Jan Ors: Once per round, when a friendly ship at range 1-3 performs a focus action or would be assigned a focus token, you may assign that ship an evade token instead.

Was a consensus ever reach as to whether or not Jan Ors as a crew member could allow a focus to be changed to evade for the ship she is assigned to or only OTHER friendly ships?

Yes. Frank replied that she works on her own ship.

See http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/111525-targeting-coordinator-on-yourself/

Nasty. Thanks.

Uh, that's slightly misleading. Frank's comment wasn't in reference to Jan.

Uh, that's slightly misleading. Frank's comment wasn't in reference to Jan.

True, but the ruling from Frank does apply to her as well.

It seems that way, for now. They may or may not issue another ad hoc ruling further down the road, and we obviously need an actual FAQ entry. I only commented because I didn't want people to get the impression that this is a concrete ruling for Jan.

It is as concrete a ruling for Jan as any email ruling we ever get. There's no relevant wording difference between Targeting Coordinator and Jan, and the response is generic - it doesn't mention Targeting Coordinator, and explicitly calls out the case where an ability wouldn't include yourself, which Jan is missing.

They may and can change it when it publishes, but for now, if you're going to trust email rulings, this one absolutely does apply to Jan.

If it's not in the rules it's not in the rules, right Buhallin?

If it's not in the rules it's not in the rules, right Buhallin?

That all depends on. As Buhallin said, it's a question of if we abide by the email rulings from Frank or not.

That all depends on. As Buhallin said, it's a question of if we abide by the email rulings from Frank or not.

Sure, which really went without saying from the get-go. I figured that wasn't a can of worms we wanted to get into right now, beyond the fact that he doesn't even mention Jan in the email. I suppose I needn't have bothered posting at all if the first response to OP's question had been more precise.

I suppose I needn't have bothered posting at all if the first response to OP's question had been more precise.

I think you had a good point actually, because the post did make it sound like Frank was talking about Jan, and he wasn't.

Apparently FFG won't answer rule questions for cards which aren't released yet. But when Jan does come out we will know how she works since she has the same wording as Targeting Coordinator.

If you see some reason why Frank's response fails to apply to Jan, you should of course offer that up, and we can discuss it.

I disagree that the response wasn't in reference to Jan, though. The response is clearly generic enough to apply to any card which specifies a range 1-X ability without saying "another". That includes Jan. Honestly, this is one of the better broad responses we've gotten from them. But do we really expect them to provide a laundry list of every affected card when they provide a broad response? Should they keep a list of email responses so they can update people when there are new cards that fit a mold?

Again, if you think the response doesn't cover Jan, feel free to say why. But if the core of your point is that it's not valid unless it explicitly mentions every similar card, then no - that's not a standard that we apply. That doesn't even have anything to do with whether the response is email or the FAQ. And didn't we just get through with a whole messy discussion that had you bending yourself into knots to justify a single ruling? But now all of a sudden you're unwilling to use precedent to resolve as parallel a case as can be imagined? Seems like an odd reversal.

Of course, I suspect it's mostly just the typical pointless sniping you work so hard at.

I fail to see how "sniping" is any worse than the usual cynicism, hypocrisy, and pedantry you offer up. Are we done? Yeah, I think we're done.

I think you had a good point actually, because the post did make it sound like Frank was talking about Jan, and he wasn't.Apparently FFG won't answer rule questions for cards which aren't released yet. But when Jan does come out we will know how she works since she has the same wording as Targeting Coordinator.

Thank you. I'm glad someone was able to grasp my point.

Well, I at least aim for useful cynicism, hypocrisy, and pedantry.

So I'll again ask what should be the only relevant question here: Is there any reason for us to think Frank's response, linked earlier, doesn't apply to Jan as well as Targeting Coordinator? You seem to think there's some reason we shouldn't use it as a precedent for Jan, I'm quite curious what that might be.

I have a hard time using an email, taken at somebody else's word, as a concrete precedent for an as yet unreleased card that has nothing to do with said email. I have an even harder time being convinced to do so by somebody whose usual stance is "if it's not in the official rules, it doesn't exist." Honestly, though, none of this was ever my point, which Vanor was able to deduce almost half a dozen posts ago.

Look, I can respect your last post for being an earnest attempt at meaningful debate. I'd rather be amiable than divisive, so if you're willing to forgo the overt jabs about the nature of my posts, I'll extend the same courtesy to yours.

