Say I have a Victory with a squadron value of 3 and I am at close range of an enemy ship with a green brace (not spent) plus other defense tokens.

Can I spend my boarding troopers to use 2 of the "spend action" to remove the green brace and the other "spend" to exhaust another defense token?

AKA can I focus "spend" defense tokens with boarding troopers?

Nope. You can spend up to three different defense tokens but only one time each.

No.

[Green knight answering mode]

10 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

No.

[Green knight answering mode]

Haha

On 10/31/2017 at 0:05 PM, Megatronrex said:

Nope. You can spend up to three different defense tokens but only one time each.

Is there a source on that?

Cuz so far the card just says "spend" when what you're trying to make it say is "exhaust."

But it doesn't say exhaust.

1 hour ago, Zrob314 said:

Is there a source on that?

Cuz so far the card just says "spend" when what you're trying to make it say is "exhaust."

But it doesn't say exhaust.

You choose a number of tokens up to your elected value. Then you spend them.

So if you have 3, you choose up to 3 tokens.

Then, you resolve the spending of them.

You don't get to go back to choose a token a second time.

It would have to state that you could explicitly to allow it. Because the simple timing rules disallow it.

Apologies and not trying to be obtuse here (and of course FFG needs to fund it's own law school) but the card says "Choose and spend a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value."

There is nothing in the card that shows a discreet time to choose each one then a discreet time to spend them. Now, if it said "Choose a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value then spend them." I'd be on board, but it does not.

I can choose and spend your brace, then choose and spend it again to discard it and then choose and spend that other brace you'd exhausted to make you discard it and so forth until I'd exhausted my squadron level.

(FYI, I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a boarding party card, but the principle is important)

26 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

Apologies and not trying to be obtuse here (and of course FFG needs to fund it's own law school) but the card says "Choose and spend a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value."

There is nothing in the card that shows a discreet time to choose each one then a discreet time to spend them. Now, if it said "Choose a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value then spend them." I'd be on board, but it does not.

I can choose and spend your brace, then choose and spend it again to discard it and then choose and spend that other brace you'd exhausted to make you discard it and so forth until I'd exhausted my squadron level.

(FYI, I have no dog in this fight, I don't even own a boarding party card, but the principle is important)

Then how about this.

"Choose and spend a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value."

A number of its tokens.

So you choose a discrete number of tokens. 1, 2, 3, etc.

Then you spend that many tokens .

So if you choose 3, you spend 3 tokens. Inherently , those are discrete, different tokens. Otherwise , you are not spending that number of tokens. You are spending less than that number, as you are intending to spend a token twice .

"Spend" wording here is explicitly so you can force a discard on already spent tokens, but not to allow you to double-dip on one.

Principal is important. Precedence is important.

We're following precedence here by only doing it once.

I see nothing in the text that indicates in any way that each token chosen must be different than all other tokens chosen.

Discreet is something you're reading into the text.

The fact that a token can be spent more than once (exhaust/discard) leads me to the fact that tokens can be chosen more than once and that the Choose/Spend instances happen individually until you've done it as many times as your squadron value or the defender is out of tokens.

FFG needs to clarify this.

4 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

I see nothing in the text that indicates in any way that each token chosen must be different than all other tokens chosen.

Discreet is something you're reading into the text.

The fact that a token can be spent more than once (exhaust/discard) leads me to the fact that tokens can be chosen more than once and that the Choose/Spend instances happen individually until you've done it as many times as your squadron value or the defender is out of tokens.

FFG needs to clarify this.

I don't disagree.

You are **** Right I'm reading it into it.

But I do guarantee this: Play it that way, or have it played that way against you, and tables will be flipped.

This is one of those regretfully "common sense" matters, where failing to do so, basically breaks the game .

Its just *that good*.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

I don't disagree.

But I do guarantee this: Play it that way, or have it played that way against you, and tables will be flipped.

This is one of those regretfully "common sense" matters, where failing to do so, basically breaks the game .

Its just *that good*.

I had it played against me that way this weekend.

It hurts, but I didn't say my opponent was cheating or misinterpreting the rules.

My counter to the tactic, honestly, is a heavy squadron game with slow controllers and relay.

They can't board your ship if they can't reach it.

If I was going to use it I'd be trying to use it after my squadrons or picket ships had already made the opponent exhaust their tokens so there wouldn't be a question about me discarding them all before hamming their ship with close range fire.

24 minutes ago, Zrob314 said:

I had it played against me that way this weekend.

It hurts, but I didn't say my opponent was cheating or misinterpreting the rules.

My counter to the tactic, honestly, is a heavy squadron game with slow controllers and relay.

They can't board your ship if they can't reach it.

If I was going to use it I'd be trying to use it after my squadrons or picket ships had already made the opponent exhaust their tokens so there wouldn't be a question about me discarding them all before hamming their ship with close range fire.

I admit, this is how my thought went when you wrote your first response to me:

Why ask a question when you're just going to dismiss the answer and state that FFG needs to answer it? .

