Surely it means it was considered integrated into 2nd edition, and if not in fact so then it still has status.
Uh, no. If it was considered and
not incorporated then it has
no status. That's explicitly how MMP explained it to us back when 2nd ed. was originally released. (I'm fairly sure Perry said as much in print in his "First do no harm" article.)
If what you say was true, Aaron, then
no old Q&A have been overturned and they
all still apply, even the ones that contradict the written text. Is that really how you want to play? Also, do you still want to play by the
Official Q&A that stated that a random selection DR (if you're selecting between two units) is a DR that can trigger the enemy sniper? Sadly, the Q&A did not elaborate on whether a 3-or-more-dice roll could trigger the sniper or not.
This is how a conventional legal model works.
If you say so. What does that have to do with how the ASL rules work? I'm pretty sure that they carry no legal standing in any jurisdiction (of course, I'm not a lawyer ...).
I knew the Malmstrom disclaimer about that Q&A but still, given the relative lack of material on this issue, i considered that such Q&A, however weakly grounded it might be from your perspective, was still better than nothing
The point is that it
isn't "better than nothing". It's
exactly "nothing". It doesn't exist. Pay no attention to it. Pay attention to what the
current rules
actually say. I refer you to the official Q&A that I mention above. It's a real thing. It exists ... in 1st edition. (No-one ever paid any attention to it, of course, but no-one from TAHGC or MMP ever officially stated that it was NA, either.) It does not exist in 2nd ed., exactly and precisely because MMP stated that
all (no exceptions*) prior Q&A were rendered irrelevant by the printing of 2nd ed. If you can't find a 1st ed. ruling in 2nd ed, rules, then it's because it was ignored/overturned/made irrelevant. You can't make judgements about the current rules by considering things that don't have any value whatsoever!
I find it fascinating that Bruce coming from a country with a common law tradition is essentially arguing a civil law line
Bruce is doing nothing of the sort. Bruce is restating the MMP position on how old Q&A apply to the 2nd ed. rules. It's a statement of fact, not an argument.
* Actually there's
one exception, which really does need to be inserted back into the rules as errata (it's the one that said a Leader can direct a FT attack to prevent cowering, even though the Leadership DRM cannot apply).