Please stop...

Thank You

Seconded.

Dear Frank Brooks... just because a couple of guys don't like your rulings, please feel free to ignore them. Mostly there is jealousy because you are able to help shape a game that we all care about way too much. We thank you for the hands on time you apply to this game! May X-Wing live on in the annals of time till we are old and grayheaded... err.. too old to know better!

Thanks for everything you and Alex do and keep rocking the X-Wing World Galaxy!

Dear Frank Brooks, i love lamp.

Dear Frank Brooks... just because a couple of guys don't like your rulings, please feel free to ignore them. Mostly there is jealousy because you are able to help shape a game that we all care about way too much. We thank you for the hands on time you apply to this game! May X-Wing live on in the annals of time till we are old and grayheaded... err.. too old to know better!

Thanks for everything you and Alex do and keep rocking the X-Wing World Galaxy!

So when does Valen rudor get to use his ability? Because right now there are 2 very different answers. One of which is negated by the fact the tournament rules says you can't reference outside sources during the round. Frank's rulings are literally unusable during the game.

Wait, so what rule started this little **** fit?

Wait, so what rule started this little **** fit?

The biggest being that he ruled "after defending" and "after attacking" occur in the same window and are determined by initiative, which is in direct contradiction the rule that Valen rudor may use his ability to evade tactician, in the FAQ.

The rule is brand new, in the fact, and has already received a contradictory ruling. And it's not like the slam ruling, where an article got it wrong. It's in the rules.

The second issue, being that outside resources aren't allowed during a round. So his email rules are invalid as soon as the new tournament FAQ kicks in April 2nd.

I'm not saying there aren't some answers that affect other things or that more discussion or FAQing isn't necessary. Currently I haven't encountered that situation and I'm glad we have a community that is taking a deep dive into the ramifications of timing. I just don't know that I would have called out a ruling from a Lead Designer who is doing his best to help us out most of the time. I fully expect there will be a specific statement on Dengar and Rudor on the next FAQ which will help out the TOs that will need this to resolve the dispute that might arise in Regionals. I don't need it this week to handle one on my home table.

Mostly I'm glad we can have discussions and actually receive something back from the designers on how things were meant to work... and that sometimes if that isn't the best answer, it is covered in a further official documentation. As it stands, if it is an issue anyone is likely to encounter, I would print out both options as you see fit and agree with an opponent or TO prior to beginning any matches.

Dear Frank Brooks... just because a couple of guys don't like your rulings, please feel free to ignore them. Mostly there is jealousy because you are able to help shape a game that we all care about way too much. We thank you for the hands on time you apply to this game! May X-Wing live on in the annals of time till we are old and grayheaded... err.. too old to know better!

Thanks for everything you and Alex do and keep rocking the X-Wing World Galaxy!

So when does Valen rudor get to use his ability? Because right now there are 2 very different answers. One of which is negated by the fact the tournament rules says you can't reference outside sources during the round. Frank's rulings are literally unusable during the game.

I just don't know that I would have called out a ruling from a Lead Designer who is doing his best to help us out most of the time...

Guidance from the developers, even if it's not what we hoped to hear or even if it doesn't quite make sense according to the way we're thinking about things, is vastly preferable to no rulings at all.

I'm not saying there aren't some answers that affect other things or that more discussion or FAQing isn't necessary. Currently I haven't encountered that situation and I'm glad we have a community that is taking a deep dive into the ramifications of timing. I just don't know that I would have called out a ruling from a Lead Designer who is doing his best to help us out most of the time. I fully expect there will be a specific statement on Dengar and Rudor on the next FAQ which will help out the TOs that will need this to resolve the dispute that might arise in Regionals. I don't need it this week to handle one on my home table.

Mostly I'm glad we can have discussions and actually receive something back from the designers on how things were meant to work... and that sometimes if that isn't the best answer, it is covered in a further official documentation. As it stands, if it is an issue anyone is likely to encounter, I would print out both options as you see fit and agree with an opponent or TO prior to beginning any matches.

The problem with the "after attacking"/"after defending" ruling from Frank as it applies to Valen Rudor is that there already is a statement in the FAQ entry for Valen Rudor that contradicts it. It makes no mention of initiative and simply states that if Rudor(triggering "after defending") Boosts or Barrel Rolls out of Range 2, Tactician(triggering "after attacking") doesn't trigger. Frank's ruling implies that if the Tactician player has initiative, it does trigger in contradiction to the FAQ that isn't even in effect until next week. So we have the word of the game designer vs. the word of the game designer. The FAQ should be the guiding document, but with the ruling out there people are going to argue...

I understand the situation. What I was saying is don't attack a guy that is helping us out. If he misses a call every now and then, it will be straightened out. Period.

I have no dog in the fight of Valen Rudor timing. I do have a dog in the fight for protecting a guy that goes above and beyond for us in producing a great game and actually spending a lot of time providing generally solid answers when there are questions. This issue will be resolved. I'm still going to call Frank Brooks a hero in my book... so back off (Yeosimite Sam style and tongue in cheek... mostly)!

