Since FFG is adverse to using word templates in an effort to provide consistent language (preferring to write rules conversationally as opposed to with precision and discipline), we often have to make assumptions that synonyms mean the same thing.

A good example came up the other day, playing Cad Bane's "I'm in Control" card with Vader nearby. I was hoping to immobilize Vader for a turn, but we weren't sure if it was legal.

The relevant portion of the command card reads:

" ..., he may transfer any number of his suppression tokens to any number trooper units within range 1-2. "

My friend pointed out that Vader has courage "-" so maybe they can't be transferred to him.

Consulting the courage, suppression, and panic sections of the Rules Reference, there is an almost completely uniform way of referring to suppression tokens.

If referring to the present tense the rulebook always uses the verb " gains " a suppression token. If referring to the state of already having suppression tokens they use the past-perfect tense (meaning already completed in the past) form " has suppression tokens assigned ."

However, in the most relevant section to the answer we sought, they switch the verbs out:

">> A trooper unit that does not have a courage value cannot be assigned a suppression token. "

In every single other instance, they would have written that sentence "A trooper unit that does not have a courage value cannot gain suppression token." It kind of matters, because there is no trigger in that I know of that tells you to "assign" a suppression token.

RAW (rules as written), that clarification is meaningless and Vader can and still does gain suppression tokens. He just would still never be suppressed or panicked, because the number of tokens would never meet the specified thresholds.

RAI (rules as intended) seems pretty clear. They already set a precedent using the "assign" verb, they just exclusively used to it to refer in the past tense to tokens already gained by a unit.

But the question is, does transfer mean the same thing as gain / assign ? Maybe, or maybe they intentionally introduced a 3rd verb to explain how a unit receives stress specifically because they wanted to sidestep other rule interactions?

RAW, Vader can have suppression tokens transfered him and while he can't be suppressed or panicked, he can be immobilized. RAI, I don’t really know. Should I assume they're just sloppy writers? Or should I assume they're trying to expand their design space? Nobody can get through these rules without making an assumption of some kind.

So after about 10 minutes of debate and research, we still have no definite answer.

In the end, I decided they're probably just being sloppy and transferred tokens to other units (snow troopers took a smoke break). I prefer to go with the least powerful interaction so I only stand to gain when/if they rule on it.

The fact that I had almost exactly the same question in X-wing in 2014 makes it all the more frustrating. That one was about whether or not spend and remove mean the same thing, because there are things that trigger when you spend and a character has a remove mechanic. It seems like they prefer to make the exact same sloppy mistakes over and over and then fix them ad hoc to spending a little bit of effort up front to greatly streamline their process.

Please FFG, spend the time it would take to create a timing/trigger/verb/condition templating system and use it for all of your product lines!

It will save you effort in the long run. Your employees can be confident they're writing higher quality rules and won't have to spend so much (and yet clearly not enough) time proofreading.

It will save you time in the long run. You can do things 2 ways: right, or again. You guys have embraced "again" for way too long.

It will save you money in the long run. Efficiency always leads to savings.

It will lead to a better customer experience.

Please FFG! It's time to abandon the "meh, good enough" approach you've clung to for so long.

So I believe that ffg actually got their verbiage right on this one. The line “ A trooper unit that does not have a courage value cannot be assigned a suppression token. " Was written deliberately to prevent later units that has or can gain the ability to transfer its suppression tokens from being able to use that unit as a suppression dump. Gain/transfer will allow tokens to be placed on a unit as long as it’s a legal unit to do so with. But if you can’t assign that unit a token, then no matter what other verbiage or rules say that unit isn’t a legal target for the token.

That said could it be written better, most definitely and I agree they should have a section explaining the verbiage to clarify the confusion.

5 hours ago, Shadowhawk252 said:

Gain/transfer will allow tokens to be placed on a unit as long as it’s a legal unit to do so with. But if you can’t assign that unit a token, then no matter what other verbiage or rules say that unit isn’t a legal target for the token.

Maybe you're right, and if they ever had a "definitions of terms" section, they could clarify that, but the fundamental issue is that creating transfered out of thin air with no context/explanation fixes nothing. It only causes problems. is a meaningless term until they give it meaning.

As it's written, Vader can absolutely gain suppression tokens and be transferred them. If ever they come out with a mechanic that assigns suppression tokens, he'll be immune to that hypothetical mechanic. He is currently immune to the effects of the tokens, but the rules don't prevent any of the mechanics that would cause him to receive tokens.

They should have, from the very beginning, used one verb " assign ". Past perfect tense " have [a token] assigned to ". Present tense " assign [a token]. Prohibitive clauses "may not assign tokens to..."

