1 hour ago, Overdawg said:

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.

I can attest to R&D too. But I'm on the other side breaking things the engineers didn't think possible...

1 hour ago, Overdawg said:

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.

But when you are talking about an admirals key ability, missing the most common application of it/getting it wrong? Highly unlikely. "Oh, Sloane never spent a token, either squad to squad or squad to ship in the entire test cycle". Tell mw how likely you find that?

Miraculous!

FOR 3!

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

But when you are talking about an admirals key ability, missing the most common application of it/getting it wrong? Highly unlikely. "Oh, Sloane never spent a token, either squad to squad or squad to ship in the entire test cycle". Tell mw how likely you find that?

I in fact do find it likely. Especially if on their test forums they have discussed how they feel the card should be played and all agree and test it that way but they dont see that the text is not clear enough. I can see this happening a lot. You are probably the same person who watches a televised worlds Armada game and back seat drives describing how you would have won a game when in fact if you were there and not sitting comfortably at home you would make the same mistakes.

2 hours ago, Darthain said:

FOR 3!

Go big or go home.

4 hours ago, Overdawg said:

I in fact do find it likely. Especially if on their test forums they have discussed how they feel the card should be played and all agree and test it that way but they dont see that the text is not clear enough. I can see this happening a lot. You are probably the same person who watches a televised worlds Armada game and back seat drives describing how you would have won a game when in fact if you were there and not sitting comfortably at home you would make the same mistakes.

As I said previously smaller companies such as Spartan Games have play testers who pretty much only pick on the wording of upgrades to make sure that every one agrees that they say/allow what the Game Devs want them to say.

Now it could be that they have two separate test elements, one which tests the game play who are told this is what she does see how un-balanced it is, and another which is the wording. BUT I would hope/expect that the beta testers are given the upgrade wording so they can compare the intent with the instructions.

edit - PS never watched a televised game of ANY table top game.......

There is also the issue that the individual that wrote Sloane's card, should the RAI not line up with the RAW, doesn't understand how Armada is played. Someone who does would understand that using the word spend in conjunction to a defense token is going to have ramifications, as it is the same terminology for using the token in the first place. I can't believe that someone that is working for FFG would be so incompetant as to make simple mistake, or to be so disconnected from the game they are designing.

I'm not sure what FFG's employee requirements are, but most companies tend to want their employees to know the product they are working with. Games Workshop for example requires that their sales staff know how to play the games by requiring them to have armies of their own. The LCBO (Liqure Control Board of Ontario) requires their store staff to know a great deal about not just the taste of their product (pairings) but where it comes from, how it's made, what kind of plants it comes from, history surrounding the above. My wife went through 3 large text books just as a part of her job training.

It would be a very stupid move to have someone designing rules and upgrade cards for a game they don't know the ins and outs of. Someone who doesn't know the simple connection between using the word spend in conjunction to defense tokens, and that it would cause confusion over whether the defender can still spend them.

I understand that wording it differently (to align with what the OP is saying the RAI is) would be heavy on words, on a already fairly wordy ability. But a single line following the text such as (This ability does not restrict the defender from spending available defense tokens) would have fixed the issue, in at least making RAI clearer.

I have three words regarding the entire "presumption of FFG competence" line of discussion:

Rapid Launch Bays.

As @Drasnighta just pointed out to me in the rules thread... to make this 100% clear (if RAI is correct) then they would run out of space on the card

12 minutes ago, slasher956 said:

As @Drasnighta just pointed out to me in the rules thread... to make this 100% clear (if RAI is correct) then they would run out of space on the card

This is an excellent point by both of you.

2 hours ago, slasher956 said:

As @Drasnighta just pointed out to me in the rules thread... to make this 100% clear (if RAI is correct) then they would run out of space on the card

Which brings me back to putting out the RAI/FAQ ruling when the expansion releases. If they know they haven't put enough words on the card to be clear why are they not providing those additional words at the outset?

I was pretty vocal in the Rapid Launch Bay debate and the eventual ruling was pretty much not what anyone had argued for. That situation as well could have been solved at the outset with the correct ruling on release.

