It'd also technically be fine to question the Marshall during the tournament as well, you just don't have the authority to overrule him.

Q's made his points. If you disagree, make sure you relay your grievances with FFG. If they wanted to step in, they could.

As is, I agree with Q's rulings, but I understand people being upset. Just be constructively upset, please.

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

I am just going to start playing the 7 gozanti isd1 motti list now cuz all other options just went out of the window for imperials.

I audibly groaned at the state of Armada when you said this.

21 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

must be nice, i just dropped $300 on my flight and am starting to regret it.

Hey bud, sorry, i didn't mean to rib you. I understand how this ruling could scuttle your whole weekend/ fleet prep. Hope either way you go and kick serious ****/ have a good time

Just now, WuFame said:

I audibly groaned at the state of Armada when you said this.

Its these RAI rulings, that kill options.

Sloane is good, she isnt motti good, but shes good. should she be 28-30pts... maybe. should Motti be 30pts ******* yes. That falls on FFG. Buy deciding something is undercosted behind closed doors you stagnate the meta.

was rhymer or demo undercosted? yes. Is dodonna under costed yes? Flechettes undercosted Yes? shall we continue. ******* TIE Interceptors are so Undercosted, they ruin the entire lineup of Imperial squadrons.

I do want to reiterate that it is very cool that the TO came online and gave his rulings ahead of time.

I may disagree with some rulings - but @IceQube MkII is a class act for posting this in advance.

3 minutes ago, GammonLord said:

Hey bud, sorry, i didn't mean to rib you. I understand how this ruling could scuttle your whole weekend/ fleet prep. Hope either way you go and kick serious ****/ have a good time

Its fine. the other thing is NOVA is a pay to play con, so its not like i can just cut my loses and go play other games, i would have to then spend money to go register for other events.

45 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

Out of curiosity @IceQube MkII (and just to put another non-FAQed situation on your plate) how would you rule on this

If an X-wing is at distance 1 of Instigator and engaged with Valen Rudor can the X-Wing attack Instigator or Rudor or does it create a scenario where the X-Wing can't attack and can't move?

We answered this one months ago on the Rules Forum, mate

There's only one single Logical Pathway when you actually read what the rules say, and not what we shortcut the rules to say

3 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

Its these RAI rulings, that kill options.

Sloane is good, she isnt motti good, but shes good. should she be 28-30pts... maybe. should Motti be 30pts ******* yes. That falls on FFG. Buy deciding something is undercosted behind closed doors you stagnate the meta.

was rhymer or demo undercosted? yes. Is dodonna under costed yes? Flechettes undercosted Yes? shall we continue. ******* TIE Interceptors are so Undercosted, they ruin the entire lineup of Imperial squadrons.

I feel like you are being a bit dramatic, buddy.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

We answered this one months ago on the Rules Forum, mate

There's only one single Logical Pathway when you actually read what the rules say, and not what we shortcut the rules to say

You had time to call it a dumb question but you didn't have time to answer the question?

Edit: Either edited with answer or I didn't see the answer quoted. Either way, I apologize, Dras. Emotions are high.

So Sloan won't work the way you want her to, and that suddenly invalidates EVERY other admiral and fleet composition so you can only fly a Motti ISD and flotillas? Over hyperbolize much?

Just now, WuFame said:

I feel like you are being a bit dramatic, buddy.

A little but which part?

Sloane vs Motti was a very close toss up already and I honestly see no reason to run her based on these rulings over motti anymore.

the stuff i listed as undercosted i feel is undercosted.

19 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I think it's not your place to question a Marshall.

Tourny Regs Page 4:

A marshal is an expert on the game’s rules and regulations and the final authority on their application during a tournament.

At a player’s request, a marshal can review a judge ruling and provide a final determination.

It's my place to question the judgements of a marshal before, during, and after a tournament. It is not my place to decide to ignore the marshal's ruling while I am in his tournament.

40 minutes ago, Democratus said:

Not true.

From page 4 of the RRG (emphasis added):

• "Defense tokens can be spent by the defender during the “Spend Defense Tokens” step of an attack to produce the effects described below:"

From Sloane (emphasis):

• "While a friendly squadron without Rogue is attacking, it may spend 1 die with an icon"

RAW clearly states that you only get the benefit of a defense token when the defender spends it.
Sloane clearly states that the attacker is spending the token.

Trust me, I participated in the Great Nova Debate of 2017 about this, and I was arguing exactly the way you are now, that it didn't make sense. But the rules allowed enough wiggle room for a very well-intentioned TO to draw that conclusion. My only point in bringing that up was that these rules are murky with multiple strange conclusions possible to be drawn to logically.

Just now, Valca said:

It's my place to question the judgements of a marshal before, during, and after a tournament. It is not my place to decide to ignore the marshal's ruling while I am in his tournament.

The rulings are final. Not sure what the point is in questioning them, unless you don't understand the interaction.

