56 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Again, ECM doesn't care about the effect of targeting a token.

If some effect would care about spending a dial, it wouldn't care about if you spent it to resolve a command or to assign a command token.

The same happens here. ECM doesn't care, in its wording, about what being targeted means, it just allows you to spend a targeted token.

Beyond that we are moving into RAI as ECM was a core upgrade and it was obviously intended to work against "default" accuracies but it is not in its wording and with a deeper knowledge of the rules it seems it could work to spend two tokens of the same time since the beginning. That is the reason why I think here we should go with RAI. But RAW allows it as far as I understand.

You know I'm totally ok using the RAI version but last time folks thought we should do that, with the best of intentions I am sure, it didn't end too well. I think we need a further clarification on a card that seems to have caused so much confusion and controversy.

RAI should never be the first option unless we are certain there is a mistake in the text, the text itself makes no sense or its not specified. Thats the original debacle about Sloane and this whole nova thing. RAI was not needed, because the rules and the card text in that matter was already specific enough. RAI was simply reading what some people wanted the card to do instead of what it was actually saying it does. In the case of ECM, its less cut and dry after reading more rules. Because the card says something and it overrides the rules, so yes if Sloane does count as an accuracy result being used on a token ECM can use the token twice. Because it say you can spend a defense token that is targeted by accuracy result. Just like Vader+TRC, being upgrades exempt them from following the same rules.

Does Sloane count as an accuracy result targeting a token. Neither the RAW or RAI can really answer this actually. And like i said it might not really be that obvious to game testing, because its not something thats bound to happen that often in a regular game. Only one ace and one regular squadron can land such a result and using ECM against that result will probably not really be first choice in most people mind in 99.9% of the time it would happen.

1 hour ago, mintek917 said:

If ECM can break the rule for cannot spend a token twice in an attack. So should Vader and TRC. They are also both upgrade cards, they have the same priority over rules that ECM does. Anything with defender obviously wouldnt apply to vader or trc anyway.

There's a fundamental difference between ECM and Vader/TRC:

Vader/TRC require you to spend a defense token as a cost for producing an effect.

ECM has an effect that allows you to spend a defense token.

• Vader: spend token (cost) to reroll dice (effect)
• TRC : spend token and exhaust card (cost) to change die (effect)
• ECM : exhaust card (cost) to spend token (effect)

You can't use Vader + TRC, because a rule prevents you from paying the required cost (spending the Evade twice).

However, ECM has no such limitation - its effect is to supersede the rule(s) normally preventing you from spending that token.

8 hours ago, Green Knight said:

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

6 hours ago, slasher956 said:

ECM doenst allow you to spend a token a 2nd time in an attack....

Why not? ECM says "defender can spend a tokek targeted by an accuracy." It doesn't refer to any other condition, just that it was target by an accuracy. In the case of Sloan, the defence token was targeted by an accuracy. After tapping ECM, the Defender can spend it. Cards trump the rules, so ECM beats the once-per-attack limit.

I'm not sure I agree that Sloan counts as "targeted with an accuracy," but I'm thinking about it. If it does, then ECM pretty clearly applies.

"targeted by an accuracy result."

A defense token targeted by an Accuracy result, cannot be spent by the defender.

The Accuracy result on the die face is generating this effect, let me say that again. The Accuracy result on the die face is being used to generate an effect that prevents the defender from using the Defense token that was targeted.
The Dice is generating this effect.

When Sloane spends a dice with an Accuracy result, the Defense token is not being prevented from being used by an Accuracy result.
The Defense token cannot be used by the defender because under the rules for Defense tokens : A Defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack.
Sloane is not targeting a defense token with an accuracy result. no discussion, no grey area, no confusion.

We have had Dev say so that this is RAW, ECM allows you to pick a token that was targeted by an accuracy result. and it shows the ICON, in the RRG under dice effects it lists quite specifically what each icon means, and what each icon does.

