14 hours ago, RocketPropelledGiraffe said:

It does not matter, right? The rule says the same token cannot be spent twice during one attack - the rule does not specifically call out the defender nor the defender's tokens.

That point falls under a statement that says:

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

Whereas Vader/TRC happens in the attackers modify step.

In saying that there is probably a whole thread about Vader/TRC that i missed that probably proves me wrong.

On 3/17/2017 at 10:29 AM, Drasnighta said:

Does it really matter?

Really? Probably not. As you observed, I currently can't imagine any way to suffer more than 2 damage + crit effect from the scenario. At least against a ship. It might be more important against fighters, if you target the scatter.

8 hours ago, Irokenics said:

That point falls under a statement that says:

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

Not exactly, it is a separate bullet point and does not clearly depend on the one above, so the whole thing is at least ambiguous.

As far as the basic rules go it does not matter anyway because it was simply not possible to spend a token twice anyway. Vader-Needa-TRC is such a specific corner case, that no one ever really bothered.

Anyhow, we will get an official ruling eventually.

6 hours ago, RocketPropelledGiraffe said:

Not exactly, it is a separate bullet point and does not clearly depend on the one above, so the whole thing is at least ambiguous.

Ahh righto, i see it now.

So the statement refers to the token effects which is a list, thats also listed as bullet points.

The other bullet points are stand alone statements like how the rest of the references are written but looks like it flows onto the list when its not due to formatting.

It would've been better to use alphanumerical bullet points for the token list there i reckon!

Which would mean dras and yourself are right, where if you use Sloane and spend an accuracy during an attack on an ace squadron to spend their scatter, during the defense token step they can't spend it as per RAW.

If you put everything together in this line of thought, the Sloane-effect is merely an improved accuracy: normally you would use your accuracy to block the enemy scatter token, with Sloane you still effectively block the scatter (as it cannot be spent twice) but additionally turn it to red.

Of course the effect will become more permanent, if the token is already exhausted...

So Sloane makes your TIEs the reuseable Boarding Troopers. You reveal a squadron command and choose an enemy ship in attack range of your fighters. With some luck, you spend a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value.

Boarding Troopers is cheaper, but Sloane & TIE has a better range and can happen every round. And you can even discard a defense token spending it twice. And it also works against ace squadrons...

TIEs with Ion Cannons! So mean!

2 hours ago, Triangular said:

With some luck, you spend a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value.

A lot of luck actually.

The biggest amount of squadron a ship can activate is 6. With a base squadron value of 5 (4+HB) and that means 2 acc as average. In order to achieve the 5 boarding troopers would do you need go to 83% from 31%... With those dice just shoot and kill man

When you are in close range, for the vast majority of ships, two exhausted tokens is the max you need anyway. The only exceptions are the large ships, where you want it to be more difficult to bypass their defenses as a game design choice. And the Arquitens which requires three exhausts if you need to bypass the Contain.

Also note that the best you can get with boarding is exhausting the readied tokens, while the corvettes consecutive TIE attackso can first exhaust and then discard a token.

On 28.3.2017 at 11:15 AM, ovinomanc3r said:

A lot of luck actually.

The biggest amount of squadron a ship can activate is 6. With a base squadron value of 5 (4+HB) and that means 2 acc as average. In order to achieve the 5 boarding troopers would do you need go to 83% from 31%... With those dice just shoot and kill man

"Never tell me the odds!" But I will do...

Let's say you just use the standard TIE Fighter with 1 blue die. You have 25% chance per blue die to get an accuracy . Sloane gives you a reroll for crits (another 25% chance). In the end you get a 31,25% for an accuracy . So the actual chance for an VSD activating three TIEs getting three accuracy -results is about 3%. So you're quite right, that you need a lot of luck for that. But I would say, it's a better chance than to get at close range with the VSD!

And your chance to get at least 2 accuracy (and to burn 1 defense token) is about 20%! (And if you could activate another TIE Fighter your chance to get at least 2 accuracy rises to 36,6%.) That's not so bad!

And what's even better: With Sloane you got a benefit out of accuracy AND hit AND a reroll for the crit . Till now your TIE Fighter only has a 50%-50% chance for 1 damage or no damage. With her it's 62,5% for a hit, 31,25% to spend a defense token, only 6,25% for no benefit. Every round, nearly every range! Sloane makes every TIE Fighter a bomber...

1 hour ago, Triangular said:

"Never tell me the odds!" But I will do...

Let's say you just use the standard TIE Fighter with 1 blue die. You have 25% chance per blue die to get an accuracy . Sloane gives you a reroll for crits (another 25% chance). In the end you get a 31,25% for an accuracy . So the actual chance for an VSD activating three TIEs getting three accuracy -results is about 3%. So you're quite right, that you need a lot of luck for that. But I would say, it's a better chance than to get at close range with the VSD!