1 minute ago, WuFame said:

I feel like you are being a bit dramatic, buddy.

Maybe just let him vent. Same thing happens whenever you get a nerf or something awesome comes out.

can someone make an Armada version of this?

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

We answered this one months ago on the Rules Forum, mate

There's only one single Logical Pathway when you actually read what the rules say, and not what we shortcut the rules to say

Engagement says you must attack a squadron if possible... It doesn't say you cannot attack Ships... It says you must attack a squadron if possible....

It is not possible to attack any of the Squadrons.

Ergo, you can still attack Ships.

Don't know how I forgot that this got answered. I looked back at my posts and I've even cited it in another thread about snipe.

1 minute ago, Formynder4 said:

So Sloan won't work the way FFG Made her, and that suddenly invalidates EVERY other admiral and fleet composition so you can only fly a Motti ISD and flotillas? Over hyperbolize much?

fixed that for you.

Look at whats winning Store Champs right now, its either Motti ISD Gozanti spam, or Sloane. One of these things just took a decent hit. Its not too much hyperbole

Just now, Undeadguy said:

The rulings are final. Not sure what the point is in questioning them, unless you don't understand the interaction.

To express feedback on the ruling. You post on a forum, you expect feedback.

2 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Maybe just let him vent. Same thing happens whenever you get a nerf or something awesome comes out.

can someone make an Armada version of this?

while funny, its really the RAI rulings that bug me because there is literally nothing to expect now if I need to call a marshall. That dude could very well walk up hear my question and go "he called my rulings bull" and straight **** me at the table and that's perfectly fine because that's his intent.

this is less and less about sloane and more and more about FFG needing to make some hard lines on how their judges/marshalls are expected to rule regardless of personal feelings.

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

while funny, its really the RAI rulings that bug me because there is literally nothing to expect now if I need to call a marshall. That dude could very well walk up hear my question and go "he called my rulings bull" and straight **** me at the table and that's perfectly because its RAI.

Yeah, because that's TOTALLY the kind of thing Q would do. /shakes head

4 minutes ago, WuFame said:

You had time to call it a dumb question but you didn't have time to answer the question?

Edit: Either edited with answer or I didn't see the answer quoted. Either way, I apologize, Dras. Emotions are high.

No worries. Was never my intention to call it a dumb question - rather make the Joke that, as he said himself - He had already got this one answered - because I'd discussed it with him previously

I did my initial post and then edited the answer in the moment I'd re-found the actual quote... Its my Modus Operandi in most of these things... Most people don't see any lagtime... But you were on the ball today, mate... Making me look bad... But hey, if its anyone who's going to do that (in the most friendly, loving and joking sense), It'd be the guy who teased me on my writing style, too

I like to think I've gotten somewhat better

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

while funny, its really the RAI rulings that bug me because there is literally nothing to expect now if I need to call a marshall.

Well, you do. He did tell you how he was going to rule it.

2 minutes ago, Valca said:

To express feedback on the ruling. You post on a forum, you expect feedback.

The objective of this thread was not to get feed back. That part was done weeks ago. The point of this thread is to let people know the current rulings on wave 6 content.

So again, what is the point of ******* and moaning about these rulings?

So from a lawyer's perspective (insert lawyer joke here), statutory interpretation starts with the rule. If the rule is unclear, then you go the intent of the legislature when interpreting the statute.

From my perspective, Rule as Written (RAW) would take precedence over Rule as Interpreted (RAI) where the RAW is clear on its face. In legal circles this is called "plain meaning" and when judges do RAI, it is what gets people all riled up about "courts shouldn't make laws."

If the RAW is clear on its face, the TO shouldn't make law by resorting to RAI. The RAW should be followed.

5 minutes ago, Formynder4 said:

Yeah, because that's TOTALLY the kind of thing Q would do. /shakes head

Lets be subjective for second here. Lets take out the fact that Q is a "sweet bro" or whatever. I do no know him. My only interaction with him is telling him his rulings are bull. so if he wants to bend me over at the table, I get it. It would not be the first time you see ****** up rules calls during major gaming events due to personal vendettas. This is why companies mandate RAW as a basepoint for better or worse.

6 minutes ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

Well, you do. He did tell you how he was going to rule it.

In this one particular instance I do. For those 3 potential questions I know where his allegiances lie. What about Leia activating 5 squadrons with Yavaris/Raymus or a banked token. That can go either way and it comes down to how he feels that morning?

The issue is not with these 3/4 rulings anymore, its with the fact that RAI, His attempt to understand the intent of the game developers is what is driving these rulings. You would assume that the Rulebook would be factual, documented information about what the Intent of the game developers is... but according to the Marshall, that is not their intent. The thing they Wrote, is not there intent.

Do you follow? This is the issue with RAI. I can interrupt or missinterrupt your intent 100 ways differently than 100 other people.

**** Religion has a RAI and RAW problem right now.