3 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

This is WHY he's wrong.

Not exactly. The RRG clearly says that when you spend an icon or spend a die icon you are doing the same thing: removing a die. There is no difference between those two "spend".

2 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

The RRG clearly says that when you spend an icon or spend a die icon you are doing the same thing: removing a die. There is no difference between those two "spend".

Exactly wrong.

When you use an accuracy, you spend the icon to generate the result. As a consequence of spending the icon, you remove the die from the attack pool.

When you use other effects, I believe ANY other effect, you spend the die, rather than the icon. As a consequent of spending the die, you remove it from the attack pool.

Yes, your hand flexes the same muscles, and moves physical components from this place to that, and it looks similar. But they didn't use one word here, and another word there just for laughs. (I mean, unless I'm wrong and they did. They can point that out in the next FAQ, to be released first quarter 2019) It's the same reason that some cards "spend" command tokens, and other cards "discard" command tokens. Sure, in both cases you pick up the token and move it away from your ship, but they are distinctly not the same thing.

42 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

Exactly wrong.

When you use an accuracy, you spend the icon to generate the result. As a consequence of spending the icon, you remove the die from the attack pool.

When you use other effects, I believe ANY other effect, you spend the die, rather than the icon. As a consequent of spending the die, you remove it from the attack pool.

Yes, your hand flexes the same muscles, and moves physical components from this place to that, and it looks similar. But they didn't use one word here, and another word there just for laughs. (I mean, unless I'm wrong and they did. They can point that out in the next FAQ, to be released first quarter 2019) It's the same reason that some cards "spend" command tokens, and other cards "discard" command tokens. Sure, in both cases you pick up the token and move it away from your ship, but they are distinctly not the same thing.

I don't agree. When a rule/upgrade ask me for do something whose in-game definition is not clear, as spend, I look for what it means not how I do it . It could imply a procedure or not.

Sloane ask me for spend a die with an accuracy icon. What FFG want to say when they say spend? I look into the RRG and I found:

Spend: When a die or die icon is spent, remove that die from the attack pool.

I find other of course, like:

When a readied defense token is spent, it is flipped to its exhausted side. When an exhausted defense token is spent, it is discarded.

OR

When a command dial is spent or discarded, it is placed faceup on the ship’s ship card and remains there
until it is assigned as a new command during the next Command Phase.

OR

When a command token is spent, return it to the supply.

BUT

I am spending a die icon so those :spend" are not the same spend. As we have two different activations. It implies a procedure that doesn't need be defined (pick the die with the hand...)

Yes, they didn't add an specific entry for Spend but it is clearly defined in each relevant entry.

A ship activation request me for executing a maneuver. What FFG want room say when they say execute a maneuver? I look into the RRG and I find;

Execute Maneuver: Move the ship at its current speed.

Awesome! It could mean just take the mini and put it whatever I wanted but it doesn't seem a good game design so I choose to keep searching. Eureka!:

To execute a maneuver with a ship, its owner proceeds through the following steps

So to-execute-a-maneuver-with-the-ship-move / move-the-ship means going for the first step to the end of the second step.

Why they distinguish between spend and discard? Cause they are different things RRG clearly distinguish between spend, discard and exhaust.

Could the distinction between spend a die icon or a icon means something? Not for the RRG. Even if we had upgrade that pointed to die icons "when you spend a die with a x icon..." and icons "when you spend a x icon", ECM doesn't make that distinction.

Do you agree? Maybe not but this is becoming a linguistic discussion so I stop here.

Bizarrely, this is the most popular topic I've ever posted and i only realised as i was finishing it that it was almost entirely academic. Thanks to everyone who's contributed, that's a lot of time been spent to answer a very edge case, and I appreciate it.

I suppose the answer seems to be "maybe yes or no but it's not going to be solved now". Maybe a similar mechanic will be more relevant for a future question and we'll get an answer by proxy then.

Don't we all know how it will be?

There will be a FAQ, 5 month after the release (we need to improve after all). The FAQ entry will be: You are allowed to use your ECM on your own tokens.

And 1 week later there will be a rule e-mail that says: Sloane only work with swarm squadrons, and not with non rogues anymore...

21 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Could the distinction between spend a die icon or a icon means something? Not for the RRG.

This is exactly the point of my argument, and I don't see how you can claim that the RRG does not distinguish between the two. "Spend an icon" is one thing. "Spend a die with an icon" is something different. The fact that the rules specify a procedure for spending either an icon or a die only reinforces the fact that they specifically intended for the two to be different. The fact that they rolled them into a single line doesn't mean they are the same.

21 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

this is becoming a linguistic discussion so I stop here.

I find that all the most interesting, and frustrating discussions for this game are linguistic. FFG uses very precise language, most of the time, and are very careful, for example, that "when" means one thing, and "while" means another, and "during" somthing else, and they use each word deliberately. That leads to a good game, but it also leads to this kind of fun when they use a word that is not defined, such as "instead," or "targeted."

But questions that are just someone not reading the rules right are far less interesting.

So how, pray tell, do you spend an icon without also spending the die it is etched on? You gonna remove the icon off the die?

seems just common sense to me that spending an icon involves spending the die it is attached to. Now, you can just spend a die without regards to an icon for certain effects, but it stands to reason that if you spend an icon, you're spending the die too.

1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

So how, pray tell, do you spend an icon without also spending the die it is etched on? You gonna remove the icon off the die?

seems just common sense to me that spending an icon involves spending the die it is attached to. Now, you can just spend a die without regards to an icon for certain effects, but it stands to reason that if you spend an icon, you're spending the die too.

I don't have a particular position in the larger discussion here, but:

The discussion isn't about whether the die goes away. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the RRG explicitly instructs:

Spend: When a die or die icon is spent, remove that die from the attack pool.

It's more about whether spending an icon and then removing the associated die from the attack pool is the same thing as spending the die. It's a pretty subtle difference, but there's good evidence (specifically, the fact that the above quote refers to spending both instead of just "when a die is spent") that there is a difference.

9 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

So how, pray tell, do you spend an icon without also spending the die it is etched on? You gonna remove the icon off the die?

seems just common sense to me that spending an icon involves spending the die it is attached to. Now, you can just spend a die without regards to an icon for certain effects, but it stands to reason that if you spend an icon, you're spending the die too.

The RRG clearly states that you must spend the entire die the icon is on.

With Worlds going on this week, I think we need some people to do some investigative work with the devs while they are there to see if we can get a clarification on Sloan...

23 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

I don't have a particular position in the larger discussion here, but:

The discussion isn't about whether the die goes away. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the RRG explicitly instructs:

It's more about whether spending an icon and then removing the associated die from the attack pool is the same thing as spending the die. It's a pretty subtle difference, but there's good evidence (specifically, the fact that the above quote refers to spending both instead of just "when a die is spent") that there is a difference.

It's fairly obvious that the reason it's worded that way is because there are effects that call for spending a die without regards to any icon showing, and there are effects that require a particular icon to be spent. Spending a die and spending an icon is the same thing, you grab the chosen die, state 'I'm spending this die/ or icon to accomplish this effect' and you remove it from the attack pool. Any other interpretation is bloody nonsensical.

seriously, stop reading way too much into the rules. Yes, some things are clear as mud and require clarification. But I don't think spending a die or icon does.

As far as the original question, I couldn't care less, as I intend to just pile in as many TIE/LN and TIE/IN squadrons as the points will bear. With a Quasar with hangar bays, flight controllers, Howl, and led by Sloane.

20 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

It's fairly obvious that the reason it's worded that way is because there are effects that call for spending a die without regards to any icon showing, and there are effects that require a particular icon to be spent.

I agree.

But how do you get from here to "they're the same thing" when you yourself say they are distinct things? If they were the same thing, wouldn't you expect them to be called the same thing?

There's no linguistic reason that references to "spend an icon" could not easily have been written "spend a die with X icon", or that spending an icon could not have been defined as "spend a die with that icon showing" if they were supposed to be the same thing. Instead, spending an icon is clearly defined as being as much a unique effect as spending a die is:

Spend: when a die or die icon is spent, remove that die from the attack pool."