This entire topic is the worst kind of rules lawyering, just because it shares some words does not mean it does the same thing, and anyone with common sense can see they are two very different things.

1 hour ago, TheEasternKing said:

"targeted by an accuracy result."

A defense token targeted by an Accuracy result, cannot be spent by the defender.

The Accuracy result on the die face is generating this effect, let me say that again. The Accuracy result on the die face is being used to generate an effect that prevents the defender from using the Defense token that was targeted.
The Dice is generating this effect.

When Sloane spends a dice with an Accuracy result, the Defense token is not being prevented from being used by an Accuracy result.
The Defense token cannot be used by the defender because under the rules for Defense tokens : A Defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack.
Sloane is not targeting a defense token with an accuracy result. no discussion, no grey area, no confusion.

We have had Dev say so that this is RAW, ECM allows you to pick a token that was targeted by an accuracy result. and it shows the ICON, in the RRG under dice effects it lists quite specifically what each icon means, and what each icon does.

This entire topic is the worst kind of rules lawyering, just because it shares some words does not mean it does the same thing, and anyone with common sense can see they are two very different things.

I disagree. I think there is confusion. There is discussion. I'm not a rules lawyer and I don't think accusing people of lacking common sense because they don't share your view is particularly helpful.

Neither do I believe the developer was ever asked about ECMs and how they work in relation to Sloane. Nor have we had an explanation of how the rule on page 1 of the rulebook that card abilities take priority over the rulebook can be simply put to one side and ignored.

I see the confusion why though.

The mechanic for "Targeting a Defense Token with an Accuracy result" is.... Spending the Die, and choosing the token .

That is where the confusion / similarity is kicking in...

Because that is "effectively" the same thing that Sloane is doing... Spending the Die, and choosing the token .

Of course, I agree that ECM is not intended to help you bypass Sloane - but when you have to rely on "Common Sense" as an argument, its a hard rules argument to make for a lot of people... We've covered that so many times, unfortunately... The confidence has to be there for the RAW.

In the very least, I don't take the Ruling provided by the Dev as RAW. Why? Because it is not written as RAW .

Its Half a Rule.

Its half a Card.

If they'd presented me full wording for the effect, let alone the full wording of the card, then I'd be more inclined to believe it being intended as RAW.

This is a rules clarification , and in fact, they stated it was a Clarification, not an Errata.

That is exactly my point similarity in wording is not similarity in mechanics. (and honestly I am struggling to even see point to this entire discussion as a practical application is going to be very very rare)

For example, we have a CR90 A with TRC shooting at a Gladiator I, the CR 90 A player rolls his pool of 2 red and 1 blue, he rolls a blank, a hit and an accuracy, he uses his TRC to change the blank die to a double hit.
Knowing that the defender can spend his Evade token to make him reroll the double hit, he chooses to target the Evade token with his Accuracy result, preventing the Defender spending it to reroll the double hit.

What mechanic is in play here preventing the use of that Evade token? if I wanted to look in the RRG what page and section would I need to find all the information on Accuracy results in the attack pool?, how you use them?, and exactly what mechanic is being used when you spend one during an attack?

Now we have an Imperial fleet led by Admiral Sloane, lets say it is a Tie Defender, with 2 blue dice, attacking....I dunno, I really do not know what could be attacked with a single dice doing 1 damage where the defender has ECM also, that spending a def token could be so critical.
But lets say we have something, the attacker rolls 1 damage, 1 accuracy, the attacker spends that dice to use Admiral Sloanes ability. What mechanic is now preventing the use of that token to the defender? Where in the RRG do I a new player go look for the information? what page?

What is actually preventing the use of the token? has the Attacker said I'm going to target that token, with my accuracy? No, that is not what is being said at all. The defense token has not been targeted by an Accuracy result. It has been spent by a different mechanic entirely.

