2 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

For such an egregarious violation, I certainly would. If this ruling was placed in front of me, I'd end the game on the spot, and walk out.

Why bother playing in a game where the rules don't matter?

I already bought my ticket and have plans to go. So walking out on $100 and PTO is kinda a lot. And I want alt arts.

I'm not sure of what other rule changes this TO is making. Hopefully this is the only thing.

Being an officially sanctioned event, I'd have to say reporting to FFG that the TO is basically using whatever rules he invents would be appropriate. Not sure it'll have any effect...

1 minute ago, Darth Lupine said:

Being an officially sanctioned event, I'd have to say reporting to FFG that the TO is basically using whatever rules he invents would be appropriate. Not sure it'll have any effect...

It won't.

Because he's empowered in the Official Sanctioned Rules to do so.

- Someone questioned it. He provided an Answer. His answer is Binding until he decides it is not.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

It won't.

Because he's empowered in the Official Sanctioned Rules to do so.

- Someone questioned it. He provided an Answer. His answer is Binding until he decides it is not.

Stop using logic, dammit!!!

lol, yeah I know. Frustrating, but true. Ah well, hope I never run into someone like this.

3 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Stop using logic, dammit!!!

::shock, horror!::

You might as well tell me to stop breathing , you fiend!

:D

On 7/7/2017 at 2:58 PM, Drasnighta said:

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

- Note, that the rule is "during an attack"... Not, "once by an attacker, once by a defender.", simply - once during an attack... So if Sloane spends the Scatter - which she does, first, during the attack, (as 'resolve attack effects" happens before "spend defense tokens"), then the Scatter cannot be Spent again by the defender - it has already been spent this attack.

Granted , this rule is written in the passive , Sloane does not preclude a defending squadron from spending its own defense token after it has been spent by a Sloane squadron.

The preliminary statement of the section on "Defense Tokens" states that "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the "Spend Defense Tokens" step of an attack. A defender is either a squadron or a ship.

Thus, all of the "effects described below" apply to squadrons themselves spending defense tokens , not other squadrons.

I'd also be hard pressed to believe that Sloane was written when these rules on defense tokens were. Therefore the intent isn't there either.

2 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Granted , this rule is written in the passive , Sloane does not preclude a defending squadron from spending its own defense token after it has been spent by a Sloane squadron.

The preliminary statement of the section on "Defense Tokens" states that "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the "Spend Defense Tokens" step of an attack. A defender is either a squadron or a ship.

Thus, all of the "effects described below" apply to squadrons themselves spending defense tokens , not other squadrons.

I'd also be hard pressed to believe that Sloane was written when these rules on defense tokens were. Therefore the intent isn't there either.

If the assumption is always defender then, please Show Cause as to why Defender is mentioned in the other dot points, and not this one.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

If the assumption is always defender then, please Show Cause as to why Defender is mentioned in the other dot points, and not this one.

The inconsistency is meaningless when the preliminary statement refers to only defenders spending defense tokens.

6 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

The inconsistency is meaningless when the preliminary statement refers to only defenders spending defense tokens.

You say meaningless, I say deliberately and dramatically important.

5 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

You say meaningless, I say deliberately and dramatically important.

The preliminary statement tells us that the bullet points, a.k.a. the "effects below," occur when defense tokens are being spent by the defender .

That is why it was not necessary to include the word "defender" in every single bullet point.

You can't just read the passive statement by itself. You have to read the preliminary statement for context .

Context is everything .

TO needs removing.

Rules state categorically : the Defender may spend during the "spend defense tokens" step of an attack. to generate the effects described below : (Redirect/Evade/Brace/Scatter.)

Sloane is not the defender, the token is not being spent during the "spend defense tokens" step.

He has no, NO argument to say otherwise. it is not his choice or place to change FFGs rules just because he thinks something is to powerful.

There is not even a shade of grey here to be confused over, it is crystal clear.

Someone mind PM'ing me this FB post/page?

The context applies while it is describing the effects below.

Once the headings which are no longer describing effects end - its a differential set of explanatory points... they probably should be separated by a paragraph break to determine that, but as they are no longer the effects described, they are outside of the rules of context.

