As a small quirky trivia, CB has historically not treated the FAQ as a rules clarification vessel, it's always been more of an errata - generally only fixing the rules that were a bit too ambiguous. When I joined the forums in the tail end of N2 a quote by (I want to remember it was) Interruptor kept being floated where he basically said that they wouldn't explain rules that were solved by reading the rules (this is slightly more PC than the original quote) So this whole thing of explaining the thinking behind the rules and answering questions that are actually frequent is kind of new.
