I want to make devastator work and work well, something I have not seen done successfully yet.

So I decided to build a list entirely around making devastator hit as hard as possible so here is what I have initially come up with:

+++ Devastator (386pts) +++

++ Imperial Navy (Standard) (386pts) ++

+ Imperial Star Destroyer (143pts) +

Imperial I-Class Star Destroyer (143pts) [H9 Turbolasers (8pts), Intel Officer (7pts), Leading Shots (4pts), Ordnance Experts (4pts), •Devastator (10pts)]

+ Raider Corvette (220pts) +

Raider I-Class Corvette (80pts) [•Darth Vader (36pts)]

Raider I-Class Corvette (44pts)

Raider I-Class Corvette (48pts) [•Instigator (4pts)]

Raider I-Class Corvette (48pts) [•Impetuous (4pts)]

+ Squadrons (23pts) +

TIE Fighter Squadron (8pts)

•"Mauler" Mithel (15pts)

+ Objectives +

Be 1st player!!!

Created with BattleScribe (http://www.battlescribe.net)

So the plan is use 5 activations to allow Devastator last and 1st activation using Intel officer and vader to discard my 2nd redirect and contain token very early. Then once in close range double reroll/triple reroll the blacks for max damage and profit!

Vader doesn't discard defense tokens on his own- He gives you another way to spend them. Now, if said token was already exhausted, it's discarded. But Vader by himself won't do it.

I would put out this squadrons and take the ISD2. I was thinking on a similar idea but I thought to give something to compensate the lost of the defense token. Something like redundant shields could help a bit or EMC to be sure I discard brace making it works.

Edit: ECM, sorry.

Vader doesn't discard defense tokens on his own- He gives you another way to spend them. Now, if said token was already exhausted, it's discarded. But Vader by himself won't do it.

What he's doing though, is using his intel officer to name his own defense token, then he uses Vader to spend it and re-roll, forcing it to discard.

Vader doesn't discard defense tokens on his own- He gives you another way to spend them. Now, if said token was already exhausted, it's discarded. But Vader by himself won't do it.

What he's doing though, is using his intel officer to name his own defense token, then he uses Vader to spend it and re-roll, forcing it to discard.

Vader doesn't discard defense tokens on his own- He gives you another way to spend them. Now, if said token was already exhausted, it's discarded. But Vader by himself won't do it.

What he's doing though, is using his intel officer to name his own defense token, then he uses Vader to spend it and re-roll, forcing it to discard.

This strikes me as an unintended use of Intel Officer that would almost certainly be smacked down by an FAQ.

This strikes me as an unintended use of Intel Officer that would almost certainly be smacked down by an FAQ.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Its still limited that you can only do it once per turn.

And the benefit you gain, one blue die, is not as good as forcing an enemy brace to disappear after one shot... Or to have them not Brace an ISD's shot anyway...

This strikes me as an unintended use of Intel Officer that would almost certainly be smacked down by an FAQ.

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Its still limited that you can only do it once per turn.

And the benefit you gain, one blue die, is not as good as forcing an enemy brace to disappear after one shot... Or to have them not Brace an ISD's shot anyway...

When it comes to the rules of a tabletop game, when the answer lands on "Perhaps, perhaps not" I will ALWAYS err in the direction of not.

The INTENT of Intel Officer is quite clear. You target the enemy's defense token to make their defensive choice more difficult. When it was written, the idea that you might *want* to target your own token was likely not even considered. The fact that they didn't think to specifically write "hostile defense tokens only" doesn't really give us free reign to break the card until an explicit ruling is delivered.

I'm just saying that if I sat down to play with someone, even casually, and they tried this trick, my answer would be a simple "No".

When it comes to the rules of a tabletop game, when the answer lands on "Perhaps, perhaps not" I will ALWAYS err in the direction of not.

The INTENT of Intel Officer is quite clear. You target the enemy's defense token to make their defensive choice more difficult. When it was written, the idea that you might *want* to target your own token was likely not even considered. The fact that they didn't think to specifically write "hostile defense tokens only" doesn't really give us free reign to break the card until an explicit ruling is delivered.