This is kind of like Contain and the default Critical effect, we have a default Accuracy result mechanic, we have something very new and very different in Admiral Sloane, just because she spends a dice with an Accuracy result, does not mean she is doing what a default accuracy result does.

6 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

That is exactly my point similarity in wording is not similarity in mechanics. (and honestly I am struggling to even see point to this entire discussion as a practical application is going to be very very rare)

For example, we have a CR90 A with TRC shooting at a Gladiator I, the CR 90 A player rolls his pool of 2 red and 1 blue, he rolls a blank, a hit and an accuracy, he uses his TRC to change the blank die to a double hit.
Knowing that the defender can spend his Evade token to make him reroll the double hit, he chooses to target the Evade token with his Accuracy result, preventing the Defender spending it to reroll the double hit.

What mechanic is in play here preventing the use of that Evade token? if I wanted to look in the RRG what page and section would I need to find all the information on Accuracy results in the attack pool?, how you use them?, and exactly what mechanic is being used when you spend one during an attack?

Now we have an Imperial fleet led by Admiral Sloane, lets say it is a Tie Defender, with 2 blue dice, attacking....I dunno, I really do not know what could be attacked with a single dice doing 1 damage where the defender has ECM also, that spending a def token could be so critical.
But lets say we have something, the attacker rolls 1 damage, 1 accuracy, the attacker spends that dice to use Admiral Sloanes ability. What mechanic is now preventing the use of that token to the defender? Where in the RRG do I a new player go look for the information? what page?

What is actually preventing the use of the token? has the Attacker said I'm going to target that token, with my accuracy? No, that is not what is being said at all. The defense token has not been targeted by an Accuracy result. It has been spent by a different mechanic entirely.

This is kind of like Contain and the default Critical effect, we have a default Accuracy result mechanic, we have something very new and very different in Admiral Sloane, just because she spends a dice with an Accuracy result, does not mean she is doing what a default accuracy result does.

I can argue it differently, simply by putting words in a certain order. But first, answering the (what is probably a rhetorical) question:

◊ Spend Accuracy (ACC) Icons: 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.

and in Die Icons:

• Accuracy : The attacker can spend this icon to choose one of the defender’s defense tokens. The chosen defense token cannot be spent during this attack.

and in Modifying Dice:

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

The rule is consisely written. The attacker can spend one or more of its ACC icons to choose the same number of the defenders defense tokens. The chosen tokens cannot be spent during this attack .

With Sloane, when you look at her addition to the rules, it is effectively coming under this consideration (italic emphasis mine)

"it may spend 1 die with an "ACC" icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens. "

The only word added is "and spend". Otherwise, you have virtually identical wording. IE, the rules application is essentially the same

Then, enter ECM

"While defending you may exhaust this card to spend 1 defense token that your opponent targeted with an ACC result."

What is the trigger for ECM?

S pending a defense token that your opponent targeted with an ACC result .

Ergo, the Argument being:

My Opponent targeted the Defense Token with an ACC result that he rolled.... and it stopped me using it

My Opponent targeted the Defense Token with an ACC result that he rolled... Using the Sloane upgrade card... and it stopped me using it, because it was spent .

So as long asn ACC result was involved... ECM may get around it. Because unlike the differentiation between there being a Standardised "Default' Critical effect, and "Upgrade" critical effects... We get a generic "Targeted with an ACC result"

That is a restriction, but its an open one... You can't use ECM to use a defense token because you're at Speed 0, for example, just because it was targeted with an ACC result... Because all restrictions have to be open ... But "targeted by an ACC result" is the one it opens. As long as that is the only restriction.

Just because you don't see an application for it being "worth the argument", doesn't mean we shouldn't understand the precedence in order to be future-proof and future-ready.

Imagine what would happen if, for example, we got a little jammer squadron that made enemy squadrons within distance 1 lose all non-heavy keywords ... (Thus, shutting down intel and such - as a counter-intel)... That would also remove Rogue, so this would make it apply to, say, Decimators...