Just because the end state of the two effects is the same--the die is removed from the attack pool--doesn't mean they're the same effect. The effect of "cancel" is identical to that for "spend", but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Cancel: When a die or die icon is canceled, remove it from the attack pool.

Maybe the difference is because you can have a hit and a crit on the same dice side? So you spend the crit but not the hit?

Linguistic reason?

seriously. I'd have written it the same way to mean the same thing. You can either spend a die, or you can spend an icon. The result, and the spending is the exact same, but because there are effects that call for spending a die, and results that call for spending an icon, they have to cover both.

ergo the phrasing, 'when a die or icon is spent.....'. It cover both effects. But it is the same thing. The only difference is that for some effects you have to use a die with a specific icon showing, but that is dictate by the card, not the dice or the spending rules.

I cannot even fathom why it would be important to differentiate if spending an icon is somehow different than spending a die. This seems to me arguing just to argue.

Spending a die or spending an icon is, rules wise, exactly the same, with the exact same mechanics, timing, etc. The only difference is what die you spend, and that depends on what upgrade card you're using and what it calls for.

Which leads to the question of why make it different on the cards? why not for consistency keep it the same (ie all say spend an icon or spend a die)?

edit - circular argument is round eg there is no answer to either my comments or Darth Lupines as the answers just lead back to the question

12 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

I agree.

But how do you get from here to "they're the same thing" when you yourself say they are distinct things? If they were the same thing, wouldn't you expect them to be called the same thing?

There's no linguistic reason that references to "spend an icon" could not easily have been written "spend a die with X icon", or that spending an icon could not have been defined as "spend a die with that icon showing" if they were supposed to be the same thing. Instead, spending an icon is clearly defined as being as much a unique effect as spending a die is:

Just because the end state of the two effects is the same--the die is removed from the attack pool--doesn't mean they're the same effect. The effect of "cancel" is identical to that for "spend", but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Your argument is becoming a bit far-fetched (i hope this is the right translation for something that is absurd).

They just have two wordings for the same effect. If you spend a die or an icon you remove the die. The Effekt and everything is the same. There is just one person who used the wording die and another you used the wording icon when they made the rules.

But with the entry in the RRG they made clear that these two are the exact same. The die is removed. And it does not matter if the die had two icons on the side or not. The die is gone, and this way as well all sides/results or whatever from it.

On 5/2/2017 at 8:28 AM, Tokra said:

But with the entry in the RRG they made clear that these two are the exact same.

They did nothing of the sort. They simply said that when you spend either one, you remove the die.

When you want to use the accuracy effect, you spend an accuracy icon. When you spend the icon, you remove the die from your pool.

When you want to use Leading Shots, you spend a blue die, without reference to icons. When you spend the die, you remove the die from your pool.

When you want to use sloan, you spend a blue die that has an accuracy icon. When you spend the die, you remove the die from your pool.

Sloan uses the same spend-a-die mechanism as Leading shots, but with a more restrictive cost.

If you insist that "spend icon" and "spend die" are the same, then you should also recognize "spend a defence token" and "exhaust a defence token" to be the same thing while targeting a green token. Similarly, "Spend a defence token" and "discard a defence token" would be the same thing, if targeting a red token. We know this isn't true, though, because the rules are different, even though the practical results are the same. The entire point of these rules is that there are several paths to the same practical end condition, but different effects use different paths, and are subject to different rules and counter-effects. It's why some effects "spend," some "discard," and some "exhaust."

Just now, JgzMan said:

If you insist that " spend icon" and " spend die" are the same, then you should also recognize " spend a defence token" and " exhaust a defence token" to be the same thing while targeting a green token. Similarly, "Spend a defence token" and "discard a defence token" would be the same thing, if targeting a red token. We know this isn't true, though, because the rules are different, even though the practical results are the same. The entire point of these rules is that there are several paths to the same practical end condition, but different effects use different paths, and are subject to different rules and counter-effects. It's why some effects "spend," some "discard," and some "exhaust."

