I submitted this to FFG moments ago:

Good afternoon FFG team,
This question/concern has to do with the quality and maintenance of the FAQ for Descent 2nd Edition. There currently is a thread on the community page where certain members are expressing frustration with the quality and maintenance of Descent's FAQ vs. X-Wing's.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/199959-errata-16/
It's not healthy for the community when customers are expressing their frustrations like this.

In X-Wing's you'll find many questions answered concerning specific situations and questions answered from FFG to its customers.

X-Wing's FAQ is 16 pages currently. Descent's is 10, but many of the FAQ questions FFG have answered are not added to the FAQ.

Descent's fans have compiled a list of submitted questions and maintaining them on a 3rd party site. This doesn't make the answers official. Can we have the FAQ updated to reflect what the community has gathered below? I'm confident FFG has record of every question submitted since the inception of the game.

https://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Descent_Second_Edition_Unofficial_FAQ

Thank you,
-Cursain

(Currently the owner of every Descent 2nd Edition item for sale)

So ... I am pretty much the most vociferous when it comes to my disappointment for support for the game of Descent ... and it is probably by a long shot ...

Still, I agree very much with the post #25 (Zaltyre) and #26 (Cursain) above.

I definitely want this conversation to be constructive, and not a specific attack on any individual at FFG, including those that have made investments of their time over the past few years to give us what we currently have. In addition, I do like the effort that Cursain has gone through to communicate directly with FFG, and point them to this thread. Hopefully this leads to good things happening.

To address Zaltyre's post/points directly, I am going to start of list of changes I would love to see to the FAQ. There is no way that this is going to be a complete list, not only because it is only my viewpoints, but because my memory is failing, and I am sure that I won't remember everything. Also, note that the list provided is in no particular order, just as I remember my thoughts. Nonetheless, here is a start:

1. Redo / reorganize the entire FAQ. Move away from questions by expansion, and group them into categories. Something along those lines can be found at the BBG FFG Sez and/or Unofficial FAQ threads. I am not saying this is the perfect approach either, but it is a start of what I am thinking about. Essentially, it should be far easier for me to quickly find that for which I am looking.
2. Fully flesh out the FAQ with all questions and answers that have been generated since the game began, focusing especially on those that have been asked repeatedly, as well as those that fundamentally alter the way the game is played, those that affect the mechanics of the game (playing correctly), etc. This includes all expansions (big and small box), the co-ops, the books, the LT packs, the H&M packs, etc.
3. If cards have been changed/errata'd then post a picture of the original card, and the new updated text (similar to those that exist within the X-Wing FAQ). This includes all cards. Hero cards, OL cards, skill cards, plot cards, shop item cards, etc.
4. Provide a clear delineation of what rules take precedence/priority over others in the absence of any formal rule. Something along the lines of: "By any means" > Quest Special Rules > Card Text > Skills/Other Abilities > Expansion Rule Books > Base Game Rule Book. Obviously make it what it should be (although this is probably very close). And make it clear and definitive.
5. Create a section that defines all key words in the game, and their impact and interactions. An excellent start to this can be found in Zaltyre's Glossary of Terms (what I frequently refer to as Key Definitions of Terms). You can also leverage a similar approach that exists in your Star Wars Imperial Assault Rules Reference Guide.
6. Provide a complete, cross-referenced Index for the FAQ.
7. Where possible, provide clear, concise, visual pictures of examples. For example, a definitive picture of all movement options, what is and is not possible, including LOS would be great. Once again, you can find an excellent start on this in Zaltyre's Glossary of Terms. Along these lines, also clear up all rules as to what is and is not blocked (for example, those lovely little black borders that extend into squares when you connect tiles).
8. Be consistent with your use of terms through all of the rules, the FAQ, the card text, etc. If you use a particular phrasing to mean something, then when that "definition" is required on another card, etc. re-use the same phrase. Do not make up something new that is close, but could easily be re-interpreted. Use the FAQ to formally fix these issues across the game.

