The problem here is rather simple:
You have to read a set of rules, doesn't matter if this is ORC or any other ruleset, to play. You don't have to know the world, history, detailed faction specifics to play.
But, there is little chance to play now, as the game is far from being "beta". What we can do is playtest, improve or invent stuff. If you want to improve our docs - you have to keep close to our dictionary - that is eg. using "creatures" rather than "units". For inventing stuff - that is developing the game - you just have to know where you want to go with it. Every change makes a difference, and we have to have a clear direction set. Else - we're just running like a bunch of headless chickens. For example, we have pretty simple resource management (when compared to MtG), because we want the game to be rather short and focused on tactics, rather than on resource management. Everyone coming here would immediately tweak it more towards how MtG looks like - thus probably destroy subtle balance of how we envision the game, time of play and level of excitement.
It's even worse than that, as we're not making a single game. My dream is that there can be really different games and scenarios played with the same set of cards (or a subset) and with changing rules. The project is ready to host such rule sets. It is even said that our rules may not be official ruleset in the end. So that you should be able to have 200 card decks and play whole day, as well as having 30 cards and playing for 20 minutes during a tournament. To have it that way we not only have to think ahead, but also drop some ideas, that are good otherwise.
Now, to summarize: to actively develop the game, not just throw ideas, one must know (read) what we want the game to be in the first place. Later she or he can disagree and discuss with the vision - no problem here, but knowing what the project wants to achieve is the first step.
While coming here I went through every single blog post, wiki article and forum thread. It was not that much back then (but now there's no blog history). Else I'd possibly miss some eye-opening stuff, waste people time asking answered questions or be pointed to read a piece of doc that's written already.
If you can see any other way to be immersed quickly (in a dev-ready way), shoot. For now you just have to know how and why we want to work the way we do (Project philosophy), what are our goals as a project (GDD or General Design Document), how we want to meet those goal in Original Rules Concept, or "Quick rules" (LDD or Local Design Document). For more in-depth information there are eg. Facton Concepts or Style Guide. I think it's not much. It's not easy either, so feel free to help us if you wish.
I must agree, however, that wording could be different here and there...
Back to the point - problem I see is we're struggling with lack of proper mechanisms to develop things quickly. It would be easy to blame snowdrop here, or just say the overall mana level is rather low in the team, or, as I did it, invent a tool for it, while being incapable of doing anything more, but it's not all that simple. We need the way to invent, test, and change rules and cards, and probably also record tests and share how things were going while testing. This is done normally sipping beer and playing by the table. What we use now is way harder, and involves days of preparations to get Lackey or GCCG running with static set of cards. As I see it, at the moment this is our bottleneck.
Your beloved Q_x, the tasmanian devil