5 minutes ago, JJs Juggernaut said:

He has very good cause, not all of which can be discussed in detail.

Out of curiosity, do the other rulings (i.e. TFA) also fall under this "very good cause"?

Piss poor way to run things. And I care because I go to other tourneys in the area and don't want to deal with people saying "oh well that's how it was at NOVA" even though it's completely unsupported in RAW (admitted by the TO himself)

After thinking on it for a few days, I rather like how Sloane is ruled. You can Sloane a scatter, but you put your opponent in a tough place if they want to use it. Now with 1 attack, you can force a discard of a token, rather than needing 2 attacks in order to spend it yourself. I also like how it doesn't take all the control away from the defender. I'm not a huge fan of one sided mechanics, which the RAW Sloane would be.

I'm more curious to the people that continue to disagree if the actual rule or the concept of non-FFG approved rules being enforced at a tournament is causing the issue.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

After thinking on it for a few days, I rather like how Sloane is ruled. You can Sloane a scatter, but you put your opponent in a tough place if they want to use it. Now with 1 attack, you can force a discard of a token, rather than needing 2 attacks in order to spend it yourself. I also like how it doesn't take all the control away from the defender. I'm not a huge fan of one sided mechanics, which the RAW Sloane would be.

I'm more curious to the people that continue to disagree if the actual rule or the concept of non-FFG approved rules being enforced at a tournament is causing the issue.

My personal issue is this seems like another of those things it took the forums here forty-five seconds after seeing the card to bring up in discussion. But we don't get a ruling as a FAQ entry or an official word on release of the expansion but get whatever this counts as...

This sort of thing shouldn't have come to this at all setting aside any of my own feeling about the ruling itself. That's where I'm bent out of shape about it.

On 7/28/2017 at 7:52 AM, IceQube MkII said:

1. SLOANE

Summary: Yes, this is RAI as Sloane would be too powerful for her cost otherwise.

RAW (was considered but we are going RAI):

Rule1: (So this part is clear. Whatever is targeted and spent by the attacking squadron can't be used and discarded. Personally, I'm against this but it's RAW.)

2. Task Force Antilles/Task Force Organa - these cards do not "stack."

"When YOU (the defending HH) suffer damage from an attack, YOU may choose and exhaust a copy of this card on another friendly ship..."
As per the RRG, Page 5, Effect Use and Timing: "A "when" effect occurs at the moment that the specified event occurs, AND CANNOT OCCUR AGAIN DURING THE INSTANCE OF THAT EVENT."

(Yes, I am aware of the preview articles; however, I surmise that is done by marketing teams and not the design teams.)

My issues:

First, TO injects his personal feelings into rulings, making his decisions completely unreliable.

Second, TO contradicts himself with two different rulings, stating RAI is how he wants to go (even though this isn't supported anywhere in the Tourney documents), and then the very next rule is "I don't like it but RAW."

Third, TFA- TO ignores that damage is suffered 1 point at a time, which would indicate that each point is determined separately, and ignores emails in the rules subforum from the producer and "Additional Content and Development" team member

15 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

and ignores emails in the rules subforum from the game design staff.

We havn't had an Email from the Games Design Staff for well over a year now.

Because there has been so much heat over this, can i ask what have people been ruling over the store championship season?

Has it been different rulings based on where you go?

26 minutes ago, Irokenics said:

Because there has there been so much heat over this, can i ask what have people been ruling over the store championship season?

Has it been different rulings based on where you go?

We played Sloane as Q ruled it so far. Even getting two accuracies was good. 2 hits, 2 accs, I spend one to spend your scatter, I accuracy your brace. Now you have to take two hits or burn the scatter. Don't think it's all that bad for a 24 point commander that ALSO works on ships...

3 hours ago, emsgoof said:

My issues:

First, TO injects his personal feelings into rulings, making his decisions completely unreliable.

Second, TO contradicts himself with two different rulings, stating RAI is how he wants to go (even though this isn't supported anywhere in the Tourney documents), and then the very next rule is "I don't like it but RAW."

Third, TFA- TO ignores that damage is suffered 1 point at a time, which would indicate that each point is determined separately, and ignores emails in the rules subforum from the producer and "Additional Content and Development" team member

That email does not apply to this situation. The email says upgrades can stack when involving dice, not damage.

2 hours ago, Irokenics said:

Because there has there been so much heat over this, can i ask what have people been ruling over the store championship season?

Has it been different rulings based on where you go?

At our 2nd store champs locally, we were prepared to do RAW, but wanted to let everyone going know before turning in lists in case that made them reconsider. Turned out no one brought Sloane so it was a non issue. I was prepared to do RAW, but as Marshall I was also prepared to throw up in doing so because it wouldn't have felt right to me, given the cost benefit.

