Just saw this posted recently on Reddit, and thought I should post it here. At least it's all in one place unlike in the rules thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/40udua/all_faq_additionsclarifications_since_v40/

Just checked FFG's website.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing/

The latest update was on 21 December 2015.

Just checked FFG's website.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/x-wing/

The latest update was on 21 December 2015.

Yes, but these come from the e-mails people have sent in, and thus have not been added to the FAQ just yet. Sorry that was explicit.

Well looking at the link above it still says faq version 4.0 (12.21.2015). How about we wait until the FAQ is officially posted on FFG's website. Besides for any major changes in errata they usually state a change date after FAQ release to give players time to adjust.

Well looking at the link above it still says faq version 4.0 (12.21.2015). How about we wait until the FAQ is officially posted on FFG's website. Besides for any major changes in errata they usually state a change date after FAQ release to give players time to adjust.

Because we are in the middle of store championships and people need to know how to expect their TOs to rule. It may take a month for this stuff to make it into a FAQ and if it is easy for everyone to access the questions that Frank has answered without having to dig through thread on the rules forums, players will have more consistent play experiences from store to store.

But the rules haven't changed yet. And not all X-wing players come to these forums. You end up with those on one page or those on other. If there is a rule change up coming it is up to the TO to make it clear (and where to source it) what set of rules are out. But since this is only a Reddit post even if it is from the lead or another developer on the X-wing team, nothing is official. You don't make laws through Facebook posts, why would you let Reddit determine which rules to follow?

But the rules haven't changed yet. And not all X-wing players come to these forums. You end up with those on one page or those on other. If there is a rule change up coming it is up to the TO to make it clear (and where to source it) what set of rules are out. But since this is only a Reddit post even if it is from the lead or another developer on the X-wing team, nothing is official. You don't make laws through Facebook posts, why would you let Reddit determine which rules to follow?

Did you even visit the source links? They all link to email responses from the head X-Wing rules team/person.

The TAP rulings are totally consistent with what I understand the rule about titles and mods must be wholly contained the name of the ship. I really don't want to relitigate that discussion!

I am, however, confused about why they didn't decide to allow the TAP to dock with the Gozanti. They could have written the Docking Clamps card to allow for it, and chose not to. That's odd to me.

I hope some card or upgrade in the future allows for it!

Also I would go as far as to say that they are not rules changes but merely rules clarifications on newly released cards with somewhat ambiguous rules text.

But the rules haven't changed yet. And not all X-wing players come to these forums. You end up with those on one page or those on other. If there is a rule change up coming it is up to the TO to make it clear (and where to source it) what set of rules are out. But since this is only a Reddit post even if it is from the lead or another developer on the X-wing team, nothing is official. You don't make laws through Facebook posts, why would you let Reddit determine which rules to follow?

So what's a better way for TOs to communicate clarifications on interactions than sending out a link to players and saying "Here, this is how I'll rule on these things"?

None of these things are rules changes.

Until these sorts of interim clarifications are publicly posted by FFG this is pretty much the closest thing we've got to a definitive source.

cool, no tie/x1 for TAPs

totally unexpected

I was not expecting Wampa to get the same timing as Crackshot. That's really good.

cool, no tie/x1 for TAPs

totally unexpected

I know right I was totes sweating it because of the compelling arguments saying it could.

Nice - R2-D6 doesn't eject the EPT. That's quite a bit unexpected, actually. So Garven + R2-D6 + VI shooting before Poe to hand him a focus token stays workable, even after R2-D6 is jettisoned.

Badass!

predator blue ace, ready for action!

Well looking at the link above it still says faq version 4.0 (12.21.2015). How about we wait until the FAQ is officially posted on FFG's website. Besides for any major changes in errata they usually state a change date after FAQ release to give players time to adjust.

Because we are in the middle of store championships and people need to know how to expect their TOs to rule. It may take a month for this stuff to make it into a FAQ and if it is easy for everyone to access the questions that Frank has answered without having to dig through thread on the rules forums, players will have more consistent play experiences from store to store.

I'd be pissed if a TO ruled on something that hasn't officially be introduced into an FAQ document because of an email....emails are not tournament legal.

**Edit**** And I don't really care if they came from the main designer or rules guy or Odin himself... The FAQ is the standard we use, not emails. This is definately not Warmachine!

***Edit 2**** I mean, the TO is going to rule on things anyway, but if s/he ruled differently than described in the emails but consistent with the printed rules + FAQ as s/he knew them, I wouldn't get emotional. I would get emotional if any of those emails rulings were outside of what normal readings of the rules would expect...

It's hearsay, not rules, faq, or errata. Now it does seem to be reasonable so I'm cool with it.

Well looking at the link above it still says faq version 4.0 (12.21.2015). How about we wait until the FAQ is officially posted on FFG's website. Besides for any major changes in errata they usually state a change date after FAQ release to give players time to adjust.

Because we are in the middle of store championships and people need to know how to expect their TOs to rule. It may take a month for this stuff to make it into a FAQ and if it is easy for everyone to access the questions that Frank has answered without having to dig through thread on the rules forums, players will have more consistent play experiences from store to store.

I'd be pissed if a TO ruled on something that hasn't officially be introduced into an FAQ document because of an email....emails are not tournament legal.

**Edit**** And I don't really care if they came from the main designer or rules guy or Odin himself... The FAQ is the standard we use, not emails. This is definately not Warmachine!

