I believe some folks have heartburn about this due to the biased manner in which the ruling was presented and the lack of evidence. (Stand alone statement that Sloane is under-cost). OP states that this was debated for HOURS and the outcome is the intention by FFG. That much discussion should yield some finer points to share with the group as to how that 'intention' was determined. Please, let the unwashed masses who are not privy to your debates in on these details.

6 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

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?

Who was the feedback sought from? Just NOVA people or players at large that are going to the tournament or some other subset of individuals? Were these questions that were submitted to FFG with no response from FFG for an extended period of time?

I appreciate that the TO made a ruling in advance of the tournament. We can only hope that FFG chimes in prior to the tournament to affirm or reverse the ruling.

Just now, Cutter9999 said:

I believe some folks have heartburn about this due to the biased manner in which the ruling was presented and the lack of evidence. (Stand alone statement that Sloane is under-cost). OP states that this was debated for HOURS and the outcome is the intention by FFG. That much discussion should yield some finer points to share with the group as to how that 'intention' was determined. Please, let the unwashed masses who are not privy to your debates in on these details.

Amen.

2 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

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.

You don't have to convince me dude. I don't have a horse in the race and I recognize that. And I'm pro just let people vent. I mean I did lead with a Hitler meme...

4 minutes ago, Cutter9999 said:

I believe some folks have heartburn about this due to the biased manner in which the ruling was presented and the lack of evidence. (Stand alone statement that Sloane is under-cost). OP states that this was debated for HOURS and the outcome is the intention by FFG. That much discussion should yield some finer points to share with the group as to how that 'intention' was determined. Please, let the unwashed masses who are not privy to your debates in on these details.

And what if, just for the sake of argument - you are now asking him to break the law because said discussion happened under the auspices of the Playtest/Development team and said Details are protected by an Non-Disclosure-Agreement?

8 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

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

I took no offense by it and it was a dumb question in the sense that it had been asked by me and answered already. I say way too many dumb things in the course of a day to have a problem with it when someone corrects me, especially when they have to remind me they've told me before.

1 minute ago, Cutter9999 said:

I believe some folks have heartburn about this due to the biased manner in which the ruling was presented and the lack of evidence. (Stand alone statement that Sloane is under-cost). OP states that this was debated for HOURS and the outcome is the intention by FFG. That much discussion should yield some finer points to share with the group as to how that 'intention' was determined. Please, let the unwashed masses who are not privy to your debates in on these details.

As an outsider who doesn't know the marshal. Making these decisions in closed groups, behind closed doors very well could lead to not the most honest of intentions.

It would not be the first time I've seen a TO rule opposite of what the rulebook says, and his buddy winds up having the perfect list on the day due to the new ruling. **** happens, especially when big epeen is on the line.

1 minute ago, ImpStarDeuces said:

You don't have to convince me dude. I don't have a horse in the race and I recognize that. And I'm pro just let people vent. I mean I did lead with a Hitler meme...

its all good fam, the venting rage is uncontrollable, NO ONE CAN DISCERN ITS INTENT.

Also gonna get a new shirt for nova

"Its my intent to win, so I win"

if its RAI then thats how this works right?

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

its all good fam, the venting rage is uncontrollable, NO ONE CAN DISCERN ITS INTENT.

Also gonna get a new shirt for nova

"Its my intent to win, so I win"

if its RAI then thats how this works right?

HAAAAAAAAA!

13 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

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?

Well, my point of posting was to provide additional weight to the argument that Q needs to reconsider how he comes up with rulings. Even if that only applies to rulings he makes in the future, ruling on something contrary to RAW because he thinks it makes the card undercosted is a piss-poor way to rule. Maybe in the future he'll reconsider doing that and we'll get better rulings out of him.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

And what if, just for the sake of argument - you are now asking him to break the law because said discussion happened under the auspices of the Playtest/Development team and said Details are protected by an Non-Disclosure-Agreement?

FFG already has a mechanism for when a Playtest/Development team proposes clarifying/changing an aspect of the game. It's called Errata. Not a post on the forum.

2 minutes ago, Cutter9999 said:

FFG already has a mechanism for when a Playtest/Development team proposes clarifying/changing an aspect of the game. It's called Errata. Not a post on the forum.

