Page 15 tells us the new rule:

and it looks like, or at least in my personal opinion, that they should have removed the next bit, found on page 16:

I understand that the second bit is never allowed to trigger if you apply the first bit, but this sort of thing adds confusion to new and experienced players alike, who wouldn't read the FAQ thoroughly.

ugh...

You may be right. It is redundant to say you can't use your maneuver to get back on the board after you've go off of it using an action that can no longer be used to go off the board. It is still worth noting that if your maneuver carries you off the board you'll be gone before an action can bring you back onto the board.

This looks like a copyediting problem to me.

The faq also now references tactician to be limited, yet later details the effects for ships with multiple tacticians.

That's because the later entry about "Tactician" was from a previous FAQ.

Both of these are just editing mistakes. Someone forgot to go back and take out or edit the older references.

Wait, the people at FFG are human? Egads!

I know! It's an unexpected revelation. But try and keep it under your hat. We don't want everyone to find out.

Wait, the people at FFG are human?

Mostly humans. Some Jawas.

Wait, the people at FFG are human? Egads!

Actually,human has nothing to do with it. They're just incompetent.

Seriously - the first, oh, half dozen or so time, sure, "They're human!!" But really, by now? After the colossal clusterF* that this whole effort has been since day one?

What would it actually take for the fanboys to stop defending this paragon of incompetence??

Wait, the people at FFG are human? Egads!

Actually,human has nothing to do with it. They're just incompetent.

Seriously - the first, oh, half dozen or so time, sure, "They're human!!" But really, by now? After the colossal clusterF* that this whole effort has been since day one?

What would it actually take for the fanboys to stop defending this paragon of incompetence??

I'm a fanboy.

I'm fortunate that FFG's 'incompetence' has produced an awesome game and I hope that they will be just as productive and 'incompetent' in the future.

Buhallin, let us know when you competently design a better game so we can all enjoy it more than X-Wing.

Thanks, mate. You can message me here with the details. I'll be waiting.

Buhallin, if that's your assessment of the game and its developers, then why do you even bother with it?

The inconsistency can be resolved by simply reducing both FAQ entries to the word "No."

I think it's safe to say that Xwing's rule book is some critical reading. It covers a lot of scenarios without being a massively thick book. It is a lot to consider and they have other games to be familiar with too.