jwb3
Just this guy, you know?
This is a classic example both of the proper use of COWTRA, and of why COWTRA is a fundamentally broken concept.The problem is, G.4 only refers to 2 phases (Movement and CC) and one rule dealing with concealment loss (A11.19). The rule that Klas quotes (A10.533) is not specifically suspended nor is the rout phase even mentioned. I personally think the intent was to leave the hipsters HIP until CC no matter what, but this is not how the rule reads, as far as I can see.
The whole point of the COWTRA statement is to allow the rules to just say what a rule is, and not to waste space listing all the things the rule is not. It's to avoid the old 'MP & the Holy Grail' line:
"...the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out!"
In this case, COWTRA dictates that if G.4 talks about the MPh and makes no reference to the RtPh, then the RtPh is "right out!". Whether it "looks absurd" (as Miguel so eloquently puts it) has nothing to do with it. The Great COWTRA has spoken!
But...
That isn't good enough for us. We see the apparent absurdity, and we can't help questioning whether, "Perhaps they just forgot to say anything about the RtPh?" COWTRA is a very hard rule of thumb to live your life by, because it assumes perfection in everything involved.
So, the result is that by trying to use the COWTRA statement to shorten the rulebook, but by being human and making plenty of errors and omissions that are legitimate sources of questions, the designers actually increased the number of questions that get asked about the rules. They gave us a new reason to read the rules in a manner that parses every sentence, when the ASLRB was not written to withstand that kind of scrutiny; they left all sorts of rules that were supposed to be "clear after applying COWTRA" but that inevitably, some player sooner or later doesn't find clear at all; and they defered the answering of most of these questions to a time when knowledge of the original intent of the rule is no longer available to help answer it!
John
Last edited: