It's **** like this that makes me want to quit. RAW should ALWAYS be RAW until it's offically FAQ'd by FFG. All this RAI crap just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

In two weeks, GenCon will give everyone empirical data.

I am empathetic to most of the posts here; unfortunately, I don't have anything else to provide of substance to facilitate discussion in working toward a solution.

I can't find the article but Nationals in every country are in the hands of non-FFG staff I believe. I just happened to be "lucky" to have Wave 6 come out right before the event...

That being said, remember X17 vs Advanced Projectors? I think we played one way, a FAQ came out and then a FAQ reversed that FAQ?

Like everything in life, we make decisions based on our given information at a moment in time.

1 minute ago, olafpkyou said:

It's **** like this that makes me want to quit. RAW should ALWAYS be RAW until it's offically FAQ'd by FFG. All this RAI crap just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

You think this is bad, you should've seen the arguments that I had to deal with when I was running Warhammer 40k third edition tourneys....??

1 minute ago, olafpkyou said:

It's **** like this that makes me want to quit. RAW should ALWAYS be RAW until it's offically FAQ'd by FFG. All this RAI crap just leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

agreed for better or worse.

what happens when i go to the local store champ and they rule it works opposite of Q? Now do i handicap myself to prep for nationals giving my opponent an advantage or do i play with that events ruleset.

2 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

In two weeks, GenCon will give everyone empirical dat

That being said, remember X17 vs Advanced Projectors? I think we played one way, a FAQ came out and then a FAQ reversed that FAQ?

Like everything in life, we make decisions based on our given information at a moment in time.

Hmmmm......you don't say. Hmm.

Fixed point in time, so sorry......??

2 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

In two weeks, GenCon will give everyone empirical data.

I am empathetic to most of the posts here; unfortunately, I don't have anything else to provide of substance to facilitate discussion in working toward a solution.

I can't find the article but Nationals in every country are in the hands of non-FFG staff I believe. I just happened to be "lucky" to have Wave 6 come out right before the event...

That being said, remember X17 vs Advanced Projectors? I think we played one way, a FAQ came out and then a FAQ reversed that FAQ?

Like everything in life, we make decisions based on our given information at a moment in time.

im interested to know if its worth it honestly, maybe you won't know till after NOVA.

What if they don't rule your way in the next errata, you have effectively affected Nationals in way that was not their intent.

What if your buddy wins? There will most definitely be some cries of collusion by people.

Why open yourself up to all the extra bull by going RAI over RAW? as a TO, RAI seems like a nightmare to be personally for all the extra drama and bull just waiting to happen.

the fact that Nationals are being run my non-FFG staff at a convention is stupid on their part.

For what it's worth, I would also like to articulate a strong argument for RAW that I do not believe has been presented.

The first paragraph under Defense Tokens states, "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the 'Spend Defense Tokens' step of an attack to produce the effects described below..."

The next four bullet points describe each type of defense token, and the effects they generate. Thus the aforesaid sentence arguably can only be ascribed to those four bullet points. As a result, the rule stating, "A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack," can be read alone to produce the RAW ruling.

It's an argument for RAW that I have only just considered, and I find it much more compelling of an argument than that of the one in support of RAI. I can also understand why people are upset because OP is unable to articulate his reasoning, allegedly due to NDA.

It's an imperfect solution, but the game will survive, even if OP is wrong and FFG has to FAQ the card to RAW.

11 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

In two weeks, GenCon will give everyone empirical data.

I am empathetic to most of the posts here; unfortunately, I don't have anything else to provide of substance to facilitate discussion in working toward a solution.

I can't find the article but Nationals in every country are in the hands of non-FFG staff I believe. I just happened to be "lucky" to have Wave 6 come out right before the event...

That being said, remember X17 vs Advanced Projectors? I think we played one way, a FAQ came out and then a FAQ reversed that FAQ?

Like everything in life, we make decisions based on our given information at a moment in time.

No, you're jumping the gun.

No one else uses inside info to change game rules before they get errata'd. You're not an FFG Employee, your not sanctioned to change the rules of the game. You're simply there to adjudicate the rules as they are currently written, nothing more, nothing less.

If however FFG actually get their collective finger out of their behinds and post a new updated Tournament document in a timely manner, then all this typing achieved something after all.

