i sent an email back at end of 2016 and just got a response, i know i was involved in several discussions which were very FUN some of you might remember it. So it seems and hopefully it gets FAQ to be very "official" ...

Hello Ben,

Is the red and bold text what Gernes said?

I... very strongly disagree that the rules as currently written support this interpretation, but if that's his answer, that's his answer. Not that I'm in any danger of ever using Snipe again, with a restriction like this in place.

Edit: so then if ship-attacking restrictions apply to Snipe as suggested above, does Heavy alleviate that restriction on Snipe? Or are TIE Bombers effectively escorts against Snipe?

That is how us clowns in our CC ruled it. Score 1 for the clowns.

Most importantly...the FAQ is coming soon...

Just now, CaribbeanNinja said:

Most importantly...the FAQ is coming soon...

Heresy.

*sigh*

Clearly, James Kniffen and Michael Gernes do not see eye to eye on rules matters.

...which does not bode well for the future of Armada.

1 minute ago, DiabloAzul said:

*sigh*

Clearly, James Kniffen and Michael Gernes do not see eye to eye on rules matters.

...which does not bode well for the future of Armada.

Yeah, we've had one or two of these surface before. I think one was the Instigator vs Heavy , iirc.

I don't know, Michael may have a great vision for where the game should go, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it... But it's definitely not the same vision as James', which we do know is good. That is what makes me trepidatious: trading a known good for an unknown.

So...

Fill us all in. What is the deal with Michael and James?

It looks like a good skill (not awesome) become pretty useless for me (not useless but really easy to counter). But if this is the answer so be it.

As imperial I only have saber squadron xD

James is/was a designer. So the rules come out of him and his team.

Michael is the Producer. But Michael is the only point of contact for Rules Responses / FAQs.

Once upon a time, the Rules Responses went to the Design Team through James. But since April 2016 and the Asmodee Merger, that has changed .

Last year, during the transition period, we had a bunch of emails that were originally routed to the Rules Team, that were Answered, but were Duplicated-routed to Michael Gernes (with a long delay - as it was explained ot me)...

Which meant Michael went and ANswered a Question that James had already previously answered via Email. Furthermore, his Answer was the opposite of what James had. The Question was not in the FAQ, so it was only in an Email Answer - but as it was a popular subject - Instigator vs Heavy - we the Rules-Public were very invested in it.

Which prompted a multitude of new questions straight back to Michael. Who answered the next day with, effectively, a "I didn't know James had already answered this one. Mea Culpa, James' answer Stands."

But it opened the can of worms over who has "Rules Precedence" - the Rules Designer, or the Producer. Michael Gernes himself in issuing the mea culpa kind of put the emphasis back on the Games Designer, but effectively, the only time we will hear of the Designer's answers to questions is through the Medium of the Producer who may or may not discuss with them, and may or may not let us know that he's done that rather than on his own.

That's the Gist of it. James used to do it. Now Michael does. Michael's Job is Producer, not Games Designer, but he's the one one who Answers now.

I don't have any kind of insider knowledge or anything, but James--the game designer--is no longer answering email questions, and doesn't seem to be contributing to the FAQ releases (at least according to Dras, it's just Michael working that), effective early last year I believe.

So you have Michael clarifying intent on rules that James wrote; pre-Asmodee, both were doing so. James' answers have pretty consistently been well within RAW, whereas Michael's tend to be more... interpretive.

Which, like I said above, is not to say Michael is necessarily wrong or doing a poor job. From the sounds of it, the man is completely overworked.

All of this is just what I know or think I know, and I could be totally wrong on something here.

My limited understanding is that James basically wrote the original rules, and was lead designer for the core set and the first wave or two. Then when FFG was acquired by Asmodee, the team was reduced and Michael Gernes (the producer ) took over rules duty. There have been a number of instances where emails from the two have contradicted each other.

Every time I've looked at an FFG ruling and thought "wait, this can't be right", it came from Michael.

...ninja'd by Dras.

Edit: ...and by Ard!

2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

Is the red and bold text what Gernes said?

yes that is what he said, my original msg is indented above it slightly.

i don't have insider info like many, honestly i don't care.. i do care deeply about meta of the game, i always thought the way others were interpreting snipe went against the karma of the meta so to speak. the thing i love about armada, is a new player can typically have a good match with good results against even a seasoned player if they are decent at strategy a Tabletop gaming. in our play testing we played Snipe both ways and tended to get better gaming/meta results when it was played as mentioned in the above.

Well Chiraneu just found himself a spot with saber and mauler

Wait for it. Wait for it.

The faq, I mean

Welp, bubye snipe.

Almost makes me want to comb the rules for examples where ignoring the second clause of a sentence totally changes the rule itself.

6 minutes ago, Gowtah said:

Welp, bubye snipe.

Almost makes me want to comb the rules for examples where ignoring the second clause of a sentence totally changes the rule itself.

