Some people i think are trying to make this way too confusing for no reason. There is no breaking happening here.

Ok first lets read slowly Sloane text:

"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 .

Who does the spending? Friendly squadron without rogue .

Still with me?

Now lets see the rules on the defense tokens.

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

Is Friendly squadron without rogue the defender? No. Then the defender will be able to use a token identical to the one Friendly squadron without rogue spend.

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

Was that token spend by anybody during an attack? Yes, it was spend by Friendly squadron without rogue, neither the defender or the attacker could spend it a second time.

Hope i made it simple enough, unless the ruling changes, this is how RAW Sloane works. Its simple, its not confusing, it doesent break anything. This is why you cannot use that token to defend yourself, this is why you can use redundant token.

*burns seven rulebooks and nine learn to play books* @Drasnighta , I summon thee!!

*beats a dead horse with a TaunTaun tail twelve times* @DiabloAzul , I summon thee!!

opinions?

?????

9 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

*burns seven rulebooks and nine learn to play books* @Drasnighta , I summon thee!!

*beats a dead horse with a TaunTaun tail twelve times* @DiabloAzul , I summon thee!!

opinions?

?????

Opinions are pretty pointless, the ruling makes RAW the only thing that works. The ruling said: Defender cannot use the token spend by Sloane ability. Defender can use redundant tokens. To get both these results, you need to follow the card and the book as originally worded. Anybody trying to add more confusion into it are just overthinking written rules or doing it on purpose to confuse others because they dont like the admiral. At some point non mean spirited people just stop trying to find hidden meaning between the lines if they are told otherwise once.

I agree that using Sloane to exhaust a token doesn't generate an effect for the defender. To get the brace/evade/scatter/redirect it has to be the defender spending the token not the attacker.

I agree a token exhausted by Sloane's fighter cannot be spent again. A token can only be spent once during an attack. But see my query re ECM.

I agree that if Sloane's fighter spends one brace, a second brace can still be used. The defender can only spend one token of each type in an attack. Well the attacker spent one of the braces leaving the defender free to spend the other one.

But the ECM? I would refer you to Diablo Azul's posting which I have copied and pasted below. It's a response to someone putting forward the same reasoning as yourself on the ECM. I'm inclined to agree with him. What's your point of view on it?

QUOTE.....

6 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

*beats a dead horse with a TaunTaun tail twelve times* @DiabloAzul , I summon thee!!

Who dares disturb my slumber?

6 hours ago, mintek917 said:

Opinions are pretty pointless.

That didn't seem to stop you from giving yours. I'd say it's only fair that others chime in.

3 hours ago, Bolshevik65 said:

I would refer you to Diablo Azul's posting which I have copied and pasted below. It's a response to someone putting forward the same reasoning as yourself on the ECM. I'm inclined to agree with him. What's your point of view on it?

QUOTE.....

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.

What he (I) said.

There's no definition given anywhere of what "targeting a token with an accuracy result is" (ECM is worded a bit loosely), so people naturally (and correctly) assumed that it refers to the attacker spending an accuracy icon to choose one of the defender's defense tokens, as per the RRG.

However, Sloane also instructs the attacker to spend an accuracy icon to choose one of the defender's defense tokens.

So ECM's requirements of a token being "targeted" with an "accuracy result" are fulfilled either by both, or by neither.

22 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

What he (I) said.

There's no definition given anywhere of what "targeting a token with an accuracy result is" (ECM is worded a bit loosely), so people naturally (and correctly) assumed that it refers to the attacker spending an accuracy icon to choose one of the defender's defense tokens, as per the RRG.

However, Sloane also instructs the attacker to spend an accuracy icon to choose one of the defender's defense tokens.

So ECM's requirements of a token being "targeted" with an "accuracy result" are fulfilled either by both, or by neither.

As worded, ECM can totally trigger off Sloane spending one of the defender's tokens.

But does ECM allow you to ignore the rule that one token cannot be spent more than once?

No. Not that I can see anyway.

That's a different story. I'd say yes:

RRG: Spend Acc to choose a token, this token cannot be spent by the defender. ECM says yes it can.

Sloane: Spend an Acc to choose a token, this token is spent by the attacker and cannot be spent again (by anyone). ECM says the defender can.

