5 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

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.

You are 100% wrong...read the tournament regulations on Marshals.

"Providing final determinations when they answer game rules and event regulation questions themselves or when they personally resolve disputes between players regarding the game state"

There are many cards that break the basic concepts of the game and Sloane is another one. Without an FAQ the Marshal decided to provide an up front decision on a controversial issue so people could prepare and not be surprised at the event. Read the tournament rules before making inflammatory accusations.

Just now, Overdawg said:

You are 100% wrong...read the tournament regulations on Marshals.

"Providing final determinations when they answer game rules and event regulation questions themselves or when they personally resolve disputes between players regarding the game state"

There are many cards that break the basic concepts of the game and Sloane is another one. Without an FAQ the Marshal decided to provide an up front decision on a controversial issue so people could prepare and not be surprised at the event. Read the tournament rules before making inflammatory accusations.

There is NO dispute here, none.

So no I am not 100% wrong, you are.

3 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

There is NO dispute here, none.

Several threads in the rules questions sub-forum would appear to disagree.

8 minutes ago, WuFame said:

Best community ever, am I right!?

It was. That what upsets me.

What upsets me more is so much of this could be avoided with better community management on behalf of FFG.

I have literally zero doubt Q is making an informed decision based on conversations with people who know more than is publically available. I would be very surprised if the FAQ that gets released sometime in 2036 regarding this wave doesn't wind up backing his rulings here. And while I am totally sympathetic to the distaste for RAI rulings, the main reason one should be wary if RAI (difficulty/impossibilty in discerning intent) isn't a factor here, because again I feel confident Q had discussions with people who knew what that intent was.

It sure would be nice if the rules questions we all saw coming when this was announced could be definitely answered upon release. Apparently there are reasons they can't be. I dunno, not my industry. But IMO, Q is taking a lot of heat for FFG's shortcomings.

And that bothers me, a lot. Because what he's trying to do is be responsible and give everyone perfect clarity on what the rules will be at the event. If he had waited, the outrage at the event would have been hilarious, and would have included thousands of "all this could have been avoided if he posted the rulings ahead of time" posts. Which is what he's doing.

Is it fair to be annoyed that the rules for new releases take so long to disseminate from official sources? Fuxk yes. But direct that where it belongs, and Q is not the right target.

I mean we have had many MANY things in the rules section that were questioned and were upheld once FFG got around to posting a new FAQ/Errata.

What never ever happened, ever before was a TO deciding to change the game rules prior to FFG posting a new FAQ/Errata on there own back based on conversations they had playtesting. in fact I'd go so far to say using inside knowledge about upcoming changes is exactly why FFG make them sign NDA's to stop them from doing so.

3 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Several threads in the rules questions sub-forum would appear to disagree.

No, there is not any question on "can the defender spend a Sloane spent Defense Token." Do I need to quote you and Dras stating RAW is that the defender cannot spend a Sloane spent defense token?

What is being done here is someone who should know better, is trying to jump the gun on FFG posting the next FAQ/Errata, and that is way, way above and beyond his scope as a TO to do.

And I am going to state here categorically for the record : If that is FFG's intent with Sloane, that is fine with me, as soon as they post it in the next FAQ/Errata I'll be on board. What I am not on board with is playtesters changing the rules of the game before FFG tell us to do so.

17 minutes ago, itzSteve said:

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...

That's fair.

Just now, TheEasternKing said:

Do I need to quote you and Dras stating RAW is that the defender cannot spend a Sloane spent defense token?

Dras and I are not FFG.

We can (and do) answer questions to the best of our ability, and there may even be consensus in the forums - but that can hardly justify denying players the right to request a clarification from the TO or Marshal!

Just now, DiabloAzul said:

Dras and I are not FFG.

We can (and do) answer questions to the best of our ability, and there may even be consensus in the forums - but that can hardly justify denying players the right to request a clarification from the TO or Marshal!

Dras does not ever post his opinion on something he thinks is a grey area, he didn't with TFA and he did not on RLB.

He did state quite correctly that currently RAW is clear, a defense token can only be spent once during an attack.

I cannot believe you are even trying to argue something different here. Q might be 1000000% correct that the intent was different with Sloane and it is going to be changed in the next FAW/Errata, but he has no right to try and enforce that future change, none.

I mean he could have told us all Rhymer was about to get changed to close range, and then enforced it at a tournament.
Or he could have told us about the General Riiekan was about to be changed, and then enforced it at a tournament.

Why did no one who knew about them upcoming changes try telling us all about them? why didn't a playtester TO post why he is changing the rules, before we heard zip from FFG saying the changes were happening?

This is no different.

20 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

It was. That what upsets me.

What upsets me more is so much of this could be avoided with better community management on behalf of FFG.