I'm just saying that if I sat down to play with someone, even casually, and they tried this trick, my answer would be a simple "No".

Whereas I look at it, and believe that the card does not specifically mention enemy, and that the payoff is questionable at best, so what's the point of arguing?

As neither of us are designers or writers of these cards (unless either of us Win Worlds!), we can only make assumptions on intent on a case-by-case basis.

Nothing wrong with either of our attitudes, after all - they're just differing

When it comes to the rules of a tabletop game, when the answer lands on "Perhaps, perhaps not" I will ALWAYS err in the direction of not.

The INTENT of Intel Officer is quite clear. You target the enemy's defense token to make their defensive choice more difficult. When it was written, the idea that you might *want* to target your own token was likely not even considered. The fact that they didn't think to specifically write "hostile defense tokens only" doesn't really give us free reign to break the card until an explicit ruling is delivered.

I'm just saying that if I sat down to play with someone, even casually, and they tried this trick, my answer would be a simple "No".

Whereas I look at it, and believe that the card does not specifically mention enemy, and that the payoff is questionable at best, so what's the point of arguing?

As neither of us are designers or writers of these cards (unless either of us Win Worlds!), we can only make assumptions on intent on a case-by-case basis.

Nothing wrong with either of our attitudes, after all - they're just differing

Of course not, there's no harm in kicking the rules around to see what sorts of devious and potentially less-than-obvious tricks we can pull, but there comes a point at which we both know better.

I agree the payoff is questionable at best, but you can achieve the same thing for slightly more points by taking Captain Needa and Turbolaser Reroute Circuits, WITHOUT invoking a dubious interpretation of the wording on a core set card insofar as it interacts with a wave two card.

And please never take my position as some sort of aspersion. I'm just saying be aware that you may run into players like me who will be less open to liberal interpretation.

When it comes to the rules of a tabletop game, when the answer lands on "Perhaps, perhaps not" I will ALWAYS err in the direction of not.

The INTENT of Intel Officer is quite clear. You target the enemy's defense token to make their defensive choice more difficult. When it was written, the idea that you might *want* to target your own token was likely not even considered. The fact that they didn't think to specifically write "hostile defense tokens only" doesn't really give us free reign to break the card until an explicit ruling is delivered.

I'm just saying that if I sat down to play with someone, even casually, and they tried this trick, my answer would be a simple "No".

Whereas I look at it, and believe that the card does not specifically mention enemy, and that the payoff is questionable at best, so what's the point of arguing?

As neither of us are designers or writers of these cards (unless either of us Win Worlds!), we can only make assumptions on intent on a case-by-case basis.

Nothing wrong with either of our attitudes, after all - they're just differing

Of course not, there's no harm in kicking the rules around to see what sorts of devious and potentially less-than-obvious tricks we can pull, but there comes a point at which we both know better.

I agree the payoff is questionable at best, but you can achieve the same thing for slightly more points by taking Captain Needa and Turbolaser Reroute Circuits, WITHOUT invoking a dubious interpretation of the wording on a core set card insofar as it interacts with a wave two card.

And please never take my position as some sort of aspersion. I'm just saying be aware that you may run into players like me who will be less open to liberal interpretation.

When it comes to the rules of a tabletop game, when the answer lands on "Perhaps, perhaps not" I will ALWAYS err in the direction of not.

The INTENT of Intel Officer is quite clear. You target the enemy's defense token to make their defensive choice more difficult. When it was written, the idea that you might *want* to target your own token was likely not even considered. The fact that they didn't think to specifically write "hostile defense tokens only" doesn't really give us free reign to break the card until an explicit ruling is delivered.

I'm just saying that if I sat down to play with someone, even casually, and they tried this trick, my answer would be a simple "No".

Whereas I look at it, and believe that the card does not specifically mention enemy, and that the payoff is questionable at best, so what's the point of arguing?

