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

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:01:24 -0500, Michael Sarno <msarno@ptdprolog.net>
wrote:

>    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.  

I will have a copy of the e-mail printed off. If I'm refereeing, I'll
just
say, "Jon says so." That's good enough. Most people will take a ref's
ruling
anyway. And if I'm playing in another guy's game, I'll say, "Jon says
this."
If he disagrees, I'll go with his ruling as he's the ref. If I'm playing
someone else without a ref, the e-mail should help decide the issue.

>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.  

I just read his interpretation e-mail, which I've kept. That's not what
he
says. He says what the initial interpretation was (which is the same as
how I
interpreted it). The only part that he interprets "completely
differently" now
was in regard to transferring actions when there is more than one level
of
command involved. And that was always very unclear in the rules anyway.

>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.  

Well, you see I disagree with you right here. Jon's interpretations ARE
part
of the errata. Jon wasn't clear with the rule. The rule can be read in
one of
a number of ways. This causes arguments. So, Jon is telling us how he
MEANT to
say it. In essence, he is giving us the corrected wording for the rule.
This
is the same as if there was a typo and the rule was wrong or unclear
because
of that. 

>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.

You see, I don't understand this. What is "official" SG2? The rules, as
written? But if that's the case, what do you do with rules that are
vague? For
the rules to be "official", everyone should be interpretting vague rules
the
same way. Especially one so critical as the action transfer rules.

Jon wrote the rules. He was vague on a couple of them. He's now saying,
"This
is what I meant to say." In the case where you have to take one of two
ways of
looking at a rule, Jon's way is the right way.

>    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.	

Well, first off, Jon's rules are very CLEAR as to how many actions a
squad
gets. It's stated in black and white. It's EXPLICIT. Jon is NOT clear in
how
many activations a squad can receive. It is open to interpretation. By
definition, it means that it is NOT explicit. It can be interpreted; you
can
read the rule more than one way due to the way it is worded. As written,
you
can interpret the rule one of two (or more) ways.

We've discussed this. I took the rule to mean one thing, you took it
another.
The rule can ONLY be played one way, so which way is right? You seem to
imply,
in all your posts, that your way is right when Jon has said it isn't.

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

Well, "official" SG2 is what Jon said it is. He wrote it.

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@interlog.com
Goodall's Grotto: http://www.interlog.com/~agoodall/

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"