Funky Jett:

Ah, I remember those discussions! I enjoyed them, at least. Sonya didn't. And I honestly think that a lot of the same problems are rearing their heads now as did then. I have no problem with a ruling being made either way - but I do have a problem with someone swooping in and giving an unconsidered "It's like this, deal with it."

Our problem during the PW/Mystics debate was that some people, instead of rebutting an argument, simply stated their position again, only more forcefully. We'd posit a construction like "If A, then B and C. However, Not B does not imply Not A. Since negating B does not negate A, then C" and there was an extremely vocal contingent that would simply shout the company line again without addressing anything we'd said. (Though we did eventually find somewhat more fertile ground on the Wizkids Judges board.)

Could we accept the ruling? In that particular thread, we never debated what the ruling was- only what it should be. As we said repeatedly, we accepted the ruling but thought that it was logically flawed.

What did we learn from it? Well, posts turned into personal attacks on my wife and things turned nasty enough that Sonya learned not to bother having open rules discussions on the 'Realms and asked me to finish off the thread for her. So.. congratulations there. Discussion squleched and a Realmer turned away, score one for the Heroclix Church.

(btw- you can blame the longwindedness on me- back in the days before I got my own account, I usually did the "final polish" on the posts before they went out)

So.. here we have the Rules Arbitrator swooping in and giving a ruling. Do I accept it? No. Why? Because he hasn't dealt with my argument! I'm saying "hey- look at it this way, what do you think" and his response is "I don't feel like trying to look at it that way. Here's my default answer on that topic." He admits that there may be language in need of patching up. I agree. But as there is no tournament-legal ruling stating that you roll once for each b/c/f attack in a flurry (as the Rules Arbitrator's rulings are only for non-tournament play), the problem persists. Feel free to argue the point. (I'm rather enjoying drmood's posts on the topic, for instance, and there's certainly a decent chance that he'll get me to change my mind).

Hello,

Just perusing this thread and came across an issue of fliers shooting while being based and pulsewave attacks ignoring Mystics (if I read that right).

I always thought:

1) That fliers were not restricted by being based in terms of ranged attacks;

and

2) Mystics kicks back against the Pulse Waver.

Are either of these untrue? If so, why?

Eric

Dolemite:

Hmm.. well, I suppose we can debate the semantics of the proper uses of the words "flip" and "integrity", but in the interest of moving on..

I'm not demanding that Hair10 focus any attention on it at all. What I'm saying is that, if he's going to focus his attention on it, then he ought not to issue a ruling without considering the matter fully. If he does so, I feel that it makes him seem less like an even-handed arbitrator and more like "Heroclix Pope."

So.. yes, I think that the performance of his official duties should require more attention to detail than seemed to be in evidence here- but he didn't have to weigh in, and a simple "I don't think so, but I'll look into it if I have time" would've gone a long way. I didn't have a problem with his initial "I'd love to look at your complete position and take a stab at it but I don't have time." My problem is when he later swooped in and gave a ruling without the appearance of considering the arguments.

As for his answer being sufficient for all parties involved.. um.. apparently not. Neither I nor the original starter of the thread evidenced satisfaction with the answers we were getting. Why? Because we were posting logical arguments and they were being responded to (at least much of the time) with dogma rather than counter-arguments. As symbiotehulk said the first time Funky Jett chimed in with "this is just how it is": "short, simple, but not the result of a logical chain of reasoning." I hardly take symbiotehulk's last comment on the thread ("So... whatever") as a ringing endorsement of satisfaction.

How much attention shuld he give the thread after he already gave a ruling? He never gave any indicaiton of having given the argument any consideration whatsoever! He's said repeatedly that he hasn't had time to look into it. Which is fine, but then I'm not going to pretend that he actually gave me a thoughtful response to my rules concern.

Well.. I admit that I don't know the original intent of the Rules Arbitrator position. But, if he's not going to listen to both sides of the story, why would anyone want his advice?

