FFG's bad Armada FAQ model

FFG produces great games.  I was never a miniature gamer until a colleague at work got me into X-Wing. It was soon after that that Armada took my interest away.  I love the tactical choices the game presents, and the wonderfully intuitive system makes the game easy to pick up and go. However, like most FFG games Armada has a lot of complexity in how different upgrades and abilities interact.  The FAQ model they follow should be good enough in theory.  It allows the designers to weigh in on and explain several interactions that are tricky, and it codifies them for all tournament purposes.

The issue arises though, that the folks at FFG don't publish an FAQ very often.  Or at least, not in a suitable timetable.  Let's take the prior wave, where we had Rapid Launch Bays sitting in limbo.  The card was poorly worded, so there was a great debate as to whether or not squadrons that were launched were activated, or if they were actually forced to sit idly by.  It took nearly 6 months for this question to get answered.  This update was followed by a small quick update to errata several cards.  However,it failed to give any answers for two new interactions in this set.  The Marshal for GenCon posted a now infamous thread about how he was going to rule how Admiral Sloane's ability interacted with squadrons, and how Task Force Antilles would stop damage.  Once you got past the initial reaction of lists being somewhat neutered. the real outcry about these rulings stemmed from the fact that it was not an official FFG ruling.  The Marshall had come to this conclusion by talking to play testers and other folks who concluded that they should work this way.  This process produces poor outcomes for a pair of reasons.  The first, is the possibility for nefarious action.  Marshalls and TOs making rulings on cards  by interpretation leaves the opportunity for them to do so in a way that could favor certain players.  As the prize support for Armada grows in value (ie $200 plus dollars for tournament dice), the risk of this happening grows as well.  Secondly, it creates a wildly different play environment at possibly every tournament.  A TO at this tournament supports RAI, while the one at the shop down the street supports RAW.  It creates a position where players cannot build effective lists, and the game will suffer for it.  Why go to a tournament not knowing if your list will be legal and effective?

FFG should amend their FAQ process in a couple of ways to help ease this pressure.  The first way would be to have a full spoiler preview a month and a half or more before the release.  This would give the player base more than enough time to concoct questions and issues with the upgrades known.  The next would be to shift the timing of FAQs.  FFG typically has two release a year, at which point a small update to the FAQ should happen that has an explanation of how each upgrade works.  ROughly halfway between these releases should be another FAQ update that serves as a general update and can make proper modifications to the last wave.  This type of schedule would allow lots of opportunity to tweak rulings and would keep the player base happier.