The title say it all, how do You think when will we see a new FAQ?

who knows ?

the sooner, the better !

I don't think I've ever seen FFG staff respond in these forums (which makes you wonder why they exist) so the question is probably pointless to ask.

they never answer, but I'm almost sure they look at least

And why are you almost sure of that?

I'm am, but I won't say how I know it.

If you look at when the last FAQs were published, I think it makes sense that they're waiting some period of time after the release of the Nerekhall (and possibly Hero and Monster) expansion, to get a sense of the new questions pertaining to new classes, monsters, and quests. Once they have those, they'll likely update the FAQ and add a Nerekhall section.

well today came one http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4836

well today came one http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4836

That's great that a new FAQ is up. It looks like some of the questions recently discussed on these forums made it in.

I'm a bit confused by the section dealing with the conjurer's "mirror image" skill, though- what the card "should" say seems to be exactly what it said previously.

Page 10, “The Masquerade Ball,” Victory: Add, “If the heroes did not rescue at least 1 guest, they did not rescue Lord Theodir.”

That was about time. I lost this **** encounter earlier because my heroes rolled a blank on the dice although they hadn't saved any single guest. Like: mission failed but Theodir wasn't having fun at the Ball after all, and was waiting outside for the heroes all along. People were really adamant on the fact a blank roll meant the encounter was won regardless, which kind of upsets me now as I've always thought it made no sense. Ah well, Theodir, you cheaty bastard.

Concerning Overlord cards: Dark Charm

A bit of a shame, especially since we know FGG is keeping an eye on these forums. They could have waited a bit more and included this one as it feels like one of the most problematic situations. Also, the following isn't making this discussion any better:

Q: If a hero is under the effects of “Dark Host,” can the overlord play “Dash” or “Frenzy” on him?”

A: No. “Dash” and “Frenzy” are played when the overlord is activating a monster. Though the overlord receives a move and attack action with the hero affected by “Dark Host,” it is not considered to be an activation.

... which indirectly enforces the concept of "activation" as being a specific moment in time (when you pick your monster basically before executing its actions), which conflicts with the idea of an activation covering the whole time while a monster is performing its turn (as per discussion about Dash and Frenzy in the other thread). Semantics seem to matter.

Q: If a hero is under the effects of “Dark Host,” can the overlord play “Dash” or “Frenzy” on him?”

A: No. “Dash” and “Frenzy” are played when the overlord is activating a monster. Though the overlord receives a move and attack action with the hero affected by “Dark Host,” it is not considered to be an activation.

... which indirectly enforces the concept of "activation" as being a specific moment in time (when you pick your monster basically before executing its actions), which conflicts with the idea of an activation covering the whole time while a monster is performing its turn (as per discussion about Dash and Frenzy in the other thread). Semantics seem to matter.

I don't think this confuses the issue- the point is that "Dark Host" and "Dark Charm" are special events- "special" activations that are distinct from normal monster activation. As such, cards like "Frenzy" and "Dash" cannot be used to add extra actions- they are limited to the actions alowed by the original OL card, and no others.

Think of it like the Necromancer's skill which allows him to perform an attack with his reanimate- this is not the reanimate's activation, it's just an action allowed by a card.

I don't think I've ever seen FFG staff respond in these forums (which makes you wonder why they exist)

The purpose of the forums is not to provide a direct contact point with FFG staff. That's what the Rules Questions and Contact pages are for. The purpose of the forums is to provide a community for their products. So we can all get together and talk about how much we like their products (or hate, as the case may be.)

As for whether or not FFG reads these forums, they most certainly do. They don't reply directly because it would be far too easy for them to get embroiled in our little back and forth debates. The problem with that being that anything said by a known FFG employee would probably be taken as the official standpoint of the company.

"The official ruling is X because Bob from FFG said he liked that interpretation!"

Maybe Bob is an intern who just started last week, and the person in charge of writing official errata for this game has a reason to disagree with Bob's interpretation. Seriously, particularly with Descent, there's already significant debate about whether or not FFG's replies to questions submitted in the Rules Questions link should be considered "official rulings," and most of those answers are coming from one or two specific employees. Can you imagine if there were 5 or 10 FFG employees weighing in on the forums directly? Possibly disagreeing with one another right in front of us? Or changing their minds as new corner cases are brought into the discussion?

Indeed Steve-O, it would be anarchy. However, when I get a rules response from someone at FFG, usually it's the current developer, I tend to post it in these forums (especially if the thread is about the rule in question) because I think it's helpful for other people to have opinions- whether they're considered official or not- right from the horse's mouth. As far as I'm concerned, anyone whose job it is to be developing content for a game has a better understanding of its inner workings than me. If he makes a ruling, it's good enough for me to consider "official." If it's not in a published FAQ others can of course choose to ignore it, but that's even true of things that have been posted in the FAQ- the option remains to house rule.

I have always assumed that FFG has a couple of "fake" user profiles on their forums.

That way they can pose as regular gamers.

That way they can quickly "answer" difficult grey area rules questions and then later publish an altered official answer in their FAQ when they have had time to think more about the question.

They would also be able to steer troublesome angry conversations in a more diplomatic and friendly direction without needing a moderator to interfere and make the tone serious.

I have always assumed that FFG has a couple of "fake" user profiles on their forums.

That way they can pose as regular gamers.

That way they can quickly "answer" difficult grey area rules questions and then later publish an altered official answer in their FAQ when they have had time to think more about the question.

