Of course I haven't considered you to be right because you can't make a coherent argument that incorporates the fact of the matter.

Is doing a fan-based list really that terrible of an idea? It seems like it would be helpful and doable with a few volunteers

GrahamM said:

Penfold , you seams have good judgment because you understand very well rules and how mechanics rules.

So what about make a "rules group" to make a proper online faq ?

Zephir right about the problem for newcomers and the time spend to understand all case/mistake on the cards.

With an online faq classed by name, members and players just search for the card when a rules clarification is needed and found :

- Name card

- Original text

- faq text (with faq version number)

- exemple to use this card.

So we can use the current faq AND a wiki (for exemple) for players wanting to find QUICKLY an answer (with example to have a clear understanding of how the card effect rules).

All players can participate so the time spend will be split and it's free cost !

We need to create group with players with free time and others to check the wiki and remove any mistake

As long as you have dedicated volunteers to type up the initial drafts, I don't think accuracy would be a huge deal. Plenty of experienced players read through all the rules discussions in this thread--I think if there was a list of card explanations those experienced players would probably read through and correct it too. As far as finding people who actually want to do it--Zephyr seems like he is willing to try, I know I would gladly chip in some, and I'm sure other people would as well. Also for people who post frequently in the rules forum, like Penfold, it doesn't seem like it would be too much extra work to just type up a brief explanation of the card being discussed and add it to the list. Maybe I'm making the same mistake that Penfold thinks Zephyr made about extra work, but all of this seems pretty reasonable, especially because there are so many dedicated players on these forums.

Yes Graham, count me as volunter, so if  Zephir could make a new topic to discuss it. :)

 My issues is that Zephyr can't seem to get it past his head that FFG doesn't have the time, inclination, or money to do this. At no point have I ever argued that it couldn't be done by other people, and have on multiple occasions suggested that it be player driven, but he keeps insisting that FFG become involved. And that is just a ridiculous inability to understand economics and a myopic self-entitled and hopelessly unrealistic expectation.

I don't have time or the desire to right a paragraph on every card that exists and every interaction with every other card that exists.

I'll happily answer rules questions as they are posted on the forum. If I find something wrong in the wiki if I happen to be using it for something I'll correct it or add my two cents in. I might find time to do the occasional review. But I'm not going to be a main contributor, at least not directly.

And I agree 100% incorrect information is worse than too little information. If you aren't positive about how a card works or interacts, don't say anything on the wiki. Ask here or ask Damon. Otherwise we'll end up withy Expendable Muscle becoming an attachment before the effect that would would him even resolves (an logical impossibility and one which the rules don't allow for but was argued strongly for days by a world champion) or Kaleidoscope of Calyptra causing terror or willpower characters to be wounded for losing a terror struggle.

What would actually be really cool/much easier to do is just have a more easily navigable archive of FAQs and summaries/best posts in each of the rules discussion topics. I have no idea how someone would go about doing this, but I don't know anything about computers--does anyone know more?

 Ok, I am actualy doing it already using fan site

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/index.html

The advantage over wiki is that site has a really good card database with search function and has comments that are not used, so i used them for ruling discussion. And site has great cross card links with preview that make card references much better, especially for new players.

Downside is no support for ruling info, but maybe admin could be persuaded to add some tools it if enough ppl care; i think that having first post editable by all involved in ruling project would be enough.

After discusion i tend to upload results under card entry and i do add some entries on my own. I try to provide source to everything i upload and when im not sure i write im not sure.

http://www.cardgamedb.com/index.php/CoC/call-of-cthulhu-portal

has recent comments list so it can be used when ther are not that much new stuff to see whats new, i think a better and longer list could be added if admin is persuaded that it will actually help us.

I also reworked the fragment of FAQ i didnt like (numbers are not updated after recent FAQ change):

http://students.mimuw.edu.pl/~ls262570/faqPlaintext.htm

The problem is new players need to know about those resources in order for this to actually help them.

I still think that even if not giving rulings FFG would be great to advertise that such ruling is available to new players and if it does generate big traffic maybe some support for fan site in maintaining servers that give them nice service would be nice.

 If you aren't sure you shouldn't write anythiing. Leave that to whoever is or contact Damon and get the official clarification.

 This would make me write nothing, mailing everything to Damon doesnt make much sense - i have too many wierd problems and it would waste too much of his time to answer all of my doubts. Im writing forum posts when i ask stuff from time to time and get to know the game better in the process.

Also I want those comments to be a place where ppl can ask questions and answer is then moved to the top.

And I encourage you to write claryfications if there is anything wrong.

Just adjust your attitude a little while writing claryfications - this 'its all obvious just read FAQ' is just not good when someone is confused and doesn't understand rules. Explanations as simple as possible are the key - the more obvious they seem the better. You understand those rules really well, but explaining needs to be as simple and basic as possible with as little ambiguity as possible. Especialy "its obvious, why would you do it that differently" is completely missed approach. Just ignore other version and explain the problem as detailed as possible so its clear. And mechanic list of activities is simpler to understand than complex rule reference.

This is a forum. If you ask a question and I ask why you think it would be any other way it is to get to the root of the problem.

And this just got me to understand why you don't get the FAQ. It isn't just about giving concise answers to questions. It is about explaining the answers so you can get the mechanics of the game. So you get charts which detail where a thing can happen. Then it is up to you to apply that knowledge.

But you seem to not want to apply it. You seem to want the answers written out explicitly for every card for every possible circumstance. It is like the insanity question how the rules specifically state what has changed when a card goes insane and then you complaining for three or four posts that it doesn't say that the things not mentioned remain the same.

Can you imagine trying to write directions to your house that way? Now when you get to 3rd Avenue, not 3rd ST, or 3rd Blvd. and not 2nd Avenue or 4th Avenue, go right. Not left, not straight, not a u-turn, but right.

That doesn't help, that confuses the issue.

Instead it should be "When you get to 3rd Ave go right."

I rarely read the card comments or reviews, when I need to refer to a card I use the search feature and move on. If I come across something wrong or questionable I'll say something, but don't expect to see it.

One thing remains the same with insanity - name, and its not obvious. When all other things are gone not that hard to miss that.

Insane has no printed is also not obvious. They are printed on the other side but it doesn't count - also easy to get confused.

Most cards are ok and need no additional explanation. Some cards are more difficult to grasp but have similar pattern, its enough to see one of them explained, but with per card form you knever know witch one, so the best way is to get all (link to the explained one can be enough for others) or at least enough for player to eventually see one explained.

And there are some cards with unique or really rarely used with wording like Alyssa that almost never happens, those really benefit from explaining them in detail. Even if they can be deduced from general rules (in some cases its either really hard or close to impossible).

With your example. You say take 3td Avenue right, guy takes some random street, you explain "the street with 3td avenue written on it, not 3td street you see", he goes left, you explain "left is where you feel your heart, right is the opposite, go right", he eventually gets it. Even with this stupid example there are things that can go wrong and a way to clear them up as easy as possible.

 Things can only go wrong if the guy cannot follow directions…

Rather telling isn't it?