In late May, 2002, the Warmaster e-mailing list erupted once more into polite and reasoned all-out war over what is and isn't an abuse of the rules. One list member posted this gem, which I felt was so good that it had to be preserved for posterity; moreover, it needed to be made available to as many readers as possible, which is why this slightly editted version is on my web page. It should be noted, in case anyone wonders, that Rick Priestly has explicitly endorsed almost all of the tactics The Happy Ent lists late in his essay - the exceptions being ordering a confused giant (declared illegal) and making way to your great advantage (I don't believe anyone has ever asked about it). If you wish to view the entire thread, and associated subjects under discussion at the time, join the GW-Warmaster list at Yahoogroups, and view the message database from around the 31st of May - the keywords you want are "backwards" and "sporting". ----------------------------------------------------------------------- What interests me is a possible discrepancy between what is Legal and what is Fair Play. We are discussing this broad theme all the time, and so far the murmur has been that these things, to a large extent, coincide. Why do I care about Fair Play? Because I want pleasant gaming experiences. Let me give a (hypothetical) example: In my opponent's turn my cavalry has just lost combat against infantry and retreats (the other player cannot pursue, so he falls back). After combat is over, my cavalry gets to reform. I can see that it is *possible* for me to pivot my cavalry unit so as to set up an initiative flank charge next turn. Question: what should I do? Should I exploit this? Or should I voluntarily forego this opportunity - after all, I just *lost* combat so I shouldn't find myself in a more advantageous position than before. What will probably happen is this. I look at the situation and say: "Ok, reform time. Hm... oh, if I do it like this, then I can initiative flank charge you next round, right?" Then I very carefully watch my opponent's facial expression. If the eyebrow goes up, I *don't* play the move (opponent seems to think this is cheesy). If the opponent nods and smiles, I play the move (opponent would probably do the same against me). Now, both ways work for me - but I'd like to know beforehand. I don't like Playing Blind: playing a game where the rules are disclosed on-line, and where the social skills of a player decide who wins, and in what mood the opponents are left after the game. I am really uneasy about guessing my opponent's opinions about several moves (quirks, tricks, bugs), but on the other hand very much would like to please that opponent. So far I've tried to err on the safe side. For example, I have never, ever used the Orb of Majesty, nor have I ever had it on my army list. Never ever. I promise. Other people find that item totally acceptable. However, as my proficiency with the game increases, I am aware of more and more quirks/moves that seem like unwanted side-effects to the rules, and that I may or may not be able to use against different opponents. This evolution begins with understanding the flank charging rule, but it certainly doesn't end there. Now why is this a problem for me and not so much for other people? Why am *I* unable to divine the Common Sense about what is Fair Play or not, while this is so painfully clear to others? I don't know. I *do* play people from different age groups, different social groups, and even different nationalities. I *assure* you Who Play Seldomly or Against the Same Opponents that there *is* no Common Sense. One person's cheese is the other person's tactics. There are two ways out of my predicament: Plan A and Plan B (actually, there is Plan C: throw random insults against whomever doesn't agree with you and question their generalship and their ethics, but I don't care much for plan C). Plan A is to say The Rules Are The Game, or Anything Goes, or (using Lex's formulation) There Is No Cheese In Warmaster. I am currently in that camp, because Warmaster has such good rules that Plan A actually works! There are many other games where it certainly doesn't. Plan A has the obvious advantage of being well defined. However, whenever a tactic I hadn't thought about appears, I become very concerned. Ordering confused giants (OCG), or presenting the rear of Knights (PtRoK) are such examples. I am genuinely concerned that *this* finally is the example that makes Plan A come to shambles: a *legal* tactic that gives a non-counterable or otherwise game-wrecking advantage to the player who uses it, or that is extremely difficult to rationalise. There are *many* such examples, an incomplete list is below. However, I think that neither OCG and PtRoK are unbalancing (both come at a hefty price), and both can be easily rationalised. (Note on rationalising: my Calm Down rule was an attempt to rationalise PtRoK. I certainly don't assume that these troops move backwards, just because the stands are turned around - please don't trivialise my position. They do something else, which is *modelled* by turning the stands around. My explanation of what they actually do was dismounting the Knights, or chanting. Frenzied troops sure *aren't* frenzied all day, they *do* show restraint towards enemies at 21 cm distance, so there *must* be some way to make them ignore enemies at 19 cm distance as well, at a price. If you don't like the rationalisation - fine. There are many other silly explanations of WM mechanics that one can accept or ignore: why rangers can pursue, why archers can shoot as far as 30 cm, etc.) So I maintain my commitment to Plan A, until an even scarier example than PtRoK comes up. And I assure you that my immediate reaction to PtRoK is the same as anybody else's. I just habitually *don't* trust my immediate reactions. Plan B is to adopt a set of extra rules, which we may call Spirit of the Game (SotG). It's a bad name, but let's use it for now. There is an appendix in the Warhammer book on this, and I think it is wonderful. I have been an advocate of Plan B and have often tried to compile a list of SotG with the help of this list. Nothing ever came out of it, for good reasons: laziness, and the difficulties of actual codification. There is also a bad reason: the conviction of many group members that SotG is an innate part of our biology, which is universal, so it needn't be explained. In the light of the PtRoK and OCG giants discussion, and especially the derogatory comments made in the wake of the discussion, I find myself back at square 1: maybe I should go back to plan B. There *are* two sets of rules: the Warmaster book and the (so far secret) SotG. It is a good plan (I would certainly welcome a Spirit of the Game appendix to Warmaster), and several well-spoken group members have often aired their views on some specific tactics, most notably JLM and UGY. I have always enjoyed these comments very much and strongly encourage you to keep on posting. Here is a partial list of moves that Some Find Cheesy and others find Part of the Game. 1. backing up and charging in column from 20 cm distance on the second command 2. falling back into a forward position 3. pivoting your troops so as to initiative charge whom you want 4. screening artillery so as to target whom I want 5. pivoting artillery so as to target whom I want 6. wrapping stands around entire formations while pursuing (where the movement restrictions don't apply as we know - there are several very surprising things that can be done) 7. making way so that the pursuer (if he chooses to pursue) has to contact the unit that just made way 8. flyer slingshot (home back, pivot, charge in the flank) 9. ordering a giant from far away to make him Go Wild 10. ordering a confused giant to make him Go Wild 11. pivoting your impetuous troops so that they don't see potential targets for a forced initiative move Etc, etc. I think more or less every of these examples seemed very problematic to me the first time I discovered them. There certainly have been shocked messages on most of them: "I played this super cheesy opponent last night, who pulled the following move on me ..." On the other hand, many of these things have been canonised in my book by a number of authorities. For example, I read that Stephan Hess plays 6, so it must be ok. Now I play 6 as well. My biggest problem (now for years!) is 7. I don't understand the Making Way rules, and cannot believe them as written, and haven't used them. But instead of having to wait to see Hess, Priestley, Burnett or Rozier use legal but not-obvious move, I'd rather have a document that does this. Unless one is part of the British tournament crowd, it is difficult to guess these issues. That's why I like to discuss these matters on this group - it is my only source of information for what the Inner Circle accepts and not. A constant web-cam at the Tanelorn club would be a great help too! Best regards, The Happy Ent hapent@yahoo.co.uk