+1 Onyx, and thanks for putting it much better than I

Neither FAQ conflicts with the rules. The conflict you reference is based on the statement in the FAQ that an aerospace move is not a ground move, and not based on direct statement from the rules. However, the FAQ is very specific that it is about the determination of what constitutes a move for triggering OW - just for OW. That is not an end-all-be-all pronouncement on what constitutes a movement throughout all the rules. From the FAQ, emphasis added:

If you think it is inconsistent to apply different definitions of what constitutes a "move" to OW versus other transport aircraft situations that's certainly a legitimate complaint, but it's not a conflict with the rules.

As to the inconsistency, the transport aircraft rules don't work. The entire idea of transitioning between entirely different rules for air units versus ground units has never worked. It is never going to work because it's so wonky with respect to the other mechanics. The applicable FAQs are not an attempt at making the rules airtight legalese. They are an attempt to make things work smoothly in play.

The FAQs are both part of the SG-endorsed 2008 FAQs and Errata. Some of the FAQs/Errata should probably have been noted as changes rather than clarifications or corrections, and there were still some errors (skimmer popups ... *shudder*), but neither of these are errors. They've been around and unchanged since the days when Pixelgeek and Jervis were collaborating on the FAQs.

As far as I remember, the rules don't say that barging requires a ground move, or even a move greater than 0cm. You seem to be inferring such a limitation, and using it as the basis of your assertion that aircraft can't barge. The way I read it, all war engines can barge when they assault.

But aside from this, I can't see why you would want to insist on applying the rules in this way. It makes perfect sense for WE (i.e. big) aircraft to be able to barge just as ground WEs can, and everybody else seems to interpret it that way. Even if the rules did support your interpretation and you're the only one to spot it (and be assured that it is just an interpretation, not the incontrovertible fact you are portraying it as), why worry about it?

I think generally, you're analysing detailed semantics of what is after all an imperfect collection of rules written by a human being. There are lots of points the rules are not totally clear on, especially where ZoC is concerned, and the rules are written without the benefit of hindsight. Extrapolating to the level you have done in every rule would doubtless result in many direct contradictions in the rules themselves, let alone the FAQs. Sometimes you just have to go with the intentions of the rules (if it is possible to tell), and/or go with the majority interpretation.

For example, I seemingly read the first strike rules differently to most with respect to a specific detail, but I still play it the way everybody else does.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list