7 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Like I said, I was pro-RAW before this even went down, and now it's still being upheld as RAW. So you are just plain wrong. I like both RAW and RAI because they allow very different strategies.

Right, so you want to use some reasonable support on your part for what is a crystal clear RAW ruling to erase the fact that you are angry people got upset about an official overstepping his role. Yes, you can read the rules, so can everyone else. Anyone being honest knows how Sloane works RAW, admitting that is the most classy thing this Q guy did during the entire debacle.

Just now, SloaneKettering said:

Right, so you want to use some reasonable support on your part for what is a crystal clear RAW ruling to erase the fact that you are angry people got upset about an official overstepping his role. Yes, you can read the rules, so can everyone else. Anyone being honest knows how Sloane works RAW, admitting that is the most classy thing this Q guy did during the entire debacle.

Q's handled this entire "debacle" with an exceptional level of class.

1 hour ago, Megatronrex said:

This part

Yeah, I am still a bit unclear as to where I am not backed up by events that happened in real time here. He did try to nerf Sloane with a personal FAQ favoring his RAI over RAW. He did try to extend this ruling to GenCon and the community as a whole with a call to shadowy insider sources as proof that he had authority to do so. It is not obvious whether he was thrown under the bus by FFG for doing something they explicitly asked him to do, wrongly informed about what was going to happen by mistake, assumed too much from his interactions as a playtester, or was lying outright. We do NOT know which of these is the case here. I have always admitted that I don't know which is the case, because I don't. I didn't even complain one bit until it became clear that he didn't have the support of FFG. That is what makes this a real issue with a tournament official overstepping his bounds instead of a bro putting himself on the line to fix a less than top selling game for a company that just didn't have the resources to do what they felt was proper.

19 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I'm not sure I follow the logic. Can you elaborate?

Of course.
(All quotes from the Text-only version of the Documents, if possible)

1. The Marshal is the final judge of Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
   Armada Tournament Regulations, Page 4: "A marshal also determines if unsporting conduct has occurred (...)"
   
2. The penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct can be, when recommended to the organiser - be disqualification. (However, the Organizer is the final decision maker on Disqualification)
   Armada Tournament regulations, Page 4, cont from above " (...) and what the appropriate remedy is, referring any recommendations for disqualification to the organizer."
   
3. Unsportsmanlike conduct extends not only to the location and time of the event, but before and after, and to digital spaces.
   Fundamental Event Document, Page 11, "Unsporting Conduct": "Unsporting conduct is not limited to occurrences which happen during an event. It can extend to the time before and after the event, as well as digital spaces."
   
4. Unsportsmanlike conduct includes (but is not limited to)
   Fundamental Event Document, Page 11-12:
   
   • Behaving in a manner which could be interpreted by a reasonable person as bullying, harassment, belligerent, stalking, vulgar, obscene, threatening, or hurtful
   
   • Repeatedly refusing to abide by the instructions of an event leader

Ergo, there is a logical pathway that shows that if someone was throwing around Unsportsmanlike conduct, in a Forum thread (a digital space), before the tournament (which can be considered), then they can be disqualified from the tournament, if the marshal deems it to be worthy of it, and the Organizer as the final arbiter agrees - oftentimes the Organizer and the Marshal are the same person, as the Organizer has the Marshal duties by default, unless they are delegated.

Even acting in an unsportsmanlike way so afterwards can result in disqualification retroactively, awarding any un-awarded or non-physical prizes to the next appropriate person, and potentially landing the offender on the suspension list, as any disqualification must be immediately reported to FFG OP's suspension system, and if severe or blatant enough, can involve further event sanctions...

1 minute ago, SloaneKettering said:

Yeah, I am still a bit unclear as to where I am not backed up by events that happened in real time here. He did try to nerf Sloane with a personal FAQ favoring his RAI over RAW. He did try to extend this ruling to GenCon and the community as a whole with a call to shadowy insider sources as proof that he had authority to do so. It is not obvious that he was wrongly informed, assumed too much, or was lying outright, I have always admitted that I don't know which is the case, because I don't. I didn't even complain one bit until it became clear that he didn't have the support of FFG. That is what makes this a real issue with a tournament official overstepping his bounds instead of a bro putting himself on the line to fix a less than top selling game for a company that just didn't have the resources to do what they felt was proper.