And your chance to get at least 2 accuracy (and to burn 1 defense token) is about 20%! (And if you could activate another TIE Fighter your chance to get at least 2 accuracy rises to 36,6%.) That's not so bad!

And what's even better: With Sloane you got a benefit out of accuracy AND hit AND a reroll for the crit . Till now your TIE Fighter only has a 50%-50% chance for 1 damage or no damage. With her it's 62,5% for a hit, 31,25% to spend a defense token, only 6,25% for no benefit. Every round, nearly every range! Sloane makes every TIE Fighter a bomber...

What I meant is easy: the chance of doing the same than a board troop with a single activation of squadrons with Sloane is impossible... well not impossible but near to it. I say that you won't spend as many defense token as your squadron value with a single activation using Sloane at least not with SOME luck.

On 19/03/2017 at 5:42 PM, Drasnighta said:

Only the Defender can spend tokens to get Defense Tokens effects, as per the Rulebook section on Defense Tokens.

It also clarifies that Defense tokens can be spent due to other upgrade card effects, and they do not produce their basic effect while doing so.

Actually is doesn't say ONLY. When written there was no way for an attacker time SPEND a defender's token.

It may be the intent that the ability actually ACTIVATES the token, it is spent and creates the effect.

No idea about the fluff of how Sloane actually does it.

Perhaps it's a hack/slice on the target'driven computers that makes it erratically maneuver (scatter) or reinforces a shield (brace ) etc.

Theres a couple of ways 'in fluff' that could say how Sloane's fighters do this.....Accurate damage targeting instructions from the controllers on her flag ship to the TIEs (ala the novel Tarkin where they are taking out the hyperdrive of the carron spike) OR just repeated hits causing interruptions to the damage /fire & control systems /teams but not enough to cause damage to the target ship.

3 hours ago, DarthBadger said:

Actually is doesn't say ONLY.

"Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects..."

Defense tokens spent by the defender. Not the attacker. The attacker cannot produce the effects of a defense token because they would have to be spent during the "Spend Defense Token" step.

3 hours ago, DarthBadger said:

When written there was no way for an attacker time SPEND a defender's token.

Just because FFG wrote the RRG before Sloane came out means nothing. That implies FFG doesn't actually understand the RRG, and they are breaking their own rules all the time. The Snipe threads and RLB thread had that same argument in them;

"Well the RRG was written before this card came out so I guess FFG didn't take into account this one rule."

How can you have a game without rules and how can you expand the game without making new content after the rules have come out? This is a chicken vs egg argument.

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

"Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects..."

Defense tokens spent by the defender. Not the attacker. The attacker cannot produce the effects of a defense token because they would have to be spent during the "Spend Defense Token" step.

Just because FFG wrote the RRG before Sloane came out means nothing. That implies FFG doesn't actually understand the RRG, and they are breaking their own rules all the time. The Snipe threads and RLB thread had that same argument in them;

"Well the RRG was written before this card came out so I guess FFG didn't take into account this one rule."

How can you have a game without rules and how can you expand the game without making new content after the rules have come out? This is a chicken vs egg argument.

This is what FAQs are for (or new verions of the RRG).

Oh wait, we are still waiting for the one from wave 5

9 minutes ago, Tokra said:

This is what FAQs are for (or new verions of the RRG).

Oh wait, we are still waiting for the one from wave 5

Indeed... maybe we will get an FAQ when wave 6 comes out. And then we get to wait on the wave 6 FAQ.

An endless cycle.

5 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

How can you have a game without rules and how can you expand the game without making new content after the rules have come out? This is a chicken vs egg argument.

You modify the rules.

See my thread about Screed / Kalus / QLT. As written I can use Screed on the other guy's turn. Is that what they intended? We don't know, because at the time the printed Screed, there was simply no option to attack during the other guy's turn, so there was no reason to forbid it.

2 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

You modify the rules.

See my thread about Screed / Kalus / QLT. As written I can use Screed on the other guy's turn. Is that what they intended? We don't know, because at the time the printed Screed, there was simply no option to attack during the other guy's turn, so there was no reason to forbid it.

Yet, other things have been "future-proofed" at the same time, which also goes to show that there is consideration of that moving forward in the main rules.

So it is not inherently easily to convince they are true rules-ignorance, rather tahn intention, in light of those as precedences.

FWIW, my philosophy is to rank rules interpretations in this order:

1. Explicit FAQ entries
2. RAW interpretation that matches known RAI
3. RAW interpretation that does not break anything and matches probable RAI
4. RAW interpretation that does not break anything but does not match probable RAI ( #TeamPurple is here)
5. RAW interpretation that breaks something but matches probable RAI ( #TeamOrange is here)
6. RAW interpretation that breaks something and does not match probable RAI
7. Anything Michael Gernes said/wrote

...but what do I know

35 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

You modify the rules.

See my thread about Screed / Kalus / QLT. As written I can use Screed on the other guy's turn. Is that what they intended? We don't know, because at the time the printed Screed, there was simply no option to attack during the other guy's turn, so there was no reason to forbid it.

