Hi Guys, quick question:

when Kyle uses his ship ability to transfer a focus token from him to another ship. does jyn trigger? Or is tranferring focus something different then gaining?

Thanks!

You only gain a token when it comes from the supply, a transfer is not a gain

Rules Reference Pg 18 - Tokens

No, when a ship is instructed to gain a token, you pull from the supply.

The RR describes a transfer as a remove and a gain of a token between the ships involved.

Quote

If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved, the transfer cannot take place.

RR, page 18

Thanks a lot!

yup, a transfer loses the token from ship a and it's gained on ship b, so jyn can morph it in between.

30 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

yup, a transfer loses the token from ship a and it's gained on ship b, so jyn can morph it in between.

Wrong. as explained above.

Pretty sure @AramoroA is right on this. RR states "When a ship is instructed to transfer a token to another ship, it is removed from that ship and assigned to the other ship." assigned is not the same as gained. The following line that seems to be causing the confusion states "If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved, the transfer cannot take place." This line is restricting when a transfer, as described in the first quote, can take place not detailing specific steps involved in performing the transfer.

So a transfer is moving a token from one ship to another, but it can not be done if either the transferer has another effect on it preventing it from removing the token/does not have a token it could remove or if the transferee has some effect preventing it from gaining that type of token even though the transfer itself is not a gain effect.

Actually, when I said No before, I was referring to AramoroA.

RR page 18 describes several things about tokens.

Quote

When a ship is instructed to GAIN a token, a token from the supply is placed in the play area next to the ship.

Cool, but we're not talking about when a ship is instructed to gain a token, we talking about a transfer, so we keep reading:

Quote

When a ship is instructed to TRANSFER a token to another ship, it is removed from that ship and assigned to the other ship.

Okay, so the token gets removed from one and assigned to another. The RR then further clarifies with:

Quote

If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved, the transfer cannot take place. (italics mine)

So the RR clearly describes what's happening to the recipient of the transfer as gaining the token.

Kyle triggers Jyn.

IIRC Assign and Gain are explicitly called out as having the same meaning.

50 minutes ago, KiAdiMoody said:

Quote

If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved, the transfer cannot take place. (italics mine)

So the RR clearly describes what's happening to the recipient of the transfer as gaining the token.

I think this line imposes a restriction on when you can transfer and is not intended to define the transfer as a short hand for remove from a ship and gain for another. I'd love to be wrong here, I've been playing with Kyle lists and keep struggling to keep him in there instead of replacing him with another HWK or different support ship entirely.

37 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

IIRC Assign and Gain are explicitly called out as having the same meaning.

Not in the rule book they don't. People need to stop doing this 'Oh I heard somewhere from my uncle who works at FFG that x means y really', just give us a rule book reference and we can take it from there.

Gain , Transfer and Remove are all bolded and called out as specific game terms. Transfer is not the combination of Remove and Gain but instead has it's own different wording. They had the words right there on the page to use. Trying to use the clarification below it (Which do not use the bolded game terms) to imply that Transfer is a Gain is reaching somewhat.

Quote

When a ship is instructed to transfer a token to another ship, that token is removed from the ship and the other ship gains it.

On page 14 of the rulebook (to thespaceinvader's neverending chagrin)

12 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

On page 14 of the rulebook (to thespaceinvader's neverending chagrin)

There we go. If I'd bothered actually looking it up I might have found it.

Except if it's in the core set rulebook because I wouldn't think to look there.

Ugh.

13 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

On page 14 of the rulebook (to thespaceinvader's neverending chagrin)

Rules Reference supersedes the Rulebook and the wording the Rules Reference is different, Transferring in the Rulebook is Removing and Gaining, in the Rules Reference it's not.

Good work FFG.

17 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

On page 14 of the rulebook (to thespaceinvader's neverending chagrin)

The wording in the main rule book does state that but Golden Rule says RR takes effect over rulebook and RR has changed the terminology.

Are you guys kidding?

First, these are rules for a fun game . They aren't written by legal scholars, nor should they be. It shouldn't take a 300 page amicus brief to figure out how exactly a token gets from one ship to another.

Second, the rulebook is authoritative (again, sorry thespaceinvader...). It was not made obsolete or replaced by the RRG. The RRG overrules the rulebook if there is a contradiction between them. Unless you can find something that says assigning and gaining are both distinct and mutually exclusive, the rulebook applies just fine without contradicting the reference.

3 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Are you guys kidding?

Nope, not kidding. Neither the rulebook nor the RR use the bold keywords for the section on transferring tokens and the RR changes to wording which means that's the wording to look at and use.

9 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

Are you guys kidding?

First, these are rules for a fun game . They aren't written by legal scholars, nor should they be. It shouldn't take a 300 page amicus brief to figure out how exactly a token gets from one ship to another.

Second, the rulebook is authoritative (again, sorry thespaceinvader...). It was not made obsolete or replaced by the RRG. The RRG overrules the rulebook if there is a contradiction between them. Unless you can find something that says assigning and gaining are both distinct and mutually exclusive, the rulebook applies just fine without contradicting the reference.

How can you say there's not a contradiction when the wording between the Rulebook and Rules Reference is totally different. More to the point the only thing the rewording in the Rules Reference changes is this exact interaction. What are we supposed to do, go 'oh they've explicitly changed the meaning of transfer, hmm well I just don't feel like that was intentional so I'm going to ignore it!' . Do you just get your rules answer from feelings in your bones or something?

If your answer is just fly casual why are you even bother reading or answering questions on the rules forum?

