32 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

I don't know; I think you need more solid arguments than that, because the rules don't seem to support it:

Spend Accuracy Icons (RRG p.2) : the attacker can spend one or more of its <Acc> icons to choose the same number of the defender’s defense tokens. The chosen tokens cannot be spent during this attack.

Admiral Sloane : [the attacker] may spend 1 die with an <Acc> icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens.

The way I see it, the wording is virtually* the same: both effects "target" a token "with an accuracy result" in the exact same way. If the RAW interpretation of Sloane is followed (i.e. tokens spent by her cannot be spent by the defender) I'd think ECM would work against her.

*: the difference between spending "an <Acc> icon" and spending "a die with an <Acc> icon" does not appear significant here.

I'm inclined to agree. I completely respect the views of posters who were good enough to take the time to explain why they thought ECM wouldn't work but their explanation appears to really strain English comprehension whilst this seems simple and logical. As I said earlier FFG really seem to have dropped the ball on Sloane and I just can't see why someone there won't take half a day just to produce an FAQ to clarify this and the issue about spending tokens Sloane has exhausted. It's still a better game than Scum and Villiany Wing aka X Wing though!

@ Irokenics. Wow, we had this with Wargames Research Group's DBM Ancients rules way back in the 90s. A colon or a comma changes the entire meaning of the rule. DBM were played almost universally amongst Ancients players, I enjoyed them but I wouldn't want to go back to those kind of arguments again!

Sorry I should have quoted your posting for clarity but I made a mess of it!

28 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Word for word

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

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

A colon is used in conjunction with a bullet as written. Are you saying that RAW means we literally ignore how a colon is used in writing and just read the bullet by itself?

To me if the colon wasnt used, then there would be grounds for a RAW/RAI argument.

Answer the following questions considering the following scenario from a defender's point of view.

Your ace squadron is being attacked by a regular squadron, they have rolled 2 accuracy and 2 hits, they have just spent one of your defense tokens using Sloane's ability (despite your afore mentioned rule about defender's being the only ones who can spend defense tokens) it is now your turn to decide if you will spend defense tokens. You have a red scatter (the one that was spent by the Sloane ability) and a green scatter that has been targeted by the squadrons second accuracy.

1. Has a defense token been spent during the attack?

2. As a result of the answer to question #1 can you (the defender) spend a defence token and why?

20 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

Answer the following questions considering the following scenario from a defender's point of view.

Your ace squadron is being attacked by a regular squadron, they have rolled 2 accuracy and 2 hits, they have just spent one of your defense tokens using Sloane's ability (despite your afore mentioned rule about defender's being the only ones who can spend defense tokens) it is now your turn to decide if you will spend defense tokens. You have a red scatter (the one that was spent by the Sloane ability) and a green scatter that has been targeted by the squadrons second accuracy.

1. Has a defense token been spent during the attack?

2. As a result of the answer to question #1 can you (the defender) spend a defence token and why?

In response to your questions.

1. Has a defense token been spent during the attack?

Not by the defender .

2. As a result of the answer to question #1 can you (the defender) spend a defence token and why?

Yes, because the defender has not yet spent a defense token in the 'Spend Defense Token Step' of resolving an Attack.

The defender may spend the exhausted scatter, as the other has been targeted with a normal accuracy ability as per the scenario. (There are no ace squadrons with two scatters by the way just so you know)

29 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

(despite your afore mentioned rule about defender's being the only ones who can spend defense tokens)

Good sir, I did not say that only defenders can spend defense tokens. There are examples of attackers spending defense tokens, i.e Vader, Turbolaser Reroute Circuits and now Sloane.

Please don't read my response as if im using an aggressive tone, because that is not the intent. I was just trying to point out if that a literal interpretation can be seen as Rules as Written as well.

1 hour ago, Bolshevik65 said:

@ Irokenics. Wow, we had this with Wargames Research Group's DBM Ancients rules way back in the 90s. A colon or a comma changes the entire meaning of the rule. DBM were played almost universally amongst Ancients players, I enjoyed them but I wouldn't want to go back to those kind of arguments again!

Sorry I should have quoted your posting for clarity but I made a mess of it!

Of course it does, even a single word does as we saw with Jamming Fields.

Apologies, i am unfamiliar with Wargames Research Group or DMB Ancients so i may have possible lost the context.

I wasn't trying to argue on the ruling itself. I was trying to provide input on the declarative statement of 'word for word' being tossed around can be interpreted right down to the use of punctuation marks.

40 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

In response to your questions.

1. Has a defense token been spent during the attack?

Not by the defender .

2. As a result of the answer to question #1 can you (the defender) spend a defence token and why?

Yes, because the defender has not yet spent a defense token in the 'Spend Defense Token Step' of resolving an Attack.

The defender may spend the exhausted scatter, as the other has been targeted with a normal accuracy ability as per the scenario. (There are no ace squadrons with two scatters by the way just so you know)

Good sir, I did not say that only defenders can spend defense tokens. There are examples of attackers spending defense tokens, i.e Vader, Turbolaser Reroute Circuits and now Sloane.

Please don't read my response as if im using an aggressive tone, because that is not the intent. I was just trying to point out if that a literal interpretation can be seen as Rules as Written as well.

I'm trying to understand why you think it makes a difference that the defender hasn't spent the token when the rules quite clearly just say that a token can only be spent once during an attack. Who spends it doesn't appear to matter from what I can see.

2 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Of course it does, even a single word does as we saw with Jamming Fields.

Apologies, i am unfamiliar with Wargames Research Group or DMB Ancients so i may have possible lost the context.

I wasn't trying to argue on the ruling itself. I was trying to provide input on the declarative statement of 'word for word' being tossed around can be interpreted right down to the use of punctuation marks.

They were an almost universally played set of ancients rules but oh boy did commas, semi colons and punctuation matter. They were co written by a guy called Phil Barker whose writing style and reliance on punctuation coined the phrase "Barkerese" amongst us historical types, a piece of jargon still in use to this day.

16 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

In response to your questions.

1. Has a defense token been spent during the attack?

Not by the defender .

2. As a result of the answer to question #1 can you (the defender) spend a defence token and why?

Yes, because the defender has not yet spent a defense token in the 'Spend Defense Token Step' of resolving an Attack.

The defender may spend the exhausted scatter, as the other has been targeted with a normal accuracy ability as per the scenario. (There are no ace squadrons with two scatters by the way just so you know)

Good sir, I did not say that only defenders can spend defense tokens. There are examples of attackers spending defense tokens, i.e Vader, Turbolaser Reroute Circuits and now Sloane.

Please don't read my response as if im using an aggressive tone, because that is not the intent. I was just trying to point out if that a literal interpretation can be seen as Rules as Written as well.

lol, I'm not mad, nor did I think you were. We're good.

Do you are reading the rules as though the spent defense token only affects the defender spending a defense token if it was the defender that spent it. It's an interesting take, but not how I am reading it at all, and I'm not ignoring the colon. The limitation is on the defender to not spend a defence token that has already been spent during the attack. I am not seeing the line that adds that it must be spent by the defender in order for this restriction to take place, just that the restriction is there.

As for the two scatters. It was a hypothetical scenario, moot issue.

Developer has just commented. See the general thread that covers 15 pages. It's RAW. A token spent by Sloane does not generate any effect for the defender (common sense IMO) and a token spent by Sloane cannot be spent again and so discarded by the defender in that attack.

Nothing on the effect of ECM but I find Diablo Azul's arguments pretty convincing on that.

Well if thats the case i humbly withdraw my interpretation.

On 17/03/2017 at 11:01 AM, ovinomanc3r said:

The funniest thing is that against ships she is not awesome as squadrons throw 1 blue die. And people is becom crazy about that.

She is lethal against aces and nobody says anything XD

I thought it was all about aces, not about ships, because they aren't that bad against ships. But that's me.

1 hour ago, Archangelion said:

I thought it was all about aces, not about ships, because they aren't that bad against ships. But that's me.

