7 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

Yeah. So clear it spawned a 5 page thread on its various interpretations.

FaQ it please FFG.

It took @DiabloAzul 18 minutes to show up to that thread with the right answer. It's only five pages long because one person showed up who was adamantly wrong. So, it's <1 page of figuring out the answer, and 4 1/2 of four or five people telling one guy he's wrong.

It's been asked frequently enough that, I agree, it should go into the FAQ. But that doesn't mean it's not clear right now without broad interpretation.

Casting doubt on clear rules like this is how we get charlie foxtrots like the Sloane question at NoVA.

This thread is interesting and confusing to a novice like me, but I oddly enjoyed it either way, haha.

While trying to determine whether or not to set myself up to add this ISD, I have two questions which might be dumb, but hey, I've always heard "there are no dumb questions, just dumb answers" right? Anyway, here they are:

So Thrawn's ability looks fairly powerful, but 32 points are a bunch for an Admiral with this command ability?

Do the new ISD Title cards included with Thrawn work on Vader's ISD too? (Yeah, I'm that guy)

2 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

This thread is interesting and confusing to a novice like me, but I oddly enjoyed it either way, haha.

While trying to determine whether or not to set myself up to add this ISD, I have two questions which might be dumb, but hey, I've always heard "there are no dumb questions, just dumb answers" right? Anyway, here they are:

So Thrawn's ability looks fairly powerful, but 32 points are a bunch for an Admiral with this command ability?

Do the new ISD Title cards included with Thrawn work on Vader's ISD too? (Yeah, I'm that guy)

On the Titles, as long as all ISDs share the same Icon (and they do), then yes. You could use the Chimera Title card (or the fleet cards, if they are those) on the standard ISD-I and -II if you desire, and vice versa with Avenger, Relentless and Dominator.

2 hours ago, Ardaedhel said:

It took @DiabloAzul 18 minutes to show up to that thread with the right answer. It's only five pages long because one person showed up who was adamantly wrong. So, it's <1 page of figuring out the answer, and 4 1/2 of four or five people telling one guy he's wrong.

It's been asked frequently enough that, I agree, it should go into the FAQ. But that doesn't mean it's not clear right now without broad interpretation.

Casting doubt on clear rules like this is how we get charlie foxtrots like the Sloane question at NoVA.

I think that this should get a FAQ, as last night with my local game group I brought up this discussion, they went to the rules and every single member of the group after looking at the rules said that it was clear that by the rules you would be able to double command dial it. Now I am not a rule expert, so I am not saying so and so is right or wrong, I am saying that we have some who say it is very clear that you can and some saying it is very clear you can not. I have also seen that the player who got to help design the card said that is not the intent and again not disagreeing with him, but I do not know how much control he had over how FFG tweaked his design idea. So bottom line I can see how if it is allowed it is way to powerful being able to activate up to eleven fighters at one time, but if there is as much confusion as it looks to me like there is then tey should clear it up, and maybe it will be by the time it is released.

Now, not be a total ****.. (No, wait. I'm going to be a total ****. I'm sorry, but I can't think of another way to say it...)

That that just reflects, to me, an inability to understand the rules. That you make a fundamental assumption that something that is missing from what is stated as allowed by the rules, would somehow be allowed, when the opposite is not only perfectly legitimate as a ruling, it is strongly hinted at with the rules that one has...

That's not so much a failure of the card design, to me. That's a failure to read the rules properly... I agree, this is a heavily elitist mindset on my part . I'm sorry for that. I don't want to be an **** here, but I am one, because it fundamentally makes no sense to me...

It just smacks of personal cognitive bias and a heard mentality.

I should note though... My problem isn't so much here with the results of the discussion. Its the fact that the discussion happened. Even admitting that it was a possibility, when it flies in the face of the rules as written, biases people to at least considering it as a possibility, when it is flat out not.

Again, I'm sorry. This has been a **** of a day, and I don't know how I can really frame it in a more positive mindset... I like rules discussion. Rules discussion is important to uncover a correct way to do things when things are unclear... But we also shouldn't be making a deal when things are murky and calling them total darkness...

If nothing else. If you think it needs to be in an FAQ. You're wasting time by saying so. Go and submit it. That's typing energy better spent.

I mean, I've submitted it. I submitted it day one. I hope for an answer rather than an FAQ... But I also know that a lot of people won't give a rats clacker about what email I get from the rules department. It will have to be in an FAQ or its toilet paper.

3 hours ago, Hawktel said:

Yeah. So clear it spawned a 5 page thread on its various interpretations.

FaQ it please FFG.

People still argue that the earth is flat.

Continuing argumentation is not a demonstration that something is unclear, only that people can be stubborn.

6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Now, not be a total ****.. (No, wait. I'm going to be a total ****. I'm sorry, but I can't think of another way to say it...)

That that just reflects, to me, an inability to understand the rules. That you make a fundamental assumption that something that is missing from what is stated as allowed by the rules, would somehow be allowed, when the opposite is not only perfectly legitimate as a ruling, it is strongly hinted at with the rules that one has...

That's not so much a failure of the card design, to me. That's a failure to read the rules properly... I agree, this is a heavily elitist mindset on my part . I'm sorry for that. I don't want to be an **** here, but I am one, because it fundamentally makes no sense to me...

It just smacks of personal cognitive bias and a heard mentality.

I should note though... My problem isn't so much here with the results of the discussion. Its the fact that the discussion happened. Even admitting that it was a possibility, when it flies in the face of the rules as written, biases people to at least considering it as a possibility, when it is flat out not.

Again, I'm sorry. This has been a **** of a day, and I don't know how I can really frame it in a more positive mindset... I like rules discussion. Rules discussion is important to uncover a correct way to do things when things are unclear... But we also shouldn't be making a deal when things are murky and calling them total darkness...

If nothing else. If you think it needs to be in an FAQ. You're wasting time by saying so. Go and submit it. That's typing energy better spent.

I mean, I've submitted it. I submitted it day one. I hope for an answer rather than an FAQ... But I also know that a lot of people won't give a rats clacker about what email I get from the rules department. It will have to be in an FAQ or its toilet paper.

Dras...

1. Go see the thread about about pairing wine, beer, etc. with various commanders that cyanbloodbane started.

2. Then pay attention to my list of drinks by rebel commander.

3. Pick one, any one, it does not matter, except Cracken.

4. Order 1 of those and drink it very fast.

5. Now order another one and drink it as quickly/slowly as you like.

6. Let the nice feeling of calmness wash over you.

The earth is as flat as a piece of paper.

4 minutes ago, Democratus said:

People still argue that the earth is flat.

Continuing argumentation is not a demonstration that something is unclear, only that people can be stubborn.

The earth isn't flat.

It's hollow.

This is known.

1 minute ago, Ginkapo said:

The earth is as flat as a piece of paper.

A piece of paper rolled into a ball?

2 minutes ago, Rocmistro said:

Dras...

1. Go see the thread about about pairing wine, beer, etc. with various commanders that cyanbloodbane started.

2. Then pay attention to my list of drinks by rebel commander.

3. Pick one, any one, it does not matter, except Cracken.

4. Order 1 of those and drink it very fast.

5. Now order another one and drink it as quickly/slowly as you like.

6. Let the nice feeling of calmness wash over you.

I am broke and I am essentially in a situation where I've lost everything that's dear to me.

I can't drink.

11 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Now, not be a total ****.. (No, wait. I'm going to be a total ****. I'm sorry, but I can't think of another way to say it...)

That that just reflects, to me, an inability to understand the rules. That you make a fundamental assumption that something that is missing from what is stated as allowed by the rules, would somehow be allowed, when the opposite is not only perfectly legitimate as a ruling, it is strongly hinted at with the rules that one has...

That's not so much a failure of the card design, to me. That's a failure to read the rules properly... I agree, this is a heavily elitist mindset on my part . I'm sorry for that. I don't want to be an **** here, but I am one, because it fundamentally makes no sense to me...

It just smacks of personal cognitive bias and a heard mentality.

I should note though... My problem isn't so much here with the results of the discussion. Its the fact that the discussion happened. Even admitting that it was a possibility, when it flies in the face of the rules as written, biases people to at least considering it as a possibility, when it is flat out not.

Again, I'm sorry. This has been a **** of a day, and I don't know how I can really frame it in a more positive mindset... I like rules discussion. Rules discussion is important to uncover a correct way to do things when things are unclear... But we also shouldn't be making a deal when things are murky and calling them total darkness...

If nothing else. If you think it needs to be in an FAQ. You're wasting time by saying so. Go and submit it. That's typing energy better spent.

