Headhunting

Validon · Post by **Validon** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:59 pm

If headhunting is an attack on someones home province shouldn't that mean ANY type of attack? If you get GCA'd isn't that an attack? If this is a loophole in the rules then maybe it needs to be looked at. On the first turn the "NO HEADHUNTING" rule is there so that no one is taken out right away without having a chance to do anything. An attack, to me, is anything that wipes out your armies, workers, pop or anything else. It is still an attack. If this is not the case then maybe all of the GMs need to look at thier houserules and be more specific. There is nothing anywhere that state headhuning is only an attack by armies in the attack phase of the game. If this rule is stated somewhere then please direct me to that area.
Now, I don't expect to win lots of games. I don't expect to survive more then a couple of turns in some games. This is part of the game. No big deal. But, I feel that it needs to be done right. Gang up on me? No problem because I'd do the same if given the chance. But taking away a persons chances to do anything thier first turn is why the no headhunting rule was put into place. I've gotten differing opinions from people on this subject so I decided to go to the boards and get more opinions.

Post by **ThinKing** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:09 pm

Another revolutionary move by TK?

I was just about to email the GM (Nick) about this.

I used the "20 Fingers" spell to take out some of Val's armies on turn 1, before he attacked a neutral. I expected to kill about 7 armies out of 15. However I got lucky and killed 11. Val then got unlucky (again) and failed on his first neutral.

I thought this was a bit of a cheeky action, but seeing as the rules seemed to allow it, I figured I should do it. Nick expressed the same thoughts when he emailed me with the report. He also said that in future he will disallow 20 Fingers as a starting spell.

My solution would be the same as Val's - no bombing someone's home on turn 1.

What do others think?

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:29 pm

Being as I'm involved in this triage of terror.... I'd say yeah, bombing would constitute as "attacking." I mean in most if not all of my NAPs i make sure to include when I say no attacking that attacking does cover bombing wether it be with missiles or GCAs...

Ec

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 6:41 pm

I had a problem defining that as well. I had considered headhunting as simply taking another player's home province on turn one, however, I see now that my house rules clearly state "attacking", and GCAs surely count as an attack. I should have never let the attack stand. I am going to rerun the turn removing TKs GCAs ASAP- sorry for the inconvenience all.

Post by **ThinKing** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:26 pm

Dameon wrote:I see now that my house rules clearly state "attacking", and GCAs surely count as an attack.

The house rules are the bit where it becomes UNclear! We have a phase called "attacks". GCAs are different.

I would of course like to change my orders (slightly) now. Now that I know I cannot use my GCAs, some things I did are silly. For example I wouldnt cast the spell (so please remove that order). Equally I wouldnt run at Val's armies (as they are not weakened any more). Also I wouldnt upgrade in the forest because I wouldnt even be attacking there!

How about just asking everyone to resubmit orders? Then the only disadvantage is a small one to me (because people will know I have GCAs).

Validon · Post by **Validon** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:35 pm

I agree with TK on this. Why don't you have everyone resubmit orders Nick with the clear understanding of what the headhunting rule is. My thought here is just that maybe the headhunting rule should be a bit clearer on what exactly is an attack. As AF said to me in the chat room: You could consider spying as an attack since it affects your EFF. So if the GM's are a bit more specific(just as players need to be with naps), then this would help to resolve some of the issues.
As I said before, gang up on me, take me out, just let me have one turn to do something.

Validon

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:03 pm

I say you're bumming Val, that was a perfectly legal tactic.

Nick, you can call a GCA a attack, but then you'd have to call spying a attack as well as it drops EFF, certainly not a non-offensive action. And that happens all the time. We've all been breaking the headhunting rule. (you and Underdog certainly spied me on turn 1 in Gaz game). For you to change the defintion now seems a little questionable.

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:11 pm

No way, this tactic has been done several times to me in other games and no re-run was granted.

This re-run would be unfair to the rest of us.

This change in your rules is after the fact.
Allowing a re-run because someone didn't get what they wanted is crap.

You should do this only in future games, not ones that are in progress like this one.

BS

Allister

Post by **Dameon** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:45 pm

I see that the rule is unclear, and I am going to clarify my house rules immediately. However, the goal of the headhunting rule is to prevent players with a favorable OOP from basically wiping out or severely crippling another player before they even have a chance to play. Actual attacking or using GCAs would negatively effect a player before they can do ANYthing, however, spying on them would not.

It's cheap, and I don't imagine players are going to like the fact that their plans are exposed and they may have to resubmit. Ergo, I will take a player vote. Either we restart the game completely, new starting provinces and a clean slate, or I will allow the resubmission of orders for all players.

Post by **gm_al** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:51 pm

Vote ? You are not going to tell us you will stick to a vote, do you ?

(I would hate not being part of a good flamer, so I had to post here)

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:33 pm

Dameon wrote:I see that the rule is unclear, and I am going to clarify my house rules immediately. However, the goal of the headhunting rule is to prevent players with a favorable OOP from basically wiping out or severely crippling another player before they even have a chance to play. Actual attacking or using GCAs would negatively effect a player before they can do ANYthing, however, spying on them would not.

It's cheap, and I don't imagine players are going to like the fact that their plans are exposed and they may have to resubmit. Ergo, I will take a player vote. Either we restart the game completely, new starting provinces and a clean slate, or I will allow the resubmission of orders for all players.

So keeping the turn as is won't be voted on as well. Doesn't sound very diplomatic.

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:55 pm

A couple things to say here....

For starters, this does concern the entire community, but please refrain from posting on this SPECIFIC GAME unless you are a part of it!

