My Aspiration MC75 has a front shield 2 stronger than normal and a left side shield 3 stronger than normal.

A nasty ISD drops the left shield entirely (accuracy my redirect).

I activate Aspiration and have a repair command of 4 repair points.

Can I move the 2 extra shields on the front onto the left with the first two points then repair a left shield with the rest since the front is no longer above maximum?

1 hour ago, Mad Cat said:

My Aspiration MC75 has a front shield 2 stronger than normal and a left side shield 3 stronger than normal.

A nasty ISD drops the left shield entirely (accuracy my redirect).

I activate Aspiration and have a repair command of 4 repair points.

Can I move the 2 extra shields on the front onto the left with the first two points then repair a left shield with the rest since the front is no longer above maximum?

In your example the Front shld is still over the normal limit, so no moving shields for you, nor recovering them.

Move along.

24 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

In your example the Front shld is still over the normal limit, so no moving shields for you, nor recovering them.

OK so if I had a banked repair token (rather than a full repair dial) I still couldn't move shields around until some damage took the front shield down to normal?

8 minutes ago, Mad Cat said:

OK so if I had a banked repair token (rather than a full repair dial) I still couldn't move shields around until some damage took the front shield down to normal?

Actually, when reading the card more closely, it only states "recover". Which is distinct from moving shields according to the RRG.

So I do a 180 and say, sure, go right ahead.

The RRG is quite inconsistent in its terminology in this regard. In some parts it refers to recovering shields as a specific action, in others it uses it as a general term for increasing.

But the consensus seems to be that it should be understood as a distinct action, not forming part of the "decrease here, increase there" sequence followed when moving shields. So I'll go with it until FFQ says otherwise.

You are able to move the shields.
Aspiration does not allow recover. But moving shields is not recover.

Some might come up with the projections experts example and discussion again, but this is different.
Aspiration clearly says: "you cannot recover". Move is not recover by the rules.

RRG Page 3; Commands:

+ + Move Shields: Spend one point to move one shield by reducing one of the ship’s hull zone’s shield dials by one and then increasing another of its hull zone’s shields by one (without exceeding its maximum shield value).
+ + Recover Shields: Spend two points to recover one shield on any of the ship’s hull zones (without exceeding its maximum shield value).

It's infuriating, really, because everyone keeps quoting the "wrong" section of the rules. And it's not their fault, but the weird way in which FFG presented this topic.

1 minute ago, Tokra said:

+ + Move Shields: Spend one point to move one shield by reducing one of the ship’s hull zone’s shield dials by one and then increasing another of its hull zone’s shields by one (without exceeding its maximum shield value).
+ + Recover Shields: Spend two points to recover one shield on any of the ship’s hull zones (without exceeding its maximum shield value).

This is the "Commands" section, and it defines how to use the Repair command. It does not define the general mechanics of shields, which are in the (surprise, surprise) "Shields" section:

• Each ship begins the game with its shield dials set to the maximum shield values shown in the corresponding hull zones.
• When a ship spends , loses , or recovers shields, rotate the shield dial to indicate the shields remaining in that hull zone.
• A hull zone cannot have more shields than its maximum shield value, and it cannot recover a shield if it is at its maximum shield value.
• A hull zone cannot have fewer than zero shields, and it cannot lose a shield if it has none remaining.

There are two different terms for shields going up ( recover , increase ) and three for shields going down ( spend , lose , reduce ) .

The consensus appears to be that reducing and increasing are not in fact game terms at all, but simply refer to the physical action taken by the player while setting the dial. Thus, moving shields does not involve losing (or spending ) a shield in one zone and then recovering one in another, and one can also conclude that recovering refers to all gaining of shields with the exception of moving .

TLDR; moving is not recovering, Projection Experts work on Aspiration.

I did not really quote the wrong rules.

Aspiration clearly says: " you cannot recover shields "

There is a part of the repair command that says: " recover shields "

With the Aspiration you just cannot do this part of the command when you have one hull section with more shields than the default value. The titel just forbid the part "recover shields".

