I'm more than a little baffled that this is even still going on.

Seriously, man, just stop.

By this point you have to know that you're being willfully obtuse and simply refusing to accept the quite clear explanations given to you, instead opting to try and find loopholes using some of the most dubious rules lawyering I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing.

Hell, I even gave you a way you could effectively do the same thing by discarding tokens during the appropriate step, and yet you continue to rail on about how Devastator has a cost. It is QUITE clear that you have no interest in actually learning how these rules interact, you simply want people to acknowledge how clever you are for coming up with some semantic argument to break the rules, which is not going to happen.

If you don't want to play the game, that's fine, nobody is forcing you to play Armada, but if you want to make up your own rules you're going to have a hard time finding opponents.

Based on this thread, I certainly wouldn't set up across from you.

(1) what is the ACTUAL definition of "cost" in the rules? (2) What is the actual definition of "spend" in the rules?

Spend is defined in the rules, you can spend a dial, or token to get an effect.

In regards to defense tokens the rules say "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects described below:"

It goes on to say that as part of the process of spending the token, it is flipped to it' exhausted side. It also says when an exhausted defense token is spent, it is discarded."

So spending and discarding are not the same thing, one is simply an effect of the other, no different than flipping the token.

(3) Devastator technically does "demand" something in that it demands that you have some discarded defense tokens to trigger its effects.

No it doesn't, the ability will trigger every time you make an attack with that ship. It may not have any effect but it still triggers. In fact every time you attack with a ship with the Devastator title you check for how many discarded defense tokens you have and add 1 blue dice for each discarded token. In this case zero is a valid number, so the ability triggers every time.

In a purely abstract way, is that the actual "cost" of Devastator is giving up one Defense Token for the benefit of a Blue Dice.

In no way is there a cost for using Devastator. There is an ability that triggers every time you attack that will add between 0 and 4 blue dice. A cost typically means "Spend X to do Y.", but again that is not how Devastator works.

The issue there, however, is they are arguing that point without an official authority (i.e., a FFG ruling).

There is an official ruling on it already. It's called the wording on the card itself. You can not insert text into the card, and then claim the rules let you do something, when that text doesn't actually exist.

your whole argument is based on something the rules and the card itself simply do not say.

You still have not addressed the point that discarding tokens is not always voluntary (see e.g. Nym or NK-7 cannons). This casts serious doubt on your loose definition of "cost" - and, at the very least, from that perspective, one could argue that Devastator does not "demand" that you feed it tokens: it merely discourages others from forcefully stripping you of them.

Actually I did address that point several times but it was probably not as clearly addressed as it could have been (or it was buried in TLDR walls of text). I get that you can't just willy-nilly do anything whenever you feel like it-that is not what I was trying to do or say I could do. There is a timing for everything and a basis for doing something during that timing in this game, I get that.

I was hanging my hat on the "spend defense tokens to trigger card effects" rule to give me permission to voluntarily discard defense tokens to trigger the "get extra blue dice" effect from Devastator. So in my mind, I read the card and that rule and thought "ok so maybe, in addition to when I normally discard defense tokens-because they are spent when exhausted-I can ALSO discard tokens to trigger this card's effects anytime I am attacking from my front hull zone."

In my mind, the requisite "spend" language was there via the aforementioned rule, the requisite "cost" requirement was met via the "quid pro quo" transaction of me discarding a defense token for the benefit of getting an extra blue dice and the timing requisite was there via the "when attacking from your front hull zone" language.

Whether or not that is ultimately correct is not the point that I am arguing. I am arguing that this line of reasoning and reading of the rules has/had a legitimate logical basis and is not merely motivated by "hey lets try to twist the rules and be a dubious rules laywer to game the system through a loophole" kind of attitude as some people are attributing to it.

I'm more than a little baffled that this is even still going on.

Seriously, man, just stop.

By this point you have to know that you're being willfully obtuse and simply refusing to accept the quite clear explanations given to you, instead opting to try and find loopholes using some of the most dubious rules lawyering I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing.

Hell, I even gave you a way you could effectively do the same thing by discarding tokens during the appropriate step, and yet you continue to rail on about how Devastator has a cost. It is QUITE clear that you have no interest in actually learning how these rules interact, you simply want people to acknowledge how clever you are for coming up with some semantic argument to break the rules, which is not going to happen.

If you don't want to play the game, that's fine, nobody is forcing you to play Armada, but if you want to make up your own rules you're going to have a hard time finding opponents.

Based on this thread, I certainly wouldn't set up across from you.

This post just demonstrates you are not even paying attention to what I am saying. There is actually no legitimate basis for anything you said in this post about me, so, thank you for the baseless personal attacks?