21 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

Like everything in life, we make decisions based on our given information at a moment in time.

Except what information do you have, save an official FFG ruling that says, you can completely ignore the RAW: "A defense token can only be spent once per attack."?

It's a catch 22, if you had an official ruling we would all know and you wouldn't be ruling as you think is intended.

It's a very dangerous thing to run this tournament with some rulings as written, while others as you think is intended. Personally I wouldn't want to play in an environment like that. Things like this could be causing more harm than good to the state of Armada and I hope you seriously considered that.

23 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

For what it's worth, I would also like to articulate a strong argument for RAW that I do not believe has been presented.

The first paragraph under Defense Tokens states, "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the 'Spend Defense Tokens' step of an attack to produce the effects described below..."

The next four bullet points describe each type of defense token, and the effects they generate. Thus the aforesaid sentence arguably can only be ascribed to those four bullet points. As a result, the rule stating, "A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack," can be read alone to produce the RAW ruling.

It's an argument for RAW that I have only just considered, and I find it much more compelling of an argument than that of the one in support of RAI. I can also understand why people are upset because OP is unable to articulate his reasoning, allegedly due to NDA.

It's an imperfect solution, but the game will survive, even if OP is wrong and FFG has to FAQ the card to RAW.

Indeed.

That was my first interpretation upon reading the spoiled Sloane - that the whole section applied to the defender's use of tokens.

I have since abandoned that stance, but it's definitely a valid viewpoint.

the GenCon marshal has yet to be named.. correct? What if they dug their heels in and said "no matter what you say for nova i am ruling this way cuz blah" and Q decided to be coherent to a stubborn mule rather than have 2 events a month apart have vastly different rulings. if true, FFG really needs to step up and set some proper guidelines for these premiere events.

14 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

the GenCon marshal has yet to be named.. correct? What if they dug their heels in and said "no matter what you say for nova i am ruling this way cuz blah" and Q decided to be coherent to a stubborn mule rather than have 2 events a month apart have vastly different rulings. if true, FFG really needs to step up and set some proper guidelines for these premiere events.

How are they vastly different rulings? One allows the defender to spend a defense token, the other prevents the defender from spending a defense token.

In regards to the TFA and TFO, there is no clear ruling on how they are supposed to work, with the exception of play testers saying they do not stack.

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

How are they vastly different rulings? One allows the defender to spend a defense token, the other prevents the defender from spending a defense token.

In regards to the TFA and TFO, there is no clear ruling on how they are supposed to work, with the exception of play testers saying they do not stack.

raw to rai is vastly different for me i guess. its just some tin foil hat sheanigans to try to rationalize it.

11 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

raw to rai is vastly different for me i guess. its just some tin foil hat sheanigans to try to rationalize it.

Well you should check the output instead of fanatically defending the process based on principle.

The change is minor, and if not better than RAW. With one large attack, you can force your opponent to discard a token, instead of relying on rolling an Acc twice. Acc still work the same, so if you don't want to Sloane a Scatter, you can still prevent it and force a Brace. And this rule does next to nothing against ships, and again, it's many times more useful if you get the edge case where your opponent DISCARDS a token when attacked by Maarek or a Phantom. Much better than hoping you roll 2 Accs.

1 hour ago, BergerFett said:

im interested to know if its worth it honestly, maybe you won't know till after NOVA.

N/m, apparently NoVa and NOVA Open are completely different things.

22 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

The change is minor, and if not better than RAW. With one large attack, you can force your opponent to discard a token, instead of relying on rolling an Acc twice.

There's room for differing opinions on Q's ruling, but don't be disingenuous about the effect*: his interpretation is strictly worse for Sloane. In the case you're positing, the attacker rolled an accuracy and an attack large enough to "force" the defender to discard the accuracy. That's great, but it's definitely, albeit marginally, better to both prevent the defender from using the scatter and also spend it.

That's the thing I keep coming back to: in practical terms, from what I can see, the impact of this ruling is so very minor that it seems like a strange one to make such a controversial ruling on.

*or did I misinterpret what you were saying here? I read it as "it's minor, and makes her better", but on rereading maybe I'm wrong.

