SamB
Shut up and play!
From: owner-advanced-sl@multimanpublishing.com on behalf of
PerryCocke@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:37 PM
To: advanced-sl@multimanpublishing.com
Subject: ASL: COWTRA
Had to repost this since I didn't see it come through.
Sam sez:
> Bear in mind, however, that the phrase is IN the rule book because
> playtesters kept asking Don Greenwood questions like: "The rules say a
squad
> can place smoke, can a HS? If not, please make this statement in the rule
> book." Take a moment and think about how many situations this would apply
to
> ... Think about how long the rules would be if they had to spell out every
> thing that COULD and COULD NOT be done. Hence, the "COWTRA" phrase came
into
> being. Don't abuse it. Abuse, IMO is any statement such as "If you can't
> prove I can't do it, then I can." or "The rule book doesn't say I can't do
> it, so I can." The rules describe what CAN and (sometimes) what CANNOT be
> done. Don't read too much into them.
Sam makes a very cogent case for how to apply COWTRA. This is a very
important rules concept, certainly one that rules arbiters have relied
heavily on.
Yet is has never been, IMO, a shield behind which rules arbiters hid, and it
cannot be an _absolute_ rule.
Like Tuomo said, the rules have never been completely crystal clear nor
absolutely consistent. In light of that, COWTRA cannot be an _absolute_
rule. But it still must be a guiding principle.
Tom (perhaps in a pissy mood) says that the rules ought to specifically
state that HS cannot place smoke. I respectfully suggest that Tom does not
really want to live with the rulebook that would result from this, but rather
that he does not want to accept COWTRA and so takes the logic for avoiding
COWTRA to its unenviable end.
>You can't ask the players to stop taking advantage of every rules loophole
> they can find. That whole process is what has spawned many of the standard
> tactics we use today. So if that's what COWTRA means, I STILL think it
> sucks. Better to write a 100% ironclad rulebook right from the bat.
>
COWTRA does not ask players to ignore loopholes. COWTRA insists that merely
not mentioning something does not create a loophole.
We cannot write a perfect rulebook even utilizing COWTRA. Imagine how many
holes there would be if we did away with COWTRA and tried to "write a 100%
ironclad rulebook right from the bat." Maybe by admitting that COWTRA cannot
be an absolute rule we can let Tom off the hook here.
While admittedly not perfect, I think the 2nd Edition has eliminated most of
the inconsistencies and many of the confusions that had been identified over
the years.
Now we are left with stuff that people understand but do not agree with.
....Perry "I call that a big step forward"
PerryCocke@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:37 PM
To: advanced-sl@multimanpublishing.com
Subject: ASL: COWTRA
Had to repost this since I didn't see it come through.
Sam sez:
> Bear in mind, however, that the phrase is IN the rule book because
> playtesters kept asking Don Greenwood questions like: "The rules say a
squad
> can place smoke, can a HS? If not, please make this statement in the rule
> book." Take a moment and think about how many situations this would apply
to
> ... Think about how long the rules would be if they had to spell out every
> thing that COULD and COULD NOT be done. Hence, the "COWTRA" phrase came
into
> being. Don't abuse it. Abuse, IMO is any statement such as "If you can't
> prove I can't do it, then I can." or "The rule book doesn't say I can't do
> it, so I can." The rules describe what CAN and (sometimes) what CANNOT be
> done. Don't read too much into them.
Sam makes a very cogent case for how to apply COWTRA. This is a very
important rules concept, certainly one that rules arbiters have relied
heavily on.
Yet is has never been, IMO, a shield behind which rules arbiters hid, and it
cannot be an _absolute_ rule.
Like Tuomo said, the rules have never been completely crystal clear nor
absolutely consistent. In light of that, COWTRA cannot be an _absolute_
rule. But it still must be a guiding principle.
Tom (perhaps in a pissy mood) says that the rules ought to specifically
state that HS cannot place smoke. I respectfully suggest that Tom does not
really want to live with the rulebook that would result from this, but rather
that he does not want to accept COWTRA and so takes the logic for avoiding
COWTRA to its unenviable end.
>You can't ask the players to stop taking advantage of every rules loophole
> they can find. That whole process is what has spawned many of the standard
> tactics we use today. So if that's what COWTRA means, I STILL think it
> sucks. Better to write a 100% ironclad rulebook right from the bat.
>
COWTRA does not ask players to ignore loopholes. COWTRA insists that merely
not mentioning something does not create a loophole.
We cannot write a perfect rulebook even utilizing COWTRA. Imagine how many
holes there would be if we did away with COWTRA and tried to "write a 100%
ironclad rulebook right from the bat." Maybe by admitting that COWTRA cannot
be an absolute rule we can let Tom off the hook here.
While admittedly not perfect, I think the 2nd Edition has eliminated most of
the inconsistencies and many of the confusions that had been identified over
the years.
Now we are left with stuff that people understand but do not agree with.
....Perry "I call that a big step forward"