I believe there is a sufficiently official tag in relevant employee forum members that cover it, further more some answers require further explanation or discussion outside the ruling, I am not sure an impersonal account would help much, or if it would create questions on who answers the question, a moot question, but I can envision it happening.
I believe, that in time, there will be a ruleset that nobody will question, that all will accept as the one true factoid ... After we build that beanstalk to Alpha Centauri out of unobtanium and finish herding all of those cats.
This is the main issue that it's secret knowledge/"a magic spell" that will blindside players and isn't elucidated in the rules. Seems like kind of a dilemma of their own making if you're right that some of the examples in the N4 document are in contravention to the rules.
It is not really a dilemma though, you have an employee of the company, of the rules staff, telling you the example is wrong according to the rules, this may or may not be fixed in a future FAQ, but, the fact remains it is an official ruling by the rules staff.
Sure, but the rulebook says literally the exact opposite in some cases, so it's natural that people are going to be skeptical.
I can understand the criticism, especially if one says "write your examples/ check your examples better", ectr, but this is what the rules staff is here to correct. Been skeptical of the rules staff saying that this was in error and it is not how rules work is counter productive to say the least. And maybe if the case is made, an omission is found, or something needs fixing because it does not work as intended, then the rules staff will fix it, or errata it, in the FAQ, as was for example, Berserk.
No, it's the part where their rulings sometimes contradict what's in the N4 rules. I obviously disagree.
Of course you do, never the less, this does not change the fact that the rules staff is responsible for the rules and have a better understanding and authority over the rules resolution. This does not mean the rules will not change, again pointing out to berserk, but this is for the FAQ to handle it, not the rules subforum were the answer needs to be contained in the rules and not be errataed on the spot.
Some of the answers directly contradict what's in the rules, though. That's where the skepticism and criticism comes in.
Again, while rules examples are part of the rules, they are not rules, an adequate explanation was given, text was left unchanged from N3, there is nothing to be skeptical about it, when it comes from the rules stuff, and if it changes in the FAQ, it will be because it will need an errata. In any case as I said before FAQ> Rules resolution by Rules Staff in the forums > Rulebook.
There's exactly something to be skeptical about because if it's going against the example it's very likely to be going against the intent of the rule. "Why don't you just take us at our word without question even when we say questionable things" isn't going to get a good reaction from reasonable people.
I think that the fundamental point on which we disagree is that you believe the rules are real. They're not. CB made them up. Infinity is a game, not a physics experiment. It's possible for rules to be badly written, confusing, contradictory, changing, or poorly designed, but it's not possible for them to be wrong. The rules are, by definition, whatever CB says they are. You seem to think there are secret rules and CB is lying to us about them. That's just not how rules work.
The point is, even if the Rules Staff agree with you, if the rules at their present form make the examples to be wrong, then that is the answer, if it is changed later in the FAQ as an errata it is not because there were secret rules, it is because the Rules Staff made it happen. Look at Berserk for example Can I use berserk when the trooper is engaged? No Why? Because the rules do not allow it. That makes no sense. These are the rules. Come FAQ, you can use Berserk while engaged (errata) What changed? the Rules Staff made it happen, why they did not ruled it that way form the start? because even if the intention was for Berserk to be useable while engaged the rules did not support it, the Rules Staff will not make an errata answering here they will give the answer that the rules support in their current form. And rules is the entirety of the structure not an example in a skill, if the examples say something, but nowhere in the rules this is supported, there is a high possibility that the examples are wrong, maybe an outdated version that creeped in, maybe something else, even if the subsequent FAQ changes something to make the example happen, it does not invalidate that the answer given a the time was correct.
Hecaton, you seem to think the rule book is an unassailable contract. It's not. It's a living rule set that has changed and will change. Where do those changes come from? Answer: the official CB Rules staff. Is IJW official CB Rules staff? Answer: YES
CB Rules Staff have the final say on what the Rules are and how they should be interpreted and played (house rules excluded, I mean the official game). The CB Rules Staff are the Pope of Infinity. They are infallible even when they contradict their previous statements (rulebook, previous FAQ, previous Rules Staff rulings, whether preliminary or not). What they said last, goes.