Who knows.

Its appropriate to discuss, as it is appropriate to future-proof.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

That is a restriction, but its an open one... You can't use ECM to use a defense token because you're at Speed 0, for example, just because it was targeted with an ACC result... Because all restrictions have to be open ... But "targeted by an ACC result" is the one it opens. As long as that is the only restriction.

I was scratching something in those lines but I was not able to explain properly to myself.

Thanks Dras.

Sloane.

So easily explained it took over 30 pages among at least 5 different threads, and yet the explanation is still going.

Jeez guys, this is how Sloane works:

Roll an Acc.
Spend the Acc by throwing it at the defense token.
If you knock the defense token off the table, that token is discarded.
If you hit your opponent, they suffer 1 damage.

ECM only works if the defense token is still there after the Acc is spent.

See, to me, this is irrelevant....because the reason ECM won't work is because the token is spent, and you can only spend a token once during an attack. Same reason the defender can't use a Sloaned token to begin with. Nothing on ECM states it overrules the spent token rule, as a token normally targeted by ACC is NOT spent, but simply unusable, so CAN be spent, via ECM. But with Sloane, it's Spent, so....no ECM.

14 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

See, to me, this is irrelevant....because the reason ECM won't work is because the token is spent, and you can only spend a token once during an attack. Same reason the defender can't use a Sloaned token to begin with. Nothing on ECM states it overrules the spent token rule, as a token normally targeted by ACC is NOT spent, but simply unusable, so CAN be spent, via ECM. But with Sloane, it's Spent, so....no ECM.

I agree.

More important for me is the actual usefulness of knowing how it is ruled. You need Maarek or a Phantom to attack a ship that has ECM, roll an Acc, and that ship must be willing to discard the token to prevent 1 or 2 damage.

I only see a ship wanting to do that where the attack would kill it, and it has a Redirect or Evade with MM, and does not have a ship attack incoming.

It seems like a long shot to me.

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Sloane.

So easily explained it took over 30 pages among at least 5 different threads, and yet the explanation is still going.

Jeez guys, this is how Sloane works:

Roll an Acc.
Spend the Acc by throwing it at the defense token.
If you knock the defense token off the table, that token is discarded.
If you hit your opponent, they suffer 1 damage.

ECM only works if the defense token is still there after the Acc is spent.

You're wrong about the last part Nothing prevents me from picking up my ECM card and using it to block the accuracy you just threw at me. Furthermore if I deflect your die back and it knocks your token off the table, that token is discarded. If it hits you the attacking ship or squad suffers 1 damage, if it hits someone else then clearly you've decided to involve your bros and are cheating so I win.

1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

See, to me, this is irrelevant....because the reason ECM won't work is because the token is spent, and you can only spend a token once during an attack. Same reason the defender can't use a Sloaned token to begin with. Nothing on ECM states it overrules the spent token rule, as a token normally targeted by ACC is NOT spent, but simply unusable, so CAN be spent, via ECM. But with Sloane, it's Spent, so....no ECM.

It states a token targeted with an Accuracy can be spent. That and the fact that abilities on upgrade cards override the rulebook give you a train of logic that goes like this...

Has Sloane's fighter targeted a defence token with an Accuracy? Yes, she did and flipped that token to red. Frankly any argument that her fighter somehow hasn't "targeted" the defence token appears to me to be using semantics to twist the English language to breaking point!

ECM allows the defender to spend tokens targeted by Accuracy results. Hang about though, this particular token has been spent once already in this attack. There's a contradiction, card says spend it, rulebook says no second spend allowed. Which takes priority?

Page one of rulebook says card takes priority. So a second spend is allowed. I actually think this is RAW and RAI. I really can't see a problem with it and, stopping short of rudeness and unsportsmanship of course, if it kept my ISD alive in turn 6 I most certainly would insist that the above interpretation is CLEARLY by any reasonable use of logic and English, exactly what the rules say.