That's the final deployment Mechanism for change, for sure.

But that's not what you asked for.

You asked to see details on the discussion.

I agree the RAI vs RAW is a huge issue for Armada right now. FFG has been awful with card rulings with the release of each wave, and it really hurts the tournament scene.

I'm certain this question had to have come up in play testing, so why didn't FFG make a ruling when the wave got released?

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

And what if, just for the sake of argument - you are now asking him to break the law because said discussion happened under the auspices of the Playtest/Development team and said Details are protected by an Non-Disclosure-Agreement?

you can easily block out every single name in the transcripts so its just person1 person 2 talking or how every many there are, and anything regarding future releases can be blacked out as well. its not hard to not break NDA and be transparent.

if this wasnt nationals it would be one thing but its a pretty big event .

1 minute ago, draco193 said:

I agree the RAI vs RAW is a huge issue for Armada right now. FFG has been awful with card rulings with the release of each wave, and it really hurts the tournament scene.

I'm certain this question had to have come up in play testing, so why didn't FFG make a ruling when the wave got released?

not to digress but the fact an errata faq hit right before the wave and not right after should have been a pretty big 'tell'

14 minutes ago, player2426063 said:

Who was the feedback sought from? Just NOVA people or players at large that are going to the tournament or some other subset of individuals? Were these questions that were submitted to FFG with no response from FFG for an extended period of time?

I appreciate that the TO made a ruling in advance of the tournament. We can only hope that FFG chimes in prior to the tournament to affirm or reverse the ruling.

I was only a part of the discussion that happened on FB, where I just asked questions. One of the TOs said he emailed FFG asking for clarification on these questions. I do not know if FFG responded. NoVa is still a month out, so it is possible FFG will respond in that time frame.

Then the OP has broken that agreement by indirectly sharing information by applying RAI based off of that protected discussion.

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

you can easily block out every single name in the transcripts so its just person1 person 2 talking or how every many there are, and anything regarding future releases can be blacked out as well. its not hard to not break NDA and be transparent.

if this wasnt nationals it would be one thing but its a pretty big event .

NDAs for Playtesting extend well beyond just details of new releases.

The mechanisms behind the points costs - a core argument of this discussion, would be redacted, and would make the details released pointless, for example.

Just now, Cutter9999 said:

Then the OP has broken that agreement by indirectly sharing information by applying RAI based off of that protected discussion.

Unless Q came to that decision without any regard to any protected discussions. Like on a FB thread. Or by asking FFG.

1 minute ago, Cutter9999 said:

Then the OP has broken that agreement by indirectly sharing information by applying RAI based off of that protected discussion.

"Well, you're already guilty of Assault, so you might as well kill the guy since you're going to jail already....."

:D

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

"Well, you're already guilty of Assault, so you might as well kill the guy since you're going to jail already....."

words to live by

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

Unless Q came to that decision without any regard to any protected discussions. Like on a FB thread. Or by asking FFG.

In which case you can't claim the credibility of the ruling having been supported by some shadowy cabal of plahtesters.

Either the ruling is backed by FFG, in which case that should be done transparently and publicly, or it's not, in which case this ruling is just Q's personal opinion being enforced at a premier tournament.

Ok Drasnighta. So, this ruling is based off of a protected discussion in which the OP had with playtesters and that the outcome of such discussion was that Sloane is undercost. Got it.

As an example.

When Privateer Press announced the Judge program, and the judge document it was made available to the public. It was the guidelines judges were to adhere too. This let every single player know what to expect when a judge made a call, players couldn't agree to game state, a player cheated, etc.

FFG needs to do this. They need to come out and say marshalls will be making rules following this criteria: X Y Z. This means that not matter what event I go to, I know what to expect. Q may be a sweet guy, but what if GenCon bro is a ****** nozzle, or Worlds dude is all about that super casual.

How do we know that the marshals are all on the same page out side of "i talked to the other marshals and we agree" because i have accept that at face value and trust a person i've never met before.

1 minute ago, Cutter9999 said:

Ok Drasnighta. So, this ruling is based off of a protected discussion in which the OP had with playtesters and that the outcome of such discussion was that Sloane is undercost. Got it.

Not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying its a possibility.

I mean, his name is in the Credits as a playtester in the Hammerhead Expansion, at the very least.