I have literally zero doubt Q is making an informed decision based on conversations with people who know more than is publically available. I would be very surprised if the FAQ that gets released sometime in 2036 regarding this wave doesn't wind up backing his rulings here. And while I am totally sympathetic to the distaste for RAI rulings, the main reason one should be wary if RAI (difficulty/impossibilty in discerning intent) isn't a factor here, because again I feel confident Q had discussions with people who knew what that intent was.

It sure would be nice if the rules questions we all saw coming when this was announced could be definitely answered upon release. Apparently there are reasons they can't be. I dunno, not my industry. But IMO, Q is taking a lot of heat for FFG's shortcomings.

And that bothers me, a lot. Because what he's trying to do is be responsible and give everyone perfect clarity on what the rules will be at the event. If he had waited, the outrage at the event would have been hilarious, and would have included thousands of "all this could have been avoided if he posted the rulings ahead of time" posts. Which is what he's doing.

Is it fair to be annoyed that the rules for new releases take so long to disseminate from official sources? Fuxk yes. But direct that where it belongs, and Q is not the right target.

This 100%. I don't envy Q having to make this decision. Q knew he would have to make a call on this one way or another and he did. Whether you agree with his call or not we should all be grateful that he announced this with plenty of time to make adjustments if needed.

15 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Q might be 1000000% correct that the intent was different with Sloane and it is going to be changed in the next FAW/Errata, but he has no right to try and enforce that future change, none.

Actually, he does. That's exactly what being tournament Marshal means.

From the latest tournament regulations document:

"A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament."

"All card interpretations during a tournament are a marshal’s responsibility, and he or she may overrule the FAQ when a mistake or error is discovered."

4 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Actually, he does. That's exactly what being tournament Marshal means.

From the latest tournament regulations document:

"A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament."

"All card interpretations during a tournament are a marshal’s responsibility, and he or she may overrule the FAQ when a mistake or error is discovered."

Yes but you see, the issue is this Q fellow is assuming the card as printed is a mistake or error, and therefore overriding the RAW. Per the RAW there is no ambiguity.

@Overdawg I admire your faith on the matter, truly, but still do not believe it is well placed.

Just now, Darthain said:

Yes but you see, the issue is this Q fellow is assuming the card as printed is a mistake or error, and therefore overriding the RAW. Per the RAW there is no ambiguity.

Makes no difference. Q is the final authority, and the sole person resposible for interpreting the rules.

Anyway, what he is saying -or at least implying- is that FFG has discovered a mistake. Because that's exactly what "the RAW don't support the RAI" is.

39 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

It sure would be nice if the rules questions we all saw coming when this was announced could be definitely answered upon release. Apparently there are reasons they can't be. I dunno, not my industry. But IMO, Q is taking a lot of heat for FFG's shortcomings.

Q is taking heat for being perceived as overstepping his bounds. I have to respect his being proactive. I do not respect his "I know people" so this is the way it will be approach.

But the first part above is the real killer here. They put this stuff up in the previews, we all start theory crafting and questions come up. I hardly think our questions are original if these expansions are playtested. Why in tarnation is a set of rulings not provided in the release day articles? All sorts of conflict could be avoided from the outset.

23 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

Dras does not ever post his opinion on something he thinks is a grey area, he didn't with TFA and he did not on RLB.

Ummm didn't @Drasnighta come up with #teampurple and #teamorange after WWPDSteven asked his opinion on RLB? He gave quite an elaborate explanation, including his own interpretation of how the card is written and the implications of either #team, taking into consideration the POINT COST and INTENT of the card. And then Dras said he favors #teampurple.

Literally the only difference between Q's and Dras's ruling is the one discussion is behind closed doors and the other is out in the open.

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

Yes but you see, the issue is this Q fellow is assuming the card as printed is a mistake or error, and therefore overriding the RAW. Per the RAW there is no ambiguity.

@Overdawg I admire your faith on the matter, truly, but still do not believe it is well placed.

We may disagree on his interpretation but I respect your opinion and the fact that you did it respectfully.

Until @IceQube MkII issued this ruling here, the previous Marshal had stated publicly that he would rule that Sloane's spending of the token would also produce the token's effect. That is, spend the Sloane Accuracy on a Scatter and all dice are canceled.

53 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Actually, he does. That's exactly what being tournament Marshal means.

From the latest tournament regulations document:

"A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament."

"All card interpretations during a tournament are a marshal’s responsibility, and he or she may overrule the FAQ when a mistake or error is discovered."

Here's the rub, though:

Absolutely, Q has the right to make whatever ruling he wants. His right within the framework of the rules to run the tournament however he wants is not, I think, in question.