I am sure that there are other things that need to be added. I just don't know what they are right now. I will probably come back and edit this post as I think of them. But it is a start. I encourage others to create/add their own. For if we do get traction of this, we would like to make the FAQ the best it can possible be.

And above all else : Know that while I may be frustrated, and "voice" those concerns "loudly" in this forum, I am also immensely appreciative for the existence of the game, and for the efforts that FFG personnel have made to date. This includes specifically the efforts of Nathan and Kara of whom I am most aware.

While I agree with a lot of the sediments stated here, we should consider a lot of what FFG has to do is business related. While I think their descent IP has some significant value, star wars is much more known and it makes sense for them to spend more resources on that. We as the community only have limited way to affect how FFG handles it. Sadly I am not retired like any2cards and still have to work full time so I cannot do nearly as much. Its very likely most of the community is the same way.

While it not a totally accurate way to gauge popularity Look at thread counts for the different products and consider the release date

Descent released 2012

2,572 topics

24,392 replies

2,654 topics

25,965 replies

X-Wing 2012

32,439 topics

577,298 replies

Xwing and descent where release about the same time and xwing has over 10x the threads and 20x the replies

IA has been out for about 1/3 of the time of descent and already has a higher thread and reply count.

While I do give my share of support to FFG on descent as probably everyone in this thread likely does its probably not enough. I really do think FFG cares about how it customers view its products but at the end of the day they will make a business decision and it seems they are leading towards other IP. While I do not like their decision, looking at these numbers I feel confident in saying they are making the correct decision.

"Where possible, provide clear, concise, visual pictures of examples. For example, a definitive picture of all movement options, what is and is not possible, including LOS would be great. Once again, you can find an excellent start on this in Zaltyre's Glossary of Terms. Along these lines, also clear up all rules as to what is and is not blocked (for example, those lovely little black borders that extend into squares when you connect tiles)".

Actually I'd like something like this Any2cards mentioned to reffer when dealing with adjacency, space counting, LoS and move out the map/put in the map. Mainly confronting what is stated in the core rules and the errata'ed part, where the famous black edge of the map appear and their common corner for the purposes of adjacency/tracing LoS/square counting. Even with the chart made by Zaltyre, I am not 100% sure with some situations exposed there.

While I agree with a lot of the sediments stated here, we should consider a lot of what FFG has to do is business related. While I think their descent IP has some significant value, star wars is much more known and it makes sense for them to spend more resources on that. We as the community only have limited way to affect how FFG handles it. Sadly I am not retired like any2cards and still have to work full time so I cannot do nearly as much. Its very likely most of the community is the same way.

While it not a totally accurate way to gauge popularity Look at thread counts for the different products and consider the release date

Descent released 2012

2,572 topics

24,392 replies

Star Wars: Imperial Assault 2014

2,654 topics

25,965 replies

X-Wing 2012

32,439 topics

577,298 replies

Xwing and descent where release about the same time and xwing has over 10x the threads and 20x the replies

IA has been out for about 1/3 of the time of descent and already has a higher thread and reply count.

While I do give my share of support to FFG on descent as probably everyone in this thread likely does its probably not enough. I really do think FFG cares about how it customers view its products but at the end of the day they will make a business decision and it seems they are leading towards other IP. While I do not like their decision, looking at these numbers I feel confident in saying they are making the correct decision.

This is where I get tired of marketing driving every freaken business.

If you invent a game, and you own the IP on it, make it better so it gains popularity. It's FFG's baby, not some borrowed story line. FFG's staff should be excited about their IP and try to create more history and use existing components like Heirs of Blood does.

I can't stand Star Wars, especially after episode 7's rehash of episode 4 with a Mary Sue for the main character.

This is where I get tired of marketing driving every freaken business.

If you invent a game, and you own the IP on it, make it better so it gains popularity. It's FFG's baby, not some borrowed story line. FFG's staff should be excited about their IP and try to create more history and use existing components like Heirs of Blood does.

I can't stand Star Wars, especially after episode 7's rehash of episode 4 with a Mary Sue for the main character.

