So what do we do about the contradictory emails that don't matter and are only serving to confuse?

TO's will follow the rulings they feel make the most sense. Same thing they'd hopefully do if there wasn't an email addressing the question in the first place.

Do we call for Frank Brooks to step down?

Frank is one of the lead designers for the game, so he's one of the few people who can actually address an issue of RAI. If his ruling contradicts a FAQ I might follow his ruling since he knows what the next FAQ will look like or I may ignore it. I'd definitely take his word over someone from the OP group.

So what do we do about the contradictory emails that don't matter and are only serving to confuse?

TO's will follow the rulings they feel make the most sense. Same thing they'd hopefully do if there wasn't an email addressing the question in the first place.

Do we call for Frank Brooks to step down?

Frank is one of the lead designers for the game, so he's one of the few people who can actually address an issue of RAI. If his ruling contradicts a FAQ I might follow his ruling since he knows what the next FAQ will look like or I may ignore it. I'd definitely take his word over someone from the OP group.

The problem with this is that it creates an inconsistent play experience among different locations, which is ridiculously terrible for the game and the community. Why would I go to multiple regionals if half the rules are going to change at a moments notice?

The problem with this is that it creates an inconsistent play experience among different locations, which is ridiculously terrible for the game and the community.

You don't feel like you're maybe laying the hyperbole on a tad thick, there?

The problem with this is that it creates an inconsistent play experience among different locations, which is ridiculously terrible for the game and the community.

Ridiculously. Terrible.

You don't feel like you're maybe laying the hyperbole on a tad thick, there?

Not when my TO has to create our own FAQ and host a Q and A to cover all the holes in these recent rulings, since our regional is April 16th. And with the FAQ being as lackluster as it is describing all the new things they've had 6 months to figure out, I can't trust them to commit the resources to fix it in less than a month.

Really, I've never seen a TO/Judge/Marshal/whatever blatantly disregard basic rules, though it's technically possible and probably happens occasionally because humans are involved, it's not the norm at all, not even close. They give the TO ultimate power not to change the game in whatever way they like, but because the FAQ and email responses are made by humans as well, and sometimes wrong. Or even more frequently, a particular scenario might not be in the FAQ, and it's not practical to hold up a match forever trying to find a ruling, so the TO needs to be able to resolve the situation in a timely manor.

Really, I've never seen a TO/Judge/Marshal/whatever blatantly disregard basic rules, though it's technically possible and probably happens occasionally because humans are involved, it's not the norm at all, not even close. They give the TO ultimate power not to change the game in whatever way they like, but because the FAQ and email responses are made by humans as well, and sometimes wrong. Or even more frequently, a particular scenario might not be in the FAQ, and it's not practical to hold up a match forever trying to find a ruling, so the TO needs to be able to resolve the situation in a timely manor.

had a TO rule that adding a dice wasnt a modification and can be done through OL's TL.

so i had two options: B*$&h and moan, or accept it, play around it and win anyway... as i did not have my rulebook on me.

i went 7-0 and afterwards found the rule book and showed him.

Really, I've never seen a TO/Judge/Marshal/whatever blatantly disregard basic rules, though it's technically possible and probably happens occasionally because humans are involved, it's not the norm at all, not even close. They give the TO ultimate power not to change the game in whatever way they like, but because the FAQ and email responses are made by humans as well, and sometimes wrong. Or even more frequently, a particular scenario might not be in the FAQ, and it's not practical to hold up a match forever trying to find a ruling, so the TO needs to be able to resolve the situation in a timely manor.

had a TO rule that adding a dice wasnt a modification and can be done through OL's TL.

so i had two options: B*$&h and moan, or accept it, play around it and win anyway... as i did not have my rulebook on me.

i went 7-0 and afterwards found the rule book and showed him.

TO is correct. Adding dice does work per FAQ. The confusion comes when adding dice results, which does not work.

So what do we do about the contradictory emails that don't matter and are only serving to confuse?

TO's will follow the rulings they feel make the most sense. Same thing they'd hopefully do if there wasn't an email addressing the question in the first place.

Do we call for Frank Brooks to step down?

Frank is one of the lead designers for the game, so he's one of the few people who can actually address an issue of RAI. If his ruling contradicts a FAQ I might follow his ruling since he knows what the next FAQ will look like or I may ignore it. I'd definitely take his word over someone from the OP group.

The problem with this is that it creates an inconsistent play experience among different locations, which is ridiculously terrible for the game and the community. Why would I go to multiple regionals if half the rules are going to change at a moments notice?

Would having all TOs make their own interpretations provide a more consistent play experience than having them refer to an email response by FFG and base their ruling off of that? I tend to think that having the email ruling will at least mean that most of your larger events will tend to use more consistent rulings.

Those emails are a odds with the rules, and can't be referenced during a round after April 2nd.

Those emails are a odds with the rules, and can't be referenced during a round after April 2nd.

Sure, a player officially can't. But a TO can do whatever he wants, so they're still useful for the TO wanting to know what the designer's intent is. A TO needs no reference to cite in order to make a ruling.

and we're supposed to know intent how? You have to follow the written rule, especially when there are contradictions and confusion. Declaring each TO should have a crystal ball/direct line to the mind of a designer is lazy.

Those emails are a odds with the rules, and can't be referenced during a round after April 2nd.

This cuts down on the delay caused by players trying to dig up the email that proves their point when trying to get a judge to agree with them. Less arguing with a judge over something he may or may not have seen is a positive in my book.

Those emails are a odds with the rules, and can't be referenced during a round after April 2nd.

This cuts down on the delay caused by players trying to dig up the email that proves their point when trying to get a judge to agree with them. Less arguing with a judge over something he may or may not have seen is a positive in my book.

Right. So the FAQ overrules Frank. That's my point.

Those emails are a odds with the rules, and can't be referenced during a round after April 2nd.

This cuts down on the delay caused by players trying to dig up the email that proves their point when trying to get a judge to agree with them. Less arguing with a judge over something he may or may not have seen is a positive in my book.

Right. So the FAQ overrules Frank. That's my point.

Right, and the TO overrides whatever he needs to. What are we arguing about?

Those emails are a odds with the rules, and can't be referenced during a round after April 2nd.

This cuts down on the delay caused by players trying to dig up the email that proves their point when trying to get a judge to agree with them. Less arguing with a judge over something he may or may not have seen is a positive in my book.

Right. So the FAQ overrules Frank. That's my point.

Right, and the TO overrides whatever he needs to. What are we arguing about?

It makes good sense to ignore said email if it's produced in the middle of a game. If you know something about the rules - and you keep that information to yourself, until it's in your best interest to share - Other players may make very different choices if they're clear on the ruling, and it's dishonest to conceal that information.

One should approach the TO at the beginning of the tournament with the rules question and information - and the TO should announce to all how it's working out. That's not referencing material in-game. Now if it's a question no-one knows the answer to, you call the TO and they take care of it. Communication makes these issues disappear.