1 hour ago, slasher956 said:

If they wanted it to be what people are currently calling RAI then why wasnt it worded "spend one <accuracy icon> to exhaust or discard* a defence token"?

Same result, utilising keywords already in the rules and no confusion as to if the defender can spend defence tokens.

*discard can only be done on exhausted tokens as per the rules so you cant get people trying to discard readied tokens

Your last point is incorrect.

Discard can be done on any token. At any time. It means you discard the token and return it to the supply, as defined in the rules. The Token does not need to be Exhausted for that to happen. Take admonition for Example... Admonition is perfectly capable of taking an Un-Exhausted Token (say, a Green Evade at Close Range) and Discarding it with its ability to remove a die from the enemy attack pool.

The mechanic that says "If it is Readied, Exhaust it... If it is Exhausted, Discard it" IS Spend.

Unless you write it out in full like that.

"You may spend an ACC result to cause a readied defese token to become exhausted, or an exhausted defense token to become discarded."
is a lot wordier than
"You may spend an ACC to spend a defense token"

In this typefont, its more than twice as long. Almost 3 times.

Which simply leads us to there potentially not being room on the card for it.

@Drasnighta fair point

6 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Not sure. I read this thread time ago. How allowing the defender to spend the targeted defense token is supported by RAW? I have a bad memory.

Refer to Green Knights response below.

6 hours ago, Green Knight said:

There are multiple (i.e. more than one) way of reading RAW:

1. The section about defense tokens refers to the DEFENDER'S use of defense tokens. The bullet points reflect that, so even if a bullet point doesn't specify "defender", we're still talking defender only.

DEFENSE TOKENS (p. 4)

Ships and unique squadrons gain the defense tokens indicated on their ship and squadron cards during setup and place them next to their corresponding cards. Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects described below:

This means that whatever Sloane (or any future upgrade similarly worded) does is irrelevant for the purpose of this section of the rules. It's only about the defender's use of his own tokens.

Ergo, the defender CAN spend a red token that's just been spent by Sloane.

2. Conversely "Team Pink" thinks that the second to last bullet point should be taken literally:

• The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the previous bullet point specifics "defender only", while this one doesn't. In this case it's the speed 0 rule. Meaning the defender can't spend tokens - but Sloan theoretically could.

Ergo, the defender CANNOT spend a token Sloane just spent.

Yeah, i just find it funny that "Team Pink" are calling it 'clear as day' when scenario 1 is clear also!

Under a 'literal' reading, Team Pink is clear as day.

Under a 'holistic' reading, Team Aqua is probably implied .

I'm inclined to believe that when the particular passage of the rules was written, FFG had only the defender in mind, and so their intention is/was that the stated limitation only applies to prevent the defender from spending their own token twice in succession (e.g. to brace an attack to 1/4 of the original damage). I also believe that the reason this bullet point is worded slightly different from the previous one is simply so that it reads better, and no difference in actual meaning was intended. In short, Team Aqua is probably RAI.

However, that's simply not what the rules actually say . Team Pink is quite clearly RAW.

6 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Refer to Green Knights response below.

Yeah, i just find it funny that "Team Pink" are calling it 'clear as day' when scenario 1 is clear also!

I suppose they say it cause...

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

Here is where what follows is supposed to apply only to defender but it says the effects and...

"• Defense tokens begin the game on their readied side. When a readied defense token is spent, it is flipped to its exhausted side. When an exhausted defense token is spent, it is discarded.
• If the defender’s speed is “0,” it cannot spend defense tokens.
• The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.
• A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack.
• 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."

Those points are clearly not effects.

I really don't care too much. As far I can see if the defender is allowed Sloane becomes even better. This way the defender could loose the token with a single attack and the next attacks don't need to worry about the token, just damage. Yes the defender could choose but the alternative is, in fact, the first interpretation of Sloane so no difference.

In other words:

If I roll 1 accuracy and no damage or low damage, if you chose to not spend the spent token it is fine. It is what I actually do. If you spend it is even better.