As neither of us are designers or writers of these cards (unless either of us Win Worlds!), we can only make assumptions on intent on a case-by-case basis.

Nothing wrong with either of our attitudes, after all - they're just differing

Of course not, there's no harm in kicking the rules around to see what sorts of devious and potentially less-than-obvious tricks we can pull, but there comes a point at which we both know better.

I agree the payoff is questionable at best, but you can achieve the same thing for slightly more points by taking Captain Needa and Turbolaser Reroute Circuits, WITHOUT invoking a dubious interpretation of the wording on a core set card insofar as it interacts with a wave two card.

And please never take my position as some sort of aspersion. I'm just saying be aware that you may run into players like me who will be less open to liberal interpretation.

well my argument is that it is clearly within the bounds of the rules that you can in fact target your own token with Intel officer and if you look at the evidence it is difficult to argue against that stance

And I disagree.

Using a common sense approach, Intel Officer's intent is quite obvious, and what you describe is not it, but is an interpretation based on the old standby of "Well it doesn't say I *CAN'T* do it"

I, personally, put no stock in that style of interpretation, but then we're just smack dab in the middle of RAI vs RAW, which is a war that will never end.

And you know the "intent" because?

"While attacking, after you roll your attack pool, you may exhaust this card to choose 1 defense token. If that token is spent during this attack, discard that token."

1. It happens after I roll, CHECK

2. It targets a defense token, CHECK

3. The defense Token is spent during the attack due to Vader CHECK

If these conditions are met I can discard a token

And you know the "intent" because?

"While attacking, after you roll your attack pool, you may exhaust this card to choose 1 defense token. If that token is spent during this attack, discard that token."

1. It happens after I roll, CHECK

2. It targets a defense token, CHECK

3. The defense Token is spent during the attack due to Vader CHECK

If these conditions are met I can discard a token

If the only way we can ever agree on the effect of a card is if we have a notarized letter of intent from the writer, we may as well just stop playing tabletop games.

The intent is obvious. Like... really, REALLY obvious.

It's an offensive upgrade intended to limit the opponent's choices for responding to your attack. With that in mind, an interpretation that involves you using intel officer to intentionally discard your own tokens because the card didn't explicitly state you can't target yourself is a contentious one.

It seems to indicate that we, as a community, cannot rely on common sense, and puts us in a position of having to defend simple inductive reasoning against hyper-deductive proof mongering.

When someone sat down to type up the Intel Officer card, Darth Vader did not exist as a commander or (likely) as even a concept. The fact that their interaction is a bit wonky should raise a red flag, with that in mind, that what you're doing was not an intended function.

No, I can't deliver you 100% proof that this is not the case, but you shouldn't assume that it is given all of the common sense evidence to the contrary. As long as your opponent has no problem with playing this way, go right ahead, but if your intent is to ever run this combo in any serious competitive sense you should have the backing of an official FFG email, elsewise you run the risk of simply being turned away. I can say that as a TO myself I would not allow this interaction to fly in a tournament without official support and clarification.

I realize that what I'm saying is, itself, largely common sense, but I'm of the opinion that it needs to be stated regardless.

Sorry mate, but I feel you're asking too much.

Its quite alright to say what your opinion is. Its your opinion.

But what I've learned from the torrents of abuse I've gotten in PMs and such over rules wonderings, is you cannot argue on intent, only on RAW.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

Sorry mate, but I feel you're asking too much.

Its quite alright to say what your opinion is. Its your opinion.

But what I've learned from the torrents of abuse I've gotten in PMs and such over rules wonderings, is you cannot argue on intent, only on RAW.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

I'm not asking anything, I'm stating that I would personally reject this interpretation and giving my reasons for doing so. I simply feel you should be aware that there may be players who are not as receptive to the "It doesn't say I can't" argument.

No doubt, a lot would go for it. I wouldn't.

Why don't you throw FFG an email to ask about the card interaction, and remove all question?

Sorry mate, but I feel you're asking too much.

Its quite alright to say what your opinion is. Its your opinion.

