There are a number of issues that need clearing up in this game. Can any of the veterans from the other minis games by FFG give us an idea of time frame that it usually takes them to produce one?

BattleLore: Second Edition never got one, despite one of the rules editors compiling a huge list of questions.

Rune Age got its FAQ about 2 years after the base game released.

I have a copy of X-Wing FAQ 1.1 dated February 2013, which is about 8 months after its August 2012 release.

I would imagine there will be one by the time worlds in November comes around

But do any FFG staff members or designers publish rules clarifications from time to time on the forums?

54 minutes ago, Xargonaut said:

But do any FFG staff members or designers publish rules clarifications from time to time on the forums?

There is a way to submit rules questions through customer service. Those emails are answered by developers, but the developers do not post the answers here. It is up to forum members to post the responses to their questions. Kind of a strange system, but it works out okay.

they seem quiet of late

3 hours ago, Taki said:

There are a number of issues that need clearing up in this game. Can any of the veterans from the other minis games by FFG give us an idea of time frame that it usually takes them to produce one?

While I don't disagree that a FAQ would be helpful, I'm not sure that it would be of any assistance with some of the issues that you believe need clearing up. The questions I have seen from you seem to be clearly answered in the Rules Reference Guide. Even when people point the answer out to you, you refuse to accept it. If you insist on injecting your own made up **** into what's in the RRG, I don't see what will stop you from doing the same thing with a FAQ.

Based on the way FFG usually does things, I'd expect to see a FAQ around the time that a batch of releases finishes up. If I had to guess we'll see a FAQ and Tournament Regulations drop after the Undead and Human expansions are released but before the announced Elf expansions are.

Just now, WWHSD said:

While I don't disagree that a FAQ would be helpful, I'm not sure that it would be of any assistance with some of the issues that you believe need clearing up. The questions I have seen from you seem to be clearly answered in the Rules Reference Guide. Even when people point the answer out to you, you refuse to accept it. If you insist on injecting your own made up **** into what's in the RRG, I don't see what will stop you from doing the same thing with a FAQ.

Based on the way FFG usually does things, I'd expect to see a FAQ around the time that a batch of releases finishes up. If I had to guess we'll see a FAQ and Tournament Regulations drop after the Undead and Human expansions are released but before the announced Elf expansions are.

I have yet to be convinced of your arguments. You don't need to make it personal or insulting, clearly we disagree on some topics. You show your worth with your posts and none of them are flattering when you take it to a personal level. When the FAQ comes out, I'll abide by it like everyone else.

I expect, the first FAQ will release the same time with the first tournament rules.

7 hours ago, Taki said:

they seem quiet of late

To my knowledge, they haven't answered a single question about Runewars, and questions have been submitted since Adepticon.

9 hours ago, Taki said:

When the FAQ comes out, I'll abide by it like everyone else.

If you only play with your friends at home feel free to interpret the rules however you'd like. If that's not the case then you really need to consider accepting interpretations that are supported by the rules that we do have and are widely accepted to be correct. In my experience with previous Fantasy Flight games, there will often be months between when the community starts asking a question and when (if ever) that question gets answered in a FAQ.

The rules questions form generally routes questions to a game developer and I've noticed that they've become reticent about answering any question that can't be handled by a cut and paste. I think this is largely due to a tendency for the developers that are answering the questions to catch a ration of **** if the next FAQ contains what looks like a reversal of the ruling that was emailed. During the period of the time that I was tracking it, email rulings that were reversed were almost always consistent with the rules as written at the time but a rules change (or change to a precedent that had been established in another FAQ entry) caused the emailed ruling to be invalidated.

As far as I know, they usually like to let a game run in the wild for a bit before they put up the first tournament rules and FAQ. It helps them see the way things play out that the smaller amount of internal testers may have never come up with. It also helps them get a feeling for how long tournament rounds should last when newish players get ahold of it.

54 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

f you only play with your friends at home feel free to interpret the rules however you'd like. If that's not the case then you really need to consider accepting interpretations that are supported by the rules that we do have and are widely accepted to be correct. In my experience with previous Fantasy Flight games, there will often be months between when the community starts asking a question and when (if ever) that question gets answered in a FAQ.

