1 minute ago, Ardaedhel said:

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.

Which, btw, nothing against Q here. He was completely upfront as far as I can tell about this being a broad interpretation. I'm just addressing you guys who are assigning him some kind of infallibility because "it's Q!"

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

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.

ive met playtesters for other FFG games who may or may not have firm understanding of core concepts of that game and their name is on the product as a playtester for years.

just because someones a playtester doesn't automatically make them correct or good at the game.

There were a lot of warmachine playtesters that would go to conventions and never win a game in a tournament

Not saying that is Q, I am just saying that "hes a playtester" is not an acceptable answer for a reason behind actions.

once again, this is not personal, this has a lot to do with how FFG does things and how they need to fix how they do things if they want their games to be seen as competitive.

3 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

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.

I don't claim to be credible on how the ruling became a ruling. I just know one part of the story which appears some people did not know about.

Maybe play testers weighed in on the decision. Maybe not. I don't know and can't know.

3 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

Not saying that is Q, I am just saying that "hes a playtester" is not an acceptable answer for a reason behind actions.

Not saying that it is, either.

But it would be a reason why potential discussion isn't public.

I was involved in some discussions online... Heck so many people come to me and ask me on "RAW" rulings and feelings of the actual text as written, for a bunch of subjects and a bunch of Different Tournaments... I don't keep track of them all anymore, although I diligently tried for some time...

For what its worth, at the end of the day, Agree or Not... I shrug and move on because the Marshal is the Marshal (even when he's not me!), and I'd always prefer to know in advance - and ask questions to know in advance - beforehand.

The only good Sportsmanship play in the direction of any ruling.... Is to play the Game.

Yeah, the OP has protected his interpretation and counter to RAW well.

1) Hard to debate RAI since it is not based on evidence.

2) OP is suggesting that this is based on Hours of conversation without transparency. (Drasnighta suggests that it may be protected)

2 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

For what its worth, at the end of the day, Agree or Not... I shrug and move on because the Marshal is the Marshal (even when he's not me!), and I'd always prefer to know in advance - and ask questions to know in advance - beforehand.

yea i am glad i know now, because if i found out thursday morning... it would not have been pretty.

Just now, Cutter9999 said:

Yeah, the OP has protected his interpretation and counter to RAW well.

1) Hard to debate RAI since it is not based on evidence.

2) OP is suggesting that this is based on Hours of conversation without transparency. (Drasnighta suggests that it may be protected)

the parallels to the federal government are astounding actually.

he has Bigly evidence that Sloane is undercosted..... (sorry couldn't help myself)

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

For what its worth, at the end of the day, Agree or Not... I shrug and move on because the Marshal is the Marshal (even when he's not me!), and I'd always prefer to know in advance - and ask questions to know in advance - beforehand.

Ultimately, this is the bottom line for the purposes of the event. That doesn't preclude players from voicing their displeasure with the ruling or how it was made here (frankly, this is a very, very minor issue and I'm not sure why Q choose this hill to die on), but FFS at the tournament just be respectful and sportsmanlike about it.

If Sloane is not erratta'd on the next version.......I'm going to revive this thread and call so much BS. Lol

ALL of those hours of discussion with FFG playtester/developers down the drain.

@IceQube MkII i want to reiterate that my statements are not personal (90%) and I will be the first one to buy you a beer at the end of the day because I know whats involved with running major events.

its just food for thought.

I will pose on simple question, would you sooner know the ruling now, when you can prepare, or on the day when you have to call a judge?

If the answer is 'on the day' TO's and Marshalls like Q and myself will rule on the day, not post prior to help folks, and players will live with the decision on the day.

People who TO do so to help the player base, we do so because we love our community, nay saying TO's and calling them out is the wrong approach. You don't like what we do, get your big boy pants on and step up and TO, that way you can make the rulings.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but this thread annoys me.

Asking for details/clarification so we can possibly apply this ruling to other tournaments & events is not calling someone out.

11 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

just because someones a playtester doesn't automatically make them correct or good at the game.

I agree with this. It would appear to be a FFG play tester, all you have to do is win a big tournament. And I think everyone would agree match ups play a huge part of doing well in a tournament, so instead of getting the truly best skilled player, you get someone who happened to bring a decent fleet that worked well against their opponents.

