He is missquoting that rule.

Fact of the matter is, the rule he is talking about applies specifically to the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

in other words, the spending of the token to trigger a card effect would have to happen when defending from an attack. You can't just decide to discard a token at your convenience!

Not true, I am relying on this rule:

“[d]efense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token does not produce its normal effect.”

It allows you to spend defense tokens outside of the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

​Otherwise, you could not spend defense tokens for Turbolaser Reroute Circuits or Vader.

The bottom line is as long as there is a "cost" associated with an upgrade card, you can always spend defense tokens to trigger that effect at the appropriate time.

Here, the questions is if the spending of a defense token qualifies as a "cost" for the purposes of devastator. In a literal sense, yes, there is a "cost" associated with triggering Devastator (you have the cost of not having those defense tokens for the rest of the game), you can't argue against that. The issue here is if the "cost" that the aforementioned rule is talking about ONLY applies to situations where a card says "spend X get Y." The rules are not explicitly clear on that and that is all I am pointing out.

He is missquoting that rule.

Fact of the matter is, the rule he is talking about applies specifically to the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

in other words, the spending of the token to trigger a card effect would have to happen when defending from an attack. You can't just decide to discard a token at your convenience!

Not true, I am relying on this rule:

“[d]efense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token does not produce its normal effect.”

It allows you to spend defense tokens outside of the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

​Otherwise, you could not spend defense tokens for Turbolaser Reroute Circuits or Vader.

The bottom line is as long as there is a "cost" associated with an upgrade card, you can always spend defense tokens to trigger that effect at the appropriate time.

Here, the questions is if the spending of a defense token qualifies as a "cost" for the purposes of devastator. In a literal sense, yes, there is a "cost" associated with triggering Devastator, you can't argue against that. The issue here is if the "cost" that the aforementioned rule is talking about ONLY applies to situations where a card says "spend X get Y." The rules are not explicitly clear on that and that is all I am pointing out.

Yes, you can argue against that.

There is NO COST to trigger Devastator. There is a value that determines how Devastator affects your attack, but that is not a cost, and so you cannot spend a token on it specifically.

You can trigger it with full defense tokens, you just gain no dice because you still have all your tokens.

He is missquoting that rule.

Fact of the matter is, the rule he is talking about applies specifically to the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

in other words, the spending of the token to trigger a card effect would have to happen when defending from an attack. You can't just decide to discard a token at your convenience!

Not true, I am relying on this rule:

“[d]efense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token does not produce its normal effect.”

It allows you to spend defense tokens outside of the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

​Otherwise, you could not spend defense tokens for Turbolaser Reroute Circuits or Vader.

The bottom line is as long as there is a "cost" associated with an upgrade card, you can always spend defense tokens to trigger that effect at the appropriate time.

Here, the questions is if the spending of a defense token qualifies as a "cost" for the purposes of devastator. In a literal sense, yes, there is a "cost" associated with triggering Devastator, you can't argue against that. The issue here is if the "cost" that the aforementioned rule is talking about ONLY applies to situations where a card says "spend X get Y." The rules are not explicitly clear on that and that is all I am pointing out.

Yes, you can argue against that.

There is NO COST to trigger Devastator.

You can trigger it with full defense tokens, you just gain no dice because you still have all your tokens.

You keep saying there is no "cost" but that is not entirely true... There is a cost in the very real sense that to have Devastator trigger, you must have given up the ability to use a defense token or tokens for the rest of the game. So you cannot say there is no "cost/benefit" interaction here.

All you can say is "there is no language in the card that says you can spend Defense tokens to trigger the effect" and I am pointing to the rule I quoted that says defense tokens are essentially the exception to the rule since they are explicitly mentioned in the rules as being spendable to trigger card effects.

Where does it state the Cost on Devastator? Does it say spend in the card like Dominator does? What about Admonition, does it have that line.

Hmmmm. . . . Nope. So I guess it has no cost. Since costs are for activated abilities.

In no sense is there are cost associated with the Devestator's ability, there is a requirement. You mention two specific upgrades that do have costs associated with them, compare the wording of those upgrade with the Devestator. They are vastly different, because they mean different things.

Again, if the Devestator said "Once per round when attacking from your front arc you may add one blue die to your attack pool for each face-up damage card assigned to you" are you really going to argue that having a face-up damage card is a cost of that effect? Or is it simply a requirement?

He is missquoting that rule.

