21 minutes ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

Reminder  text is not 'a  n effect'

I would argue that, without the email clarification we just got, there is no basis for this. The rule book doesn’t tell us that some card text can be ignored while the rest can’t. So, if you want to accept this, you would also need to accept the other half of that email.

We’re mostly splitting hairs at this point since we agree on what should be the case, but there is one thing I want to add:

25 minutes ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

I  also want to point out that FFG has stated in all of their other tournament regulations that only the officially published documen  ts   listed by  them are valid in tournament rulings. Emails from the creator,  while helpful and let us know that these issues are being looked at, cannot and should not be treated a  s if they are official rules docum  ent  s

This is all fine. However, when the “issue” is a clear error (not an interpretation of how 2 rules ambiguously interact) I argue that a TO that ignores that guidance and enforces that clear error is unreasonable. I understand I would still be obligated to follow that TO’s ruling, but they are undoubtedly unreasonable in my book. (The whole Arsenal issue is another example of this.) That’s really the crux of my POV. Ideally there are no mistakes, but when one pops up, just don’t be a jerk (not saying you are at all, I’m speaking generally).

2 hours ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

That's... exactly what they do. As I explained earlier, the same thing happened in L5R when they created a deckbuilding option that wasn't in the rulebook at the time of it's release - it wasn't valid in tournament play UNTIL they updated the RRG. The same thing will come up if they don't add rules for Operator unit types to the RRG before/just after the Boba Fett release.

I did.

"If an effect on a card or another component contradicts rules found in the Learn to Play booklet or Rules Reference, that component takes precedence." Reminder text is not 'an effect'. I realize that there could be a lot of ambiguity on this, since the term "effect" is not defined in the RRG. (They define the word 'then' in the L5R rulebook, so this isn't a stretch to expect.)

It's not like they can magically change what the cards say; they have to do that through a card errata....in the RRG. Which would then be overwritten by the cards back to their original wording, if you use your interpretation.

EDIT: I should point out, I full agree that Impact SHOULD be limited to only armor. Crits are so strong in this game already, they don't need that boost. My point, however, is that an email from the developer and reminder text do not override the RAW as they are in the RRG.

I also want to point out that FFG has stated in all of their other tournament regulations that only the officially published documents listed by them are valid in tournament rulings. Emails from the creator, while helpful and let us know that these issues are being looked at, cannot and should not be treated as if they are official rules documents.

There are no tournament rules yet, as there are no competitive tournaments yet (just store level casual ones). I agree that when those do happen, every rule better be in print in a FFG document.

If you want to ignore developer emails in the meantime that's fine but I haven't played with anyone that does so. But if your group does, more power to you.

This has been a mostly academic argument that is certainly not worth anyone getting worked up over.

5 hours ago, nashjaee said:

I would argue that, without the email clarification we just got, there is no basis for this. The rule book doesn’t tell us that some card text can be ignored while the rest can’t. So, if you want to accept this, you would also need to accept the other half of that email.

We’re mostly splitting hairs at this point since we agree on what should be the case, but there is one thing I want to add:

This is all fine. However, when the “issue” is a clear error (not an interpretation of how 2 rules ambiguously interact) I argue that a TO that ignores that guidance and enforces that clear error is unreasonable. I understand I would still be obligated to follow that TO’s ruling, but they are undoubtedly unreasonable in my book. (The whole Arsenal issue is another example of this.) That’s really the crux of my POV. Ideally there are no mistakes, but when one pops up, just don’t be a jerk (not saying you are at all, I’m speaking generally).

2 hours ago, Big Easy said:

There are no tournament rules yet, as there are no competitive tournaments yet (just store level casual ones). I agree that when those do happen, every rule better be in print in a FFG document.

If you want to ignore developer emails in the meantime that's fine but I haven't played with anyone that does so. But if your group does, more power to you.

This has been a mostly academic argument that is certainly not worth anyone getting worked up over.

I'm not trying to be, I'm sorry if I'm coming off like that; I fully agree that Impact needs to only count against Armor. I just don't really see how it's a "clear error" - the rules reference clearly states that it works on anything, but the former lead developer said in a personal email that it works differently... I'm sorry, but the Official Company Rules Document says "A", it doesn't matter if the employee says "B" on the forums or in an email; The rules reference still takes priority. If they want to change it, (Which again, I agree that they need to) they actually have to update the RRG to say so. It's also totally possible that the new design team has chosen to keep it how it's written, and allow impact to work on anything; since he's no longer working on the game I fail to see how his personal emails change anything until the RRG is updated to reflect that.

As for the tournament regulations, I think you're thinking of them wrong. Tournament Regs are NOT a separate set of rules - they are just additional addendum's that mainly cover things like tournament structure, etiquette and stuff like conversion rules; you don't need to read them to play the game, as they don't actually have anything to do with the rules of the game - they strictly follow the rules in the rules reference. They are mainly for tournament organizers and people who want to understand how tournaments are going to function. If they don't update the rules reference, then in all tournament settings, both 'relaxed' (in-store) and 'premier' (FFG run events at cons and such) events must follow the rules reference exactly. Therefore, unless they change the rules reference to say Impact only works on units with armor, then Impact will work on anything - and the judges will be forced to rule against you if you claim otherwise. I run my local store's L5R tournaments and that's exactly how it works - I had to make sure people wern't using Support of the Phoenix when it launched, since the rules reference at the time had not been updated to make it tournament-legal, even though the product launched.

Also, if the reminder text mattered, then General Veer's card, which doesn't have it, would work on non-armored targets, but the cards with the correct reminder text would? Even though it's the same ability? I don't think so. If they want it to work the way they intend it to, then they NEED to update the rules reference to say so.

