rader -> RE: Gamey or Not? (3/29/2010 8:34:45 PM)
|
Thanks for the info on the word origin; I had no idea where it came from. I certainly agree that as your example illustrates, the extremely gamey stuff should be ruled out, and I was quite happy to do so. And I agree that the most important thing is not only to ensure that you play within the rules, but that both sides are happy with the manner in which the game is being played (especially for something as long as WITP). Moreover, I think this loophole should be brought to the attention of the designers in order that it is changed. Anyone want to volunteer or where should I post it? What I'm saying is that I prefer rules to be as comprehensive as possible. I don't think it is sufficient to say "don't do things that are gamey", because even as we've seen here, peoples' opinions on what qualifies vary a lot. If something is extremely "gamey", it should be discussed and ruled upon by the players if it is something that was missed by the designer. And I do think some discretion is necessary. I think, for example, it was possible in the original WITP to change the command of the static West Coast forts and have them magically appear in Karachi 60 days later. I didn't consider sailing up the river without activation to be in that league. But my opponent did, and clearely a large number of you did as well. In fact, in retrospect after having thought about it, I tend to agree. That's fine, and I'm more than happy to incorporate a HR that dissalows it. Anyway, we've probably beaten this to death, but thanks to everyone for contributing, and I appreciate the civil discussion. (I'm not saying people shouldn't post more if they want to, I just don't want to offend anyone by my continuing to rant...)
|
|
|
|