I would much prefer that CB label changes to how the rules play as anything but FAQs. Updates, Errata, whatever. Just not FAQs. Frequently Asked Questions should be the things that clarify how the rules play, not changes to how they play!
Agreed; and I'm glad they have an errata section now. However, this particular thread's question doesn't necessarily count as one, as it is possible to read the rules in the way the ruling was rendered, although I don't think it was very common.
I'm not sure anyone actually read the rule that way, which is why I am flagging this as a rules change, not a clarification.
Some of us did. Is your point now invalid? (This is rhetorical, referring to how things are often not cut and dry enough) I think its easier to just put everything under one flag rather than quibble over whether something is technically a FAQ or technically an errata. The players will know what to do with it regardless. Whether we were right in our understanding before is irrelevant.
In fact that makes his point even more relevant. Using FAQ + Errata/Clarification let the player check quickly changes in rules without the all the fluff of dobuts about rules that are clear for that player. And also make it clear which is the official position about that issue (aka, if it's a clarification or if they are changing how that rule works)
It's very important to clearly label changes, as opposed to clarifications/explanations. When I wrote up a new revision to an instruction in the Navy, the promulgation letter announcing the new revision always had a section of significant changes. I also included big clarifications in that list, but they were described as a clarification, as opposed to a major change. If the changes were really extensive, I would say "the section on [ whatever ] has been completely rewritten." It might be a clarification to CB, but given how many forumites were apparently playing it as the CoC/XO model can use the generated LT order(s) after they take over, that's a change to how things are played to an awful lot of us.
Why is that important? And I mean that in the sense of if you had limited resources to do this task, why is this feature more important than say, addressing more questions?
Because keeping the the information well organized and clear is something critical in this kind of games. And it's also something that will cost no extra resources (instead of tossing the question in the FAQ part, you toss that into the "Errata" part); and it will also increase their ability to address more questions because you won't have the FAQ full of extra rulings instead of, you know, FAQs.
TBH, whether it's clarifications or errata isn't as important as not calling it a "frequently asked questions" document. Most of the questions in there aren't frequently asked. The questions and answers format can be detracting as well as it may lead to some errors like the one for Shock because it's answering a question that's not actually asked.
Something can't be "critical and important" while also costing no resources. To be done well takes time. So if we drop the this incorrect assumption that what you're asking is trivially easy. Is it still important enough? Don't get me wrong, I agree that separating into different categories is nice to have. But its not more important than getting answers on things that are still outstanding. I'd rather get answers and discuss what category they should be in, then not have an answer and have circular arguments about what it might be. I think the use of the term FAQ is definitely overdone these days, and historically the FAQ has had some frankly undercooked answers. This seems to be on the improvement now that warcors are involved in triaging frequently asked questions. Maybe categories will be the next thing on the improvement list.
It doesn't cost zero resources, but properly classifying things as clarifications/FAQs or Errata/Changes doesn't take a lot of time. Especially if you have ONE PERSON doing the actual editing of the document, even if other people are creating the answers. I was the one person maintaining two sets of instructions, one was 'only' about 200 pages, but the other was over 500 pages. I didn't have to write new stuff from scratch, I was just reformatting what I was sent (and nagging people to send me their updates, granted). That was roughly a half-time job. If you added creating an indexed/hyperlinked PDF to the task list it would probably be a full-time job.
FAQs are effectively a few hours a month. I wish there was a whole half-post for dealing with rules issues!
I don't get your point... it costs no resources. How many resources does it take to put a question in one category or in another? Organizing the amount of Q&R we have right now would take 1 hour max (and that's considering they double check) and that would be something to do just once. That'd give a ton of useful information to the player. Having answers and having those answers organized aren't excluyent things.
Most of that 'half-time job' was reminding people very senior to me that I didn't have their paperwork by the time they had said they were going to deliver it.
Try it. And then have a few people give feedback. Remember to time every step of the way (i.e. don't pause the timer when you get coffee or when you're waiting for someone to respond). It's surprisingly costly.
Lol, what? I've have done stuff much more complex than sorting answers into 2 categories when I've been asked for, and again it takes no time (or it is something you can do as a filler for other more complex tasks). We are talking about giving the SAME output to the player, organiced in a slightly different form; it doesn't require to rewrite rules or anything like that (rewriting those parts would be better tho, but I'm not talking about that) In the time we are wasting here arguing, this could had be done 4 times...
The amount of times I've heard "no time" being used to describe tasks that takes 4+ hours to do well... By now you've also spent a considerable amount of time pre-organizing them.
It depends on the context, overcharging a guy with "no time" tasks every day will make his life hell; but doing a "no time" task over a month is not something to make a big deal. I've been debating with people who think that shorting a few answers require a proyect of 40 pages and a week of work. This would be more like this: Resources: Get a guy who know rules inside out in his coffe break. Work: Read Q&A, does it add/modify rules? Yes: Cut it, Paste at the errata part. No: Leave it alone. Quality control: A second guy review the work. In future FAQs, just put the question in the right part of the document. Hard work...
Yup. Then you have people working during their breaks, which is probably illegal in Spain. I've done this, it was pretty much a half-time job for me. For two (rather large) documents that were only revised annually. It's not a huge, strangling amount of work for one person, but it is a pretty measurable amount, enough to add a position to the company. CB could really stand to create a 'rules expert' position, whose job is to 1) hang out on the forums and answer rules questions; 2) add those questions into the (working) FAQ; and 3) publish the official FAQ every quarter. Like how Privateer had their 'Infernals'.