23 minutes ago, Caldias said:

If you have 4 hammerheads with TFA, and one takes 5 damage, if stacking was allowed you could exhaust the other 3 to have the original take 2 damage, and the others take one a pop.

Which is how they demonstrate it in the preview article, but doesn't seem to be explicitly supported in the rules or card text. Which is why there's confusion.

32 minutes ago, Caldias said:

If you have 4 hammerheads with TFA, and one takes 5 damage, if stacking was allowed you could exhaust the other 3 to have the original take 2 damage, and the others take one a pop.

Thanks Caldias (edit: and Cactus). Is the reasoning that each "damage" is its own "when" trigger, and thus, multiple applications of damage could trigger the effect on different ships with the title?

21 minutes ago, Rocmistro said:

Thanks Caldias (edit: and Cactus). Is the reasoning that each "damage" is its own "when" trigger, and thus, multiple applications of damage could trigger the effect on different ships with the title?

That's the question at issue, yes. Damage is assigned 1 point at a time, but it's not clear if assigning multiple points of damage is a single event or if it is several smaller individual events that could each be their own trigger.

3 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

That's the question at issue, yes. Damage is assigned 1 point at a time, but it's not clear if assigning multiple points of damage is a single event or if it is several smaller individual events that could each be their own trigger.

If assigning each single point of damage is its own trigger, then Biggs is going to get incredibly stupid.

7 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

If assigning each single point of damage is its own trigger, then Biggs is going to get incredibly stupid.

Except Biggs (and Bright Hope) states "before X suffers damage" while TFA states "when X takes damage"

12 minutes ago, GalacticFister said:

Except Biggs (and Bright Hope) states "before X suffers damage" while TFA states "when X takes damage"

Doesn't change it. Biggs takes, say, five damage. Point one...before He suffers damage, triggers, transfer. Point two, same. Point three, same...

3 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Doesn't change it. Biggs takes, say, five damage. Point one...before He suffers damage, triggers, transfer. Point two, same. Point three, same...

Biggs and Bright Hope specifically mention reducing the total damage by 1, which TFA does not.

1 minute ago, Darth Lupine said:

Doesn't change it. Biggs takes, say, five damage. Point one...before He suffers damage, triggers, transfer. Point two, same. Point three, same...

I just don't see why they would bother wording TFA with a different timing word when they could have easily had TFA have the same exact wording as Bright Hope.

18 minutes ago, Viktor Tanek said:

Biggs and Bright Hope specifically mention reducing the total damage by 1, which TFA does not.

Good point.

See updated original post. Developer just chimed in.

Sloane is RAW.

See you guys at Nationals!

5 minutes ago, IceQube MkII said:

See updated original post. Developer just chimed in.

Sloane is RAW.

See you guys at Nationals!

Now wait for the people waiting to see the transcripts....

I'm glad that they looked at the discussions in the community and at least gave an updated direction to go with. Hopefully people will allow this ruling to go forward without another 15 pages of pointless argument.

Yeah, opinions aside, kudos to Q for taking the heat to get the devs to chime in, and well ahead of the tournament.

2 hours ago, IceQube MkII said:

See updated original post. Developer just chimed in.

Sloane is RAW.

See you guys at Nationals!

So just to clarify, suppose Sloane spends one token from a pair of identical tokens (say one of the braces on Rhymer), can the other token be spent for its regular effect? Given you're normally limited to spending one of a given token in an attack, I was a little unsure.

8 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

So just to clarify, suppose Sloane spends one token from a pair of identical tokens (say one of the braces on Rhymer), can the other token be spent for its regular effect? Given you're normally limited to spending one of a given token in an attack, I was a little unsure.

This would be the RAW, as only the defender is only prevented from spending two copies of the same token. Sloane is not the defender when she is attacking, so the defender can spend the other token without issue. It would be exceptionally odd for them to force RAW one way, but not RAW the other.

Just now, thecactusman17 said:

This would be the RAW, as only the defender is only prevented from spending two copies of the same token. Sloane is not the defender when she is attacking, so the defender can spend the other token without issue. It would be exceptionally odd for them to force RAW one way, but not RAW the other.

That was my assumption as well, but I just wanted to be sure.

Hey @IceQube MkII, FYI, the update to the update makes the OP read inconsistently now, if someone is reading it for the first time (e.g., hasn't been following along). You might wrap the extraneous or out-of-date discussion bits in strikeout or spoiler tags for clarity.

4 hours ago, Caldias said:

Yeah, opinions aside, kudos to Q for taking the heat to get the devs to chime in, and well ahead of the tournament.

This. Good on you, Q, thanks.

7 hours ago, Caldias said:

Yeah, opinions aside, kudos to Q for taking the heat to get the devs to chime in, and well ahead of the tournament.

Yeah, I mean, all we need to do to get the Devs to tell us RTFM (follow RAW) is make a blatantly incorrect ruling based on your personal opinion for a premier event instead.

1 minute ago, Darthain said:

Yeah, I mean, all we need to do to get the Devs to tell us RTFM (follow RAW) is make a blatantly incorrect ruling based on your personal opinion instead.

Right, because that's exactly what happened with jamming fields?

21 minutes ago, Darthain said:

Yeah, I mean, all we need to do to get the Devs to tell us RTFM (follow RAW) is make a blatantly incorrect ruling based on your personal opinion for a premier event instead.

To me the RAI ruling was blatantly wrong and went against any logical interpretation of the rules. Attempts to make it fit involving intricacies of punctuation and grammar took me back years to debates about meanings of long gone Ancients rules. I don't think the OP meant any harm though. I think he was actually trying to help the community and the event he was marshalling. It's not a crime to make a mistake .

15 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

That's the question at issue, yes. Damage is assigned 1 point at a time, but it's not clear if assigning multiple points of damage is a single event or if it is several smaller individual events that could each be their own trigger.

You also suffer the total damage, and resolve it one point at a time.

Damage is not multiple event, and that is stated in no uncertain terms, no grey area, no misunderstanding. Just people choosing, willfully to ignore a rule they don't agree with.

3 hours ago, Darthain said:

Yeah, I mean, all we need to do to get the Devs to tell us RTFM (follow RAW) is make a blatantly incorrect ruling based on your personal opinion for a premier event instead.

it wasn't blatantly incorrect...it was how the devs wanted it played before....if you didn't believe him then...why do you now suddenly believe him now.....

@IceQube MkII Can you put an "Updated" in the thread title please?

3 hours ago, Bolshevik65 said:

To me the RAI ruling was blatantly wrong and went against any logical interpretation of the rules. Attempts to make it fit involving intricacies of punctuation and grammar took me back years to debates about meanings of long gone Ancients rules. I don't think the OP meant any harm though. I think he was actually trying to help the community and the event he was marshalling. It's not a crime to make a mistake .

The only folks who think that it was "blatantly" against RAW are those who are isolating a single bullet point out of context.

1 hour ago, Mogrok said:

it wasn't blatantly incorrect...it was how the devs wanted it played before....if you didn't believe him then...why do you now suddenly believe him now.....

A) because reasons

B) it is in line exactly with RAW, and he was quite adamant in his opinion prior and would not change it in a whim.

@Bolshevik65 I was not implying malicious intent, that's a bit silly. I was implying that the gun was jumped as a knee jerk reaction. Did he believe what he was doing was in the best interest of the game? Certainly, but I don't feel that is relevant in the least, leave faith to religion.