This case is someone saying FFG did not consider that the attacker cannot spend the defending defense tokens, thus a rule was never made for that situation, when in fact, we have a rule that explicitly says the defender can spend defense tokens during the "Spend Defense Token" step. No future proofing is needed because the RRG explicitly says the defender has to spend the token to get the effect. Where as your example, the rules favor neither side. It is a "Did FFG intend for this to happen."

On 3/17/2017 at 7:29 AM, Drasnighta said:

More to the point for me, since we're talking about Sloane:

With the specific exception of Phantoms throwing two reds and potentially getting Acc + Double (1/8 + 1/8 chance) - Or Maarek getting Acc + Crit....

... Does it really matter? I mean, on the tabletop... Even if you do assume that the Token can only be spent once per attack?

90% of the time, we're talking about a single Blue die. That is going to roll a Crit, and get Rerolled.... A Hit, and do Damage... Or get an Acc, and Spend a Token.

Then the attack is over.

The next TIE fighter to attack is a new attack.

The Phantoms of course, still raise it as a discussion point - getting an Acc+double means you're not Bracing it, because they're probably making you spend your Brace.... So you'll have to redirect it, and be happy that you probably won't see that happen again for a good long while.

And Maarek is probbaly still going to make you spend your Brace in this way, unless he's really, really, really, really wanting to land that Crit on your Hull, you already have no shields, and a Redirect token he can mess with...

We're talking about attacking access here

Just now, Tirion said:

We're talking about attacking access here

I hope you mean "aces".

And then I hope you read 4 posts on (ie, a little bit further in the thread you're replying on), and you know, see that I saw that, and issued my own mea culpa.

Because I'd really like that to be acknowledged.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I hope you mean "aces".

And then I hope you read 4 posts on (ie, a little bit further in the thread you're replying on), and you know, see that I saw that, and issued my own mea culpa.

Because I'd really like that to be acknowledged.

Yup yup and yup

Just now, Tirion said:

Yup yup and yup

Thank you.

2 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:

FWIW, my philosophy is to rank rules interpretations in this order:

1. Whatever Green Knight says
2. Explicit FAQ entries
3. RAW interpretation that matches known RAI
4. RAW interpretation that does not break anything and matches probable RAI
5. RAW interpretation that does not break anything but does not match probable RAI ( #TeamPurple is here)
6. RAW interpretation that breaks something but matches probable RAI ( #TeamOrange is here)
7. RAW interpretation that breaks something and does not match probable RAI
8. Anything Michael Gernes said/wrote

...but what do I know

Fixed

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Yet, other things have been "future-proofed" at the same time, which also goes to show that there is consideration of that moving forward in the main rules.

So it is not inherently easily to convince they are true rules-ignorance, rather tahn intention, in light of those as precedences.

Some have been. Others have not. Deliberate? Or simply lack of forsight?

I prefer to assume that they always act with perfect knowledge, while being aware of the reality that they are only human.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

This case is someone saying FFG did not consider that the attacker cannot spend the defending defense tokens, thus a rule was never made for that situation, when in fact, we have a rule that explicitly says the defender can spend defense tokens during the "Spend Defense Token" step.

The rulebook also calls out a specific case when the Defence token is spent and does NOT provide the defence effect.

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

So, we have one case for when they DO provide their effect, and one case for where they do NOT produce their effect. The case we are arguing fits into neither case.

I'm inclined to go with the "no effect" interpretation, because t just feels right. If they had meant it to have an effect, they would probably have said, "The attacker may spend an accuracy to choose an opponent's defence token. The defender must spend that token during this attack," or similar wording.

OTOH, gaining the effect would make Sloan somewhat less powerful, and require slightly more thought. No longer am I just burning a defence token, I'm just forcing you to use it, probably at a time you wouldn't want to use it. Adds an interesting level of thinking about things. Mostly against scatter; instead of letting you just take the one damage, I can force you to Scatter to prevent one damage. Not exactly optimal use of the token, but you do at least get to use it.

---

On the topic of future proofing, and "that rule was written before we could do this," I find it interesting to note the following two restrictions:

• The defender cannot spend more than one defense
token of each type per attack.

• A defense token cannot be spent more than once during
an attack.

Did they leave off "the defender" from the second bullet point deliberately, predicting that we might want to use Sloan to completely lock down a token? Or was it unintentional, since, at that time, only the defender can spend tokens anyway? The two sentences are structured differently; one addresses the person taking the action, the other addresses the object being acted upon. "The defender cannot spend," vs "A defence token cannot be spent." (active vs passive voice, I believe) Deliberate? Overlooked? Without a FAQ, who can say?

As I said, above, I prefer to believe that the rules are written exactly as they are intended to be written, and that all cards are written with perfect knowledge and understanding; but we all know this isn't true.

As I also said above, in this specific case, I'm preferring to argue the lack of foresight; it's not often that I accept that argument, but in this case I do.