If I roll 1 accuracy and a lor of damage I still can choose if Sloane or not but if I do you have to burn the token so my next attacks doesn't need accuracy anymore. If you don't use then we are again in the "current" Sloane.

So yes I will be happy if the faq allow the defender to spend the token. As I said at least as I see it.

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Your last point is incorrect.

Discard can be done on any token. At any time. It means you discard the token and return it to the supply, as defined in the rules. The Token does not need to be Exhausted for that to happen. Take admonition for Example... Admonition is perfectly capable of taking an Un-Exhausted Token (say, a Green Evade at Close Range) and Discarding it with its ability to remove a die from the enemy attack pool.

The mechanic that says "If it is Readied, Exhaust it... If it is Exhausted, Discard it" IS Spend.

Unless you write it out in full like that.

"You may spend an ACC result to cause a readied defese token to become exhausted, or an exhausted defense token to become discarded."
is a lot wordier than
"You may spend an ACC to spend a defense token"

In this typefont, its more than twice as long. Almost 3 times.

Which simply leads us to there potentially not being room on the card for it.

Or you say "You may spend an Acc to spend a defense token in addition to its normal effect."

And the font size from RLB and Sloane is different. There is no reason FFG could not have made the card clearer.

AAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!..........my head hurts.

1 hour ago, Darth Lupine said:

AAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!..........my head hurts.

You'll only have to wait like half a year or something for it to be FAQed

4 hours ago, Green Knight said:

You'll only have to wait like half a year or something for it to be FAQed

How much is the record of wait? I forgot

9 hours ago, ovinomanc3r said:

I suppose they say it cause...

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

Here is where what follows is supposed to apply only to defender but it says the effects and...

"• Defense tokens begin the game on their readied side. When a readied defense token is spent, it is flipped to its exhausted side. When an exhausted defense token is spent, it is discarded.
• If the defender’s speed is “0,” it cannot spend defense tokens.
• The defender cannot spend more than one defense token of each type per attack.
• A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack.
• 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."

Those points are clearly not effects.

I really don't care too much. As far I can see if the defender is allowed Sloane becomes even better. This way the defender could loose the token with a single attack and the next attacks don't need to worry about the token, just damage. Yes the defender could choose but the alternative is, in fact, the first interpretation of Sloane so no difference.

In other words:

If I roll 1 accuracy and no damage or low damage, if you chose to not spend the spent token it is fine. It is what I actually do. If you spend it is even better.

If I roll 1 accuracy and a lor of damage I still can choose if Sloane or not but if I do you have to burn the token so my next attacks doesn't need accuracy anymore. If you don't use then we are again in the "current" Sloane.

So yes I will be happy if the faq allow the defender to spend the token. As I said at least as I see it.

Not saying that you are wrong or the RAI/RAW is right.

All im saying is there is clearly two ways of interpreting it as GK pointed out and therefore the claim of one of the interpretations being 'clear as day' is incorrect.

6 hours ago, Irokenics said:

Not saying that you are wrong or the RAI/RAW is right.

All im saying is there is clearly two ways of interpreting it as GK pointed out and therefore the claim of one of the interpretations being 'clear as day' is incorrect.

16 hours ago, DiabloAzul said:

Under a 'literal' reading, Team Pink is clear as day.

Under a 'holistic' reading, Team Aqua is probably implied .

I'm inclined to believe that when the particular passage of the rules was written, FFG had only the defender in mind, and so their intention is/was that the stated limitation only applies to prevent the defender from spending their own token twice in succession (e.g. to brace an attack to 1/4 of the original damage). I also believe that the reason this bullet point is worded slightly different from the previous one is simply so that it reads better, and no difference in actual meaning was intended. In short, Team Aqua is probably RAI.

However, that's simply not what the rules actually say . Team Pink is quite clearly RAW.

Just to apply the line of thought to a different example, depending on whether the mentioned Defense Tokens section in the RRG applies only to the defender or not:

TRC+Vader reroll.

