1 hour ago, Amraam01 said:

... the Judge/Marshal should only refer to official FAQ's to cite for making a ruling...

Why? It's not illegal for them to refer to a forum. Hell, it isn't even illegal for a player use third party resources outside of a match.

This appears to be a situation like this where a rules interaction is being discussed outside of an event. This is exactly when the TO should be hitting these forums, Reddit, BGG, or wherever else to figure out how he should rule on situations that have come up that they were uncertain about or feel may come up. Maybe I'm missing some context but this looks like a player trying to clear something up in advance of it becoming an issue during an event.

5 hours ago, WWHSD said:

Why? It's not illegal for them to refer to a forum. Hell, it isn't even illegal for a player use third party resources outside of a match.

This appears to be a situation like this where a rules interaction is being discussed outside of an event. This is exactly when the TO should be hitting these forums, Reddit, BGG, or wherever else to figure out how he should rule on situations that have come up that they were uncertain about or feel may come up. Maybe I'm missing some context but this looks like a player trying to clear something up in advance of it becoming an issue during an event.

This is correct.

I played this list during casual games, someone had an issue with the way kanans ability worked, I explained the exact same way I have been. TO got involved saying no, that doesn't work, which led to the whole thing.

To be honest, I'm not surprised he's digging his heels in.

Using abuse is hardly likely to illicit a reasoned response.

He is merely incorrect.

We all make mistakes from time to time, especially now that the card pool is much bigger than it used to be.

There could also be a language barrier between the cards and the TO. Do we know that he is using English language cards? Do we know that his first language is English?

Some of you need to cool your jets a little if you really want to help.

To the TO in question:

You have had the correct ruling given here by experienced players and fellow TO's (Kanan can affect *any* *enemy* ship that is *attacking at R1 or R2*, regardless if he is the defender or not).

I would recommend you heed their advice.

On 3/9/2017 at 1:13 AM, WWHSD said:

Why? It's not illegal for them to refer to a forum. Hell, it isn't even illegal for a player use third party resources outside of a match.

This appears to be a situation like this where a rules interaction is being discussed outside of an event. This is exactly when the TO should be hitting these forums, Reddit, BGG, or wherever else to figure out how he should rule on situations that have come up that they were uncertain about or feel may come up. Maybe I'm missing some context but this looks like a player trying to clear something up in advance of it becoming an issue during an event.

It's not 'illegal' no.

However TO's are supposed to have an in depth knowledge of the rules and apply those rules impartially.

Our freedom to apply our own rulings only extends to those interactions that cannot be resolved by the existing official rules docs.

The forums are not official rules docs.

This interaction is covered by the existing rules docs, and completely unambiguously.

The TO is in error.

While I am new to the game, I have played against it and have asked other locals at my store if it was correct the first time I saw the list. It also might not be popular to say so, but your TO might not be completely wrong, The wording “When an enemy ship at Range 1-2 is attacking” is a specification of range and does not technically override the rule that you cannot use ship ability on other ships unless it specifies otherwise. It says you can use his ability on an enemy ship at range 1-2 which means not 3-4-5. It is vague on who the target if the attack has to be. So I can understand who both conclusions could be drawn. Just because some people think differently does not make them wrong. And there are a lot of rather rude, and insulting comments about people it appears none of you know. Things are not always black and white. If they were we would not need a FAQ that Pissed off nearly half the people playing this game.

The word “you” on a Ship card refers to the corresponding ship. Abilities on Ship cards cannot affect other ships unless the ability specifies otherwise. Could be applied to this card, as it does not specifically give a target of the Attack.

It is not vague.

The word 'you' is defined in the rules reference as meaning the ship that the ability or upgrade card is on.

That rule that the TO has quoted is relevant only to the spending of the focus. Kanan cannot get someone else to spend the focus to trigger his effect (unless a card overrides this: see Esege Tuteku).

The golden rule (also defined in the rules reference) also debunks his argument, though it is not necessary to invoke it: "Card abilities can override the rules listed in this guide."

Lets step thru the Kanan text:

"When an enemy ship at Range 1-2 is attacking," (This bit describes the conditions that must be met in order for the effect to be triggered, it only states the enemy must be attacking, and be at r1 or r2. It cares nothing for what or who the enemy is attacking. This part also identifies the enemy in question for the effect)

"you (Kanan) may spend a focus token." (This is the cost that must be paid to trigger the effect. Only Kanan is allowed to spend a focus token to trigger his effect. We'll not go into Esege Tuteku here)

"If you (Kanan) do, the attacker (identified earlier) rolls 1 fewer attack die." (This is the actual effect. Again, nothing here that says the identified attacker must be attacking Kanan).

If he needs any further persuading, I can invite him to a TO group on facebook where he will be told the exact same thing by over a hundred TO's, including TO's that run or are involved in judging of: The Stele open, The FFG open series, FFG Nationals, and FFG regionals, accross the globe.

He just has to PM me (here) his facebook name.

13 minutes ago, XwingN00b said:

While I am new to the game, I have played against it and have asked other locals at my store if it was correct the first time I saw the list. It also might not be popular to say so, but your TO might not be completely wrong, The wording “When an enemy ship at Range 1-2 is attacking” is a specification of range and does not technically override the rule that you cannot use ship ability on other ships unless it specifies otherwise. It says you can use his ability on an enemy ship at range 1-2 which means not 3-4-5. It is vague on who the target if the attack has to be. So I can understand who both conclusions could be drawn. Just because some people think differently does not make them wrong. And there are a lot of rather rude, and insulting comments about people it appears none of you know. Things are not always black and white. If they were we would not need a FAQ that Pissed off nearly half the people playing this game.

