Don't get me wrong, I would certainly prefer there to be an underlying framework, and I have often argued that such a thing exists. Unfortunately, FFG seems predisposed to making ad hoc, arbitrary rulings to fit a given situation (or matching intent) rather than elaborating upon that framework. That means while precedence may occasionally prove to be a valuable source of resolution, it cannot always be counted upon. For all we know they may want Jan and Targeting Coordinator to operate differently, and the omission in Frank's email leaves more than a little room for doubt, at least for me.

and the omission in Frank's email leaves more than a little room for doubt, at least for me.

You mean that he doesn't mention Jan? Because they do have a policy of not mentioning cards not released yet. So he would not list that card, in fact we asked about Jan and he said he could not rule on an unreleased card.

You mean that he doesn't mention Jan? Because they do have a policy of not mentioning cards not released yet. So he would not list that card, in fact we asked about Jan and he said he could not rule on an unreleased card.

Which forces one to question the practicality of these debates, since the point is moot until the product is released anyways. If it remains unaddressed for too long a time after release, then we should revisit the topic of relative credibility (between the emails and the FAQ).

I'd still like to know what you suggest to do instead. Because the only alternative I see is this:

"Yes, we have a ruling for a similar card with nearly identical wording, but that ruling didn't mention THIS card, so I'm going to make you roll dice to see how we should play it."

It's not like we have some well-established rule that is being changed by an email. We literally had something that was read one way by some people and one way by another, and neither side seemed inclined to budge. Now we do have a relatively clear ruling, and you want to force people into a random determination? What would you expect a TO to do? Ignore the available information and flip a coin at the beginning of an event?

I've been one of the most vocal and consistent critics of FFG's tendency to rule how they want things to work rather than what their cards and rules actually say (and I seem to remember taking a large amount of abuse from you for that exact thing recently). But I also believe that we can reasonably evaluate exceptions to determine their value as precedent. In this case. We have a solid ruling that doesn't contradict anything else. The ability in question has wording that is perfectly consistent with other abilities. There doesn't seem to be any problems which arise from the ruling as we have it - I could name a half dozen existent rulings that cause more problems with the system.

Lone Wolf could very well end up being a problem child, but at this point we don't know where it'll fall. Maybe the Targeting Coordinator ruling will change. Maybe they'll realize they screwed up and errata it, or it'll get a contradictory ruling that'll leave us with two conflicting precedents for Jan. And if that happens, we'll deal with it.

But I truly don't understand this push to intentionally ignore data. Why, it's almost like certain folks are just interested in sowing havoc, rather than trying to understand the rules.

What would you expect a TO to do?

Whatever he feels is appropriate at the time. If I was TOing an event and somebody tried to debate me with an alleged email on some random forum, I'd look at him like he was nuts. If you can't see where issues of credibility would arise, I don't know what else to tell you. This isn't about ignoring data, it's about how much trust I place in the community, and how much trust I place in the source.

The FAQ exists for a reason, and does a decent (if sometimes arbitrary) job of conveying the information we need to know about current products. You want to know what I would do instead of taking Frank's emails as gospel? I'd wait for the FAQ. Seems pretty simple to me. Why, it's almost like certain folks are just interested in waxing pedantic about subjects they're clearly bitter about, rather than admitting that other posters might be right every now and again.

The FAQ exists for a reason, and does a decent (if sometimes arbitrary) job of conveying the information we need to know about current products. You want to know what I would do instead? I'd wait for the FAQ. Seems pretty simple to me. Why, it's almost like certain folks are just interested in waxing pedantic about subjects they're clearly bitter about, rather than admitting that other posters might be better at interpreting the rules than they are.

Waiting for the FAQ sounds nice... except it gets updated about 3 times a year. I believe that historically we've gotten one update before GenCon, one before Worlds, and another usually some time around March. So the current products bit is simply wrong - we often go months after a new release without an FAQ update. So the question still stands - what do you do until then?

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be admitting here, though. We aren't even discussing rules interpretation in this, just sources, although I suppose I could have busted into a random thread to worship VanorDM for how much better than me he is at interpreting rules (that is who you meant, right?). And the only thing I might have been waxing pedantic on was the bit that I actually agreed with you. Are you feeling OK? Tired, maybe? It just doesn't seem up to your usual standards.

What do you do until then?

To be perfectly honest, whatever I want. If a conflict arises at an event, well, that's what TOs are for. And if a TO decided to use Frank's emails, I wouldn't argue. But I'm not about to pretend like rulings in those emails - rulings which have, occasionally, been reversed - have the same level of credibility as an official document published on FFG's website. You seem to think that just because some information exists out there that we should accept it without reservation, simply because we have no alternative. Ignoring data that I find to be dubious is not the same as ignoring data for the sake of, well, whatever it is you're accusing me of. Personally, I don't see much of a difference between untrustworthy information and no information at all.

I started to read the rest of your post, but then I just began to zone out, and for some reason I recalled you saying something about abuse earlier. Surely you, of all people, are not accusing me of having an attitude problem. Tell me, why does this topic make you so insecure? I mean, I don't have a fancy blog or anything, but I'd like to think anybody with an ounce of intelligence might be entitled to an opinion about the rules of X-Wing.

But I'm not about to pretend like rulings in those emails - rulings which have, occasionally, been reversed - have the same level of credibility as an official document published on FFG's website. You seem to think that just because some information exists out there that we should accept it without reservation, simply because we have no alternative.

...

Personally, I don't see much of a difference between untrustworthy information and no information at all.

You do realize that we've had more reversals from FAQ rulings than email rulings, right?

