I'd like to add that it would be good for the game if FFG created a group of people whose role was to discuss the rules and issue rulings and errata. This group should be composed of people who have experience with the rules (preferably TOs) and headed by Nate (the others need not be FFG staff). This group could take a good long look at the rules and clean them up (using specific game terms rather than common language and that sort of thing - "passive effects initiate" instead of "passive effects trigger", for instance).

Ratatoskr said:

If you modify that slightly to say that there's an increase in new cards written in "free form" text that according to the rules do not act according to the likely intent of Damon, then I say yes.

Getting supposed contradictory rulings from Nate (who here just accepted the players understanding of who took the modified win) doesn't bother me. As was said before, this is a complex game and people are human. As opposed to on the spot rulings, card design has plenty of time to think about and consider the rules interactions of all the cards (and time for basic editing of all the misspellings). It's the language on the cards themselves that I think could use some improving. I know this is largely what playtesting is for. All I have to say here is even playtesters are surprised by the eventual printed text on cards with some of the changes that happen after playtesting.

I have one point to make. People seem to be taking the stance 'this is a complicated set of rules so mistakes are bound to happen'. In my opinion this is the exact reason why mistakes CAN'T happen. When a rules question is asked, the powers that be need to understand that their answers will be taken as canon, yet this weekend Nate/Damon (allegedly) did not even seem to take the time to think their answers through, or even investigate if a previous answer was given, prior to giving their answer.

Ultimately these types of mistakes should not happen because the rules should be written in such a way that everyone should be able to reach the proper conclusion if given the card text and flow charts. The mere fact that rulings like this need to be made on a consistent basis, and that those rulings actually change, should be evidence enough that there is a huge problem with the verbiage of the cards, the rules, or both.

dcdennis said:

Impossible.

I have been gaming, in one form or another, for 17 years (which I'm sure is nothing compared to some vets on this board), and I have never encountered any game where the rules are written in such a way as to never create any uncertainty or confusion to their readers.

Game writers are human beings, and you will never find a fool-proof system designed by human beings.

You seem to be implying that rules officials should be some kind of preternaturally calm decision machines with perfect recall. Either that, or you expect them to carry around small encyclopedias documenting every rules call ever made for reference purposes, and to be able to consult them with perfect accuracy. Heck, there are times that, in the heat of the moment, I have trouble finding things in the FAQ document, and I don't keep a copy of every rules call posted on this forum.

Mistakes will happen. Sometimes they'll happen at official events. That sucks, but you cannot eliminate human error.

Now, do I feel that the language used on the cards and in the rules could be improved? Yes, I certainly do. There are some cards worded very vaguely, and I feel that could use more attention.

But I do not feel that anyone is particularly "at fault" in this situation.

KristoffStark said:

I mpossible.

I need to formulate a more complete response to this thread, because it has touched on a lot of issues that I "appreciate." I think one of the biggest issues here is FFG's communication. In some cases they're great, and others… not so much. Rulings like Meera vs. TRV, tMP & timed scoring or even Plot Resolution v. Title selection timing in melee (I swear this question comes up in 2/3rds of tournament melee games i play) should have clearly written, codified answers in the FAQ/Tournament Rules.

An important thing to remember is that Nate & Damon have plenty on their plates, and they're not even the guys in charge of publishing the documents. However, as FFG continues to grow (and hopefully by the time they field the Star Wars LCG) it would be nice if they had their Organized Play ducks in a row. My dearest wish would be for something like Magic's "The Gatherer" where you have a searchable list of cards with their current errata'd text and rulings. In lieu of that, I'd be happy if we had a 2 paragraph "Rules Spotlight" at the end of our "weekly" AGoT marketing article that points out rules issues that have yet to be FAQ'd.

Looking back the last 18 months, we seem It seems like we're in a 4 FAQs a year pattern (if you lump 2.2 & 2.3). I'm assuming a pattern like:

December/January (post Days/now Worlds)

March/April (pre-Regionals)

July (pre-GenCon/post-Regionals)

September/October (post-GenCon/pre-Worlds)

based on the previous dates: (1.1 = 12/18/08, 2.1 = 1/7/11, 2.2 = 3/31/11, 2.3 = 4/28/11, 2.4 = 7/5/11, 3.0 = 9/19/11, 3.1 = 1/19/12, 3.2 = 3/09/12)

If things are only going to be updated quarterly, it would be nice if we had a reliable way to disseminate rulings in the interim. It's annoying to search for a quoted post on the boards where Damon rules that the Free Man should be played as if he had the "Wildling" trait. I mean, if we can get an updated Tourney Rules mid-season, I should think we can do that much.