6 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

No, when we tried to do that, even in lieu of attempting to answer them, just collating them, we got abuse.

I was definitely leery about giving certain members authority to community-rule on them, but I must have missed the drama when collecting them.

There was some backlash with the whole XI7/Advanced Projectors situation because, if I recall, they changed a previous ruling. They may want to avoid that by being super cautious about what they put in the FAQ, but still. It shouldn't take as long as it does.

8 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

I was definitely leery about giving certain members authority to community-rule on them, but I must have missed the drama when collecting them.

And I wouldn't have blamed you. As it was, the whole point was never "Authority", it was "Opportunity" - but that was taken completely and utterly out of proportion... I'm not here to tell you how to play your game. But I would like to be able to give people advice if it helps them.

It was a follow on for it, essentially. It was still seen as an attempt to "codify and align" answers. Because clearly, someone like me couldn't help themselves, ever, and if I was provided with a list of questions, I'd just have to answer them.

So as it as, after backlash, even Undeadguy gave up his attempts to collect and collate - People weren't willing to even to submit to telling what they'd sent in as a question.

And honestly, because of it, I was even leery of providing a set of answers for the World Cup.

But as we've covered in the past:

A big part of the Slowdown is, essentially, availability of staff and time.

Prior to the Asmodee Merger, the FAQ was basically handled and run and processed by the design team itself. Multiple people.

I have it from the horse's mouth that, basically, as of April last year, that team became One. And it was no longer attached to design-group, it was firmly in the Producer field. One Person, who was also juggling their other responsibilities...

At that time, that one person even request I personally send him the question that I'd been asking since Massing at Sullust - and to this day, it has gone unanswered in even Email Form.

So all it is, basically, is the split of time and attention.


Do I wish I could do something about it? Sure. But even Emailing the Person directly hasn't had any effect on anything...

I'm so tired of it, I'm not even answering things in Rules anymore. May change later, but for the time being... The **** is just too thick.

Well summarized Dras. For what its worth, I'm pretty sad to hear you say you aren't doing the rules guru thing. IMO you were awesome at it, even when I disagreed with you your points were well thought out and presented in a way that easy to parse. I hope you get back on it after some time away.

I do want to add to the conversation that the fact that they have reorganized to having one person handle the FAQ, on top of other things, is an explanation for why it takes so long.

Not an excuse.

Look, I capital "L" Love this game. And by extension, I love the people who bring it to me. Maybe the decision to stick one poor guy with the whole FAQ thing makes sense when looked at from within the organization. But it certainly doesn't from the outside looking in. Put more folks on it or ease the responsibilities of the one poor dude who has to handle it. Clearly what they have going isn't a great solution for the playerbase.

27 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Well summarized Dras. For what its worth, I'm pretty sad to hear you say you aren't doing the rules guru thing. IMO you were awesome at it, even when I disagreed with you your points were well thought out and presented in a way that easy to parse. I hope you get back on it after some time away.

I do want to add to the conversation that the fact that they have reorganized to having one person handle the FAQ, on top of other things, is an explanation for why it takes so long.

Not an excuse.

Look, I capital "L" Love this game. And by extension, I love the people who bring it to me. Maybe the decision to stick one poor guy with the whole FAQ thing makes sense when looked at from within the organization. But it certainly doesn't from the outside looking in. Put more folks on it or ease the responsibilities of the one poor dude who has to handle it. Clearly what they have going isn't a great solution for the playerbase.

I just want to say 'Ditto' to basically this entire post. Pretty much word for word.

1 hour ago, Blail Blerg said:

I was definitely leery about giving certain members authority to community-rule on them, but I must have missed the drama when collecting them.

Like Dras said, I tried collecting the big questions people had before the wave 3/4 FAQ was released. I almost did it again for the wave 5 release.

But people need to learn to ******* read. I had 2 threads going, one to post potential questions, and the other in the rules forum where I would present a question and both sides of the argument so people can make their own decision.

For some reason, people decided to argue in the rule thread, even when I had asked people not to do that. And then the general discussion thread generated hate immediately and a troll thread followed.

So no. I didn't bother doing it again because I really don't care if people don't understand the rules. Empathy=0

Not to mention I had to go through dozens of pages of circular arguments just to figure out what was going on. Too much work for people to disregard the entire purpose of the project. And rumor was FFG would try to get an FAQ out before 30 days had passed, and it typically takes that much time to figure out the problems in the first place.

I'm still mad that the name of this thread is not "Where. the FAQ. is the FAQ."

If I could make a comment on the rules thing. When this game started out, it was absolutely useful and critical.. I still think it is.. but the rules in this game are so dense its becoming kind of unmanageable to remember what things actually mean.

Part of what I think got people a bit riled up is this: to make a ruling you have to "act" as an authority, and it probably seemed like rule-interpreters/arguers were really attempting to push their interpretation as authority. Especially without mitigating words such as "I think this is" "this seems to imply".
This may be in part of how we socially how to speak, as firm and commandingly.

Also even advising... that hasn't always went well.

I have a well meaning player here who loves to clarify rules, but he ends up stepping over people and being commandeering and demanding in game. I stopped having a fun time playing him because it seemed like he was trying to also use his rules explaining to push me off my stride in game. He was trying to make a big deal about something I understood and even wrote rules clarifications here for, and I didn't appreciate that one bit.

At the same time, we need the rules...

Anyways, those are my thoughts as apparently the more chaotic element in this group of people.

