41 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Because nothing "Wrong" has been done here.

Its an irresponsible use of the powers given to him, whether it's in his end or FFG's end (by that I mean that FFG May may have told him to rule it that way because that was how they want the rule to work).

If it's on FFG's end it really doesn't take that long to put a post up, or to edit the FAQ/Errata file and out put a new one up to solve the issue, using a Tournement official as a means of releasing FAQ information is not how things should work.

If it's on in his end he should stick to RAW as much as possible where RAW is as clear as it is in this instance and leave larger rules changes to the FAQ/Errata section.

Another problem with playing RAI is that most gamers over here in England have never heard of NoVa or its tournament Marshall, let alone his interpretation of the rules. They probably barely, if ever, look at the FFG forums. I dare say the same holds true for Europe and most of the USA. So as a result you get a small proportion of tournament gamers playing one way whilst the rest of the community play a different way. At least if we stick to RAW everyone is "singing from the same hymn sheet". Personally I'm sticking to RAW until FFG tell us different, which frankly and no disrespect intended to the gentleman, other than the word of somebody on the internet 3,000 miles or so away, I have no reason to believe they will and see no sign that they are going to.

As far as I can see the rules are clear, if Sloane's fighter flips a defence token to red by spending an Accuracy that token can't be spent again during that attack. The only way to spend it a second time would be to use ECM. If FFG didn't mean this it would take what? Half a day to produce an FAQ to say what they DID intend? Yet they are silent.

4 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

Another problem with playing RAI is that most gamers over here in England have never heard of NoVa or its tournament Marshall, let alone his interpretation of the rules. They probably barely, if ever, look at the FFG forums. I dare say the same holds true for Europe and most of the USA. So as a result you get a small proportion of tournament gamers playing one way whilst the rest of the community play a different way. At least if we stick to RAW everyone is "singing from the same hymn sheet". Personally I'm sticking to RAW until FFG tell us different, which frankly and no disrespect intended to the gentleman, other than the word of somebody on the internet 3,000 miles or so away, I have no reason to believe they will and see no sign that they are going to.

This is inflating the issue somewhat...

The Ruling stands for the tournament that the ruling has been made for .

So if they don't look at the issue? No Problem . They're not going to be involved with it.

Trust me, no one is saying that you should play this way all the time... You know why? because when someone even floated the issue of maybe trying to get some unofficial guys together to provide advice on that very subject....

Not only did the suggester get abuse, but those people they personally thought might be good to be involved also got abuse.

If any other Marshal decides to rule this way, that's on those other Marshals. This sets no precedence or requirement for anyone to take it.

Having a "We stick to RAW" statement is cool and all... But the flipside of that, is at times, RAW is just as murky... As RLBs pointed out to us... There will be times where people are playing different interpretations ...

That will happen.

Where it shouldn't happen, is where you add ' at the same tournament... "

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Having a "We stick to RAW" statement is cool and all... But the flipside of that, is at times, RAW is just as murky... As RLBs pointed out to us... There will be times where people are playing different interpretations ...

...and when the RAW are murky is when the Marshal should step it an make a statement on which interpretation they are going with. Except that isn't what the Marshal did in this instance. The Marshal took a rule that was perfectly clear as it was written and decided to change it. That, IMO, is overstepping the duties of a Marshal. It may lead to confusion and frustration at the event for players who may not have seen the change. It has most certainly caused confusion and frustration on the forums already. It may even have some players who were considering going to NoVa now considering not going. The last thing a company should want is less people playing their game. I'm not saying that is exactly what's going on, or that this call is going to sink Armada as a game, but it certainly isn't helping.

10 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

...and when the RAW are murky is when the Marshal should step it an make a statement on which interpretation they are going with. Except that isn't what the Marshal did in this instance. The Marshal took a rule that was perfectly clear as it was written and decided to change it. That, IMO, is overstepping the duties of a Marshal. It may lead to confusion and frustration at the event for players who may not have seen the change. It has most certainly caused confusion and frustration on the forums already. It may even have some players who were considering going to NoVa now considering not going. The last thing a company should want is less people playing their game. I'm not saying that is exactly what's going on, or that this call is going to sink Armada as a game, but it certainly isn't helping.

Well.

In this case, if your Advocation is "RAW and RAW only", the Ruling that was going to be used was worse before he stepped in...

Enlighten me as to the other ruling that was 'worse'.

3 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

Enlighten me as to the other ruling that was 'worse'.

When Sloane spends the Token, it generates its effect. Automatically.

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

When Sloane spends the Token, it generates its effect. Automatically.

"Defense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token
does not produce its normal effect."

So, that ruling wouldn't be RAW either.

Just now, Archangelion said:

"Defense tokens can be spent as part of a cost for upgrade card effects. If spent in this way, a defense token
does not produce its normal effect."

So, that ruling wouldn't be RAW either.

Yep.

But it had its advocates and stand-by-ers, regardless...

Worse because its not grounded in any RAW or even believable as RAI.

Messages were sent to FFG over it.

The Result of that is that there is a new Ruling.

I still disagree with it, but hey

The defender can only get the benefit of the token if HE spends it. So how the TO could think Sloane's fighter spending the token generated any benefit for the defender is a little puzzling. But to me no more puzzling than disregarding the quite clear rule that a token can only be spent once during an attack. Still, he clearly had the authority to do this from FFG and speaking as a grown (51 years old) man I find the talk of people getting abused over games of plastic spaceships somewhat worrying!

