Antistone said:

I am not changing arguments. Instead I am linking a minimum delay enforced to protect against mistakes and unforeseen interactions with understanding the reality of resource constraints on a company. Of course it is desirable if the entire Descent rule book could be rewritten (mistake free) and hand delivered to everyone who owns a copy by 12:00 GMT today, but it is not reasonable to expect that kind of effort. Instead we must figure out what we consider reasonable effort.

So I am arguing given the fact that FFG is a company of limited resource I feel it is desirable to enforce a minimum delay between FAQs to protect against mistakes. I understand that a six month time line does not directly translate into man hours but that is a detail I am simply skipping over. I am stating it is reasonable to expect FFG to give Descent a burst of design activity for FAQs two times a year.

Given the fact that the request in question implicitly asks for more effort than this, I disagree with the suggestion. I disagree on the grounds that more effort would not actually be given to the task and this would result in FAQs that have mistakes. Given that mistakes in official FAQs have drastic implications I feel the mistakes should be avoided at the cost of less frequent FAQ updates.

I would also state that the active forum community could give designers insight on questions before the designers rule on them. I give the ironskin/sorcery debate as an example. This of course requires time.

I seek clarity not agreement.

Guys, I totally feel for the folks who want to get "official" answers sooner. There is nothing worse for someone who likes a concise conclusion to a debate over the board than to have something be decided in a forum format, w nothing official. Even whatever we post and agree on out here means nothing in terms of what "should" be done for each person in their own game.

Remy, I see you brought up my "moral" issue w rules that change often. Having such, to me, lowers the integrity of a game. Especially when played with nitpicky rules analyzers. You dont want rules that change often. Even if there's a flaw in them, like a constitution, you dont want to be constantly amending it, or you dilute the valid points in it.

Remember one HUGE - VERY HUGE selling point to any good game is concise and simple rules... and that means minimal FAQ's, and minimal "go online to read the latest Q&A's". Now we may all hate that, cuz we are the people who are out here, wanting to know more, or in my case, wanting to discuss the game cuz I enjoy it. I dont necessarily want official answers when I'm out here, I want to talk to others about how they handle ambiguities. I'm never looking for someone to read to me what a card literally says and declare the "right" interpretation - if there was a "right" interpretation, I wouldnt be asking about it! I can read the card. In cases where it doesnt make sense, I want to know how people deal with it. Some play on w the literal wording, others think about intent, fair play, balance, etc.

But that's a tangent... A rule book should just be the rule book, and an FAQ should just be the FAQ. There is no need for more updates. Update once a month? Come on that's just too much.

I do totally agree w some of the ideas, like offering a new rule book that has all the updates. But I would never want to think we're moving toward a situation where to play any game, you have to go online to check the latest rules and updates, first. We are the far minority, we readers of the forum. I dont ever read the forum on most games I play, just the ones I like and get addicted to for a period.

As an example, I got into Simcity 4 with a fury when it came out, and it was this exact same concept all over again. Everyone else who is avidly addicted to a game wants instant feedback and responsiveness from the designers. There were bugs, people wanted things fixed, glitches, errors, etc. Yet an official patch would only come out once a year. People would wonder why it wasnt every couple days, or once a month.

Basically game designers have 0 incentive to dilute their own rulebooks, updates, etc, to satiate the cravings of a few hardcore players who were contract lawyers or literary experts in a past life. Nor should rules be written or clarified to such standards. It's just too confusing. When all is said and done, it's just a game and we need to keep that in mind.

A simple rulebook is good, and an FAQ to clarify some things once a year is fine! And for all else, we have each other to bounce ideas off of.

-mike

The way I see it, for those who want to have clearer rails to run on (especially competing players) ie: that small minority, sure I support it.

For the others who just play & aren't concerned too much, just play & jave fun. They don't even have to know this site exist & don't need to worry...