Just now, Lyraeus said:

Yup. I agree unless it creates some level of ambiguity. Then it's just a bad ruling.

The point was it ENDED an Ambiguity

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

The point was it ENDED an Ambiguity

What was the ruling

16 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

I don't remember exactly which rule it was. I do know all Q did was announce which way he was ruling on something that had not been FAQed yet and xerpo went nuts about it being some kind of collusion. @Undeadguy butted heads with him the most I think and ended up being declared head of the Brominati because of it.

Not on my watch he didnt.

Just now, Ginkapo said:

Not on my watch he didnt.

You'll have to take it up with him but you know he's just gonna tell you to p*** off.

Or compliment your fleet builds.

35 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

I don't remember exactly which rule it was. I do know all Q did was announce which way he was ruling on something that had not been FAQed yet and xerpo went nuts about it being some kind of collusion. @Undeadguy butted heads with him the most I think and ended up being declared head of the Brominati because of it.

That was SloaneKettering, which was a burner account someone made to fight with me without ruining the reputation of their real account.

43 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Which rules? The FAQ that was needed badly and that what maybe 90% of the community seemed to be ok with?

When Q got the reigns as TO (which I think was GenCon or NOVA), it was coming off of a huge debate the previous TO had caused. The TO was asked for Sloane works - if a token is SLoane'd, can the token still be spent?

The 2 "natural" answers people went to were "No, the token has been spent and you can't spend the same token again" or "Yes, because the defender didn't spend the token." The TO decided to combine the 2 and said "If a token is Sloane'd, the defender gets the benefit of the token and the defender cannot spend it." It was a really bizarre call to make that didn't make much sense. After a week or so of forum and facebook debate, the TO put Q in charge, which is when Q made a decision, and I think it was to allow the defender to spend the token. Could have been the defender can't spend it, but it doesn't matter.

After that happened, people were still ******* about the ruling, while some people were content. I told people to deal with it because Q made a decision which was supported by the play testers. Then someone made SloaneKettering as a burner and said I had colluded with Q to get this ruling so it would benefit me and my bros. And thus, Q's bros and the brominati were formed. It was funny because I didn't go to the tournament, nor did I know anyone who was going. My entire argument was "The TO gave a ruling, now deal with it and stop trying to convince he is wrong."

Here is the thread.

The last page has the formation of the Brominati.

12 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

That was SloaneKettering, which was a burner account someone made to fight with me without ruining the reputation of their real account.

That's such a p**** thing to do. Can't keep track of which troll was which. They need to try harder if they want to be remembered. Thanks for clearing that up.

Huh, odd but ok. Reading Sloane she seems straight forward. The defending player didn't spend the toke so they should able to but they lose that token since it's red.

Unless they ruled that any spent token is considered spent for that attack regardless of who spent it

11 minutes ago, Lyraeus said:

Huh, odd but ok. Reading Sloane she seems straight forward. The defending player didn't spend the toke so they should able to but they lose that token since it's red.

Unless they ruled that any spent token is considered spent for that attack regardless of who spent it

This was before the Sloane FAQ. We needed an answer and Q gave us one. It was reversed by FFG though.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

This was before the Sloane FAQ. We needed an answer and Q gave us one. It was reversed by FFG though.

Huh, sounds crazy. I mean she is easy enough to read and it is only predicated by the rule book which says "by the Defender" so I would of ruled the defender could spend the exhausted token during that step. It can't spend one that was exhausted and fully removed by Sloane though since they get spent by her ability during the attack

We don’t write “of” when we mean “have” - that’s another thing that has changed.

You gotta do time if you want the bromanti crown and I dont think Undead has served.

29 minutes ago, LTD said:

We don’t write “of” when we mean “have” - that’s another thing that has changed.

My idiocy of grammar is going to show.... What do you mean exactly?

22 minutes ago, Ginkapo said:

You gotta do time if you want the bromanti crown and I dont think Undead has served.

Hahahaha

1 hour ago, Lyraeus said:

Huh, sounds crazy. I mean she is easy enough to read and it is only predicated by the rule book which says "by the Defender" so I would of ruled the defender could spend the exhausted token during that step. It can't spend one that was exhausted and fully removed by Sloane though since they get spent by her ability during the attack

LTD is referring to this.

19 minutes ago, Cactus said:

LTD is referring to this.

And thus why I fail as a writer. Still, of or have, fact remains, that's how I read the rules but it looks like we have an answer already

Yup they went with the "anyone spending that token counts but not to the token type limit for spending tokens"

I find it amusing that we finally have something new to talk about and instead there are grammar conversations going on in two threads.

What does it take to join the Bromanati? I want in.

2 hours ago, Lyraeus said:

so I would of ruled the defender could spend

“Would’ve” or “would have”.

”Would of” ain’t genteel.

1 hour ago, Megatronrex said:

I find it amusing that we finally have something new to talk about and instead there are grammar conversations going on in two threads.

Where’s the other thread? I want in!

1 hour ago, Megatronrex said:

I find it amusing that we finally have something new to talk about and instead there are grammar conversations going on in two threads.

You mean when a host of a community engages it creates a place where positive things are more likely to happen? Perish that thought.

Conversations about grammar are positive - in a world of written text poor grammar is like spitting or littering on the footpath (sidewalk if you must).

Of instead of have is not autocorrect or poor spelling or even English-not-my-first-language (hello majority of the planet! You are welcome here!)

It’s the mental equivalent of a smoker dropping their butts on the ground. Not cool.

Also, I was making fun of Lyraeus - for old times sakes.

Back to SSDs! Yay!

Just now, LTD said:

Conversations about grammar are positive - in a world of written text poor grammar is like spitting or littering on the footpath (sidewalk if you must).

Of instead of have is not autocorrect or poor spelling or even English-not-my-first-language (hello majority of the planet! You are welcome here!)

It’s the mental equivalent of a smoker dropping their butts on the ground. Not cool.

Also, I was making fun of Lyraeus - for old times sakes.

Back to SSDs! Yay!

Yup its a common mistake I haven't had that mistake corrected recently. Thank you