6 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

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.

I can and have put it together. I'm not sure if you actually read my post or not as a result. I am fully aware that the OP knows what the RAW are. My problem is that he is brazenly ignoring them. He even bluntly stated as much. Why bother playing a game if you don't want to follow the rules of said game? If you're going to change one rule, what is stopping you from changing another? Then another? After how many rules changes does a game stop being the original game and becomes a different game?

The whole point of my post was that the OP was openly ignoring the RAW, and that I don't like it.

4 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

I can and have put it together. I'm not sure if you actually read my post or not as a result. I am fully aware that the OP knows what the RAW are. My problem is that he is brazenly ignoring them. He even bluntly stated as much. Why bother playing a game if you don't want to follow the rules of said game? If you're going to change one rule, what is stopping you from changing another? Then another? After how many rules changes does a game stop being the original game and becomes a different game?

The whole point of my post was that the OP was openly ignoring the RAW, and that I don't like it.

The OP didn't ignore the RAW. Maybe you should go back and actually read what he said. In fact, this whole ruling was because he directly conversed with people about the RAW. And about what the card was actually intended to do by the designers. Who will probably be in attendance during the event.

18 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

The whole point of my post was that the OP was openly ignoring the RAW, and that I don't like it.

agreed.

add in the fact that its Nationals and that's what makes it worse.

While I understand the argument that if you don't like the Marshalls calls then Armada is not for you, its simply not a good way to look at the game. It is easy to say that when you are not spending close to $1000 to go to Nationals and compete. If that is the case than FFG should get rid of the national tournaments and market it as a casual game with no tournament support and just do store run leagues. The key to successful Tournament settings for games in consistency. Consistency in how rulings will be made (RAW) consistency in quality of events and consistency in what to expect.

It is unreasonable to assume that everyone going to nationals will even see this thread. You may have someone who does not visit these forums because, lets be real, sometimes they can get toxic. So hes at his store or at home playing games, playing cards RAW getting ready for his big nationals and when he gets down to DC, the interactions he's practiced won't work the way the rulebook says. That is why RAW is important.

What is done is done. People lost their minds in WMH over the 1pt upgrade to the model you are talking about because A.) it invalidated purchases. How would you feel if FFG says you know what, no more than 4 flotillas a fleet because they don't like the state of the meta. If you own 7 flotillas, you are out $60 you cant use. B.) the ruling, came from Privateer Press directly. It was in the errata/faq document after someone Won 12 games in a row with a list he didn't even own. He had never played it before and was so hung over Thursday morning he threw up in the aisle between tables, rallied and won the entire event. I know, I was there. That list or those models were terrible unbalanced and that ruling needed to happen, but that was not determined by Judges or event staff, that came from the game creators.

People will complain regardless. I understand its easy to make fun of my neckbearding but really, think about it from my perspective or others. Dropping $1000 to go to nationals, and 3-4 weeks tops after the wave is released we see RAI over RAW for the perception that shes under-costed.... its crap. It's not like shes been out for months and months and there are tournaments to show "wow she has a 95% success rate" like Demo and Rhymer did.

Maybe you are right, maybe armada is no longer the game for me if this is what to expect at the 2nd/3rd biggest tournament for the company in the US.

15 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

The OP didn't ignore the RAW. Maybe you should go back and actually read what he said. In fact, this whole ruling was because he directly conversed with people about the RAW. And about what the card was actually intended to do by the designers. Who will probably be in attendance during the event.

I've underlined the crux of the problem here..... If RAW = RAI then there is no problem.. but when, like now, we have (un-confirmable*) RAI differing from the RAW you have upset.

Basically in this situation every one falls into one of 3 camps

1) RAW is the only answer.. follow it above all else

2) Ok I'll go with you on your RAI as you know people I dont

3) RAI is clear lets go with that

Edit - * by un-confirmable I mean that the average Joe like me has no way of confirming that what people say is actually the case. There is no quote from 'person A, game designer', designers web blog or FAQ/Errata etc to back them up.

5 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

I've underlined the crux of the problem here..... If RAW = RAI then there is no problem.. but when, like now, we have (un-confirmable*) RAI differing from the RAW you have upset.

