Von Bolter & Chainsword:
Irgendwie verlier ich bei einer solchen Sichtweise die Lust auf GW. 🙁
just to start off with, Jervis didnt read the questions while we were chatting, and we didnt really discuss specific questions (except those used as examples to illustrate more general points) - he is going to pass them on. secondly, this is all from memory - I didnt take notes, so dont hold me to any of it - treat it all as "IIRC" (if Jervis reads this and wants to correct anything I have said, he can feel free to do so).
il see how much of our conversation I can remember (apologies if its a little disjointed)...
- Codex Overrides Rulebook
this mantra is a tool to resolving rules issues: a codex will always override the rulebook - even an old codex. I used the DA Combat Squads question as an example here to see just how far Jervis was willing to push this method, with suprising results: when the DA Codex says a certain unit is Scoring, it doesnt matter what the new 5th ed rules on Scoring Units say, that unit is Scoring (Devastators, for example).
the only exception is if they errata the rule. so until it gets changes in an errata, DA can have 30 Scoring Units (or whatever it is) vs their opponent's 6 (in most cases).
- they know everything
not exactly how Jervis put it, but the jist was that any issue we can spot, chances are they are already aware of it (because they play lots of games, and interact with lots of other gamers, and because they get the rules months before we do so they are always ahead of us on the learning curve). if we find something that feels odd in the rules, we are supposed to assume they already know about it, and unless/until they errata it, they are OK with it. (Jervis is OK with DA getting many times more Scoring Units that other armies for example - they found it didnt spoil the game so left it as it is)
- they didnt want to make specific exceptions when writing general rules
the example here was Beasts/Cavalry being unable to charge enemies above the ground floor of Ruins, and how this can feel odd in some cases (Hormies) despite being OK in others (Cavalry). rather than make Hormies an exception in the core rule, or in the Tyranid FAQ, they will leave it as it is until the new Tyranid Codex comes out, when they might give Hormies a special rule in their entry. they would rather make the rules broad and general than cluttered with lots of exceptions, and are willing to make sacrifices in order to do this.
- feel free to houserule anything
Jervis admits that while the rules they have written explain how to play the game they enjoy it, different people have different tastes, and sometimes things might not feel right. therefore, if you are unhappy with a rule, you should feel free to agree to change/ignore it with your opponent. the idea is that both players will work together to make the game enjoyable. the Hormies were used as an example here: if being unable to charge a unit in a ruin would spoil the game for you, then ask your opponent if you can do it. Jervis said that the studio even houserule things as they are playing, without changing the actual rules, on a case by case basis (so in one game you might ask if your Hormies can charge up stairs in a ruin, while in other games you might not bother). tying in with this was the statement that the designers dont actually use the official FAQs when playing, because they resolve the issues themselves without needing them (FAQs are only there to solve rules disputes - if you can agree on how to handle the issue yourselves you dont need them).
- the most important rule is that the rules arent the most important thing!
while the rules may say what they say (and it will sometimes be weird, and we are supposed to assume they know about it and are OK with it) that doesnt mean we have to follow them. in a way he is making it our responsibility to make the rules work whilst still taking £30 off each of us for a rulebook (although he was quick to point out that 2/3 of the new book is hobby content, and that the rules section is just a manual/set of guidlines for having fun games).
- some people will be gits - just say "yes"
this is a 2 parter. first of all, the studio tried to write the rules tighter and tighter, and more precise, in order to defeat those that would look for loopholes to abuse, but realised that no matter what they did such players would just try harder and exploit something else instead. so they decided not to bother to pander to such players, and write the rules in a more relaxed fashion (less legalese), instead writing the rules for players willing to work with their opponents to make the game work for them both.
(curiously however the later books seem to have been better written from a RaW-technicality standpoint...)
the second point is that if you are playing someone who wants to push the rules or take liberties, then it is better to just give in and get on with the game, rather than argue with them. Jervis told us a story about when Alessio joined the studio: Alessio was a competitive tournament winner, but was afraid that unless his attitude changed at events then he would bring the studio into disrepute. Jervis' advice to him was to "Just say yes" whenever something came up in a game. Alessio tried it, and while he finished far lower in the rankings than normal (near the middle, rather than at the top), he had much more fun and slept easily that night (where as normally he would have been stressed out). so there we have it: "just say yes"!
- "use the newest rule" is gone - codex books are self contained
one point that Jervis made is that we shouldnt try to compare rules from different books (the opposite of what we were told in the PH FAQ...). for example, not all Assault Cannons are equal - it depends on what codex they come from. and the studio is OK with that. I think their reasoning for leaving such inconsistencies is that if they start to try and fix them all, where do they stop. so for example, when GW playtest rules using DH, their Assault Cannons dont get Rending - unless the players themselves decide to houserule it, in which case they do.
personally this feels like a cop out: they know it would be too much work keep everything up to date (and maybe judging by their recent attempts in the FAQs, they realised they werent even up to the task of doing it properly) so they decide not to bother and leave it up to us (similar to why they arent trying to write rules perfectly).
its almost like GW are blaming us for any problems we find with the game, because if we would just communicate with our opponents and houserule anything we didnt like, we would have fun anyway. they have set their target to be writing a set of rules that work well enough as long as players are willing to make them work, so of course they feel like they are a success...
to an extent I can agree with the points he made: some of the most fun and memorable games I have had were where we made things up and did wacky stuff, and some of the worst games I have had are those where we spent more time looking things up than actually playing. although at the same time some of the best games I have had were when the rules just worked, and it allowed us to enjoy the spectactle whilst neither having to work at it ourselves or without needing too much suspension of disbelief.
im afraid GW might be "guilting us" into enjoying ourselves (by making us tell ourselves that we can and must enjoy ourselves) despite all the problems with the game and the rules: if we dont have fun its our own fault. since rulesets dont have to be fair, balanced and without rules issues for us to enjoy ourselves, then none of those things are a concern of GW's - its up to us to make do. make of that as you will...
hope this helps, apologies for anything I have forgotten (next year it might be best to bring a recording device... )
cheers
~ Tim
Irgendwie verlier ich bei einer solchen Sichtweise die Lust auf GW. 🙁
Zuletzt bearbeitet:
