Since this topic has already been posted here in some form, I'm going to repost a bit of what I had on a Wyrd Place. Italics for my initial post.
Rules question time:
If Hoffman uses On Site Assimilation's "Tap Power" ability on a model that already has slow, does he gain fast?
I would argue yes, so here is my justification.
Tap Power says that:
In order to gain fast the pre-requisite is that the construct "gains slow".
So what does gains slow mean?
There are two relevant passages that seem like they contradict each other initially, but I don't think they do. (I'll note here, that I now think that there is contradiction here)
First, under the Conditions heading of the basic rulebook, second paragraph, last sentence:
With this passage it is clearly stated you don't apply the second instance of slow.
Second, under the Activations section subheading Generate AP, second paragraph:
This is an example of the word gain being used in a circumstance that would imply that you can gain a condition more than once even if it doesn't stack. This implies that there is a difference between "gaining" a condition and "applying" a condition (which to be fair I assumed were the same thing before this second passage was pointed out to me).
Conclusion: Gaining a condition is different from applying a condition. You can gain a condition multiple times, therefore a construct already slowed can gain slow, but slow is never applied, therefore Hoffman can be granted fast from a construct gains slow even if it already has the slow condition.
So this was my initial post, which points out most of the relevant passages (which I believe the OP missed the passage about multiple instances of fast, which is important). During this discussion there was also a post that pointed out the following:
On pg. 39 of the big rule book under the Immunity subheading
I cannot speak to intent, as I was not involved in the creation or testing of this, but it seems that the words gain and apply are used interchangeably in some places, but perhaps not in others. If they are used interchangeable, then the example under generating AP I believe contradicts the later passages such as the one just above.
Since there is contradiction here, I believe that this is FAQ worthy. Its not a major issue as this has come up exactly once in several hundred games, but an issue nonetheless.