Impossible with the same token according to "Team Pink" ruling (No token can be spent twice during one attack), but possible with "Team Aqua" (As the above rule applies to the defender only)?

On 01/08/2017 at 8:01 PM, Irokenics said:

Not saying that you are wrong or the RAI/RAW is right.

All im saying is there is clearly two ways of interpreting it as GK pointed out and therefore the claim of one of the interpretations being 'clear as day' is incorrect.

There are two ways to interpret the rules of a game. RAW is the clearest. RAI is the foggiest.

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.

As an individual playing the game generally doesn't have the individual who wrote the game on hand to ask what they are thinking the best bet for a person playing is to go by what is written.

It is also the best bet to assume that your opponent is also going to be doing the same thing, or should be, as they have no actual proof of RAI without the author there to concern RAI.

57 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

As an individual playing the game generally doesn't have the individual who wrote the game on hand to ask what they are thinking the best bet for a person playing is to go by what is written.

Addressing the above point only:

But what if they do?

What if they are about to factor in and marshal a major tournament, and they do have access to the designer, and they have made a ruling based on that access?

Wouldn't that make RAI as important?

28 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Addressing the above point only:

But what if they do?

What if they are about to factor in and marshal a major tournament, and they do have access to the designer, and they have made a ruling based on that access?

Wouldn't that make RAI as important?

And here we go.

Has the person stated so unequivocally? No. Has an official FAQ been posted? No.

So, all it is then, is a persons OPINION. It may be informed by talks by the designers, but WE don't know that, or have any proof.

Mind Dras, in this particular debate, after studying the rules and looking at both sides, I'm trending to side with the Marshall in his interpretation. I still DO NOT agree with the way it's being enforced or presented. If indeed there was comms with the developers on this, it would have taken less than ten minutes for them to post a quick article clarifying this.

1 minute ago, Darth Lupine said:

Mind Dras, in this particular debate, after studying the rules and looking at both sides, I'm trending to side with the Marshall in his interpretation. I still DO NOT agree with the way it's being enforced or presented. If indeed there was comms with the developers on this, it would have taken less than ten minutes for them to post a quick article clarifying this.

'cept of course, specifics coming out and/or back-door dropped articles? That's illegal unless specifically approved by upper management, and upper management is slow and reluctant to do so. That's merely one of the reasons why we get disconnects between Rules and what we're presented in the Presentation Articles - there's no direct feedback loop between Armada designers, and the Playing Public, unless a special effort is put in place, it seems.

From what I understand (and what I can piece together), is that they want to Empower their Marshals to make those decisions on their own , so their own direct oversight is limited. It costs less that way. (Magic, for example, hasn't had the smoothest ride of Official Judgedom, after all, with a group of them Suing for Backpay after it was determined they weren't really true volunteers )

I mean, its conjecture either way.

You know me, I'm 100% RAW oriented. When my opinion is asked on a rule interpretation, my interpretation is 100% RAW based. Because that's what I can interpret in front of me. So that's what I do. When I'm a player, and when I'm a Marshal.

In the end: A Player's acceptance with the decision is all that is required. Because the Marshal is empowered to do so. On a whim.

My decisions on the matter have been made - and I put them in place for the tournaments that I look out for - even so much as to formalise decisions for the Vassal Tournaments at those marshal's requests...

The Rule is the Rule , and the Rule is what the Marshal says it is.

Do I in essence agree with that idea? No, not exactly... There's a lot of things that would be done different if I were writing the rules or the Tournament Regulations and things like that - but in the end, that's not for me to say.

We Can (and should) Debate the Merits of ruling a rule one way or another - and that's what these threads are for. I'm not calling out anyone who is debating the actual status of the rule... That's their prerogative. I have my position and of course, will keep making statements of my position from my position as I desire, as I expect others to do in a respectful manner.

But the Marshal's Authority is Granted by FFG to Rule in Rules Disputes, as they see fit .