Like this one?

The players determine their scores [and the player with the highest score wins.]

1 hour ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Like this one?

The players determine their scores [and the player with the highest score wins.]

Pretty sure I did this on the original thread, but way too lazy to go back and find it now.

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

James is/was a designer. So the rules come out of him and his team.

Michael is the Producer. But Michael is the only point of contact for Rules Responses / FAQs.

Once upon a time, the Rules Responses went to the Design Team through James. But since April 2016 and the Asmodee Merger, that has changed .

Last year, during the transition period, we had a bunch of emails that were originally routed to the Rules Team, that were Answered, but were Duplicated-routed to Michael Gernes (with a long delay - as it was explained ot me)...

Which meant Michael went and ANswered a Question that James had already previously answered via Email. Furthermore, his Answer was the opposite of what James had. The Question was not in the FAQ, so it was only in an Email Answer - but as it was a popular subject - Instigator vs Heavy - we the Rules-Public were very invested in it.

Which prompted a multitude of new questions straight back to Michael. Who answered the next day with, effectively, a "I didn't know James had already answered this one. Mea Culpa, James' answer Stands."

But it opened the can of worms over who has "Rules Precedence" - the Rules Designer, or the Producer. Michael Gernes himself in issuing the mea culpa kind of put the emphasis back on the Games Designer, but effectively, the only time we will hear of the Designer's answers to questions is through the Medium of the Producer who may or may not discuss with them, and may or may not let us know that he's done that rather than on his own.

That's the Gist of it. James used to do it. Now Michael does. Michael's Job is Producer, not Games Designer, but he's the one one who Answers now.

The fact that someone claiming that there is a "Rules Precedence" is someone looking for a reason to argue. A producer's job it to manage the project and ensure that communication happens. Michael is trying to ensure that James' time is focused on game design tasks and issues and in good faith is doing his best to not bother James with outside issues. In the case you mentioned Michael said that James' answer stands. I'm sure if Michael makes an error that it will get adjusted in the future by James. None of this sounds unreasonable and is the normal flow of game development. I think the better thing to look at is that James time is now freed up to focus on the design and come up with new cool things for us to play with instead of sitting at a screen and just answering rules questions all day.

1 minute ago, whiteferret76 said:

The fact that someone claiming that there is a "Rules Precedence" is someone looking for a reason to argue. A producer's job it to manage the project and ensure that communication happens. Michael is trying to ensure that James' time is focused on game design tasks and issues and in good faith is doing his best to not bother James with outside issues. In the case you mentioned Michael said that James' answer stands. I'm sure if Michael makes an error that it will get adjusted in the future by James. None of this sounds unreasonable and is the normal flow of game development. I think the better thing to look at is that James time is now freed up to focus on the design and come up with new cool things for us to play with instead of sitting at a screen and just answering rules questions all day.

That is an ideal way of looking at it, yes.

But that is not the impression of how it is actually working, in my discussions behind-the-scenes.

I may be wrong. I often am. And on this, I kinda do hope I'm wrong. But I can only report what I know.

4 minutes ago, whiteferret76 said:

The fact that someone claiming that there is a "Rules Precedence" is someone looking for a reason to argue.

Sooo... if you get two opposite answers from two different dudes representing the same organization, how do you decide which is right? As, say, a TO.

5 hours ago, thanosazlin said:

i sent an email back at end of 2016 and just got a response, i know i was involved in several discussions which were very FUN some of you might remember it. So it seems and hopefully it gets FAQ to be very "official" ...

Hello Ben,

In response to your question:

I have been play testing the new squads with my local group using proxy of course. question regarding the new Snipe ability. see this image for my example please. http://i.imgur.com/UdlNFWJ.jpg in this image, can the interceptor (proxy for Sabre squad with Snipe) attack the Awing at all? might be a bad example as i used an Xwing, and escort would come into play. if you can let's say both in the pic were Awings. would the Sabre/interceptor proxy be able to attack the Awing at distance 2 using Snipe or MUST he attack the Awing in distance 1 since they are engaged? there is quite a bit of discussion and disagreement on the Forums about whether or not the squad with snipe can ignore squads in distance one and go for squads at distance 2?? thanks

When a squadron attacks, it must attack an engaged squadron if possible rather than an enemy ship (Rules Reference, p6, Engagement). So, setting aside Escort, Sabre Squadron can still only attack the squadron that it is engaged with while it is engaged. If Sabre Squadron is unengaged, it can perform a Snipe attack.

To return to the Escort portion of your question, if Sabre Squadron is unengaged and at distance 2 of both the A-wing and an X-wing, it can attack either of those squadrons. This is because Escort depends on engagement to affect another squadron, and Sabre Squadron is not engaged with the X-wing.

Thanks for your question and your patience on my response!

Michael Gernes

That makes sense. Thanks for the update!