Fact of the matter is, the rule he is talking about applies specifically to the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

in other words, the spending of the token to trigger a card effect would have to happen when defending from an attack. You can't just decide to discard a token at your convenience!

Not true, I am relying on this rule:

“[d]efense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token does not produce its normal effect.”

It allows you to spend defense tokens outside of the "spend defense tokens" step of the attack resolution stack.

​Otherwise, you could not spend defense tokens for Turbolaser Reroute Circuits or Vader.

The bottom line is as long as there is a "cost" associated with an upgrade card, you can always spend defense tokens to trigger that effect at the appropriate time.

Here, the questions is if the spending of a defense token qualifies as a "cost" for the purposes of devastator. In a literal sense, yes, there is a "cost" associated with triggering Devastator, you can't argue against that. The issue here is if the "cost" that the aforementioned rule is talking about ONLY applies to situations where a card says "spend X get Y." The rules are not explicitly clear on that and that is all I am pointing out.

Yes, you can argue against that.

There is NO COST to trigger Devastator.

You can trigger it with full defense tokens, you just gain no dice because you still have all your tokens.

You keep saying there is no "cost" but that is not entirely true... There is a cost in the very real sense that to have Devastator trigger, you must have given up the ability to use a defense token or tokens for the rest of the game. So you cannot say there is no "cost/benefit" interaction here.

All you can say is "there is no language in the card that says you can spend Defense tokens to trigger the effect" and I am pointing to the rule I quoted that says defense tokens are essentially the exception to the rule since they are explicitly mentioned in the rules as being spendable to trigger card effects.

You must be new to tabletop gaming.

That's not how rules work.

Yes, personal attacks really help you guys make your points...

Seriously, is there a cost associated with Devastator being triggered? Do you have to give anything up to gain the benefit of Devastator? YES, you have to give up the use of a defense token for the rest of the game to gain a blue die...

The issue here is you guys have this preconceived notion of what a "cost" is and I challenge you guys to find how "cost" is defined in the rules. Go ahead, quote anything in the rules that actually defines "cost". Otherwise, stop saying there is no cost associated with the Devastator card.

I'm not trying to personally attack you, I'm saying the way you've chosen to interpret the rules is generally regarded as poor gamesmanship.

You're trying to bend the wording of the cards to fit your preconceived notion of how you want the card to work, and challenging people to prove you can't do it.

Does the rulebook need to give a detailed description of what constitutes a "red die" before I'm disallowed to flip a red coin with crits drawn on either side?

You'll have to forgive me though, it's difficult to take the argument seriously when it's pretty clear you know better, and have been presented with both reasons and examples to the contrary.

Lyraeus, not to provoke or pummel you, but of you've ever wondered why I get on your case it's because you can sound eerily similar to the currently at odds poster when you get wound up on a subject.

Also, besides the clear lack of understanding as to what would denote a cost, the rule in regards to being able to spend defense tokens as a part of an abilities cost, in no way would allow you to just discard a defense token.

Spending and discarding a token are not the same thing.

Red dice are actually defined in the rules, pretty much everything that matters is such as what they mean by "at" and "within" and so forth. It just seems to me as though they should also define "cost" and soforth which is what is at issue here.

Furthermore, I think you guys are vilifying me because of the arguments I am putting forth which is actually poor form. All I have ever said was that there IS a cost in SOME sense associated with the Devastator card's ability. The question is does THAT "cost" (the permanent deprivation of defense tokens for the rest of the game) as the "cost" that the rule I quoted is talking about? Perhaps not-but there is an argument that it does because "cost" is not clearly defined. And when an exhausted token is spent, it is discarded FYI so technically, discarding a defense token is the same as spending it.

I am NOT saying I will try to force other people to play the rule this way and if someone else wants to play it that way against me, I would allow it because I believe it to be a reasonable interpretation of the rules.

Just a follow-up thought but... is there anything preventing me from spending all of my defense tokens in the "spend defense tokens" step even if they aren't really useful?

I can, for instance, take a hit of seven damage and decide to brace, brace redirect, or none of the above.

Can I take two damage at close range, spend a brace, a redirect, and an evade, then use the brace and redirect while the evade effectively does nothing?

It doesn't seem like the way it's worded prevents you from spending a token on nothing.

EDIT: You still couldn't empty out an ISD unless you used Needa to replace one of the redirects (Since you can't spend two of the same type on one attack) but still, you could drop your tokens pretty quickly if you wanted to this way.