That's the point, I'm running demos of the game for New England Comics and I'm trying to make the game grow in my area. I want to have the rules be right and also make sense. The arguments made here will help me to make a decision on how to play those scenarios mentioned in a fair and reasonable way for all involved. I intend to own every army and play every army for the game. So yeah, I am listening, and I'm considering your point of view, but I still find it lacking. And the only thing you have as a retort is that other people agree with you. Well a lot of people don't believe the earth is a sphere either, so your argument of ad populum doesn't help any. And your insistence on ad hominem belligerence gives me little reason to take you seriously.

Line of sight only mentions that you need to be checking line of sight in the arc. Checking the arc happens first, then being in arc is a prerequisite to checking line of sight. They happen separately and heartseeker only ignores LOS.

32 minutes ago, Taki said:

And the only thing you have as a retort is that other people agree with you.

And that the rules in the section that I am quoting say almost exactly the same thing that I am saying.

32 minutes ago, Taki said:

And your insistence on ad hominem belligerence gives me little reason to take you seriously.

There's nothing particularly ad hominem about my belligerence. I'm frustrated that I quote rules and explain them and all I'm getting from you is "No. The section on Line of Sight mentions Firing Arc so if I get to ignore Line of Sight then I get to ignore everything that is mentioned in the Line of Sight section". Honestly, I stopped trying to change your mind several posts ago. The only reason that I continue to argue is for the sake of anyone else that comes along and reads these threads.

5 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

There's nothing particularly ad hominem about my belligerence. I'm frustrated that I quote rules and explain them and all I'm getting from you is "No. The section on Line of Sight mentions Firing Arc so if I get to ignore Line of Sight then I get to ignore everything that is mentioned in the Line of Sight section". Honestly, I stopped trying to change your mind several posts ago. The only reason that I continue to argue is for the sake of anyone else that comes along and reads these threads.

11 hours ago, WWHSD said:

If you insist on injecting your own made up **** into

Also snarky memes, and aggressive and hostile posts other places. It certainly feels directed at me specifically, and I'd rather you just stop. And we can just add each other to the list of people we don't want to meet in person and be done with it.

13 minutes ago, Taki said:

Also snarky memes, and aggressive and hostile posts other places. It certainly feels directed at me specifically, and I'd rather you just stop. And we can just add each other to the list of people we don't want to meet in person and be done with it.

11 hours ago, WWHSD said:

If you insist on injecting your own made up **** into what's in the RRG, I don't see what will stop you from doing the same thing with a FAQ.

It's very much directed at you because you're the person that I'm having a discussion with. There have been no personal attacks or insults lobbed your way. Your entire argument is based around your refusal to accept what is in rules at face value. How is it possible to address that without talking about you at some level?

I would appreciate some sketches with samples about engagement and closing distance.

Also some confirmation about how Kari ability works.

FAQ isnt utterly necessary until we start doing tournaments, which i have 0 interest in doing until we get some releases since its just going to be a marathon of literally the same list right now anyway.

The only thing i have no idea how to just "house rule it" is the whole movement + terrain if youre already touching the terrain. RAW, it sounds like you flatout ignore terrain you were touching already, but...that kinda makes no sense lol. Everything else can be "fixed" by common sense, which of course only works in friendly settings but again a tournament setting shouldnt be a thing for awhile anyway.

Simple fact that Kari's ability is not an attack is why im not playing it needs to be in arc because that makes it impossible to use since if shes in melee her front arc is blocked, or shes in a bad situation because shes flanked.

46 minutes ago, Vineheart01 said:

The only thing i have no idea how to just "house rule it" is the whole movement + terrain if youre already touching the terrain. RAW, it sounds like you flatout ignore terrain you were touching already, but...that kinda makes no sense lol. Everything else can be "fixed" by common sense, which of course only works in friendly settings but again a tournament setting shouldnt be a thing for awhile anyway.

What am I missing? The section on overlapping would indicate that if you overlap an obstacle with a March or Shift then you resolve a Collision. The section on Collisions additionally states that if you are touching and obstacle that you weren't touching before the move then you Collide. Those two statements are not incompatible. The bit about not Colliding with an obstacle that you are already touching allows you to shift sideways while your front edge is touching Spikes without taking additional damage. If you tried to March through the Spikes you would overlap which would trigger a Collision.

