Let me clarify my position:

When I said I think it's a good idea, what I meant was that I think it's a good idea to have 'rulings' available in a place where it's easy to glean what the thought process and logic is behind a way of doing things; a place to quickly and clearly access what the state of unofficial thought is on pertinent rule questions for players to be able to go and for TOs to refer should a situation arise.

What my post was meant to do, and I guess what I didn't articulate well enough, was draw attention to some of the inherent problems associated with having it be an officially unofficial committee.

I'm not sure if thats the best way to go about doing it, with official nominations and seconding with votes, and certainly not opinions and dissents and precedent.

I'm a lawyer, and I don't even think thats an efficient way to resolve actual legal disputes, much less gameplay woes while we *wait* for actual rulings.

I know some people want something like this just for the sake of having a committee, but I don't necessarily think it's the best approach.

There are already plenty of rule lawyers on the forums arguing for the group think to go one way or the other. What happens when 3 of the 5 agree, but the community at large disagrees? Remember how vehement the argument was about the Intel Officer Vader Devestator ruling, and all the unofficial agreements and lack of consensus that came before.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though. I think something needs to be done, but I don't quite yet see the need for a full blown committee.

Sorry that was unclear, and I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade.

I can certainly appreciate your passion and your restlessness Tirion.

I love that daht hahaha

Zero passion all restlessness I'm on the forums enough that I can gauge what the general consensus is on a question. This would do very little for me.

Also you should let people post in that thread accepting or turning down nominations.

Apologies for random errors and Tom Houghtons and such.

Writing on my phone at work haha

Gink, I don't see any reason not to have it. If you don't agree with the idea of it, much less with the rulings such a body would make, you can still go argue with Dras in the rules forums. I promise he will still post there if you ask a question. I thought Pepsi Clear was a stupid idea, but you didn't see me protesting outside of Pepsi HQ. I just didn't buy it.

Egg, I think a group of this kind could really help folks that look to these forums as a clarification for unclear rules or rules that might contradict. While I think the rules forum is a great place to have open discussion, I think there are times that questions get asked and no consensus gets made, as was pointed out many times prior to this thread. This is just a way to get TO's a definitive answer to a question prior to an official FAQ answer.

My suggestion doesn't require a committee - as a player and an occasional TO, I just would like one place I know I can go to find questions that have no official rulings and see a simple description of different ways to make a judgement call (which includes the thought process behind each, sourced from the community discussion).

From reading other responses in this thread, I think a few other people are saying the same thing.

Will I wouldn't do much say definitive as I would say consensus

Will I wouldn't do much say definitive as I would say consensus

I agree. consensus was what I meant.

On paper this sounds like a good idea. Just a "closed formal rules forum" for these people to discuss weird interactions in the game without outside bias and input. But it holds no weight anywhere except for the people that believe the council ruling to be true. What happens when they make a ruling on Jamming Field and a large portion of the community does not agree with it?

Do we say, "Well you naysayers are wrong about the interaction because this group of X people, while very well informed about RRG, made this decision and now when you play on vassal, this is how it works."

I see this as a way of fragmenting the community because we are putting other people at a higher tier than others to make conclusions without any knowledge of how FFG actually wanted cards to interact. Sure, you can get an email from a developer to clarify something, but if it's not formally released by FFG, these conclusions mean nothing.

I also don't think this will stop the posts and debates on how card interactions work.

My last point I want to emphasize is what happens when a TO reads these rulings, and decides to incorporate those rulings during a tournament? What about if a new player comes to this tournament, reads a card and takes it at face value, none of that "I turn my upgrade on and off to benefit me because it's in the RRG on page 5" and ends up at a huge disadvantage. Honestly, that alone would make me want to quit.

I get that you want an FAQ, but having community members make rulings on interactions will not turn out well. There is already a system in place if someone has a question, and that has already been stated here. Go to forums, then ask FFG.

