21 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 would be if those names were the family members of FFG staff...

1 minute ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

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.

the token itself can not be spent more than once. If i spend a dollar and it goes into the cash register, can you then spend the same dollar? its an understanding of the english language and figuring out the context.

The token itself can never suffer the condition "spent" more than once during an attack is how it ultimately breaks down.

the fact that they also say the defender can not spend more than one of the same type of token, further gives evidence to how it should work simply because they called out the attacker/defender when needed.

Wave 6 is a few years out of the armada launch but there are still core concepts from the beginning. I bet sloanes ability was on the drawing board for a lot longer than we think.

The issue is that right now FFG is very hush hush, they need a bit more community interaction (esp) on forums when this type of stuff pops up, at least if they want their competitive events to be taken seriously.

maybe FFG doesn't, their attitude could be Pay money, guaranteed to play games, and that's all they care about. if that's true then ill shut up and not plan to go back to nationals again, because while armada is my favorite miniatures game, i want a clean consistent experience regardless of the who what where and when.

4 minutes ago, Church14 said:

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

And @Formynder4

I'm aware of nepotism means, but I didn't know any other way to get my point across. I was unaware there were so many different descriptions of what I was talking about.

10 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

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

I would have preferred bear arms. But I work with what is given.

2 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

the token itself can not be spent more than once. If i spend a dollar and it goes into the cash register, can you then spend the same dollar? its an understanding of the english language and figuring out the context.

The token itself can never suffer the condition "spent" more than once during an attack is how it ultimately breaks down.

the fact that they also say the defender can not spend more than one of the same type of token, further gives evidence to how it should work simply because they called out the attacker/defender when needed.

Wave 6 is a few years out of the armada launch but there are still core concepts from the beginning. I bet sloanes ability was on the drawing board for a lot longer than we think.

The issue is that right now FFG is very hush hush, they need a bit more community interaction (esp) on forums when this type of stuff pops up, at least if they want their competitive events to be taken seriously.

maybe FFG doesn't, their attitude could be Pay money, guaranteed to play games, and that's all they care about. if that's true then ill shut up and not plan to go back to nationals again, because while armada is my favorite miniatures game, i want a clean consistent experience regardless of the who what where and when.

What if the Rule stated: "A defender cannot spend a defense token more than once during an attack."

If the rule was written this way, there would be no ambiguity.

A Sloane ace would spend the opponent's defense token, and then the defender would be free to spend the same defense token that she targeted with an accuracy.

30 minutes 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.

Pretty much this for me as well. There are some unknowns right now because FFG hasn't issued an FAQ yet (surprise surprise, I know) and @IceQube MkII decided "hey, I'm going to let folks know how I will rule on some of these uncertain things prior to this major event so they know ahead of time" and the community response overall has been an embarrassment. It's fine to politely question why he came to such and such a decision but the man-baby tantrums being thrown in this thread and accusations of all kinds of nonsense are shameful.

Do you guys remember back when Rapid Launch Bays ability was a complete mystery and could be interpreted in two very different ways? Remember how people weren't bringing them to tournaments because they just had no idea how the judge would rule on them working if they were contested? I sure would have appreciated an event's judge letting me know how he would rule they worked prior to the event so I could know ahead of time what version I'd be able to use and plan accordingly. @IceQube MkII is doing precisely that for wave 6.

5 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

the token itself can not be spent more than once. If i spend a dollar and it goes into the cash register, can you then spend the same dollar? its an understanding of the english language and figuring out the context.

The token itself can never suffer the condition "spent" more than once during an attack is how it ultimately breaks down.

the fact that they also say the defender can not spend more than one of the same type of token, further gives evidence to how it should work simply because they called out the attacker/defender when needed.

Wave 6 is a few years out of the armada launch but there are still core concepts from the beginning. I bet sloanes ability was on the drawing board for a lot longer than we think.