27 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

That's a different story. I'd say yes:

RRG: Spend Acc to choose a token, this token cannot be spent by the defender. ECM says yes it can.

Sloane: Spend an Acc to choose a token, this token is spent by the attacker and cannot be spent again (by anyone). ECM says the defender can.

No.

The RRG states a spent token can't be spent again that attack.

ECM does not change this.

It allows you to spend a token targeted by an accuracy, yes. But does it negate the ban on 'double spending'? No.

Edit: that's how it reads to me. Could be wrong oc.

Edit 2: and yes, I'm aware a rrg cannot isn't absolute.

As i said ECM could be ruled either way but it has.more ramification for the future. This seem higly uimportant for something that can only happen to marek steel and tie phatoms and would be highly unfavorable to the defender in the majority of situations.

Anything else is cut and dry and prople should stop trying.to.make.it confusing for others.

7 hours ago, mintek917 said:

Opinions are pretty pointless, the ruling makes RAW the only thing that works. The ruling said: Defender cannot use the token spend by Sloane ability. Defender can use redundant tokens. To get both these results, you need to follow the card and the book as originally worded. Anybody trying to add more confusion into it are just overthinking written rules or doing it on purpose to confuse others because they dont like the admiral. At some point non mean spirited people just stop trying to find hidden meaning between the lines if they are told otherwise once.

I agree. If you didn't catch the humor in my post, well, not my fault! ?

I always, always, play exactly RAW.

8 minutes ago, mintek917 said:

Anything else is cut and dry and prople should stop trying.to.make.it confusing for others.

Stop trying to dictate what can and cannot be discussed, what's obvious and what isn't.

7 hours ago, mintek917 said:

Opinions are pretty pointless, the ruling makes RAW the only thing that works.

The thing with human brains is that to actually understand ANY sign, be it written or spoken, you need to interpret it. That is the basic premise in research regarding communication between humans. I agree that the term 'opinion' here is misleading as Lupine 'should' perhaps have said 'interpretation'. Despite the dichotomy between 'Rules as written' and 'rules as interpreted', you actually need to interpret anything if you want to understand it because people read (interpret) texts differently and thus arrive to sometimes different conclusions.

The point of my post is: please be a bit more humble when making statements regarding rules because people actually interpret things differently, despite the argument that "the text states this and that, it's obvious!". What is obvious to you may not be to others. This is not directed at you personally but the statement regarding 'opinions' being pointless because the RAW states something is precisely the thing that ignites debates which often leads to people becoming rather upset with each other.

15 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

The thing with human brains is that to actually understand ANY sign, be it written or spoken, you need to interpret it. That is the basic premise in research regarding communication between humans. I agree that the term 'opinion' here is misleading as Lupine 'should' perhaps have said 'interpretation'. Despite the dichotomy between 'Rules as written' and 'rules as interpreted', you actually need to interpret anything if you want to understand it because people read (interpret) texts differently and thus arrive to sometimes different conclusions.

The point of my post is: please be a bit more humble when making statements regarding rules because people actually interpret things differently, despite the argument that "the text states this and that, it's obvious!". What is obvious to you may not be to others. This is not directed at you personally but the statement regarding 'opinions' being pointless because the RAW states something is precisely the thing that ignites debates which often leads to people becoming rather upset with each other.

'Interpretation', yeah, that's what I meant!

@mintek917 , to further expand on the points above, just because someone doesn't understand a rule and thinks it reads a certain way doesn't mean they're 'mean'. I agree that RAW is paramount, and that's how I play; but what is clearly so to you or me, may not be to others.

FFG, unfortunately, does NOT write clear rules, or rather, cards. A lot of the text on the cards sometimes can be interpreted several different ways, and all these can be according to RAW (see the great launch bays debate). When this happens, it is very useful to have the 'interpretetations' of other, seasoned players and folk who have proven themselves over time to know the rules very well, so as to clarify the situation until a ruling from FFG comes down...which always takes too long, lol.

The whole point of this sub forum is to encourage discussion on the rules, not stifle it.

If ECM's "can" overwrite a rrg's "cannot", then it worked this way before Sloane.

CR90 with ECM under attack; Acc rolled targets 1 evade; spend the other evade, then exhaust ECM and now it can spend the targeted one.

