Yes. I would rather that each TO rule the way they perceive the rules to be.

And if they believe that the email is legit and logical they shouldn't use it just because it's an email? I mean you are trying to tell a TO how they can and can't rule and what sources they should use for coming to that ruling...

The TO's will rule as the TO's do. But it is in everyone's best interest that they rule as uniformly as possible, because then everyone is playing by the same rules.

The Store Championship is the first step on the tournament circuit and winning that has an impact on Regionals.

As somebody actually TOing this weekend, I fully intend to use the email rulings. I'm having difficulty following the logic of why I shouldn't.

I'm having difficulty following the logic of why I shouldn't.

If a TO wouldn't use them, because they feel only official released FAQ's count, that's fine. I think they're being a bit silly not taking an email as RAI. But it's their call.

I do wish that FFG would at the very least put out a new tournament dock one fixing the confusion with the large ships and MoV thing. But the email isn't a change the rules... just clarifies how it should work.

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.

So you would prefer to have a TO force everyone in the tournament to play something wrong when the designers have ruled that it works differently than said TO's interpretation? How is that a benefit to any of the players?

These emails are essentially RULINGS. These are essentially your head Judges and the way they interpret the rules on how something works is the final say. If a judge at your GSC is made aware of these rulings and clarifications and still chooses to rule how he wants to in favor of your store rules for the benefit of your store players it's tantamount to cheating.

Perhaps you are newer to the game and are unaware that this is how FFG has always done things for this game. It appears that you don't fully understand the situation. Fortunately most players and TO's prefer to actually play by the rules.

Some of the logic in this thread is approaching goofy gander levels.

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!

I'd rather dock four Gozantis to my Raider, and the dock four Decimators to each Gozanti.

I call this list the "Imperial Turducken."

As somebody actually TOing this weekend, I fully intend to use the email rulings. I'm having difficulty following the logic of why I shouldn't.

Maybe because they can't be verified, create entirely new rules, don't yet exist in the official FAQ document, and contradict rules that already exist?

Maybe those aren't enough reasons?

Maybe those aren't enough reasons?

If most of those reasons were true you might have a point.

They can't be verified... But they do not create new rules, they also do not contradict rules that already exist.

The latest batch of emails if anything follow RAW more closely than many in the past do, including stuff in the FAQ.

As somebody actually TOing this weekend, I fully intend to use the email rulings. I'm having difficulty following the logic of why I shouldn't.

Maybe because they can't be verified, create entirely new rules, don't yet exist in the official FAQ document, and contradict rules that already exist?

Maybe those aren't enough reasons?

The R2-D6 and Wampa stuff is new information, so you sort of have a point there. But the other rulings are just reinforcing what strict interpretation of the rules already says.

-A Tie/FO Fighter is a Tie Fighter for the purposes of mechanics that affect Tie Fighters because the ship name contains the words "Tie" and "Fighter".

-The Tie Adv. Prototype is not a Tie Advanced because the machine-like way rules are interpreted does not recognize Adv. and Avanced as the same words.

-Omega Leader prevents your opponent's ship from doing anything the Rules Reference Guide defines as "Modifying dice".

As somebody actually TOing this weekend, I fully intend to use the email rulings. I'm having difficulty following the logic of why I shouldn't.

Maybe because they can't be verified, create entirely new rules, don't yet exist in the official FAQ document, and contradict rules that already exist?

Maybe those aren't enough reasons?

1: Can't be verified: That's fair, but the rulings are basically what I would have ruled myself, it's good to have a backup to point to

2: Not in the FAQ/create new rules: So? They will be soon, and most of these are rulings on ships that have come out since the last FAQ, if they've even come out yet *cough TIE Adv. Prototype cough*

3: Contradict current rulings: what rulings have been contradicted? I see none.

The R2-D6 and Wampa stuff is new information...

Maybe, but it's established that when you and an upgrade it doesn't just go away. The point about some titles and the crit that makes your PS0 someone else mentioned for example. The idea that it should work like epic was a stretch at best, because it's not the same thing.

Wampa fits in with other rulings as well.

But there's always been people who look for an excuse to ignore emails when they shoot down their argument.

As somebody actually TOing this weekend, I fully intend to use the email rulings. I'm having difficulty following the logic of why I shouldn't.

Maybe because they can't be verified, create entirely new rules, don't yet exist in the official FAQ document, and contradict rules that already exist?

Maybe those aren't enough reasons?

The R2-D6 and Wampa stuff is new information, so you sort of have a point there. But the other rulings are just reinforcing what strict interpretation of the rules already says.

-A Tie/FO Fighter is a Tie Fighter for the purposes of mechanics that affect Tie Fighters because the ship name contains the words "Tie" and "Fighter".

