I think I have a bit of a completionist streak in me.

Once I've started on a collection I just cannot rest until I have the entirety in my hands and I can mentally draw a line in the sand saying with satisfaction "Finished!"

Reading on the events of FFG within the past year: the upcoming re-releases of Wiz War, Fortress America, Merchants of Venus, & Nexus Ops as well as the recent developments regarding the latest expansion for Mansions of Madness, I've been forced to admit that I'm on my way to becoming "cured" of this affliction - to say nothing of my waning....support (?) of FFG in general.

Don't get me wrong - I beleive that their support is unparalleled and I'm a huge fan of Arkham Horror and Chaos in the Old World.

It's just that I wish that such support was not necessary.

We live in modern times where the internet can easily put the purchasers of these games in touch with their developers and creators. I sometimes wonder if these games would have succeeded a decade ago where - in the absence of such a mechanism of communication - dialogue, feedback & errata would have been nil.

However, I digress...with the release of Miskatonic Horror one assumes (at least myself anyway) that this is the FINAL Arkham Horror expansion. Having said that and with the expectation of no further new releases to introduce new mechanisms, conditions, questions into the mix, AND in light of the recent statement from the CEO of FFG regarding the aforementioned Mansions of Madness, I ask - might we finally see the definitive release of the rumored Arkham Horror FAQ?

May I mentally draw my line in the sand, saying with satisfaction "Finished!"?

"When will the FAQ be published?" is the greatest FAQ in Arkham history...

Julia said:

LOL.

Nameless1 said:

I completely understand what you're saying.

I too, until recently, had a similar completionist philosophy. The downhill spiral of Descent expansions is what ultimately cured me of it, I think (although not before I ended up with all of them in my collection, mind you.) I seriously debated whether I really wanted to buy Sea of Blood or not. The potentialt o reuse its components in D&D is what ultimately tipped the scales, which is a little bit sad, I admit. Now 2e is coming, and with it the promise of revised, clarified, simplified rules - which is very promising to me and I probably will pick that up, but if they start with the annual expansions in 2e, I will be very cautious about going down the same road I did with 1e.

I love FFG's games, generally speaking. They're built from good quality components, very colourful, often with rich thematic backdrops. All things that draw me in to make a purchase. Although I think they've been getting a bit carried away with the expansions over the last few years, to the point where quality is starting to take a serious hit. I respect them for standing up and admitting the flaws with the MoM expansion, and for making all efforts to correct them, however, the fact is this is not the first expansion to suffer serious, game breaking errors.

The first clue that something was amiss, in my mind, was when I noticed fans were starting to brainstorm ideas for "the next expansion" even before the one that had been announced was put out (in some cases, brainstorming the first expansion even before the game itself had been released.) That's just not right. Not that FFG is obliged to listen to fan rantings, of course, but it does put the pressure on. There's also the point to be made that fans probably wouldn't be so ravenous for expansions if they hadn't come to expect a steady stream of content from FFG already.

It seems to me that games like Descent and Arkham Horror are constantly in need of FAQage - not surprisingly with all the new content coming out every year. In contrast, games like TI3 that have seen all of two expansions in the last 7 years are generally pretty solid. (Not perfect, of course, nothing is.) Nevertheless, I think I'd like to see FFG focus less of making a continuous stream of expansions and more on making sure the ones they do make are solid. One or two expansions is all a well designed board game should really need. Scenario-driven games like Descent should be perfectly suited to new quests being made available online (either by fans or by staff) to keep it going after the original set of them has been worn stale.

Steve-O said:

Steve, you perfectly hit the spot. Generally speaking, FFG prodced a lot of great games. During the past 4-5 years, I got some of them, played a lot, studied their rules deeply and reached the following conclusion: I have enough games to play for the rest of my life. Hell, only Arkham is enough to fill an existence, if you have normal things to do (a job, kids, and so on). So, probably an investment on quality is certainly very welcome. I'm not saying they should stop (after all, a big company tries to make its own profict, and I don't have anything against this) producing ten new games / years, but that they could handle some things better. By investing some more time in developing in a good way their best selling games. This means proofreading cards and rulebooks (typos are absolutely unacceptable, under my POV; or, at least, all the typos Mansions had), playtesting better their games (Sea of Blood is one of the crappiest things ever seen; but generally speaking, even core Descent needs badly some fixes), investing time in answering to FAQs (it's unacceptable Arkham has not FAQs published, and it's one of their best selling games) or rules questions (I'm still waiting for some Fury of Dracula questions I asked one year ago to be answered), letting people know of the destiny of some games (not projects and deadlines: just some general insight on the possible future directions of their games. For example: what's the destiny of Battles of Westeros? The game is great, but I'm quite fed up with additional small houses when 4 of the major Houses are absent from any game). FFG is great under some points of view: quality component, customer service, some great designers (Christian, Corey, Kevin) able to create something really good. But now they should invest in taking care of their customers, and focus more on some issues that plague always more their creations

It's not quite like it was announced long ago and then abandoned: it's at least been kept alive all these years. It's most definitely a back-burner project, to be worked upon when other pressing releases aren't at occupying top priority.

Sadly, I couldn't say if it will definitely come this year, but it'll definitely come.

