Dave wrote:
Also, to reiterate, we're not writing "new rules in all but name". Any clarification in the FAQs was passed down by GW. Anything that was never clarified we noted and threw in the 5-minute. It might sound strange to you, but we're attempting to preserve the community by not rocking the boat. You do that by working with the community, not telling them how it's going to be.
It sure does sound strange to me! I've never come across any game community that has suffered from having a clear and unambiguous set of rules. I've come across several where "When the rules don't cover it, play however you want" has shattered communities.
Also, you're making it sound like no rules or FAQ clarifications have ever come from anyone but GW. People in
this thread suggest otherwise:
jimmyzims wrote:
I'll note that we've changed core rules before (AC disengagement and consolidation moves being the most prevalent example) so it's not verboten, just it needs to discussed specifically.
If rules have changed for the betterment of the game before (and apparently without destroying the community or having anyone "look like a turd") then why the knee-jerk "Change is heresy!" reaction whenever incorporating clarifications into the core is suggested?
Bloodbowl seems like a great model for this sort of thing - a living rulebook system, with a seemingly healthy community. Clearly, it's an approach that can work.