*cough**cough*We-can't-really-take-Frank's-emails-as-law-because-FFG-has-already-reversed-2-of-his-emails*cough**cough*

oh excuse me, I must be coming down with something... *ahem*

I knew of one, maybe not so much the other. What are the two emails?

somebody whose usual stance is "if it's not in the official rules, it doesn't exist."

This has never been my stance. Very much the opposite, actually. My view has constantly and consistently been that we take the full set of data that is available to try and feel our way through this mess of a rules set. If you doubt that, go back and take a look at the very long, rather unpleasant discussions which arose over the measurement emails which would eventually become the Competitive Rules Addendum. What seemed to get you wound up last time is that I don't consider everything that comes down to be of equal quality. There are simply too many contradictions in the rules set to try and do that.

If I'm understanding the point your trying to make, we shouldn't consider the ruling because it doesn't explicitly mention Jan. But it is a nice, general ruling. There are no real differences in the cards or wording. There are no caveats that might make it exclusive to Targeting Coordinator. So if we put aside whether you trust a relayed email (which will be personal) and that it might change (which it obviously may, but let's focus on how we play it for the next six months until we get a new FAQ), that leaves... what?

Again, the simple question is why it shouldn't apply to Jan just because it doesn't mention her explicitly. Do we expect and require that any ruling list every card with similar wording in order to apply to it?

*cough**cough*We-can't-really-take-Frank's-emails-as-law-because-FFG-has-already-reversed-2-of-his-emails*cough**cough*

oh excuse me, I must be coming down with something... *ahem*

Since I assume this is directed at me... I never said that. I believe it was Vanor, and I actually argued against it when he said it. You might should check your sources.

I knew of one, maybe not so much the other. What are the two emails?

The mandatory nature of swarm tactics...and something else just now with this latest FAQ release.

*cough**cough*We-can't-really-take-Frank's-emails-as-law-because-FFG-has-already-reversed-2-of-his-emails*cough**cough*

oh excuse me, I must be coming down with something... *ahem*

Since I assume this is directed at me... I never said that. I believe it was Vanor, and I actually argued against it when he said it. You might should check your sources.

Dunno why you thought it was targeted at you specifically, it was more of a general comment since a lot of people were saying that because we have an email from Frank that it means that is the answer. It may be the answer for now, but it is by no means official until it gets FAQd.

Edit: (to add to what ForgottenLore mentioned) They overturned Frank's email saying a phantom could use Advanced Sensors to cloak and then immediately decloak.

Yep, that was the other one.

Again, the simple question is why it shouldn't apply to Jan just because it doesn't mention her explicitly. Do we expect and require that any ruling list every card with similar wording in order to apply to it?

In a game composed of numerous ad hoc - and sometimes counterintuitive - rulings, absolutely. Unless you want to concede that there is, in fact, a system of logical and implied interactions that ties everything together.

Again, the simple question is why it shouldn't apply to Jan just because it doesn't mention her explicitly. Do we expect and require that any ruling list every card with similar wording in order to apply to it?

In a game composed of numerous ad hoc - and sometimes counterintuitive - rulings, absolutely. Unless you want to concede that there is, in fact, a system of logical and implied interactions that ties everything together.

I don't believe I've ever questioned that there's an underlying system. I don't believe that system is comprehensive, and I don't believe every ruling we get follows it, but there certainly is a system there. I also know for a fact it's not a comprehensive, consistent system - not only from evidence of that (turrets, stopping short of asteroids, the late great Proximity Mine ruling) but from discussions with the FFG devs themselves. Nice guys, but I was told pretty much point blank that turrets were going to stay broken because they'd have to errata too many things to make them work.

So we do have an ad hoc and counterintuitive system. But that doesn't mean we completely ignore precedent. There's quite a laundry list of cases where we take specific rulings and draw them as precedent. Can you do a barrel roll (not action) while stressed? The rules say nothing about it, but we extrapolate from the target lock ruling to say yes, and before the target lock ruling was the target lock ruling, we extrapolated from R5-K6 and Dutch to say yes.

I, at least, evaluate the quality of a ruling for its potential as precedent. Is it clear? Is the underlying reason clear? Is the wording generic or specific? Does it seem like it's trying to control a specific issue? Does it contradict other rulings? Are there other rulings that rely on the same interpretation? Does it contradict the rules as written?

We clearly and obviously use precedent from even the FAQ to make our way through this game, but have to evaluate even those. The idea that we can't use precedent for anything at all is a very strange one.