Let me help to clarify then. Your whole post was nothing but an accusation towards Q of colluding to change the rules to help his "bros". As marshal it was his responsibility to make a call on how a new commander would work at the tournament he was marshaling. That's what he did, plain and simple. Just because you don't like the call doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Q's not marshaling GenCon as far as I know so his rulings have no authority there. He said he consulted with play testers and other TOs, can you provide any proof whatsoever that he did not? What grounds do you have to accuse him of any of this "It is not obvious that he was wrongly informed, assumed too much, or was lying outright"? Unless he's been removed as marshal then he still has the support of FFG. He in no way shape or form overstepped his bounds and in fact went above and beyond to insure that anyone going had knowledge of how he would rule ahead of time. Lastly who are these mysterious "bros" Q has?

What makes me laugh at all of this is the RAI vs RAW argument. I personally feel you CANNOT quote RAW on a card that inherently breaks the basic concepts of the game. How can you argue about RAW when the card itself breaks RAW. Other cards that break the rules are Rhymer, Gunnery Teams, Demolisher, Rieekan, etc. When you start ******* about RAW referencing a card like Sloane I feel like your argument has no foundation. At that point only an official FAQ or a Dev chiming in can ratify rulings on those cards. In this case the Marshal decided that until he was contradicted he would do his best to rule how he thought the card should be interpreted. What many of you dont know is that the Marshal who initially was going to TO the tournament had stated that he was going to rule that when Sloane spent a defenders token the defender could benefit from the effects of the token without the need to spend it again. Those of us who knew about that railed against it because it made Sloane useless.

The other side of the table was what Q had initially stated on his post ended up being a compromise between what he thought it should be and what the the original TO had stated he would rule. Q was simply trying to take a middle ground until he heard otherwise.

Is it too much to just request a lock on this thread so we can all move on? I mean, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's not really gone anywhere productive in a couple of pages.

4 minutes ago, Overdawg said:

What makes me laugh at all of this is the RAI vs RAW argument. I personally feel you CANNOT quote RAW on a card that inherently breaks the basic concepts of the game. How can you argue about RAW when the card itself breaks RAW. Other cards that break the rules are Rhymer, Gunnery Teams, Demolisher, Rieekan, etc. When you start ******* about RAW referencing a card like Sloane I feel like your argument has no foundation. At that point only an official FAQ or a Dev chiming in can ratify rulings on those cards. In this case the Marshal decided that until he was contradicted he would do his best to rule how he thought the card should be interpreted. What many of you dont know is that the Marshal who initially was going to TO the tournament had stated that he was going to rule that when Sloane spent a defenders token the defender could benefit from the effects of the token without the need to spend it again. Those of us who knew about that railed against it because it made Sloane useless.

The other side of the table was what Q had initially stated on his post ended up being a compromise between what he thought it should be and what the the original TO had stated he would rule. Q was simply trying to take a middle ground until he heard otherwise.

you have me on ignore that's cool, I will answer for everyone else.

the RRG says that when cards contradict the rulebook the cards win......

2 minutes ago, BrobaFett said:

Is it too much to just request a lock on this thread so we can all move on? I mean, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it's not really gone anywhere productive in a couple of pages.

If you report all my posts you might get a mod to stop by. I guess they would have to deem the thread has gone off track though, which is hard to say.

It all just swirls back to FFG handling FAQs poorly. The healthiest thing would be for them to spoil everything early on so folks can produce questions and the FAQ drops at each wave release. Gives an initial feedback that they can modify later on if something is ruled in an unbalanced way.

Holy crap, this is still going? Wow. Seriously Q, I'm declaring you to be a saint. When did the community get so toxic that a TO that was trying to be as fair as possible and get ahead of the situation gets personally insulted to such a ridiculous extent?

I dub these Saint Q'us of Armadus.

7 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

If you report all my posts you might get a mod to stop by. I guess they would have to deem the thread has gone off track though, which is hard to say.

probably have better luck reporting mine

I hope Q reverts the ruling on the day so you can really feel some pain.

