I pointed Jay to the entire thread, and he responded by email with this:
regarding the following:
What, after all the bad things that have been said about RGG's (his) intransigence on 3rd edition scoring? Wink
Perhaps he has not noticed that the latest edition (and the travel edition) both have succumbed to use the (I think unnecessary) changes made by Hans im Glück since the game was first released.
I have definitely heard about this—it was being
discussed on BGG and I asked for scans. But unless I actually see the documents I personally can't confirm whether this was the case or not, which is important from my perspective because of the CAR. Anyway, it would have been disingenuous to pretend that nothing 'bad' had ever been said. People have been grumbling for years, and although it isn't so much the case anymore, there has always been a high degree of competition between proponents of HiG and RGG rules. There will continue to be: I'm sure that many of the people who prefer the (old) RGG rules will object to the recent changes on the grounds that they're a concession.
But seriously, as far as FAQ and such like are concerned, site policy is that HiG always trumps RGG, except in the case of RGG-only expansions like GQ11. Any rulings given by Jay would have to be confirmed by HiG, and so would only cause confusion. And don't forget that the RGG rules contain a number of discrepancies from those of HiG—just check the overview in the CAR.
My rules have NEVER had discrepancies from those of Hans im Glück. They chose to change the perfectly proper original rules and I did not (until recently). Because of their changes, there were differences, but no discrepancies!
I'm not quite sure what the distinction between 'difference' and 'discrepancy' is here. But the rules have not always been the same, and 'differences' have not only come from changes made by HiG. For example, the original HiG rules for the tower made no mention of whether followers on towers could be be captured; the first RGG translation explicitly stated that they could not. It's hard to think of that as anything other that a difference/discrepancy introduced by RGG—which was subsequently changed in the Big Box of both HiG and RGG to saying that followers on other towers can be captured.
The Big Box itself has other differences/discrepancies, some of them undoubtedly introduced by HiG. But some were surely introduced by RGG, such as who the starting player is: all HiG editions and the first RGG edition, it is/was the youngest player. In the RGG Big Box, any method agreed upon by the group is used. And the dragon moves after scoring in the RGG Big Box, while the original rules of both HiG and RGG made no mention of when, and the HiG FAQ clarified that the dragon must move before scoring.
These are perhaps minor points. But the infamous 1st/3rd edition scoring issue was not the only distinction between the rules, and at least some of those distinctions seem to have been authored by RGG.
Sure, I'd like20to hear from Jay. He posted on BGG a while ago and it was cool to know he was aware of us. But as far as I'm concerned, his taking to role of an arbitrator would be the last thing we need.
(I really hope that didn't come across as bitchy.)
Actually, I think it did, but I certainly understand and agree that Hans im Glück has the final say on rules questions and I usually ask them before responding to a question on Carcassonne,
Feel free to share this with the group.
Jay
I'm sorry it came across as bitchy. I guess my chances of getting a job with RGG have just vaporised.
When Gantry approached me about setting up this site, one of my conditions was that HiG rules were taken as the standard, and RGG secondary. That was because of my experience when I was first putting together the FAQ and CAR. The forums at BGG were littered with arguments about which rules were correct, why the other rules were stupid, and tedious questions about the same things again and again. Many people weren't even aware that there was a different method to the one that came in the box—and merely shouted "Wrong!" I encountered that myself on the first FAQ site. And part of the reason there's less of that now is because of the FAQ, CAR, and this site—because there's more information available which clearly highlights the distinctions (a main reason why the CAR will remain a heavily-annotated translation).
And I still think it is important to keep the site policy clear in order to avoid such a situation arising again. That doesn't mean ignoring or denying the RGG rules—such a extreme view is out of the question. It just means adopting whichever rules are 'official' for a given expansion (I wouldn't ask HiG about GQ11, for example) and giving people enough information to see exactly what's going on.
Anyway, I really didn't mean to cause offence. Jay—Please accept my apologies if you read this.
Matt
