Edit: and of course I misspelled unofficial in the topic line ... Mondays

Now that development has ceased, I have updated my printer-friendly FAQ to try to correct some typos in the originak FAQ and more imprtantly, to include material not in the official FAQ, mostly from the deckbox forums. I have moved some material around and tried to include general rule clarifications in the general FAQ sections while reserving the final section for specific card questions. As usual, changes are in red. If anyone sees any errors or has any suggestions, please let me know.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8j0M9w0F8VJWkFybUYwR3ZrUkk/edit?usp=docslist_api

In the Legends section where it explains, "A legend’s power is considered to be equal to the number of power icons it has in its weakest zone..." the example given (Malekith) has the same power in all zones. Perhaps a Legend like Cron or Wurrzag would be better to illustrate this?

Slaanesh's Domination answer is incorrect:

Venom, great suggestion!

Virgo, great point. That particular ruling was taken from Deckbox and cites this:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?showtopic=42845

This is a tough question then. Do we use the general rule or the specific ruling? I'm tempted to use the general rule you cited and scrap the question in the FAQ.

The problem is that you're adding things which are old rulings

My printer will appreciate your efforts, thanks a lot!

"A unit questing on a quest that is moved to a different zone or removed from play will remain in its zone after the quest is moved or removed from play." (p. 10)

It's easier to read like that:

"A questing unit will remain in its zone, if that quest is moved to a different zone or removed from play."

And I'm not sure, if that Soul Stealer question still is - or ever had been - correct:

Q: If a unit already has Soul Stealer (EC 117) on it, and I play a second Soul Stealer onto that unit who controls it?

A: If you play Soul Stealer on a unit that has already been stolen, then your effect and your opponent's effect cancel each other out and you will regain control of the unit.

I think, this creates an illegal game state (2 players controlling the same unit) and therefore that unit is removed from play.

Though, the "rule" I'm referring to isn't that good, because it leads to another problem:

Q: If I have a Veteran Sellswords
(CC 38) in my battlefield, what
happens if my opponent has a unit
with Paranoia (CaC 78) attached to
it in his corresponding zone?

A: The Veteran Sellswords are
unable to move to the zone, but
they must move to the zone. This
creates an illegal game state and the

(p.21, official FAQ 2.2)

versus

If a unit causes an illegal state when it enters play, then that unit is immediately sacrificed.

(p. 11, official FAQ 2.2)

Sellswords obviously aren't entering play which means that at least one of these sentences is wrong or imperfect.