Now to put a few more nails in the coffin of this argument.

The only time you can spend a die, token, or dial, is when the rules or an upgrade card allows it. You can not spend those things whenever you wish.

For example...

Leading Shots - you can spend a blue die for an effect. But that does not mean you can spend that blue die whenever you want, but only when the card says so.

Ion Cannon Batteries - This on the other hand instructs you to choose and discard 1 command token from the defender. But, the defender cannot simply spend that token for an effect prior to being discarded.

Overload Pulse - With a blue <crit> you can exhaust all the defender's defense tokens, but again the defender cannot spend those tokens before they're exhausted.

In fact every upgrade card I've looked at, that allows you to spend X to gain Y, actually explicitly says so. So unless the word spend is on the card somewhere, you can not spend a resource, there is effectively no cost to using that upgrade.

Devastator is an example, there is no cost in using it, only a side effect based on how many defense tokens you have discarded.

I was hanging my hat on the "spend defense tokens to trigger card effects" rule to give me permission to voluntarily discard defense tokens to trigger the "get extra blue dice" effect from Devastator. So in my mind, I read the card and that rule and thought "ok so maybe, in addition to when I normally discard defense tokens-because they are spent when exhausted-I can ALSO discard tokens to trigger this card's effects anytime I am attacking from my front hull zone."

In my mind, the requisite "spend" language was there via the aforementioned rule, the requisite "cost" language was there via the "quid pro quo" transaction of me discarding a defense token for the benefit of getting an extra blue dice and the timing requisite was there via the "when attacking from your front hull zone" language.

This has been explained to you I-don't-know-how-many times.

There is NO COST associated with triggering Devastator.

The trigger for Devastator is you saying "I trigger Devastator for this attack". THAT'S the trigger.

Once the trigger is done, you check to see if you have any discarded defense tokens. If you do, you add a blue die to the aforementioned attack for each one that has been discarded.

This is not complicated, and as I said, it's been explained to you numerous times. Your standard response is a semantic mess in which you try to tell us that opportunity cost is the same thing as a trigger cost printed on the card. Again, you clearly know better.

This post just demonstrates you are not even paying attention to what I am saying. There is actually no legitimate basis for anything you said in this post about me, so, thank you for the baseless personal attacks?

In my mind, the requisite "spend" language was there via the aforementioned rule

That is now how rules work. You can not append or insert one rule into another rule or upgrade at will.

I have to ask... are you familiar with the term RAW or Rules As Written? Because everything you are saying runs completely contrary to that concept.

Overload Pulse - With a blue <crit> you can exhaust all the defender's defense tokens, but again the defender cannot spend those tokens before they're exhausted.

Bad example, but only because the Spend Defense Tokens step comes just before the critical effect is applied.

Still, it's true in the sense that you cannot spend a defense token *specifically* in response to OP's ability. It's not Overload Pulse that allows you to spend tokens but the natural attack phase progression.

Still, it's true in the sense that you cannot spend a defense token *specifically* in response to OP's ability.

That was my point. That you can't spend a resource unless you have something that specifically says you can, such as a rule or an ability on a card. But that doesn't mean you can claim a rule that lets you do one thing is always in effect.

I was hanging my hat on the "spend defense tokens to trigger card effects" rule to give me permission to voluntarily discard defense tokens to trigger the "get extra blue dice" effect from Devastator. So in my mind, I read the card and that rule and thought "ok so maybe, in addition to when I normally discard defense tokens-because they are spent when exhausted-I can ALSO discard tokens to trigger this card's effects anytime I am attacking from my front hull zone."

In my mind, the requisite "spend" language was there via the aforementioned rule, the requisite "cost" language was there via the "quid pro quo" transaction of me discarding a defense token for the benefit of getting an extra blue dice and the timing requisite was there via the "when attacking from your front hull zone" language.

This has been explained to you I-don't-know-how-many times.

There is NO COST associated with triggering Devastator.

The trigger for Devastator is you saying "I trigger Devastator for this attack". THAT'S the trigger.

Once the trigger is done, you check to see if you have any discarded defense tokens. If you do, you add a blue die to the aforementioned attack for each one that has been discarded.

This is not complicated, and as I said, it's been explained to you numerous times. Your standard response is a semantic mess in which you try to tell us that opportunity cost is the same thing as a trigger cost printed on the card. Again, you clearly know better.

This post just demonstrates you are not even paying attention to what I am saying. There is actually no legitimate basis for anything you said in this post about me, so, thank you for the baseless personal attacks?

