there are several problems to adress here.

the pinned post and FAQ do not supersede the rules reference. the rules reference supersedes all other documentation.

deathfire and paige ticos abilities are not in conflict with the rules reference, so there is no reason for them to state they break any rules unless they were intended to do so (which they apparently are). genius and e lon kappehl are not in conflict with the rules reference and specifically state they do not break the rules. this is redundant, since the rules are already there. you cannot drop or launch more than one device every round.

when cards break the rules, they should state that they can break the rules, rather than cards that do not break the rules stating that they do not break the rules.

otherwise, we as players end up in a situation where we have to assume that all abilities can break the rules as much as we like, unless they specifically state they do not.

to interpret the rules is not always very easy - and that seems hard to avoid entirely. therefore, a precedent like the ruling on paige tico and deathfire is unacceptable, since if it's to be followed and used as an example on how the rules should be interpreted and used, it breaks the game entirely. taking actions while stressed is suddenly allowed unless it's stated on the card that it's forbidden. you would be able to fire ordnance while standing on a rock if you're carrying the os-1 arsenal loadout, zari bangel would get her perform action step after moving over an asteroid as long as she bumps, captain jostero would be able to perform as many bonus attacks per round as he had opportunities etc.

so how are we to interpret this "clarification" on paige and deathfire? are we supposed to use it? according to the rules reference, we should ignore it. are we supposed to use it only for the cards it mentions (paige, deathfire, genius, elon)? or are we supposed to use it as an example of how to use and interpret the rules in general?

are your FAQs posted on the rules forum a valid addition/clarification to the rules, or should we just ignore them and continue using the rules reference as the one and only true rules documentation for x-wing 2.0?

will you please, please, please, release updated rules references and erratas more often to avoid this kind of confusion in the future? or at least have the rules reference refer to a place where you can post clarifications and state they are valid?

or something like that.

@meffo your capacity for coming up with examples to illustrate a point continues to astound me.

I hope all of this was sent to FFG and that they are reconsidering this ruling.

New rules reference is out! (Version 1.0.3) But no change to our point of contention on page 9:

• Each ship can drop or launch only one device per round.

Nor any change to the RR intro on page 2 which continues to claim, "This reference is the definitive source for all Star Wars: X-Wing rules." without acknowledging the existence of the "official rulings" thread (which has no new posts anyways)

Yeah, it looks like none of the newer (ie pg 2) rulings in that post made it into this reference update. Unless i overlooked it. I havent re-read the changes enough times yet, but thats the impressing im getting.

Here's another cute contradiction from the "Official Rulings" that I didn't notice until someone brought it up in a question about the timing of Han:

The "ruling" says that Hans ability modifies dice in the regular modify dice step, while the card is very specific that it happens after rolling the dice.

According to the section on Timing on page 18-19 of the Rules Reference (1.0.3) After defined as being a part of the given window. If "After rolling dice" on Han's pilot ability extends into the "Modify dice" step then what about other "After something" effects?

Can I wait on Afterburners until I've done my regular action to Barrel Roll first, then boost?

The problem with that is, How do you word Han so he only works in the dice modification step of an engagement, but also works after rolling Outside of the engagement phase, without making a wall of text on the card (which its close to as it is)?

I would say don't reword it. Just let Han be an out-of-sequence modification like C-3PO.

For the sake of a thought exercise, here's a possible alternate wording that makes it clear it happens during dice mods, and I think would have made it clearer that it's intended to be a dice mod. Changing the first line to add a total of 6 words, about one line to the actual text:

While attacking, defending, or rolling dice for any other purpose, if you are at range 0-1...

1 hour ago, nitrobenz said:

I would say don't reword it. Just let Han be an out-of-sequence modification like C-3PO.

Given their ruling, its fair to say they didnt want him to have the same timing, and thus didnt want him to work before C-3PO (which given the wording, even if it was the same timing window, i wouldnt say it would anyway given its 'not a roll'.

3 hours ago, Lyianx said:

Given their ruling, its fair to say they didnt want him to have the same timing, and thus didnt want him to work before C-3PO (which given the wording, even if it was the same timing window, i wouldnt say it would anyway given its 'not a roll'.

If it worked as written the Han roll would still be after C-3PO'S evade gets added since Han is "after rolling" while C-3PO is "if you roll exactly that many" which Shure seems like it's being added directly to the roll. Being required to Han C-3PO'S extra evade was the ruling in 1e and that was carried by consensus into 2e (at least in my local).

With the new ruling stating that because it's a mod it has to be done in the mod step, you can no longer Juke C-3PO'S evade because defender modifies defense dice after the attacker.