I apologise for the bold and underline emphasis above, but it is exposing the part of the argument....

What is being compared is Spend" with "Spend"....

Not "Spend" with "Exhaust" Those are functionally different.

Correct, but most of the counter argument seems to be focusing on that fact that weather you spend a die, or spend an icon, you remove the die. I contend that the physical act of removing the die is housekeeping, and in no way determinant of what is being done.

4 hours ago, JgzMan said:

They did nothing of the sort. They simply said that when you spend either one, you remove the die.

When you want to use the accuracy effect, you spend an accuracy icon. When you spend the icon, you remove the die from your pool.

When you want to use Leading Shots, you spend a blue die, without reference to icons. When you spend the die, you remove the die from your pool.

When you want to use sloan, you spend a blue die that has an accuracy icon. When you spend the die, you remove the die from your pool.

Sloan uses the same spend-a-die mechanism as Leading shots, but with a more restrictive cost.

If you insist that "spend icon" and "spend die" are the same, then you should also recognize "spend a defence token" and "exhaust a defence token" to be the same thing while targeting a green token. Similarly, "Spend a defence token" and "discard a defence token" would be the same thing, if targeting a red token. We know this isn't true, though, because the rules are different, even though the practical results are the same. The entire point of these rules is that there are several paths to the same practical end condition, but different effects use different paths, and are subject to different rules and counter-effects. It's why some effects "spend," some "discard," and some "exhaust."

I didn't say that the effect, that result with spend/remove is the same. Only the result of removing the dice. If you spend a die or spend a die icon, this die is gone. The die is not in the pool anymore. Whatever you did with this die, or what the effect of this was, can be something total different.

But in all cases this die is not in the pool anymore.

1 minute ago, Tokra said:

I didn't say that the effect, that result with spend/remove is the same. Only the result of removing the dice. If you spend a die or spend a die icon, this die is gone. The die is not in the pool anymore. Whatever you did with this die, or what the effect of this was, can be something total different.

But in all cases this die is not in the pool anymore.

Irrelevant. As I pointed out above, the mechanism that removed the die is important. The same end result does not imply that the effects are equivalent; otherwise, spending a die and canceling a die would be the same thing.

Soooo...did this ever get solved?

If I'm using a Sloane bomber shooting a ship with ECM, does a Sloane-Accuracy bypass the ECM defense? Or does ECM still protect a defense token from being Sloaned?

No idea why this needs to be solved? Timing is extremely clear.
You spend the Sloane Acc result during the ATTACK step to spend a defense token of your choice on the defending ship. All ECM does's is unlock a defensive token targeted by a regular accuracy during the defense step.
This also means that if you only have one type of that token, IE Redirect, and it is spent by Sloane, it CANNOT be spent by the defender for it's effect, as it was already used for you, by the attacker.

2 minutes ago, Karneck said:

No idea why this needs to be solved? Timing is extremely clear.
You spend the Sloane Acc result during the ATTACK step to spend a defense token of your choice on the defending ship. All ECM does's is unlock a defensive token targeted by a regular accuracy during the defense step.
This also means that if you only have one type of that token, IE Redirect, and it is spent by Sloane, it CANNOT be spent by the defender for it's effect, as it was already used for you, by the attacker.

Not exactly - the key point that required the FAQ entry on Sloane is that the Defender cannot spend the same defense token twice. Sloane spending it once is as the Attacker, so theoretically the Defender could also have spent it then (double-tapping it to burn it out). The FAQ clarified that this isn't the case.

However , that's specifically in a vacuum without ECM - if you do have ECM, it specifically says that you can spend a defense token that was targeted by an accuracy (argument goes: whether the accuracy was used for its normal effect, or used to trigger Sloane).

So...it seems like it's still an open question on that. Not that an enemy would very often want to, but...Stele sitting off a down shield firing on a ship with 1 hull that has a green redirect and up adjacent shields? Happens kinda often, actually, and using ECM to double-tap a redirect after Sloane turned it red, to save the ship, may well be worth it...

You do you and whatever your TO decides.