Actually, all it demonstrates is that I am becoming annoyed with the way you constantly restate the same argument repeatedly, as if you expect it has somehow become more valid than it was yesterday.

I've also not personally attacked you.

Stating that I would not play a game with you based on what I've seen of your gamesmanship is not a personal attack, it's a simple matter of preference that I am willing to stand by. The rest is inference, and fair inference from what I've read.

So when you say in your prior post to me " you have to know that you're being willfully obtuse and simply refusing to accept the quite clear explanations given to you, instead opting to try and find loopholes using some of the most dubious rules lawyering I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing" you are not telling me that I am being obtuse and that I am trying to find loopholes using dubious ruleslawyering? Fun fact for you: I never dismissed nor denied anyone else's explanation or argument nor have I suggested that this was THE correct way to play the cards.

When you say " you continue to rail on about how Devastator has a cost. It is QUITE clear that you have no interest in actually learning how these rules interact, you simply want people to acknowledge how clever you are for coming up with some semantic argument to break the rules, which is not going to happen." You are not telling me that I am railing on and that I have no interest in learning how the rules interact and that I just want people to acknowledge how clever I am at trying to break the game?

When you say " If you don't want to play the game, that's fine, nobody is forcing you to play Armada, but if you want to make up your own rules you're going to have a hard time finding opponents." You are not implying that I want to make up my own rules and that I will have a hard time finding opponents?

How are those not personal attacks?

I'm sorry, but do you know me? Have you ever played a game with me or discussed this topic with me personally? Do you know what I really think about this topic and what I am actually trying to communicate? Apparently not, so all you said and implied above is not natural inference but your attributing ill will and negativity towards me and what I've been saying.

This issue is not people going "this is how the rules work" and me going "no way, they also work this way" so why are you and others acting like it is?

How are those not personal attacks?

I'm sorry, but do you know me? Have you ever played a game with me or discussed this topic with me personally? Do you know what I really think about this topic and what I am actually trying to communicate? Apparently not, so all you said and implied above is not natural inference but your attributing ill will and negativity towards me and what I've been saying.

Because I haven't attacked you personally.

You ARE being willfully obtuse. You HAVE refused to accept the explanations given. You CONTINUE to try and argue for a rule loophole based on dubious and fanciful reasoning.

These are simple fact. A personal attack would be something along the lines of "You're ugly" or "Your feet smell" or "Your mother is a Sith".

These are things I have no point of reference for and are personally insulting. I would never make such a claim.

As for how well I know you, all I know of you is what I've seen in this thread, and my judgements based on that are pretty clearly stated at this point.

This issue is not people going "this is how the rules work" and me going "no way, they also work this way" so why are you and others acting like it is?

You just described the last five pages better than I possibly could.

This is precisely what's happening.

EDIT: At this point I'm starting to feel like I'm just feeding the troll. If you want to continue hammering your forehead against this brick wall I applaud your tenacity, VanorDM.

"Your mother is a Sith".

In some circles that's a compliment.

If you want to continue hammering your forehead against this brick wall I applaud your tenacity, VanorDM.

I'm done too. I realized that it seems he really doesn't understand what RAW means. It's clear he's looking for loopholes and maybe because he is a lawyer that's how he thinks...

But in a game like this, the rules are the rules and they are played RAW. Trying to twist rules into a pretzel like he's doing, is one of the main reasons myself and so many others left 40k...

Tvayumat, so when you make a negative comment directed at someone in particular you wouldn't consider that a personal attack? Read https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/personal_attack .

Also, can you point to a direct quote from me where I am clearly and unequivocally saying "this IS how the rules work, and not the other way around" in terms of discarding defense tokens to trigger devastator? You see, I was careful to word things in a manner that I thought was establishing how my proposed interpretation was based in reason and logic and not a "I just want to ruleslawyer for advantage" thing.

Indeed, if you actually sit down and carefully read what I have been saying, you will find that I was merely pointing out that there is a rationale behind the idea that you could discard defense tokens to trigger devastator and not that this is actually how you play the card.

If someone was playing a game with me and said "hey based on this card and this rule, I think I can discard defense tokens to trigger devastator in such and such manner" as I have described in previous posts, I would not go "you dubious ruleslawyer how could you think that was possible?" I would honestly be able to see where he is coming from, even if I disagreed. I already clearly said, for the sake of actually playing the game, that I would play the card however a TO and opponent would want me to and not insist on playing it as I proposed it could be played . So how is that being a dubious rules lawyer?

Vanor, I do understand RAW and that is where I was coming from-my argument was based entirely in RAW. Also, what makes you say I am looking for loopholes when I already clearly and repeatedly said that I would play the card however a TO and opponent would want me to ?