4 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

After thinking on it for a few days, I rather like how Sloane is ruled. You can Sloane a scatter, but you put your opponent in a tough place if they want to use it. Now with 1 attack, you can force a discard of a token, rather than needing 2 attacks in order to spend it yourself. I also like how it doesn't take all the control away from the defender. I'm not a huge fan of one sided mechanics, which the RAW Sloane would be.

I'm more curious to the people that continue to disagree if the actual rule or the concept of non-FFG approved rules being enforced at a tournament is causing the issue.

I'm bent because this was ruled by a non FFG person, apparently (from what he's posting) based on his personal feelings on the matter. It's stated he has some nebulous inside info, but no proof is given. It is also stated it was discussed for hours....with who?

Had this come out on an official FAQ or an email from FFG, I'd have zero issue with it.

As is, it's probably going to be adopted everywhere on the strength of the event, and not because it's an official clarification.

Mind, after thinking this over, I really do not feel it is that big of a change; it can certainly be planned for, and Sloane is not entirely useless, after all.

It also bugs me that RAI is used to justify Sloane. And then RAW is used to justify TA. Inconsistent.

My two Imperial credits, for what they're worth.

4 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

I'm bent because this was ruled by a non FFG person, apparently (from what he's posting) based on his personal feelings on the matter. It's stated he has some nebulous inside info, but no proof is given. It is also stated it was discussed for hours....with who?

Had this come out on an official FAQ or an email from FFG, I'd have zero issue with it.

As is, it's probably going to be adopted everywhere on the strength of the event, and not because it's an official clarification.

Mind, after thinking this over, I really do not feel it is that big of a change; it can certainly be planned for, and Sloane is not entirely useless, after all.

It also bugs me that RAI is used to justify Sloane. And then RAW is used to justify TA. Inconsistent.

My two Imperial credits, for what they're worth.

For what that's worth, I also feel like that TFA shouldn't stack, after having used it.

35 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

I'm bent because this was ruled by a non FFG person, apparently (from what he's posting) based on his personal feelings on the matter. It's stated he has some nebulous inside info, but no proof is given. It is also stated it was discussed for hours....with who?

Had this come out on an official FAQ or an email from FFG, I'd have zero issue with it.

As is, it's probably going to be adopted everywhere on the strength of the event, and not because it's an official clarification.

Mind, after thinking this over, I really do not feel it is that big of a change; it can certainly be planned for, and Sloane is not entirely useless, after all.

It also bugs me that RAI is used to justify Sloane. And then RAW is used to justify TA. Inconsistent.

My two Imperial credits, for what they're worth.

You're making a heck of a lot of assumptions there about a guy that FFG chose to Marshall one of the 3 largest Armada events of the year. Including the assumption that he wasn't consulting people with direct inside knowledge about the intent of the card.

Rule for suffering damage:

When a ship suffers damage, it suffers that damage one point at a time"

Card for TFA:

When you suffer damage from an attack, you may choose and exhaust a copy of this card on another friendly ship at distance 1-3.

Definition of "You"

On upgrade card effects, the term "you" refers to the ship that the upgrade card is equipped to.

Suffer first point of damage, move it to another HH. That event is done. Suffer second point of damage, move it to another HH that hasn't exhausted it's copy of TFA, that event is done. Suffer third point of damage, move it to another HH that hasn't exhausted it's copy of TFA, that event is done.
I really don't see the confusion. Maybe a timeline?

Player 1 rolled 3 points of damage to HH "A" ----> Player 2 suffers 1 damage on HH "B" by exhausting its copy of TFA, that damage event is done. Player 2 now has 2 remaining points of damage to resolve. Player 2 suffers 1 damage on HH "C" by exhausting its copy of TFA, that damage event is done. Player 2 now has 1 remaining point of damage to resolve. Player 2 suffers 1 damage on HH "A" (the original target).

Having read/scanned through this ... discussion, I have had a thought about Sloane and RAW RAI. If they intended Sloane to EXHAUST the token, why did they not just write EXHAUST the token. There are several upgrades and abilities that exhaust tokens, so I would think that the wording SPEND the token has the same meaning as SPEND in every other portion of the game. Or am I missing something some where?

11 minutes ago, MerryVulture said:

Having read/scanned through this ... discussion, I have had a thought about Sloane and RAW RAI. If they intended Sloane to EXHAUST the token, why did they not just write EXHAUST the token. There are several upgrades and abilities that exhaust tokens, so I would think that the wording SPEND the token has the same meaning as SPEND in every other portion of the game. Or am I missing something some where?

because they still wanted Sloane to have the ability to force you to discard a token that was already Exhausted?

If it just says Exhaust, you can't do that.

21 minutes ago, MerryVulture said:

Having read/scanned through this ... discussion, I have had a thought about Sloane and RAW RAI. If they intended Sloane to EXHAUST the token, why did they not just write EXHAUST the token. There are several upgrades and abilities that exhaust tokens, so I would think that the wording SPEND the token has the same meaning as SPEND in every other portion of the game. Or am I missing something some where?

