I was listening to Words From Wales, a section of the D6 Generation podcast (which I highly recommend if you like board and miniature games) on the way in to work today. In this particular section, Owen was raving against the Rules Lawyers. In the particular example he was citing, he said a giant in Warhammer Fantasy was killed and fell onto a Skaven Doom Wheel (or something like that). The Fallen Giant template covered most of the Doom Wheel (he said 95%) and the Skaven player said it was a partial hit because the complete model was not covered. Owen was particularly irate about that and went onto a short rant about how terrible it was that a rules lawyer would ruin his "story-based" game. He liked the idea of the story of the game telling how the giant fell on the wheel and destroyed it (which I don't see why the story can't say the giant fell on part of the wheel and broke pieces off it instead).
From my meager understanding of the rules, the giant template has to completely cover the base of the model it hits or it's a partial hit. I don't understand why the story-based player should be allowed to call a hit that does not cover every part of the base a full hit just because it fits his idea of the story of the game better. To me, it sounded like a bizarre way to justify gaining an advantage in game. Would it have been cool if the giant fell on the wheel? Sure. But he didn't. So why are we pretending he did?
The brief bit in the podcast got me thinking about other podcasts I listen to and how the player who tries to play to the rules tends to get looked down upon by other players who just want the cool story. I like to play games to the rules because I think they're there for a reason. But it doesn't mean I act like a jerk about it. If something is within a 1/8" or something, usually I'll give it to my opponent if they had any more movement left. I'm not out to make a game difficult for my opponent to enjoy, but I like the game to be internally consistent. The rules allow for that to happen.
I mostly agree with you, but there often rules that are against what the game intends, and the wording was poor. I think you would agree with me, that The spirit of the rule should trump the word of the rule. Or maybe thats just me. But yeah, I say play by the rules!
ReplyDeleteIf both players can agree on spirit of rule, I'm fine with that avenue. But if only one player agrees on spirit of rule, I think the default has to be the word of rule. Unless something's been mentioned about it already online. Personally, I prefer spirit of rule as long as I'm sure that the spirit of the rule is clear from the game officials.
ReplyDeleteTo give an example, when we were talking about Sonia Criid's fire burst, when I first read the rule for it, I immediately assumed it was doing damage to her (as the rules said) and therefore assumed the spirit of the rule was that it was a last-ditch drop a fireball on my feet and immolate everything, myself included. Which was not the spirit of the rule that other people assumed - they thought it would keep her free of harm. Until I was told by the people who run the game that it was supposed to not be a fireball at her feet, I wasn't happy giving in on the issue. Why is your version of the spirit granted more weight than mine? But as soon as it was ruled on, I'm fine dropping it and moving forward with you being right. (Not saying you as in "you" but rather you as in "other people").
I guess when it comes down to it, if the spirit of the rule is clear, go with that. But it needs to be clearly communicated by the game designers or officials or whatever. AND it had damn well better be put in errata sometime soon.
If both people can agree on the spirit of the rule, that's good and I would go that direction. But if you can't agree on what the spirit of the rule is (and it hasn't been indicated by the Company), then you HAVE to go with the word of the rule.