28 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

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.

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.

Spending a defense token with Sloane is not a cost of her ability. In other words, you don't need to spend a token for her effect like you would for Vader. And it still means the defender does not get the normal effect of the token being spent.

I already brought up both those points you quoted earlier in the thread. My argument is FFG is using A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack. as the limiting factor. So Sloane spends it to no effect for the defender and now the defender can't use it because it was spent, and the other point means they can't spend a duplicate token. Which also supports that FFG knows what they are doing, they know the limits of the rules, and what the intent of the card is. Occam's Razor is fulfilled.

Hmm so I won't spend evade from Needa with TRC and Vader to get the benefit from Devastator during the same attack anymore (in fact I never could)... I don't like it but is exactly what the rules say.

So...

1. Sloane let the attacker spend defender's defense tokens during the modify dice step.

2. The attacker cannot spend defender's defense tokens to trigger their effects. The effect is not triggered when spent by the attacker.

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

3. The defender cannot spend alrrqdy spent by Sloane.

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

4. The defender can spend another token of the same type as long as it is the first token of that type he spend no matter if the attacker already spend a token of that type.

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

I am not interested on RAI, just RAW. Are the points above correct? Or did I miss something?

14 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Hmm so I won't spend evade from Needa with TRC and Vader to get the benefit from Devastator during the same attack anymore (in fact I never could)... I don't like it but is exactly what the rules say.

So...

1. Sloane let the attacker spend defender's defense tokens during the modify dice step.

2. The attacker cannot spend defender's defense tokens to trigger their effects. The effect is not triggered when spent by the attacker.

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

3. The defender cannot spend alrrqdy spent by Sloane.

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

4. The defender can spend another token of the same type as long as it is the first token of that type he spend no matter if the attacker already spend a token of that type.

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

I am not interested on RAI, just RAW. Are the points above correct? Or did I miss something?

Seems good.

All this means hitting Jan Ors a with a single accuracy result is going to negate her ability completely for a round. And I'm not going to lie, it makes a happy Imperial.

Unless I have it wrong? this seems to be the right place for it to be debated.

3 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

All this means hitting Jan Ors a with a single accuracy result is going to negate her ability completely for a round. And I'm not going to lie, it makes a happy Imperial.

Unless I have it wrong? this seems to be the right place for it to be debated.

You mean you can exhaust her Brace so she wouldn't want to discard it to use her ability?

Makes sense but if you are able to attack Jan, her escorts are likely dead.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

You mean you can exhaust her Brace so she wouldn't want to discard it to use her ability?

Makes sense but if you are able to attack Jan, her escorts are likely dead.

Regardless of whether this actually prevents her from using it, Sloane makes IG-88 potentially quite a bit better against Jan now...

8 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Regardless of whether this actually prevents her from using it, Sloane makes IG-88 potentially quite a bit better against Jan now...

Isn't IG-88 a Rogue and, therefore, unable to benefit from Sloane?

Just now, Democratus said:

Isn't IG-88 a Rogue and, therefore, unable to benefit from Sloane?

**** YOU, ROGUE!!

8 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Regardless of whether this actually prevents her from using it, Sloane makes IG-88 potentially quite a bit better against Jan now...

Don't you find it weird IG-88 breaks the Golden Rule?

If a card effect uses the word “cannot,” that effect is absolute.

Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence.

Escort: Squadrons you are engaged with cannot attack squadrons without Escort unless performing a Counter attack.

IG-88: You ignore the escort and counter keywords on enemy squadrons.

I do think I'll be running IG-88 and Saber with Sloane. And a ton of Tie/I with Howl. Sloane just makes me want to run anti-squad stuff.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

IG-88: You ignore the escort and counter keywords on enemy squadrons.

Not quite. If it said "you may attack enemy squadrons without escort even if you are engaged with a squadron with escort," that would be breaking the Golden Rule. Because he ignores them, the Cannot doesn't ever come into play.

And yeah, I've been going all-in antisquadron with Sloane, and it has worked well for me so far.

1 hour ago, TheEasternKing said:

All this means hitting Jan Ors a with a single accuracy result is going to negate her ability completely for a round. And I'm not going to lie, it makes a happy Imperial.

Unless I have it wrong? this seems to be the right place for it to be debated.

I think no.

1. I attack Jan Ors and roll 1 acc. I spend it to spend 1 brace.

2. Jan Ors cannot spend that brace as it was spent during this attack but she could spend the other brace as the defender cannot spend two tokens of the same type but the first token was spent by the attacker, not the defender.

And don't forget, the restrictions are per attack, not per round. Even if they were per defender, who spend Jan's tokens are the friendly squadrons, not Jan Ors. I don't see how Jan's ability is negated...

I mean the rule is the defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack, not "each type of defense token cannot be spend more than once per attack".

Or maybe I missundertand what you said.

5 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think no.

1. I attack Jan Ors and roll 1 acc. I spend it to spend 1 brace.

2. Jan Ors cannot spend that brace as it was spent during this attack but she could spend the other brace as the defender cannot spend two tokens of the same type but the first token was spent by the attacker, not the defender.

And don't forget, the restrictions are per attack, not per round. Even if they were per defender, who spend Jan's tokens are the friendly squadrons, not Jan Ors. I don't see how Jan's ability is negated...

I mean the rule is the defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack, not "each type of defense token cannot be spend more than once per attack".

Or maybe I missundertand what you said.

Not at all, I forgot it was per attack, so thanks for the clarification. Saved me getting it wrong at the table

21 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Spending a defense token with Sloane is not a cost of her ability. In other words, you don't need to spend a token for her effect like you would for Vader. And it still means the defender does not get the normal effect of the token being spent.

What did you think I meant by "The case we are arguing fits into neither case," then?

21 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Which also supports that FFG knows what they are doing, they know the limits of the rules, and what the intent of the card is. Occam's Razor is fulfilled.

No it doesn't. It assumes that FFG knows what they are doing, et. al. You can't interpert the rules to mean A, and then claim that as proof that the guy writing the rules means A.

Is it possible that you phrased that wrong?

24 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

What did you think I meant by "The case we are arguing fits into neither case," then?

No it doesn't. It assumes that FFG knows what they are doing, et. al. You can't interpert the rules to mean A, and then claim that as proof that the guy writing the rules means A.

Is it possible that you phrased that wrong?

I honestly don't even know. I've gone around the Sloane argument too many times.

It will be more relevant when they release the preview for the ship because it's possible they changed Sloane again.

On 3/31/2017 at 2:40 PM, Undeadguy said:

I honestly don't even know. I've gone around the Sloane argument too many times.

Ahh, "Rapid Launch Bays Syndrome." When you've forgotten what words mean, and what side of the argument you were ever on. Common ailment around here.

I prescribe a stiff drink, and a Heinlein novel.

1 hour ago, JgzMan said:

Ahh, "Rapid Launch Bays Syndrome." When you've forgotten what words mean, and what side of the argument you were ever on. Common ailment around here.

I prescribe a stiff drink, and a Heinlein novel.

Hahahaha yea pretty much

I like these threads. Gives me a lot of food for thought when interpreting rules. I initially started in the thread agreeing with the idea that you can still spend the token (DiabloAzul's interpretation supported by "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects described below :" ) as the defender. Now after consideration I still find the interaction begging for a developer's response or FAQ, but I lean more towards the idea that the token cannot be spent by the defender. That leaning, however, is based on my view of what the developer likely intended and rules interactions.

The developer likely considered the "effects described below" to be the actual token effects. Immediately thereafter are the actual tokens (less contain, of course) and their effects. Following those are what essentially amount to notes that further provide rules on this area. I don't find those to be "effects", especially considering this line:

"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. "

If anything targeted the defense token outside of "Spend Defense Tokens" step of an attack then using the aforementioned interpretation (DiabloAzul's) would be impossible as those effects occur outside of this step. However, upgrade cards can trump rules by creating effects that ignore this rule specifically thus allowing the tokens to still be spent. Given that, the line "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." would seem to be redundant as

"Effects on components such as cards sometimes contradict rules found in the Learn to Play or Rules Reference booklets. In these situations, the component’s effect takes precedence."

already outlines this. I doubt the developers expect the players to 1) reference the RRG for use of the defense token(can Sloane force that token to be spent?), then 2) reference the upgrade card (Sloan says yes, it shall be spent), then 3) reference the RRG line that describes effects of defense token use (but you can't spend my token outside the bounds of defense token step) then 4) reference the golden rule (Yes, Sloan can spend your token...you rebel scum), then 5) reference...i'm not sure...as you couldn't reference the bullet point that says "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." because you started out stating that any bullets underneath that sentence are only referencing effects that happen in the "Spend Defense Tokens" step.

6) Stare hard into your opponent's eyes and slyly flip their token over anyway.

Thus as I stated I find it simpler to believe that the "effects described below" reference the following tokens' effects (and the contain token as well).