You can spend tokens at the appropriate time, and not generate their effect, yes. That was subject to the last FAQ clarification. So yes, you could elect Evade, Brace and Redirect, and make them discard a blank die, and then take it all on the chin without rediecting anything...

But that would only move them, of course, from Readied to Exhausted, and you' dhave to do it again to drop to Discarded - and let's face it, you're defenseless at that point...

Mortetvie, you are attempting to argue that because there is an opportunity cost, which has no bearing within the rules, to the Devestator ability that there is an actual cost, as it relates to the rules, to the ability. That is a silly argument, there is no way around it. I'm not "villifying" you for it but when I am saying is that what your saying is blatantly incorrect, your approach to the rules is untenable, and your argument is invalid.

All I have ever said was that there IS a cost in SOME sense associated with the Devastator card's ability. The question is does THAT "cost" (the permanent deprivation of defense tokens for the rest of the game) as the "cost" that the rule I quoted is talking about? Perhaps not-but there is an argument that it does because "cost" is not clearly defined.

Devastator does not have any associated cost or requirement.

It instructs you to count how many defense tokens have been discarded so far, which can be any number from 0 to 4, and to add that number of dice to your attack pool. Not only does Devastator not allow you to discard tokens, but it does not even require that any tokens have been spent thus far. You can still trigger the ability - but it will add zero dice.

Note also that defense tokens can be discarded due to enemy effects (e.g. Nym), which can hardly be considered a "cost".

And when an exhausted token is spent, it is discarded FYI so technically, discarding a defense token is the same as spending it.

That's analogous to saying "damaging" and "destroying" a ship are the same thing. Damaging a ship can certainly lead to destroying it under certain circumstances, but the two concepts are clearly distinct. The exact same logic applies to spending, which can lead to discarding under circumstances but is certainly not an interchangeable term.

Actually, my argument IS valid, it just isn't SOUND if the premise is not true.

Actually, my argument IS valid, it just isn't SOUND if the premise is not true.

Nothing says "I have a strong argument" like parsing technicalities.

Just a follow-up thought but... is there anything preventing me from spending all of my defense tokens in the "spend defense tokens" step even if they aren't really useful?

I can, for instance, take a hit of seven damage and decide to brace, brace redirect, or none of the above.

Can I take two damage at close range, spend a brace, a redirect, and an evade, then use the brace and redirect while the evade effectively does nothing?

It doesn't seem like the way it's worded prevents you from spending a token on nothing.

EDIT: You still couldn't empty out an ISD unless you used Needa to replace one of the redirects (Since you can't spend two of the same type on one attack) but still, you could drop your tokens pretty quickly if you wanted to this way.

You can spend tokens at the appropriate time, and not generate their effect, yes. That was subject to the last FAQ clarification. So yes, you could elect Evade, Brace and Redirect, and make them discard a blank die, and then take it all on the chin without rediecting anything...

But that would only move them, of course, from Readied to Exhausted, and you' dhave to do it again to drop to Discarded - and let's face it, you're defenseless at that point...

Naturally, you could only spend them but, I'm just thinking the situation *could* arise where a Devastator could be sitting on a pile of exhausted defense tokens, unactivated, and take a small attack from a CR-90 that only deals like, one damage at close range. (With no remaining incoming attacks for the round)

So one could theoretically still spend ALL of those tokens, discarding them even though they really don't do much defensive good, in order to add four blue dice to your next attack.

Not strictly a valid overall strategy, but useful to know for one of those round 5-6 moments when you just HAVE to deal a buttload of damage in a hurry.

I never said my argument was strong, I just said that it was valid.

What settles it for me, more than anything, is what FFG says about the card in their preview:

"The Devastator title also explores the trade-in value of your defense tokens; for each defense token you discard, the Devastator title grants you an extra blue attack die while you're attacking from your front hull zone. Altogether, an Imperial II -class Star Destroyer equipped with the Devastator title could burn through its defense tokens early to fire as many as twelve dice from your front arc"

This seems to me like they expect the effect to trigger when you spend defense tokens over the course of taking damage. None the less, there is still language in there that suggests the defense tokens are traded in/discarded to obtain the extra blue dice but whatever.

With that said, we can bury the horse. It still remains that my argument is Valid, not necessarily sound. Also, I think a lot of friction was caused because I was making an inductive argument (e.g., my position COULD be true) while people were thinking I was making a deductive one (e.g., my argument IS true) and arguing as such...

