1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

I absolutely agree with Giled.

That previous post was really off-color in taste and in morality. A little more thinking will show why.

1 hour ago, GiledPallaeon said:

This was not necessary, joke or otherwise. Tempers have been running high, there's no need to go inflaming them, for trolling's sake or not.

It's a game, if your temper gets set off because of it you should walk away from the table/computer.

Sorry, double post

1 hour ago, dominosfleet said:

It's a game, if your temper gets set off because of it you should walk away from the table/computer.

That's got very little to do with you deciding to add mean-spirited posts and otherwise antagonize members of the community, regardless of what they have or have not done.

Ahh, the scent of rules debate early in the morning...

For whatever its worth. I agree with Q's rulings, and can testify to the lengths he has gone through to reach these conclusions. My hat is off to him for picking up this job and being willing to take the heat!

I think RAW is very important in most cases when making rulings. However, there are times RAI should be followed...especially due to the very slow process of getting official clarification from FFG in the form of FAQ; this is one of those times.

15 hours 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.

Hehehe

4 hours ago, thecactusman17 said:

I think you are not giving the play testers sufficient credit. They do know the rules, playtesters are there to bring rules and game play issues to the attention of the game designers. If the designers decide that the testers are wrong, or can't change the card prior to release sufficiently, they might disregard the testers even with hard evidence that the testers are technically correct.

I'd like to like this again...

I'm happy with the rulings, they seem pretty obvious really.

I can never understand why some gamers love being slaves to what they think is the strict legalistic version of the rules, even when it results in a crap game experience.

I only hope new faq asap, because there are a split in my community with these cards or effects or name it as you want.

3 hours ago, Sharego said:

I only hope new faq asap, because there are a split in my community with these cards or effects or name it as you want.

Just like the great jamming field debate of 2016...Oh to be young again....

Remember when Jamming Fields RAW said that you can choose to have it on or off? And then it got FAQed?

1 hour ago, Caldias said:

Just like the great jamming field debate of 2016...Oh to be young again....

Remember when Jamming Fields RAW said that you can choose to have it on or off? And then it got FAQed?

I 'memba

33 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

I 'memba

But does Pepperidge farms?

10 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But does Pepperidge farms?

Ooh 'memba Pepperridge Farms?

Blimey what a thread, I'm going to bed with some diazepam.........

5 hours ago, Caldias said:

Remember when Jamming Fields RAW said that you can choose to have it on or off? And then it got FAQed?

I remembre oooh old good times... xD

While RAI is at least effective before a tournament because you have essentially modified the tournament rules in advance for everyone, I find it to be a tough pill to swallow without an official ruling or statement from the design team. RAW Sloane is mean and those accuracies are truly super accuracies, but why is the RAI ruling better? If it is what FFG wants then why not simply make an announcement confirming this? If a tourney is going to be used to playtest this ruling...isn't there a better format in which to accomplish this?

*shrug*

At the end of the day I won't be going to those tournaments, and the rules as written work enough for my group of friends to blow up plastic spaceships.

9 pages of this. I'm not going to Nova. I respect Q. I respect the participants in this discussion who raised many fine points.

My cat is sitting next to me purring up a storm. More cat pictures would definitely calm this debate right down!

1 hour ago, Flare 22 said:

While RAI is at least effective before a tournament because you have essentially modified the tournament rules in advance for everyone, I find it to be a tough pill to swallow without an official ruling or statement from the design team. RAW Sloane is mean and those accuracies are truly super accuracies, but why is the RAI ruling better? If it is what FFG wants then why not simply make an announcement confirming this? If a tourney is going to be used to playtest this ruling...isn't there a better format in which to accomplish this?

This has been my contention. FFG knows how they want it to work. Why not publish a small examples article with the wave release?

In the xwing forums I would start posting breakfast gif's... Not sure what to do here

8 hours ago, Vergilius said:

9 pages of this. I'm not going to Nova. I respect Q. I respect the participants in this discussion who raised many fine points.

My cat is sitting next to me purring up a storm. More cat pictures would definitely calm this debate right down!

Ah the part of the competitive scene that gives me ulcers....

Q has made a call that makes sense. For what its worth I agree with it. I appreciate the people I saw in this thread that disagreed and were very polite about it. We need more of that rather than other antics we saw. Good luck to everyone going to NOVA

10 hours ago, Milienius said:

Ah the part of the competitive scene that gives me ulcers....

Q has made a call that makes sense. For what its worth I agree with it. I appreciate the people I saw in this thread that disagreed and were very polite about it. We need more of that rather than other antics we saw. Good luck to everyone going to NOVA

Why does it make sense? Because his call contravenes the actual rule book. This does NOT make sense to me. Now if the intent of the designers was for Sloane to work as Q states, then we need an actual FAQ, or at least an email, FROM OFFICIAL FFG SOURCES, saying so. With all respect to Q, he in simply stating that he has some inside Intel does not cut it for me. We're I going to Nova, I would of course respect his ruling, as he is the official Marshall. But I would still disagree, and will continue to disagree until something official is said. Heck, I may disagree even then....?

22 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

Why does it make sense? Because his call contravenes the actual rule book. This does NOT make sense to me. Now if the intent of the designers was for Sloane to work as Q states, then we need an actual FAQ, or at least an email, FROM OFFICIAL FFG SOURCES, saying so. With all respect to Q, he in simply stating that he has some inside Intel does not cut it for me. We're I going to Nova, I would of course respect his ruling, as he is the official Marshall. But I would still disagree, and will continue to disagree until something official is said. Heck, I may disagree even then....?

This is why the Marshal idea is idiotic imo. TOs should never be in charge of game rules. I much prefer the Magic system, and let's not even mention how much tighter their rules are written. (And I don't even play that game anymore.)

12 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

This is why the Marshal idea is idiotic imo. TOs should never be in charge of game rules. I much prefer the Magic system, and let's not even mention how much tighter their rules are written. (And I don't even play that game anymore.)

I understand the need for a rules judge at an organized event. Heck, I've ran enough tourneys and leagues in my time, and been the rules guru at a few....but to me, this boils down to resolving rules arguments on a case by case basis, were the ruling applies TO THAT GAME ONLY. Now, I do applaud Q's efforts to be transparent and up front about this, and as I said, it does seem that he has inside Intel. But if inside sources DO have a ruling in mind for this, BY THE EMPEROR, POST IT ALREADY!!!!!!!

On 7/28/2017 at 3:16 PM, IceQube MkII said:

This is absolutely 100% what I'm saying.

Trust me, this discussion was debated for hours.

What's the reasoning?

I get the ruling, but how did you arrive there?

Especially since it's not RAW supported, you should have very good cause, no?

41 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

What's the reasoning?

I get the ruling, but how did you arrive there?

Especially since it's not RAW supported, you should have very good cause, no?

He has very good cause, not all of which can be discussed in detail.