Overload Pulse - With a blue <crit> you can exhaust all the defender's defense tokens, but again the defender cannot spend those tokens before they're exhausted.

Bad example, but only because the Spend Defense Tokens step comes just before the critical effect is applied.

Still, it's true in the sense that you cannot spend a defense token *specifically* in response to OP's ability. It's not Overload Pulse that allows you to spend tokens but the natural attack phase progression.

Not really. When you trigger Overload Pulse the defender cannot spend tokens. He could spend before, at the spend defense token step but at that moment the overload pulse is not trigered.

In the way he read devastator, he could defend that when you pay two shields for dominator you get 2 blue dice forever.

Overload Pulse - With a blue <crit> you can exhaust all the defender's defense tokens, but again the defender cannot spend those tokens before they're exhausted.

Bad example, but only because the Spend Defense Tokens step comes just before the critical effect is applied.

Still, it's true in the sense that you cannot spend a defense token *specifically* in response to OP's ability. It's not Overload Pulse that allows you to spend tokens but the natural attack phase progression.

Not really. When you trigger Overload Pulse the defender cannot spend tokens. He could spend before, at the spend defense token step but at that moment the overload pulse is not trigered.

In the way he read devastator, he could defend that when you pay two shields for dominator you get 2 blue dice forever.

No I cannot defend that paying 2 shields from dominator gives 2 permanent blue dice, it is a different line of reasoning. The difference between Dominator and Devastator is that one card describes a persistent situation. That was a distinction I was making between Devastator and cards like Admonition where the spending of a token was a one time transaction for a limited one time benefit.

Devastator is much more like Bosk's ability to get a blue accuracy as long as he has taken one damage. I acknowledged that absent any specific permission to just take a damage to trigger Bosk's ability, you could not just arbitrarily decide to take a damage to trigger Bosk's ability. As I said earlier, my initial interpretation was that the "spend defense tokens for card effects" rule WAS that permission to discard a defense token to trigger Devastator but it does not necessarily appear to be the case in actuality.

You can spend a defense token for card effects when the card let you do it. Devastator doesn't let you do it.

You are right about one thing. This thread is not about you saying the rule works this way and we saying no it doesn't. This thread is about you saying the rule could work this way and we saying no it couldn't.

You can spend a defense token for card effects when the card let you do it. Devastator doesn't let you do it.

You are right about one thing. This thread is not about you saying the rule works this way and we saying no it doesn't. This thread is about you saying the rule could work this way and we saying no it couldn't.

To be more accurate, I was saying *IF* the "spend defense tokens for card effects" rule allows for you to discard defense tokens for Devastator, *THEN* you can discard defense tokens to trigger Devastator. If the rule allows you to spend the tokens, then you have to acknowledge that I am right. So the issue was does that rule allow you to spend the tokens or not-and why?

I was then pointing out that there technically IS a cost associated with having Devastator trigger, just not in the sense that you guys are saying there needs to be one (i.e., the card specifically saying spend x resource for y result). That is more of an error on my part with defining what "cost" more likely than not means in Armada and one fueled by a lack of "cost" being actually defined in the rules like how "at" and "within" are.

In a sort of devil's advocate way, I was challenging you all to actually find the term "cost" defined in the rules. I was hoping that you would see the obvious that the term is not ACTUALLY defined and so you guys were leaning on other examples of a quid pro quo transaction on cards where a resource of some sort (e.g., token) was spent in some way to trigger a certain effect. That is a logical inference that leads you to believe something is one way, but it is not a 100% guarantee that something is that way. It is also a logical fallacy to assume that because something has always been or functioned one way, that it will always continue to do so.

As a practical example, some things we do not know to be 100% certain. When a waiter brings you your food and you later go to the restroom, you don't actually KNOW 100% that your food will still be there when you get back. You infer that it will still be there based on past experiences that shape how you think things work. For all you know, a waiter could have thought you left and cleaned up your table while you were gone.

Hahah...... Just...haha...

As a common "squeezer" of the rules as written, I get what you're trying to do... However, I think you are missing the main point. The term; "rules lawyer" is what is being attributed to you, because you are arguing/inducing/deducing/inferring something that is clearly (by a reasonable persons standard) not true/possible/rational.

This is not the law. This is a game with a notional ability to be fun by both parties. The unreasonable argument you make.....makes the exchange with your opponent "unfun." I would think someone with your pedigree would understand that... No?

But do carry on.... Hehe....

Mike

Hahah...... Just...haha...

As a common "squeezer" of the rules as written, I get what you're trying to do... However, I think you are missing the main point. The term; "rules lawyer" is what is being attributed to you, because you are arguing/inducing/deducing/inferring something that is clearly (by a reasonable persons standard) not true/possible/rational.