And it applies to their Tournament, and their tournament alone, as that is where their Authority is invested.

If a Marshal is going to change their mind on a rule, its not because they've been "called out", "shouted down", "dictated to" or "shown the rule for the 30th time"...

Marshal

An event may have any number of marshals, including none. A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament. A marshal also determines if unsporting conduct has occurred and what the appropriate remedy is, referring any recommendations for disqualification to the organizer. When a marshal is not actively performing his or her duties, he or she is a spectator and should communicate this change in status clearly.

I have a few other copy pastes, which should also be made aware of, because these are part of the general spirit and agreement you have to play in FFG OP Events:

Unsporting Conduct

FFG OP exists to create a fair, safe, and inclusive environment for all participants. Unsporting conduct violates one or more of these elements which are critical to the integrity of an event. Intentional or habitual violations of event integrity could result in investigation, pursuant to the FFG Organized Play Participant Suspension Policy. The marshal role holds the responsibility of being the final authority on whether unsporting conduct has occurred. The organizer is responsible for determining whether the unsporting conduct was severe enough to warrant disqualification of a participant. Unsporting conduct is not limited to occurrences which happen during an event. It can extend to the time before and after the event, as well as digital spaces.

Unsporting behavior includes:

• Cheating

• Collusion

• Bribery

• Stalling

• Behaving in a manner which could be interpreted by a reasonable person as bullying, harassment, belligerent, stalking, vulgar, obscene, threatening, or hurtful

• Knowingly lying to an event leader

• Encroaching on a participant’s personal privacy or safety

• Purposely violating other behavior guidelines at a venue

• Repeatedly refusing to abide by the instructions of an event leader

The Marshal has been given a lot of "power" there .

The Check on their power is not so much here - but lies with FFG. And the only way you are going to get them the details they need to act on something that is against both the spirit and the letter of the rules is to follow the guidelines and write up an event report, and provide official feedback.

In Short. There are issues of Trust here. People who continue to argue with the decision (once it was made) are showing a lack of trust and belief of integrity in the Leadership of a Major tournament. That's the most disappointing part of this. People are refusing to trust for whatever their own personal reason - but if you cannot trust the event leadership a month out, then you cannot trust their integrity during a tournament, and you probably should not play.

I mean, you said it yourself.

but WE don't know that, or have any proof.

My answer is, "So?"

He's not required to provide any.

As it is, as players, we've already gotten much more justification and discussion on the matter than required.

Do I agree with the Ruling? No, I don't. And I've told the Marshal as such - multiple times, when it was discussed or my opinion was canvassed. But its his decision to make, and the decision was made, and I respect him for that...

In short, I guess the TL:DR is.... "Debate the rule on its Merits... Not the merit of the Ruling."

1 hour ago, Drasnighta said:

Addressing the above point only:

But what if they do?

What if they are about to factor in and marshal a major tournament, and they do have access to the designer, and they have made a ruling based on that access?

Wouldn't that make RAI as important?

No. Because without the author present the player would still have to take their word for it. You could run into situations like I do with my kids. One will go tell the other that it's their turn for the computer because "mommy (or daddy) said so," when in fact neither of us did say so. The whole point is that the rules are how the author comunicates to us, and the FAQs are how the author responds to our questions. Those are the only two legitimate forms of communication as they are readily acceccable to all players. The FAQs less so, the main rulebook as a result is the primary form of communication, but it's the only legal form that the author has. The truth of the issue is that everyone has to have that connection to the author that the one person in your scenario has in order for it to work. For RAW one player has the ability to state a rule or take an action and their opponent can question it and they have matching documents to consult. For RAI, the author isn't standing beside every table, ready to answer intent for every instance, in your scenario only one player or official claims to have that connection, and everyone else is just supposed to take their word for it as though they are the author, there is no matching documentation or spoken word from the author to consult, and that my friend, is a... no... THE problem.

