Is their seriously already an FAQ for rune wars and still not one for warhammer invasion? I would like to see a few of the wishy-washie and not the mention the whole start of turn non action phase issues formally addressed in a doc from the company. I still refuse to believe that ruling until I see it in an FAQ seeing as more and more cards each set seem to be coming out with at the start of the turn abilities. Does a $35 dollar game not warrant an FAQ or something? What is your take?

Berserko said:

I think that people on this forum ***** about the lack of an FAQ too **** much. Its really old and really boring.

I think Warhammer Invasion is considerably more cleanly and clearly written than Runewars. W:I doesn't really need an FAQ right now, whereas Runewars is an attempt to do too much in too small a space and so is bound to be very very confusing right off the bat.

Rakshasa said:

"Where can one play Warpstone Cannon ?"

"What are damage in combat ?"

"Does Zealot Hunter target or not ?"

"May you choose not to corrupt a unit for Meteor Warpstone ?"

"When damage is assigned to a capital (Dwarf Ranger), who choose the affected section ?"

"How many Alliance cards may a deck include at most, 3 or 9 ?"

....

Sure, this game doesn't need a FAQs,

My take is that people spend too much time whining about the FAQ and arguing over tiny little minutiae when they should just be playing and enjoying the game.

Martin_fr said:

Answered already in the 0riginal thread

"What are damage in combat ?"

Answered by Nate already

"How many Alliance cards may a deck include at most, 3 or 9 ?"

A great example of people being arbitrarily nitpicky. The game already stipulates how many of each card you can have.

Sure, this game doesn't need a FAQs,

What it needs is people who spend as much time reading the answers in threads instead of complaining or posting "questions" that have clear answers in the rulebook.

About 4out of 6 of your questions have answers that can be found in the rulebook and reading the cards. The others don't but are not so large in magnitude that a house rule couldn't address it in a manner that is perfectly fair and allow for people to concentrate on playing the game.

We need a FAQ, if for no other reason than consolidating all the information we have gotten from rules clarifications from Nate. Is the game unplayable by following the basic rules and then advanced concepts in the rulebook? Not at all. Runewar is a different kind of game entirely, and I'm guessing at some point the rulebook they were writing was just becoming to bloated and they chose instead to break it into a basic rulebook and an advanced Player's Guide which would include the FAQ. FFG tends to put high quality games, and the immediate need for Runewar has me a bit stumped. I can't figure out if it is because the game is so complex (and there potentially incredibly rich for years of replay value) or so poorly designed thatit requires a FAQ before any customers have ever had a chance to play it and ask questions frequently.

Either way I'm staying away from it until friends whose opinion I trust report back in the positive about the game AND the rules.

I'd like to point out that there are several other questions that could not be answered by simply reading the rulebook and cards and applying the text as strictly as possible. I absolutely agree there needs to be a FAQ, but I'm pretty satisfied with the rulebook as is and am still willing to give them a couple more months before I look for my pitchfork and light my torch.

pixelgeek said:

No, you're wrong. Not having a FAQ yet IS worth griping about. However, crying over card size is what people do on these forums WAY too frikkin' much. You wanna talk about whining, THAT's whining.

dormouse said:

I suspect that the Grand Opening of the Event Center may be using up a lot of FFG's resources. Once that hurdle is cleared, I imagine a FAQ will soon follow.

People that write FAQs and people that run Grand Openings aren't the same people.

I believe the FAQ delay is more likely linked to an unwillingness to commit/release a FAQ until the game has been sufficiently fielded aka release of all factions and more player base.

Clearly, as cards are released, the community finds all sorts of potentially confusing texts and possible broken combos. Waiting for the release of all factions seems to be a good way to see how the community will break the game beyond what internal playtesting originally found.

FiendishDevil said:

I would agree with you if we were discussing Hasbro/WOTC. I didn't know that FFG had their own FAQ dept.

The FAQ is produced by the design and development team... the same people who are producing the cards for this and the other LCG games. It is a small team and if the choice is between a FAQ tomorrow and a delay in the Companion Set, or the FAQ and the Companion Set being released according to schedule (even if they aren't sharing that schedule with us) I'll take the latter. Nate has been reasonably responsive and most of the questions that arise can be reasoned out. We could gather all such clarifications into one place and maintain it without too much issue. I doubt we could as easily hobble together the Elves Set.

That's a good idea, everyone clamoring for a FAQ can take some of that energy and stop wasting it on complaining about the lack thereof and just collate the info that we have already been given into a central document.

Wytefang said:

Sorry that some of us have a different opinion than you about sleeving their cards. If it bothers you so much, don't read about it and then complain about people complaining.

Lastly, some people, such as myself, find it annoying when a company hailed for its customer service isn't even being open an honest about an issue they are having with a product. I want other people to know the blemishes they will be getting with a product before they buy it.

Toqtamish said:

Sure. And people complaining about the delay in 3rd Battlepacks should stop wasting their energy on it and just pick those up in China and bring them back to their LGS.

All the infos available on these boards are second-handed at best due to FFG's policies (I don't complain anymore about those BTW).

I admit the game may be played 95% of the time without problems, but some 2-cards combo have interaction their gametexts make hard to figure out (best example : Sadictic Mutation + Nurgle Sorcerer). To avoid any problem with my opponents, I simply play those in the most restrictive way : "damage in combat" becoming "combat damage" ).

BTW, perhaps the Deluxe pack will countain an updated rulebook that will describe all those game terms ? Either way, let's give time to FFG to release this FAQ document, but one can't claim it is unneeded.

We DO have some rules issues, but they can be solved by reading and thinkin'.

The game is definitely PLAYABLE. Then, we have to create some "rule of thumb", but the game's there, it's pretty entertaining and great.

We'll have a FAQ when we'll have a right amount of unanswered enigmas...Until then, all you have to do is just read the boards, rules and use a little part of the brain.

DB_Cooper said:

But it hurts !!

Martin_fr said:

I have not complained about that, I have talked about it in a different thread.

Either way though, I think the idea of doing up a FAQ or a collection of rulings is a really good idea that should help get those that need it by until an official FAQ comes out. Personally I always go with the way that GW used to put in their rulebooks, if something is in dispute and cannot be agreed upon roll a die and use the highest rollers interpretation, then when the game is over look it up to get clarification, it helps to keep the game flow going.

What we need to start is to get all the rulings people have received from Nate together.

After reading roughly a quintillion forum posts, I think I have almost all of Nate's rulings along with a bunch of stuff that I've seen new players misplay.

However, it seems likely that I missed some official rulings. If you know of any, please post and let me know.

Nicely done,