Oh that wasted $400+.

I guarentee that if you are moaning about this that you were/are never capable of winning. In my opinion of course.

Just now, BergerFett said:

probably have better luck reporting mine

If everyone reports each other, then we all take the fall. They cant ban everyone...right?

36 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

Let me help to clarify then. Your whole post was nothing but an accusation towards Q of colluding to change the rules to help his "bros". As marshal it was his responsibility to make a call on how a new commander would work at the tournament he was marshaling. That's what he did, plain and simple. Just because you don't like the call doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Q's not marshaling GenCon as far as I know so his rulings have no authority there. He said he consulted with play testers and other TOs, can you provide any proof whatsoever that he did not? What grounds do you have to accuse him of any of this "It is not obvious that he was wrongly informed, assumed too much, or was lying outright"? Unless he's been removed as marshal then he still has the support of FFG. He in no way shape or form overstepped his bounds and in fact went above and beyond to insure that anyone going had knowledge of how he would rule ahead of time. Lastly who are these mysterious "bros" Q has?

Thank you for clarifying a bit. My post said he wanted to change the rules to his RAI. Which he pretty obviously did, because he tried to. Are you saying I should just assume that Q totally didn't want to do what he literally already did because that makes him look better in hindsight? Not trying to assume anything here bro. I never said or assumed anything about why Q did what he did, I offered several possible motivations, some of which paint him in a perfectly good or understandable light. I only said one specific person who is actually not Q to my knowledge was mad because he didn't get the ruling he wanted.

How is the quoted section an accusation when it specifically says that not one of those conclusions are obvious? Maybe my wording was just bad and you misunderstood because of that? I will edit it for clarity. I never questioned that he consulted with anyone, just said that he either misunderstood what conclusion was reached, assumed too much power to issue the conclusion he did, or outright lied that things would be ruled as he said they would. Again, and to be clear, I DO NOT know which of these is the case. One of them has to be the case, however, with the facts that we have at hand. They only other possibility is if you believe FFG explicity told him to do what he did, then threw him under the bus later. It's a theory for sure, not one I had considered due to its, err, tin foil hat nature, but I will edit that in as well if it will help. Seems like a really big assumption in Q's favor, sure, but hey, maybe FFG really did force him to do something really inappropriate then pulled the rug out from under him.

If you want to ignore how his attempt to issue a personal FAQ could have effected GenCon and other tournaments, fine. Just don't pretend that he didn't directly say that is how other tournaments should be ruled for consistency and implied that was the way FFG really wanted it to be. I might have considered that he needed to be removed as TO for a while after FFG overruled him, but I think we all know that isn't necessary. They can take extra steps to help him rule RAW at NoVA if players feel it is needed, but I don't think anyone yet has actually posted asking for him to be removed.

5 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I hope Q reverts the ruling on the day so you can really feel some pain.

Oh that wasted $400+.

I guarentee that if you are moaning about this that you were/are never capable of winning. In my opinion of course.

/sigh

was more about an EO overstepping (perceived) bounds/RAI over RAW than the actual rulings.

3 minutes ago, SloaneKettering said:

Thank you for clarifying a bit. My post said he wanted to change the rules to his RAI. Which he pretty obviously did, because he tried to. Are you saying I should just assume that Q totally didn't want to do what he literally already did because that makes him look better in hindsight? Not trying to assume anything here bro. I never said or assumed anything about why Q did what he did, I offered several possible motivations, some of which paint him in a perfectly good or understandable light. I only said one specific person who is actually not Q to my knowledge was mad because he didn't get the ruling he wanted.

How is the quoted section an accusation when it specifically says that not one of those conclusions are obvious? Maybe my wording was just bad and you misunderstood because of that? I will edit it for clarity. I never questioned that he consulted with anyone, just said that he either misunderstood what conclusion was reached, assumed too much power to issue the conclusion he did, or outright lied that things would be ruled as he said they would. Again, and to be clear, I DO NOT know which of these is the case. One of them has to be the case, however, with the facts that we have at hand. They only other possibility is if you believe FFG explicity told him to do what he did, then threw him under the bus later. It's a theory for sure, not one I had considered due to its, err, tin foil hat nature, but I will edit that in as well if it will help. Seems like a really big assumption in Q's favor, sure, but hey, maybe FFG really did force him to do something really inappropriate then pulled the rug out from under him.

