Nah.

You mistakenly seem to think I care about this particular point; I don't. I made a simple observation, to which someone responded that the LtP guide uses more "common" words, as if new players can only read at a kindergarten level. I should hope it goes without saying how patently ridiculous that is. As for the numerous clarifications we have from the developers and playtesters about how to properly play the game, the fact that we need their input at all only underscores my broader point about the general state of the rules.

Call me a troll if you like, but know that your thinly veiled condescension and consistent attempts to bring this conversation down to a personal level have not gone unnoticed. These forums are for discussing the game, not posters. I recommend we leave it that way.

So now, you're distorting other people's words? As for condescension, you come with a seemingly unshakable notion that you are right and the rest of use are wrong, so you'd know all about it. Now, about the point that rules could be written better: they certainly could, but all CCGs and LCGs have required rules clarifications at some point (by the way, you haven't given an example of a game whose rules you consider well-written).

What's to distort? You said that the LtP guide was designed for beginners, so it uses more common words. Is the LtP really only intended for novices, and should more experienced gamers skip it and learn to play using the glossary we call the RRG?

Is the word "move" really more common than "place" or "return"? What sort of metric are you using for that analysis? Would a beginner really have such a hard time comprehending the intro rules if it used one of those two latter words in place of the former? What's the correlation between mastery of a game and mastery of basic English?

You would have been far more convincing if you'd simply passed it off as a typographical error, or something missed during editing. That I could swallow. The excuses you tried to pass off in defense of a poorly written ruleset are at once both laughably ridiculous and confusing, in that I can hardly imagine why you would try to do so in the first place.

Slightly off topic but related to the current issue: What would happen if someone following WW's line of thinking and someone following.. well, everyone else's line of thinking, competed in a tournament?

I've seen WW's application of the rules in another example as well, so if someone like WW tried something that Player B thought was illegal, and so challenged, would an adjudicator have to make a ruling on the issue there and then? Would that only be binding for that match, or that tournament, or what?

Sometimes people in my group get a bit loose with the rules (not to cheat, usually just to speed things up) and I keep saying to them "Try that in a tournament". Never having been to a tournament though I'm not sure what goes on when a third-party referee is involved.

FFG doesn't have a judge certification program for their various games, sadly. If an issue comes up at an event, the judge/TO's final decision is binding, even if it ends up being wrong later. Most of the time that judge/TO isn't going to have the time to scour the Internet mid-event for supposed emails from the game designers, so a lot of these very same questions could pop up and be adjudicated either way. There's really no definite time period for a ruling unless a FAQ comes out to affirm or counter it.

Thankfully there has been a judge program announced. Sadly we don't yet have a timescale, but at least it IS coming.

Same with the FAQ.

I've got a solution to what I'm reading here as there really are not any new points being presented. WW is saying the rules are poorly written while everyone else is saying the rules are generally decently written, but could use a FAQ.

WW should play the game the way they want to play it. With whatever rules they want to use/omit/add. Probably should stay away from tournaments though.

Everyone else can continue to try to understand the rules as they apply to new cards and situations that arise as the game expands.

I see no reason to stay away from tournaments, myself or anyone else here. All it takes is a little respect for the judge and his decision, which would exist outside the continuum of our current debates. Until an official document is released correcting these issues, a judge could easily rule either way - and I promise you that not everyone hosting an event has visited these sites, or agrees with them if they have.

I invite you all to attend whichever Conquest event I'll be hosting next at my LGS. A word of caution; you may not agree with my rulings.

My point, was that it sounds like the game you would be playing would be pretty different than the one you would find at a tournament. also, I don't see any judge who is familiar with the rules ruling in your favor in the one example you have brought up.

By all means, attend tournaments. but don't expect your tactics to even be legal in a tournament setting as they are in your homebrew.

Not altogether different, no. It's far less a 'homebrew' than it is an alternate interpretation of this game's minutia. Lacking an official FAQ, you'd think people would be more open-minded about such things.

You seem fairly convinced that a judge at any given tournament would be inclined to rule as others here have proposed. I will freely concede my ignorance as to how every shop in the states is running their events, so if you have knowledge on that particular account, please share it with me. In the mean time, I'll be running my own events however I see fit. You can take me as an example of how a judge might not rule as you think he will.

I am only going off the one example you put out there. An example you don't seem to want to be brought up again. If that is what you think the minutia of the game is, than you are playing a different game.

Are you saying you want me to re-hash the debate? I can quite easily do that, but considering the mounting lack of civility and frequent condescension, I thought it best to let you guys move on. Tell me which you prefer, and we can proceed.

Meh. I have run out of steam.

Play the game the way you want. I just hope I'm not involved in any judging you are a part of.

I do agree with the level of condescension going on....

Why not? It's not like having a different opinion from you automatically makes be biased, or asinine even. Perhaps you should heed your own advice about avoiding tournaments, if you're that afraid of someone making a ruling you don't agree with.

I keep bringing it back to your sole example. The one that is clearly spelled out in the rules. The one multiple people have shown you how it is supposed to go. Everyone has agreed with you, in that some situations arise that the rules don't adequately cover. That a FAQ is needed. But you just want to keep arguing.

And I've also showed them how it's supposed to go, and not one of us is the better for it. I'm not really sure where you expect to go from here, unless you just like to argue in circles. It takes two to tango, as they say. Shall we discuss how you've deftly managed to avoid my own questions?

I love how everyone arguing with WW sites rules with page numbers and he just sites his previous posts and refuses to listen to anything

I love how everyone arguing with WW sites rules with page numbers and he just sites his previous posts and refuses to listen to anything

I've done the same thing, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Lacking an official FAQ, I really don't see why I should be compelled to listen to anyone. In fact, I could hardly care less about the contents of some alleged rulings that trickled their way down unofficial channels.

And I've also showed them how it's supposed to go, and not one of us is the better for it. I'm not really sure where you expect to go from here, unless you just like to argue in circles. It takes two to tango, as they say. Shall we discuss how you've deftly managed to avoid my own questions?

Hey... how much of the game have you played so far?

Many, many games. Thanks for asking. How about you?

I love how everyone arguing with WW sites rules with page numbers and he just sites his previous posts and refuses to listen to anything

I've done the same thing, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Lacking an official FAQ, I really don't see why I should be compelled to listen to anyone. In fact, I could hardly care less about the contents of some alleged rulings that trickled their way down unofficial channels.

Maybe, maybe not. The developers do frequently change their minds between issuing rulings via email and releasing a FAQ. I hope they consider the health of the game before they let this one become official, because it's no good for anyone.

I mean, some people are telling me not to go to tournaments. Have you considered what a tournament would actually be like if this ruling sticks?

Maybe, maybe not. The developers do frequently change their minds between issuing rulings via email and releasing a FAQ. I hope they consider the health of the game before they let this one become official, because it's no good for anyone.

I mean, some people are telling me not to go to tournaments. Have you considered what a tournament would actually be like if this ruling sticks?

Because there's such a huge distinction.

You want to reflect on my actual point for a moment, or are you content to derail it because I paraphrased?