10 hours ago, Bolshevik65 said:

It states a token targeted with an Accuracy can be spent. That and the fact that abilities on upgrade cards override the rulebook give you a train of logic that goes like this...

Has Sloane's fighter targeted a defence token with an Accuracy? Yes, she did and flipped that token to red. Frankly any argument that her fighter somehow hasn't "targeted" the defence token appears to me to be using semantics to twist the English language to breaking point!

ECM allows the defender to spend tokens targeted by Accuracy results. Hang about though, this particular token has been spent once already in this attack. There's a contradiction, card says spend it, rulebook says no second spend allowed. Which takes priority?

Page one of rulebook says card takes priority. So a second spend is allowed. I actually think this is RAW and RAI. I really can't see a problem with it and, stopping short of rudeness and unsportsmanship of course, if it kept my ISD alive in turn 6 I most certainly would insist that the above interpretation is CLEARLY by any reasonable use of logic and English, exactly what the rules say.

Yes but I think Dras really point out the thing: there could be several restrictions to do something and ECM only remove one specific restriction.

Imagine an upgrade (long time desire by part of the community) that said:

"Before your opponents activate a ship you may discard this card. If you do you can activate a ship".

We cannot activate a ship already activated triggering this upgrade cause the rules say we cannot and that card is not removing that restriction. It modifies the activation order.

Or

"You can spend defense tokens at speed 0"

That overwrite the specific restriction about speed 0 but doesn't allow to spend defense token targeted by accuracies, or the same token twice, or the same type of token, as long as you go at speed 0.

13 hours ago, Bolshevik65 said:

It states a token targeted with an Accuracy can be spent. That and the fact that abilities on upgrade cards override the rulebook give you a train of logic that goes like this...

Has Sloane's fighter targeted a defence token with an Accuracy? Yes, she did and flipped that token to red. Frankly any argument that her fighter somehow hasn't "targeted" the defence token appears to me to be using semantics to twist the English language to breaking point!

ECM allows the defender to spend tokens targeted by Accuracy results. Hang about though, this particular token has been spent once already in this attack. There's a contradiction, card says spend it, rulebook says no second spend allowed. Which takes priority?

Page one of rulebook says card takes priority. So a second spend is allowed. I actually think this is RAW and RAI. I really can't see a problem with it and, stopping short of rudeness and unsportsmanship of course, if it kept my ISD alive in turn 6 I most certainly would insist that the above interpretation is CLEARLY by any reasonable use of logic and English, exactly what the rules say.

There is nnothing thing in the rules anywhere that state a defense token once spent can be spent again....and the dev ruling on Sloane makes it very clear that the RAI is that a spent token, once spent during an attack, cannot again be spent during the same attack. If this was not so, then the ruling by Q would have been let stood.

ECM does not get around this. However I can see that you are not going to be convinced, so I'll simply keep on playing the right way, and you can wait for an official clarification....

2 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

There is nnothing thing in the rules anywhere that state a defense token once spent can be spent again....and the dev ruling on Sloane makes it very clear that the RAI is that a spent token, once spent during an attack, cannot again be spent during the same attack. If this was not so, then the ruling by Q would have been let stood.

ECM does not get around this. However I can see that you are not going to be convinced, so I'll simply keep on playing the right way, and you can wait for an official clarification....

With respect you are playing it what you personally THINK is the right way. I will play RAW until FFG change those rules.

All we have at present is an internet debate over a rules misunderstanding at a tournament in one country. FFG have changed precisely nothing in the rules. To me, and again no disrespect intended, what's there in black and white from the people who wrote them is clear and certainly takes priority over internet chatter, which whilst useful for opinions and guidance, is nothing more than personal views from anonymous people hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I've yet to hear any explanation of how the rule on page one of the rules, pretty much the first thing you read, saying that card abilities supercede the rulebook can be disregarded. Its even called "Golden" for Heaven's sake! Neither do I believe ECMs were even mentioned to the developer. If they were, I bet his answer would have been a bit different and encompassed them.

