EDIT: I've said this innumerable times elsewhere, but this isn't personal against Iain or anybody else. They've done more for the game than I ever will, that's for sure. They are good people who care about the game. They are also big influencers in our X-Wing community. With that comes a greater level or responsibility, in my opinion. I believe that their unwillingness to budge on this ruling is stubborn, and deserves criticism. That's where this comes from.

If this is true, that Frank Brooks actually saw all of the debate in the community and reached out to Iain, the TO of the upcoming system open, to tell him this and STILL Iain is unwilling to rule trajectory/genius doesn't work together, then I'm sorry that's terrible.

Iain other other major tourney TOS may be, and are, good people in our community but this level of stubbornness is unacceptable and deserves intense scrutiny.

What are we even doing here anymore people. The **** developer of the game has reached out and said this shouldn't work, and has directed his own TO not to allow it. WHAT ARE WE DOING!?

Yaaaaa let’s cut this before it goes anywhere. If this is true, darn.

Thats all that needs to be said. Move on people.

Without it in writing, and assuming this is true, Iain is doing the right thing.

Because by choosing not to rule as Frank has asked it puts the emphasis back onto Frank/FFG to issue an errata in order for the change to happen. I don’t think Iain has done anything wrong to be berated for. He probably also may not like the interaction but he wants an official source so no one can question it or raise a fuss making life difficult for judges and such to be given grief.

2 minutes ago, Ronu said:

Because by choosing not to rule as Frank has asked it puts the emphasis back onto Frank/FFG to issue an errata in order for the change to happen. I don’t think Iain has done anything wrong to be berated for. He probably also may not like the interaction but he wants an official source so no one can question it or raise a fuss making life difficult for judges and such to be given grief.

Do you think anybody would really raise a fuss is Iain ruled the way Frank says he should and then responds to anybody who asks by saying, "The developers wrote to me and told me this is how I should rule it."? Heck no. At this point he's only exacerbating the problem here. It'd be one thing if some random TO in Wyoming made the ruling. This ruling now comes straight from the developers. Just ignoring all context is fairly mind boggling to me.

4 minutes ago, Ronu said:

Because by choosing not to rule as Frank has asked it puts the emphasis back onto Frank/FFG to issue an errata in order for the change to happen. I don’t think Iain has done anything wrong to be berated for. He probably also may not like the interaction but he wants an official source so no one can question it or raise a fuss making life difficult for judges and such to be given grief.

This is all i’ve asked for since this started and i’ve been made fun of for doing so

12 minutes ago, Waaaaaampa said:

Do you think anybody would really raise a fuss is Iain ruled the way Frank says he should and then responds to anybody who asks by saying, "The developers wrote to me and told me this is how I should rule it."? Heck no. At this point he's only exacerbating the problem here. It'd be one thing if some random TO in Wyoming made the ruling. This ruling now comes straight from the developers. Just ignoring all context is fairly mind boggling to me.

Actually they would and have fussed because there is nothing stating it’s prohibited currently. Also for consistency’s sake the TO in WY saying play as the cards read, because local rules lawyers will flip out saying there’s nothing that says it’s prohibited. So since he’s probably not in direct contact with the Devs a TO should not consider a request a reason to change a rule.

Perhaps you haven’t heard the fuss made because Chicago said no, while everyone else said yes? Which is part of the issue. So Iain is trying to be consistent with the overwhelming majority that is saying until FFG officially says they are not compatible, based on the rule, do what the card says to do, that’s how he is going about it. Again he may not like the interaction himself and knows it is abusive, but that is not influencing his decision. Consistency is more important than liked.

36 minutes ago, nikk whyte said:

Without it in writing, and assuming this is true, Iain is doing the right thing.

I agree. This is something that should have been spotted in playtesting and put in an FAQ upon release.

Changing the rules based on the way you "feel" a game interaction should work, instead of what's actually in the rules and on the cards is the road to ****. You have to draw a line somewhere. And no, that doesn't mean I think that the current rules as written interaction is fine. It definitely needs a change.

2 minutes ago, Sarcon said:

Changing the rules based on the way you "feel" a game interaction should work, instead of what's actually in the rules and on the cards is the road to ****. You have to draw a line somewhere.

How about drawing that line where the actual developer of the game tells that TO that it's not supposed to work like that, and suggests he rule a certain way at this major event. Seems like a pretty good place for that line right?

4 minutes ago, Waaaaaampa said:

How about drawing that line where the actual developer of the game tells that TO that it's not supposed to work like that, and suggests he rule a certain way at this major event. Seems like a pretty good place for that line right?

