Has there been a definitive answer from FFG as to whether or not if Vader removes Aspiration that the modified shields have to reset back to their default maximum if over the limit?

Thank you!

1 minute ago, strikenowhere said:

Has there been a definitive answer from FFG as to whether or not if Vader removes Aspiration that the modified shields have to reset back to their default maximum if over the limit?

Thank you!

No.

There is no ruling, and no indication that... anything would change...

if anything it would remove the restriction on not raising the other shields.... so don’t do it ?

51 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

No.

There is no ruling, and no indication that... anything would change...

if anything it would remove the restriction on not raising the other shields.... so don’t do it ?

Man, that would be a terrible backfire. *shudders*

59 minutes ago, Bertie Wooster said:

Man, that would be a terrible backfire. *shudders*

This happened to me at a Regionals actually! It was ruled the excess shields go down to their listed maximum, so I think I lost 3 or 4 shields total. It was rough! But also cool at the same time. I was in side arc of an Avenger ISD so it hurt but wasn't crippling at the time. I can see both readings, at the time I thought the Vader strip made sense since there's no other mechanism for adding shields above the shield zones limits. But, I suppose you could read it as Aspiration just does it's thing at the appropriate time, and then has no other purpose, so adding it would do nothing since it's no longer active.

15 minutes ago, JolliGreenGiant said:

This happened to me at a Regionals actually! It was ruled the excess shields go down to their listed maximum, so I think I lost 3 or 4 shields total. It was rough! But also cool at the same time. I was in side arc of an Avenger ISD so it hurt but wasn't crippling at the time. I can see both readings, at the time I thought the Vader strip made sense since there's no other mechanism for adding shields above the shield zones limits. But, I suppose you could read it as Aspiration just does it's thing at the appropriate time, and then has no other purpose, so adding it would do nothing since it's no longer active.

We have plenty of precedence that things that activate at a time, and are then removed, stay active (Fleet Commands being discarded to activate, as the best example) , so that’s why is rule the shields stay up — and the restriction is no longer gone.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

We have plenty of precedence that things that activate at a time, and are then removed, stay active (Fleet Commands being discarded to activate, as the best example) , so that’s why is rule the shields stay up — and the restriction is no longer gone.

Seems reasonable to me. Otherwise some cards would work really weirdly if you removed them with Vader after they were already activated (e.g. Profundity or Rapid Launch Bays).

I would rule the shields stay as is, but oc the restriction is lifted.

As was stated in the first reply, there has not been an official ruling from FFG

However, I would have to disagree with Drasnighta and Green Knight .

My reasoning:

Vader states that the card is discarded. The rules reference guide states under the “Effects and Timing” entry on the last bullet point “ When a card is discarded or flipped facedown, its effect is no longer active (aka inactive ) in the game.” We do know that inactive cards no longer contribute to the game. Ex: your flag ship dies and your commander card becomes inactive so you no longer get the benefit. Under the “Shields” entry it states that “A hull zone cannot have more shields than its maximum shield value” We know that the keyword “ cannot ” is absolute and takes precedent over everything. However, and this is the reason upgrade cards work in armada, “The Golden Rules” entry at the beginning of the rules reference states “Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s (ex: upgrade card ) effect takes precedence.” Also note that this is above the ruling for the word “ cannot ” in the same entry. This allows upgrade cards to overrule the rules in the reference doc and the cannot keyword in it. This is why the “Aspiration” upgrade card is able to overrule the “Shields” entry.

Now for the in-game example:

1. A MC-75 equipped with the Aspiration upgrade card drops out of hyperspace with its left side in front of a Raider with the Darth Vader boarding card.

2. The Aspiration upgrade card allows the MC-75 to ignore the rule stating that it cannot have more than its max on that hull zone. It moves its shields so that it has 6 facing the Raider/Vader.

3. Vader having initiative boards the MC-75 and discards the Aspiration upgrade card/component.

4. This component now becomes inactive . It can no longer contribute its effect to the game as there is no text on the component (card) saying that there is a an effect that lasts after bring discarded . (This is important, I will comeback to this point in a bit.)

5. Now with no component overruling the rules reference, the rules reference comes back in to effect the MC-75 needs to obey by it.