Although most people are happy with pdfs (and I hope a FAQ pdf will arrive at some point) I would prefer a printed copy (not produced by a computer printer).

Although I doubt it will happen, if there was an option for an updated fully indexed rule book, with ilustrations, play examples and all the FAQS in I would by it.

A hardback book to replace all my previous rule sheets would be great.

Maybe if the book contained a few scenarios and came with some new GOOs/Investigators/other cards it might be saleable?

If not I can either stick all the sheets in a file or write my own integrated version of the rules as usual.

Julia said:

Tibs said:

I would hope that FFG now going through a spate of penitence and in light of the recent release of the Elder Sign FAQ - that it AH FAQ would see the light of day.

Shub-Niggurath said:

This indeed would be a welcome occurence. Sadly I'm forced to concede that retrospectively designing a new manual with corrected terminology (delayed, etc). is almost nil.

Perhaps print runs might offer said document if it WAS made.

Tibs said:

.......so will the day when the Sun swallows the Earth?

jgt7771 said:

Not if we get tricky with manipulating asteroids!

FFG can publish new AH books or expansions almost every year but they can't make a FAQ in PDF available on their web site!?!

Maybe I'm stupid, but something is wrong here! The FAQ doesn't have to be complete to be available. Just give us what is done right now , and update it when it's complete. And, if it's money that drive them, then they could sell a complete manual of the rules. Not only with the rules and the FAQ, but with rules updated from the FAQ . Add to it a few GOO and other cards and a lot of people would probably buy it (some are ready to pay for a single card from the novels!).

No?

I agree. Since from what I understand is that they are done with making new expansions come out with a hardback book in the vein of the D&D rule books but maybe just about 100 pages. Call it a book of scenarios or something of that nature. About 75 pages of new scenarios. The new FAQ we all want and about 20 pages of new AO's, investigators, heralds, guardians, institutions etc. that we can remove and would be just like the card sheets in the games. I would pay $40 for it.

And be on the lookout for the faq for those scenarios in the first quarter of 2034

Doc Demers said:

You're not singing alone in the Woods, are you? I (and many others) said the very same things thousands of times, but no one answered. And honestly... there are games growing much more quickly than Arkham (I'd say exponentially, but some mathematician / astrophysicist will say it's polynomial ::winking: , like all the LCGs, and all these games DO HAVE updated FAQS. Every four-five months, a new FAQ is on-line. And considering they get an expansion pack / month...

Julia said:

And honestly... there are games growing much more quickly than Arkham (I'd say exponentially, but some mathematician / astrophysicist will say it's polynomial ::winking: , like all the LCGs, and all these games DO HAVE updated FAQS. Every four-five months, a new FAQ is on-line. And considering they get an expansion pack / month...

What then to do? I'm grateful that these forums exist to clarify nuances & discrepancies - but it would be useful to compile this information into one document instead of having it spread out over pages of forums.

At one point I would have even ventured to suggest that crowd sourcing of this community create their own FAQ but this is objectionable to me on principle because: a) it would not look as professionally done and b) WE shouldn't have to clean up the mess!

Nameless1 said:

Yeah, this is what I've done: whenever something odd was clarfied by Tibs or Avi, I wrote down a small note with the rule. And more or less I'm happy with this, but honestly, FAQ published means relieving the burden of giving always the same answers to tons of people unaware of the proper answer. And this would imply we won't have the countless debates saying always the same stuff on the very same topic. Let me give you an example: may I patrol wagon to Devil Reef? According to what-was-said-when-it-was-possible-to-reveal-something-of-the-soon-to-be-published-FAQ, no. Is this official? No. Everytime someone asks "may I patrol wagon to Devil Reef?", it's all over again. From my notes: you cannot patrol wagon to Devil Reef. You cannot LiTaS to Devil Reef. But for some mysterious reasons, you can Mi-go brain case there. And somebody will say: this is crap, I don't see any reason for not returning from LiTaS to Devil Reef. And he would be right. There is no good reason. It's not written anywhere. So then? You can figure out the picture. Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion, and he has the right to say it, and no one is right or wrong, because there is nothing official published (yet). So everytime the same, usual, legitimate questions are asked, everyone says his opinion, and the debate starts over again. It's an incredible waste of energy, and time. Debates are good, don't misunderstand me, but debates done on something that should not be debated... well, they aren't that good.

Doc Demers said:

I wish it had been done that way, but unfortunately it hasn't.

Julia,

That's why we Love You my friend. You write what many of us are thinking. In the end, Tibs keeps account of everyone's results...regardless of whether someone allows an Investigator to travel to Devil's Reef by way of the Patrol Wagon or LiTaS or Jetson's hoverpack (no, there's no Hoverpack). Could you imagine the insanity of trying to determine how people play their respective games before entering them onto the Master List. Anyway, I'm a huge fan of the debates. Sometimes, I agree, sometimes, not...but in the end, I truly enjoy the interaction on this forum.

Cheers,

The Professor

Yeah, that's very true, interaction here is very good :-) And debates polite, which is something not that common :-)

But I'd really like to see the FAQ available for all people here. Arkhamites are faithfull, and deserve an updated FAQ before the end of the world.