Yes – I expect rule support where needed. I come from a boardgame background where both real and perceived errata has often been a problem.
It really needs three things, a designer to / developer to be available and open to answering questions, designers to work hard at trying to clear up all ambiguity before publication and gamers to read the rules properly before asking a question. If that balance can be achieved, I think things work out about right.
There are time when I have been put off from buying a boardgame after visiting the games Q&A page, sometimes you can go through that Q&A and realise that half of it shouldn’t be there anyway, because the point is explained in the rules.
I generally find figure game rules to have less errata, perhaps the beta versions pass through more hands and get better playtesting.
For prolific designers, being available for questions must be a pain for their older designs, as the game was probably 3 games ago and they are now neck deep on a new design, so designers can find themselves in the position of not knowing the answer to a question without digging out the rules and getting ‘into’ the system again.
For tournament games, official errata is more important, local decision making at a critical point is unlikely to go down well in such a competitive environment.
The internet has made things pretty instant and so expectations of an instant reply to things have become the norm. Pre-internet, for the American imported boardgames, one had to write down the question in a way that could get a YES / NO reply, send the letter to the States and wait 3 months for an answer to be turned around, by which time you had moved on to the next shiny thing ……. that did at least encourage one to at least try and work it out yourself before reaching for the pen and you might start to avoid buying from a company with a reputation for frequent / unnecessary errata.