Here's how you write the relevant portion of Cad Bane's card:

" ..., he may remove any number of his suppression tokens. For each suppression token he removes , he may assign that suppression token to a trooper unit within range 1-2. "

You only ever need two terms for tokens. Assign and remove (or whatever you prefer): add/subtract, place/displace, gain/lose, suffer/benefit, debuff/buff, you can choose whatever 2 you want. And if you use only those 2 when it comes to token placement, then you never have to answer this question ever again .

Instead, they decided one verb for present tense, another verb for past tense (and one time for present tense too because maybe that means something), and a 3rd verb that also maybe means something...?

If you are right, and there is intent and not just sloppiness behind it, then they need to actually learn this lesson. They learn it about halfway through every edition of every game but they only ever slap bandaids on it.

Words actually do matter.

Next edition, same process. Forget words matter, use them arbitrarily, cause confusion, realize words matter, try to use intent, make people wonder if the change is intent or more arbitrariness, have them guess, then wait for answer, then complain about process. Repeat.

There's a solution. Just too lazy.

I'd go with RAW on this one.

It is specifically "transfer" that is used.

"Transfer" is not "gains" and is not "assigned", it is transfer.

It's easy to see that bane would be able to transfer to vader, but the added suppression simply does nothing to him, because he is not affected by suppression.

3 hours ago, lologrelol said:

I'd go with RAW on this one.

It is specifically "transfer" that is used.

"Transfer" is not "gains" and is not "assigned", it is transfer.

It's easy to see that bane would be able to transfer to vader, but the added suppression simply does nothing to him, because he is not affected by suppression.

In order to "transfer" something somewhere else, you must "assign" a number of the item being transfered to the potential destination, which would then "gain" the item though.

Probably worth a short email into the rules question line for a quick clarification.

20 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

In order to "transfer" something somewhere else, you must "assign" a number of the item being transfered to the potential destination, which would then "gain" the item though.

I agree with that logic, but it's purely conjecture. That is not a rule, nor is that language consistent with the rules they did write. Never do they ever tell you to "assign" a token to something. They only tell you once that tokens "may not be assigned" which, as of now, does absolutely nothing. Until they say gain=assign=transfer then we should not assume they are equal terms. Vader can still gain or be transferred suppression tokens until they write a rule that he can't. They wrote a rule that prevents nothing .

There is never a reason to use the words "transfer" or "gain". None whatsoever. It introduces confusion, inconsistency and there is absolutey no upside to it. Instead of "transfer" a token, you should just be " remove and assign ". Same result, no confusion.

29 minutes ago, Sekac said:

I agree with that logic, but it's purely conjecture. That is not a rule, nor is that language consistent with the rules they did write. Never do they ever tell you to "assign" a token to something. They only tell you once that tokens "may not be assigned" which, as of now, does absolutely nothing. Until they say gain=assign=transfer then we should not assume they are equal terms. Vader can still gain or be transferred suppression tokens until they write a rule that he can't. They wrote a rule that prevents nothing .

There is never a reason to use the words "transfer" or "gain". None whatsoever. It introduces confusion, inconsistency and there is absolutey no upside to it. Instead of "transfer" a token, you should just be " remove and assign ". Same result, no confusion.

But the word "assign" is used many times in the rules when they talk about suppression:

"If a trooper unit ever has a number of suppression tokens assigned to it that is equal to or greater than that unit's courage value, that unit is suppressed."

"If a trooper unit has one or more suppression tokens assigned to it, that unit improves its cover by one when defending against ranged attacks."

"Each trooper has a courage value, which determines the amount of suppression that can be assigned to that trooper before it panics or is suppressed."

"A trooper unit without a courage value cannot be assigned a suppression token. As such, that unit cannotbecome suppressed or panicked."

I agree that the wording could be better, but I think that it's safe to assume that "assigned" reffers to the suppression tokens the unit has. So "cannot be assigned" means that that unit cannot have suppression tokens. Therefore, if it cannot have suppression tokens, you cannot transfer them, make them gain them or whatever you can think. I believe that the wording in this case was chosen so that even if they introduce new words like "transfer" or whatever, a unit with a courage of "-" cannot have suppression at all.

Additionally, if I can't "transfer" due to being unable to "assign" then it is obvious without further wording that the suppression stays where it is. Using only "remove" or "add" could create an effect that allows you to remove suppression even if they cannot be placed elsewhere, without adding additional clauses specifying that they can only be removed if they can be placed elsewhere.

2 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

I believe that the wording in this case was chosen so that even if they introduce new words like "transfer" or whatever, a unit with a courage of "-" cannot have suppression at all.

Again, that is not a rule.

You're guessing at their intent because they left you no choice. I'm guessing at their intent too.

