Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lyraeus

Silly SSD you got me... What did I miss?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by Cactus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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" 

Edited by Lyraeus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...