"We will clearly explain in a transparent way what the FAQs are for Corvus Belli, their creation process, and the criteria we use to include a rule. This information will be published before the end of February." Has this release been delayed or cancelled?
So I appreciate CB giving us an outline here. But i have 3 issues with what they describe. 1. Their categorization process is opaque. Until we see the next FAQ, we don't know which issues they view as important, and which they plan to ignore indefinitely. This creates a lot of frustration with each new FAQ, and could be easily addressed by them giving a short list of topics they intend to focus on in the next document. 2. The forums are not terribly effective to communicate with them. Not a surprise, really, but us discussing an issue in the rules at length and proposing fixes does not seem to matter to their decision process. If they decide an issue is below their FAQ threshold, even if we have a few good consensus fixes to consider, it gets sidelined. 3. Edge cases matter in competitive play. Ignoring things because they don't happen all the time creates disputes on the rules that event organizers have to guess at, leaving one player feeling like they got a raw deal. Even if they don't want to address specific edge cases, general guidance for related situations would be nice.
Not that I disagree with you, but it seems like (I haven't done a statistical study, because ...yuck) many of these type of issues come about from what is essential a debate of RAW vs RAI. Given that, it seems like the official CB stance is RAW unless we change it in a FAQ.
The tail end of 2nd edition had a bunch of times that they issued an FAQ that told you to play it RAW, and then they updated the RAW in the next book (or next edition...) Examples: Myrmidon "double rainbow" - the original dual template weapon rules didn't say they had to be the same type of DTW, so RAW allowed them to fire the nanopulser and chain rifle at the same time. They issued a FAQ confirming this, and then altered the twin weapon rule in Campaign: Paradiso to what we have now. Quantum Dodge - For all that people complain about the jankiness of Engage, it's still 1000 times better than the official answer at the end of 2nd edition.
My fear is that the article reads like they're not going to be bothered fixing where the rules are actually broken and no one knows the best answer to the point there are long discussions with no real clear resolution, even when IJW etc get involved. It reads like they'll likely answer just more basic questions that get asked a lot, for example by beginners. And yet they still havent answered some of the most fundamental frequently asked questions for many years, like how declarations of intent should be handled. I hope that's wrong and they methodically go about addressing the underlying issues that cause problems like the 'Worldwide Warcor FAQ' debacle. As many players have been asking for some time now. I hope at least they answer the questions that the warcor faq apparently got wrong correctly, and hopefully the ones from the 'Unansweered questions' thread that seems to have been fairly painstakingly put together to boot.
Why should CB say anything concerning the “play by intent” debate, and just let players work it out at the local level? Magic the Gathering tournament rules cover whether a player is allowed to go to the bathroom during a game. ITS rules don’t, it’s expected that the players will work that detail out for themselves. Warmachine/Hordes has rules (both in the book and in the different tournament documents) concerning how specifically you’re supposed to track various items. ITS rules don’t, it’s expected that the players will work those details out for themselves. Suppose CB’s sets the bar at “Has this caused an issue at Interplanetario?” Has “play by intent” ever been an issue there?
I think CB's attitude is 'Rules As We Intended', but at the same time also strenuously believing they have adequately described them, that their Rules As Written should be more than sufficient, and that we should all therefore understand their intent. Since this is clearly not the case, and that even their FAQ's lack the sort of clarity we need as players, their attitude (if I may say with sincere respect and admiration for their achievements) is fucking bizarre! My personal experience of the rules team is that they know exactly how their game is played, and they're very clear about even quite arcane rules questions. Yet that doesn't translate to a coherent policy of writing, translating, publishing and maintaining their ruleset. This longwinded FAQ process is not appropriate, and it's not necessary except in genuine FAQ situations per se. CB should instead institute a simple process similar to the way Wizards of the Coast manage Magic: the Gathering with Oracle.
Why does CB have an allergy to the word "errata"? What decides what a "coffee talk" is? Are they waiting until the next edition to fix bad rules to save face and not have to admit to errors?
Unlikely, since they are still publishing books. IF they do, it will either be the big black N at the end of the year (or a simplified version of the game, followed by a new rulebook) or something at least for 2020. I hope, however, that they will stop splitting the rules into two books with a mishmash of basic and complex rules. For me, the ideal distribution would be to have all rules but for those relevant to campaigns and environment and ITS onto a second book, but leaving the first one with everything people uses to play. And a leaflet of quickrules. Simply put, calling the hacking rules "advanced" (with terrain) when several armies have remotes as their basic troop is not ideal, and having some rules in the "basic" game then others in the "human sphere" expansion, when the main focus now is on sectorials with fireteams... well...
I just was being "indirect" or "convoluted" (and matching the style). RaR is RaW after becoming obvious RaI did not "transmit" in 1st RaW. So instead of admitting there were issues and provide erratas early (which are... guess... Written), just sneak the changes later as yet another full book (or two, with non justifiable split now that the system is mature, as @xagroth said). You could also said the attitude is testing the patience of customers.