The part of the shield section is not a rule of the ways to lose or gain shields. It is a description how to deal with it.
Or how are you dealing damage to the shields via an attack? The Damage part say: " For each point, reduce the shields ". But there is no reduce in the shield rule part. It is only " when a ship spends, loses, or recovers shields ". There is just no word about reduce. Does this mean that ships cannot lose shields from attacks?

The problem is, that moving shields is not recovering. I know that it is missing on the shield rules part. Along with the reduce from it and attacks. But this means that the move command would never be allowed to be used. And i clearly saw someone who used it yesterday.

Especially it start to get carried away with the rules just because something is missing (increase/reduce).
If you say that you cannot move shields when one hull is over the max, you have to say as well that you cannot do move at all anymore. But if you have EVER done a move part of the repair command (or reduced a shield via an attack) you should as well agree that move is not recover and that you can move shields on an active Aspiration by the current rules.
And the same with damage from attacks. If you say move does not work, you cannot lose shields from attacks. IF you are this consequent , you have to do it on all parts.
If the rules are changed, and move becomes a loose and recover (and attacks a lose), it is something different.

Sometimes this nitpicking remind me on sovereign citizens / Reichsbürger bull. Sorry for this compare, but it is so well fitting.
For years it was no problem, and suddenly, there is one card, and suddenly all the rules are wrong and are in question.

If it helps;

Quote

Capacitor Failure - Ship - If a hull zone has no remaining shields, you cannot recover shields in it, nor move shields to it , if that hull zone is defending, you cannot spend redirect tokens. [Emphasis added]

That implies (but doesn't prove) that "moving" shields and "recovering" shields are different.

57 minutes ago, Grumbleduke said:

If it helps;

That implies (but doesn't prove) that "moving" shields and "recovering" shields are different.

And the RRG 'implies' the same.

Is there any substantial implication that recover and move are the same?

No - we're all in agreement here:

8 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:

TLDR; moving is not recovering, Projection Experts work on Aspiration.

I was simply pointing out that "moving shields" and "recovering shields" are only defined in the Repair Command section, whereby the "Recover Shields" action consists of... "recovering a shield". And the Shields section, which should contain some definition of what recovering a shield entails (namely, moving the dial up), does not.

@Tokra , I apologise if you took my comment personally because it was not meant that way at all. It was simply my frustration at the mounting rules issues as the number of interactions between abilities continues to grow exponentially. The RRG was quite well written - but not perfectly, and limitations that weren't a problem before are gradually becoming apparent.

5 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

I apologise if you took my comment personally because it was not meant that way at all. It was simply my frustration at the mounting rules issues as the number of interactions between abilities continues to grow exponentially. The RRG was quite well written - but not perfectly, and limitations that weren't a problem before are gradually becoming apparent.

I did not take anything personally .
But i really find it funny, how some are riding on rules that have always been there and never been questioned. And suddenly there is a new card, and everything that was there is suddenly wrong and being questioned.

Recover shield and move shield were always something different. By rules and played. And now, suddenly, we did it all wrong for 3 years, because someone understand the rules different than the rest.

Just keep in mind. By your rule attacks against shields would not work. This alone would give me something to think about .

46 minutes ago, Tokra said:

But i really find it funny, how some are riding on rules that have always been there and never been questioned. And suddenly there is a new card, and everything that was there is suddenly wrong and being questioned.

Recover shield and move shield were always something different. By rules and played. And now, suddenly, we did it all wrong for 3 years, because someone understand the rules different than the rest.

Just keep in mind. By your rule attacks against shields would not work. This alone would give me something to think about .

It's not "my rule" - I fully agree with your interpretation! I'm not sure how else to say it.If the discussion comes up now is because there is a new "cannot" in town that forces closer examination. The question got asked, and answered. And in that context, it emerged that the RRG is less than crystal clear in its structure but also its wording. It never mattered before because there were no effects in that design space. Now there are.

Anyway, as I said, we're all in agreement so let's just... agree to agree?