8 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Nope, not kidding. Neither the rulebook nor the RR use the bold keywords for the section on transferring tokens and the RR changes to wording which means that's the wording to look at and use.

Good news! Even Kyle doesn’t use the bold text for Transfer, so none of it works. Pack it up back to 1.0!

/s

3 minutes ago, Innese said:

Even Kyle doesn’t use the bold text for Transfer, so none of it works.

Cards in general don't bold their use of keywords, it would be great if they did but they don't.

6 hours ago, Mo Balls said:

Hi Guys, quick question:

when Kyle uses his ship ability to transfer a focus token from him to another ship. does jyn trigger? Or is tranferring focus something different then gaining?

Thanks!

if it's in range 3 of the ship Carrying Jyn, yes it works.

Just for fun, let's complicate this even more...

Static Discharge Vanes:
"If you would gain an ion or jam token, you may choose a ship at range 0–1. If you do, gain 1 stress token and transfer 1 ion or jam token to that ship."

Under Jam:
"A ship is jammed if it has at least one jam token. Jam tokens are circular, orange tokens. When a ship becomes jammed, the player whose effect caused the ship to gain the jam token chooses for the ship to either remove one of its green tokens or break one of its locks." (Emphasis mine)

So, who chooses the effect of Jam? If a transfer counts as a gain , then surely the defending player (with Static Discharge Vanes) chooses, because their ship triggered the gain most recently. But if a transfer is its own thing, and not a gain, then the original attacking player choses, since they're the one who caused the gain.

This doesn't actually clear up whether a transfer is just remove + gain , or if it's a separate action, but it goes to show that there are other cases where it's important to find out.

32 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:

Nope, not kidding. Neither the rulebook nor the RR use the bold keywords for the section on transferring tokens and the RR changes to wording which means that's the wording to look at and use.

1) a slight change in wording does not a contradiction make

2) the rulebook does, in fact, use the keyword "gain" in the section on transferring tokens. it is not in bold because generally keywords are only in bold while they are being defined. See: any other rule that defines a term then uses the same term later in the entry.

24 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

How can you say there's not a contradiction when the wording between the Rulebook and Rules Reference is totally different. More to the point the only thing the rewording in the Rules Reference changes is this exact interaction. What are we supposed to do, go 'oh they've explicitly changed the meaning of transfer, hmm well I just don't feel like that was intentional so I'm going to ignore it!' . Do you just get your rules answer from feelings in your bones or something?

If your answer is just fly casual why are you even bother reading or answering questions on the rules forum?

1) a slight difference in wording does not a contradiction make

2) your conclusion is based on an assumption, specifically that there was an intentional change in language from the rulebook to the reference to remove the keyword 'gain' from the entry (without explanation, clarification, or replacement by a different specifically defined keyword). There is no evidence supporting this assumption and, without it, no evidence that the two entries are at all contradictory

1 minute ago, nexttwelveexits said:

1) a slight change in wording does not a contradiction make

2) the rulebook does, in fact, use the keyword "gain" in the section on transferring tokens. it is not in bold because generally keywords are only in bold while they are being defined. See: any other rule that uses the defined term later in the entry.

1) a slight difference in wording does not a contradiction make

2) your conclusion is based on an assumption, specifically that there was an intentional change in language from the rulebook to the reference to remove the keyword 'gain' from the entry (without explanation, clarification, or replacement by a different specifically defined keyword). There is no evidence supporting this assumption and, without it, no evidence that the two entries are at all contradictory

It does when the difference in wording changes how the rules interact.

I believe in general that it's fair to assume that any change in the wording of rules between the Rulebook and the Rules Reference is deliberate. Anything else is just trying to guess the intent/competence of the author of the Rules Reference which is not really something we can do here, we can only read the rules they've written and go from there. You want to ignore the change in wording because you believe it's unintentional, that's not a great place to start reading the rules from if you can just go 'oh well I think that's unintentional'. There is a direct contradiction between the Rule book and the Rules Reference which means the Rules Reference wording is correct.

16 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

It does when the difference in wording changes how the rules interact.

I believe in general that it's fair to assume that any change in the wording of rules between the Rulebook and the Rules Reference is deliberate. Anything else is just trying to guess the intent/competence of the author of the Rules Reference which is not really something we can do here, we can only read the rules they've written and go from there. You want to ignore the change in wording because you believe it's unintentional, that's not a great place to start reading the rules from if you can just go 'oh well I think that's unintentional'. There is a direct contradiction between the Rule book and the Rules Reference which means the Rules Reference wording is correct.

Even if we only look at the Rules Reference wording (which I agree is the correct approach), I think it's still unclear. Transfer says "assign", rather than "gain", but then uses the word "gain" in the caveat. So, are we to assume that assigning a token and gaining a token are the same thing?

I see one of two possibilities:
1) The use of the word "gain" in "If a ship involved in a transfer is not able to remove or gain the token involved [...]" is a mistake and a t ransfer task includes an assign task instead of a gain . (Though, note that the word "assign" is never bolded or defined anywhere.)
2) "Assign" is used as part of gain , and transfer is just a remove + gain .

Unfortunately, I see a reasonable argument in favor of either interpretation. Personally, I'd lean towards the latter, since I don't like the idea of assuming that there's an error in wording. But that also makes other effects, like Static Discharge Vanes I mentioned above, act really weird.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot about the errata on Static Discharge Vanes:
"Static Discharge Vanes Should read: “Before you would gain 1 ion or jam token, if you are not stressed, you may choose another ship at range 0–1 and gain 1 stress token. If you do, the chosen ship gains that ion or jam token instead.”"

So, that card no longer uses the word "transfer" and isn't relevant. My mistake.