I think you are very correct. They own the IP rather than paying someone else to use theirs. No idea what the licensing deal with Disney is but I imagine it is possible to lose it and if I was running FFG I would want to put a lot of effort into marketing in house IP as that is not able to be taken away.

However, I am just an engineer and have never ran a successful business so I will refrain from being critical. While I do have some issues with FFG, overall I think they make rather good products and support them with my business. Of course as fans of the decent line we should point out ways that can do better so that they get more of our $. Win/Win all the way around.

I´m also very grateful this game exists and I´m not implying in any way that the persons dedicating time on this product (whether they´re FFGs or external) are bad persons or anything.

Descent needs a quality FAQ/errata document. The present FAQ is vastly incomplete and very hard to use. I want a complete document indexed in a clever way and I don't care if it's 50 pages long as long as it's the only document I need to refer to. We have seen examples of FAQs for other games from FFG that look concise, extensive, and have a great look & feel. It's a pleasure for both eye and mind having to refer to such document. I think Descent deserves the same treatment.

On top of that I would like to get reprinted cards/booklets with errata:ed information. Stating the new text on the FAQ is a mistake in my opinion.

Now we´ll clearly agree that FFG does have the assets to make such thing come true. We´ve seen it before. But if they cannot commit to that level of quality due to various marketing reasons then they cannot expect the community to be satisfied with a bad product being released, which -mind you- had been expected for many many months now. If FFG cares about the D2E community (which I assume they do) then they should communicate their vision regarding this game and let us know when major improvements have been made to the franchise. If FFG think this 1.6 FAQ is extensive then they clearly have no idea about the demand. The people behind the game are without any doubt clever people, so somebody explain to me why these people let things like these go to the customer base. Bearing in mind the general concern about the franchise, the known lack of rules information for a very long time, etc. So no, there is no excuse.

My message to FFG is that I would like this game to get the FAQ it deserves, and for that I would like to suggest a joint initiative from FFG and the community to put up the ultimate FAQ for this game. From there FFG can carry on release new products on solid grounds. The Runebound releases will still instill fuel into Descent so I don't think the game is dead at all even in that Star Wars golden age. Also please consider selling the updated quest guides and cards so we can get hold of the most recent information. I would be very grateful if FFG showed some interest into that initiative.

I wholeheartedly agree with a lot what was said in this thread. It would be nice if FFG increased the effort for their own products to a level on par with "Star Wars" labelled games.

But just to give you a different perspective: Localized versions of Descent don´t even get an officially translated FAQ. And top of that, there are also translation errors and other misprintings in the game.

I know that this has nothing to do with FFG, but the situation here is even worse. Anything that is done for the game is 100% community effort, not unlike what some of the people are doing over here.

It saddens me, that the support for Descent is on such a low level, even though it´s obvious, that more effort is directed towards other games. More complex games, like Descent, require and deserve a better treatment.

I wish you the best of luck in reaching out to FFG to get better support.

Against all odds, a lone hero stands proud and shout: "YES! I'll do it". For the people, for world!

just kidding

But now, seriously, I agree with everything you guys are 'voicing'. That's why I put a hold on descent for a while, concentrating in my own board game. Besides, I´ll hardly play all the quests, I´d raterh pick the ideas and materials and convert them with my own rules. You know, 'my house, my rules' stuff.

I saw FFG NathanH logged on to these forums for a few mins today and was reading this topic (according to the "currently" entry on his profile), so there is a good chance these concerns made it through to FFG. It would be interesting to see if there is any reaction from their part.

On top of that I would like to get reprinted cards/booklets with errata:ed information. Stating the new text on the FAQ is a mistake in my opinion.

I agree that the ideal would be to be able to order/purchase completely updated cards, rule books, etc. with all of the applicable rulings applied.

To be fair, however, I can see how this would be a very bad business model, as the expense to create this would far out weigh the value delivered (not to us, but to FFG). You would have to create and maintain something that would have a limited resale value, but whose expense to maintain would be very large. Perhaps a better approach would be to simply change everything when you reprint the actual box expansion ... the problem with this approach, however, is that it is "inline" and you never know what you are going to get, if such a thing has been put out, which box it is in, etc.