***Edit 2**** I mean, the TO is going to rule on things anyway, but if s/he ruled differently than described in the emails but consistent with the printed rules + FAQ as s/he knew them, I wouldn't get emotional. I would get emotional if any of those emails rulings were outside of what normal readings of the rules would expect...

Tournament legal? What are you talking about? These are not rule changes. These are definitive answers on how specific things work within the current rules. These answers dispel any ambiguity over certain questions.

This also isn't a new thing. E-mail clarifications have always been used in the tournament scene.

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question: The new rules reference states: Ship-type only: This upgrade can only be equipped to a ship of the specified type. If the ship’s type includes the entirety of the restricted type, it can equip that upgrade. For example, a Firespray-31 can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “Firespray-31 only.” Does this apply to things other than Upgrades equipped to the ship itself? IE: Can the Firespray-31 dock onto the Imperial Raider Corvette with Docking Clamps, does Youngster share his ACTION: Header Elite Pilot Talents with Firespray-31?

A Firespray-31 can be docked to an Imperial Raider Corvette and can be affected by “Youngster’s" ability.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks Associate Creative Content Developer Fantasy Flight Games [email protected]

So you're saying this kind of thing is official before it gets into the FAQ.

I like it, bring us more.

Between now and the time it gets put into a FAQ, they might change their minds.

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question: The new rules reference states: Ship-type only: This upgrade can only be equipped to a ship of the specified type. If the ship’s type includes the entirety of the restricted type, it can equip that upgrade. For example, a Firespray-31 can equip an Upgrade card restricted to “Firespray-31 only.” Does this apply to things other than Upgrades equipped to the ship itself? IE: Can the Firespray-31 dock onto the Imperial Raider Corvette with Docking Clamps, does Youngster share his ACTION: Header Elite Pilot Talents with Firespray-31?

A Firespray-31 can be docked to an Imperial Raider Corvette and can be affected by “Youngster’s" ability. Thanks for playing,Frank Brooks Associate Creative Content Developer Fantasy Flight Games [email protected]

So you're saying this kind of thing is official before it gets into the FAQ.I like it, bring us more.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Well looking at the link above it still says faq version 4.0 (12.21.2015). How about we wait until the FAQ is officially posted on FFG's website. Besides for any major changes in errata they usually state a change date after FAQ release to give players time to adjust.

Because we are in the middle of store championships and people need to know how to expect their TOs to rule. It may take a month for this stuff to make it into a FAQ and if it is easy for everyone to access the questions that Frank has answered without having to dig through thread on the rules forums, players will have more consistent play experiences from store to store.

I'd be pissed if a TO ruled on something that hasn't officially be introduced into an FAQ document because of an email....emails are not tournament legal.

**Edit**** And I don't really care if they came from the main designer or rules guy or Odin himself... The FAQ is the standard we use, not emails. This is definately not Warmachine!

***Edit 2**** I mean, the TO is going to rule on things anyway, but if s/he ruled differently than described in the emails but consistent with the printed rules + FAQ as s/he knew them, I wouldn't get emotional. I would get emotional if any of those emails rulings were outside of what normal readings of the rules would expect...

What else is the TO supposed todo? It's not like anything from the emails is changing existing rules. It's all clarifying how currently cards interact with each other that wasn't previously ruled on. If someone in a tournament uses R2D6 and ejects him with IA, would you rather it was up to every individual TO how to call it or for them to call it the way the designer said it should work, regardless of if it's made it into a released FAQ yet?

I'll finally have a use for my 4 Firesprays in games of Epic!

But I'd rather throw Oicunn on my docking clamps so the Raider can rush to the enemy, and then deploy the Decimator to double ram the enemy ships.

Thankfully I have an email in my inbox that says I can do just that!

Well looking at the link above it still says faq version 4.0 (12.21.2015). How about we wait until the FAQ is officially posted on FFG's website. Besides for any major changes in errata they usually state a change date after FAQ release to give players time to adjust.

Because we are in the middle of store championships and people need to know how to expect their TOs to rule. It may take a month for this stuff to make it into a FAQ and if it is easy for everyone to access the questions that Frank has answered without having to dig through thread on the rules forums, players will have more consistent play experiences from store to store.

I'd be pissed if a TO ruled on something that hasn't officially be introduced into an FAQ document because of an email....emails are not tournament legal.

**Edit**** And I don't really care if they came from the main designer or rules guy or Odin himself... The FAQ is the standard we use, not emails. This is definately not Warmachine!

***Edit 2**** I mean, the TO is going to rule on things anyway, but if s/he ruled differently than described in the emails but consistent with the printed rules + FAQ as s/he knew them, I wouldn't get emotional. I would get emotional if any of those emails rulings were outside of what normal readings of the rules would expect...

What else is the TO supposed todo? It's not like anything from the emails is changing existing rules. It's all clarifying how currently cards interact with each other that wasn't previously ruled on. If someone in a tournament uses R2D6 and ejects him with IA, would you rather it was up to every individual TO how to call it or for them to call it the way the designer said it should work, regardless of if it's made it into a released FAQ yet?

Yes. I would rather that each TO rule the way they perceive the rules to be. For a few reasons, one of the bigger being that I believe that Store Championships are first and foremost for the players of that Store. People who travel to Store Championship events for stores they have never even played at have to deal with the localized rulings until the questions get codified in an FAQ.