34 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

No. Because without the author present the player would still have to take their word for it. You could run into situations like I do with my kids. One will go tell the other that it's their turn for the computer because "mommy (or daddy) said so," when in fact neither of us did say so.

Except in this case mommy (FFG) actually gave Timmy (Q) a shiny badge (Marshal) giving him permission to boss his little brother (tournament players) around.

EDIT: If Timmy does not behave like a responsible older brother, mommy will take the badge away. But today , little Johnny has to do what Timmy says.

@Drasnighta .....I fully agree and understand that the Marshall has the authority, in HIS event, to rule a rule as he sees fit. I was a GW Outrider and Marshalled so many tourneys and leagues I lost count...lol.

This particular instance, however, just rubs me wrong. We have a rule, and it was discussed here on these forums, and it was determined by just about everyone considered by everybody here to be a rules expert to work a certain way, and this is clearly supported by the rules as written.

Then comes the Marshall for a major nationwide event (so yeah, his decision will likely affect how others play this) and changes this interpretation, and the only justification we get is some nebulous reference to inside knowledge.

Yes, I know, there are legal ramifications and restrictions involved.

But what's being asked is that we, as players, just trust that said Marshall 'does' have said inside info, with no justification whatsoever.

Well, I don't know the guy. For that matter, FFG itself has a record of vague rulings and reversing itself on things (XI7, anyone?). Now, I'm not playing at that tourney....but I do have a store tourney coming up, and I'm fairly certain that the TO will run with this interpretation of Sloane, because 'they're doing it that way at Nationals'. So because of this I have to alter my approach ( I agree as well its a minimal impact, and easily compensated for. I really don't have an issue with the ruling itself...it's the principle of it.)

I would prefer strict RAW rulings unless official errata is available. Prevents confusion. Has nothing to do with trust. It's just good business.

29 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

I would prefer strict RAW rulings unless official errata is available. Prevents confusion. Has nothing to do with trust. It's just good business.

^THIS^

So much this.

21 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

^THIS^

So much this.

Preference is noted.

You can have your preference. By all means, always , have your preference... On the rules, and how rulings stand.

But this is also ruled . And people are complaining about the ruling .

One of the basises for those complaints is - and I showed the quote - "there is no proof"

If you have a problem because there is no proof, that is a trust issue. You lack faith in the integrity of the statement of the person involved.

That person happens to be the 'authority'. You believe the authority lacks integrity.

Ergo, trust issue.

Because nothing "Wrong" has been done here.

9 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Preference is noted.

You can have your preference. By all means, always , have your preference... On the rules, and how rulings stand.

But this is also ruled . And people are complaining about the ruling .

One of the basises for those complaints is - and I showed the quote - "there is no proof"

If you have a problem because there is no proof, that is a trust issue. You lack faith in the integrity of the statement of the person involved.

That person happens to be the 'authority'. You believe the authority lacks integrity.

Ergo, trust issue.

Because nothing "Wrong" has been done here.

No. The person involved has not unequivocally stated they have inside access and info on the designers intent (Whether due to legalities or whatnot). Had he stated ' I discussed this with the game designers, and this is what I have', it would be a different story.

I never said something wrong was done. I simply disagree with the manner of presentation, and want further clarification. Where I playing in this tourney, I would have stopped arguing this the second it was made clear this was the ruling. As is, I'm not, so I can complain till infinity....???

I also want to make clear I am not disputing the authority of the event Marshall to rule as he sees fit. I am simply voicing my disagreement with the manner said ruling is being presented, specially when RAI is used to justify it, and then RAW is used for TA. Inconsistencies annoy me.

As far as trust goes, if you're going to trust everything someone says on the net, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn....??????

Btw, @Drasnighta ...you do realize at this point, I'm just arguing to argue, right? ???

Just now, Darth Lupine said:

Btw, @Drasnighta ...you do realize at this point, I'm just arguing to argue, right? ???

Yep, that's why I've already gone on to spend my time answering other people's questions.

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Yep, that's why I've already gone on to spend my time answering other people's questions.

Good man. ?