Oh man, are we back to the part of the thread where nobodies on the internet smugly insult someone who is doing their best to run a top tier event and keep everything as transparent as possible? Awesome.

I believe the initial issue was the utter lack of transparency as to the OP's reasoning behind the initial ruling (remember, based off of hours of conversations....that were allegedly protected). Essentially, it was his interpretation as to RAI overriding RAW. However, it now appears that those hours of debate did not include the right people.

6 minutes ago, Cutter9999 said:

However, it now appears that those hours of debate did not include the right people.

Or that somebody just changed their mind based on the arguments and criticism, like they've done several times before. Snipe was ruled one way by Michael Gernes himself then ruled oppositely the next time the FAQ came out.

16 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Oh man, are we back to the part of the thread where nobodies on the internet smugly insult someone who is doing their best to run a top tier event and keep everything as transparent as possible? Awesome.

It's hard being mere mortals around these demigods of the forums.

18 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Oh man, are we back to the part of the thread where nobodies on the internet smugly insult someone who is doing their best to run a top tier event and keep everything as transparent as possible? Awesome.

Oh man, are we back to the part of the process where boot sucking toadies come out to defend inappropriate actions by officials because us little nobodies have no idea what it is like to be one of the chosen elite? Awesome.

Lol.

I want to thank @IceQube MkII for being a complete class act during this entire thing. While I may have disagreed with his ruling and presentation, he was always polite, and his proactivity in getting in a ruling way ahead of time resulted in this clarification.

Hats off to you sir, I will gladly play in any event you Marshall, and if I do I even promise to behave myself! ?

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

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.

Faith? Religion?? Implying malicious intent??? I'm sorry I have no idea what you're talking about. I have no intention of arguing over the internet over it. Have a great weekend.

On 8/5/2017 at 9:09 AM, WuFame said:

Or that somebody just changed their mind based on the arguments and criticism, like they've done several times before. Snipe was ruled one way by Michael Gernes himself then ruled oppositely the next time the FAQ came out.

Oh yeah, it's exactly the same as when Michael Gernes does it in an email. Exactly the same as intentionally issuing an admitted RAI over RAW rule change for a major tournament as a playtester. This guy Q should be presented and treated as the equivalent of the games producer when thinking about what happened and whether anyone might have overstepped their role in unprofessional ways.

On 8/5/2017 at 9:48 AM, Darth Lupine said:

I want to thank @IceQube MkII for being a complete class act during this entire thing. While I may have disagreed with his ruling and presentation, he was always polite, and his proactivity in getting in a ruling way ahead of time resulted in this clarification.

Hats off to you sir, I will gladly play in any event you Marshall, and if I do I even promise to behave myself! ?

A clarification that was not needed by anyone honest about what is actually RAW or RAI, which even OP was. If FFG didn't have to deal with this nonsense, they might have been able to do a thousand other possible things, maybe even answer a question that was actually unclear in RAW.

2 hours ago, Formynder4 said:

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

And yet it would appear those of us who tought it was blatantly against RAW where, after all, correct.

Until FFG decides to reverse this, ALA XI7s.....?

10 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

And yet it would appear those of us who tought it was blatantly against RAW where, after all, correct.

Until FFG decides to reverse this, ALA XI7s.....?

Your side turning out to be correct doesnt validate the logic used to get there.

Need to see working.

36 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

Your side turning out to be correct doesnt validate the logic used to get there.

Need to see working.

Seeing it was apparently the developer that stated so, I don't. Looks like it was RAI that it works this way, as well as RAW....and it's an official ruling, so unless a different ruling comes out of FFG, I am content.

33 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Seeing it was apparently the developer that stated so, I don't. Looks like it was RAI that it works this way, as well as RAW....and it's an official ruling, so unless a different ruling comes out of FFG, I am content.

But technically it's not official unless there is an FAQ that I haven't seen yet.

Regardless, I'm willing to follow whatever unofficial ruling handed down from a TO or FFG.