This is the same reason that they don't even do it for something like X-Wing.

For that reason, baring our ultimate solution, I advocate for putting the errata'd text along side original text within an FAQ (much like they have done for X-Wing). At least that way, I have ONE AND ONLY ONE place that I have to look for the latest and greatest approved rules.

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but FFG already does update the new printings of the game with the current erratae. For example, my copy of the game (labeled on the barcode as being printed Oct 2013) has the new reinforce and blood lust cards, new quest rules (such as for Castle Daerion and Man Who Would Be King.) This is already a thing they have been doing for us.

I know this has been discussed elsewhere, but FFG already does update the new printings of the game with the current erratae. For example, my copy of the game (labeled on the barcode as being printed Oct 2013) has the new reinforce and blood lust cards, new quest rules (such as for Castle Daerion and Man Who Would Be King.) This is already a thing they have been doing for us.

I was aware of this ... and this is what I tried to make clear in my response above ... I really don't like this approach, as you can't be sure exactly what it is you are buying ... i.e. which changes/corrections exist in what box dated/bar coded release.

The ideal would be to simply be able to buy separately updated rule books, cards, etc. At least there, you would know exactly what you are getting. I do, however, understand why this is not done from a business perspective.

One last point ... after spending literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars on FFG games, the last thing I want to have to do is pay the full price for the full game, just to be able to replace several cards and a rule book.

I think a good way to handle the product lifecycle would be a) a well maintained FAQ (as outlined above) and b) an update kit, which is released after a product has reached it´s end of life for a resonable price.

This kit should contain at least all cards of the base game and all expansions which have ever been changed at one point.

Ideally other changed components would also be included. Of course it wouldn´t be reasonable to reprint a whole manual just to change one sentence in one quest, but things like the base game rulebook, which has so many overhauled rulings (pits, golden rule just to name a few) should definitely be contained.

Of course this kind of product will not generate measurable profit for FFG, but I´m sure many customers, especially the real fans, will appreciated such a level of service. And customers who buy such a product are pretty sure to return for the next edition of the game.

Judging what you guys are saying, seems like a board game is similar to a new console system. I waited a while to buy a ps3, to avoid the flaws common to the releases and thanks God I bought Descent 2nd edition less than 1 year ago.

Over the years, we've seen several stupendous errors on the part of FFG with regard to products released, mainly. (I'm thinking of such examples as the Descent Quest Compendium, Sea of Blood and Mansions of Madness in particular.) All the while, for the most part, the FFG customer/fan base remains loyal, patient and understanding. From a purely ethical standpoint, you would hope to see some reciprocation on the part of the company. I understand that "corporations aren't people", or whatever, but still, aren't there actual human beings at the top of the FFG management hierarchy who are taking notice of what is happening here?

The offer made by Any2Cards to provide assistance as a liason between the community and FFG in upgrading and maintaining a FAQ on a par with X-Wing is breathtakingly dedicated, impressive and touching. It will indeed be interesting to see the FFG reaction to that! I remember the days when Kevin Wilson (Descent 1.0 designer) would actually come on the forums and answer customer's questions directly. Those were the days. Whatever became of Kevin?

This doesn't address the FAQ issue directly, but for me, the new standard for rules organization is embodied in the Rules Reference Guide that comes with Star Wars: Imperial Assault. This model for a tool seems to have been developed soon after the release of Descent 2.0 (unfortunately for Descent fans). I wonder if it would be possible for FFG to assign a key operative to the development of such a tool for Descent 2.0.. And then release it as a downloadable PDF (and just put a hard copy in the box with all new releases going forward). I guess that's my answer to what I'd like to see FFG come up with as a response to the ongoing Descent FAQ problem.

On top of that I would like to get reprinted cards/booklets with errata:ed information. Stating the new text on the FAQ is a mistake in my opinion.

I agree that the ideal would be to be able to order/purchase completely updated cards, rule books, etc. with all of the applicable rulings applied.