Frank Brooks has the lever in hand.

The problem with the "after attacking"/"after defending" ruling from Frank ...

Honestly, we do all know what the problems are.

Just give them a chance to discuss things and get stuff settled.

If these rulings are from Frank, and if they end up being reversed or reversing something else, then the most likely explanation is that the pressure to get a quick ruling out had an effect.

So applying more and more pressure is just a bad idea.

Give the developers just a little bit of time, people.

Dear Frank Brooks... just because a couple of guys don't like your rulings, please feel free to ignore them. Mostly there is jealousy because you are able to help shape a game that we all care about way too much. We thank you for the hands on time you apply to this game! May X-Wing live on in the annals of time till we are old and grayheaded... err.. too old to know better!

Thanks for everything you and Alex do and keep rocking the X-Wing World Galaxy!

So when does Valen rudor get to use his ability? Because right now there are 2 very different answers. One of which is negated by the fact the tournament rules says you can't reference outside sources during the round. Frank's rulings are literally unusable during the game.

I'm sure he is aware of the discrepancy and will update FAQ shortly. Clearly there are two different trains of thought for X-wing rule implementation. It's intent(FAQ) vs. RAW(often Frank).

The FAQ is not even in effect yet and you already want to amend it? This way lies madness...

Surely it's best to fix it before it goes live? Or even worse, before the next wave of cards gets printed with the new errata on...

What really bothers me with this topic is that usually, negative statements against FFG designers are targeting 'designers', 'them', 'fantasy flight', 'developers', and I think it's fine this way.

A directly offensive post title against a person name is something I really don't like seeing from a community I usually consider more mature than others in the gaming world.

What really bothers me with this topic is that usually, negative statements against FFG designers are targeting 'designers', 'them', 'fantasy flight', 'developers', and I think it's fine this way.

A directly offensive post title against a person name is something I really don't like seeing from a community I usually consider more mature than others in the gaming world.

The problem with the "after attacking"/"after defending" ruling from Frank ...

Honestly, we do all know what the problems are.

Just give them a chance to discuss things and get stuff settled.

If these rulings are from Frank, and if they end up being reversed or reversing something else, then the most likely explanation is that the pressure to get a quick ruling out had an effect.

So applying more and more pressure is just a bad idea.

Give the developers just a little bit of time, people.

I'm not saying I agree with the tone of the OP, it's definitely great that we're able to just get that feedback. This particular situation though is a bit odd in its circumstances. I don't think we've had the case of an FAQ entry being contradicted by the 'Word of God' so quickly before, if it's ever happened; Frank questions in the past have typically been about things not in the FAQ yet as stop-gap guidance for rulings. There have of course been situations where FAQ'd rulings have changed between versions of the FAQ(Autoblaster and the behavior of evade tokens anyone?), but not like this that I can remember.

That said, it is pretty much the first time it's happened, and there's a lot in the game to keep track of at this point, so I don't really think there's any reason to be brandishing the pitchforks yet, though it is at least eybrow-raise worthy.

Dear Frank Brooks... just because a couple of guys don't like your rulings, please feel free to ignore them. Mostly there is jealousy because you are able to help shape a game that we all care about way too much. We thank you for the hands on time you apply to this game! May X-Wing live on in the annals of time till we are old and grayheaded... err.. too old to know better!Thanks for everything you and Alex do and keep rocking the X-Wing World Galaxy!

So when does Valen rudor get to use his ability? Because right now there are 2 very different answers. One of which is negated by the fact the tournament rules says you can't reference outside sources during the round. Frank's rulings are literally unusable during the game.

I'm sure he is aware of the discrepancy and will update FAQ shortly. Clearly there are two different trains of thought for X-wing rule implementation. It's intent(FAQ) vs. RAW(often Frank).

The FAQ is not even in effect yet and you already want to amend it? This way lies madness...

Clearly, Frank disagrees.

The problem with the "after attacking"/"after defending" ruling from Frank ...

Honestly, we do all know what the problems are.

Just give them a chance to discuss things and get stuff settled.

If these rulings are from Frank, and if they end up being reversed or reversing something else, then the most likely explanation is that the pressure to get a quick ruling out had an effect.

So applying more and more pressure is just a bad idea.

Give the developers just a little bit of time, people.

They had six months, from announcement, and several before that during testing to figure this out.

Having this happen on/after release is insanity. If you, the play testers and other designers couldn't think to ask these questions, then you need new designers and play testers.

I love that Frank answers rules questions. He doesn't always give me the answer I want but I usually get some sort of an answer.

I'd prefer it if the response had a ticket number or something attached to it so that people could hit an FFG page, pop in the ticket number and validate that it was in fact a real rules question response.

It would also be cool to have a more interactive exchange with him but I don't think that's likely to happen. He could spend all day, everyday answering questions and still not get around to everything.

You also have to remember that they are answering questions about a game that is 12 to 18 months behind what they are currently working.

You also have to remember that they are answering questions about a game that is 12 to 18 months behind what they are currently working.

That should mean that these rules were worked out 12-18 months ago.

They were very clearly not.