Let's just hope this one doesn't get to 4 pages of disagreements. Life is just too short.

how about this for a stretch. They are using the word "gain" it it's normal capacity. Something didn't have something before, now it does because it gained it. But no, that's just way to simple for a plastic spaceship game rulebook........

sure wish the calories in my pizza last night not transferred cause then I wouldn't gain anything!

15 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.

I am ignoring nothing. I'm applying both the rulebook and the RRG because I don't know why the wording is different. I am not making any assumptions whatsoever about which rule was written first or why they are worded differently. I am simply looking at two versions of the same rule, side by side. There are some differences, but they are not contradictory differences, therefore both are relevant.

2 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

I am ignoring nothing. I'm applying both the rulebook and the RRG because I don't know why the wording is different. I am not making any assumptions whatsoever about which rule was written first or why they are worded differently. I am simply looking at two versions of the same rule, side by side. There are some differences, but they are not contradictory differences, therefore both are relevant.

You're ignoring the fact the Rules Reference doesn't say gain. The only way you could say that there's no difference between the rule book and the RR is if you think assign === gain, but there's nothing to say that is true in a rules sense.

You have the same lines, for the same rules and they're different yet saying they are not contradictory? That is baffling really.

22 minutes ago, jftanner said:

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 .

RE: 1 - The use of the word gain here could also be intentional not because a transfer is remove + gain but to specify that if something stops a ship from gaining the involved token it also stops it from being a recipient of a transfer of said token.

7 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

I am ignoring nothing. I'm applying both the rulebook and the RRG because I don't know why the wording is different. I am not making any assumptions whatsoever about which rule was written first or why they are worded differently. I am simply looking at two versions of the same rule, side by side. There are some differences, but they are not contradictory differences, therefore both are relevant.

If one states transfer equals remove + gain and the other says transfer equals literally anything else they are contradictory, and per the golden rule we follow the rules reference when this happens.

Let's look at this in the full context:


The third bullet tells us that a transfer first removes the token, and then assigns it. (TDB if assign == gain)
The second bullet tells us that when you remove a token, you put it back in the supply. Therefore, we know that when you transfer a token, it first goes back to the supply and is then assigned to the ship. That means that, when assigning the token to the ship, it comes from the supply. Which is the same as a gain .

Far from conclusive, but this would all lead me to believe that @PanchoX1 might be right on this. Assign, gain, and "place in the play area next to the ship" all seem to be used somewhat interchangeably. Especially since the sub-bullet there does specifically use the words "gain the token".

9 minutes ago, jftanner said:

Let's look at this in the full context:


The third bullet tells us that a transfer first removes the token, and then assigns it. (TDB if assign == gain)
The second bullet tells us that when you remove a token, you put it back in the supply. Therefore, we know that when you transfer a token, it first goes back to the supply and is then assigned to the ship. That means that, when assigning the token to the ship, it comes from the supply. Which is the same as a gain .

Far from conclusive, but this would all lead me to believe that @PanchoX1 might be right on this. Assign, gain, and "place in the play area next to the ship" all seem to be used somewhat interchangeably. Especially since the sub-bullet there does specifically use the words "gain the token".

My reading of that was the words on Transfer change the destination of the token you remove, so you remove it but instead of putting it back in the supply you assign it to the other ship. Otherwise there's no reason to change it from the Rulebook.

With the clarification imagine the hypothetical ship that has the ability 'cannot gain focus tokens' for whatever reason. That clarification would stop you transferring a token to it either. So it does actually serve a purpose without changing the meaning of any of the previous rules.

holy cow ... thats a lot of answers.

first of all, thanks to everyone who is so involved!

5 hours ago, KiAdiMoody said:

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.

RR, page 18

To be honest, I misunderstood your answer and initially thouht you would agree so I did not read the second line carefully. I am sorry.

After reading all your answers and weighing the pros and cons I think I will decide for myself that it will not work. It is sad, because I would love it to work but the explanation in the RR makes me believe that it was FFGs intention to make it not work. I agree though that the wording is not 100% clear.

Thanks again!

6 minutes ago, AramoroA said:

My reading of that was the words on Transfer change the destina  tion of the token you remove, so you remove it but instead of putting it back in the supply you assign it to the other ship. Otherwise there's no reason to change it from the Rulebook.

With the clarification imagine the hypothetical ship that has the ability 'cannot gain focus tokens' for whatever reason. That clarification would stop you transferring a token to it either. So it does actually serve a purpose without changing the meaning of any of the previous rules. 

I believe that's the argument @MockingBird ME made as well. I'm not saying either of you are definitely wrong, but it doesn't sit right with me. I understand that, technically, being able to do something isn't the same as doing it. So, just because you need to be "able to [...] gain the token", doesn't mean that's what you're doing. But if they mean for "gain" to have a very specific meaning that's separate from "transfer", then I'd think they'd be more careful to avoid introducing that confusing. But, then again, it's FFG. ?

This is one of those ones where I don't feel like I can be certain one way or the other. I'd personally treat "assign" and "gain" the same way, and therefore Jyn works on transferred tokens, but I'm not totally confident on that answer.

7 minutes ago, jftanner said:

I'd personally treat "assign" and "gain" the same way

Assign is used to differentiate gaining a token in a way outside of performing an action. You can only perform an evade action once a round but you could be assigned more through other means (like Jyn!). but you gain tokens by being assigned them or by performing actions for them.

The RRG is, at best, unclear on this interaction. When that's the case, it's perfectly reasonable to turn to the rulebook for a more definitive answer on how stuff works until FFG clarifies.

3 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:

Assign is used to differentiate gaining a token in a way outside of performing an action. You can only perform an evade action once a round but you could be assigned more through other means. but you gain tokens by being assigned them or by performing actions for them. 

None of those rules sections use the word "assign". They only mention "gain". For example, from the section on Focus: "If an ability instructs a ship to gain a focus token, this is different than performing a [focus] action. A ship that gains a token without performing the action can still perform the [focus] action this round."

So I don't think that demonstrates a meaningful difference between the terms.

17 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:

Assign is used to differentiate gaining a token in a way outside of performing an action. You can only perform an evade action once a round but you could be assigned more through other means (like Jyn!). but you gain tokens by being assigned them or by performing actions for them.

I just searched the squad builder's database for the term "assign" (I know the app is hella buggy and may not have given perfect results). The only result where any card mentions assigning in relation to tokens is Manaroo who specifically looks at assigned tokens in terms of transferring them. I don't think the text of this card helps much with weather Jyn works with a transfer but it does go to show that assign is not a term FFG otherwise uses to talk about gaining tokens outside of actions, lots of cards talk about gaining tokens unrelated to actions.

17 minutes ago, nexttwelveexits said:

The RRG is, at best, unclear on this interaction. When that's the case, it's perfectly reasonable to turn to the rulebook for a more definitive answer on how stuff works until FFG clarifies.

In any case where the RR text deviates from the rulebook I think it's inappropriate to assume the rulebook is correct, even if it is clearer than the RR. You can claim FFG's intent or typos/mistakes all you want but we can't go on what someone thinks they intended, only on the actual text and when that is unclear it means we don't know. Now, I hope you're right, that's the way I want this to work but wanting something does to work one way does not make it so.