The word “you” on a Ship card refers to the corresponding ship. Abilities on Ship cards cannot affect other ships unless the ability specifies otherwise. Could be applied to this card, as it does not specifically give a target of the Attack.

This one is about as "black and white" as they come. Kanan's ability does specify another ship, the attacking enemy at Range 1-2 . The TO in question is making an incorrect assumption that Kanan must be the target, but the card does not specify any target, let alone Kanan. So we follow the standard of "do what the card says, not what it doesn't".

It's a very simple yes/no process.

1. Is an enemy attacking? Yes / No
2. Is the enemy within Range 1-2? Yes / No
3. Does the card specify " when defending... " or " when you are being attacked... " which would determine who the defender is? Yes / No
4. All appropriate triggers have been met, so the attacker loses 1 attack die.

8 hours ago, XwingN00b said:

your TO might not be completely wrong

He is completly wrong. Trust us. And is stubborn to the point that when bazillion of guys confirm it , he does not have the guts to respond.

It's Bizzare that he's held out so long. Tough to step down now though I think, hard to do it with humility, particularly because some of the vitriol thrown his way.

I hope he does though and doesn't get too much **** for it.

46 minutes ago, Goseki1 said:

I hope he does though and doesn't get too much **** for it.

If he steps forward and say "hey i fugged up with this ruling - sorry" - i guess no harsh word will be thrown at him from that point on.

But if he finally will speak and still try to justify bad ruling...then god have mercy on that poor soul, when whole fury of this forum will be upon him

Well boys, we can finally put this to rest...

5 hours ago, Vitalis said:

If he steps forward and say "hey i fugged up with this ruling - sorry" - i guess no harsh word will be thrown at him from that point on.

But if he finally will speak and still try to justify bad ruling...then god have mercy on that poor soul, when whole fury of this forum will be upon him

When i posted the response i got from FFG, he said this...

TO: " No s**t Sherlock, I have been telling people that you were, Just not you, cause I was TROLLING you, as i had said in the post. Which is also 1 of the reasons i never posted on FFG's forms. "

to which I replied " Whatever you have to say to keep yourself from sounding like a fool posting on here. It's cool. I get it."

55 minutes ago, The Law said:

When i posted the response i got from FFG, he said this...

TO: " No s**t Sherlock, I have been telling people that you were, Just not you, cause I was TROLLING you, as i had said in the post. Which is also 1 of the reasons i never posted on FFG's forms. "

to which I replied " Whatever you have to say to keep yourself from sounding like a fool posting on here. It's cool. I get it."

Boy, he got you good. You thought he was being a jerk, but actually , he was being a slightly different kind of jerk!

That's.... Incredible.

No, that's a dude with issues.

Lol I went to find the original article explaining how Kanan works as some ammo for you, but no surprise, the article seems to believe he only works on Kanan himself as well. Typical FFG article.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/12/11/lothal-rebels-part-two/

1 minute ago, Kdubb said:

Lol I went to find the original article explaining how Kanan works as some ammo for you, but no surprise, the article seems to believe he only works on Kanan himself as well. Typical FFG article.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/12/11/lothal-rebels-part-two/

The fact that the FFG article gives the impression that Kanan can only use his ability when he's the ship defending is almost solid evidence that Kanan can use his ability no matter who is getting attacked.

8 hours ago, The Law said:

When i posted the response i got from FFG, he said this...

TO: " No s**t Sherlock, I have been telling people that you were, Just not you, cause I was TROLLING you, as i had said in the post. Which is also 1 of the reasons i never posted on FFG's forms. "

to which I replied " Whatever you have to say to keep yourself from sounding like a fool posting on here. It's cool. I get it."

Unbelievable...

Also, he hasn't prevented himself from sounding like a fool; the exact opposite in fact. I am reminded of that old saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

9 hours ago, The Law said:

When i posted the response i got from FFG, he said this...

TO: " No s**t Sherlock, I have been telling people that you were, Just not you, cause I was TROLLING you, as i had said in the post. Which is also 1 of the reasons i never posted on FFG's forms. "

to which I replied " Whatever you have to say to keep yourself from sounding like a fool posting on here. It's cool. I get it."

Most feeble trolling attempt ever.

What's the name of the TO? I used to play in that area and those guys for some reason will not let incorrect rulings go, I took a break from the game when they all tried to tell me you had to spend TLs to fire Homing Missiles because "that's how all missiles work, that's clearly a typo".

On 3/10/2017 at 7:14 PM, The Law said:

When i posted the response i got from FFG, he said this...

TO: " No s**t Sherlock, I have been telling people that you were, Just not you, cause I was TROLLING you, as i had said in the post. Which is also 1 of the reasons i never posted on FFG's forms. "

to which I replied " Whatever you have to say to keep yourself from sounding like a fool posting on here. It's cool. I get it."

This guy seriously deserves smack in a face.

34 minutes ago, Vitalis said:

This guy seriously deserves smack in a face.

No, he's not worth the effort.

His "trolling" was just a feeble attempt to cover his own ineptitude and ignorance in the face of overwhelming logic.

On 12/03/2017 at 4:55 AM, Tvboy said:

What's the name of the TO? I used to play in that area and those guys for some reason will not let incorrect rulings go, I took a break from the game when they all tried to tell me you had to spend TLs to fire Homing Missiles because "that's how all missiles work, that's clearly a typo".

This is incredible as well

"2+2=5"

Actually it's 4.

"LOLOLOLOLOL I TROLL YOU!"

Uh okay, well that makes you either the most insecure whiner about a silly mistake ever attempting to cover as a troll, or the worst troll ever. Either way, dude get some help.

Seriously, if you have more than one option for tournament play then I would strongly suggest not playing in a tournament organised by this muppet. I would also encourage others to do the same. The person in question should be allowed to run a bath let alone a tournament.