There's a lot going on with this question, and someone immediately got it wrong because of the Competing Resets rule. I think that we should change the rules around resetting.i'm dark side. i steal my opponent's mercenary armor (from sabacc or something). then i deploy mercenary armor (armor = 4) and mandalorian armor (armor = 5) on the same character. what's their armor?
The changing of a value to a specific new value (such
as power=0). When a value is reset (e.g., ion cannons,
crashed vehicles, weapons that set forfeit = 0, Lateral
Damage), that value is unmodifiable until restored to
normal (or until the affected card leaves play ). Some
cards define their value in their game text, such as
Jawa or Brainiac. This is not resetting and may be
The problem comes in when a card doesn't have a value and has multiple effects that give it a fixed value. The first one to apply is the set, and the later ones are resets. Of note, the Reset rules don't mention what you do if another card gives it a new value. We just sorta assumed that the first one is the set and that later ones are resets.
This got messier because someone suggested combining several cards that gave people armor (values of 3, 4, and 5). So we now have an additional memory problem of which one was first.
Reset is a special case of a larger idea (setting) that we should look at using instead. All resets would now set the value. If a card sets its own value, that would be treated as the base value and not setting the value. The case of "which armor is first" goes away as we now reuse the same "Competing sets" rule. I don't think any useful interactions change, and it cleans up some corner cases.