But I'm not sure if it's 100% true. I just check the play tester names on the package inserts and pair them to people who win tournaments.

#nepotism

1 minute ago, Englishpete said:

I will pose on simple question, would you sooner know the ruling now, when you can prepare, or on the day when you have to call a judge?

If the answer is 'on the day' TO's and Marshalls like Q and myself will rule on the day, not post prior to help folks, and players will live with the decision on the day.

People who TO do so to help the player base, we do so because we love our community, nay saying TO's and calling them out is the wrong approach. You don't like what we do, get your big boy pants on and step up and TO, that way you can make the rulings.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but this thread annoys me.

then RAW and not as your perceived intent of someone else, especially when their intent is well documented.

Maybe I am unique here because I have TO'd both armada and other games on big scales.

RAI > RAW is cancer for a game, plain and simple.

Would I rather know ahead of time, yes, yes I would.

Calling out a TO is not the wrong approach if you feel that TO is wrong. I have been called out, I have been asked to explain why I made the call I made. If I ****** up i apologized, its not what the player wants at the time but over all they are grateful you acknowledged your own mistake. As a player and TO i know exactly how both sides of this relationship works.

Telling players that they shouldn't call out their TOs or Marshalls because their word is law is ****. Ive been to stores where the store employee who has never looked at armada is the TO/head judge. That guy shouldn't be contested?

Different situation sure, but then make statements for all situations.

I would happily TO big events for Armada given the opportunity. Their is no great way to volunteer from what I can tell. I have emailed and been accepted to whatever demo'ing program they have but have never heard anything since then.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree with this. It would appear to be a FFG play tester, all you have to do is win a big tournament. And I think everyone would agree match ups play a huge part of doing well in a tournament, so instead of getting the truly best skilled player, you get someone who happened to bring a decent fleet that worked well against their opponents.

But I'm not sure if it's 100% true. I just check the play tester names on the package inserts and pair them to people who win tournaments.

#nepotism

based on what i saw in conquest this is 100% true.

You can email and apply and they may give it to you if you have playtest experience with other game systems but generally people who win have firm understandings on rules.

8 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

then RAW and not as your perceived intent of someone else, especially when their intent is well documented.

Maybe I am unique here because I have TO'd both armada and other games on big scales.

RAI > RAW is cancer for a game, plain and simple.

Would I rather know ahead of time, yes, yes I would.

Calling out a TO is not the wrong approach if you feel that TO is wrong. I have been called out, I have been asked to explain why I made the call I made. If I ****** up i apologized, its not what the player wants at the time but over all they are grateful you acknowledged your own mistake. As a player and TO i know exactly how both sides of this relationship works.

Telling players that they shouldn't call out their TOs or Marshalls because their word is law is ****. Ive been to stores where the store employee who has never looked at armada is the TO/head judge. That guy shouldn't be contested?

Different situation sure, but then make statements for all situations.

I would happily TO big events for Armada given the opportunity. Their is no great way to volunteer from what I can tell. I have emailed and been accepted to whatever demo'ing program they have but have never heard anything since then.

Why is RAI "cancer" for a game?

Sometimes it is necessary to turn towards RAI when RAW are ambiguous, unclear, or outdated.

TOing a Bunch of tournaments, Armada or not, doesn't make you a good TO.

I mean, Look at me.

5 minutes ago, Englishpete said:

People who TO do so to help the player base, we do so because we love our community, nay saying TO's and calling them out is the wrong approach. You don't like what we do, get your big boy pants on and step up and TO, that way you can make the rulings.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but this thread annoys me.

Appreciating and respecting someone's time and energy investment in running a tournament does not preclude raising issues that you see with how the event is run, nor does volunteering to fill the role make you immune to criticism.

People absolutely should be respectful to each other and cognizant of the work the TO, Marshal, etc put into making these events happen. But they also have every right to object when they think something's being done wrong.

11 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

Why is RAI "cancer" for a game?

Everyone can potentially discern someones Intent differently.

Look at the US Constitution:

you have the right to bare arms. Some people feel this means all arms, others feel this only applies to muskets. You are discerning the Intent of the founding fathers.

