That, by the way, is part of the point I was trying to make. Boiling it down to "yes" or "no" doesn't help people learn or apply the rules (which is why I rarely end with a "yes" or "no," even if that is the simplest answer). Spend enough time in this community and you find that if the question is...
I agree with you that lengthy explanations are needed. It's just that succinct ones are needed, too. I think you need both.
Here's an example of a bad explanation:
"Does Burning Bridges (Queen of Dragons F49) prevent a duplicate from being used to save a character?
Burning Bridges reads, "Players cannot trigger abilities on character, location, and attachment cards in play." It is referring to
triggered abilities printed on the cards. Because the saves granted by duplicates is a "gained" ability rather than a printed one Burning Bridges does not have any effect on them."
It lacks a 'No.' at the beginning and end of the explanation. A flat 'no' means that there is no room for someone reading it and going "Well was that a yes or a no?" Even "Burning Bridges does not prevent a duplicate from being used to save a character" would be better than the way it was answered.
Here's another example:
"Does Heavy Taxes (A Poisoned Spear F116) affect the gold counted before or after Black Raven's (A Song of Summer F2) effect has the players take 1 gold?
The players each count their plot gold and all the income bonuses they each have in play. If this number is greater than 4, the rest is disregarded because of Heavy Taxes. When the player takes the gold from the treasury Black Raven causes each player to take 1 additional gold token. The same is true of when White Raven is in play, all numbers above 4 are disregarded and then White Raven causes each player to take 1 less gold token from the treasury."
The opening line should be "Gold is counted, Heavy Taxes is applied, then the Ravens add or subtract from the new total and gold is taken from the pool" or something to that effect. Instead it gives an explanation of the rules with no clear and concise answer. The answer is obviously correct, but I would bet $100 that there is someone who read that and went "Wtf?"
The entry after Burning Bridges is a good example of how to answer a question, amusingly.
"Can a card with an "any House except X" restriction be used in a deck running the Neutral Faction House card?
Yes. Such cards may be used in any deck that is not using the House card specified by its restriction."
It answers the question clearly and succinctly, then explains the answer.
There are tons of good and bad examples in the FAQ. It is very inconsistent in it's ability to both clearly and succinctly answer a question, then explain it. A lot of times it answers the question by explaining the rules in depth and not giving a clear and succinct response.
It's not the lengthy explanations I mind. Those are obviously important. It's brevity, clarity, and succinctness for those who see the explanation and go "Wtf did I just read?" that I am concerned about.
Edited by mdc273, 19 February 2014 - 12:04 PM.