When FFG change them, if they do, I'll play to the new rules. Until then, I'll stick to what the rulebook says not what the internet tells me it SHOULD say or really means. I hope that doesn't sound confrontational, it certainly isn't meant to be.

Ok so, if the upgrades takes precedence and the permission to do something under some circumstances is able to bypass any other circumstance that prevent us to do it we will find problems with other upgrades like boosted coms.

While resolving a squadron command I CAN activate squadrons at short-long range. I cannot activate activated squadrons normally but it is an upgrade so takes precedence and it says I can activate squadrons so I do.

That's stupid. I cannot activate activated squadrons cause they are under another restriction and boosted coms only change the range restriction.

Sloane doesn't restrict the use of defense tokens. An accuracy icon/die spent to trigger his effect doesn't restrict the use of defense tokens. The use is restricted as a collateral effect of spending the token and ECM has nothing to do about that.

In order to allow ECM to do that we must defend that ECM doesn't care about any present rule, just its own requirements: a token targeted by an accuracy result, but then, it would be arguable that Boosted Coms does the same and as long as the squadrons are in range they could be activated, no matter if they were already.

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Ok so, if the upgrades takes precedence and the permission to do something under some circumstances is able to bypass any other circumstance that prevent us to do it we will find problems with other upgrades like boosted coms.

While resolving a squadron command I CAN activate squadrons at short-long range. I cannot activate activated squadrons normally but it is an upgrade so takes precedence and it says I can activate squadrons so I do.

That's stupid. I cannot activate activated squadrons cause they are under another restriction and boosted coms only change the range restriction.

Sloane doesn't restrict the use of defense tokens. An accuracy icon/die spent to trigger his effect doesn't restrict the use of defense tokens. The use is restricted as a collateral effect of spending the token and ECM has nothing to do about that.

In order to allow ECM to do that we must defend that ECM doesn't care about any present rule, just its own requirements: a token targeted by an accuracy result, but then, it would be arguable that Boosted Coms does the same and as long as the squadrons are in range they could be activated, no matter if they were already.

Boosted Comms overrides the rule that restricts the range fighters can be activated at. A totally separate rule (toggling sliders), prevents those fighters activating a second time.

ECM overrides the rule that tokens can't be spent twice in the same attack. There is no seperate rule to prevent this as far as I can see.

Frankly I think ECM has just been overlooked. I really don't think the developer was even asked about them. I'm happy to play that they don't affect Sloane, very aware that it's not worth falling out over plastic spaceships but a little less comfortable with pretending the rules say something they quite simply don't.

26 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

ECM overrides the rule that tokens can't be spent twice in the same attack. There is no seperate rule to prevent this.

That is not what ECM does with its wording.

It doesn't say you can spend a defense token twice, what is the rule that is preventing you from doing.

It allows you to spend a token targeted by an accuracy what is not what is preventing you from spending it.

When resolving the "default" accuracy effect, being targeted by the accuracy is what is preventing you from using that token and ECM overwrite that restriction.

Sloane accuracy doesn't prevent the defender from using the token. It is not in its wording nor in the dev's unnofficial clarification. The defender could spend it if there was not another rule in play that has nothing to do with Sloane, accuracies or whatever. So when you go to the spend defense token step, you can exhaust ECM but you will get nothing cause, actually any accuracy is preventing you from spending that token. You check the limitations and see that being targeted by an accuracy result is not one of them but "you cannot spend the same token twice" is still active.

Exactly the same with boosted coms IMHO. You check all the limitations. Being at long range is not one anymore but being activated is still right there.

If it wasn't work this way, then ECM would allow to spend any targeted defense token, no matter if you already spent it, if you already spent one of the same type or if you are at speed 0. This mean that Foresight would be able to cancel 4 dice or a CR90 could cancel 2 since the core release.

