Has anyone else noticed that Frank has started adding this disclaimer when he answers rules specific questions from an individual player?

"The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.”

What does he mean? Should we not use his responses to arbitrate a perceived rules discrepancy?

​How do the top rated TO's arbitrate perceived rules discrepancies?

That's a very standard disclaimer for professional emails in case they are sent to the wrong person. Doesn't mean anything special, and certainly doesn't mean we can't use the rulings he gives us.

In the E-mail responding to the Imperial Assault Carrier, Frank said,

For my own purposes, what does he mean when he says, "Through the website." Is he talking about this forum or is there another place to submit questions?

Refer here .

For my own purposes, what does he mean when he says, "Through the website." Is he talking about this forum or is there another place to submit questions?

Refer here .

I added that link to the first post.

Here's a response from Frank about Zeb. Actually had a major effect on a regionals match here . Looks like Frank put in an extra "not" but the intent of the answer is clear.

Hello Pete,

In response to your rules question:

Rules Question:
Situation: Zeb crew card on a Ghost with docked Phantom shuttle. Can the Ghost attack a touching ship using the extra turret attack granted by the Phantom title at the end of the combat phase. General Question: Is performing an attack synonymous with activating?

No to both. “When either you or they activate during the Combat phase” is specifically when those ships become the active ship during the Combat phase. Those ships are not [sic] considered touching during any other attacks outside of their Combat phase activation. This means that the Phantom’s attack at the end of the Combat phase, Corran Horn’s ability, Dengar’s ability, and for any other attacks outside of your activation, you count as touching.

Thanks for playing,

Frank Brooks

Associate Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

[email protected]

The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the recipient named above. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Did you want to grab my older thread of Frank's e-mail responses?

Did you want to grab my older thread of Frank's e-mail responses?

Shoot me the link to the thread. I'll link it in the first post to make it easier for others to reference. I'll try to call out specific items if there's anything that jumps out as still being current and unanswered/unchanged by the updated rules and FAQ.

bump

A sticky would do nicely.

agreed

Hey have we gotten an email ruling on tracers? I thought I heard if you fire the tracer, a ship that is in range 2 of the ship which fired cannot acquire that TL if it is not in range 3 of the ship which was hit with the tracer. I haven't seen players playing it this way at all though, so I thought I'd come in here and see if anyone else had heard of this email ruling.

Hey have we gotten an email ruling on tracers? I thought I heard if you fire the tracer, a ship that is in range 2 of the ship which fired cannot acquire that TL if it is not in range 3 of the ship which was hit with the tracer. I haven't seen players playing it this way at all though, so I thought I'd come in here and see if anyone else had heard of this email ruling.

There's not been one because it's not needed. You can't ever acquire a TL when range does not permit it. Precedent: K4 Security Droid.

Hey have we gotten an email ruling on tracers? I thought I heard if you fire the tracer, a ship that is in range 2 of the ship which fired cannot acquire that TL if it is not in range 3 of the ship which was hit with the tracer. I haven't seen players playing it this way at all though, so I thought I'd come in here and see if anyone else had heard of this email ruling.

There's not been one because it's not needed. You can't ever acquire a TL when range does not permit it. Precedent: K4 Security Droid.

True, and also clarified in the new FAQ.

The new FAQ overrides the Valen Rudor exception ruling. Now his ability depends on the initiative.

The new FAQ overrides the Valen Rudor exception ruling. Now his ability depends on the initiative.

Which is EXACTLY how it should have been all along.

I honestly can't figure out how they came to the ruling they did in the previous FAQ (4.1.1).

The new FAQ overrides the Valen Rudor exception ruling. Now his ability depends on the initiative.

Did they pull the mention of Tactician and Rudor from the FAQ? Does anyone have a link to the previous FAQ so that I can check?

Also, should I pull the response completely or create a section for old responses that no longer matter, with comments as to why they no longer do?

FAQ 4.1.1:

FAQ 4.1.2:

Also, should I pull the response completely or create a section for old responses that no longer matter, with comments as to why they no longer do?

For historical purposes, I'd like to see the old response remain available in the thread.

The new FAQ overrides the Valen Rudor exception ruling. Now his ability depends on the initiative.

Did they pull the mention of Tactician and Rudor from the FAQ? Does anyone have a link to the previous FAQ so that I can check?

Yep

Old: FAQ v4.1.1

New: FAQ v4.1.2

Also, should I pull the response completely or create a section for old responses that no longer matter, with comments as to why they no longer do?

Yeah, something like "Overruled by FAQ [FAQ version number]".

EDIT:

For historical purposes, I'd like to see the old response remain available in the thread.

Might be helpful to note what the current FAQ version was when a question was answered.

Ok, I moved one email that was overruled by the most recent FAQ and one that was answered in the most recent FAQ and tagged them as to why they were moved.

Nice thread. Thanks for doing this.

bump

A sticky would do nicely.

agreed

bump

I haven't had anything to add for awhile. The rules questions fountain has seemingly dried up. I'll continue to update this once I've got something to add.

The entry on Omega Leader vs Tarn/R7 could use an update, as the answer has been applied the same way to Zuckuss crew, as well as other things cited in Frank's reply. I came across this through a Google search a few days ago while in the middle of a game where the Zuckuss question arose.

https://m.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/4bs1ea/omega_leader_and_zuckussr7_astromech_clarification/

The entry on Omega Leader vs Tarn/R7 could use an update, as the answer has been applied the same way to Zuckuss crew, as well as other things cited in Frank's reply. I came across this through a Google search a few days ago while in the middle of a game where the Zuckuss question arose.

https://m.reddit.com/r/XWingTMG/comments/4bs1ea/omega_leader_and_zuckussr7_astromech_clarification/

Added that as a separate entry.

"...sops Zuckuss..."

"...sops Zuckuss..."

Like Zuckuss is egg yolk and OL is toast.

Fixed.