That is what bothers me about allowing ECM against Sloane. I would say it does but the reason why it does opens the situation above.

Going to agree with GK on this.

ECM is for a standard Accuracy result. When you target a Defense token with an Accuracy, it prevents its use by the defender. ECM allows its use by the Defender.

Sloane uses an Accuracy result to spend a defense token. This defense token is not being stopped from use by a standard accuracy result effect. it is being prevented from use by the rules governing Defense Tokens. Not the rules concerning Accuracy results.

It has quite specific wording on both Sloane and ECM.

" That your opponent targeted with an Accuracy result. "

" Spend a die with an (accuracy) Icon. To choose and spend 1 of the defenders defense tokens. "

Not even remotely the same ball park.

Another way of putting it would be that the ECM card allows you to spend a token that would otherwise not be able to be spent in the attack. Unfortunately Sloan has already spent it and ECM doenst allow you to spend a token a 2nd time in an attack....

queue new defensive retro fit card " this card may be discarded to allow you to spend a token that would not otherwise be able to be used in this attack"

I believe ECM provides the single exception to the rule that a token can only be spent once during an attack because a card ability takes precedence over the rulebook. With ECM being such a common upgrade I find it hard to believe FFG have overlooked this. It can certainly argued both ways I'd be the first to admit that. Is there a way we can simply ask them?

39 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

If ECM's "can" overwrite a rrg's "cannot", then it worked this way before Sloane.

CR90 with ECM under attack; Acc rolled targets 1 evade; spend the other evade, then exhaust ECM and now it can spend the targeted one.

That is what bothers me about allowing ECM against Sloane. I would say it does but the reason why it does opens the situation above.

Except that you cannot use the same type of token twice in an attack regardless.

Just to clarify, I'm the camp that says ECM will not work against Sloane.

Just now, Bolshevik65 said:

I believe ECM provides the single exception to the rule that a token can only be spent once during an attack because a card ability takes precedence over the rulebook. With ECM being such a common upgrade I find it hard to believe FFG have overlooked this. It can certainly argued both ways I'd be the first to admit that. Is there a way we can simply ask them?

But that is not what is said at all on ECM and it says nothing on ECM to support your stance here.

5 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

I believe ECM provides the single exception to the rule that a token can only be spent once during an attack because a card ability takes precedence over the rulebook. With ECM being such a common upgrade I find it hard to believe FFG have overlooked this. It can certainly argued both ways I'd be the first to admit that. Is there a way we can simply ask them?

You are going to have to explain how this is so, because nothing I see in the card says you can spend a token twice.

11 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

I believe ECM provides the single exception to the rule that a token can only be spent once during an attack because a card ability takes precedence over the rulebook. With ECM being such a common upgrade I find it hard to believe FFG have overlooked this. It can certainly argued both ways I'd be the first to admit that. Is there a way we can simply ask them?

I believe that Tarkin is 10 points over costed..... unlucky me he still costs 38 points

ECM doesnt allow you to spend a spent defence token only a 'locked' one, a Slone accuracied token is spent not 'locked'

edit - Tarkin costs 38 points!!!! silly typo.....

Edit : for clarity when I say locked I mean this rule

Quote

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

...this leads to the corny case that a CR90 or MC30 that has an Evade accuracied can spend the other Evade, ECM and spend the second evade, thereby breaking at least two rules and breaking reality through silliness overload!

Edit: and it's not a corner case, not if you imagine one evade is green, the other red.

Just now, slasher956 said:

I believe that Tarkin is 10 points over costed..... unlucky me he still costs 28 points

ECM doesnt allow you to spend a spent defence token only a 'locked' one, a Slone accuracied token is spent not 'locked'

This here. Even if we were to say that a Sloaned token was targeted by the accuracy, and so elegible for ECM (which I don't believe it's the case) the token still COUOD NOT BE USED, as it was already spent, and it can only be spent once.

@Green Knight, were are you from? That way I can summon you in the right language, next time. I know I forgot someone in my ritual....

1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

@Green Knight, were are you from? That way I can summon you in the right language, next time. I know I forgot someone in my ritual....

Norway. Or No Way as I call it sometimes. The Nether Pits will also do.