1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

Excellent breakdown, and I thank you for taking the time to explain it so well!

i am still having a problem with the rule you quoted. I understand a token, etc. spent as part of a cards effect doesn't produce its usual effect, etc. However.....that token was not spent as part of a cards effect, but was spent as part of a fire command.

I am however seeing your position very clearly. Thanks!

Admiral Piett is an upgrade card (commanders are upgrade cards). If an effect is only possible through an upgrade card, wouldn't that count as a card effect?

34 minutes ago, RobertK said:

I think @Darth Lupine has a point. Spending the token isn't the cost of Piett's ability. Instead, Piett's ability changes the effect of resolving a command via a token. If this interpretation were true, @Karneck , how would that affect your argument?

@Bertie Wooster ^^^ this. This is exactly my point, that I'm stuck at. Mind you, I'm actually very inclined to go with @Karneck interpretation, but this particular point right here is still sticking in my mind.

Didn't see it here, but has anyone noticed, that the same situation comes up with the Nav Team?

Have to admit I can see both sides of the argrument, but I believe Karneck to have it right.
It comes down to how commands and upgrade cards corresponding to that command work.

RRG, Page 3, Section "Commands":
"A ship can resolve the effect of a command by spending a command dial or command token with the matching icon at the appropriate time. The effect of the command is based on which component was spent:"

RRG, Page 5, Section "Effect Use and Timing", Point 3:
"Effects with a command icon as a header, such as "NavigateIcon:,” can be resolved once while the ship is resolving the matching command."

Now, Piett's ability states, that by spending a command token and using his ability a ship "... resolves that command as if it had spent a dial of the same type instead ."

Ravager's card text implies an alteration of the effect that resolves, when a token is spent to resolve the command.

As I see it, the problematic part is the distinction of spending the token and resolving the command.
Yes, you spend the token, but that token does not play any part in resolving the command. The command is resolved as if a dial was spent. Thus, Ravager should not trigger, as it only alters the way a command resolution via a token would work.