My last point I want to emphasize is what happens when a TO reads these rulings, and decides to incorporate those rulings during a tournament? What about if a new player comes to this tournament, reads a card and takes it at face value, none of that "I turn my upgrade on and off to benefit me because it's in the RRG on page 5" and ends up at a huge disadvantage. Honestly, that alone would make me want to quit.

This already happens.

This is the Status Quo.

Except , the TO is pulling a decision out of his arse on the Spot, right now.

So just have someone delve into the rules forum and extract approaches to be presented in a coherent way in one document.

What's needed is a reporter and editor for what we already have, not necessarily a debate group.

This will allow more input, and will preserve the goal of clarity and coherancy.

My last point I want to emphasize is what happens when a TO reads these rulings, and decides to incorporate those rulings during a tournament? What about if a new player comes to this tournament, reads a card and takes it at face value, none of that "I turn my upgrade on and off to benefit me because it's in the RRG on page 5" and ends up at a huge disadvantage. Honestly, that alone would make me want to quit.

This already happens.

This is the Status Quo.

Except , the TO is pulling a decision out of his arse on the Spot, right now.

A TO should be knowledgeable about the rules and card interactions, so they should make their calls on their own, and if they can't, ask FFG after the tournament for clarification. I don't think a TO should be influenced by a small group of people which can influence the community as a whole.

There are rules already set in place for disputes. The TO/marshal get the last say, period.

All valid

On paper this sounds like a good idea. Just a "closed formal rules forum" for these people to discuss weird interactions in the game without outside bias and input. But it holds no weight anywhere except for the people that believe the council ruling to be true. What happens when they make a ruling on Jamming Field and a large portion of the community does not agree with it?

Do we say, "Well you naysayers are wrong about the interaction because this group of X people, while very well informed about RRG, made this decision and now when you play on vassal, this is how it works."

I see this as a way of fragmenting the community because we are putting other people at a higher tier than others to make conclusions without any knowledge of how FFG actually wanted cards to interact. Sure, you can get an email from a developer to clarify something, but if it's not formally released by FFG, these conclusions mean nothing.

I also don't think this will stop the posts and debates on how card interactions work.

My last point I want to emphasize is what happens when a TO reads these rulings, and decides to incorporate those rulings during a tournament? What about if a new player comes to this tournament, reads a card and takes it at face value, none of that "I turn my upgrade on and off to benefit me because it's in the RRG on page 5" and ends up at a huge disadvantage. Honestly, that alone would make me want to quit.

I get that you want an FAQ, but having community members make rulings on interactions will not turn out well. There is already a system in place if someone has a question, and that has already been stated here. Go to forums, then ask FFG.

These are all great questions.

Let me start by saying I am neither for our against this committee I am simply facilitating the conversation.

To sum up the for camps side to your questions no longer is saying these decisions by a committee would be binding to anyone. In fact unofficial is in the name. If a judge courses not to use them then he chooses not to use them. But at lest he and event else can at least see what the community thinks in an easily identified place.

My last point I want to emphasize is what happens when a TO reads these rulings, and decides to incorporate those rulings during a tournament? What about if a new player comes to this tournament, reads a card and takes it at face value, none of that "I turn my upgrade on and off to benefit me because it's in the RRG on page 5" and ends up at a huge disadvantage. Honestly, that alone would make me want to quit.

This already happens.

This is the Status Quo.

Except , the TO is pulling a decision out of his arse on the Spot, right now.

A TO should be knowledgeable about the rules and card interactions, so they should make their calls on their own, and if they can't, ask FFG after the tournament for clarification. I don't think a TO should be influenced by a small group of people which can influence the community as a whole.

There are rules already set in place for disputes. The TO/marshal get the last say, period.

Yep. Totally agree on that last point. That **** doens't change at all, and should never change.

That being said, AS a Marshal/Judge, I know I'd personally love there to be a place where I can, y'know, get some idea of the questions I may be asked beforehand.

