Corbon said:

hmm, i am not sure how you find that as another thing. In faq it says that the reason why you cant play crussing block next to pit is so you cant block walk ways. So what different it makes if you block hall way by playing crussing block first and then spiked pit, than other way around? So simply that faq rule in case of pits is pointless becouse it doesnt change anything becouse you can still do it.

Corbon said:

 [QUOTE efidm=385425]

sysrq828 said:
And other thing i have been thinking after our most recent game, can heroes or overlord block magic gateways by standing in both spaces at other end? I have seen these kind of teleports only in one map. Well in that map there was other way than just the gateway to the level leader, but still blocking these teleports ruins whole idea of the map, right? If there is not other way than gateway to the level leader or to the level teleport, heroes can't finish that level and dungeon if and when overlord block the way (i am not sure is there these kind of maps).

The only level I can find like this is the Keep of the Beastman Lord, which has special rules for this gateway, not the usual rules. Even if it didn;t have special rules, this gateway still couldn't be blocked at the far end because it is 'unrevealed' so nothing there exists. Blocking at the near end is just a case of teh heroes having to kill the blocking monster first.

Basically, there is no issue here.

 [/QUOTE] 

From road to legend quest 34 there is 2x two way gateways. Yes there is just straight way to other side. But blocking these gateways it just make this map last so much longer and when i played this i came to think why there are these gateways? And it just stupid that you can abuse these gateways like that

Corbon said:

 [QUOTE efidm=385425]

In general, yes, magic gateways can be blocked by standing at the far end, unless a figure has Fly or Acrobat etc.

And, er, what do these questions have to do with updating the FAQ? These are general questions. This thread is for discussion about the next FAQ update. If you have something you think needs to be FAQed, or an error in the FAQ you found, etc, then post t in general discussion first, then if something really does need FAQing it can be copied here - after any discussion, so we don't clog up this thread.

[/QUOTE]

I think both of these things should be FAQed, point of first question is clearly error or some brainfart, yes it is impossible to play block next to pit but it still is possble to play it.
Other one makes on nice piece of design pointless.

sysrq828 said:

This requires the heroes to use different tactics to finish the level. It's perfectly doable and a leader that can get away from the heroes is the point of the level. Not every level should be in favor of the heroes anyway. As Corbon stated, these things should be discussed in a different thread. If a consensus is reached that the level is not balanced in that other thread, then something should be posted here.

Found an inconsistency in the FAQ pg. 15 (yeah, sysrq828 used it, but this is a different issue entirely):

Q: Which map items count as obstacles for the Crushing
Block trap card?
A: Crushing Block may never be played in a space
adjacent to a pit or any token (or built-in map element)
that blocks movement. The reason for this is to prevent
the Overlord from sealing a hallway completely and
preventing the heroes from ever progressing. This is a
list of all relevant obstacles, current through the Road to
Legend: Boulder, Crushing Wall, Rubble, Water. (Villagers
are figures, not map elements.)

The list of relevant obstacles does not include pits when it is mentioned earlier in the answer. It would be a relevant obstacle up to that point. They should also add any relevant obstacles in SOB as well, if there are any.

hmm, i am not sure how you find that as another thing. In faq it says that the reason why you cant play crussing block next to pit is so you cant block walk ways. So what different it makes if you block hall way by playing crussing block first and then spiked pit, than other way around? So simply that faq rule in case of pits is pointless becouse it doesnt change anything becouse you can still do it.

Pits do not block corridors, just make them harder to get into. You can still jump over or walk through them. Presumably they added pits to the answer to prevent the standard tactic of dropping a pit on someone and then using Crushing Block to shove them back into it when they climb out. You used to not be able to play Crushing Block next to any obstacles, and I don't know the original reason for the errata.

Please gentlemen, start another thread for this conversation.

This is exactly what we do not want filling up this stickied thread!

If necessary, at the end of the discussion (on the new thread) a single, simplified summary can be placed here. At the moment such is not needed.

sysrq828, I understand that at the moment you think that this is FAQworthy, but you are actually making a lot of mistakes and mis-assumptions. The rules are clear here, and their application is not in doubt and does not cause major problems with any scenario. If you have further questions or arguments (and I am sure you do) then address them to a new thread where they may be discussed without clogging this one up. If your points and arguments prove not to be effectively countered, then a FAQworthy addition can be discussed on that other thread, and placed here when it is suitably refined.