If you want to ignore how his attempt to issue a personal FAQ could have effected GenCon and other tournaments, fine. Just don't pretend that he didn't directly say that is how other tournaments should be ruled for consistency and implied that was the way FFG really wanted it to be. I might have considered that he needed to be removed as TO for a while after FFG overruled him, but I think we all know that isn't necessary. They can take extra steps to help him rule RAW at NoVA if players feel it is needed, but I don't think anyone yet has actually posted asking for him to be removed.

ehh having him removed is definitely taking it too far. Its not an issue with Q, its an issue with the FFG process.

/Thread

On the flip side, this thread would please my patron saint, for he doth revel in chaos

7 minutes ago, SloaneKettering said:

Thank you for clarifying a bit. My post said he wanted to change the rules to his RAI. Which he pretty obviously did, because he tried to. Are you saying I should just assume that Q totally didn't want to do what he literally already did because that makes him look better in hindsight? Not trying to assume anything here bro. I never said or assumed anything about why Q did what he did, I offered several possible motivations, some of which paint him in a perfectly good or understandable light. I only said one specific person who is actually not Q to my knowledge was mad because he didn't get the ruling he wanted.

How is the quoted section an accusation when it specifically says that not one of those conclusions are obvious? Maybe my wording was just bad and you misunderstood because of that? I will edit it for clarity. I never questioned that he consulted with anyone, just said that he either misunderstood what conclusion was reached, assumed too much power to issue the conclusion he did, or outright lied that things would be ruled as he said they would. Again, and to be clear, I DO NOT know which of these is the case. One of them has to be the case, however, with the facts that we have at hand. They only other possibility is if you believe FFG explicity told him to do what he did, then threw him under the bus later. It's a theory for sure, not one I had considered due to its, err, tin foil hat nature, but I will edit that in as well if it will help. Seems like a really big assumption in Q's favor, sure, but hey, maybe FFG really did force him to do something really inappropriate then pulled the rug out from under him.

If you want to ignore how his attempt to issue a personal FAQ could have effected GenCon and other tournaments, fine. Just don't pretend that he didn't directly say that is how other tournaments should be ruled for consistency and implied that was the way FFG really wanted it to be. I might have considered that he needed to be removed as TO for a while after FFG overruled him, but I think we all know that isn't necessary. They can take extra steps to help him rule RAW at NoVA if players feel it is needed, but I don't think anyone yet has actually posted asking for him to be removed.

Are you really trying to claim that this isn't an accusation

"I don't think it was all just selfless concern for the community. How was he gonna get Sloane nerfed at GenCon without trying to issue his personal FAQ ahead of time?"

I feel like I'm watching that scene from airplane! where Striker and Elaine are slow dancing, but the girl scouts keep brawling in the background.

5 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

Are you really trying to claim that this isn't an accusation

"I don't think it was all just selfless concern for the community. How was he gonna get Sloane nerfed at GenCon without trying to issue his personal FAQ ahead of time?"

That isn't the part that you quoted though, so no, that wasn't the part I was addressing. It also isn't an accusation though, its a fact of history, because he clearly and explicitly tried to do exactly that in this thread and with the ruling itself. Do you not agree that the RAI over RAW interpretation of Sloane is a nerf or what? He said it was, explaining that she was undercosted otherwise and implying, despite an NDA, that he had insider information that this is what FFG actually wanted to happen.

>Thread

*gets more popcorn*

22 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

I hope Q reverts the ruling on the day so you can really feel some pain.

Oh that wasted $400+.

I guarentee that if you are moaning about this that you were/are never capable of winning. In my opinion of course.

LOL, well I guess it's not just us nobodies taking the low road huh. Really amusing to see that this post is liked by the same people crying that everyone should just leave Q alone and never ever question such a man again, despite the fact that FFG decided to question him. Reverting it at the event would only prove the worst comments about the man to be true though, and I don't think anyone actually wants that.