The issue is that right now FFG is very hush hush, they need a bit more community interaction (esp) on forums when this type of stuff pops up, at least if they want their competitive events to be taken seriously.

maybe FFG doesn't, their attitude could be Pay money, guaranteed to play games, and that's all they care about. if that's true then ill shut up and not plan to go back to nationals again, because while armada is my favorite miniatures game, i want a clean consistent experience regardless of the who what where and when.

Jumping on to this point, Defense Tokens have three states - Readied, Spent, Exhausted. The definition of Defense Token includes this statement: A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack. It does not say that the "Defender" cannot spend a defense token more than once during an attack. It is agnostic as to who does the spending.

Just now, Warlord Zepnick said:

What if the Rule stated: "A defender cannot spend a defense token more than once during an attack."

If the rule was written this way, there would be no ambiguity.

A Sloane ace would spend the opponent's defense token, and then the defender would be free to spend the same defense token that she targeted with an accuracy.

that's ultimately how i thought she worked until i reread the rules and saw the rule did not state "defender"

agreed, but to my knowledge the rule was not written that way.

the TO has decided that it was the Game designers intents for it to work the way you have stated.

the fact that other rules clearly state "attacker/defender" such as multiple of same type token, leads me to believe that the way it is currently written is the actual intent of the game devs.

yes i am discerning intent but i have a solid reasoning behind it.

if FFG never EVER called out Attacker/Defender in their rules I could see the OPs point more. His current ruling feels much more knee jerk "sloane is too good and i don't like it" because other rules clearly called out attacker/defender you know that FFG is willing to differentiate between the two.

1 minute ago, player2426063 said:

Jumping on to this point, Defense Tokens have three states - Readied, Spent, Exhausted. The definition of Defense Token includes this statement: A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack. It does not say that the "Defender" cannot spend a defense token more than once during an attack. It is agnostic as to who does the spending.

are you arguing or agreeing with my overall assessment of the rule? i cant tell, your post is so agnostic.

SOMEONE DISCERN ITS INTENT

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

that's ultimately how i thought she worked until i reread the rules and saw the rule did not state "defender"

agreed, but to my knowledge the rule was not written that way.

the TO has decided that it was the Game designers intents for it to work the way you have stated.

the fact that other rules clearly state "attacker/defender" such as multiple of same type token, leads me to believe that the way it is currently written is the actual intent of the game devs.

yes i am discerning intent but i have a solid reasoning behind it.

if FFG never EVER called out Attacker/Defender in their rules I could see the OPs point more. His current ruling feels much more knee jerk "sloane is too good and i don't like it" because other rules clearly called out attacker/defender you know that FFG is willing to differentiate between the two.

If there is precedence for FFG being specific between "attacker/defender" versus being silent, then I would argue that the fact that "A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack" does not mention which player, it matters. Sloan spends the token, it is spent.

4 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

Pretty much this for me as well. There are some unknowns right now because FFG hasn't issued an FAQ yet (surprise surprise, I know) and @IceQube MkII decided "hey, I'm going to let folks know how I will rule on some of these uncertain things prior to this major event so they know ahead of time" and the community response overall has been an embarrassment. It's fine to politely question why he came to such and such a decision but the man-baby tantrums being thrown in this thread and accusations of all kinds of nonsense are shameful.

Do you guys remember back when Rapid Launch Bays ability was a complete mystery and could be interpreted in two very different ways? Remember how people weren't bringing them to tournaments because they just had no idea how the judge would rule on them working if they were contested? I sure would have appreciated an event's judge letting me know how he would rule they worked prior to the event so I could know ahead of time what version I'd be able to use and plan accordingly. @IceQube MkII is doing precisely that for wave 6.

Man-baby tantrums? Did you just assume my Gender?

Just now, Cutter9999 said:

Man-baby tantrums? Did you just assume my Gender?

You can have a woman-baby tantrum if you like.

1 minute ago, BergerFett said:

are you arguing or agreeing with my overall assessment of the rule? i cant tell, your post is so agnostic.

SOMEONE DISCERN ITS INTENT

HAAAAAAAAA!

I am in the pro-Sloan camp. She has the power to spend tokens and flip them to the exhausted side. The Defender cannot then spend the token to discard it.