But what I've learned from the torrents of abuse I've gotten in PMs and such over rules wonderings, is you cannot argue on intent, only on RAW.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

I'm not asking anything, I'm stating that I would personally reject this interpretation and giving my reasons for doing so. I simply feel you should be aware that there may be players who are not as receptive to the "It doesn't say I can't" argument.

No doubt, a lot would go for it. I wouldn't.

Why don't you throw FFG an email to ask about the card interaction, and remove all question?

Because I have Seven of those waiting with no response already.

Sorry mate, but I feel you're asking too much.

Its quite alright to say what your opinion is. Its your opinion.

But what I've learned from the torrents of abuse I've gotten in PMs and such over rules wonderings, is you cannot argue on intent, only on RAW.

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

I'm not asking anything, I'm stating that I would personally reject this interpretation and giving my reasons for doing so. I simply feel you should be aware that there may be players who are not as receptive to the "It doesn't say I can't" argument.

No doubt, a lot would go for it. I wouldn't.

Why don't you throw FFG an email to ask about the card interaction, and remove all question?

Because I have Seven of those waiting with no response already.

Time to go for lucky number eight!

I've found that the order and frequency of reply is unpredictable. You may get a response to this question before any of your previous seven even make it to their desk.

Time to go for lucky number eight!

I've found that the order and frequency of reply is unpredictable. You may get a response to this question before any of your previous seven even make it to their desk.

::shrug:: Don't know why its on me.

I proposed this combo (as a hypothetical exercise) some time ago, and I'm on D's camp: it's definitely supported by RAW.

And it's not at all a matter of "it's not forbidden so it must be allowed": here there's no gap or ambiguity in the rules or card wording, which is perfectly clear - to the point that preventing this interaction would require an Errata, not a FAQ.

Time to go for lucky number eight!

I've found that the order and frequency of reply is unpredictable. You may get a response to this question before any of your previous seven even make it to their desk.

::shrug:: Don't know why its on me.

Well, obviously because you and Clontrooper have identical avatars and I only just realized you guys swapped in. I genuinely thought I was talking to OP, sorry.

I proposed this combo (as a hypothetical exercise) some time ago, and I'm on D's camp: it's definitely supported by RAW.

And it's not at all a matter of "it's not forbidden so it must be allowed": here there's no gap or ambiguity in the rules or card wording, which is perfectly clear - to the point that preventing this interaction would require an Errata, not a FAQ.

It's not *supported* by RAW so much as *permitted* by RAW.

Again, the intent of the card is glaringly obvious, and when you combine that with the fact that the card was written two full waves prior to Darth Vader, AND that when the card was written there was NO benefit from ANY other upgrade to discarding your own defense token, AND that the addition of a single word to Intel Officer ("Enemy" defense token) would completely dismantle this interpretation...

I really just don't see the argument.

Sure, it's a fun exercise in RAW, but that's where it stops for me without word from FFG. *MAYBE* it's just a fun cross-wave interaction, sure. It's just as likely that it's an oversight by the people who write the cards. This would hardly be the first of such incidents.

I guess I'm just an RAI kinda guy or, at least, the kinda guy who errs on the side of conservative interpretation.

I don't disagree that it was probably not intended to allow it. But whether or not it was, the fact is that, as written it does allow it - whether we like it or not. You can't go around making up limitations that aren't in the rules just because you feel they should be.

This is a prime example of finding loopholes that may not be illegal in the strictest sense, but very obviously go against the spirit of the rules.

I don't disagree that it was probably not intended to allow it. But whether or not it was, the fact is that, as written it does allow it - whether we like it or not. You can't go around making up limitations that aren't in the rules just because you feel they should be.

Sure I can.

I don't have to play with anyone I don't want to, and I'm not required to give any reasoning for it.

In a tournament setting as a TO, I'm also given final authority regarding the interpretation of card interactions. I can say with 100% certainty that I would not allow this without an FAQ (Or at least an email from FFG), based on the reasoning provided above, and I'd be more than comfortable with someone challenging my ruling.