As to your final thoughts- yes, my disatisfaction with Hair10's reply is just my opinion. Of course it is. What of it? The point of my post was that his approach was giving me a bad opinion and that this could be corrected. And I think that as long as he continues to issue rulings without any explanation for them or indicaiton that he is treating both parties' concerns seriously, he will routinely tend to alienate the party who feels that their concerns were ignored. How to fix that? A little consideration and a brief discussion about why an argument failed would do.

Oh- and you do realize that his ruling aren't binding on "lower" Judges, right? The official rules for the tournament are in the Approved Play documents and any calls made by the Judge of record are final, regardless of what a higher level Judge (who's not affiliated with the event) might say.

So.. anyone up for discussing flurry and b/c/f?

Eric2:

1) Correct. Fliers are not restricted from ranged attacks when based.

2) Sorry.. I've got a great argument for why they should, but, as currently ruled, responsive TA's do not "go off" during a PW. They are ignored by the PW. This is generally assumed to mean that they are treated as if they don't exist by all entities within the PW range.

First of all, he has read your side of the discussion. He HAD to, because your position is buried deep within your posts. He had to wade through the excessive, lawyer-speak verbiage to get to your point. Besides, he might have dealt with it and just provided you with the correct answer. Just because you go to great lengths to post fully developed thoughts certainly doesn't mean everyone else has to abide by those same ideals. He read your opinion and said, Reroll. You might take umbrage to that, but it's because you want to belabor the issue. hair10 doesn't have time to engage in a lengthy disertation right now. (Maybe later, he might) So instead of getting a lengthy answer you wanted, he gave you the short, but yet, correct answer... Reroll for each attack.
Secondly, I realize you need precise and lengthy wording for your profession, however, after retirement, the most common complaint about Heroclix is the sheer size of the FAQs. And here you are, wanting to add more to it! Just to clear up something that truly only you and symbiotehulk80 have an issue with. I do not need to discuss this any further, and quite frankly, neither should you. You have stated your opinion, several people provided counter opinions, and the Rules Arbitrator came in and gave the final word. I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt by his supposed abruptness, but as he said, he is a busy man right now. Had this issue arose a couple months later instead of now, I'm pretty sure hair10 could have at least made one lengthy post to your satisfaction.

Bottom line is -- you reroll the damage for each portion of the Flurry attacks when using BCF.

Of course, I'm being stupid. I forgot PW ignored all powers and team abilities.

Eric

Here's another question. Consider it Rhetorical if you must.

Why ask for a ruling from an arbiter/judge/game designer/rulebook/FAQ/Neighbor in the first place if you fully intend to argue until he agrees with you?

You asked (actually Symbiote did).
Several other players and judges and rules lawyers responded.
You pointed out a grey area that in some infenitessimal way could be interpreted another way.
Many arguments were stated as to why that is NOT the way it is interpreted.
The arbiter cam in and said "this is the way you should be playing that" (which is what he is supposed to do)

You got huffy and more wordy.
You don't have to like the ruling (which by the way was made even before he was the arbiter... he was just restating a commonly known fact/ruling to people who either weren't paying attention or weren't up on the rules yet).
You don't even have to play by the ruling in your house. But at tournaments, the rest of us are going to hold you to it.

At this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I hope that in the future if I have a rules question, Hair or somone like him can give me a ruling without thinking that he has to publish it in a rulebook for it to stick.

If you really need it to be in print before you will respect the ruling, I'm sure someone here can give you your very own copy of the faq with The ruling from this discussion added to it.


I think Rolemaster might be a better game for you. Or Mythus. Those games Require constant lawyering. A figs combat game is more fun if you can get a ruling and move on.

Funky-

I think that you've got a fairly good point about people having already stated their opinions here on the b/c/f and flurry issue. I'm pretty sure that I know yours and you know mine, for example. (Though I'm looking forward to more input by Drmood or symbiotehulk.) So- I have no problem with letting the thread die if nobody has anything else to add to the discussion.

I know that Hair10's read at least portions of my posts, but reading something and actually seriously considering it are two different things. Of course, he might've seriously considered it. I don't know. He doesn't give the impression, but it's possible.

