No worries, just thought I'd offer my designery force powers for the cause if needed

No worries, just thought I'd offer my designery force powers for the cause if needed

Sorry, didn't mean to be dismissive. I, for one, love your work when you post it on here.

No worries, just thought I'd offer my designery force powers for the cause if needed

Sorry, didn't mean to be dismissive. I, for one, love your work when you post it on here.

Not at all man. No offense taken

Something digital/online and changeable etc would likely be the best way to get it out there anyway.

Tirion, you kind of just proved my point.

Lots of support for a xonstantly updated TO guide.

Very little support for making it the task of a few to make decisions.

Essentially what we all want is for ghost dancers sticky thread to include unofficial answers when no official rule exists. Perhaps different colour to show unofficial nature.

I am not trying to be obstructive, but I spend everyday dealing with people who waffle about good ideas and intentions and never get round to the practicalities.

Just do it.

It would help immensely if FFG could appoint someone with moderator status, who could like, sticky a post .

I dig it. I like he idea of it being a TO resource and open to all players. I know as a TO, I'd like a one-stop-shop to HELP inform my decisions on tourney day. It's somewhat difficult to stop mid-turn and answer a question on the fly regarding a faction you don't play often if you haven't studied recently.

I vote to not vote. Before the unofficial FAQ is done the real one will be out

I vote to not vote. Before the unofficial FAQ is done the real one will be out

What about when wave 5 hits? We will have questions and no FAQ. Just imagine what Sato is going to do during regionals...

I vote to not vote. Before the unofficial FAQ is done the real one will be out

What about when wave 5 hits? We will have questions and no FAQ. Just imagine what Sato is going to do during regionals...

I'm still hopeful they address sato maybe in the preview article or have the word replace defined in the box like they did with contain tokens

I don't think we are talking of publishing an unofficial FAQ, maybe more of a living document through forums posts, something that is reference-able...

And Gink, I appreciate you don't agree with the formation of this group, but I'm confused as to why you keep telling us. Why are you protesting something that doesn't affect you? If you have ideas that help move this project forward, great. Post them, but being negative doesn't help anyone. We all want an updated official FAQ. Ard more than anyone I think. Until we get one, I don't see how organizing a group for consensus rulings is a bad idea. Why Trail blaze on rulings as a TO when you can go to a place that others may have talked about the problem you may be having? It's more efficient.

I don't think we are talking of publishing an unofficial FAQ, maybe more of a living document through forums posts, something that is reference-able...

And Gink, I appreciate you don't agree with the formation of this group, but I'm confused as to why you keep telling us. Why are you protesting something that doesn't affect you? If you have ideas that help move this project forward, great. Post them, but being negative doesn't help anyone. We all want an updated official FAQ. Ard more than anyone I think. Until we get one, I don't see how organizing a group for consensus rulings is a bad idea. Why Trail blaze on rulings as a TO when you can go to a place that others may have talked about the problem you may be having? It's more efficient.

I don't think it's negativity. Someone has to play devil's advocate. I think this should be a TO thing only, and open to all TOs, not a select group.

Another thing to consider is this will affect the community as large. Simply voting 5 people into this to make a decision that will be referenced world wide is an awful idea. And saying that it's unofficial is total crap because this is going to be a resource for TOs in a competitive setting. It is unofficial until the ruling made by this select group hits my table and changes the next few turns, which might actually shift the balance for me or my opponent.

I love the idea that we want to help TOs make good calls. But I am going to continue to poke holes in your idea until I am convinced it will not hurt the community. I hope others will do so a well, regardless if they are pro or against.

I don't think we are talking of publishing an unofficial FAQ, maybe more of a living document through forums posts, something that is reference-able...

And Gink, I appreciate you don't agree with the formation of this group, but I'm confused as to why you keep telling us. Why are you protesting something that doesn't affect you? If you have ideas that help move this project forward, great. Post them, but being negative doesn't help anyone. We all want an updated official FAQ. Ard more than anyone I think. Until we get one, I don't see how organizing a group for consensus rulings is a bad idea. Why Trail blaze on rulings as a TO when you can go to a place that others may have talked about the problem you may be having? It's more efficient.

I don't think it's negativity. Someone has to play devil's advocate. I think this should be a TO thing only, and open to all TOs, not a select group.