This is not the law. This is a game with a notional ability to be fun by both parties. The unreasonable argument you make.....makes the exchange with your opponent "unfun." I would think someone with your pedigree would understand that... No?

But do carry on.... Hehe....

Mike

I would never have this type of discussion or debate with an opponent in a friendly pick-up game or tournament so this really is a non-issue. What started this whole thing was (1) my initial misunderstanding of "cost" and "spend" as commonly used in the game and (2) my friend nerd raging how I could possibly even come up with such an understanding or interpretation of the rules then posting parts of our private conversation in public forums. If anything, I was trying to get him-and anyone else-to see that there was a rational and reasonable basis for where I was coming from, regardless of being right or wrong. This was not an attempt to rules lawyer for advantage.

I was also trying to point out that, regardless of right or wrong or from a reasonable or unreasonable perspective-there is still room in the realm of logical debate for my initial reading of the rules to be correct and that is what I think people were having a cow about. I mean, is it possible that it might rain actual cats and dogs tomorrow? Yes. Are we going to be prepared for it because we actually believe it will happen? Probably not. So why go on for 5 pages saying it is impossible for it to rain cats and dogs (in a literal sense) when you can't actually know for 100% certainty it is impossible? I was mainly balking at the notion that people were claiming their position to be correct with 100% certainty. Had everyone been all "sure, 99.999% chance we are right and your initial interpretation could be .00001% correct but who cares, this is a non-issue, lets move on" I would have gladly moved on =P.

I have since resolved everything with Hero, whom I regularly play... And already mentioned I don't plan on playing the rule in the way I initially proposed in any situation-How I play IRL is not the same as how I argue on the internet. so I was not getting why people were making such a big deal about this.

I did not mean for anyone to get an aneurysm... If you suffered one, please send all claims to:

Ruleslawyer, inc.

c/o minstry of silly walks

Caxton House

Tothill Street

London

SW1H 9NA

Hehe... Last part funny

It all makes sense now..... You're British...

oh my gods. im a little embarrasssed to say that was somewhat entertaining.

Its so much fun watching people drag up those logical flaw links and stuff.

--

Also guys, i think mostly its a confusion on "cost" vs "Cost:effect" in Armada jargon, which is based from Xwing jargon... which borrows heavily from the actual rules templating of Magic the Gathering. Which in that case, explicitly states cost.

Unlike in Armada.

---

but wow. That's some serious rules lawyering.

So all is reduce to "spend defense tokens for card effects" and you saying that it could allow you to spend them triggering devastator.

So I could spend defense tokens to trigger rapid reload cause a line in the card allowing you to do that is not a requirement for you.

Spend is not discard never even when spending a defense token you discard it. It is so easy to understand.

Spend: the token does whatever it does (his normal effect or a card effect). Then, if it was exhausted discard it.

Or maybe the designer of Intel Officer is so stupid and didn't realize that spend and discard are the same (as we all) when he wrote the text.

Anyway go to the text:

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.

For each of your discarded defense token NOT for each defense token you discarded.

I am not English and maybe I miss some things but as long as I know the "discarded" on the text is an adjective, not a verb so there is not an action and doesn't let you do nothing but "attacking" (what you are doing) and "add dice" (what the card allow you to do and nothing more). If the token is not discarded when you trigger the ability, sorry, but you can't discard it now. This not happen with other cards that allow you to spend or discard the defense token while the ability is being reolved as a part of it. This last case is what the rule you quote ad nauseam (I know Latin too) is covering. In other words the rule just say whenever you spend a defense token out of the spend defense token step, the tokens do nothing but whatever the card said. Of course it is an interpretation but for me is clear that they want to clarify that spending tokens to trigger some abilities doesn't let you redirect, brace or whatever (what could be a reasonable question). What they never imagined was a lawyer defending the interpretation that says that I can spend defense token to trigger an ability that don't let me spend defense tokens (what couldn't be a reasonable question).

And remember your exhausted people is not the same that the people you exhausted.

Bringing logic into a rules discussion is badwrongfun

Hehe... Last part funny

It all makes sense now..... You're British...

We're not all like that, promise !

Actually I am not British but I thought it fitting to use a British address since the Ministry of Silly Walks was/is a British organization. I heard they are facing massive cutbacks as of late, though.

And yes... Heaven forbid anyone brings up logic or refer someone to an actual source for how logic works in a discussion about rules-which are based upon logic in the first place =(.

But anyway, I think we can all digress and watch some Flying Circus... There are some vicious Banana Fiends somewhere out there the world needs saving from.