6. The MC-75 is now in violation of the “Shields” entry as it has more shields on its left side than its max and without an active component to thwart this, it must reduce its shields to the max allowed for that hull zone or be violating the rules of the game.

7. And so the MC-75 reduces the left hull zone’s shield count from 6 to 3 so it is no longer violating the rules reference guide.

Drasnighta gives the example of Fleet Commands as precedence of why a card’s effect can persist even after the card has been discarded. I don’t agree with this as of you read the cards they state “At the start of the Ship Phase, you may discard this card…If you do, until the end of the round ” It states on the card that its effect continues to persist even after being discarded. Another example of this would be D-Caps. It states on the card that you may discard it and its effect will last to the end of the round. So looking back at the fourth point in the in-game example, no where on the Aspiration card does it state that its effect continues to last after being discarded. FFG seems to have made it a point to state on the card if an effect continues to last after being discarded. Drasnighta is right that there is precedence with these cards but that precedent being, that the effect of a card would only last after being discarded if it is stated on the card.

And so I think that the shield values would be forced to drop to the ship’s maximum and you will straight up lose the over charged shields if Vader were to board you.

Also I believe that this logic also works on other upgrade cards discarded by Vader, such as Tua. If Vader were to take her off of a Cymoon ISD that was using her to equip ECM the ISD would have to then discard ECM as it would no longer be able to legally equip it as it lacks a defensive retrofit lot.

It’s akways better to have a situation (and an answer) which doesn’t require you to write rules.

What happens to the shields - other than nothing - would come under that heading for me. You need to come up with a rule that says “roll back”, “remove” or “delete” in the other case - and that’s something to avoid.

That would require a ruling.

I would council not doing that without one ?

I actually talked to a Judge about this and he declared that the shields would indeed be lost, as the effect that allows them to be greater than their stated value is no longer in play. Just as a ship benefiting from Motti loses the three additional hull points when Motti is out of play, so @whokickmydog would be as currently declared correct on the matter rules-as-written.

I agree that it is always better to not have to write new rules all the time. And in this case no new rules need to be written to fix the problem.

It it seems that in your response you are still regarding the extra shields as “special” in some way that they would need a new rule to be dealt with and that is not the case. All you would need to do is lower them to the correct number. There is no longer a card In play making them “special”

Look at these situations with a third person interrupting a game:

#1

Player A is in a game. Player A drops The 75 and puts a side hull zone to 6 shields. A passerby sees this and ask why you were able to do that shouldn’t it be 3. You point to the Profundity card and show them it. Look these extra 3 shields are special. I can do this because of this upgrade card. Situation resolved

#2

Player A and B are in a game. During set up player B accidentally places the front shields on his ISD to 5. Neither player realizes this. We are on the bottom of turn 2. Conflict is about to start next round. A passerby sees the extra shield. He tells them. All that happens here is that the shield dial is lowered to its max. There was no special rule or keyword that needed to be made to do this. That extra shield is not special in a way and in clear violations of the rules. Player B can’t fight this as he had no active card allowing him too. Situation resolved.

#3

A and B. A drops the 75 and uses profundity (we are in situation #1). B uses Vader and discards the title. At that moment a passerby passes and asks why the 75’s shields are above their max. Looking back at my previous post about the definition of “discarded” we can see the title is no longer in play. Play A is now in situation #2. He does not have an effect to point to as to why the shields are above their max value. The 3 extra shields are no longer special and are dropped (begrudgingly) by Player A in the same manner player as Player B in situation #2. Situation rectified.

If you can see where I’m coming from with situation #3, nothing special had to be done.

Sorry for all the long replies, but I’ve had to make this point countless of times. What it boils down to is the extra shields are special because of an upgrade card. When that upgrade card is removed, the ship is no longer special and must return to following the rules all other ships have to and thus must return its shields to its max or it would be breaking the rules

6 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

Also I believe that this logic also works on other upgrade cards discarded by Vader, such as Tua. If Vader were to take her off of a Cymoon ISD that was using her to equip ECM the ISD would have to then discard ECM as it would no longer be able to legally equip it as it lacks a defensive retrofit lot.

That restriction apply only when building a fleet . So I disagree there.

5 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

I agree that it is always better to not have to write new rules all the time. And in this case no new rules need to be written to fix the problem.