Thank you.

A link to a forum discussion shorty after the latest FAQ came out. There was some discussion about  possible FAQ questions to send starting near the end of page 7. Link goes to page 10. Figured it was relevant to look at for anyone working on a new FAQ.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Solairflaire said:

Yep, thanks. That one is on the list already.
We have over 30 sets of Q+& and discussion notes like this for the next FAQ prepared on a google group (including large monster movement one linked above). We have been working on them for the last three weeks or so and are just finalising how to bring them 'back' to 'general public' for discussion and refinement before re-collating them (possibly here) to send to FFG for the next FAQ. I guess there will probably be some action within the next week?

Most are from SoB (the other sets have had multiple FAQ revisions to be cleaned up already) but a few, like this, are major general cases that ought to be cleaned.
The plan is pretty much to throw open each to discussion in a separate thread (possibly on a sub forum here so as not to clutter up this main forum). At the end of each thread we should have a refined solution (mostly Q+As) that we can eventually send to FFG. We do the work, they make the decisions - with the best information and potential wordings that we can offer them.
The individual threads might only be opened a few at a time though, in order to keep 'focus' and not overwhelm with too many things to look at.
There should still be room for 'new' questions or discussions as well.

I regrettably will not have time to actively participate in the FAQ update this time around.  I just started a new job with a long commute leaving me short on spare time for working on the FAQ Q&A.

I will say that I think with the crew currently working on it will probably do a more complete job than I could.

Will all the GLoAQ answers that are currently missing in the FAQ be included in the new one? I suggested it last time, but it was not done. It is always a hassle to check both FAQ and the GLoAQ thread for relevant answers.

Parathion said:

That would rock. I'd love to see the GLoAQ thread disappear entirely.

Parathion said:

I don't know. (I suspect FFG won't go for that). Besides which, the thread would still be needed for new Answered Questions.
At worst we could ask for a new stickied GLOAQ thread with the first post the accummulation of the last GLOAQ thread. At least then you could just open the first page and do a word 'find'. 

Well, we could extract all the relevant Q&As from the GLoAQ thread and simply send them to FFG with the request to include them in the FAQ, right along with the set of new questions - there is no extra work for FFG included, if we assign the Q&As to the appropriate sections.

Parathion said:

Agreed, and I've made the extraction (cutting out some unnecessary parts and breaking multiple Qs into single Q+As where it seemed appropriate. Organisation will come later.

I can't see the GLOAQ disappearing as a resource though.

Corbon said:

Why not? It's terrible design to have two FAQs, especially given FFG's lack of internal consistency in the past. Plus having only one place for Q&A postings means less work for them. Other than tradition, I can see no reason not to fold the two together and let the GLoAQ fade away. If it's job is done, let it rest. :)

James McMurray said:

Because there will almost always be a need for a place to put 'new' or 'rediscovered' rulings that need some sort of official backup but haven;t made it to the FAQ.
We'll be trying, of course, but I don't imagine that the next FAQ will cover all possible issues.

SoB in particular still has a long way to go before being 'fixed' properly, even to the level that RtL is. I'm sure there are still level, rumour or keep issues that haven't come to attention yet simply because not many people have played them yet.

If FFG were willing to re-release the FAQ every time a new question came up, then the GLOAQ wouldn't be needed, I agree.
But they aren't, and I can't see that changing, so the GLOAQ will still have it's place, however annoying that might be.

It's easily doable.

1) Convert the FAQ to a php file instead of a pdf.

2) Put the rulings in a database.

3) Have a page where the rules guy(s) update the FAQ.

4) Instead of answering rules questions that are emailed in, answer them in the FAQ if they're not already covered by the rules. Then reply with a link to the FAQ answer.

You cut out the middle step, eliminate the chance that someone can give an official ruling that goes against a prior official ruling, and have the opportunity to add in all sorts of bells and whistles. It could track users by a cookie (if they've got them turned on) and highlight all new or changed rulings by checking a last-modified date. It could be editable on-the-spot by anyone who's logged in and has editing rights. Users could register for email updates whenever something changes.

Crowbarring dynamic data into flat files is 20th century technology. Why continue dancing with dinosaurs when modernizing will make things easier, cheaper, and more customer-friendly?

And yeah, I know you're not the guy who makes the decisions. I'm just shouting into the wind with my own personal pet peeves (the fallibility of duplication of effort and poor user experiences excused by "it's how we do it").