To be fair, however, I can see how this would be a very bad business model, as the expense to create this would far out weigh the value delivered (not to us, but to FFG). You would have to create and maintain something that would have a limited resale value, but whose expense to maintain would be very large. Perhaps a better approach would be to simply change everything when you reprint the actual box expansion ... the problem with this approach, however, is that it is "inline" and you never know what you are going to get, if such a thing has been put out, which box it is in, etc.

This is the same reason that they don't even do it for something like X-Wing.

For that reason, baring our ultimate solution, I advocate for putting the errata'd text along side original text within an FAQ (much like they have done for X-Wing). At least that way, I have ONE AND ONLY ONE place that I have to look for the latest and greatest approved rules.

My 2 cents!

As you say an updated card would be the ideal... but as you also say it's not realistic !

An option done in some localised versions is to have a pdf (or some image of rather good quality) with the cards updated, this in addition to the FAQ where you have the old card with the new text aside.

This allows to print a good card on a paper that you can cut and slide into your sleved cards, above the old one, making the final product "nearly" like a real updated card.

I have already a lot of those and it's impossible by touch (and some times without close watching) to say if it's an original one or with the updated new text.

This as a huge advantage : no need to look in the FAQ!

If you ask me what I would want in the ideal FAQ, this is one thing.. in addition to all those already mentioned above!

Always in the same way, as I tend to have a laminated copy of the quests, and I stick the updated text of the quest on it.

So if the updated texts of the quest could be done in some way similar to the original one and in order to cover exactly the old text so the only way to see the difference is the new paper border it would be great.. this unfortunately we don't have yet with localised versions! :-(

OK sometimes the modifications are so big that it's not easy to do... but would be a great thing nonetheless!! ;-)

Thanks so much for pointing out that the FAQ got updated, appearently I missed a few version updates, because I printed out the document some time ago and thus never had a reason to reopen it again from the FFG website.

To put it shortly, FFG really lost it with Descent. I completely understand if they don't mention an update to the FAQ if they add just a few questions to the FAQ. However in reality this is no FAQ and they don't just reformulate ambigues formulations on their cards (errata).

In reality this is a Balance update, flat out changing gaming components, changing rules, changing map setups and so on and as a Balance update it has to be visible, it has to be posted in the news section and it shouldn't be named FAQ, because it shouldn't be hard to play the game in it's latest, more balanced form if you look out for updates on it.

The change to Thaiden Mistpeak is a huge change and makes this cool hero finally a viable choice. 2 weeks ago a friend of mine mixed the text of the heroic feat with the hero skill and tried to do what the new Thaiden is capable of. After having reread the hero skill, I told him he can only search adjacent search tokens. Now I feel like an idiot for not knowing this, for forbidding what he was allowed to do and for advising him against Thaiden as a hero pick altogether and all despite I visit the FFG page on a nearly daily basis for quite some time now.

Also I really dislike such changes to heroes, because I can't just sleeve these components like the other cards and I shouldn't have to sleeve cards to play this game in a balanced form. How are you guys handling these hero-updates? Throw away the original components or do you write on the cards yourself? It somehow makes me feel bad about getting these products so early in their lifecycle and I guess for the next big FFG games you are getting a better game/better value if you get the games 1 to 2 years after their initial release (updated components).

Here is what I like to see from FFG:

-) First and foremost reflect that this document contains balance adjustments in the name of the document. Wether split it into an FAQ&Errata and a balance adjustment document or call the document "rule updates & adjustments" instead of FAQ.

-) If the rules get updated, it has to be mentioned wether on the News section or on the mini-site of the game.

-) Incorporate the unofficial FAQ of BGG in the FAQ, because as far as I can tell these rulings are from the designers and the FAQ is just unofficial, because it's not published by FFG.