1 hour ago, slasher956 said:

As @Drasnighta just pointed out to me in the rules thread... to make this 100% clear (if RAI is correct) then they would run out of space on the card

That's a failure of FFG to write a strong rules set. They need standardized templating which allows for complex ideas to be distilled to a reusable phrase.

The real problem with this whole issue is that FFG should never put the player base in this situation to begin with. They're good at making fun games. They're straight up **** at writing and supporting a cohesive ruleset. Having a friend who was in the MTG Judge program, the difference between how rules questions are handled has been staggering. MTG answers rules questions before the set is even released! They identify potentially complicated or confusing rules interactions and publish a document addressing those interactions with the release. They are able to do this because those FAQs and rulings are determined by *what the rules actually say*. There is no need for them to wait and see how the card plays before defining a ruling, because they aren't issuing rulings based on what impact it has on a game. They're issuing rulings based on what the actual rules say.

While I love Armada, FFG has been a big disappointment in the arena of rules support.

yeah was thinking that they could put a single word at the top Summary and keep it as is

Then put the full explanation on either the box insert or a larger card

Just now, Frimmel said:

Which brings me back to putting out the RAI/FAQ ruling when the expansion releases. If they know they haven't put enough words on the card to be clear why are they not providing those additional words at the outset?

I was pretty vocal in the Rapid Launch Bay debate and the eventual ruling was pretty much not what anyone had argued for. That situation as well could have been solved at the outset with the correct ruling on release.

2 minutes ago, Valca said:

Having a friend who was in the MTG Judge program, the difference between how rules questions are handled has been staggering. MTG answers rules questions before the set is even released! They identify potentially complicated or confusing rules interactions and publish a document addressing those interactions with the release. They are able to do this because those FAQs and rulings are determined by *what the rules actually say*. There is no need for them to wait and see how the card plays before defining a ruling, because they aren't issuing rulings based on what impact it has on a game. They're issuing rulings based on what the actual rules say.

To be fair, MTG is a much older and more mature game, with a professional scene and vastly greater revenues.

That, and the rulebook is 225 pages long.

17 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

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.

I disagree with this. It makes the squadrons less effective as any damage you can through with tie's you need to take as they are so fragile. It makes them less effective on getting that damage through the scatter. Thats a big deal against scatter aces list.

2 hours ago, slasher956 said:

As @Drasnighta just pointed out to me in the rules thread... to make this 100% clear (if RAI is correct) then they would run out of space on the card

I would also say that the could've easily fit "While a friendly squadron without Rogue is attacking, it may spend 1 die with an <accuracy> icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens in addition to its normal effect...." if RAW was intended. The font difference in RLB says they could've fit those extra words.

4 minutes ago, ripper998 said:

I disagree with this. It makes the squadrons less effective as any damage you can through with tie's you need to take as they are so fragile. It makes them less effective on getting that damage through the scatter. Thats a big deal against scatter aces list.

Maybe. Kind of depends on how much worth it you think 3-4 extra damage from being unable to scatter is.

I'm a glass half full kind of guy so in in a practical sense, at least in my mind, the OP ruling means an Alpha Sloan list takes one extra shot to kill an ace. Then again you could just forgo the Sloan affect and just accuracy the scatter which is super likely if an interceptor is rolling 6 dice with a reroll.

I'm a little worried about how OK everyone is though with a combo that RAW can basically just delete an expensive ace fighter with little or no interplay. Yeah under OP, you might lose a few more Tie Fighters but at no point do I think anyone I know wants a completely one sided exchange to exist in the game by design.

Honestly, I could play it either way and feel fine about it, I just felt like chiming in because of the sky is falling mentality that seems to pervade this thread (this isn't directed at you Ripper). I'm sure that people will still find Sloan effective for her points.

30 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

To be fair, MTG is a much older and more mature game, with a professional scene and vastly greater revenues.

That, and the rulebook is 225 pages long.

