you can be not so obvious for another guy.

No where does it say the damage is bypassing shields (IE unblockable Damage)

No where does it say the damage is bypassing shields (IE unblockable Damage)

Double-check the card text:

"Action - Exhaust this support to move 1 damage from it to a character (this ignores shields) "

Damage "moved" is not "taken".

Damage "not taken" is still "dealt".

Therefore damage "moved" is also "dealt".

Now, there remains one contradiction:

"Damage not taken is still dealt" vs "shields block damage that would be dealt". Right here is a plain contradiction in the rules, or a misprint/misuse of the term or concept. Instead of saying "that would be dealt" it should say "that would be taken by...". Or, it should say that in the cases of shields blocking damage, damage is neither taken nore dealt. But that has yet to be clarified.

To answer the topic's question: yes, following the current FAQ, Dooku can indeed gain a shield from backup muscle, because damage "moved" is still "dealt".

BUT: to this date, because of the contradiction with shields blocking damage that " would be dealt" (hinting it is neither dealt nore taken), one can argue that Dooku cannot trigger his ability if insufficient damage is done (not to say dealt) and does not pierce his shields.

But again, to this day, there is nothing but a contradiction in terms to support this.

Two things that will solve the problem:

Damage to a shield is neither dealt nore taken, it simply removes that shield.

"Taken" and "dealt" need to be assimilated as the same thing: "damage token placed on a character". And a third term needs to be instated (see later below).

These ways of solving the debate would end up in the same result: Dooku can only trigger his ability if a damage token is/would be placed on him. Except if another FAQ compliments that "moving" damage is also not "dealt". And that's probably the FAQ about Dooku that's gonna come out at the same time as that clarification about dealt and taken in relations with shields.

Finally, (third term) one can argue that "dealt" is the concept of "being attacked by damage". Therefore it should be replace by "target" or "targeted", which would help a lot in rules clarification and is a keyword used in a lot of other games.

Now imagine this:

Interrupt: before Dooku becomes the target of a damage source, you may discard a card from your hand to give him a shield.

How difficult was that. It's like we're beta testers! Woop woop, where's ma free booster?! Oh wait, right, there's no stock, sorry.

Wait and see what FFG decides, but a revamp of the FAQ or the terminology/keywords is definitely needed. Until then, argue away on the day with casual games, and ask the judge what his ruling is at a tournament before it starts so everyone sings the same tune !