31 minutes ago, sharrrp said:On the RAW vs RAI point when there is any doubt you have to go with RAW because RAI can get kind of insane with what some people think "intended" is.
YES!! This, 100 times this!!
32 minutes ago, sharrrp said:There are times where RAI is SO obvious though that you have to go with that.
*Luke finding out Vader is his father* Nooooooooooooooooooooo! You had it right, why backtrack :(.
I mean, we are allowed to insert some measure of common sense into how we interpret rules.
Not much, mind you. Just a little. But for this one, a little is all it takes
11 minutes ago, MockingBird ME said:YES!! This, 100 times this!!
*Luke finding out Vader is his father* Nooooooooooooooooooooo! You had it right, why backtrack :(.
I didn't backtrack, I said "when there's any doubt" and sometimes there isn't.
My real world Jabba example is a prime one but how about a hypothetical: in the 2.0 RR under "fleeing the battlefield" they accidentally write that a ship is immediately destroyed if it does NOT flee. Would you still insist on following RAW? I would assume no as it would literally make the game unplayable.
Sure, that's a hypothetical that doesn't actually exist but it COULD and the point is to illustrate that there is a time where RAW needs to be ignored. We just have to debate where the line is. When in doubt, err to RAW but we're not robots, at some point RAI MUST be able to take over.
Similarly, if the assertion is 'RAW this does nothing, as opposed to what the card says', or even 'RAW this does nothing except in very, very hyperspecific circumstances where it TECHNICALLY CAN DO SOMETHING so it doesn't do nothing, technically', RAW is patently wrong.
People are assuming (well, in many cases, I suspect, pretending to assume for whatever reason) this game is written like a technical manual. It's not.
It would be nice if it were, but it's just not.
RAW being disappointing is not a reason to try to claim they are something else. We're all welcome to homebrew whatever rules we want around our own play tables but pretending that our preferences make actual rules is just silly. I hope they fix this soon, specificall I think @jftanner had a great idea about rewording damage to make it a mandatory spend.
For what it's worth, I'm with @MockingBird ME. I also can't see that the common sense or intent is so obvious. If we didn't have any relevant abilites that spent shields, I might be inclined to agree. But we have Inertial Dampeners.
10 minutes ago, Yearfire said:I also can't see that the common sense or intent is so obvious
Even if we agreed that in this case the intent was obvious I think that's a terrible precedent to set for the community to claim that "when I think the intent is obvious it works the way I think they intended."
As can already be seen in a number of threads on this forum, there are people making this obvious intent argument as if everyone is required to agree with them even when there is no consensus.
So what is common interpretation?
During Polish SoS local judge decided, that Escape Crafts shields can be used only for Inertial Dampeners (so I haven't seen single shuttle docked).
9 hours ago, Oldpara said:So what is common interpretation?
During Polish SoS local judge decided, that Escape Crafts shields can be used only for Inertial Dampeners (so I haven't seen single shuttle docked).
The only reasonable interpretation is you can use shields for damage also.
Unfortunately FFG has not seen fit to address this in their official rulings thread (which has sat quiet for months now).
So, since spend is defined as distinct from losing shields, you cannot currently use shields for anything but inertial dampers.
Pretty dumb, but that's what the card says.
2 hours ago, Green Knight said:The only reasonable interpretation is you can use shields for damage also.
Unfortunately FFG has not seen fit to address this in their official rulings thread (which has sat quiet for months now).
So, since spend is defined as distinct from losing shields, you cannot currently use shields for anything but inertial dampers.
Pretty dumb, but that's what the card says.
That's why I digged out old thread instead creating new one. Maybe it'll draw some FFG Rules Team attention, and they address it during next Q&A update (I hope for 13th December along with new wave going live)
On 10/17/2018 at 5:00 AM, MockingBird ME said:Even if we agreed that in this case the intent was obvious I think that's a terrible precedent to set for the community to claim that "when I think the intent is obvious it works the way I think they intended."
As can already be seen in a number of threads on this forum, there are people making this obvious intent argument as if everyone is required to agree with them even when there is no consensus.
Beyond just forum members and players claiming "obvious intent" I think it's also bad precedent to encourage the kind of lazy rule writing that leads to these conflicts.