2 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

The defender can only get the benefit of the token if HE spends it. So how the TO could think Sloane's fighter spending the token generated any benefit for the defender is a little puzzling. But to me no more puzzling than disregarding the quite clear rule that a token can only be spent once during an attack. Still, he clearly had the authority to do this from FFG and speaking as a grown (51 years old) man I find the talk of people getting abused over games of plastic spaceships somewhat worrying!

Eh, worry less.

I'm less "People" and more "Rules Monkey" anyway

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Eh, worry less.

I'm less "People" and more "Rules Monkey" anyway

Yeah maybe "worrying" was the wrong word. "Perplexing" would have been better. That said, anyone who finds these rules complicated has never seen Empire Napoleonic rules or DBMM for Ancients. Pass the Ibuprofen!

1 hour ago, Bolshevik65 said:

The only way to spend it a second time would be to use ECM.

Actually, ECM doesn't apply.

ECM applies to tokens that were targeted by an accuracy result. Sloane exhausts the token herself, and does not involve targeting the token with the accuracy result.

8 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Actually, ECM doesn't apply.

ECM applies to tokens that were targeted by an accuracy result. Sloane exhausts the token herself, and does not involve targeting the token with the accuracy result.

The fighter exhausts the token, not Sloane. It spends an Accuracy to choose a token in the same way that regular Accuracy does. Compare the wording in the Attack part of the rules with that of Sloane's ability. I don't know about you but I can see no difference.

1 minute ago, Bolshevik65 said:

The fighter exhausts the token, not Sloane.

Correct, I didn't spell out the full explanation. Fighter rolls the accuracy, Sloane grants the squadron the ability to spend the die, squadron spends die to choose and spend a defense token. At no point does the opponent target the token with an accuracy result, so ECM does not apply.

1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

Correct, I didn't spell out the full explanation. Fighter rolls the accuracy, Sloane grants the squadron the ability to spend the die, squadron spends die to choose and spend a defense token. At no point does the opponent target the token with an accuracy result, so ECM does not apply.

Not wishing to sound argumentative but in what way is spending the Accuracy to select and exhaust a token not targeting it? Where is the difference between that and the normal use of Accuracy? I can see none.

Sorry, wrestling with a toddler. I'll circle back later if it's not resolved by then.

Sure, there is actually a three page thread on this somewhere. It never did get resolved. Can't help thinking FFG dropped the ball a bit on Sloane.

4 minutes ago, Bolshevik65 said:

Not wishing to sound argumentative but in what way is spending the Accuracy to select and exhaust a token not targeting it? Where is the difference between that and the normal use of Accuracy? I can see none.

Because the fighter is spending the die's result as payment towards the activation of an upgrade card's special ability to target the defense token, not using the die's result to target the defense token.

1 minute ago, Archangelion said:

Because the fighter is spending the die's result as payment towards the activation of an upgrade card's special ability to target the defense token, not using the die's result to target the defense token.

OK I can just about see the difference there. I think it would be very hard to explain to an opponent though and I can see a TO ruling the other way. Even if my view isn't correct I don't feel it's illogical. It did come up on a thread a few days ago and it was never resolved.

1 minute ago, Bolshevik65 said:

OK I can just about see the difference there. I think it would be very hard to explain to an opponent though and I can see a TO ruling the other way. Even if my view isn't correct I don't feel it's illogical. It did come up on a thread a few days ago and it was never resolved.

That's just how I read it. That there is a disconnect between the die result and the effect on the defense token. I'm sure there are people that will disagree with me.

8 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

That's just how I read it. That there is a disconnect between the die result and the effect on the defense token. I'm sure there are people that will disagree with me.

If I understand you correctly you are saying the fighter spends the Accuracy icon (COST) to buy the ability to choose and spend an opponent's defence token (UPGRADE ABILITY) whereas in the normal rules the Accuracy icon directly targets the token but is circumvented by ECM. Do I have that right?

That's pretty much what I'm saying yes.

I don't know; I think you need more solid arguments than that, because the rules don't seem to support it:

Spend Accuracy Icons (RRG p.2) : the attacker can spend one or more of its <Acc> icons to choose the same number of the defender’s defense tokens. The chosen tokens cannot be spent during this attack.

Admiral Sloane : [the attacker] may spend 1 die with an <Acc> icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens.

The way I see it, the wording is virtually* the same: both effects "target" a token "with an accuracy result" in the exact same way. If the RAW interpretation of Sloane is followed (i.e. tokens spent by her cannot be spent by the defender) I'd think ECM would work against her.

*: the difference between spending "an <Acc> icon" and spending "a die with an <Acc> icon" does not appear significant here.

10 hours ago, Archangelion said:

You do not know 100% what the person who wrote the rules was thinking. You do know 100% what that person wrote word for word.

Word for word

"Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend
Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects
described below :

• A defense token cannot be spent more than once during
an attack."

A colon is used in conjunction with a bullet as written. Are you saying that RAW means we literally ignore how a colon is used in writing and just read the bullet by itself?

To me if the colon wasnt used, then there would be grounds for a RAW/RAI argument.