To Horus725: I received via e-mail a notification for a friendship request from you, but I couldn''t accept it, even if willingly to do so, simply because in the meantime FFG changed part of the structure of personal profiles and I wasn''t able to find anywhere the button to accept it.

To all the other friends on this very site: sorry for the completely off-topic topic, but it seems like the obnoxious system ruling this forum is becoming even LESS user''s friendly

I also accepted the terms and conditions that we're not to answer rule questions on the forum, so I've approached recent posts with trepidation.

Really, if we don't answer rules questions, what else is there to talk about?

Tibs said:

Somehow it only now sunk in: one of my favorite places on the internet is a forum where we get together to talk about rules. Not that there's anything wrong with that…

Are the forum lords aware that we talk about the rules, and answer questions about the rules, and debate the lack of some rules, in other forums that don't have such restrictive clauses? For the most part, I'd rather hang out here, but…

Tibs said:

I was curious to see what this all meant and logged in to be confronted with a wall of legalese!

Seriously? Don't discuss rules or use the forum for contacting FFG?

Seems a bit …excessive don't you think?

Not to be contrary here but re the second condition has there ever been an instance of a mod posting here?

And re the first condition: there's several years of forum questions discussing rules here…perhaps one might release a FAQ first before implementing this concept?

Anecdotally this is one of the livelier sub-forums on FFG (see CitOW in comparison) and to suggest that rules not be discussed as Tibs indicated "what else is there?"

We will no doubt continue to make suggestions, asnwer questions, and comment on rules…It's in our nature!

But what if the penalty is being sent to the Innsmouth Jail Cell and only being allowed to draw 1 card?

You don't know which or what Old One you're dealing with.

Besides is it discussing rules when you are discussing not discussing rules.

What is it really like to be lost in time and space?

Here's Innsmouth looking at you, kid.

Wait…what? WHAT? I…WHAT? We…are they aware that the single most common use of this forum is rules questions? I…WHAT?!? What could this possibly achieve?!

Walk said:

It's adorable seeing how this off-topic topic has been hijacked to even more off-topic fields ::laughter::

Anyway, lawyery: we do not talk of the rules. We talk about OUR interpretation of the rules

And our feeeeeeeeeelings. Our feeeeeeeeeelings about the rules. How do the rules make you feeeeeeeeeel?

jgt7771 said:

Sure! For example, JGT, do you feel comfortable about having your investigators devoured as soon as they remains without trophies during final battle?

It's not a rule

I guess I just took it to mean we can't discuss the rules in an attempt to get FFG to answer them, which has always been the case as they've wanted us to contact them directly over the years.

But, as long as there is no FAQ (and even if there was) we need to discuss these questions. Nay, we MUST discuss these questions!

Julia said:

Ugh. I know. Sad panda.

At first, I didn't. I felt the Investigators deserved one last trophy-less shot at the AO. Then it just kinda felt like that last round rarely mattered--if you hadn't won by then, you were probably fish food anyway--and it was kinda easier to just go with no-token-no-life. But the first time Pizza faced Yog, I explained the current nebulous options, and he decided against the free round. Yes, he chose to side with Yog against himself. You can't get more Arkham than that.

jgt7771 said:

Really. You've done wisely to name your friends Cultists ::laughter::

Ok, I've made a valiant attempt to read the Terms twice but when you have a 2 year old bouncing around in your lap clamoring for an encore of the Barney song over and over it's a bit hard to focus. So where exactly does it say anything about not discussing rules?

arkhamresident said:

Sorry, we are not allowed to talk about this either

(more seriously, I guess everything started with the "you cannot say things that should be revealed in the upcoming FAQ" thing

Julia said:

"Upcoming" needs a stricter definition which includes a concrete time frame. This is quite ridiculous.

arkhamresident said:

You're absolutely right. My "upcoming" was completely sarcastic. I'm really fed up with all this stuff about "stolen nuclear weapons to be revealed in the FAQs". As I said several times on this very forum, many and different and with more interactions between cards games have their FAQ updated on quite a regular basis, and there is no real reason we don't have the FAQ published yet.

Oh, well, maybe there is a reason: they don't spend enough time working on them because they have other things to do. As a customer, I feel offended by this: I (and all people on this forum, and in general all people owning Arkham) have paid a lot of money for a product, and a certain service should be provided by the company. If you don't care of your customers, they'll simply stop buying your products

Julia said:

It's not like AH isn't still selling. How many new people have we seen come here and on BGG asking questions lately?

arkhamresident said:

For sure the game is still selling. Otherwise the label "Arkham file" used to promote related games wouldn't be used, and we won't have Arkham Nights events and so on. Plus, by looking at the official stats of the community, is one of the top 5 all time FFG bestsellers, one of the games more often in every player's top five, one of the games most debated and so on. The community is active, is alive, and deserve a FAQ.

In addition, these FAQs were created thanks to the help of some of our forumites. They were not paid for their work, and they are not allowed to talk about it. I strongly believe this is kinda unfair. And even if Tibs or Avi or Brian might feel ok with that, still, it's because they are good man with a great heart and a true love for this game, bot because it's "fair"

Julia said:

……it's kinda unnerving to think that, with the Arkham community, that second part is…negotiable.

Good point…Here's the new plan: we stick a bunch of zombie-slave spines into people, and then write up their glimpses of blasphemous knowledge as The Revelations of FAAQi

subochre said:

Ooooh, we can use all the folks I have locked in my basement!

Wait, no… staying in my basement of their own free will. Yep.

May I suggest that we A) Bombard FFG customer services with rules questions and B) decamp here http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/15987/arkham-horror to continue to ask/answer/discuss/argue rules and gameplay issues without fear of a sternly worded warning.

Seriously, just close down the message boards if its so much of an inconvenience to run.

At the risk of being banned for…insubordination, I suppose, I rather suspect that this is one policy that FFG won't be enforcing too strictly. If I'm wrong and they start bringing the hammer down just for answering rules questions, then I may have to take your advice and abandon ship, but for the moment, let's wait and see.