-) With mission objective tokens becoming one of the most frequent ways of giving each quest a distinctive feel, there needs to be a dedicated section for these tokens, likewise there needs to be much more information about figures treated as heroes, because they are as common. There is still no easy official way to find out if the OL gets to draw an OL card if he knocks this figure out (since it is treated as a hero, with the only restriction that it can't attack twice and so on) and since you have to gather all rules from the familiar section (familiar treated as hero is not the same as figure treated as hero as there is a different term there) the whole action thing gets very confusing. So familiars treated as heroes get one move action per turn and any other action their card tells them, which means they can't move twice, while figures treated as heroes get two actions but have restrictions of number of actions they can use per turn as these 2 actions.

-) Release a printer friendly version of this document and release an updated rulebook.

There is still no easy official way to find out if the OL gets to draw an OL card if he knocks this figure out (since it is treated as a hero, with the only restriction that it can't attack twice and so on) and since you have to gather all rules from the familiar section (familiar treated as hero is not the same as figure treated as hero as there is a different term there) the whole action thing gets very confusing. So familiars treated as heroes get one move action per turn and any other action their card tells them, which means they can't move twice, while figures treated as heroes get two actions but have restrictions of number of actions they can use per turn as these 2 actions.

This only touches on one of your points, but regarding things treated as heroes, this was one of the things freshly added to this version of the FAQ/Errata:

There is still no easy official way to find out if the OL gets to draw an OL card if he knocks this figure out (since it is treated as a hero, with the only restriction that it can't attack twice and so on) and since you have to gather all rules from the familiar section (familiar treated as hero is not the same as figure treated as hero as there is a different term there) the whole action thing gets very confusing. So familiars treated as heroes get one move action per turn and any other action their card tells them, which means they can't move twice, while figures treated as heroes get two actions but have restrictions of number of actions they can use per turn as these 2 actions.

This only touches on one of your points, but regarding things treated as heroes, this was one of the things freshly added to this version of the FAQ/Errata:

Q: What abilities affect “figures treated as hero figures?”

A: Hero abilities, monster abilities, monster attacks, and Overlord cards

that can target a hero can also target a figure that is treated as a hero

figure. Figures treated as hero figures may be given conditions and are

affected by terrain. Nothing else affect figures treated as hero figures

unless specifically stated (for example, quest rules and Plot cards).

That is, explicitly and officially now, the same rules that had applied to familiars treated as figures apply to all figures treated as heroes. You cannot draw an OL card for any of these things. You only ever draw an OL card for knocking out a member of the core hero party.

Technically I guess you can still argue about that, because "nothing else" in the last sentence can be interpreted as linked to gameplay effects and conditions, as in something you can inflict upon this figure in the game, whereas drawing an OL card when knocking out a hero can be understood as a result or consequence of an action. If you don't interpret it this way, and see this "nothing else" as "no other rules affect..." then you get into very basic problems, like if these figures do block LoS and so on.

In other words this is only undebateable if " Nothing else affect figures treated as hero figures unless specifically stated " is changed to " Figures treated as heroes follow no other specific rules for heroes unless explicitly stated ".

Technically correct is indeed the best kind of correct. However, I am confident (because I was one of the people who asked this as a rules question and got a response) that the intention is the latter.

Speaking abstractly, there is the set of all things referred to by the word "hero" in Descent. This includes actual heroes (with hero sheets,) allies, familiars treated as figures, and various quest NPCs. Actual (hero sheet) heroes are a subset of this set.

Monster abilities, hero abilities, OL cards, and monster attacks that target heroes are referring to the entire set including "all things called 'heroes.'" Everything else is referring only to the subset "actual heroes" when using the word "hero."

Examples:

Monster ability: Barghest's Howl action - Each hero within 3 spaces of this monster must test Willpower. Each hero that fails suffers 1 Fatigue.

Hero ability: Sydrael's heroic feat - Use during your turn to choose a hero within 3 spaces of you. You and that hero may each immediately perform a move action...

Overlord Card: Word of Misery - Play this card at the start of your turn. During this turn, each time a hero suffers any Heart...

In each of the 3 examples above, the word hero could mean a member of the party, but it could also mean the Ally Serena, or the Necromancer's Reanimate, or Sir Palamon, as all of these figures are treated as heroes.

Plot Card: Burning Ambition's Shifting Earth - Exhaust this card at the start of your turn and choose a space on the map. Each hero within 3 spaces of the chosen space tests...