Overall, the email and word-of-mouth rulings we've gotten have been remarkably stable. Yes, we had a pair of reversals here recently that were very close together, but overall they've been solid, consistent, and reliable. No, I don't think we should accept all information without reservation - but your current view of what qualifies as untrustworthy is simply not grounded in reality.

Good lord, this really is hard for you to understand, isn't it? It's not about reversals, it's about source credibility. I trust the FAQ because it's an official document, even if it changes and evolves with the game. I expect that. I don't trust emails from Frank because a) I have to trust the person relaying the information, b) it's not an official document being published by the company for public consumption, and c) the rulings are designed to address one specific facet of the game, and are not comprehensive in scope. If his rulings were impeccably consistent then that would be a mark in his favor, but they are not. Instead what we have are a series of ad hoc rulings which, because they're issued one at a time to address individual scenarios, don't receive the full consideration that the FAQ does. When you compound the reversals on top of everything else, there's less and less reason to apply Franks emails broadly across the entire game. It still seems strange to me that a person so critical of "FFG's tendency to rule how they want things to work rather than what their cards and rules actually say" would be so willfully blind to the possibility of yet another arbitrary ruling. Maybe you're just optimistic when it comes to the developers...

Let's be fair, what I qualify as untrustworthy is grounded in opinion, and mine is no less based in reality than yours is. Here's another opinion: for some reason you think you've monopolized an understanding about the rules, and are completely unwilling to concede that someone else might have better insight than you do. Is there a legitimately good reason for that chip on your shoulder, or are you really just insecure when it comes to conflict with intelligent people that have equally strong opinions?

It still seems strange to me that a person so critical of "FFG's tendency to rule how they want things to work rather than what their cards and rules actually say" would be so willfully blind to the possibility of yet another arbitrary ruling. Maybe you're just optimistic when it comes to the developers...

I'm not blind to any particular possibility. And while I appreciate the link, I can't consider your presentation to be anything other than rank dishonesty. I cover in considerable depth - far more than you've ever dreamed of presenting - how erratic the rulings can be, how I evaluate them, which ones are worthwhile, which ones aren't, and how I believe they should be distinguished. I even do it in that very post which you so kindly, linked, although this one addresses it in even more detail from a different perspective. The difference between us seems to be that you want to say "They make inconsistent rulings, we can't trust anything!" whereas I try and evaluate each particular ruling based on the entire ecosystem of the game.

I've tried to have that same conversation with you. I'll make one more try by looking at your three points. A) We've never had a single case of falsified rulings in the X-wing community. B) Fair point here, but it seems hard to compare a conceptual problem with the overwhelming consistency we've had. C) There are several problems here. First, the FAQ rulings also address specific single facets. It's just the way they do things. Second, you claim that email rulings don't get the same consideration as the FAQ... but have what evidence for it? We have three reversals I know of on out-of-band rulings. We have an equal number of same-day revisions on the FAQ. I'm not talking about year-later rules changes - these were same-day reversals and rewrites. Your core premise here - that the FAQ gets more attention because it's official, and is therefore more reliable - doesn't seem to have much to support it.

You're welcome to have whatever opinion you want of anything you want, of course. But there is absolutely zero evidence to support the idea that email responses are less reliable than any other channel we have for rulings, however official. So if you run around making baseless claims about how untrustworthy email is, I'm going to express my opinion that you are wrong, complete with actual evidence. I don't have any particular chip with you any more than I do with anyone else who makes the same baseless claims, and I'll make the same counterstatements to anyone (and have). Sorry, snowflake, but you're really not all that special.

Sowing havoc indeed. Apparently "baseless claims" are worse than attaching any amount of legitimacy to an acknowledged (and apparently well documented) system of arbitrary, unconnected rulings. I'll take being a snowflake of the mundane variety over a presumptive hypocrite any day of the week. For the record, I'm extremely tickled that you believe your opinion vis–à–vis trustworthiness is more factual than mine. Evidence of having an opinion isn't really evidence, but don't let that stop you from making an ass out of yourself.

By the way, you seem to have missed my core premise. It is not "that the FAQ gets more attention because it's official," it's that the FAQ is more comprehensive, and thus more reliable. Frank issues answers to individual questions, but whether or not those answers have any bearing on the game as a whole is unclear, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. What you're saying is that we should apply those rulings as a precedent for other, unaddressed cards because they use the same words, even though you repeatedly admit that FFG has a problem applying rules uniformly across cards with the same wording. The FAQ does contain rulings for individual facets of the game, but covers (or attempts to cover) all of them simultaneously. So which should I put more stock in, an answer that doesn't reflect all relevant situations (since Jan and now Lone Wolf seem to be sticking points), or a document that does? No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question.

So, since we all know just how much X-Wing would benefit from a comprehensive and explicit set of rules, when is FFG going to wise up and borrow a page out of WotC's book?

Are we heading for another locked/deleted thread here?

Nah, it's fine. Something rub's Buhallin's ego the wrong way every now and again and it compels him to bully people with his amazing interpretation skills. Sooner or later he'll realize that intelligent people can't always be swayed to his narrow perspective, and he'll scamper off in defeat.

Aaaaaand there it is.

In other news, Frank seems to have changed his mind (again) about a ruling he just recently issued. He clearly hadn't considered all of the relevant scenarios when he emailed Sergovan about Tactician the first time. Is it really so much of a stretch to think that he might do the same with Jan / Targeting Coordinator, now that other corner cases are creeping up?

You can send him an e-mail and see what kind of response you get.. which would only work once the Jan crew card was released.

Make a draft message and put a pin in it. Mail it in a couple months.