It it seems that in your response you are still regarding the extra shields as “special” in some way that they would need a new rule to be dealt with and that is not the case. All you would need to do is lower them to the correct number. There is no longer a card In play making them “special”

Look at these situations with a third person interrupting a game:

#1

Player A is in a game. Player A drops The 75 and puts a side hull zone to 6 shields. A passerby sees this and ask why you were able to do that shouldn’t it be 3. You point to the Profundity card and show them it. Look these extra 3 shields are special. I can do this because of this upgrade card. Situation resolved

#2

Player A and B are in a game. During set up player B accidentally places the front shields on his ISD to 5. Neither player realizes this. We are on the bottom of turn 2. Conflict is about to start next round. A passerby sees the extra shield. He tells them. All that happens here is that the shield dial is lowered to its max. There was no special rule or keyword that needed to be made to do this. That extra shield is not special in a way and in clear violations of the rules. Player B can’t fight this as he had no active card allowing him too. Situation resolved.

#3

A and B. A drops the 75 and uses profundity (we are in situation #1). B uses Vader and discards the title. At that moment a passerby passes and asks why the 75’s shields are above their max. Looking back at my previous post about the definition of “discarded” we can see the title is no longer in play. Play A is now in situation #2. He does not have an effect to point to as to why the shields are above their max value. The 3 extra shields are no longer special and are dropped (begrudgingly) by Player A in the same manner player as Player B in situation #2. Situation rectified.

If you can see where I’m coming from with situation #3, nothing special had to be done.

Sorry for all the long replies, but I’ve had to make this point countless of times. What it boils down to is the extra shields are special because of an upgrade card. When that upgrade card is removed, the ship is no longer special and must return to following the rules all other ships have to and thus must return its shields to its max or it would be breaking the rules

Also, while I agree that removing the shields would be the correct solution and not so hard to deal with, I have to say those situations are not the same by any means. The shields added due to a mistake never should be there so they are just removed as nothing happened (this is basically a difference between "cannot legally" vs "cannot phisicaly). But Aspiration is quite different. That ship has shields there legally. Those shields must be there. It just happens that they cannot be there anymore. And Drasnighta is right about that: there is not ruling for a situation where the shields went above the limit. Are they lost? Spent? Moved? Of course it is as easy as clarify it on the FAQ saying any excess is lost cause we already have a rule to go through when shields are lost. But it won't be enough if more effects deal with shield limits eventually.

However as I said I agree about how it should work. Basically cause otherwise the ship would break the maximin shield rule and also allow to bypass it to recover more shields up to 6 as long as you never lose enough to reach your maximun shield value. I mean, once a side hull zone is at 4 it is not at its maximun shield value so it may, again, recover shields as nothing prevent it to do so when Aspiration is discarded.

It is a conflict between rules that are being broken with a rule that doesn't exist.

55 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Basically  cause otherwise the ship would break the maximin shield rule and also allow to bypass  it to recover m  ore shields up to 6 as long as you never lose   

Incorrect.

In my scenario, shields above max are remaining above max, but the rule becomes “shields can only be recovered to listed maximum “... so you can’t recover to 6, only to the shields zones maximum.

You remove the restriction of shields not being able to be recovered on other zones while one is above maximum, as that is a restriction of the upgrade card.

Regardless, the questions that are raised are numerous in that regard... do I get to argue that if I dropped a shield by a couple of points before I remove thevaspiration card, do I get to count those damaged shields against the new shield level?

Rules to be written.

Aspiration has been resolved. The shields have been moved... Never do you backtrack it unless a mistake is made...

I mean, to bring it up here as it was raised here, as I did where it was originally .... WHY ARE YOU REMOVING TUA?

Even if doing so did remove the attached defensive retrofit ... why not just remove the refit in the first place? It’s not like you score points for removed things anyway....... they still count....

Thete are things that are just inefficient to do - let them be that way ... Aspiration is bound to have something more useful to remove than the title! ?

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Incorrect.

In my scenario, shields above max are remaining above max, but the rule becomes “shields can only be recovered to listed maximum “... so you can’t recover to 6, only to the shields zones maximum.