And Devastator is great if you are playing against someone with a lot of Intel officer who will burn away your Brace and where they have X17s where your redirects are meaningless so you might as well get more blue dice because your defense tokens won't do anything for you but take up space.

I never said my argument was strong, I just said that it was valid.

What settles it for me, more than anything, is what FFG says about the card in their preview:

"The Devastator title also explores the trade-in value of your defense tokens; for each defense token you discard, the Devastator title grants you an extra blue attack die while you're attacking from your front hull zone. Altogether, an Imperial II -class Star Destroyer equipped with the Devastator title could burn through its defense tokens early to fire as many as twelve dice from your front arc"

This seems to me like they expect the effect to trigger when you spend defense tokens over the course of taking damage. None the less, there is still language in there that suggests the defense tokens are traded in/discarded to obtain the extra blue dice but whatever.

With that said, we can bury the horse. It still remains that my argument is Valid, not necessarily sound. Also, I think a lot of friction was caused because I was making an inductive argument (e.g., my position COULD be true) while people were thinking I was making a deductive one (e.g., my argument IS true) and arguing as such...

And Devastator is great if you are playing against someone with a lot of Intel officer who will burn away your Brace and where they have X17s where your redirects are meaningless so you might as well get more blue dice because your defense tokens won't do anything for you but take up space.

FFG preview articles are NOT to be taken as a source of any rule information. They are frequently wrong about their ability interactions, and are in NO WAY an official rule document.

I realize that you're taking the information as a counterpoint to your own logic, but you need to be aware that those articles are unreliable at best.

Lyraeus, not to provoke or pummel you, but of you've ever wondered why I get on your case it's because you can sound eerily similar to the currently at odds poster when you get wound up on a subject.

Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack

This is the main precursor for defense tokens. They are spent (Defense tokens begin the game on their readied side. When a readied defense token is spent, it is flipped to its exhausted side. When an exhausted defense token is spent, it is discarded.) during the spend defense token step.

Now there is a special rule: Defense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token does not produce its normal effect.

But for this special rule to be used, the card effect must state that you have to/may spend (this is the key word that you need to find in the card text) a defense token to activate it.

Example: Darth Vader (Admiral)
"While a friendly ship is attacking a ship, it may spend 1 defense token to reroll any number of dice in its attack pool."

Notice how it explicitly states you may spend 1 defense token to reroll.

Another Example (granted this one does not deal with defense tokens, it still applies to what is being argued): Dominator (VSD Title)
"While attacking at close-medium range, you may spend up to 2 shields from any of your hull zones to add the same number of blue dice to your attack pool."

Again this card effect explicitly states what you have to spend to get the extra dice.

Now, with Devastator:
"Once per round, while attacking from your front hull zone, you may add 1 blue die to your attack pool for each of your discarded defense tokens."

Do you notice what word is missing from the text? SPEND . Meaning that you are not able to spend anything to activate this effect. The tokens have to be spent/discarded via other methods (such as intel officer, using them to defend against an attack, Nym, etc).

mortetvie, i am sorry, but you are completely wrong on this. But either way I have contacted FFG for a clarification, even though I feel like an idiot for asking because the card clearly states how it works.

I will post the response from FFG as soon as I have it.

In all honesty, ScottieATF, DerErlkoenig, DiabloAzul and Drasnighta are pretty much the rules experts in the community. I may argue with them all the time but they are rarely ever wrong.

About cost, let's try an other angle.

Say you have Vader as admiral and a ship with Devestator.

Devestator is attacked and spends a brace token, flipping it to it's exhausted side.

Now Devestator attacks and uses Vader to spend the exhausted token (there by discarding it) to reroll a dice. Now I think you will agrea that this spending is the cost of using Vaders abillity?

Next time Devestator attacks, it gets an extra blue dice as it has discarded a token. Can this discarded token realy be a cost for Devestator when clearly it was the cost to use Vader? Surley the same thing can not be used to pay the cost of different things?

Ergo, Devestator has no cost.

Another example of the rules question that's not really about the rules, but about sentence structure and beating dead horses. Not the first, certainly not the last.

In this case HERO is right, and his opponent is not.

Yeah I think that this has been pretty clearly settled in HEROs favour. HERO tell your buddy to cut that isht out

And when an exhausted token is spent, it is discarded FYI so technically, discarding a defense token is the same as spending it.

This is the most wrong thing I've heard all day. And I don't just mean here on the forums, either.