Yep, slippery slope right there. Next time it's that other guy from FFG HQ. The time after it's the neighbour from he guy that works at FFG that told you a rule works differently. As long as there is noting official in writing, I would draw the line right there.

3 minutes ago, Sarcon said:

Yep, slippery slope right there. Next time it's that other guy from FFG HQ. The time after it's the neighbour from he guy that works at FFG that told you a rule works differently. As long as there is noting official in writing, I would draw the line right there.

It’s not that we want it to work. We want it from a non-sketchy, non-implied, non-backalley source.

Just now, nikk whyte said:

It’s not that we want it to work. We want it from a non-sketchy, non-implied, non-backalley source.

Yep, exactly this.

22 minutes ago, Waaaaaampa said:

How about drawing that line where the actual developer of the game tells that TO that it's not supposed to work like that, and suggests he rule a certain way at this major event. Seems like a pretty good place for that line right?

Sure, coz it's not like a later faq has reversed franks email decisions before..... oh,wait.

Doesn't matter how the rule should work, the issue and why i agree with the to's stance is you dont spring it on the players when it will be such a game changer. Even if it's not a faq update you announce it or contact everyone affected and you give it 10 days grace/notice, same as a faq ruling

I don't care if Trajectory Simulator and Genius work together, or if it doesn't. I'll adapt my game either way.

What I do care about is the competitive X-Wing scene becoming a space where rulings are based on rumors and leaked screenshots of conversations.

That **** needs to stop now.

Ya'll are off your rockers.

Community: "This game needs fixing!!! Immediately!"

Frank Brooks: "We are working on a fix, but the approval process from Lucasfilm is super slow."

Community: "Unacceptable! Why can't you just tell TOs how to rule and make a statement!?"

Frank Brooks: "OK, I hear you. This is how we are fixing this and we should run tournaments this way right away. I'll talk to the TOs."

Community: "Unacceptable! I don't believe you because FFG is #fakenews!"

Frank Brooks: *facepalm*

1 minute ago, Waaaaaampa said:

Ya'll are off your rockers.

Community: "This game needs fixing!!! Immediately!"

Frank Brooks: "We are working on a fix, but the approval process from Lucasfilm is super slow."

Community: "Unacceptable! Why can't you just tell TOs how to rule and make a statement!?"

Frank Brooks: "OK, I hear you. This is how we are fixing this and we should run tournaments this way right away. I'll talk to the TOs."

Community: "Unacceptable! I don't believe you because FFG is #fakenews!"

Frank Brooks: *facepalm*

Except, Frank doesn’t have a way to contact all TO’s at all venues at once. And it is not that we do not believe him, it’s we would prefer something more tangible.

3 minutes ago, Ronu said:

Except, Frank doesn’t have a way to contact all TO’s at all venues at once. And it is not that we do not believe him, it’s we would prefer something more tangible.

If there's a TO somewhere who isn't clued into this kerfuffle then I'm not sure they should be a TO...

Also we would all prefer lots of things, things like FFG to come out with a FAQ in a timely manner rather than months after its needed, we don't always get the things we prefer and sometimes have to settle for 2nd best. This is what 2nd best looks like

The vitriol needs to subside a bit everyone Ian said he has not spoken to Frank since August Andrew was misinformed please stop the witch hunts it is just a game everything will be worked out in time.

13 minutes ago, Waaaaaampa said:

Ya'll are off your rockers.

Community: "This game needs fixing!!! Immediately!"

Frank Brooks: "We are working on a fix, but the approval process from Lucasfilm is super slow."

Community: "Unacceptable! Why can't you just tell TOs how to rule and make a statement!?"

Frank Brooks: "OK, I hear you. This is how we are fixing this and we should run tournaments this way right away. I'll talk to the TOs."

Community: "Unacceptable! I don't believe you because FFG is #fakenews!"

Frank Brooks: *facepalm*

If Frank thinks that, he can post it on the website, so we can all be on the same page.

3 minutes ago, Makaze said:

Also we would all prefer lots of things, things like FFG to come out with a FAQ in a timely manner rather than months after its needed

Then look at the bright side- this kerfuffle could help push us towards a long needed policy change for exactly this.

2 minutes ago, Kdubb said:

Then look at the bright side- this kerfuffle could help push us towards a long needed policy change for exactly this.

The more likely result is a new layer of rules and process about how and when FFG affiliated individuals can speak

1 hour ago, Waaaaaampa said:

How about drawing that line where the actual developer of the game tells that TO that it's not supposed to work like that, and suggests he rule a certain way at this major event. Seems like a pretty good place for that line right?

Rules in writing (such as an faq) sounds like the perfect place to draw the line. As someone pointed out on Facebook, we knew about the advanced slam nerf months before it came down. People agreed it was OP and needed a nerf. Kind of like how people see genius/TS. But all of the nations between the timeframe we found out about it and the faq going live and effective still used the prenerf rules.