The bit in the rules that I find problematic is that if Oathsworn Cavalry run into terrain (that they can't enter) or the edge of the board than they are stuck there until the end of the game or until they are destroyed.

"60.2 When a unit is performing a reform action, it cannot
complete the action in a position where it would overlap or
touch an obstacle"

The words "that it was not already touching" should probably be added to the end.

Theoretically, this also prevents engaged units from reforming (enemy units are obstacles) but the RRG has details for how to handle Reforming while engaged.

5 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

What am I missing? The section on overlapping would indicate that if you overlap an obstacle with a March or Shift then you resolve a Collision. The section on Collisions additionally states that if you are touching and obstacle that you weren't touching before the move then you Collide. Those two statements are not incompatible. The bit about not Colliding with an obstacle that you are already touching allows you to shift sideways while your front edge is touching Spikes without taking additional damage. If you tried to March through the Spikes you would overlap which would trigger a Collision.

The bit in the rules that I find problematic is that if Oathsworn Cavalry run into terrain (that they can't enter) or the edge of the board than they are stuck there until the end of the game or until they are destroyed.

"60.2 When a unit is performing a reform action, it cannot
complete the action in a position where it would overlap or
touch an obstacle"

The words "that it was not already touching" should probably be added to the end.

Theoretically, this also prevents engaged units from reforming (enemy units are obstacles) but the RRG has details for how to handle Reforming while engaged.

Overlapping doesn't cause a collision, though. It causes you to halt movement and back up until you are touching. Then it says "a collision has occurred." Normally, that is correct (because you are touching). However, the collision section tells us that if we end a movement touching an obstacle we started the action touching, we do not collide.

24 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Overlapping doesn't cause a collision, though. It causes you to halt movement and back up until you are touching. Then it says "a collision has occurred." Normally, that is correct (because you are touching). However, the collision section tells us that if we end a movement touching an obstacle we started the action touching, we do not collide.

Overlapping explicitly states that if you overlap, you move back. As a completely separate bullet under the same rule, distinct from the movement instructions, it states "Resolve a collision"

Similarly, the rules on Collision describe a game state (Moving/shifting, touching an obstacle you weren't before) and states that you resolve a collision. It does not say that you don't resolve a collision for overlapping, which is again explicitly and specifically dictated under Overlapping.

Unless you can cite specifically which rule allows you to ignore the collision resolved for overlapping during movement, the RRG clearly states that you collide when you overlap.

24 minutes ago, rowdyoctopus said:

Overlapping doesn't cause a collision, though. It causes you to halt movement and back up until you are touching. Then it says "a collision has occurred." Normally, that is correct (because you are touching). However, the collision section tells us that if we end a movement touching an obstacle we started the action touching, we do not collide.

I don't think that's correct. The section on "Collisions" isn't the entirety of the rules on "Collisions". It makes a general statement on what a Collision is and provides refernces to related sections. Several other sections contain effects that trigger on a Collision.

The section on Overlapping instructs you to resolve a collision when you Overlap an obstacle. The sections for obstacles and the different movement actions contain rules for what you need to when resolving a collision that involves them.

Ok, so here’s my take:

• A unit marches forward and overlaps an obstacle. It is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle. (per Overlapping 60.1)
  
• Next turn, the unit marches forward again. It does not collide with the terrain it is already touching. (per Collision 18)
  
• Although the unit does not collide (per Collision 18), as it marches forward it overlaps the obstacle (per Overlapping 60.1) … therefore it is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle.

2 hours ago, maxam said:

Ok, so here’s my take:

• A unit marches forward and overlaps an obstacle. It is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle. (per Overlapping 60.1)
  
• Next turn, the unit marches forward again. It does not collide with the terrain it is already touching. (per Collision 18)
  
• Although the unit does not collide (per Collision 18), as it marches forward it overlaps the obstacle (per Overlapping 60.1) … therefore it is moved back along its movement template and is left touching the obstacle.

EDIT: Nevermind. I misread. We agree.