What is in question is whether this is a good use of that right. I personally do not think that interpreting intentions that directly contradict the rules of the game is a good use of the Marshal's position, regardless of the basis of that interpretation. In this particular case, Q may be is privy to what that intent is, but that's ultimately irrelevant.

If Q was told by a designer or producer what the intent was, he should simply disclose that.

If he can't disclose that because he's under an NDA, then FFG has evaluated that it is more important to them to maintain confidentiality of their privileged communication channels than to maintain the rules of the game. In this case, he cannot use wink-wink "I know" as moral justification for a ruling inconsistent with the rules, because that's tantamount to violating NDA.

If it's important enough that this errata be implemented prior to Nationals, official channels exist for doing so: the FAQ document.

If licensing constraints prevent FFG from implementing an errata for some reason, but they are trying to short circuit that process by back-dooring the errata in, they violate whatever control constrains them from simply publishing the errata through official channels, whether in word or in spirit.

The bottom line is, no matter which way you slice it or which of these defenses you posit, the ultimate result is the same. When the Marshal at a Premier tournament knowingly and intentionally uses his position to rule against the published documents governing the game, it degrades the integrity and legitimacy of the game for everyone involved and damages the community at large. If this is an isolated incident, it may well pass without a significant impact on the community.

If, on the other hand, this is a precedent and it becomes FFG's new modus operandi to patch over their piss-poor FAQ publication cycle by implementing erratas early in major tournaments through back channel communications with the Marshal, that will seriously undermine the integrity of the competitive scene.

To Q's very substantial credit, he is doing what he thinks is right and being very upfront about it. Again I reiterate that this is not his fault, even though I disagree with his decision. The root problem here is what I've been kvetching about for four waves now: the FAQ support for this game is just embarrassingly bad, and it puts good people like Q in positions like this.

6 hours 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.

Slippery slope fallacy

7 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Absolutely, Q has the right to make whatever ruling he wants. His right within the framework of the rules to run the tournament however he wants is not, I think, in question.

What is in question is whether this is a good use of that right.

I think this thread shows there is disagreement on both matters. I was just providing the background to clear up the former. The latter... well, that's up to FFG to decide.

Ultimately, I am convinced Q did the right thing by posting his ruling in advance, whatever it may be. It is however for FFG to either back him up or remove him as a Marshal.

43 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

If Q was told by a designer or producer what the intent was, he should simply disclose that.

If he can't disclose that because he's under an NDA, then FFG has evaluated that it is more important to them to maintain confidentiality of their privileged communication channels than to maintain the rules of the game. In this case, he cannot use wink-wink "I know" as moral justification for a ruling inconsistent with the rules, because that's tantamount to violating NDA.

One thing you need to understand about the NDA is that its not FFG he has to answer to its Disney and as anyone who has worked with them can attest they are beyond serious about NDA's and litigation. His "wink wink, I know" is not breaking any NDA guidelines because if you want to know who is a play-tester you can simply look at the published supporting material that comes in the releases to see all the names there.

16 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

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.

I assume nothing; everything I stated goes directly off what Q posted.

I also stated that to all appearances, he does appear to have some insider insight and knowledge.

My issue is NOT really the ruling itself, as I can see both sides to this. My issue is with the presentation.

As I said, kudos to Q for way in advance presentation of this. That is commendable.

However, this should have been an official email or clarification. No matter what chops or rep Q may have, or who he is consulting (as we have no idea, there may be NDA or whatnot) the point remains that he is not an FFG employee. Ergo, any rules adjudication by him is NOT official ( I am NOT saying he has stated they are, Q has said several times this is for Nova only). But because of the events prestige, this is likely to be taken as gospel everywhere, with no actual OFFICIAL clarification.

THATS my issue.

2 minutes ago, Overdawg said:

One thing you need to understand about the NDA is that its not FFG he has to answer to its Disney and as anyone who has worked with them can attest they are beyond serious about NDA's and litigation.

I understand that. The point immediately after that sentence still stands: either the communication is not covered by NDA, in which case he should disclose it; or (obviously this is the case here) it is, and thus because it can't be disclosed, it also can't be used as the moral justification for a ruling.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

I understand that. The point immediately after that sentence still stands: either the communication is not covered by NDA, in which case he should disclose it; or (obviously this is the case here) it is, and thus because it can't be disclosed, it also can't be used as the moral justification for a ruling.

In hindsight I think it would have been best to keep his response short and sweet and not divulge his thought process behind the decision but that was his call and what is done is done. In the end moral justification has nothing to do with it...he is the Marshall. Outside of FFG disputing his rulings what he says stands like it or not. You are welcome to argue his thought process and interpretation but in the end its his decision and there is not much anyone outside of FFG can do about it.

6 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

But because of the events prestige, this is likely to be taken as gospel everywhere, with no actual OFFICIAL clarification.

THATS my issue.

PREACH PREACH