4 hours ago, Formynder4 said:

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

I just looked at a sentence that said simply that a defence token could only be spent once during an attack. I wasn't bothered about bullet points because it looked clear enough and simple enough to me. Turns out I was right. That doesn't make me any better or smarter than the chap who thought it was RAI for the tourney he was marshalling or better or smarter than those who agreed with him. I thought they were mistakenly using English punctuation to make a case for the rules saying and/or meaning something they clearly didn't. That's all. If I was "isolating a single bullet point out of context" I surely would have been wrong wouldn't I? As it is on this occasion those of us who thought it was RAW were correct. Next time I have an opinion on a rule I may well be wrong, who knows?

On 8/4/2017 at 8:49 PM, Undeadguy said:

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

23 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

But technically it's not official unless there is an FAQ that I haven't seen yet.

Regardless, I'm willing to follow whatever unofficial ruling handed down from a TO or FFG.

LOL, tripping over themselves trying to save some face. Funny stuff.

"I want to question the validity of the ruling by FFG without seemingly contradicting my earlier post. Hmm, I know, I will imply that the ruling directly from FFG is not clear or official because I didn't see a FAQ. That's totally different than demanding to see the transcripts, which I previously implied was an idiotic and unnecessary level of skepticism. Yup, airtight logic. It's just different when I do it! "

Does this imply the other rulings are also correct and intended by the developers (i.e. TFA not stacking)?

6 hours ago, Snipafist said:

Oh man, are we back to the part of the thread where nobodies on the internet smugly insult someone who is doing their best to run a top tier event and keep everything as transparent as possible? Awesome.

What are you even talking about??? Has anyone even insulted him since he posted the update? If anything he's being praised for weathering the storm and being transparent. Unless I'm missing something...

14 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

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.

Welcome to the English language, where the rules are made up and the points don't matter!

4 hours ago, GalacticFister said:

Does this imply the other rulings are also correct and intended by the developers (i.e. TFA not stacking)?

What are you even talking about??? Has anyone even insulted him since he posted the update? If anything he's being praised for weathering the storm and being transparent. Unless I'm missing something...

The fact that this didn't occur until FFG intervened is a disgrace.

16 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

The fact that this didn't occur until FFG intervened is a disgrace.

The fact that they had to intervene in a situation where RAW was crystal clear is a disgrace. Yup, let's all thank someone for causing a problem so bad that FFG had to step in to fix it. How about, you do what you want and you let us do what we want? Nobody sane is going to take it past intense arguments about a plastic miniatures game.

2 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

The fact that this didn't occur until FFG intervened is a disgrace.

This. This for days. @IceQube MkII, if you are ever at a tournament in Atlanta I make, your lunch is on me.

36 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

This. This for days. @IceQube MkII, if you are ever at a tournament in Atlanta I make, your lunch is on me.

@IceQube MkII, your NoVa Open lunch is on me.

Preferably before you start tallying end-of-day scores.

3 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

The fact that this didn't occur until FFG intervened is a disgrace.

Wat.

The fact that you missed the numerous times it did occur before FFG intervened is a disgrace.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

Wat.

The fact that you missed the numerous times it did occur before FFG intervened is a disgrace.

I've been reading through this thread since only a few hours after it was posted. Until the FFG ruling, nearly every other post was excoriating Qube for daring to advise people of a rules decision he made as the TO over a month in advance. Even the ones that ultimately agreed with his right to do so.

8 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Until the FFG ruling, nearly every other post was excoriating Qube for daring to advise people of a rules decision he made as the TO over a month in advance.

What? No, they were excoriating him for the ruling and/or the methodology behind it, not for promulgating the ruling. That's ridiculous, show me one single example where somebody says they're mad that he announced the ruling this far ahead. How silly, who would even be mad about that??

In fact, generally people went out of their way to specify that they appreciated his forthrightness even when they disagreed with his ruling. I know I did.