Basically in this situation every one falls into one of 3 camps

1) RAW is the only answer.. follow it above all else

2) Ok I'll go with you on your RAI as you know people I dont

3) RAI is clear lets go with that

Edit - * by un-confirmable I mean that the average Joe like me has no way of confirming that what people say is actually the case. There is no quote from 'person A, game designer', designers web blog or FAQ/Errata etc to back them up.

4: the company has a specific timetable for when it can announce an FAQ for a new product that will be less than a month before 2 major events.

2 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

4: the company has a specific timetable for when it can announce an FAQ for a new product that will be less than a month before 2 major events.

is this true or speculation because if its true then maybe dont drop a wave 5 weeks before GenCon and not have an errata/faq ready for a few days later.

I have not even seen a post like this for GenCon and that con is stupid expensive.

6 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

4: the company has a specific timetable for when it can announce an FAQ for a new product that will be less than a month before 2 major events.

So basically everyone falls into one of the other camps until it does drop....because there is blimp all to say about that.... (oh and what constitutes a major event?)

On 7/28/2017 at 11:09 AM, Snipafist said:

Pretty much this for me as well. There are some unknowns right now because FFG hasn't issued an FAQ yet (surprise surprise, I know) and @IceQube MkII decided "hey, I'm going to let folks know how I will rule on some of these uncertain things prior to this major event so they know ahead of time" and the community response overall has been an embarrassment. It's fine to politely question why he came to such and such a decision but the man-baby tantrums being thrown in this thread and accusations of all kinds of nonsense are shameful.

Do you guys remember back when Rapid Launch Bays ability was a complete mystery and could be interpreted in two very different ways? Remember how people weren't bringing them to tournaments because they just had no idea how the judge would rule on them working if they were contested? I sure would have appreciated an event's judge letting me know how he would rule they worked prior to the event so I could know ahead of time what version I'd be able to use and plan accordingly. @IceQube MkII is doing precisely that for wave 6.

you had me at man-baby tantrums.....

I'm gonna laugh my *** off if Sloane wins it all.

Personally, I would have gone with RAW for simplicity, but let's be clear: Q's RAI interpretation is how Sloane was meant to be played. I have almost no doubt of that. The difference in this ruling, however, is miniscule. Move on. She's still perfectly playable and quite good.

On a side note, FAQs take time for a reason. This is a legally licensed product from Disney that would likely have to go through a legal review for everything. I'd rather FAQs take a while than have FFG get their license pulled.

1 minute ago, Truthiness said:

I'm gonna laugh my *** off if Sloane wins it all.

Personally, I would have gone with RAW for simplicity, but let's be clear: Q's RAI interpretation is how Sloane was meant to be played. I have almost no doubt of that. The difference in this ruling, however, is miniscule. Move on. She's still perfectly playable and quite good.

On a side note, FAQs take time for a reason. This is a legally licensed product from Disney that would likely have to go through a legal review for everything. I'd rather FAQs take a while than have FFG get their license pulled.

I get that FAQs take time. I am not sure that the RAI is the intent. Would she be a little under costed? sure. But maybe she is priced the same as motti to get people to stop taking motti. Motti is a bit undercosted for what he does to a fleet.

Here's the other thing. How does this effect store champs? Will a store go "nope **** that guy we do RAW here" or will they follow RAI for coherency sake? That's the problem with RAI if you get a TO that doesn't like the RAI they go by RAW. If a store goes RAI instead of RAW you can ***** out the owner and ask for a refund as their employee/volunteer is changing the game to their image instead of FFGs. Its about consistency and for better or worse RAW is more consistent across all levels of events.

My issue is much less about the actual rulings themselves. **** when i started sloan thats how i played her. My issue is with the lack of transparency, or participation on FFGs part to come in this thread and either say "yup this was our intent" or "no this is not our intent but our marshalls have the right to rule how they see fit, we will reevaluate this at a later date" Lets be real, this is the worst selling Star Wars minis game FFG puts out so I am pretty sure their **** given about this particular community is really really low.

Privateer Press is the lead on organized play experiences. Whether or not you enjoy their game or think the game is still good or balanced you have to admit that they do a lot right. One of those things is putting out a Judge document that their judges are expected to follow, and if they don't will no longer be judges. This is available for all players to see. This way when a player goes to AdeptiCon their experience with rulings and judges is the same as if they had gone to Lock n Load, GenCon, CaptainCon, or any one of the other conventions where WMH is played.

