Re: Jon, we need an Official Ruling! (was Re: SG2 newbie Q)

Allan Goodall wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 19:56:33 -0500, Michael Sarno
<msarno@ptdprolog.net>
> wrote:
>
> >    The "majority" throughout history doesn't have a great track
record
> >of being correct. <g>  If the best argument you can offer is that
"most
> >people say 'so-and-so,'" you probably need to think a bit longer on
the
> >subject.
>
> Quite true. On the other hand, if you're looking for consensus in a
convention
> tournament situation, or just when running games at a convention, or
when you
> have disparate gaming groups coming together.

    Right, but are you really going to go along with a ruling just
because some
guy says that Jon says "so-and-so"?  You don't have this e-mail list as
a
reference when you're at a convention.	You only have the text of the
rules.	Jon
just gave us his "official" interpretation and freely admitted that the
way he
interprets the rules now is completely different from the way he did
when he wrote
the rules.  So now you're requiring someone who wants to play "official"
SGII to
follow this list, and every post that Jon makes on it.	That just
doesn't sound
like a good idea.  SGII is SGII plus any errata that is made available. 
Jon's
personal interpretations are not part of SGII or errata.  If you're
playing
according to Jon latest interpretations, you are no more playing
"official" SGII
than if you play with your own group's house rules.

> In other words, if you get a bunch of guys together and they can't
make a
> decision, Jon's word is going to take the day.

    That's just silly.	If Jon says that he interprets the rules as
saying that
each activation gives the sqaud THREE actions, that is simply wrong. 
The rules
DON'T say that any more than they limit each squad to two or three
activations per
turn.  Which, by the way, are two different interpretation that Jon has
admitted
to using: one in the past, one presently.

> But as I've said before, if
> your group wants to interpret it otherwise, go for it!

    Yes, we are in complete agreement on this point.  My comments only
relate to
what is meant by "official" SGII.

-Mike

--
Michael Sarno

http://vietnam.isonfire.com
Check out the Charlie Company Discussion Group:
Info, resources, and links for RAFM's miniatures
skirmish wargame of infantry combat in Vietnam 1965-1972

"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and
 arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen
 to be walking about."
 -G.K. Chesterton