I'm not exactly posting new threads about it on a daily basis... But when people (like dormouse) tend to attack anyone who suggests that FFG is anything but perfect, it gets a little old. The game didn't release last week, it's been out for two months. Even if the developers had NO idea of anything that might be confusing on release day (which is insulting to them, honestly) there's been more than enough time to produce a rules update document. Heck, Nate has been responding to direct queries - simply taking those responses and compiling them into a document to post would have taken all of about two hours. For major errata - like whether or not you can damage burned sections of the city, because the rules clearly allow it - there's really no excuse for going several months without a formal statement.

The simple reality is that rules consistency, and/or communicating those rules with the community, isn't one of their high priorities. I honestly don't expect them to change it, but one can hope... Really, it's mostly a matter of adjusting expectations for the game - anyone expecting it to provide a stable enough rules base for competitive play is pretty much hosed. It may make a casual, fun CCG but that's about it.

Some people have different expectations. I do think there is a segment of players who are wholly unrealistic in their expectations (I'm looking at those on BGG who expected a FAQ to be released simultaneously with the game itself). I also believe there are those who just have different expectations (who expect a FAQ in the first month when questions are just starting to get asked, and most can be answered by direct application of the rules or card text). I am probably more permissive/forgiving in my expectations since I have some idea of what goes into the creation of a game like this and the creation of a FAQ.

My patience is far from limitless though. If the major box expansion comes and goes without multi-player rules and a FAQ I'll be the first to call for people to pick up pitch-forks and torches. Nate, I'm just saying you know what I used to do for a living. Don't give me a reason to revisit those days.

Buhallin, what experience do you have creating FAQs? What professional experience do you have with game design and development? I ask only because you make statements about how long it would take to create a professional FAQ, when I know for a fact that to even come up with a ruling and verify how it will be applied by all cards in print, design and testing takes the amount of time you say an entire FAQ can be created in. Take a look at the latest AGoT FAQ and tell me just the copy, editing, and design can be done in the time you say an entire FAQ can be created.

I don't attack people who say FFG isn't perfect. I point out the illogical statements and expectations people have. If you'd like I can point out all the problems I've had with FFG over the past six or seven years, some of which have been very recent.

I remember people saying that there better be a FAQ by the time the first expansion comes out. Now someone says there better be a FAQ by the time the first big box expansion comes out? Why lower your expectations to meet what I feel is poor customer service and game support?

It is easy enough to post a "living" FAQ and add additional rulings as they come up. Simple making a word file that says "you can not assign, deal or apply damage to a burning zone" with the word "FAQ" on the top would prevent dozens of future posts reasking this question. If at some point in the future they change their mind, they could simply CHANGE THE FAQ. Errata, corrections and rebalancing occurs all the time in games like this.

I simply dont understand the hyperaggressive reactionary and often condescending defense of the indefinitely delayed FAQ with no word by any of the creators of an ETA for the FAQ.

If anyone says that every situation can be resolved with the cards and rulebook, they are wrong. Many questions,, yes, but not all. It is NOT clear that you can't damage a burning area, since apparently you can SCOUT a burning area, and you can ATTACK a burning area too. So don't insult someone for questioning this.

Sure we can't force them to make a FAQ, but we have spent our money on the game they created. They also created a forum for us to post our questions and opinions, and if they decide to delay or not make a FAQ to assist the many players who have many questions about the game they created that are not clearly explained in the rules they provide, how else are we to try to get one made? Send them ass kisses and bouquets of flowers?

if they have time to repeatedly reanswer the same questions, surely they have time to organize and post those answers in a single location, not only to save us time and hastle, but to save them having to keep answering the same questions emails.

I don't understand the attacks to create a FAQ and since they are not, they are lazy. If you guys think it is so easy go ahead and create a FAQ by compiling the answers to the questions. I still don't think one is needed as none of the questions that have been asked can't be answered by the rules/cards themselves.

Toqtamish said:

this statement is not correct. There are questions that could not be answered by the rules and cards, and Nate had to give answers that did not exist in the cards or rulebook and that surprised many of the people who believed they had the right answer/interpretation. If you want I can name some, but even Dormouse will support this, and I believe he has the strongest understanding of the game. And there are plenty of questions that could have been reasonably interpretted in different and COMPLETELY OPPOSITE ways based on literal, contextual or implied interpretations of the rules and cards.

DB_Cooper said:

Agreed, no point in arguing with someone who does not listen.

Toqtamish said:

Agree. It is more productive to talk to the wall.

dormouse said:

Well, when we finally mailed Nate about the We'z Bigger issue, he responded in less than an hour. Since I suggested a few hours to compile the rulings they made, and they can't make a ruling in less than two hours... I take it then that you think Nate was excessively hasty in his ruling, and didn't bother to verify how it will be applied by all cards in print, design and testing?

Nobody has ever suggested they are lazy. But the rules issues don't seem to be the priority that some of us wish they were, and it raises more concerns about the long-term health of this game. We're already into an arena where rulings are made more on intent than wording, and take an excessively long time to be formalized. Things only get bigger and more complex from here. If it takes them more than two months to release an FAQ and rules update for the core set, as small as it is, how long will it take once the card pool doubles or triples a year from now? Comparing it to the AGOT FAQ is apples-to-oranges now, but it won't be forever.

The vast majority of the questions were easily answered. Not all questions however have been able to be answered purely by the rules and card text.

I've always said the expansion, which to me has always been the Companion Set. I refer (and pretty much always have) to the packs as supplements. I don't mind the supplements that were through the design and development stage prior to the game even being released, being released before the FAQ . I will definitely have a problem when the Companion Set comes out and there is no FAQ because that is when there will be a big push for the game and a new surge of players likely to join up. I am a little disappointed that there was no FAQ when they release the League rules, but I'm not surprised.

A living FAQ by way of text file, may be fine for you, but you are not FFG, your standards and expectations are very different than theirs. I can't imagine them ever being okay with a text file as their FAQ. Considering the success of this company I'm willing to stand by their decision.

Faith.

Well , I would add another question to the Burning zone debate.

What if I have units in a Burning zone, like Thanquol?

The other player definitely wants to destroy him , but if he attacks I simply won't assign him as defender. The burning part can't be damaged further, so Thanquol will live until he ins't targeted by a card effect.

Do you have any specifications on this?

units in burning zones are not affected by the fact that the zone is burning, the zone still functions normally, so Thanquol could indeed just sit there. Until he is directly targeted at least.