Actually, this is one of the things that frustrates me to no end about some of FFG's games in general, and Descent (First and Second edition) in specific.

I have often thought that the biggest draw back to these games is (and please note that this is just my OPINION) the PERCEIVED lack of:

1) Play testing - not just the base game, but all interactions between expansions, new classes, new skill cards, new shop items, etc.

Keep in mind that very few companies make games to the same scale as FFG, which are often both heavy in theme and rules. If you look at the big picture, FFG is actually pretty good about handling a lot of eventualities, but you have to pay close attention to the wording of their rules. (Hence why so many questions can be answered on forums by people who do). Unfortunately the scope of their games just leads to not being able to catch everything.

Yeah, they get some things wrong and have situations that do occur that are weird or ambiguous, but I think it's much more about the scope of the games being difficult to catch everything than them not trying.

2) Defining key words - several of my group feel very strongly that FFG would benefit IMMENSELY if they would simply create an appendix to their rules which contained a section of Key Definitions of Terms. For example, in Descent First Edition, there was a debate that existed for about the first three years of the game as to what constituted an "empty" space. Eventually, and official FAQ ruling came down, but this could have been avoided by just defining the term up front.

QFT

"... but you have to pay close attention to the wording of their rules ..."

This right here is part of the problem, but perhaps it is more of a problem for the players (us) than the creators (FFG). I can't begin to tell you the number of threads (oh wait ... you participate as much as I, so I am sure you know) that have on-going discussions as to:

the literal meaning of the rules vs the thematic intention vs etc.

Some players take this as far as to interpret some of the fluff as being part of the rules. I really don't like having to guess the intention of any rule; I want it spelled out. Unfortunately, FFG often tends to fail in this regard. That is one of the main reasons for my point #2 above (an appendix of Key Definitions of Terms). I think it would prevent much of the silliness that occurs in some of the threads. I know it would allow text on cards to be better received as with this appendix, you would have all of the room you need to be explicit, where the cards themselves could be brief.

And boy oh boy can people get heated if they feel their "interpretation" is under attack; too much defensiveness in these forums. Again, something that could be addressed by better written rules.

It's funny ... several years ago FFG actually posted a News bulletin advertising for a new Technical Writer position. It was refreshing to see, but I don't think, given the release of content after that point in time, that it had much impact.

Please don't misunderstand. I absolutely lover FFG's games; I just wish their rules, text on cards, etc. were better written.

I haven't found many companies that produce games of the level of detail and complexity that FFG does that makes their rules much clearer. That doesn't mean they aren't there, but making rules is hard, even with a technical writer.