Either way, because he doesn't give the impression of serious consideration, I'm left feeling that my arguments weren't considered. Does that "hurt my feelings?" No. Does it make me less likely to accept the ruling? Of course it does. Non-binding arbitration works because both parties buy into the authority of the arbitrator and feel that arbitration is likely to result in a fair, balanced outcome. Without that, people tend to ignore arbitration they don't agree with and non-binding arbitration is largely futile.

All I'm saying here is "if you want people to accept your authority, you're going to have to demonstrate that you're evaluating their positions in a fair and balanced way." Giving the impression- even if erroneous- that you're not doing so undermines the degree to which people are going to buy in to your authority. Specifically, the party who was ruled against, because they felt that their side was not heard or, if heard, was not fairly considered, are less likely to accept the ruling than if they felt that it was dealt with and resolved appropriately.

As for the FAQ's: Yes, they are rather weighty. But you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction, my friend. The rules are written quite poorly. Honestly, I really like the idea of forcing them to flowchart the system, or at least reduce it to an algorithm inpseudocode. The materials as they stand do not stand up well to scrutiny. Does that mean that the FAQ shouldn't be updated? Do we know that only two people have ever had this concern? I don't know. But it doesn't make the point go away.

Bottom line- Rules ambiquity: Presiding Judge decides on flurry and b/c/f

Ah well- off for the day. I'll check in tomorrow and see if anything's happened. Any thoughts on b/c/f flurry out there? If you do think that you roll twice, any thoughts on: "can you declare a b/c/f flurry and chose to do straight damage on one attack and b/c/f damage on the other?"

XianDesi,

Are you the guy that made them put

"Do not use while completely submerged."

on hairdryers?

XianDesi,

Well, XianDesi, his rulings are binding on lower judges. Hair10 is a level-5 judge, thus he can issue a ruling and it should be adhered to by lower ranking judges. However, the use of house rules is acceptable, and in most cases preferred by some judges on an individual venue to venue level, thus a judge not agreeing with Hair10's ruling doesn't have to follow it. It is well within his realm as a level-5 judge to do this. Do you know the judge process and hierarchy of rulings? The approved play document does not describer, nor ever mention the processes and protocols of judges based off of judge rank. I am Not trying to be insulting here, just curious if you new the "other" side.

Again, as I have tried to state before, Hair10 does not have to be fair and balanced or elvauate your position if he has already made a ruling on a certain rule, power, or power interaction. Your dissection of the ambiguious PAC text of BCF does not warrant a response from a rules arbiter because a ruling has already been made on the subject, per the discussions in this thread. Should another question from another player reach Hair10 then he will make a ruling again, which will be the same as it was here. Your newfound information regarding the BCF PAC entry is not going to change anything, except maybe a FAQ entry explaining that BCF is re-rolled each time it is used during a flurry attempt to avoid another individual such as you trying to determine the intent of each word in the PAC entry.

You continue to state your opinion as to why you feel Hair10's response is not sufficiant in regards to your question, which I am getting rather bored with because it is your opinion of how Hair10 should be conducting his arbiter duties. It is not a fact and using it as the basis of your position is making a very largre assumption instead of a logically, informed decision. It is your tasete and preferance to discuss things in such a manner, but asking others to do so is rude, and, in some cases, completely uncalled for. Don't hold other people to your standards and then call them out when they don't live up to them. This is not the time not the place to partake in an educated and formal dsicussion using the tradiotnal practices of traditional debate.

Hair10 already made a ruling on how flurry and BCF function when used in conjunction with each other. You keeping adding a "but wait, does this mean this..." argument, and have received the same response as before. Your beating a dead horse, and wanting Hair10 to discuss the ramifications and/or possible changes needed to prevent such a gross dissection of the BCF PAC entry. Not everyone is going to severly twist the meaning of a PAC entry as you have demonstrated whether you have a point or not.

You are either going to accept how Hair10 conducts himself as a Hero Clix rules arbiter, or your are going to move on. The continued explinations of why "YOU" think he is doing the job incorrectly is poor form. Could you do a better job? DO you think players and or judges would care for your rethoric and lengthy responses to mundane questions? People, in general, want a short and sweet answer. Some people may feel differently, which is perfectly fine, but to assume others should repond in the same maner, kandor, and tone as you is disrepectful.

