"Is it allowed to do so?" Topic

Hello everyone,

In a wargame with miniatures, on the pretext that it is not prohibited,is it allowed to do so?
Thank you.

Great question. I would say in general that the answer is no. If the rules do not describe what a unit may do and how to do it, then the unit may not attempt that action. For example, most rules do not allow a commander to fire at his own troops (despite the fact that this may have happened from time to time). Another example would be digging earthworks – if the rules do not describe who and what may do so, it is generally not allowed (probably because either the time scale does not allow it, or because historically this type of troop did not generally dig in and so we don't allow the players to issue ahistorical orders).

Agreed, this is a great question that I ponder frequently. I encounter this from time to time at the shop with players who state "Well, the rules don't say I can't do XYZ" (Imagine the size of a tome that listed everything you couldn't do). In the name of cinematic effects, good fun and memorable experiences sometimes we will roll with it. However, even if the rules don't say I can't throw oranges at my opponent every time they activate I should most likely refrain from doing so :)

The rules lawyer's common argument…the rules don't say I can't, so I can.

Show me any rules set that could possibly list everything one can't do.

Can my French Grenadier Guards shoot death rays from their eyes? Can my Carthaginian war elephants teleport? No where in the rules does it says they can't. This is why having a referee to interpret the rules is so valuable.

This is probably the safest approach:
Everything is prohibited, except that which is permitted

Board games and tabletop miniature games are generally considered to be permissive systems (though this is rarely explicitely stated in the rules themselves), i.e. players can only perform actions that are specifically allowed for in the rules. Trying to do otherwise would lead to madness.

Role-playing games (with a proper game master) tend to be different, as a good game master can be expected to improvise new rules for reasonable actions not explicitely covered in the rules.

Being solo things come up that rules might be vague, but if I know it did happen will allow it.

Better to ask specific questions. There are less than a dozen wargame rules that I know of that are so perfectly written that there are no questions.

‘Nothing can be done contrary to what could or would be done in actual war.'
- From 'The Rules of the Naval War Game' by Fred T Jane

My favorite sets of rules state (in the writer's notes), "It's your game, play it an have fun." So if something isn't specifically allowed by a rule, do it anyway…if it makes sense, if your opponent agrees and if there is a suitable penalty for failure. That last bit keeps people from getting too weird, usually.

So if your French Grenadier Guards want to shoot death rays from their eyes, roll for it. The chances of success will be pretty low and the penalty for failure will be that they lose a turn or two while the troops ponder the sanity of their leaders.

We had a player who would start every game with a serious of questions of what he could or couldn't do. The questions were usually something that is covered in the rules. I am not going to spend an hour before the game reading the rules to you. I will take it one situation at a time. My initial answer was, whatever the rules say. If they don't say then no you can't do it. The side that read the rules will have an advantage, as it should be.

Then there are the obvious pre-game questions I would be asked. The rules do not prohibit helicopters but I am pretty sure there were no helicopters at the battle of Waterloo.

If something comes up that is not in the rules at all. Then we may make a temporary house rule and later after the game consider a permanent house rule. Gives us time to ask around. Contact the author if possible and check out the forums like TMP. But no helicopters.

I will allow you to use helicopters. But, I get to equip my cavalry with jet packs…

;-)

I thought nk starting point is that without any rules, we just have a pretty diorama on the table and nothing can do anything. The rules explain what you can do, they don't give free licence to do anything which isn't specified.

Tbh, life is far too short to deal with competitive rules lawyers, I'd rather leave it short and simple and rely on players being sensible and/or an umpire. I do have luxury of a large group of regular players though, which makes things simpler.

Many rules include an "if it isn't covered by the rules and you can't agree then roll a dice / flip a coin and then after the game decide whether the ruling stands for future games." That's not so satisfactory since if you find "that" player then they may ruin 50% of the games by doing something not strictly banned by the rules and getting their way through blind luck.

The other extreme is the WRG Ancients which had to be super restrictive because for about 20years they were THE competition ruleset and so every eventuality had to be covered: "it doesn't say I can't transport elephants in rowing boats, so my elephants get into the row boats and cross the river". It happens once and the rules amendment sheet gets issued and what started out as quite nice rules end up like a legal contract to cope with the "awkward" players.

@Eumelus :
I was thinking of non-historical combat formations, organizations of non-historical units or armies, etc.

@Night Owl III :
I was thinking of non-historical combat formations, organizations of non-historical units or armies, etc.

@raylev3:
The authors should warn that what is not indicated as authorized in the rule is prohibited.

@Glengarry5:
Exact but it would be better for the authors to warn that what is not indicated as authorized in the rule is prohibited.

@Korvessa:
Bravo, everything is prohibited, except that which is permitted.

@Griefbringer:
With some players, it should be better specified in the rules.

@14Bore:
What will you allow?

@emckinney:
So perfectly written?

@Gus Fring:
Only with a bit of luck?

@Bob the Temple Builder:
It would be better to write at the beginning of each rule: "Nothing can be done contrary to what has been done in the period covered by this rule."

@Stryderg:
If it's not ultra-historic in all areas, it's not for me.

@Old Contemptible:
If unfortunately there are helicopters because in most games, it is the players themselves who are still reconnaissance helicopters.

@Zephyr1:
Exactly .

@Martin Rapier:
If I don't know the period, I don't count on the common sense of the players but on the passion, therefore the honesty of the players passionate about this or that historical period.

@ 20thmaine:
If you can't agree, roll a dice / flip a coin. Yes on the opponent LOL

The way to look at is as a simulation. That is a piece of code that analyses a situation and allows coded responses. You can't just add code to a CFD analysis so why would you expect to do otherwise.

However in a friendly game with somebody who knows the rules then you can an have a bit of fun.

I saw a pill box, but it was just a mock up over a stream i found out eventually. I was being shot at down a stream covered by the pillbox, not realizing the gun was in the ditched stream and the bunker non existent. However my opponent was vary careful about what he shot at so was scrupulously careful not to be inconsistent. I finally twigged what was going on and we had a good laugh about the sheer genius of the ploy.

However rule layers I have no truck, play once and abandon them forever, noting worse.

Coin tossing indicates a serious problem and should be rejected as above.

You gotta close those loopholes. I've had too many players exploiting them no matter how historically invalid their arguments were.

@UshCha :
Bravo, tout est interdit, sauf ce qui est permis.

@microgeorge :
Bravo, tout est interdit, sauf ce qui est permis.

(…) and so every eventuality had to be covered: "it doesn't say I can't transport elephants in rowing boats, so my elephants get into the row boats and cross the river".

Depending on the depth of the river, elephants can also snorkle (their 'crews', not so much… ;-) There are times when a sensible referee is needed to just say 'No' to some of the schemes players come up with. It would solve a lot of problems… ;-)

Paskal…admittedly I don't know you, and social media is a bad place to have a nuanced conversation, but given your responses above it would appear you're a bit of a rules lawyer. Not fun to play with.

@raylev3:
Yes !The authors should warn that what is not indicated as authorized in the rule is prohibited. And I'm not a rules lawyer.If not,not fun to play with.