Home

Dice Towers

Game Table

Tool Collection

ASL

New! ASL Tactics Discussion

"Perry Sez" Collection for ASL

Other Games

Links

 

 

The following was lifted from the ASL Mailing list during a discussion of the statement "Concentrate on what the rules allow" ("COWTRA") in the intro to the ASL rules. Perry made the post">

Home

Dice Towers

Game Table

Tool Collection

ASL

New! ASL Tactics Discussion

"Perry Sez" Collection for ASL

Other Games

Links

 

 

The following was lifted from the ASL Mailing list during a discussion of the statement "Concentrate on what the rules allow" ("COWTRA") in the intro to the ASL rules. Perry made the post, and I thought it was important. (Sam)

 

Perry Wrote:

 

SamB 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 everything 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.
 

Someone else wrote:
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"