I think its the luck of the draw as to what spell you get, and OoP but its balanced luck because it could happen to anyone at anytime. So LUCK is a NULL ISSUE!

I agree with Taker that there should be a vote to continue as is.

THAT IS MY VOTE NICK CONTINUE AS IS, NOT the options you've dictated. So what there was a hole in your House rules, TK's Fault? No. AFs fault? No. Ec's Fault? No. Val's Fault? NO. Its TFB and if it happened to me and it has happened to me, then that's it, T O O F E C K I N G B A D!

THIS GAME SHOULD continue as scheduled and you should change your houserules to reflect your future games.

Well players Who's with me?

TREWQH - WANTS A RESTART
ALLISTER - WANTS WHAT I WANT
EC - THE SHOW GOES ON
TR - ??
MASSIE - ??
RAW - ??
SKARN - ??
TK - RESUBMIT
VAL - ??
TEMUJIN - ??

Nick.... Allister brings up a good point in the email, I won't drag it out on the boards to spare us all a further flamboyant flamer... but still interesting.

Allister Fiend · Post by **Allister Fiend** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:24 am

We have all been down this road many times.

I have been playing WOK for a while now and have been in a lot of games where this happens constantly.
Never been an issue before.
Like TK said, he expected to only kill about 7 armies but he got lucky and hit 11.

If the luck was reversed, and we all know how the game goes sometimes, TK could have only killed 4 or 5 armies. Val would have had plenty of troops left to take at least 1 if not all 3 new prov's and this never would have been brought up. But instead since he lost 11 armies and bad luck trying to take his 1st prov., we should restart the game?

I've seen 2 armies take 3 full provinces on turn 1. I've had situations where I have lost 0 armies on turn 1.

You can't tell me he wasn't still in the game in this one. He had a good chance to come out of this alive and failed. That's how it goes sometimes and that's WoK.

I would really appreciate it if all players in Nicks 35 would at least have the vote on if it continues as is.

Thanks and I probably won't comment any further.

Allister Fiend

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:02 am

Nick, if you want to define your houserules to say GCA's count as headhunting, then fine. But, you are always the first person to say that rules are not retroactive. However, this is apparently different.

According to Allister, Al (the great creator

) doesn't define headhunting as GCA's. Now I've been around WOK long enough that ,after countless debates to know that things need to be written in stone. Obviously there is no clear defintion of headhunting. So I would say we as a community (through the WSC), need to define headhunting. Then any GM is free to do a they choose, as long as they say it in their houserules. Once again, the rule should not be retroactive.

Though I'm not in this game, I am totally opposed to a re-run of the turn.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:04 am

Ecrivian wrote:A couple things to say here....

For starters, this does concern the entire community, but please refrain from posting on this SPECIFIC GAME unless you are a part of it!

I did. Get over it!

Post by **korexus** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 1:12 am

Do I think that GCAs should count as headhunting: Yes.

However, bear in mind that headhunting is a house rule anyway. It is perfectly possible for a GM to define head hunting as attacking or attacking/GCAing or attacking/GCAing/writing mean things in the commentary. Said GM can then allow or disallow that definition as he sees fit.

In this case, Nick's house rules say no attacking. Attacks are clearly defined in WoK as running in with armies so TK's move was legal. The best thing that can come from this is that the issue is now out in the open so GMs can make their own decisions and state it in their house rules clearly.

If anyone cares, all GM Chris games will count missiling and attacking a home province as head hunting. Spying and writing mean things is completely allowed. (Unless the specifics for an X-Game say otherwise!

) Everyone is free to join or avoid my games with that knowledge. I suggest all other GMs state on their house rules page how they will view this matter. It'll save having this argument again later on...

korexus.

Post by **Dameon** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:07 am

Here's the bottom line: my game, my rules. I believe that killing a player's armies is a clear attack. I am not ready to simply ignore that fact if Validon is issuing a formal complaint. I take SERIOUS exception to the fact that Allister, somebody whom I generally hold in very high regard, actually accused me of being biased towards my clanmate in this game. I am simply trying to be fair here. If you don't like my definition of fair, well, nobody is forcing you to play in my game. Now, there is a vote out. If you are in my game and wish your vote to be counted out of the two available options, vote away. If you feel like you can't live with either of the options- then I won't be offended if you decide to drop out.

Ecrivian · Post by **Ecrivian** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:37 am

Dameon wrote: If you feel like you can't live with either of the options- then I won't be offended if you decide to drop out.

So you're saying that there's a third option of TFB?

Okay Nick. *keeps muttering to self*

Taker wrote:Get over it!

Over it, you have valid points, and I agree with you, you stir no fuss with me.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:37 am

Dameon wrote: I am simply trying to be fair here. If you don't like my definition of fair, well, nobody is forcing you to play in my game. Now, there is a vote out. If you are in my game and wish your vote to be counted out of the two available options, vote away.

Yeah, two options that really don't address the dispute.

I've always held you in high regard as a GM, Nick. Now while I'll agree that GCA's/missiles should be defined as headhunting, nowhere does it say that. "Attacks" in WOK are considered by most to mean "attack orders". Your rules do not state that "attacks" are anything but that. What we imply and what we say aren't always the same thing. Anytime wording is in question, we err on the side of caution, why not this time?

I'm one of the people here that actually likes you, but you do tend to have have the "my way or the highway attitude" that everyone accuses you of.

Undertaker · Post by **Undertaker** » Wed Mar 24, 2004 2:57 am

Undertaker wrote: I'm one of the people here that actually likes you

No offense TK. We can still be clanmates, right