Another thing to consider is this will affect the community as large. Simply voting 5 people into this to make a decision that will be referenced world wide is an awful idea. And saying that it's unofficial is total crap because this is going to be a resource for TOs in a competitive setting. It is unofficial until the ruling made by this select group hits my table and changes the next few turns, which might actually shift the balance for me or my opponent.

I love the idea that we want to help TOs make good calls. But I am going to continue to poke holes in your idea until I am convinced it will not hurt the community. I hope others will do so a well, regardless if they are pro or against.

Seriously? Hurt the community? The community is picking those 5 people! And the consensus decisions WOULD be open to everyone, not some select group. (BTW, you saying that it should only be open to TO's is making it open to only a select group).

" And saying that it's unofficial is total crap because this is going to be a resource for TOs in a competitive setting. It is unofficial until the ruling made by this select group hits my table and changes the next few turns, which might actually shift the balance for me or my opponent." But the TO would make a ruling no matter if this existed or not, so how does this affect that pivotal game your playing any differently? Except that having the TO reference a consensus decision makes it more relevant than a gut feeling on their part.

But, you know, you and Gink are right. Poke holes. Beat it till it's dead. I have posted my ideas. That's all I can do. I hope there is an official FAQ eventually so we don't have to flounder anymore for rulings.

Is there any real need for a committee? We have a wealth of knowledge here, and on top of that we have Drasnighta, so I think we as a community have the best minds ready and able to solve any FAQ type questions as-is.

I think the value of the committee would be in certain select situations, where there longstanding argument devolves into "well, lets just wait for the FAQ because we have been unable to come to a consensus in the normal manner"

Because at some point, ANY decision is better then "hey maybe this card will work this way today"

I'm in favor, for what it's worth, for a living document, potentially a continuously updated thread lead post. TO's should take the lead on updating and maintaining it, but given the relatively open nature of being a TO, the process should still be open and public. "They" have to do it, but "they" is a continuously changing group of people, so we should bear that in mind.

As an administrative note, and to get it on the record, I hereby propose such a document or thread include links to or the text of the official FAQ documents so as to be an all-encompassing reference.

It could, but I'm concerned that it could end up becoming a social rank system. And if you present a very good argument for why X should occur, it gets ignored because you aren't among the elite few.

I'd rather the strength of your argument and the quality of your presentation be what sways the community, rather than your "rank".

It could, but I'm concerned that it could end up becoming a social rank system. And if you present a very good argument for why X should occur, it gets ignored because you aren't among the elite few.

I'd rather the strength of your argument and the quality of your presentation be what sways the community, rather than your "rank".

I would hope it doesn't come down to a rank system. But, lets remember. Just because the committee says it, doesn't mean you have to go with it. It's just a way to have consensus ideas in a central location. If your a TO, and you want to rule in a way different than the committee, you have all the power to do so. I mean, the Axis powers were a committee and the Allies disagreed with them.....

God, I hope this one doesn't turn out like that though...I'm not okay with invading Canada the first time we disagree with Dras on Bomber Command Center....

I don't think we are talking of publishing an unofficial FAQ, maybe more of a living document through forums posts, something that is reference-able...

And Gink, I appreciate you don't agree with the formation of this group, but I'm confused as to why you keep telling us. Why are you protesting something that doesn't affect you? If you have ideas that help move this project forward, great. Post them, but being negative doesn't help anyone. We all want an updated official FAQ. Ard more than anyone I think. Until we get one, I don't see how organizing a group for consensus rulings is a bad idea. Why Trail blaze on rulings as a TO when you can go to a place that others may have talked about the problem you may be having? It's more efficient.

I don't think it's negativity. Someone has to play devil's advocate. I think this should be a TO thing only, and open to all TOs, not a select group.

Another thing to consider is this will affect the community as large. Simply voting 5 people into this to make a decision that will be referenced world wide is an awful idea. And saying that it's unofficial is total crap because this is going to be a resource for TOs in a competitive setting. It is unofficial until the ruling made by this select group hits my table and changes the next few turns, which might actually shift the balance for me or my opponent.

I love the idea that we want to help TOs make good calls. But I am going to continue to poke holes in your idea until I am convinced it will not hurt the community. I hope others will do so a well, regardless if they are pro or against.

