4-Lom says "At the start of the End phase, you may assign 1 of your stress tokens to another ship at Range 1." Inspiring Recruit says "Once per round, when a friendly ship at Range 1-2 removes a stress token, it may remove 1 additional stress token." If 4-Lom assigns a stress token from himself to another ship does that count as a "removal"? I'm going shoot down any wonderings about where the 2nd stress token would go and point out that 4-Lom says 1 stress token is assigned so the 2nd token would just get removed, if it works.

I'm not sure. I've submitted a rules question to FFG support but have not received a response yet.

I'm hoping that this is covered in the FAQ that should drop soon. I really want to know if 4-LOM witg Inspiring Recruit and Rage is going to be as cool as it could be.

I would say that 4-LOM's ability counts as a "removal", so he gets to assign just the 1 token to another ship, and Inspiring Recruit allows him to just remove a second stress token, but not assign it to any other ship.

19 minutes ago, Parravon said:

I would say that 4-LOM's ability counts as a "removal", so he gets to assign just the 1 token to another ship, and Inspiring Recruit allows him to just remove a second stress token, but not assign it to any other ship.

I'm hoping that's how it works but I'd really like a FAQ to confirm it before I start playing a squad that depends on that particular interaction.

3 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

I'm hoping that's how it works but I'd really like a FAQ to confirm it before I start playing a squad that depends on that particular interaction.

The way I see it, you've "removed" the token from your ship and assigned it to another ship, so it really shouldn't be too much of an issue. Unless there's a hair-splitting rules lawyer that can convince you otherwise.

2 minutes ago, Parravon said:

The way I see it, you've "removed" the token from your ship and assigned it to another ship, so it really shouldn't be too much of an issue. Unless there's a hair-splitting rules lawyer that can convince you otherwise.

Unfortunately, that rules lawyer is running around inside my own head on this one. In the same way that Jendon passing a target lock doesn't count as the recipient having acquired a target lock it seems like a token that is passed is not removed.

Without something to point to (even a similar interaction as a precedent) I don't feel comfortable saying "Yep, that works that way".

7 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Unfortunately, that rules lawyer is running around inside my own head on this one. In the same way that Jendon passing a target lock doesn't count as the recipient having acquired a target lock it seems like a token that is passed is not removed.

Without something to point to (even a similar interaction as a precedent) I don't feel comfortable saying "Yep, that works that way".

If getting the stress from 4-LOM can trigger Soontir's ability (and it can) then I don't see why the other end of that transaction should be any different.

I see where you're going with the Jendon example, but Acquiring a Target Lock is a much more complicated process that involves two tokens, and Jendon just moves one of them.

8 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

Unfortunately, that rules lawyer is running around inside my own head on this one. In the same way that Jendon passing a target lock doesn't count as the recipient having acquired a target lock it seems like a token that is passed is not removed.

Without something to point to (even a similar interaction as a precedent) I don't feel comfortable saying "Yep, that works that way".

Well ask yourself this: How do I assign one of my stress tokens without removing it first?

8 hours ago, Parravon said:

Well ask yourself this: How do I assign one of my stress tokens without removing it first?

By moving it from one ship to another. The stress never leaves the table, so it is never removed. The argument it that removing a stress would mean removing it from the table altogether, and i think that argument has enough legs to require verification.

12 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

By moving it from one ship to another. The stress never leaves the table, so it is never removed. The argument it that removing a stress would mean removing it from the table altogether, and i think that argument has enough legs to require verification.

Where in the rules does it say that a token must leave the table to be counted as "removed"?

51 minutes ago, Parravon said:

Where in the rules does it say that a token must leave the table to be counted as "removed"?

It doesn't. The fact that it doesn't is, however, irrelevant. This is an English language issue, not a letter of the law issue.

I mean, we're talking about a game where touching is not the same as touching...

1 minute ago, InquisitorM said:

It doesn't. The fact that it doesn't is, however, irrelevant. This is an English language issue, not a letter of the law issue.

I mean, we're talking about a game where touching is not the same as touching...

And because "touching" doesn't mean "touching", we shouldn't assume that "remove" means anything more than the minimum that we know it has to from the rules.

Seriously, if moving a token from one ship to another can trigger "assign" events, I see no reason to assume there's not a corresponding "remove" event.

2 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

It doesn't. The fact that it doesn't is, however, irrelevant. This is an English language issue, not a letter of the law issue.

I mean, we're talking about a game where touching is not the same as touching...

So if the fact that is doesn't leave the table makes it irrelevant, why is relevant in your post further up where you claim it's not "removed" because it didn't leave the table.