21 minutes ago, Blail Blerg said:

If I could make a comment on the rules thing. When this game started out, it was absolutely useful and critical.. I still think it is.. but the rules in this game are so dense its becoming kind of unmanageable to remember what things actually mean.

Part of what I think got people a bit riled up is this: to make a ruling you have to "act" as an authority, and it probably seemed like rule-interpreters/arguers were really attempting to push their interpretation as authority. Especially without mitigating words such as "I think this is" "this seems to imply".
This may be in part of how we socially how to speak, as firm and commandingly.

Also even advising... that hasn't always went well.

I have a well meaning player here who loves to clarify rules, but he ends up stepping over people and being commandeering and demanding in game. I stopped having a fun time playing him because it seemed like he was trying to also use his rules explaining to push me off my stride in game. He was trying to make a big deal about something I understood and even wrote rules clarifications here for, and I didn't appreciate that one bit.

At the same time, we need the rules...

Anyways, those are my thoughts as apparently the more chaotic element in this group of people.

So it's one thing to force everyone to play by the rules and remind them everytime they do something wrong, and another to ignore what people are saying and force your opinion on everyone. Like having the rules explicitly say X=X, and then them coming in saying "actually, X=Y if you bend the rules this way, and read into only half of this sentence, and clearly the designers didn't take upgrade 1 into account when they made upgrade 2" and preaching this as fact.

If you asked how to deploy squads, and I tell you you need to place a ship first, and squads can be within range 2 of that ship, I've answered your question. But then people feel the need to come in with their opinion, not fact supported by the rules, and say squads can be placed at range 2, because they make up some inclusive rule that at range 2 is really within range 2, or some crazy **** like that.

That is the issue the rules forum is having. People having opinions on the rules, and not taking the rules at face value and translating it to someone with their own bias in it.

6 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So it's one thing to force everyone to play by the rules and remind them everytime they do something wrong, and another to ignore what people are saying and force your opinion on everyone. Like having the rules explicitly say X=X, and then them coming in saying "actually, X=Y if you bend the rules this way, and read into only half of this sentence, and clearly the designers didn't take upgrade 1 into account when they made upgrade 2" and preaching this as fact.

If you asked how to deploy squads, and I tell you you need to place a ship first, and squads can be within range 2 of that ship, I've answered your question. But then people feel the need to come in with their opinion, not fact supported by the rules, and say squads can be placed at range 2, because they make up some inclusive rule that at range 2 is really within range 2, or some crazy **** like that.

That is the issue the rules forum is having. People having opinions on the rules, and not taking the rules at face value and translating it to someone with their own bias in it.

mm. we are definitely talking about diff things.

also yes. that's bad.

9 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

So it's one thing to force everyone to play by the rules and remind them everytime they do something wrong, and another to ignore what people are saying and force your opinion on everyone. Like having the rules explicitly say X=X, and then them coming in saying "actually, X=Y if you bend the rules this way, and read into only half of this sentence, and clearly the designers didn't take upgrade 1 into account when they made upgrade 2" and preaching this as fact.

If you asked how to deploy squads, and I tell you you need to place a ship first, and squads can be within range 2 of that ship, I've answered your question. But then people feel the need to come in with their opinion, not fact supported by the rules, and say squads can be placed at range 2, because they make up some inclusive rule that at range 2 is really within range 2, or some crazy **** like that.

That is the issue the rules forum is having. People having opinions on the rules, and not taking the rules at face value and translating it to someone with their own bias in it.

You have the rules, but the other people have alternative rules.

Pft, "rules". Who needs 'em? I just like scooting my tow ships across the table throwing dice and yelling "I got you! You're dead!"

6 minutes ago, RedPriest said:

Pft, "rules". Who needs 'em? I just like scooting my tow ships across the table throwing dice and yelling "I got you! You're dead!"

I see you've adopted the Ben strategy of playing Armada.

Wow, if that's the crap that goes on, I'm glad I mostly stay out of the rules forum. Sounds like a presidential debate, and I've had enough of those for a while.

1 hour ago, Eggzavier said:

I'm still mad that the name of this thread is not "Where. the FAQ. is the FAQ."

I'm so sorry for the missed opportunity...

In my defense, the word that was censored started with an "s", which sounds much less bad-humored than the punnable one everyone assumes was in there. Prime example of automated censorship making the material worse, incidentally.

Was it sack?

obviously not.

I was trying to find my FAQ U post, but it must have been in the other thread that was going around that time.

Ahh the good old days.

Was it maybe "Where. the stew. is the FAQ"?

Because I also would have accepted that rhyming scheme.

11 minutes ago, Madaghmire said:

Was it sack?

obviously not.

Could the FAQ be in a sack?

Could it be, on your back?

Maybe it's with some guy named Zack.

6 minutes ago, RedPriest said:

Could the FAQ be in a sack?

Could it be, on your back?

Maybe it's with some guy named Zack.

His name is Ben.

Unsack yourself.

Just now, Ardaedhel said:

His name is Ben.

Get it right.

That doesn't rhyme.

4 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

His name is Ben.

Unsack yourself.

Don't you mean:

"Un**** yourself."?

56 minutes ago, Ardaedhel said:

His name is Ben.

Unsack yourself.

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

6 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

The counterrevolution has begun?

... Look, if this means that the FAQ will be completely at the last minute at great expensive in a totally different style....

I AM ALL FOR IT AND WILL CELEBRATE OUR NEW LLAMA BASED OVERLORDS>

2 hours ago, ManInTheBox said:

You have the rules, but the other people have alternative rules.

Those can be verified using alternative FAQs