Seriously? Hurt the community? The community is picking those 5 people! And the consensus decisions WOULD be open to everyone, not some select group. (BTW, you saying that it should only be open to TO's is making it open to only a select group).

"And saying that it's unofficial is total crap because this is going to be a resource for TOs in a competitive setting. It is unofficial until the ruling made by this select group hits my table and changes the next few turns, which might actually shift the balance for me or my opponent." But the TO would make a ruling no matter if this existed or not, so how does this affect that pivotal game your playing any differently? Except that having the TO reference a consensus decision makes it more relevant than a gut feeling on their part.

But, you know, you and Gink are right. Poke holes. Beat it till it's dead. I have posted my ideas. That's all I can do. I hope there is an official FAQ eventually so we don't have to flounder anymore for rulings.

The community at large is not selecting these people. The people who are on the forums are selecting these people. And what percentage of players are on the forums all the time and paying attention to things like this? Even if it is 50%, you are still excluding 50% of the community that you can interact with. How does this foster growth when there is no line of communication to them? And if we chose to ignore them because they should follow the forums, we are dividing our players.

I stand firm on my point that these decisions should be made by TOs. And yes, I realize this is selective because you want this to be a reference for TOs. Why should someone who is not a TO get to vote on a group of 5 people? Sure, they could become a TO, and that changes their influence they will have. No longer are they a simple player who wants a card to interact the way they want it. Now they get to make the call and it will put everyone on the same playing field. And that in itself could hurt local communities.

This kind of flows into the idea that a TO can play in a "relaxed" tournament and still make calls on other tables. I don't like it because some people like to bias in their favor. I simply don't trust the intention of other people if it can give them an advantage. I've see it often enough in other gaming communities.This last section is my opinion and I don't want it to carry any weight in this decision.

But Crabbok, we have that now. If it always worked, or we could rely on FFG for timely answers, this thread wouldn't exist.

That said, I would be concerned about any form of "rules elitism" that would divide this community, because we have an excellent community. The thing is, I just don't see it happening. I don't think anyone cares what people do on their home tables, or private vassal games. As for tournaments, the it would just be a way for TO's to see the arguments presented in a succinct and clear manner and what a group of folks thought made sense for the time being. Otherwise each TO has only their gut call and the arguments of two confused (at best) or passionately disagreeable (at worst) players to make the call on in the moment.

Thing to remember is for the most part, we don't really need this, because most rules questions get sorted out on the forum by the community at large to a relative degree of certainty. This is for those outlier cases when the thread gets to be ten pages long and both sides are arguing in circles.

There are two references for "The Community" being used here, and they're not the same.

Undeadguy, you are using "The community' to involve the Playing General Population of Armada.

The "Community" that is being referenced by other others is simply the Forum Community .

If you're not involved here - not part of the forum community - and a TO in your local community... Then anything we do here isn't even worth squat to you.

But there's no reason why we should not try to foster, improve and provide some direction for our Forum community in the meantime.

But as I said earlier.

This was a stupid Idea and I've been regretting it more and more as moments pass and the private messages hit :/

Lol I'd like to be a fly on the wall of your PM inbox.

the **** you think you are doing man

if you get elected with this then i will spam you ever day with hate

YOURE A REAL ******* TO EVERYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU

Ok, let me rephrase my stance so it is clear.

1. I think this has good intentions.

2. I think this should be a reference for TOs.

3. As some have already said, TOs come to the forums for answers. Even if they do not participate in the forums, they can always do a search for key words. You can see people who aren't registered by looking at the bottom of each page. This means they may not be a part of the online community, but they come here for answers.

4. Selecting a small group of people in the online community to answer card interactions can and likely will influence the global community, as made clear by statement 3

5. I think this group should be made up of TOs, so both the online community and global community can play by the same rules. Sure, a TO doesn't have to agree with it, but at that point it is their call.

6. I am slightly worried about selecting a small group of people because of the ranking they will hold above everyone else. You are now elevating a part of the online community above everyone else to be the real rule lawyers. Dras has already said twice he is getting PMs about this. Armada is supposed to be fun, not stressful.

the **** you think you are doing man

if you get elected with this then i will spam you ever day with hate

YOURE A REAL ******* TO EVERYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH YOU

That's awful, I'm sorry you have to deal with that. But I think this reinforces my point that this is a bad idea because it is already pitting people against our favorite rules guru.