Maybe I am used to a game company realized that organized play is good for the game as it draws people to it so giving it maybe 10% attention over just a rules packet has beneficial gains in the long run.

34 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

is this true or speculation because if its true then maybe dont drop a wave 5 weeks before GenCon and not have an errata/faq ready for a few days later.

I have not even seen a post like this for GenCon and that con is stupid expensive.

FAQs tend to drop 6 months after a wave drops. I think the one we just got came too soon by maybe a month, but FFG is pretty consistent with their FAQ time table. I'd bet they have to wait for people to email them to actually ask the questions before they go into the FAQ. Maybe it's possible FFG didn't realize we would interpret Sloane or RLB or JF differently than they did, so they thought it was fine until all the emails came in.

I don't think they could drop an FAQ a week after a wave because there has not been enough play time for the new content to generate the interactions that require answers.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

FAQs tend to drop 6 months after a wave drops. I think the one we just got came too soon by maybe a month, but FFG is pretty consistent with their FAQ time table. I'd bet they have to wait for people to email them to actually ask the questions before they go into the FAQ. Maybe it's possible FFG didn't realize we would interpret Sloane or RLB or JF differently than they did, so they thought it was fine until all the emails came in.

I don't think they could drop an FAQ a week after a wave because there has not been enough play time for the new content to generate the interactions that require answers.

I agree a week may be too soon, sloane is pretty clear RAW and if thats not the intent, even if shes gone to print they put her in the errata before she releases. Shes been that way for 6months from the preview. this issue couldn't have just come up now, and if the OP is in talks with the playtesters and FFG for making these rulings i bet they've known for a while. I donno, im glad its NOVA and not GenCon but I am not sure ill go to NOVA for armada again if this is how FFG handles premiere events.

Not sure why they did RAI as the store championship we did RAW and it wasnt overpowering at all. 4 people had sloan and they only achieved third place at the highest. I am still confused on why you would ever go RAI because you have no way of knowing what was intended unless you get an email or something from FFG. This seems like mob mentality who are afraid of Sloan's impact with Imperial aces and want to gimp her for her perceived power. Also, to say you have inside knowledge from Playtester's on what they are doing to test out a change, why would you institute that in a tournament? When we had an idea Reeikan was getting the nerf bat, no one changed their rules based on that info.

57 minutes ago, ripper998 said:

Not sure why they did RAI as the store championship we did RAW and it wasnt overpowering at all. 4 people had sloan and they only achieved third place at the highest. I am still confused on why you would ever go RAI because you have no way of knowing what was intended unless you get an email or something from FFG. This seems like mob mentality who are afraid of Sloan's impact with Imperial aces and want to gimp her for her perceived power. Also, to say you have inside knowledge from Playtester's on what they are doing to test out a change, why would you institute that in a tournament? When we had an idea Reeikan was getting the nerf bat, no one changed their rules based on that info.

right. smells like some imperial hate honestly. it is what it is. ill play sloane because thats what i have practice with and its too late to change it now i feel, i will play by these rules regardless of what future events say, or at the very least hold myself to them and not my opponent if they don't want to, in order to get ready.

The funniest thing about this thread is this:

The undeserved infallibility some folks give the playtesters, who cannot identify themselves due to being under an NDA, so effectively, everyone here could theoretically be a playtester. They are literally players.

To put so much faith into them is quite a mistake they are fallible, biased, and not necessarily in any means correct. That's the problem with cryptic secret conversations being the basis and justification for a ruling. Take a page from academia, of you can't prove something, shut your mouth until you can, other wise you can't write it.

This thread makes me so sad.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

FAQs tend to drop 6 months after a wave drops. I think the one we just got came too soon by maybe a month, but FFG is pretty consistent with their FAQ time table. I'd bet they have to wait for people to email them to actually ask the questions before they go into the FAQ. Maybe it's possible FFG didn't realize we would interpret Sloane or RLB or JF differently than they did, so they thought it was fine until all the emails came in.

I don't think they could drop an FAQ a week after a wave because there has not been enough play time for the new content to generate the interactions that require answers.