-The Tie Adv. Prototype is not a Tie Advanced because the machine-like way rules are interpreted does not recognize Adv. and Avanced as the same words.

-Omega Leader prevents your opponent's ship from doing anything the Rules Reference Guide defines as "Modifying dice".

The line of the Rules Reference concerns ship-type only upgrades. Not pilot abilities. This is a new rule.

HLC's immediate change happens before the modify dice step. And attackers are only allowed to modify dice after the defender has a chance to. The new ruling now skips the defender modify step, because it is illegal for the defender to modify after the attacker.

The email makes a ruling on an unreleased TIE Advanced Prototype (Adv.) but ignores questions about the currently legal for play Raider-Class Corvette (Corv.)

If they are going to create rules willy-nilly, why not create a special rule that adds TIE ADV. Prototype to the Docking Clamps. Not allowing the TAP to dock with the Gozanti, but allowing TIE/fos to dock, is the most egregious hogwash I've ever seen in this game! I'm always right on board with their decisions, but this single one is awful!

According to Twin Ion Engine Mk. II TIE is a ship-type. TIE Interceptors and TIE Bombers share the same TIE ship-type, so should be fine to include on docking clamps. Moreover, you should be able to include 4 of each.

If you still argue that they aren't the same ship-type for satisfying Docking Clamps, then you are also saying Vader's Advanced x1 is not the same as Maarek Stele's Advanced, because they don't have the exact same ship-type.

These emails are swiss-cheese.

Losing an elite pilot talent slot was already covered in epic rules, the email has it different.

Wrong, the epic rules say nothing about losing an elite pilot talent. Those rules cover what happen when you flip the ship card over and it has a different set of icons.

Not pilot abilities.

Wrong again, it clearly affects anything that has a ship type restriction.

The new ruling now skips the defender modify step, because it is illegal for the defender to modify after the attacker.

Both wrong and clueless. The new ruling does no such thing, it simply means that not all modifications take place in that step, which has always been true. At no point has the rules ever said that modifications can only take place in that step.

It is also not illegal for the defender to modify after the attacker, there simply exists no way to do that currently. But if something did allow it to happen, the card always trumps the rules.

These emails are swiss-cheese.

The only thing here that's swiss-cheese is your logic and understanding of the RAW.

....

Wrong!

So where in that do you see pilot abilities? You said how wrong I was, where exactly is it?

why not create a special rule that adds TIE ADV. Prototype to the Docking Clamps.

Because the TAP isn't released yet... Or did that simple fact escape you?

Not allowing the TAP to dock with the Gozanti, but allowing TIE/fos to dock, is the most egregious hogwash I've ever seen in this game!

The illogic is amazing... The TIE/fo Fighter has the words TIE and Fighter in it, so it quite naturally counts for things like docking clamps or Youngster. Tie Adv. Prototype however does not have the word advanced in it. You can claim that adv. = Advanced all you want, but you will still be wrong according to the rules. What english may or may not say about it is trumped by the rules.

Frankly anyone who ever thought they could use the x1 title on the TAP was fooling themselves.

If they are going to create rules willy-nilly, why not create a special rule that adds TIE ADV. Prototype to the Docking Clamps. Not allowing the TAP to dock with the Gozanti, but allowing TIE/fos to dock, is the most egregious hogwash I've ever seen in this game! I'm always right on board with their decisions, but this single one is awful!

According to Twin Ion Engine Mk. II TIE is a ship-type. TIE Interceptors and TIE Bombers share the same TIE ship-type, so should be fine to include on docking clamps. Moreover, you should be able to include 4 of each.

If you still argue that they aren't the same ship-type for satisfying Docking Clamps, then you are also saying Vader's Advanced x1 is not the same as Maarek Stele's Advanced, because they don't have the exact same ship-type.

I'm a bit confused here, because this seems really simple to me

In order to equip/be affected by a mechanic restricted to certain ship types, the ship's name needs to include all the words in the restriction. For instance, Youngster works on all ships with the word "Tie" and "Fighter" in their names. Likewise, in order to be a Tie Advanced, the ship name needs to include "Tie" and "Advanced".

The TIE/FO Fighter has the words Tie and Fighter in it. Vader's Tie Advanced x1 includes the words Tie and Advanced. The Tie Adv. Prototype does not include the word Advanced.

As for Twin Ion Engine Mk. 2, it says "Tie only". Thus any ship with the word "Tie" in it's ship name can equip it.

HLC's immediate change happens before the modify dice step. And attackers are only allowed to modify dice after the defender has a chance to. The new ruling now skips the defender modify step, because it is illegal for the defender to modify after the attacker.

Per the rules reference guide, "Modifying Dice" includes "Adding" "Changing" and "Re-rolling". Omega Leader prevents you from doing any of this. Nowhere on Omega Leader's card does it say this is confined to the modify dice step.

Omega Leader isn't modifying the HLC crits. Omega Leader is restricting the modification of those crits by the attacker.

So where in that do you see pilot abilities? You said how wrong I was, where exactly is it?

The fact that you don't get what precedence is... Doesn't actually help your argument at all. This is not a new ruling, it is simply extending the ruling we all really knew mattered to it's logical conclusion.

So where in that do you see pilot abilities? You said how wrong I was, where exactly is it?

The fact that you don't get what precedence is... Doesn't actually help your argument at all. This is not a new ruling, it is simply extending the ruling we all really knew mattered to it's logical conclusion.

Okay, now I understand where he's coming from. But, that being said, I'm going to second VanorDM here. Precedent is a key part of any rules system, and a ruling taking precedent into account is perfectly normal.

So where in that do you see pilot abilities? You said how wrong I was, where exactly is it?

The fact that you don't get what precedence is... Doesn't actually help your argument at all. This is not a new ruling, it is simply extending the ruling we all really knew mattered to it's logical conclusion.

Okay, now I understand where he's coming from. But, that being said, I'm going to second VanorDM here. Precedent is a key part of any rules system, and a ruling taking precedent into account is perfectly normal.

Which is what worries everyone about the Raider-class Corv. and its illegal titles.

Is not allowing Astromechs to be taken in Salvaged Astromechs upgrade slots not also a logical conclusion? They may have different slightly different upgrade icons, but TIE Fighters and TIE/fos have different ship icons. The Salvaged Astromech Icon looks to contain the entirety of the Astromech Icon. It has the same colors... it has a little robot...

o.O

So where in that do you see pilot abilities? You said how wrong I was, where exactly is it?

The fact that you don't get what precedence is... Doesn't actually help your argument at all. This is not a new ruling, it is simply extending the ruling we all really knew mattered to it's logical conclusion.

Okay, now I understand where he's coming from. But, that being said, I'm going to second VanorDM here. Precedent is a key part of any rules system, and a ruling taking precedent into account is perfectly normal.

Which is what worries everyone about the Raider-class Corv. and its illegal titles.

Is not allowing Astromechs to be taken in Salvaged Astromechs upgrade slots not also a logical conclusion? They may have different slightly different upgrade icons, but TIE Fighters and TIE/fos have different ship icons. The Salvaged Astromech Icon looks to contain the entirety of the Astromech Icon. It has the same colors... it has a little robot...

The Raider is a legitimate problem arising from poor editing EDIT: On second thought, the Raider development team probably wasn't aware that this situation was going to develop in the future, so it's merely a failure to future proof.

Equipping Upgrade Cards, however, is entirely dependent on the symbol on the upgrade card, though, so there is no concern regarding the Salvaged Astromech and regular Astromech. The ship symbols, on the other hand, are entirely cosmetic and have yet to be used in game mechanics, so what symbol a ship has on its card is irrelevant.

Fantasy flight should just make stickied locked thread where they post copies of all the rules clarification E-mail they send out and call it official.

Random E-mail people claim to have received is stupid as can be. At the end of the day if ita not in the official FAQ the TO can rule as they believe it should be. I can see players pulling this **** up and arguing with TO's. But at the end of the day none of this is official if a TO wants to use this resource all powr to them, but for all I know every E-mail listed there could be completly fabricated by people pushing how they think the rules should be applied. I have played enough miniatures to not put this past people.

Long story short, a TO can use this if they want but as a player if you have a concern ask your TO before it comes up in a match because the TO may rule differently then this and there is nothing you can do about that.

Which is what worries everyone about the Raider-class Corv. and its illegal titles.

You're right that is an issue, but one easily fixed by putting something in the FAQ to make it an exception to the normal rule.

Is not allowing Astromechs to be taken in Salvaged Astromechs upgrade slots not also a logical conclusion?

Of course it's not and to even try to make that argument makes you look intentionally obtuse.

Fantasy flight should just make stickied locked thread where they post copies of all the rules clarification E-mail they send out and call it official.

Those emails are subject to change however. There's been at least one case where the email ruling was reversed.

At the end of the day if ita not in the official FAQ the TO can rule as they believe it should be.

You're right, it's at the discretion of the TO to follow the emails or not. But they also have the 'right' to follow the FAQ or not.

I think the best way to clean this up is to errata the X1 title to include a restriction that prototypes cannot equip the X1 title. That way, they can rule that abbreviations are OK.