That was my first impression when ffg spoil her. After playing her and thinking more I realize she is good against ship (but far from stripping every shingle token as some people thought) and against aces only with low blue dice squadrons. 4+ blue dice dont care too much about Slogan power. They are rolling accuracies anyway.

8 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

4+ blue dice dont care too much about Slogan power .

So the new ruling for Sloane is this:

" A squadron forces the defender to spend a Defense token, and the Defender does not gain the advantage of the defense token having been spent. Furthermore, the Defender CANNOT spend the token themselves (now discarding it) for the effect, because the token has already been spent."

Which is the RAW as most people have stated.

Can someone explain to me why it isn't RAW that the clause for 'The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.' does not apply?

Example 1.

TIE Intercepter vs Wedge Antilles rolls 5 hits and an accuracy (FC+Howlrunner). TIE uses accuracy to force the Defender to spend a brace. Said brace can't be spent as per ruling. Does Wedge not get destroyed as per RAW?

Example 2.

Maarek Steele rolls 1 crit and 1 accuracy vs a Victory Class Star Destroyer. The VSD is on 1 hull, has no shields on the defending hullzone but has shields on the on the adjacent hullzones. Maarek uses the accuracy to force the VSD to spend a redirect. As per RAW the VSD cannot spend a redirect because it has already spent one due to Sloane/Maarek and would blow up?

Apologies, i understand it was ruled that it in both examples they can still brace/redirect. I justed wanted to know the process of how the 'The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.' clause os circumvented.

22 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

So the new ruling for Sloane is this:

" A squadron forces the defender to spend a Defense token, and the Defender does not gain the advantage of the defense token having been spent. Furthermore, the Defender CANNOT spend the token themselves (now discarding it) for the effect, because the token has already been spent."

Which is the RAW as most people have stated.

Can someone explain to me why it isn't RAW that the clause for 'The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.' does not apply?

Example 1.

TIE Intercepter vs Wedge Antilles rolls 5 hits and an accuracy (FC+Howlrunner). TIE uses accuracy to force the Defender to spend a brace. Said brace can't be spent as per ruling. Does Wedge not get destroyed as per RAW?

Example 2.

Maarek Steele rolls 1 crit and 1 accuracy vs a Victory Class Star Destroyer. The VSD is on 1 hull, has no shields on the defending hullzone but has shields on the on the adjacent hullzones. Maarek uses the accuracy to force the VSD to spend a redirect. As per RAW the VSD cannot spend a redirect because it has already spent one due to Sloane/Maarek and would blow up?

Apologies, i understand it was ruled that it in both examples they can still brace/redirect. I justed wanted to know the process of how the 'The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.' clause os circumvented.

From what I understand from talking to Q directly - Its because the above is not to be taken as absolute RAW. It is a demonstration of intent.

Or otherwise, it is the RAI.

Sloane is still the one doing the spending . What does that entail? The defender being forced to spend... But as far as "Who has spent the token?" - its sloane.

Which is why the Defender can still spend a redundant token.

This precedence situation is now entagled with the Grand Inquisitor as well, as what results in a Ship changing its speed - between the ship changing its speed, or the other player changing the Ships speed (or as I noted in the other thread - Grand Inquisitor vs Comms Noise vs G8s vs Konstantine )

But if you take it as "Absolute RAW", then yes. It makes no sense.

This is another point where I go, "You can follow the absolute RAW, but if you do, then you have the potential for breaking the game"...

Essentially -

If the above wording is put in the "Errata" section of an FAQ, it is RAW.

If the above wording is put in the "Clarification" section of an FAQ, it is RAI.

As it is not in an FAQ, we still don't know.

You guys are over analyzing the ruling way too hard. The ruling is RAW, it doesent break anything, its how people played her before the nova ruling. If you follow the defense token rules, Sloane is RAW.

"While a friendly squadron without Rogue is attacking, it may spend 1 die with an icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens .

Sloane controlled squadron is the one that spends the token, not the defender. So none of the defender only bullet points applies to her. The only defense token bullet point that applies to her, is that a defense token cannot be spend more then once per attack, as this is the only one that does not specify defender, this means that for the entire attack a defense token can never be spent more then once, by neither players. The ruling is simply that you must follow the rules how its written for this upgrade.

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

From what I understand from talking to Q directly - Its because the above is not to be taken as absolute RAW. It is a demonstration of intent.

Or otherwise, it is the RAI.

Sloane is still the one doing the spending . What does that entail? The defender being forced to spend... But as far as "Who has spent the token?" - its sloane.

Which is why the Defender can still spend a redundant token.

This precedence situation is now entagled with the Grand Inquisitor as well, as what results in a Ship changing its speed - between the ship changing its speed, or the other player changing the Ships speed (or as I noted in the other thread - Grand Inquisitor vs Comms Noise vs G8s vs Konstantine )

But if you take it as "Absolute RAW", then yes. It makes no sense.

This is another point where I go, "You can follow the absolute RAW, but if you do, then you have the potential for breaking the game"...

Essentially -

If the above wording is put in the "Errata" section of an FAQ, it is RAW.

If the above wording is put in the "Clarification" section of an FAQ, it is RAI.

As it is not in an FAQ, we still don't know.

Ah i see now, thanks for exploring through that for me.

1 hour ago, mintek917 said:

You guys are over analyzing the ruling way too hard. The ruling is RAW, it doesent break anything, its how people played her before the nova ruling. If you follow the defense token rules, Sloane is RAW.

"While a friendly squadron without Rogue is attacking, it may spend 1 die with an icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens .

Sloane controlled squadron is the one that spends the token, not the defender. So none of the defender only bullet points applies to her. The only defense token bullet point that applies to her, is that a defense token cannot be spend more then once per attack, as this is the only one that does not specify defender, this means that for the entire attack a defense token can never be spent more then once, by neither players. The ruling is simply that you must follow the rules how its written for this upgrade.

Whilst i've already demonstrated that i agree with your statement, there has been a ruling by the devs recently that expands more on then card for which the application differs from your statement.

53 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Ah i see now, thanks for exploring through that for me.

Whilst i've already demonstrated that i agree with your statement, there has been a ruling by the devs recently that expands more on then card for which the application differs from your statement.

No the ruling is someone going back on their original wrong ruling, twice. The only thing you have to take away from it is 2 things. Defender cannot use the token. Defender can use redundant token. RAW. The way people talk to one another in private about it does not really matter. People still attempting to make the card confusing for no reason are pointless to really debate with.

Because you get both these results in only one situation. If you go with what the rule book and the card text says, omg how weird! The Squadron spend a die to spend a token. A token can only be spend once during that Squadron attack, that Squadron done it. That squadron is not the defender and used an upgrade to do so, he cannot do the token effect, he does not follow the rule that states the defender can only spend one of every token. The defender himself has yet to spend any token.

I mean the very first original ruling by 3rd party was that Sloane would give the defender its effect. Even if the god **** rule book says you do not gain defense token effect while used by an upgrade card, admirals are upgrade cards. Rule of thumbs to any 3rd party should be, unless the card makes totally no sense to read, go by whats written first. Just like rieekian, theres no confusion, people confused are simply mean spirited or did not read the entire rule book(which was me for about 2 minutes during that Errata, then someone pointed me to the rule book and i read it all as attonement). If FFG wants to change how the card is worded or how its intended to be worded around the rule book, let them do so. Neither Sloane or Rieekaan where ever confusing in how the card text is or what the full rule book says. People with other motivations where the only one trying to find hidden meanings between the lines.

The game is already complicated enough and we have hard time getting new comers to stick for long enough to join tournaments, making it more confusing with made up rules that contradict plain text and rule books, is not healthy. FFG has a rule book and faq that it updates, go by that. We cant have people argue what a new upgrade might mean other then whats written every single time.

@mintek917 like i said i've already demonstrated your view in this thread.

I was exploring how the new ruling works, as it does specially state the 'defender is forced to spend'.

## team purpleoranpleange