Let's revisit FAQ vs Errata again...

An FAQ is a clarification of the rules as written that can be extrapolated to similar situations as applicable.

An Errata is a change to a written rule--whether in the RRG or on some game component--that cannot be extrapolated to other situations based on the original wording because the original RAW is not applicable.

The Instigator ruling was an FAQ.

Not an errata.

Meaning that, for any other identical situation, the ruling can be extrapolated to apply because it is consistent with the way the designer interprets the RAW.

Following this logic, Entrapment Formation can boost an ET to speed 2.

So do we consider each FAQ case be case with no intent or application to other interactions? Or do we use them to interpret how they should influence other interactions?

This is a matter of Valen being real and Instigators squad being fake.

Or it is a matter of both Valen and the Instigator phantoms not being valid targets.

For reference

I've already considered the FAQ can be topic-to-topic based issues, and the rulings are not supposed to spill over into other rulings.

If G8 is entirely it's own rule, then yes, EF will not be allowed to boost ET, and I have a feeling that is how the new FAQ will come down as.

But if we follow that logic, what about the FAQ on Hyper Space Assault and how RLB should deal with undeployed squads?

The logical assumption is the squads are destroyed and your opponent scores for them, but RLB doesn't say that and there is no other ruling on this. So if each FAQ cannot be related to any other card interaction, where does this leave us? Are squads with RLB scored and destroyed? Or are they never a part of the game?

So there is this messy grey area on how we can interpret and translate the FAQ rules to the RRG and new card interactions.

Too much to consider with these new card interactions...

Popping back in to add the history for those who are uninformed:

When we first had issues with Instigator, an email request was put in, and that Email was (eventually) answered by Games Designer James Kniffen.

This resulted in the Email response that DiabloAzul has posted above.

What happened after the Asmodee Changeover, is that James Kniffen was no longer on the team resolving questions - someone else had asked the question in parallel to DiabloAzul, without knowing the answer had been given.

This resulted in Michael Gernes, Game Producer, in providing a response of his own, that was in conflict with the original Email response.

... Cue much Rage and Hair-Pulling on our part.

This resulted in Michael Gernes saying "mea culpa, I didn't know James had already responded to this one - use James' response."...

Then things were quiet for a little bit.

Then, in light of that whole episode, an FAQ was finally released... This FAQ has the statement listed above by Undeadguy, but does not have the same breadth of rules response or clarity that the original James Kniffen Email response did.

unfortunately , this at the time, lead to somewhat of a Schism between rules forum attendees, who didn't really know where to be looking for what was "rules" and what was "advice" and what was "intent"...

We even put in a request (at least I and 1 other did, anyway) to further clarify the Instigator ruling - and there has been silence.

So, I still don't know.

As it is, the Rules forum itself used to have some semblance of semi-legitimacy in resolving disputes. This has changed on FFG's pages, as well.

I think if we consider each FAQ card entry, not questions on rules, its own entity and does not influence other interactions, then you must shoot the bomber per engagement rules.

But if we allow them to spill into other interactions, then you can shoot Instigator per the FAQ. But that literally unleashes a hell on some card interactions, like ET vs EF, but also provides insight on what to do if RLB squads are killed before being placed due to the Hyperspace Assault FAQ.

This is just because more often than not those FAQ entries would be better fixed along with an errata for the given underlying rule intent (heavy in this case). But then that'd be hell to follow as well.

This is just because more often than not those FAQ entries would be better fixed along with an errata for the given underlying rule intent (heavy in this case). But then that'd be hell to follow as well.

Yea there is too much that to consider when we try to figure out the proper way these cards are supposed to interact.

I do think Valen is a little different from the FAQ: "Squadrons can attack this ship if they are not engaged by an actual enemy squadron without heavy in the play area."

Valen is an actual squadron.

That all I'll say. It is time to invoke the Dras House Rule.

Popping back in to add the history for those who are uninformed...

Thanks for the history lesson, Dras. I wasn't aware of the back-and-forth.

Because IIRC James Kniffen designed the game and wrote the original rules, I always took his word as the final authority - especially on RAI. It's interesting to note that this may no longer hold true, although it does not affect my position on this topic.