With the developments in Vassal and the Table Top Simulator, new waves hit the virtual table waaaaay before the actual ships hit the stores. I think this is why many in the community want answers from FFG sooner than the normal 6 month timeline. For your average Vassal player, this can turn into a 6-9 months wait for an answer. When you add in the many duplicate threads asking the same questions over and over, the debate on RAW vs. RAI can get a bit salty.

24 minutes ago, itzSteve said:

With the developments in Vassal and the Table Top Simulator, new waves hit the virtual table waaaaay before the actual ships hit the stores. I think this is why many in the community want answers from FFG sooner than the normal 6 month timeline. For your average Vassal player, this can turn into a 6-9 months wait for an answer. When you add in the many duplicate threads asking the same questions over and over, the debate on RAW vs. RAI can get a bit salty.

Yea well FFG is not responsible for 3rd party products nor the timeline in which they produce content. As much as I have enjoyed Vassal, FFG is not under any obligation to produce an FAQ for those people who get to wait 3 months longer because the upgrades got spoiled.

I don't understand how Vassal can be an argument for FFG to make an FAQ faster. We should just be grateful FFG hasn't asked GK to shut it down.

30 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

This thread makes me so sad.

It totally Runes the hype for NoVa.

Until FFG officially change the Sloane wording, or clarify their intent, no one has the right to arbitrarily change something before FFG do so, end of discussion.

I can go and quote many of the people here saying its ok for it to be changed, saying the exact same opposite when someone posts about a someone from a premier event telling them this is how something is supposed to work, they do not want to know until they get official say so from FFG.

RAW is crystal clear, you CANNOT spend a token more than once during an attack, there is no grey area, there is no confusing sentence structure to argue about, it is clear. And I for one refuse to accept that our Halo'd playtesters did not discover this while play testing the card.

Sorry people, but we do not get to change things because we think they are too good or to powerful, and people officiating at tournaments only get permission to rule on grey areas, they do not get permission to change RAW.

32 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

This thread makes me so sad.

Best community ever, am I right!?

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Yea well FFG is not responsible for 3rd party products nor the timeline in which they produce content. As much as I have enjoyed Vassal, FFG is not under any obligation to produce an FAQ for those people who get to wait 3 months longer because the upgrades got spoiled.

I don't understand how Vassal can be an argument for FFG to make an FAQ faster. We should just be grateful FFG hasn't asked GK to shut it down.

I didn't bring it up to justify or push FFG to put a FAQ quicker. I just brought it up as a reason why some of the conversations regarding unknown rulings can get testy...

40 minutes ago, Darthain said:

The funniest thing about this thread is this:

The undeserved infallibility some folks give the playtesters, who cannot identify themselves due to being under an NDA, so effectively, everyone here could theoretically be a playtester. They are literally players.

To put so much faith into them is quite a mistake they are fallible, biased, and not necessarily in any means correct. That's the problem with cryptic secret conversations being the basis and justification for a ruling. Take a page from academia, of you can't prove something, shut your mouth until you can, other wise you can't write it.

In fact all the play-testers names are on any product they have tested. That is no secret but I think some people here want to keep anonymity for their own reasons. Either way I agree play-testers are just players but they have one distinct difference that non play-testers dont have. They had the ears of the developers directly during testing so they will absolutely have inside information about the intend of new ships and upgrades that no one else will and it is those comments they cannot speak about because of the NDAm and what be driving these decisions. No game or software can be tested to anticipate every scenario which is why you always see FAQs and software patches. In the absence of an FAQ the TOs/Marshals need to make the best interpretation they can and they will never make everyone happy. **** even the official FAQs get torn apart. Just chill and play the game.

3 minutes ago, Overdawg said:

In fact all the play-testers names are on any product they have tested. That is no secret but I think some people here want to keep anonymity for their own reasons. Either way I agree play-testers are just players but they have one distinct difference that non play-testers dont have. They had the ears of the developers directly during testing so they will absolutely have inside information about the intend of new ships and upgrades that no one else will and it is those comments they cannot speak about because of the NDAm and what be driving these decisions. No game or software can be tested to anticipate every scenario which is why you always see FAQs and software patches. In the absence of an FAQ the TOs/Marshals need to make the best interpretation they can and they will never make everyone happy. **** even the official FAQs get torn apart. Just chill and play the game.

Only when there is some confusion over wording or interaction do TO's/Marhsals have the power to make a judgment call.

That is not the case here, the RAW is clear, no confusion, period.