The bible is another thing that is often discerned different from various points of view.

The rulebook and rules in the game (cards n such) is the Game developers way of telling you that their intent is that demolisher can break core functions of the game.

The Rulebook and the cards are the absolute clearest representation of game designers intents for star wars armada.

So while sloane and the rules are pretty clear about how many times a token (the noun in the context) can be spent in an attack, the OP is claiming that in his all mighty wisdom that he has discerned that this was in fact not the will of the game developers (i am being over dramatic to drive home the parallels to religion). I have to put my faith in him that the game developers are speaking though him to me. basically its liek going to church and the priest says "god told me x" and then you go "yea but the bible says y" and the priest goes, "i know the will of god you dont" follow?

The issue is then compounded because in the same tthread he uses Rules as Written to justify another rule. meaning that now there is no consistency to how he will rule that day.

you can not Rules as Written and then RAI when its convenient to you.

If I feel something is fine or overpowered, RAI allows me as a TO/EO to rule on my feelings regardless of what the written word of the developers (rulebook/cards) say.

it is why Privateer Press came out and said "for better or for worse, everything is RAW and we will errata/faq at a later date" that system isn't perfect but If i played warmachine in Connecticut, or china, i know EXACTLY what to expect out of TOs and EOs.

edit* fixed some stuff in my haste i made this very incoherent

3 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

you have the right to bare arms. Some people feel this means all arms, others feel this only applies to muskets.

Them bare arms.

Just now, BergerFett said:

Everyone can potentially discern someones Intent differently.

Look at the US Constitution:

you have the right to bare arms. Some people feel this means all arms, others feel this only applies to muskets. You are discerning the Intent of the founding fathers.

The bible is another thing that is often discerned different from various points of view.

The rulebook and rules in the game (cards n such) is the Game developers way of telling you that their intent is that demolisher can break core functions of the game.

The Rulebook and the cards are the absolute clearest representation of game designers intents for star wars armada.

So while sloane and the rules are pretty clear about how many times a token (the noun in the context) can be spent in an attack, the OP is claiming that in his all mighty wisdom that he has discerned that this was in fact not the will of the game developers (i am being over dramatic to drive home the parallels to religion). I have to put my faith in him that the game developers are speaking though him to me. basically its liek going to church and the priest says "god told me x" and then you go "yea but the bible says y" and the priest goes, "i know the will of god you dont" follow?

The issue is then compounded because in the same thing his uses Rules as Written to justify another rule.

To me you can Rules as Written and then RAI when its convenient to you.

If I feel something is fine or overpowered, RAI allows me as a TO/EO to rule on my feelings regardless of what the written word of the developers (rulebook/cards) say.

it is why Privateer Press came out and said "for better or for worse, everything is RAW and we will errata/faq at a later date" that system isn't perfect but If i played warmachine in Connecticut, or china, i know EXACTLY what to expect out of TOs and EOs.

Well, I assume most, if not all of the people that created Star Wars Armada are around to tell us what their intent is. So, I'm not sure the founding fathers/Constitution analogy is a good one.

One of the key rules governing the resolution of this issue is written in the passive: "A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack."

We know that a defense cannot be spent more than once during an attack, but we do not know by who because the RAW do not specify. Therefore we have an ambiguity, and RAI can be used as guidance.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

Them bare arms.

i felt bear arms would be all different memes so i chose the lesser of 2 evils

Until its changed by FFG, it should not be RAI, it should be RAW. RAI leaves too much open for interpretation and if it was truly intended that way, FAQ it immediately.

18 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I agree with this. It would appear to be a FFG play tester, all you have to do is win a big tournament. And I think everyone would agree match ups play a huge part of doing well in a tournament, so instead of getting the truly best skilled player, you get someone who happened to bring a decent fleet that worked well against their opponents.

But I'm not sure if it's 100% true. I just check the play tester names on the package inserts and pair them to people who win tournaments.

#nepotism

Nepotism is explicitly for family. You would be looking for something like meritarchy (if you believe tourney wins primarily indicate skill) or something like fortunarchy (if you believe tourney wins are primarily luck/circumstance).

if someone has a complaint about RAI over RAW, then you would look for something like Krytarchy.

Nerding over