I'm not trying to get worked up or be an *******, just playing the devil's advocate explaining that this is how FFG and the RRG works. It's great that he's giving email rules clarifications, and if it's something that IS very ambiguous, then I totally support following the developer's email. That's just not the case here. There isn't anything ambiguous - the RRG says one thing, he says in an email something completely different. Unfortunately, the RRG takes precedence over his email, not the other way around.

@RavenwolfXIII I have to disagree. Alex isn’t just “some employee”, he’s the lead designer, and any statements by him where he clearly says the RRG is actually wrong are word of god.

10 hours ago, RavenwolfXIII said:

I'm not trying to be, I'm sorry if I'm coming off like that; I fully agree that Impact needs to only count against Armor. I just don't really see how it's a "clear error" - the rules reference clearly states that it works on anything, but the former lead developer said in a personal email that it works differently... I'm sorry, but the Official Company Rules Document says "A", it doesn't matter if the employee says "B" on the forums or in an email; The rules reference still takes priority. If they want to change it, (Which again, I agree that they need to) they actually have to update the RRG to say so. It's also totally possible that the new design team has chosen to keep it how it's written, and allow impact to work on anything; since he's no longer working on the game I fail to see how his personal emails change anything until the RRG is updated to reflect that.

As for the tournament regulations, I think you're thinking of them wrong. Tournament Regs are NOT a separate set of rules - they are just additional addendum's that mainly cover things like tournament structure, etiquette and stuff like conversion rules; you don't need to read them to play the game, as they don't actually have anything to do with the rules of the game - they strictly follow the rules in the rules reference. They are mainly for tournament organizers and people who want to understand how tournaments are going to function. If they don't update the rules reference, then in all tournament settings, both 'relaxed' (in-store) and 'premier' (FFG run events at cons and such) events must follow the rules reference exactly. Therefore, unless they change the rules reference to say Impact only works on units with armor, then Impact will work on anything - and the judges will be forced to rule against you if you claim otherwise. I run my local store's L5R tournaments and that's exactly how it works - I had to make sure people wern't using Support of the Phoenix when it launched, since the rules reference at the time had not been updated to make it tournament-legal, even though the product launched.

Also, if the reminder text mattered, then General Veer's card, which doesn't have it, would work on non-armored targets, but the cards with the correct reminder text would? Even though it's the same ability? I don't think so. If they want it to work the way they intend it to, then they NEED to update the rules reference to say so.

I'm not trying to get worked up or be an *******, just playing the devil's advocate explaining that this is how FFG and the RRG works. It's great that he's giving email rules clarifications, and if it's something that IS very ambiguous, then I totally support following the developer's email. That's just not the case here. There isn't anything ambiguous - the RRG says one thing, he says in an email something completely different. Unfortunately, the RRG takes precedence over his email, not the other way around.

Sorry, wasn't referring to you getting worked up but someone replying to you.

A few points though--Alex Davy is still the developer of Legion, and he is top authority on the intent of the rules and their modifications. Actually getting them published to update a game product (RRG) goes above him, where it involves business management, graphic design, etc. but I'm absolutely sure that a man with his competitive gaming experience is not just spitballing answers when he states what he did in an email--that the impact inconsistency was an omission error, not a rules interpretation or change. Ironically in his same email he also confirms your position that helper text does not matter and would not overrule the RRG (though here it gave us a clue that the RRG was potentially in error, which he confirmed).

I agree with most of what you said about tournament regs, but when I referred to them getting this straight before a competitive event takes place, I was referring to the RRG being updated not a "tourney document" (which I'm sure we'll also see). And to that point, they do not technically "strictly follow the RRG" as they usually introduce things like time limits and win conditions/tiebreakers. When you go over your 90 minute time limit (for example), you wouldn't get to say you can keep playing because the RRG doesn't mention a time limit. So I would argue any tournament doc does overrule the RRG in tournaments (though we would see confusion and dissatisfaction from players if FFG went too far with any changes beyond concessions needed to facilitate a tournament format).

As far as judges being forced to ignore emails, I think you'll find that that has not been the practice in other competitive situations. I have no doubt that this rule will be cleared up by the time there's a competitive event, but something else might come up by then and if there's a clear answer from the developer via email I have no doubt some TOs will go with it. You don't have to like that, but I'm just telling it like it is.

Finally, the Impact ommission IS ambiguous in the RRG as it does not say Impact can be used against any target, it simply omits any reference to 'armor only' that is referred to on the helper text. So the RRG doesn't "say one thing" while the email says another.

With all of that said, again I understand that no one should be forced to follow rules that aren't available to anyone in the FFG support section for the game. I don't believe that in any competitive setting this point will still be relevant at all as FFG will address this. But in the meantime casual games will overwhelmingly be using this and many other widely-accepted clarifications. If you don't feel comfortable doing that you can always roll a red die to see which way you'll go.

11 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

Sorry  , wasn't referring to you getting work  ed up but someone replying  to yo  u  .

Just in case you’re referring to me: very sorry if it came across that way, I definitely wasn’t. I thought we were having a perfectly polite discussion with extremely different views ? .

I’ll add that one of the issues with updating the RRG, as I understand, is getting LFL approval, which takes time. So I appreciate Alex providing guidance on how the game is supposed to be played in the meantime. Especially during this important period where the game was just released and some rules needed clarifying or outright changing (LOS, for example).

35 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Just in case you’re referring to me: very sorry if it came across that way, I definitely wasn’t. I thought we were having a perfectly polite discussion with extremely different views ? .

It wasn't you ? . It was more of a general preemptive call for civility.