Strategic Advisor

[Don Henderson fan club 85]

4 hours ago, emsgoof said:

This type of stuff is why I hate the rules forum.

Are you saying that looking at the wording of the other upgrade cards is not the right way to proceed pending a response from FFG?

Edited January 29, 2018 by Don Henderson fan club
inserted missing words

[ripper998 508]

On 1/25/2018 at 8:20 AM, Drasnighta said:

There will be fanfare when/if I do get a reply.

 

In the meantime, I've been working on a World Cup FAQ, which would double as my Local Tournament (Hothgary) FAQ...

...  But 4 hours of sleep in 3 days has kept me from committing to publish.  I'm going to get a good few more hours today thanks to a very cheap bottle of Alberta Premium and then look at what I've written to make sure its not crazytimes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who are we kidding.  Its effing crazytimes.

Do you have a link to this self made FAQ?

[emsgoof 473]

6 hours ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

Are you saying that looking at the wording of the other upgrade cards is not the right way to proceed pending a response from FFG?

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  The only thing you should look at for a card is the card, the main RRG, and any FAQ topic that pertains to that card only.

Doing otherwise injects assumptions into the discussion.

[AdmiralYor 231]

2 hours ago, emsgoof said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  The only thing you should look at for a card is the card, the main RRG, and any FAQ topic that pertains to that card only.

Doing otherwise injects assumptions into the discussion.

This would be a great mantra, if intent/balance were not more important than text.  If the powers that be decide that the card is too good for its points being able to activate after the ship, it will be ruled that way.  I honestly don't think it will make much of a difference either way.

[Don Henderson fan club 85]

6 hours ago, emsgoof said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  The only thing you should look at for a card is the card, the main RRG, and any FAQ topic that pertains to that card only.

Doing otherwise injects assumptions into the discussion.

Yes, you are correct - no doubt about it. But what do you do if the text defies a single logical interpretation and there is no FAQ? I might believe I know what the text of the Strategic Advisor card means, but other people may strongly disagree. Isn't the root of the problem (as is often said) the imprecise wording of the rules/cards in the first place? The discussions on the forum would seem to be a symptom, not the disease itself.

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

10 hours ago, emsgoof said:

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.  The only thing you should look at for a card is the card, the main RRG, and any FAQ topic that pertains to that card only.

Doing otherwise injects assumptions into the discussion.

While I mostly agree, there is a strong reason to look at other cards: precedence. We use it also for ruling. 

8 hours ago, AdmiralYor said:

This would be a great mantra, if intent/balance were not more important than text.

It happens that the text is more important than intend/balance. I am not a developer nor a playtester so no idea about what both are. The text hopefully is the same for everyone. As best all I can do is play the game and house rule when my ideas don't match with what the text says and maybe I will connect to the intend/balance this way. But the correct premise is "they won't".

However maybe you are being ironic but I just didn't get it. 

[Drasnighta 26,832]

16 hours ago, ripper998 said:

Do you have a link to this self made FAQ?

For the purposes of the World Cup, its here:
 

There will be a fuller, prettier one for my Local Hothgary group when I get more time off.

[emsgoof 473]

14 hours ago, AdmiralYor said:

This would be a great mantra, if intent/balance were not more important than text.  If the powers that be decide that the card is too good for its points being able to activate after the ship, it will be ruled that way.  I honestly don't think it will make much of a difference either way.

The hubris displayed is amazing, you have no idea what the intent was.

[Don Henderson fan club 85]

18 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

The hubris displayed is amazing, you have no idea what the intent was.

I don't think it's hubris as much as the desire to find answers and people having strong opinions.

Call it arrogance if you like, but I actually do think I know the intent - from the wording on the Strategic Advisor card and from a passage in the Rules Reference, but others strongly disagree with that opinion.

So, from looking at the wording on the card and using the main RRG, what do you think the answer is?

[ripper998 508]

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

For the purposes of the World Cup, its here:
 

There will be a fuller, prettier one for my Local Hothgary group when I get more time off.

Thanks, I am going to use this to start a discussion on rulings for a tourney I am TO'ing this weekend.  Make sure everyone is fully aware of how things will be ruled on.

[AdmiralYor 231]

15 hours ago, AdmiralYor said:

This would be a great mantra, if intent/balance were not more important than text.  If the powers that be decide that the card is too good for its points being able to activate after the ship, it will be ruled that way.  I honestly don't think it will make much of a difference either way.

59 minutes ago, emsgoof said:

The hubris displayed is amazing, you have no idea what the intent was.

The last sentence(bolded) is my personal opinion on the ruling of the card, that it won't matter that much.  I never claimed to be able to speak to the intent of the card.

We have several examples of where balance and/or intent have altered the official rulings or created errata on cards.  Discarding the possibility that this can occur and distilling game rules down to a cold calculus using thirty worlds of the globally famously inaccurate English language is silly.