3 hours ago, Bolshevik65 said:

With respect you are playing it what you personally THINK is the right way. I will play RAW until FFG change those rules.

All we have at present is an internet debate over a rules misunderstanding at a tournament in one country. FFG have changed precisely nothing in the rules. To me, and again no disrespect intended, what's there in black and white from the people who wrote them is clear and certainly takes priority over internet chatter, which whilst useful for opinions and guidance, is nothing more than personal views from anonymous people hundreds or thousands of miles away.

I've yet to hear any explanation of how the rule on page one of the rules, pretty much the first thing you read, saying that card abilities supercede the rulebook can be disregarded. Its even called "Golden" for Heaven's sake! Neither do I believe ECMs were even mentioned to the developer. If they were, I bet his answer would have been a bit different and encompassed them.

When FFG change them, if they do, I'll play to the new rules. Until then, I'll stick to what the rulebook says not what the internet tells me it SHOULD say or really means. I hope that doesn't sound confrontational, it certainly isn't meant to be.

Oh, we are good, I never take offense at internet chatter, believe me!

As you say, it's all interpretation. To me, ECM not applying IS RAW. I always, always, play as close to RAW as I can figure, and abhor RAI and home rules.

What you are saying is, to me, just your RAI interpretation, just like to you, my version is RAI, per myself...lol. And that's because FFG, just doesn't write their rules in a way that doesn't conflict. And this is due to their business model, always putting out new cards, and inevitably sooner or later there is going to be confusion. Witness Xwing, which has so many cards now, multiple erratas had to be issued.

I understand your basis for the argument. However, to me this is not enough to override the fact that once spent, regardless of how, a token cannot again be spent.

Hopefully someone has a question up to FFG, and this gets cleared. In the meantime, keep on flying!

To expand on what ovinomac3r said, to use ECM as so, it would have to say, "exhaust this card to spend a defense token you've already spent during this attack"

I agree with Darth Lupine and his side of things.

As I see it:

Yes you can use ECM to allow you to spend the token that was targeted by the accuracy. But then the Rule saying you can't spend the token more than once per attack kicks in says you can't.

From my understanding in the Rules for ECM if say somebody targets your Vic II and rolls and accuracy. They then use that accuracy to target one of the shield redirects. You can't then use the ECM card to burn both for your shield redirects because you can only spend the token once per attack phase.

So same thing there Sloane spends the token. You can use the ECM to say Okay I can still spend that token but the other rule kicks in and so then you can't.

2 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

Oh, we are good, I never take offense at internet chatter, believe me!

As you say, it's all interpretation. To me, ECM not applying IS RAW. I always, always, play as close to RAW as I can figure, and abhor RAI and home rules.

What you are saying is, to me, just your RAI interpretation, just like to you, my version is RAI, per myself...lol. And that's because FFG, just doesn't write their rules in a way that doesn't conflict. And this is due to their business model, always putting out new cards, and inevitably sooner or later there is going to be confusion. Witness Xwing, which has so many cards now, multiple erratas had to be issued.

I understand your basis for the argument. However, to me this is not enough to override the fact that once spent, regardless of how, a token cannot again be spent.

Hopefully someone has a question up to FFG, and this gets cleared. In the meantime, keep on flying!

Oh yeah X Wing, where the ship the game is named after is seldom seen, the FAQ is almost longer than the rules and a lot of games contain so many obscure Scum and Villiany and Rebel ships they bare little or no resemblance to Star Wars whatsoever! Its either a generic space game or a collectable card game with a Star Wars skin but it sure doesn't look anything like the film I saw in 1977!

I actually believe the designer may possibly have intended ECMs to not work against Sloane but frankly nothing is going to change my opinion that it isn't what the rules say and to be fair I completely accept that others who have the opposite view aren't going to change their views either.

How do we resolve it? Is there any facility to simply ask FFG?