You remove the restriction of shields not being able to be recovered on other zones while one is above maximum, as that is a restriction of the upgrade card.

Regardless, the questions that are raised are numerous in that regard... do I get to argue that if I dropped a shield by a couple of points before I remove thevaspiration card, do I get to count those damaged shields against the new shield level?

Rules to be written.

Aspiration has been resolved. The shields have been moved... Never do you backtrack it unless a mistake is made...

I mean, to bring it up here as it was raised here, as I did where it was originally .... WHY ARE YOU REMOVING TUA?

Even if doing so did remove the attached defensive retrofit ... why not just remove the refit in the first place? It’s not like you score points for removed things anyway....... they still count....

Thete are things that are just inefficient to do - let them be that way ... Aspiration is bound to have something more useful to remove than the title! ?

I pointed to that:

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 .

I missed that though:

Recover Shields: Spend two points to recover one shield on any of the ship’s hull zones ( without exceeding its maximum shield value ).

So agree.

However the ship is still breaking this:

A hull zone cannot have more shields than its maximum shield value

And there is nothing allowing it to. As long as it is not a prolonged effect you choose between providing a new rule (I don't like it and I agree with you about that) or ignoring a rule already existent (which I don't like either as it is another kind of new ruling IMHO). Anyway right now is up to TO and I don't really care about the way they solved as long as they provide it in advance.

Probably the easiest way would had been to delete that piece in the shield section. It is basically useless. Shields are set to their maximun when deploying. Neither move nor recover allow you to go beyond that maximun so there was no need to check the maximun during a game. Even if someone wanted to argue about StM or Redundant Shields the same limitation could had been added to those cards. That way Aspiration wouldn’t be a problem. But that rule exist so checking maximun values all the time is needed and the only case where it actually matters is this one where you suggest to ignore that rule so where is the point of that rule, then? Honestly asking as I don't see a case where something could be in conflict with that rule beyond Vader vs Aspiration or mistakes setting the dials. Is there anything else?

“When in doubt, break or change as little as possible.”

18 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

We know that the keyword “ cannot ” is absolute and takes precedent over everything.

2. The Aspiration upgrade card allows the MC-75 to ignore the rule stating that it cannot have more than its max on that hull zone. It moves its shields so that it has 6 facing the Raider/Vader.

These two statements cannot both be true.

I missed that earlier:

Cannot is only absolute WHEN ON AN UPGRADE CARD.

Cannot is not absolute in the core rules.

That is the entire point of said golden rule.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

I missed that earlier:

Cannot is only absolute WHEN ON AN UPGRADE CARD.

Cannot is not absolute in the core rules.

That is the entire point of said golden rule.

And if thats the case then his entire argument is not valid.

14 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

And if thats the case then his entire argument is not valid.

The direct quote:

If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.

Card effect.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The direct quote:

If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.

Card effect.

New Upgrade Card: All Of your Upgrades With the Word "Cannot" Cannot be Absolute.

In case you run into some pesky Droids that need to be confused

Aspiration is a "when"effect and does not list how long the effect lasts. If the argument that fleet commands work after being discarded because they say "until end of round", who's to say Aspiration's effect doesn't terminate as soon as you move the shields and resolve the card? Clearly it contradicts the RRG (which is totally fine according to the RRG). But no where on the card does it say the shields can exceed the maximum shield value for the rest of the game.

6 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Aspiration is a "when"effect and does not list how long the effect lasts. If the argument that fleet commands work after being discarded because they say "until end of round", who's to say Aspiration's effect doesn't terminate as soon as you move the shields and resolve the card? Clearly it contradicts the RRG (which is totally fine according to the RRG). But no where on the card does it say the shields can exceed the maximum shield value for the rest of the game.

It tells you to do something.

you do it.

do you un do things afterwards?

To add superfluous hyperbole: ?

If Vader cuts off your engine techs, Do you pick up your ship and maneuver it backwards until you’ve undone the ET moves? Since you’ve made more maneuvers than allowed at that point...