But transfer has nothing to do with assigning or gaining. A rule that says you cannot have something assigned to you, does not mean "you can never have that token for any reason no matter what mechanics we ever come out with." It only prevents those specific things from happening.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Additionally, if I can't "transfer" due to being unable to "assign" then it is obvious without further wording that the suppression stays where it is.

You absolutely can. You're not assigning. Nothing about "transfer" has anything whatsoever to do with "assign". FFG has never indicated they are related. You're creating rules that don't exist.

2 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Using only "remove" or "add" could create an effect that allows you to remove suppression even if they cannot be placed elsewhere,

That effect already exists both when you rally and at the end of the turn. Those suppression tokens don't get added anywhere else and nobody is confused by it. Which is why it's infinitely better than an ever expanding list of verbs that all mean the exact same thing. If you only ever use remove and add (or whatever equivalent), you can create whatever interaction you want. Sometimes tokens are removed without being added elsewhere (like when you rally). Sometimes they are added without being removed (like when you get shot with a suppressive weapon), and sometimes you could remove to add (like what they probably mean for transfer).

There is no "probably" section if they consistently used the same words in every instance. We have to say probably, because they're too lazy to explain what a transfer is mechanically, and why they felt they needed to create a new term.

There is absolutely no upside to continuing to introduce undefined verbs.

16 minutes ago, Sekac said:

A rule that says you cannot have something assigned to you, does not mean "you can never have that token for any reason no matter what mechanics we ever come out with." It only prevents those specific things from happening.

By how the rules are written, I disagree with this. By all the rules I quoted in my previous post it is 100% clear that when they talk about "assigned suppression" it means the unit having suppression.

If we'd like to go the way that "transfer" doesn't "assign" suppresion to a unit, then the suppression tokens that Bane transfers doesn't apply for checking if the unit is suppressed or pannicked, because:

"Each trooper has a courage value, which determines the amount of suppression that can be assigned to that trooper before it panics or is suppressed."

If that suppression was never assigned to the unit then they don't count for anything. I agree that the rules should be clear, but at least to me, in this particular case they are.

You and I have different definitions of clear. To me "clear" does not require a string of (perfectly logical) assumptions. It is contained within the rules you write, not read between the lines of what's written.

At any rate, I did get a reply:

Hi Kevin,

Interesting question! “Gain” and “Transfer” are certainly different; when a unit gains a token, the token is taken from the general supply of tokens outside the game. When a token is transferred, it is moved from one unit to another. The first unit loses the token and the second unit gains it. You’re right that we rarely use the phrase “assigned to it” and the “–“ Courage section of the rules reference should probably be changed to:

“A trooper unit without a courage value cannot gain suppression tokens. As such, that unit cannot become suppressed or panicked.”

Darth Vader (or an enraged Chewbacca or Bossk) cannot gain suppression tokens and therefore cannot have suppression tokens transferred to them with “I’m in Control." "

So we have our answer and it is what we all assumed it would be. It's clear where their error is now. They think there's a need to highlight the difference between "transferring" a token from one unit to another but there isn't. It's functionally no different.

When I "transfer" a token, I follow exactly the steps of removing a token. When someone has a token "transferred" to them they follow exactly the steps of gaining a token. They are functionally identical.

They got tricked by their own sleight of hand. I didn't teleport the supression rabbit, it's a different rabbit. I removed a rabbit. The other unit gained a rabbit that looks like my rabbit.

9 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

In order to "transfer" something somewhere else, you must "assign" a number of the item being transfered to the potential destination, which would then "gain" the item though.

Probably worth a short email into the rules question line for a quick clarification.

It requires neither of those things. "Transfer" does not imply "assign", nor does it imply "gain".

I think they may have chosen "transfer" specifically to not confuse with assign, gain, and other verbiage.

3 hours ago, lologrelol said:

It requires neither of those things. "Transfer" does not imply "assign", nor does it imply "gain".

To transfer something does require a valid target for it to move to, otherwise you are just removing it, not transferring it.

Per an email from Alex Davy I sent inquiring as such:

" You cannot transfer tokens to units that are not capable of gaining that token. Commander Vader is not a valid target for “I’m In Control Now” and cannot be one of the chosen units. Hope that helps!"

On 8/18/2020 at 6:52 PM, Sekac said:

RAW (rules as written)

They’re most certainly typed, though, right? So does Rules as Written even apply?

They just released an updated rules document, and the Transfer issue has been resolved:

TRANSFER
When a game effect transfers a token from one unit to another unit, that token is physically moved from unit to unit.

• The original unit loses the token and the other unit gains the token.
• When transferring suppression tokens, units with a courage value of "–" cannot be selected as targets for the transfer.

Related Topics: Aim, Dodge, Suppression,

Page 76
https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/d3/f8/d3f88d58-139c-44e1-8b13-35c369321684/swl_rules_reference_17_eng-compressed.pdf