Quest Rules: Gathering Foretold, Encounter 2: Proof of Conquest - Each time a hero is defeated, the overlord places one hero token belonging to that hero in his play area.

However, in these two examples, the word "hero" only refers to actual members of the core party. The Reanimate does not test, and is not moved by the Plot card "shifting earth" because in the context of that card, he is not a hero. Likewise, the Overlord would not take a hero token for defeating the Reanimate (or Serena, an ally treated as a hero) in Gathering Foretold, as in the context of quest rules, neither of these figures are heroes, either.

Technically correct is indeed the best kind of correct. However, I am confident (because I was one of the people who asked this as a rules question and got a response) that the intention is the latter.

Speaking abstractly, there is the set of all things referred to by the word "hero" in Descent. This includes actual heroes (with hero sheets,) allies, familiars treated as figures, and various quest NPCs. Actual (hero sheet) heroes are a subset of this set.

Monster abilities, hero abilities, OL cards, and monster attacks that target heroes are referring to the entire set including "all things called 'heroes.'" Everything else is referring only to the subset "actual heroes" when using the word "hero."

Examples:

Monster ability: Barghest's Howl action - Each hero within 3 spaces of this monster must test Willpower. Each hero that fails suffers 1 Fatigue.

Hero ability: Sydrael's heroic feat - Use during your turn to choose a hero within 3 spaces of you. You and that hero may each immediately perform a move action...

Overlord Card: Word of Misery - Play this card at the start of your turn. During this turn, each time a hero suffers any Heart...

In each of the 3 examples above, the word hero could mean a member of the party, but it could also mean the Ally Serena, or the Necromancer's Reanimate, or Sir Palamon, as all of these figures are treated as heroes.

Plot Card: Burning Ambition's Shifting Earth - Exhaust this card at the start of your turn and choose a space on the map. Each hero within 3 spaces of the chosen space tests...

Quest Rules: Gathering Foretold, Encounter 2: Proof of Conquest - Each time a hero is defeated, the overlord places one hero token belonging to that hero in his play area.

However, in these two examples, the word "hero" only refers to actual members of the core party. The Reanimate does not test, and is not moved by the Plot card "shifting earth" because in the context of that card, he is not a hero. Likewise, the Overlord would not take a hero token for defeating the Reanimate (or Serena, an ally treated as a hero) in Gathering Foretold, as in the context of quest rules, neither of these figures are heroes, either.

I'm totally with your rule interpretation and I often use "unofficial" rulings by the designers. My point was sololy that for people who only put credit into official rulings (and I guess we all have debated with such people for some time), there is much to be considered and unclear for them, because these problems technically aren't solved by the official FAQ. This is why I really like to see FFG just put the unofficial BGG FAQ from the designers on the FFG page (publish it).

While to some degree I agree with you (there is a lot of valuable information in the unofficial FAQ that could stand to be made official) I also disagree that the unofficial FAQ should just be made canon. There are a few examples of rulings that exist in the unofficial FAQ that either:

a) have been reversed and so are now officially incorrect

or

b) have not yet been reversed, but I am convinced are incorrect.

To me, it's almost more important to not post incorrect rulings as it is to post correct ones. As such, I'd hope (and am confident) FFG would carefully consider what is included in terms of official answers.

Update from FFG sent via email today:

Hey Cursain,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I wanted to let you know that we’re looking into the community’s concerns with the FAQ and are discussing our next steps.

Thanks for your patience,

Kara Centell-Dunk

Game Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

Update email from FFG sent via email today:

Hey Cursain,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I wanted to let you know that we’re looking into the community’s concerns with the FAQ and are discussing our next steps.

Thanks for your patience,

Kara Centell-Dunk

It's encouraging that you recieved this response.

It remains to be seen if their next steps translate into action with regard to a detailed FAQ with clear indexing/layout or not.

This certainly seems to be a game with a lot of support in terms of ongoing expansions. Some official clarification on common rule queries in a single document (PDF) will be a valuable additional resource.