So I'm not surprised on the Day.

...

But you know what, I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place. Three new messages tell me in surprising detail.

So at this point what we have here are 2 ideas;

1. A stickied thread so the average joe gamer can find answers that maybe aren't readily apparent from the RRG but at the same time didn't make it into the most recent FAQ, ideally including the reasoning and perhaps an email from FFG if it got that far;

2. A committee of players to basically settle disputed rules between FAQ's while we wait on official word.

I think both are good ideas. As far as the committee, I think it would be fine to have it be the word on Vassal until the FAQ comes out, provided both players are cool with it. But I mean, it would be an unofficial body, so you know, if a vassal event organizer (who is effctively the TO) says "we are gonna use this interpretation not the unofficial one on tbe rules forum" then thats fine too. Really, it would just be a resource or guideline for folks to use, or not use, at their discretion, and I feel like on the whole it would probably be positive. And obviously, as soon as the FAQ came out, all of it goes out the window for the official ruling. Plus maybe it helps the FFG FAQ people to see the arguments laid out for them. Although I feel like they already can get that now, and I imagine they probably peruse it.

It may not be binding to anyone, but when Dras is going to be on the council, because honestly it should happen, there is so much influence on his ruling of an interaction, people literally say "Let's wait for Dras to show up and tell us what is what" that who is going to turn and say "No, Dras is wrong." I have yet to find a hole in his arguements because those arguements come from the RRG and that's it.

You would be better off calling it an "unofficial TO/Marshal FAQ/Guide" and gather everyone who is a TO who wants to do this and have them hash it out. I for one would feel more comfortable knowing the people who are going to make the ruling at a tournament are already discussing this with other TOs so it is as uniform accross the entire community.

Now that I think about this more, only TO/marshals should be on this because at the end of the day, they will be making these hard calls.

"No, Dras is wrong." I have yet to find a hole in his arguements because those arguements come from the RRG and that's it.

TheEasternKing would disagree with you. He Disagrees with me on a regular basis.

And I am often wrong. And oft contradicted. As it is, I'm thoroughly expecting to be "wrong" about a few of the Wave 3/4 things we're waiting on, too.

That seems legit.

"No, Dras is wrong." I have yet to find a hole in his arguements because those arguements come from the RRG and that's it.

TheEasternKing would disagree with you. He Disagrees with me on a regular basis.

And I am often wrong. And oft contradicted. As it is, I'm thoroughly expecting to be "wrong" about a few of the Wave 3/4 things we're waiting on, too.

I've read the majority of your disputes. I've been following the forums since the begining, and it seems like the arguments boil down to different interpretations of read english and grammar. Just like your comment in the JF thread about Boba Fett and dealing damage to enemy ships and squads. I feel the majority of these arguments boil down to english and grammar which means both of you can be correct.

I have been on these forums since the beggining. I have read some of Dras arguments, and found them cogent. With that said, I tend to consider myself a rules expert as well, in any game I play. So, while this wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, it still would simply be players opinion, and not official word....which makes it useless for tourney clarification, really.

However, I still think it would be a useful tool, and as stated, perhaps spur FF to faster action.....lol.

As far as Vassal, don't use it, don't care.

My two Imperial credits worth of opinion. I stand ready to support whatever decision the forums as a whole decide to pursue.

I've always found these forums helpful. They really helped answer a lot of questions and scenarios I encountered as I learnt and played more Armada.

Sure some go down the rabbit hole at times ha!, but its great to see generally some consensus and input into most rule interpretations.

In rue of anything official this sounds like a great idea and I'd like to offer, (when I get the free time of course) my design and publication hand if it ever became something people wanted to download and print out (pdf, graphic/diagrams, simple index etc).

I kind of see the output of something like this being more a living document than something that's time hacked and published. Because the minute FFG addresses an item on the document, it's off.

But that's just me.

Totally agree ard

much agreed.