You can spend an exhausted token to discard it. This is something she's definitely supposed to do. The question has always been, was spending that token intended to also lock it down (lock it down even harder than a regular accuracy, in fact) from being spent?

I have a hard time believing that a standard 8 point TIE fighter is supposed to simultaneously spend and lock down a defense token, especially for such a cheap commander. Again, to note, if her ability works as strictly RAW then Sloane's ability is actually better in every conceivable way than a standard Accuracy result, because Sloane's ability actually cannot be avoided via an ECM or other similar abilities when interpreted strictly by RAW.

This ability, if applied to a unique character, would result in players building around that character to lock down an accuracy as a sort of squadron-based Intel Officer. Sloane instead gives it to every single one of the generic and unique TIE variants.

Issues on RAI and RAW are always difficult to navigate when the RAW are not perfectly clear. I do not think that the RAW are unclear however.

1. 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 Sloane's effect (an upgrade card) does not generate the benefit (normal effect) of the token's ability to the defender, as the token is being spent by an effect from an upgrade card.

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

This sentence clearly shows that the defender would not be able to spend the token once Sloane's ability has been triggered and has already spent said defense token during the attack.

To argue that the RAI goes so strongly against the RAW in this case is akin to saying, "I don't like how this (these) rule(s) work, I would rather them work differently." The ruling that the OP is making is quite brazenly ignoring the RAW, which in this case are as plain as day.

11 hours ago, Darth Lupine said:

It is all FFGs fault anyway.

"Clear as day" as people point out. Even though its been fleshed out before on the Rules Questions subforum and most people agreed it was a different clarity of day ?.

43 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

Issues on RAI and RAW are always difficult to navigate when the RAW are not perfectly clear. I do not think that the RAW are unclear however.

1. 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 Sloane's effect (an upgrade card) does not generate the benefit (normal effect) of the token's ability to the defender, as the token is being spent by an effect from an upgrade card.

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

This sentence clearly shows that the defender would not be able to spend the token once Sloane's ability has been triggered and has already spent said defense token during the attack.

To argue that the RAI goes so strongly against the RAW in this case is akin to saying, "I don't like how this (these) rule(s) work, I would rather them work differently." The ruling that the OP is making is quite brazenly ignoring the RAW, which in this case are as plain as day.

I keep trying to respond to you, but I'm afraid I'll get a moderator warning if I do.

We know what the RAW is. IceQube knows what the RAW is. IceQube is making a direct statement, over a month in advance, that the card is going to be played differently at the United States National Championship.

If you can't put that together, this isn't the game for you.

1 hour ago, thecactusman17 said:

I keep trying to respond to you, but I'm afraid I'll get a moderator warning if I do.

We know what the RAW is. IceQube knows what the RAW is. IceQube is making a direct statement, over a month in advance, that the card is going to be played differently at the United States National Championship.

If you can't put that together, this isn't the game for you.

Yet I'm sure you can appreciate the sentiment: we know what the RAW says, yet here comes a counter ruling, without as much tiny e-mail from FFG. That's always going to cause controversy.

Btw: initially I ready Sloane like the US national interpretation, arguing that the whole section must be read as one part, referring only to the defenders use of defense tokens. That could well turn out to be the intent or whatever, but the rules, as written, don't seem to support that.

Anyway; my question of a few posts back have been answered: he's "in the know", and we're not. I'll leave it at that.

14 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Yet I'm sure you can appreciate the sentiment: we know what the RAW says, yet here comes a counter ruling, without as much tiny e-mail from FFG. That's always going to cause controversy.

Btw: initially I ready Sloane like the US national interpretation, arguing that the whole section must be read as one part, referring only to the defenders use of defense tokens. That could well turn out to be the intent or whatever, but the rules, as written, don't seem to support that.

Anyway; my question of a few posts back have been answered: he's "in the know", and we're not. I'll leave it at that.

Of course. Every time I come into this thread looking for any additional US Champs info, I seem to see another person making this nearly identical argument that IceQube is changing the card because he doesn't like the existing RAW ruling.

29 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Of course. Every time I come into this thread looking for any additional US Champs info, I seem to see another person making this nearly identical argument that IceQube is changing the card because he doesn't like the existing RAW ruling.

Yes, it certainly has been a few. I was, however, merely curious*. I did not ascribe him any ulterior motives at all.

* new Vassal tourney starting, plus several local tourneys in the immediate future, so more curious than normal

This whole thread just has me realising just why spartan got a couple of people like me (eg I was one) who sat in the rules forums answering stuff by RAW to be part of the v2 beta testers.... all we did was get the rule book and army lists and go through it grammatically / logically and try and brake it for them. So technically I was a playtester although didnt actually play any games against anyone other than myself.....

A number of wording changes where made because we said entry A can be read like this but we know you mean something else... how about wording it like Z

*Although I walked away from that game due to the way it headed, and even before that Spartan released units which the beta testers hadn't seen.....