MTG's attitude towards its rules set has existed for quite along time now. While I don't expect FFG to be on par with MTG, they are far below the standard MTG has set. Let's not forget that FFG didn't have to start at the same place MTG did. They could have (should have) learned from the example of other successful games companies about how to create rules. The knowledge on how to create a tight rules set existed while they were creating their own rules. Also, this isn't their first game. FFG has had plenty of chances to learn from their mistakes on this and they simply haven't. Maybe it's a corporate culture thing. I don't know. It's just very disappointing.

The rule book is so long because Magic also has some very complex interactions which will hopefully never appear in Armada. Interactions which came from their early days when they operated in the same manner that FFG operates today.

9 minutes ago, Caldias said:

I would also say that the could've easily fit "While a friendly squadron without Rogue is attacking, it may spend 1 die with an <accuracy> icon to choose and spend 1 of the defender's defense tokens in addition to its normal effect...." if RAW was intended. The font difference in RLB says they could've fit those extra words.

But that's not what is being argued at all either in regards to Q's statement... In fact, that was how it was going to be ruled before Q became the Marshal.

What is being argued is the Ability for the defender to also spend it to gain the effect... Not to gain the effect because Sloane spent it...

There's 3 Schools of thought on the matter. Three Interpretations.

3 hours ago, Valca said:

MTG's attitude towards its rules set has existed for quite along time now. While I don't expect FFG to be on par with MTG, they are far below the standard MTG has set. Let's not forget that FFG didn't have to start at the same place MTG did. They could have (should have) learned from the example of other successful games companies about how to create rules. The knowledge on how to create a tight rules set existed while they were creating their own rules. Also, this isn't their first game. FFG has had plenty of chances to learn from their mistakes on this and they simply haven't. Maybe it's a corporate culture thing. I don't know. It's just very disappointing.

The rule book is so long because Magic also has some very complex interactions which will hopefully never appear in Armada. Interactions which came from their early days when they operated in the same manner that FFG operates today.

TO me it appears that FFG uses this model:

- Release new content

- Wait and see how it plays out (i.e. using the community as playtesters)

- FAQ

- Wait and see some more

- If one card/archetype becomes prevalent, then Errata.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

But that's not what is being argued at all either in regards to Q's statement... In fact, that was how it was going to be ruled before Q became the Marshal.

What is being argued is the Ability for the defender to also spend it to gain the effect... Not to gain the effect because Sloane spent it...

There's 3 Schools of thought on the matter. Three Interpretations.

I understand what's being argued, I'm merely stating that if that was the intent then FFG could've easily put the clarifying text within the card and leave no room for ambiguity. I am sympathetic to all three fields of thought, despite my own opinion on the matter. At the end of the day, I guess we'll just have to see what their FAQ says.

1 minute ago, Caldias said:

I understand what's being argued, I'm merely stating that if that was the intent then FFG could've easily put the clarifying text within the card and leave no room for ambiguity. I am sympathetic to all three fields of thought, despite my own opinion on the matter. At the end of the day, I guess we'll just have to see what their FAQ says.

Don't hold your breath.

5 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

TO me it appears that FFG uses this model:

- Release new content

- Wait and see how it plays out (i.e. using the community as playtesters)

- FAQ

- Wait and see some more

- If one card/archtype becomes prevalent, then Errata.

Yep, and it's a terrible idea from a rules design perspective. It creates these bizarre situations where you can't determine what a card should do simply by reading the rules, because FFG might have wanted it to do something else. And instead of changing the rules or errating the card, they just issue an FAQ saying "this card does this". So you're left with a jumbled mess of contradictory rules and FAQs.

Just now, Valca said:

Yep, and it's a terrible idea form a rules design perspective. It creates these bizarre situations where you can't determine what a card should do simply by reading the rules, because FFG might have wanted it to do something else. And instead of changing the rules or errating the card, they just issue an FAQ saying "this card does this". So you're left with a jumbled mess of contradictory rules and FAQs.

...and sometimes they go Orple and decide a card does something altogether unexpected.

Yea, I'm talking to you RLB!