The token is removed from one ship and assigned to another, simple as that. If you want to get nit-picky about it, you have to pick it up, thus "leaving the table", before placing it on the receiving ship. That's unless you want to slide it across the table to make sure it doesn't "leave the table".

4 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

It doesn't. The fact that it doesn't is, however, irrelevant. This is an English language issue, not a letter of the law issue.

I mean, we're talking about a game where touching is not the same as touching...

And we are talking about a language where "literally" is literally its own antonym.

1 hour ago, Parravon said:

So if the fact that is doesn't leave the table makes it irrelevant...

That is not what I said. What makes it irrelevant is that the opposite is also true: there is no rules to state what does count as 'removed', either.

The bottom line is that we have no basis from which to make a clinical assessment, thus some kind or ruling is required for clarity.

3 minutes ago, InquisitorM said:

That is not what I said. What makes it irrelevant is that the opposite is also true: there is no rules to state what does count as 'removed', either.

The bottom line is that we have no basis from which to make a clinical assessment, thus some kind or ruling is required for clarity.

But we do have a basis - simple common sense. Because "remove" is not defined as an X-wing "key word", then surely the plain English definition must be used. I've "removed" or taken a token from one ship and "assigned" or given it to another. There's nothing there that requires an official ruling or clarification. It's pretty darned simple.

7 hours ago, Parravon said:

But we do have a basis - simple common sense. Because "remove" is not defined as an X-wing "key word", then surely the plain English definition must be used. I've "removed" or taken a token from one ship and "assigned" or given it to another. There's nothing there that requires an official ruling or clarification. It's pretty darned simple.

Simple common sense says it's moved, not removed. That would be the entire point of the argument. I'm sorry you can't seem to see past your interpretation automatically being correct.

At the start of this process, the stress token is associated with the G1-A. At the end, it is no longer associated with the G1-A. I don't really see any reason to argue that that doesn't count as removing it from the ship.

I'd say that there is a precedent set with Kaa'to and Palob, in that their abilities are a lot more specific, so why isn't 4LOM's specific in that regard? Both Kaa'to and Palob abilities indicate that the focus or evade token is removed, and then assigned to the pilot. What would be the point in 4LOM's ability not being worded the same unless it is not being removed, just assigned a different owner? It makes sense that Jendon would assign a blue target lock token and there would be no removal as removing the blue token would remove the associated red token as well.

Why would they be so specific in the one instance regarding focus and evade tokens and not as specific in regard to stress tokens?

Just as an aside, I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I really would like to use the Rage, Inspiring Recruit combo on 4LOM this way as well. I wanted to give all the naysayers the why behind the OP rules lawyering himself. It isn't as cut and dry as many would like to believe.

22 hours ago, Parravon said:

But we do have a basis - simple common sense. Because "remove" is not defined as an X-wing "key word", then surely the plain English definition must be used. I've "removed" or taken a token from one ship and "assigned" or given it to another. There's nothing there that requires an official ruling or clarification. It's pretty darned simple.

14 hours ago, InquisitorM said:

Simple common sense says it's moved, not removed. That would be the entire point of the argument. I'm sorry you can't seem to see past your interpretation automatically being correct.

2 hours ago, Funkula said:

At the start of this process, the stress token is associated with the G1-A. At the end, it is no longer associated with the G1-A. I don't really see any reason to argue that that doesn't count as removing it from the ship.

The way I figure it is that in order to MOVE it to another ship it must first be REMOVED from the first one. Seems pretty self explanatory and common sense enough for me.....

Logically i dont see why it wouldnt work but there is a difference between "assign" and "remove" in this game, unlike "discard" and "remove".

I'd be surprised if they FAQ'd it to not work. Not like thats overly powerful or anything. Its still removing a stress from you even if its not flatout tossing it off the board. The only stress mechanic i dont see working with Recruit is Yorr, since he intercepts it entirely and thus nothing was removed/discarded or reassigned.

At this point the biggest reason that I think it's murky is because if it was a cut and dried answer I probably should have received a response to the question that I submitted the day it was released. Questions that are clearly answered on product that has been released usually get answered relatively quickly while the ones that hit on a gray area of the rules usually come out around the same time as a new FAQ.

On 2/7/2017 at 1:04 PM, digitalbusker said:

And because "touching" doesn't mean "touching", we shouldn't assume that "remove" means anything more than the minimum that we know it has to from the rules.

Seriously, if moving a token from one ship to another can trigger "assign" events, I see no reason to assume there's not a corresponding "remove" event.

It can trigger "assign" events because it literally says to assign it to the new ship. It does NOT say to remove it from 4lom, unlike palob and kaato who specifically do