They would also be able to steer troublesome angry conversations in a more diplomatic and friendly direction without needing a moderator to interfere and make the tone serious.

That would probably be more effort than it is worth.

I have always assumed that FFG has a couple of "fake" user profiles on their forums.

That way they can pose as regular gamers.

That way they can quickly "answer" difficult grey area rules questions and then later publish an altered official answer in their FAQ when they have had time to think more about the question.

They would also be able to steer troublesome angry conversations in a more diplomatic and friendly direction without needing a moderator to interfere and make the tone serious.

That would probably be more effort than it is worth.

That's just what an FFG spy would say.

Seriously, though, on topic: am I missing something, or is the section about the conjurer's "Mirror Image" skill in the FAQ looking like a misprint?

Are you talking about the errata for it? From what I can tell, the main change is that the FAQ adds "during your turn", probably because of some players trying to use it during another Hero's turn, or the Overlord's turn (as there are some skills which do allow for that, largely out of necessity).

So it doesn't seem like a misprint to me, it seems like a clarification to close that particular loophole.

TEXT PRINTED ON CARD

Use this card and suffer (fatigue) equal to the number of image tokens on the map.

NEW TEXT FROM FAQ

Use this card during your turn and suffer (fatigue) equal to the number of image tokens on the map.

Are you talking about the errata for it? From what I can tell, the main change is that the FAQ adds "during your turn", probably because of some players trying to use it during another Hero's turn, or the Overlord's turn (as there are some skills which do allow for that, largely out of necessity).

So it doesn't seem like a misprint to me, it seems like a clarification to close that particular loophole.

TEXT PRINTED ON CARD

Use this card and suffer (fatigue) equal to the number of image tokens on the map.

NEW TEXT FROM FAQ

Use this card during your turn and suffer (fatigue) equal to the number of image tokens on the map.

Thanks, Sigma- I did indeed miss that text. Very important, thanks!

I have always assumed that FFG has a couple of "fake" user profiles on their forums.

That way they can pose as regular gamers.

That way they can quickly "answer" difficult grey area rules questions and then later publish an altered official answer in their FAQ when they have had time to think more about the question.

They would also be able to steer troublesome angry conversations in a more diplomatic and friendly direction without needing a moderator to interfere and make the tone serious.

That would probably be more effort than it is worth.

That's just what an FFG spy would say.

Seriously, though, on topic: am I missing something, or is the section about the conjurer's "Mirror Image" skill in the FAQ looking like a misprint?

Being a FFG spy sounds like a fun career. I want in! HIRE ME FFG.

The flag flaps when it's windy!

As far as I'm concerned, anyone whose job it is to be developing content for a game has a better understanding of its inner workings than me. If he makes a ruling, it's good enough for me to consider "official."

Indeed, and I agree completely myself. I'm perfectly happy to take these replies as official rulings until and unless contradicted in something MORE official, like a published FAQ.

My point was simply that this is why they don't post openly in our conversations here. (Also, if something a known employee said got taken out of context, it could quickly turn into a huge PR nightmare.)

Is that what you are looking for?

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/descent-second-ed/support/faq/may-2014/Descent%20Second%20Edition%20FAQ_v1.3.pdf

Looks like it slipped in under cover of the night...

It didn't exactly slip in, there was an announcement on their news feed about it

I don't think I've ever seen FFG staff respond in these forums (which makes you wonder why they exist)

The purpose of the forums is not to provide a direct contact point with FFG staff. That's what the Rules Questions and Contact pages are for. The purpose of the forums is to provide a community for their products. So we can all get together and talk about how much we like their products (or hate, as the case may be.)

As for whether or not FFG reads these forums, they most certainly do. They don't reply directly because it would be far too easy for them to get embroiled in our little back and forth debates. The problem with that being that anything said by a known FFG employee would probably be taken as the official standpoint of the company.

"The official ruling is X because Bob from FFG said he liked that interpretation!"

Maybe Bob is an intern who just started last week, and the person in charge of writing official errata for this game has a reason to disagree with Bob's interpretation. Seriously, particularly with Descent, there's already significant debate about whether or not FFG's replies to questions submitted in the Rules Questions link should be considered "official rulings," and most of those answers are coming from one or two specific employees. Can you imagine if there were 5 or 10 FFG employees weighing in on the forums directly? Possibly disagreeing with one another right in front of us? Or changing their minds as new corner cases are brought into the discussion?

Somehow, virtually every company making computer games - and a large number of companies making board games - do exactly that, and somehow their worlds don't come crashing down around their ears. The problems you're talking about have phenomenally simple solutions - straightforward, well-thought out and well-publicized policies, as well as a small amount of training for the people who post.

This is not some weird new idea people are proposing. This is something game companies have been doing, and doing well, for the last decade.

It is a little weird that FFG only communicates to their community through press releases and specific email answers. It comes across as kinda stand-offish and aloof in the age of forums and twitter where almost every creator talks to their fans directly. I know FFG has forum moderators but I think their only responsibilities are to remove inflammatory or derogatory messages. That's not community building, that's company liability and PR.

I think there is a break down between FFG and it's customers. Somebody should be reading the forums and showing those issues to the game designers. Instead it seems like problems are only getting communicated when somebody uses the email form. Nobody from FFG seems to be interested in actively fostering a community of their fans, which requires direct communication and not product teasers. If I can't communicate with the company on their own forum it really does make the company forums useless. There are already much better and long standing sites for finding like minded gamers.