Secondly, I believe they had this in mind with Sloane. As a few others have stated already, Sloane significantly buffs you line Imperial fighters. You rolled an accuracy? Normally you just get to ignore that evil scatter and send some hate into the enemy. With Sloane? Not only do you avoid scatter, but it is either exhausted or discarded. Crits on a ship? Normally you get nothing, but with Sloane you gain the reroll. As a developer, they clearly (imo) set out to buff those blue dice throwing imperial fighters and if somehow it allowed the enemy squadron to actually use the token that was spent, that would actually provide less powerful attacks against aces. Would I rather throw 2 damage into shara bay (1 acc +2-3 hits) or have her scatter this round (and counterattack) then have her likely get (at least) two more attacks off dealing 1.5 avg back each time? If I rolled the same way with a TIE/F I could kill shara in 2 attacks vs. 3 if I just never used Sloane's ability (under the rule where the token can be spent). Having Sloane not allow the token to be spent just makes sense and seems to be in line with buffing these types of attacks.

Kind of a long roundabout way of saying we don't necessarily have resolution on the issue, but I'd say it's a safe bet to say that Sloane's fighter groups will not allow defense token spending and thus be a strong counter to ace heavy lists.

And I'm not a rules guru by any means...I mean shoot, I think that RLB should allow your fighters to attack immediately because I remember in the X-Wing game (alliance or original, can't remember) the Independence came under fire and I rapidly launched out and immediately started firing at the enemy...so yeah...RLB means I'm launching with extreme prejudice.

9 hours ago, Flare_22 said:

5) reference...i'm not sure...as you couldn't reference the bullet point that says "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." because you started out stating that any bullets underneath that sentence are only referencing effects that happen in the "Spend Defense Tokens" step.

Just want to point out that Sloane is not spending the token as part of her cost. She is granting the ability to squads to spend tokens. Like Norra gives another crit ability to bombers, Sloane gives another ability to Acc.

So you don't need point 5 because it doesn't apply.

Otherwise I agree with your interpretation of the rules. Just need to wait and see if FFG will update Sloane again.

Seems like bossk, once he gets a damage can auto hit defense tokens on ships and squadrons every round.

nope, he is rogue.... ignore

i'm bumping this thread back up again because of main forum page US NOVA National rulings thread.

Despite what i thought was concluded here which i believe is in alignment with the rulings for nova, some people (even those that have posted here) state that the 'RAW is clear as day' on the other thread.

So whats the go gentlemens?

37 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

i'm bumping this thread back up again because of main forum page US NOVA National rulings thread.

Despite what i thought was concluded here which i believe is in alignment with the rulings for nova, some people (even those that have posted here) state that the 'RAW is clear as day' on the other thread.

So whats the go gentlemens?

I think the RAW is clear. They admit they were going to rule it RAI.

22 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I think the RAW is clear. They admit they were going to rule it RAI.

Well thats where its a bit funny. Because going through this thread the RAW can be clear either way without labelling it as RAI.

8 hours ago, Irokenics said:

Well thats where its a bit funny. Because going through this thread the RAW can be clear either way without labelling it as RAI.

Not sure. I read this thread time ago. How allowing the defender to spend the targeted defense token is supported by RAW? I have a bad memory.

9 hours ago, Irokenics said:

i'm bumping this thread back up again because of main forum page US NOVA National rulings thread.

Despite what i thought was concluded here which i believe is in alignment with the rulings for nova, some people (even those that have posted here) state that the 'RAW is clear as day' on the other thread.

So whats the go gentlemens?

There are multiple (i.e. more than one) way of reading RAW:

1. The section about defense tokens refers to the DEFENDER'S use of defense tokens. The bullet points reflect that, so even if a bullet point doesn't specify "defender", we're still talking defender only.

DEFENSE TOKENS (p. 4)

Ships and unique squadrons gain the defense tokens indicated on their ship and squadron cards during setup and place them next to their corresponding cards. Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects described below:

This means that whatever Sloane (or any future upgrade similarly worded) does is irrelevant for the purpose of this section of the rules. It's only about the defender's use of his own tokens.

Ergo, the defender CAN spend a red token that's just been spent by Sloane.

2. Conversely "Team Pink" thinks that the second to last bullet point should be taken literally:

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

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the previous bullet point specifics "defender only", while this one doesn't. In this case it's the speed 0 rule. Meaning the defender can't spend tokens - but Sloan theoretically could.

Ergo, the defender CANNOT spend a token Sloane just spent.

If they wanted it to be what people are currently calling RAI then why wasnt it worded "spend one <accuracy icon> to exhaust or discard* a defence token"?

Same result, utilising keywords already in the rules and no confusion as to if the defender can spend defence tokens.

*discard can only be done on exhausted tokens as per the rules so you cant get people trying to discard readied tokens

edit - err perhaps I should go back and read the rules again!