1 minute ago, player2426063 said:

If there is precedence for FFG being specific between "attacker/defender" versus being silent, then I would argue that the fact that "A defense token cannot be spent more than once during an attack" does not mention which player, it matters. Sloan spends the token, it is spent.

That's fair. But as @BrobaFett stated, we have to turn towards RAI to discern why FFG specified between "attacker/defender" in some instances, not others. I see the disconnect, which is legitimate, but I don't think it's fair to say that RAI in this game in particular is "cancer."

1 minute ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

That's fair. But as @BrobaFett stated, we have to turn towards RAI to discern why FFG specified between "attacker/defender" in some instances, not others. I see the disconnect, which is legitimate, but I don't think it's fair to say that RAI in this game in particular is "cancer."

I would argue that it is not RAI. It is RAW as some rules include the phrase and others do not.

3 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

You can have a woman-baby tantrum if you like.

Very sexist of you.

7 minutes ago, BergerFett said:

the TO has decided that it was the Game designers intents for it to work the way you have stated.

What if..... the game designers intent.... was to allow a Sloane"d" squadron to spend the defense token? But the only reason we don't know that intent yet, is because they FAQ is still 3 years out.

4 minutes ago, Snipafist said:

You can have a woman-baby tantrum if you like.

5 minutes ago, Cutter9999 said:

Man-baby tantrums? Did you just assume my Gender?

You both have the same avatar so I thought you were speaking to yourself...

4 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

You both have the same avatar so I thought you were speaking to yourself...

Yeah he, she, or it needs to change avatars. I call avatar appropriation and he, she, or it should be ashamed of him, her, or itself.

/facepalm

I am a big advocate of RAW, as it is (when I am making decisions) the only way that I can be fair to people playing the game. That being said, I am not a playtester. I do not regularly discuss rulings with Organizers and Marshals of other tournaments. I don't regularly talk to FFG employees.

Making a mountain out of a molehill here.

This does almost nothing against double brace Aces, only impacts Scatter aces if you roll exactly 2 accuracy results, and does literally nothing at all to every anti-ship roller not named Maarek Steele or in a TIE Phantom. And let's face it, you should be bringing overwhelming force to any fighter engagement anyway, so if you burn a scatter on the first attack with an Accuracy result, you WANT the opponent to spend it. Then your next attack can be FULL POWER.

Is it the right call? I cannot tell, because I am not in a position to know RAI, and that is frustrating. It would not be the right call for ME or probably most of YOU to make. But Q is a playtester, who regularly discusses rule interactions with the North American Continental Leaders, World Championship Leaders, and FFG Organized Play employees. He IS qualified to make a RAI call. If nearly anyone else was making this argument I would dismiss it.

More importantly, this call isn't as bad as it could be and if you don't know what I'm talking about a little digging through the rules forum should give you the answer.

5 minutes ago, Warlord Zepnick said:

That's fair. But as @BrobaFett stated, we have to turn towards RAI to discern why FFG specified between "attacker/defender" in some instances, not others. I see the disconnect, which is legitimate, but I don't think it's fair to say that RAI in this game in particular is "cancer."

to be fair i did say its cancer in ALL GAMES

you can use RAI when its supported with evidence.

my claim:
the intent of the Game Devs is that sloane can flip a token and the defender cant spend it

what makes you say that?

they clearly call out attack/defender in this rule also effecting tokens, but they don't call it out in the rule regarding the token spending iteself

i see, the fact that will differentiate here but not there would lead me to believe you are correct.

Yes i used RAI to make a ruling but i also have solid evidence that shows that the RAI is also RAW.

When are the two factions going to pick colors? Right now it's like watching a Bengals Vs. Browns game.

Just now, TaeSWXW said:

When are the two factions going to pick colors? Right now it's like watching a Bengals Vs. Browns game.

You'll notice I've deliberately refrained from doing that.

And I have my reasons, too.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

You'll notice I've deliberately refrained from doing that.

And I have my reasons, too.

I think you mean @BergerFett I typically avoid rulea questions like they were a hybrid between Dysentery and syphilis.