Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The best rules are interpreted the same by everyone. The problem is that when a rule is written not everyone may interpret it the same. This leads to FAQs to remedy the differing interpretations. Most of the FAQs' answers are one word to a question that is a paragraph in length. I would like to see the amount of effort in the response be a direct reflection of the commitment to the hobby as their customers have made through their question. I do applaud the continuous examination of the rules with FAQs, as these do address interpretation issues.

I believe complex examples of implementing the rules is the best method to convey the rules and intent. These examples can be released in the rulebook FAQ and Codex FAQs. The cost is the time making the examples as the online access to the .pdf FAQs is efficient and cost effective.

So what are you proposing?

Your proposal doesn't fall on deaf ears. Everyone who has seen the FAQs wants a clearer, more comprehensive explanation. Why they keep them at such abysmal levels, I'll never understand; as you said, the price is only time.

I propose GW publish detailed rules examples in the Rulebook FAQ and Codex FAQ. An example in the Rulebook FAQ might look like the following:

Example shooting attack: A five man squad of space marines, 4 boltguns, 1 heavy bolter fire at 10 orks. Four orks are within 24" of all the attackers, 4 more are within 36", and one is over 36", and one is not in sight. All boltguns and the heavy bolter are within range of 1 ork and have LOS. All hits from the boltguns and heavy bolter are put into the wound pool and will be applied to the 8 orks that are in LOS and within 36". The 4 orks beyond 24" can receive wounds from the boltguns if the 4 closer orks are removed as casualties....

So what you are after is a mini essay for every FAQ, yes it would clear stuff up, but I can't see GW investing the time into this. It's just not their mentality towards this game, they even say in their book, ( and I'm para phrasing) It is not a perfect rule set, there are far to many variables in the game to make it so, and sometimes you as the players, will have to make your own calls on the rules.

This is fine, when the game is played in the same spirit with which it was written, as a fun way of playing with your toy soldiers. However it becomes a problem when it gets added into a competitive setting, as the competitive scene demands a more strict and black and white rule set.