8 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

There's room for differing opinions on Q's ruling, but don't be disingenuous about the effect*: his interpretation is strictly worse for Sloane. In the case you're positing, the attacker rolled an accuracy and an attack large enough to "force" the defender to discard the accuracy. That's great, but it's definitely, albeit marginally, better to both prevent the defender from using the scatter and also spend it.

That's the thing I keep coming back to: in practical terms, from what I can see, the impact of this ruling is so very minor that it seems like a strange one to make such a controversial ruling on.

*or did I misinterpret what you were saying here? I read it as "it's minor, and makes her better", but on rereading maybe I'm wrong.

I do prefer the RAI over RAW on a mechanical stand point. Disregarding any personal affections to how the rule came about, this rule is balanced for the attacker and defender. The attacker has the choice of spending a token and the defender gets the chance to use the token. The end result is still a discarded token and damage mitigation. I did not like Sloane being a super Acc and the defender just sitting there eating damage.

If the attacker is worried about not getting damage through against a Scatter, they can still use an Acc as an Acc rather than Sloane. So you still have options. It also means you are not relying on that second attack to generate an Acc in order to discard a token. If you whiff, it's kinda the same effect as the RAI - the token is discarded to prevent damage - but it takes 2 attacks instead of 1.

The RAI is a minor change to Sloane, but I think Sloane will be more effective with it because you still have the option to lock down a token, or force your opponent to discard the token with 1 attack.

The main reason I like it is for balance purposes with the defender.

That's my opinion on it and I know not everyone will agree with it.

5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I do prefer the RAI over RAW on a mechanical stand point. Disregarding any personal affections to how the rule came about, this rule is balanced for the attacker and defender. The attacker has the choice of spending a token and the defender gets the chance to use the token. The end result is still a discarded token and damage mitigation. I did not like Sloane being a super Acc and the defender just sitting there eating damage.

If the attacker is worried about not getting damage through against a Scatter, they can still use an Acc as an Acc rather than Sloane. So you still have options. It also means you are not relying on that second attack to generate an Acc in order to discard a token. If you whiff, it's kinda the same effect as the RAI - the token is discarded to prevent damage - but it takes 2 attacks instead of 1.

The RAI is a minor change to Sloane, but I think Sloane will be more effective with it because you still have the option to lock down a token, or force your opponent to discard the token with 1 attack.

The main reason I like it is for balance purposes with the defender.

That's my opinion on it and I know not everyone will agree with it.

I agree with you here. I like this way of playing it better as well, my disagreement with the ruling is on principle.

Thing is, this mostly affects the squadron-vs-squadron component of Sloane, which is by far the more minor side of her anyway. Sure, it'll come into play in locking down contains for Maarek or the odd desperation brace against a lucky Phantom roll, but those are going to be minor edge cases anyway.

15 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Thing is, this mostly affects the squadron-vs-squadron component of Sloane, which is by far the more minor side of her anyway.

I somewhat disagree. I think this ruling is also important in the squadron vs squadron fights. An alpha strike with a Sloane fighter wing is much more deadly to scatter aces with RAW than RAI.

7 hours 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.

I find it impossible to believe that the issue at hand didn't come up during playtesting.

If they wanted it played differently they would have changed the card text before putting the product to print. That's the point of playtesting.

As such, they must have felt the wording was correct.

Wait, wait.

So, assume one rolls three accuracies against an ace squadron....can you then Sloane the scatter, and then accuracy it anyway, along with the other token? ?

7 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Wait, wait.

So, assume one rolls three accuracies against an ace squadron....can you then Sloane the scatter, and then accuracy it anyway, along with the other token? ?

Yes.

::Edit:: Mis-quoting. My mistake

7 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Yes.

Thank you, Ardaedhel, just making sure. For some reason, all of a sudden I got a horrid feeling none of the rules as I know and love them were working anymore......*cue Twilight Zone music*

19 minutes ago, Archangelion said:

I find it impossible to believe that the issue at hand didn't come up during playtesting.

If they wanted it played differently they would have changed the card text before putting the product to print. That's the point of playtesting.

As such, they must have felt the wording was correct.

In any testing environment the thing you are testing is fluid and changes constantly due to QA feedback and you cannot anticipate everything. Its easy to sit back and cast stones when you dont know the process. I work in software development and I can tell you we never can see all the scenarios that our customers put our software through. I guarantee the environment is the same when testing waves in Armada.