Or "Do not touch moving blade" on chainsaws...

"Hmm... it doesn't say I *CAN'T* hold it by this end with the high-speed blade on it... Sure it's obviously a better idea to use those handles... but there is a slight ambiguity as to the use..."

Cool, then I know where you all play at, know where Comics Paradise Plus is.....and know where you live...

Wow..

Y'know, it's amazing how many people feel a need to post on this thread, essentially saying "stop talking." If you don't want to hear any more, feel free to go read something else. Please. Shoo. No one is making you read this thread.

I mean, I don't feel the need to pop up on threads that I'm not interested in and post "Knock it off- she'll never, ever, date you." Nope. A buncha guys are enjoying flirting, a gal's enjoying being flirted with and everybody seems happy. I find it to be a bit dull, but then again, I can go read something else. Which I do.

If you're not interested in rule lawyering, why are you reading a thread entitled "Some complicated questions for rule lawyers?" Do you go to threads marked "Spoilers" and complain that they ruined your comics?

Yes- I believe in analyzing the rules closely. Many of you do not. Good for you. No one is forcing you to. Feel free to consider the issue settled and move on. But you certainly have no right to tell me that I can't discuss it if I choose. For those of us who still feel that it's up in the air and would enjoy discussing it more, I'd love to hear more productive replies (it's been a little while).

And Dolemite: You like Hair10. Sheesh. We get it. Which doesn't mean that he's necesarily doing a perfect job during his first week. Is it my opinion that he's making a mistake here? Yes. Obviously. Am I allowed to have an opinion? Also yes. Do I think that he should hear about it if people think he's going astray? Yes, I do. How will he fix a problem with how he is percieved and recieved if he's not aware that there is one?

I don't understand your fixation on the notion that Hair10 can have no faults, and I don't think that it's productive. Is he making a mistake here? Maybe, maybe not. But I see no reason not to discuss it. It's poor form to mention that I think that he's creating problems through his chosen approach and delivery style? Hey- we're not in The Hitler Youth. People are allowed to voice their concerns here. Some would even think that they're encouraged to do so.

Does he have to reply to me? Nope. All he has to do in regard to responding to people is respond to posts in the official rules questions area within a certain amount of time. This wasn't posted there, so he has no obligations in regard to this thread. But can he still make statements that make me question the quality of his rulings? Yes. And he did. A reply of his might remedy that, and he's welcome to make one, but no one is forcing him to respond.

As for the heirarchy thing- if you've got something that you feel proves it, feel free to post. I posted my supports..

Yay! Nothing like a dose of common sense...

Why would a short response from the Rules Arbitrator make you less likely to accept the ruling? The only conclusion I can come to, is that your feelings WERE hurt because you perceived his response as dismissive. Various players have told you the correct ruling. I'm a judge and I told you the correct ruling. He's a higher level judge and he has told you the correct ruling as well. You are expecting him to have the same amount of time to put into a response as you have. He doesn't. He's overwhelmed right now trying to get caught up to speed, like anybody would be at a new job. Next time, he might be able to discuss things more to your liking, but not yet.
Technically, hair10's job is arbitrating rules decisions between two parties, basically like any arbitrator does. Your argument is between you and the rulebook. That's not easy to arbitrate. The rulebook can't get his feelings hurt though... you can. The job has changed to more of a rules dispenser and a go-between for the players and the designers. This is how the designers must want it, otherwise, we would have been corrected a long time ago.
I have no idea how much time he invested in your posts or his response. I can guess... but since you don't know either, you have a choice: Either not let it bother you and accept the answer given, or continue to complain and mope about how you think you were slighted. From your post, I think I know which option you've chosen. Even if he believed 100% in your argument, it's not really up to him. It's ALWAYS up to the designers in the end.
Because they've lost. Short and simple. But that's the rule. Sorry.
They have already gone through two rules rewrites, one of which was major, and with each new base set, we will get another minor rules update. And the FAQs changes too. You'll be happy. I've never said the rules were written perfectly, but I have always said that after the rewrites, they are certainly better than they were previously.