19 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

Drasnighta gives the example of Fleet Commands as precedence of why a card’s effect can persist even after the card has been discarded. I don’t agree with this as of you read the cards they state “At the start of the Ship Phase, you may discard this card…If you do, until the end of the round ” It states on the card that its effect continues to persist even after being discarded. Another example of this would be D-Caps. It states on the card that you may discard it and its effect will last to the end of the round. So looking back at the fourth point in the in-game example, no where on the Aspiration card does it state that its effect continues to last after being discarded. FFG seems to have made it a point to state on the card if an effect continues to last after being discarded. Drasnighta is right that there is precedence with these cards but that precedent being, that the effect of a card would only last after being discarded if it is stated on the card.

Fleet Commands are not the only case. Take Rieekan, for example: "Once per round, when a friendly ship or friendly unique squadron is destroyed, it remains in the play area and is treated as if it was not destroyed until the end of the Status Phase."

But what if, for example, in Round 4, my opponent kills Ten Numb, and I choose to make it a Rieekan zombie...but then my flagship jumps off the play area?

FAQ: "If the ship that General Rieekan is equipped to leaves the play area, a ship or squadron already affected by this ability ( emphasis mine) remains in the play area until the end of the Status Phase."

Even though Rieekan's card doesn't say so, FFG ruled that Ten Numb remains in the play area. But he's destroyed! Rieekan's destroyed! The rules say "When a squadron is destroyed, remove it from the play area and place it next to the matching squadron card" and "Destroyed ships and squadrons are no longer in play. All ship and upgrade cards belonging to destroyed ships are inactive." So why does Ten Numb remain? Because he's already affected by Rieekan's ability, before Rieekan's ship was destroyed. Likewise, removing Aspiration with Vader doesn't reset Aspiration's shields, because those shields were already affected by Aspiration's ability, before Aspiration was removed.

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

It tells you to do something.

you do it.

do you un do things afterwards?

To add superfluous hyperbole: ?

If Vader cuts off your engine techs, Do you pick up your ship and maneuver it backwards until you’ve undone the ET moves? Since you’ve made more maneuvers than allowed at that point...

But mah common sense!

And yes, I think that should be a new rule. If Vader discards something, you have to backtrack the entire game taking back actions.

11 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

That restriction apply only when building a fleet . So I disagree there.

I did not know this. So I'll have to agree with you here.

I think what the overall argument boils down to is if the "Shield" entry in the rules reference is checked consistently during the game or only the moment the ship is deployed. If it only checked only the moment the ship is deployed, then Aspiration would deploy, set shields to its normal, use its title to move them around, lose the title due to Vader and then nothing because the shield rule is not checked again for the game. However if the shield rule is checked consistently throughout play then after Aspiration is discarded we would come into the problem of the ship breaking the shield maximum rule because it has no "hall pass" saying that it can. I am obviously of the camp that the rule is checked consistently during the game.

1 hour ago, Ginkapo said:

These two statements cannot both be true.

Yes they can. And I explain it in the two sentences following that one. To quote myself:

19 hours ago, whokickmydog said:

We know that the keyword “ cannot ” is absolute and takes precedent over everything. However, and this is the reason upgrade cards work in armada, “The Golden Rules” entry at the beginning of the rules reference states “Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s (ex: upgrade card ) effect takes precedence.” Also note that this is above the ruling for the word “ cannot ” in the same entry. This allows upgrade cards to overrule the rules in the reference doc and the cannot keyword in it. This is why the “Aspiration” upgrade card is able to overrule the “Shields” entry  .

In essence what this is saying here is that if the rules reference says you cannot do something, but an upgrade card says that you can , then you can, as the upgrade card overrules the rules reference.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

I missed that earlier:

Cannot is only absolute WHEN ON AN UPGRADE CARD.

Cannot is not absolute in the core rules.

That is the entire point of said golden rule.

Cannot is absolutely absolute in the core rules. Unless you have an active upgrade card saying otherwise (This is the second golden rule)

The third golden rule that you quote is:

" If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute."

No where does it reference the core rules. The point of this rule is not for when cards conflict with the core rules (as we know the card always wins from the second golden rule) but for when two cards conflict with each other. For example with Advanced Gunnery and Gunnery Teams. Advanced Gunnery says that a ship can attack the same ship twice from the same hull zone. But Gunnery Teams states that you cannot attack the same ship twice. This is where the third golden rule comes into effect. We all know that in this case the ship will not be able to attack the same ship twice as per Gunnery Teams.