Because they are no longer effects being described.

How is this any different then Vader spending Def tokens on a ship at speed zero?

Vader can spend them because he is not the defender, Sloane cannot generate the token effects for the defender, that is madness.

I could see him arguing the defender is not prohibited from spending a token the attacker spent, because that is the one thing we all agreed was possibly unintentional, and I've no doubt many people have mailed FFG to find that very thing out.

Just now, TheEasternKing said:

How is this any different then Vader spending Def tokens on a ship at speed zero?

Because: • If the defender’s speed is “0,” it cannot spend defense tokens.

Because when Vader does it, it is as the attacker , and as stated, only the Defender has that restriction. by the actual Wording on the Rule and Card.

And that has been ruled as specifically allowed ...

Also, Vader doesn't also generate the effect when he does so, because it also comes under the rule that "• 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 Vader never produces the effect, Speed 0 or not .

Its the same with Mon Mothma... People were assuming at the start that when they spent an Evade with Mon Mothma, they got the basic effect as well as the Mothma Effect (effectively, at Medium Range, getting a Die Cancel and a Reroll) - Which is simply not the case...

That's all arguments for it being the way I've advised...

In Summary, my thoughts on the rules and restrictions are:

1) Defense Tokens generate their effect Only when they are spent during the Defense Tokens Step, by the Defender, unless another upgrade card specifically says otherwise.

2) The Defender cannot spend 2 of the Same Token vs one attack... But the attacker (Sloane) can spend one, and the Defender can still spend one, if they are redundant tokens.

3) The One Defense Token can only be spent once by anyone during an attack. Once one person spends it, its spent, and can't be re-spent. And if it wasn't the Defender spending it during the Defense Token Step, then its not going to generate its effect unless a card says otherwise.

20 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The context applies while it is describing the effects below.

Once the headings which are no longer describing effects end - its a differential set of explanatory points... they probably should be separated by a paragraph break to determine that, but as they are no longer the effects described, they are outside of the rules of context.

Because they are no longer effects being described.

Uhhhh, okay?

Ignoring the most important sentence, you are.

Wait, so the TO at Nationals is saying the defender gets the effect of the spent token if Sloane spends it?

Somebody with a vested interest (e.g., somebody who's going) should call OP and tell them the TO intends to make a ruling that arbitrarily contravenes the RRG and ask for guidance or intervention.

1-855-382-8880 and ask for OP.

22 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Wait, so the TO at Nationals is saying the defender gets the effect of the spent token if Sloane spends it?

Somebody with a vested interest (e.g., somebody who's going) should call OP and tell them the TO intends to make a ruling that arbitrarily contravenes the RRG and ask for guidance or intervention.

1-855-382-8880 and ask for OP.

I.e. if Sloane spends a scatter the damage is nullified? How do you (the TO of nationals) even come to that conclusion?

edited because I know Ard isn't the TO of nationals lol

6 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

I.e. if Sloane spends a scatter the damage is nullified? How do you even come to that conclusion?

He Hasn't.

But the TO of (US) Nationals has, at this point in time.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

He Hasn't.

But the TO of Nationals has.

I know.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

I know.

So did I just give you a Rhetorical answer , then?

Dang, I seem to do that a lot

Just now, Drasnighta said:

So did I just give you a Rhetorical answer , then?

Dang, I seem to do that a lot

I am super interested in the TOs reasoning for this anticipated ruling. I need to know!!

1 minute ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

I am super interested in the TOs reasoning for this anticipated ruling. I need to know!!

To Quote:

" I have to go back and read the Order of Operations for attacks and defense. but the word I'm getting hung up on is "Spend". Since it's not exhaust, or flip over, or exhaust or discard exhausted tokens, I gotta think that if it's being "spent" it will g enerate an effect. This is not a hard ruling right now, just a personal interpretation. I will get something a little more concrete for you guys end of the month with regards to questions on rulings."

Looks like the pragmatic answer is simply don't bring Sloane to Nationals. This is a truly bad ruling.