I mean, I've submitted it. I submitted it day one. I hope for an answer rather than an FAQ... But I also know that a lot of people won't give a rats clacker about what email I get from the rules department. It will have to be in an FAQ or its toilet paper.

I had basically this all typed up, and then decided I wasn't the hero Gotham needed, because I would be hunted, and I couldn't take it. So I deleted it.

Dras is the hero Gotham deserves and the one it needs right now.

7 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

A piece of paper rolled into a ball?

How do you measure flatness?

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

How do you measure flatness?

How do you define flatness?

2 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

How do you define flatness?

How do you induce flatness?

The earth is flatter than anything thing else. The curve in its surface is imperceptible visually.

Consider this. If you made a flat piece of paper 40075 km long, it would wrap around the earth.

Would it stop being flat?

2 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

The earth is flatter than anything thing else. The curve in its surface is imperceptible visually.

Consider this. If you made a flat piece of paper 40075 km long, it would wrap around the earth.

Would it stop being flat?

Topology fight!

11 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

How do you measure flatness?

Draw three lines on the test surface so that they intersect to form a sort of triangle. If the interior angles of this figure sum to 180 degrees, your test surface is flat. If not, it is curved.

More formally, you might want to consider defining the parameter of the reduction of the Riemann curvature tensor for that surface. If that reduction is zero, the surface is flat. If not, it is curved.

3 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

The earth is flatter than anything thing else. The curve in its surface is imperceptible visually.

Depends entirely on where you are standing. I've been places where I could visually perceive the curvature of the earth.

3 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

The earth is flatter than anything thing else. The curve in its surface is imperceptible visually.

Yet, we have a horizon that infers otherwise.

I will agree that "the earth is a flat as a piece of paper" is a true statement of comparison.

I just don't think either are very flat at all.

Our datum for measuring flatness is usually based on gravity, also known as the earth.

RobertK knows what I mean.

Argue that the earth is round and not square all day. Not flat though.... that I find a tougher thing to argue when its our reference point for flatness

37 minutes ago, Democratus said:

People still argue that the earth is flat.

Continuing argumentation is not a demonstration that something is unclear, only that people can be stubborn.

I don't care why they argue.

The fact is they are. If FFG had released a card so clear that no one could have mistaken it's meaning, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I'm going to show up at a tourney and have to have a discussion periodically that "No X doesn't work that way" more than twice, I want it FAQed. Makes it easier to play the game.

2 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I don't care why they argue.

The fact is they are. If FFG had released a card so clear that no one could have mistaken it's meaning, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I'm going to show up at a tourney and have to have a discussion periodically that "No X doesn't work that way" more than twice, I want it FAQed. Makes it easier to play the game.

You should care. Fruitless argumentation does harm.

"The science is still out on linking cigarettes to cancer"
"Not all scientists agree on climate change"
"Some people still feel vaccines cause autism"

Just because you can argue about something doesn't give the idea that it is unsettled any merit.

Please google Logical Fallacies for more information.

4 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I don't care why they argue.

The fact is they are. If FFG had released a card so clear that no one could have mistaken it's meaning, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I'm going to show up at a tourney and have to have a discussion periodically that "No X doesn't work that way" more than twice, I want it FAQed. Makes it easier to play the game.

Heck, people will argue about rules when they havn't even read the rule in question.

That's just what people do . You can't stop them.

I mean, the card could be the most perfectly unmistakable rules thing possible, and if someone hasn't read the rules , they'll still argue.

3 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I don't care why they argue.

The fact is they are. If FFG had released a card so clear that no one could have mistaken it's meaning, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If I'm going to show up at a tourney and have to have a discussion periodically that "No X doesn't work that way" more than twice, I want it FAQed. Makes it easier to play the game.

But people can mistake meanings on virtually ANY card, doesn't mean it needs to be FAQed! And there is the developper of the card, and WHO PLAYTESTED IT and he said the way the card works, and ALMOST everyone accepted, if everyone had accepted it, this thread would not have 6 pages!

On a note people: The earth is the back of a giant turtle to who the old civilizations met and considered it a god, many had different interpretations for it as they came accross it in different situations, this led to nowadays' several religions, the truth is that there is a big turtle carrying across the cosmos, and it's magic, if you are going to fall it teleports you to the opposite side, the Bermuda triangle leads to 'gas escapade' back of the turtle, this is why so many misteries. True Story