Just go and ask FFG and wait for the Answer.

So, I am sorry if I sounded snippy.... And continue to sound snippy.. Its not my intention, its just... Rules are written in a certain way, I read them a certain way, and I'm sorry I can't provide a straight rules answer to you... So I have to rely on anecdotes.

Otherwise, there is no point in answering the question, because there was no point in asking the question of us .

Anecdotally:

The only reliable counter to the tactic is going first, having Activation advantage, and having fast ships that are never caught where it can be used...

Avenger+BT is one of the sickest, hardest hitting combinations there is, and no amount of squadrons stops it. It hurts it a little beforehand, but doesn't slow it down . And what you propose, effectively, gives the Avenger+BT combination to every ship which equips Boarding Teams .

You cannot Slow-roll effectively against an ISD with Boarding Teams. They are Speed 3. They will catch you. Quickly.

The only other counter is to run an MSU list so you don't have a ship worth it on.

I would consider, first and foremost this: Forums are here for consensus and majority, as we cannot provide official responses. We've tried. When it comes to "non official responses", I am sorry if I toot my own horn when I say I'm up there with most of them...

In the spirit of principle, as you said: Why do you think every response to this question, which has been asked multiple times , has been in the negative?

Be a Good Sport, and don't run it that way.

If its a casual game, then whatever, work it out with your opponent... But anyone who demands it be run in the most damaging way possible is not playing as a good sport. (in my opinion, which, as stated, is rarely humble)

But at the end of the day, it would be nice if we had clarification, for sure.

We're waiting for it.

So first, I'm not to original poster so the only question I asked you was if you have a source.

Second, I disagree with your assessment of the unkillability of an Avenger. (more on that later)

Third, I don't advocate nerfing the interpretation (or text) of ANY card because of its insanely good synergy with ANY title.

Fourth, i'm all for being a good sport, but it's hard for me to be that good sport when the person on the other side of the table is the one with the card that I'm trying to convince them of the less effective use of. It just makes me look opportunistic in my interpretations of the rules. Sure, if I run the boarding parties then I should play as the nice guy (though my local meta disagrees with your interpretation) but as I said earlier, I don't even own the card.

I don't scoff at Avengers, but I also don't sweat them. I bid for second place and the objective the gets chosen more than any other one I offer is Superior Positions. I almost always know where my opponent is set up and am more than willing to set my primary command ship as far away from them as possible. The plan is to make sure they don't get within range. It's possible to have that happen. It's also possible to kill them before they get to you, or at least before they get close enough to the sip they want to use it on. Fine, use it on my Yavaris. My MC80 is still alive and you just blew your wad on a smaller ship that you were probably going to kill with just your battery armament anyway. More importantly I set the temrs of when it was you so it's not nearly as demoralizing when it happens. See, it's a funny thing. People often feel like if they don't use a discard card then they wasted it and their list is ineffective. So, you give them a less optimal target. round turn 3 or 4 they're gonna use that boarding party on the first thing they can, because if they don't then that's a bunch of points down the drain.

Now, that's not gonna work at top tables, sure, but I don't swim in those waters and it's just find in the middle where I live.

Do you believe that, if you have Boarding Engineers, you can flip the one (say, Structural Damage) card over multiple times in a turn?

Because, its in the same case as this one:

"Majority" Consensus is, it does not . (no, its not a majority of players, but it is a majority of respondents).

You may continue to play with it however you want.

But Consensus, the only thing short of FFG's own approval, says no.

Since FFG isn't going to give you an answer right here and right now, but multiple people here have given you an answer on consensus ...

What do you want from us?

Feel free to raise it as a discussion topic in the main forums, where you will get general responses re: tactics and such.

But as a rules consensus goes, this one is done and dusted.

Try this one on for size. If your wife told you to go to the store to choose and carve pumpkins equal to the number of children you had, do you think you could successfully argue that it was ok that you got only two pumpkins instead of three because you carved one of the pumpkins twice?

41 minutes ago, RobertK said:

Try this one on for size. If your wife told you to go to the store to choose and carve pumpkins equal to the number of children you had, do you think you could successfully argue that it was ok that you got only two pumpkins instead of three because you carved one of the pumpkins twice?

Choose and spend a number of its defense tokens up to your squadron value.

It means depending on the situation:

Choose and spend 1/2/3/4/5 of its defense tokens.

What ends on a discrete number of tokens belonging to a defending ship. In no way spending 1 brace token twice means spending 2 tokens.

It would be different if the card said you have as many opportunities to spend a token up to your squadron value or something like this.

An exhausted token is not a different one that its ready version. If it would be that way then Vader could spend the evade already spent by TRC what he cannot. Actually the rule that prevent that wouldn't have any sense as the token would not be the same anyways.

So:

1. A defense token is the same defense token no matter if it is ready or exhausted.

2. Spending x number of tokens is not the same as spending 1 token x times.

If the point 2 remains as a problem to you I suggest you to think about the difference between reading two books and reading one book twice.

Resolved by FAQ