1 hour ago, Waaaaaampa said:

Ya'll are off your rockers.

Community: "This game needs fixing!!! Immediately!"

Frank Brooks: "We are working on a fix, but the approval process from Lucasfilm is super slow."

Community: "Unacceptable! Why can't you just tell TOs how to rule and make a statement!?"

Frank Brooks: "OK, I hear you. This is how we are fixing this and we should run tournaments this way right away. I'll talk to the TOs."

Community: "Unacceptable! I don't believe you because FFG is #fakenews!"

Frank Brooks: *facepalm*

So far the only people who MIGHT have heard anything to my knowledge are kyle and Iain. And the only evidence I’ve seen of Iain hearing anything from frank is a screenshot of a comment from another person. Hearsay is not a good basis for rulings

As @ Ralgon noted, developers' answers have been overturned by FAQs in the past. And not just once.

As a TO, for actual tournaments, I look to the actual FAQ first, then make interpretations based on the language (RAW, not RAI), no matter how **** an interaction might be. For casual tournaments, I don't hesitate to flush some of those interactions down the toilet, but these are regionals we're talking about. Regionals are former tier tournaments, they're not the place to try alternative rulings.

Until FFG formally clarifies through a FAQ, I'll keep my regional prep tournaments RAW and any other "relaxed" tournament with tweaks as needed.

If Disney won't let FFG formally FAQ due to a long approval process, FFG *wink* *wink*ing at us means nothing, except that if Disney catches on, that'll be stopped quickly and we're back to waiting for a FAQ.

At this point, I'd rather just put the pressure on FFG and Disney to streamline their process, and that means pouring mountains of salt on their events with the brokenness than needs to be fixed. I don't want unofficial rulings through the grapevines going forward, I want clear, up to date FAQs. Going around Disney will just end in tears for everyone, they need to see the salt hurting their IP and figure out that they should either approve faster, or let some things be FAQed without approval when the goal is to remove something that's bad for the game.

I think the issue is the competitive community makes up only a small portion of X-Wing's bottom line which makes up only a small portion of Asmodee's bottom line which makes up only a very small portion of Disney's bottom line. I'd like faster and more flexible FAQ's as much as anyone but it's a complex and difficult process which doesn't really make them money so it's hard for the designers to get approval from their bosses for more resources to do so. Asking the designers for more discourse is good and long overdue, frankly but it's important to do it in a respectful manner.

1 hour ago, drjkel said:

At this point, I'd rather just put the pressure on FFG and Disney to streamline their process, and that means pouring mountains of salt on their events with the brokenness than needs to be fixed. I don't want unofficial rulings through the grapevines going forward, I want clear, up to date FAQs. Going around Disney will just end in tears for everyone, they need to see the salt hurting their IP and figure out that they should either approve faster, or let some things be FAQed without approval when the goal is to remove something that's bad for the game.

This is a tough one to swallow. It means that the players--many of whom are travelling from out of town, paying for hotel rooms, burning squad building points with their families--are going to have to endure those many months under salt mountain while waiting for the slow burn to finally effect the corporate bottom line (for whom, as Blair says above, competitive play is only a small percentage, anyways...I'd put even money on them not even noticing it)...

Alternatives (for me, in order of preference):

• UNFAQ : Do what the Netrunner community did: instead of having a random email address people can email, create a living document that is centrally managed that is brought to the devs, who then put their clarifications in that doc. That doc is treated as golden until a FAQ gets published. Much faster feedback cycle.
• Follow FFG Game Store's lead (and only their lead) on avoiding salt mountain as they correct broken things like Final Form immediately via Marshall mandate. While ugly and potentially hard to stomach (especially if the explanation doesn't make sense), it does mean the players have a much more positive play experience, and the other Regional Marshalls have a lead to follow.
• Do what we're doing now: given ambiguity, let Marshalls decide on their own. Track the decisions in a spreadsheet. This is going to make things harder for me in ListJuggler/Meta-Wing, but since we're ( the X-Wing open source tech community ) already going down the path of architecting support for multiple rules variants, we're already in for a penny. This might create enough pressure for a UFAQ to kick in. (I've already heard a rumor that FFG might output something as early as this Monday to address the massive drama that has unfolded over the last few days.)
• Grind through salt mountain (described above).

I guess one question I have for this thread is, let's say that FFG OP tweets on Monday the following:

"Hey TDs and players! Until a new FAQ gets published, Genius+Trajectory Simulator does not work, and TLT can trigger Harpoon. Please use this for all Regional events and higher going forward"

Would that be enough for you?