 

[Ardaedhel 10,844]

14 minutes ago, AdmiralYor said:

We have several examples of where balance and/or intent have altered the official rulings or created errata on cards.  Discarding the possibility that this can occur and distilling game rules down to a cold calculus using thirty worlds of the globally famously inaccurate English language is silly.

Nobody's discarding that possibility. That's fine that things might get errata'd or clarified, but what do you propose we do in the intervening 6 months while we wait for the FAQ? Worth noting that those 6 months cover half of Regionals, a number of Nationals, and Worlds. Just shrug our shoulders not play these cards?

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

1 hour ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

Call it arrogance if you like, but I actually do think I know the intent

Arrogance.

[Don Henderson fan club 85]

14 minutes ago, ovinomanc3r said:

Arrogance.

Is it arrogance if I happen to be right. Maybe my opinion is the same as yours. Would that make you arrogant? And I suppose attacking someone on a forum shows no sign of arrogance.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

 

Just now, Don Henderson fan club said:

Is it arrogance if I happen to be right. Maybe my opinion is the same as yours. Would that make you arrogant? And I suppose attacking someone on a forum shows no sign of arrogance.

Don't take sheepyhead seriously, he was just stringing you along...

[AdmiralYor 231]

4 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

Nobody's discarding that possibility. That's fine that things might get errata'd or clarified, but what do you propose we do in the intervening 6 months while we wait for the FAQ? Worth noting that those 6 months cover half of Regionals, a number of Nationals, and Worlds. Just shrug our shoulders not play these cards?

All we(forum community) can do is present the possibilities and allow TOs to make their decisions for their events. 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a very decent possibility that SA was released with it's current wording intentionally.  The detailed implementation can be decided on when a larger pool of games have been played to determine the effect of the card vs its point/opportunity costs.  This leaves a simpler card text for casual play, makes the change an interpretation a la XI7 rather than errata based on effectiveness, and means the interpretation can easily be changed later.

 

[Drasnighta 26,832]

Except we also have precedence that murky card = never used. Data points are not established, and a potentially interesting and meta shifting card misses its heyday (RLB)

[Undeadguy 5,749]

I can tell you how I'll be using the SAd. When it's my turn to activate a ship, I exhaust it to make my opponent activate a ship. It's surprisingly simple, almost like that was the intent of the card. 

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

3 minutes ago, AdmiralYor said:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there is a very decent possibility that SA was released with it's current wording intentionally.  The detailed implementation can be decided on when a larger pool of games have been played to determine the effect of the card vs its point/opportunity costs.  This leaves a simpler card text for casual play, makes the change an interpretation a la XI7 rather than errata based on effectiveness, and means the interpretation can easily be changed later.

It's a tad harsh in this case, but "Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence."

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

6 minutes ago, Don Henderson fan club said:

Is it arrogance if I happen to be right. Maybe my opinion is the same as yours. Would that make you arrogant? And I suppose attacking someone on a forum shows no sign of arrogance.

 

4 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

 

Don't take sheepyhead seriously, he was just stringing you along...

Too much this. 

 

However, it would be arrogance even being right. Like anyone good at something may be arrogant and still be good at that thing about he is arrogant. Actually that's what usually make people arrogant.

[DiabloAzul 2,636]

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I can tell you how I'll be using the SAd. When it's my turn to activate a ship, I exhaust it to make my opponent activate a ship. It's surprisingly simple, almost like that was the intent of the card. 

Your turn to activate a ship, or your ship's turn to be activated?

[Undeadguy 5,749]

Just now, DiabloAzul said:

Your turn to activate a ship, or your ship's turn to be activated?

I do what the card says. When it's my turn to activate a ship.

[Drasnighta 26,832]

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

I do what the card says. When it's my turn to activate a ship.

But that’s not what the card says...

 

thw words “a ship” are not there.

[Don Henderson fan club 85]

24 minutes ago, DiabloAzul said:

Don't take sheepyhead seriously, he was just stringing you along...

Thanks for that. The problem is that I am a grumpy old bear and I react when poked with a stick.

The top and bottom of it is that I just want answers like everyone else. And as Ard says, what do we do in the meantime.

And just for the record, while "sheepyhead" and others clearly have a low opinion of me, I have nearly 50 years' experience of wargaming, including navigating the inpenetrable depths of DBM-ese at tournament level. Also I have commercial wargaming experience - I translated the English edition of a widely used foreign commercial ruleset. At least that's someting to be arrogant about!

Edited January 30, 2018 by Don Henderson fan club
inserted missing phrase, "at tournament level"

[ovinomanc3r 4,437]

I cannot have a low opinion. I played Overload Pulse wrong all the wave 1

And deployed squadrons AT distance 2 well on wave 3-4