Buyer beware - Tinywargames UK.

I don't like to grumble about wargames companies. Wargaming is a small world, we are all dependent on each other, and much of what we do requires goodwill to run. That is not something you want to disrupt lightly.  

However, I do feel a responsibility in this case, because in an earlier post I had mentioned I was buying a hex mat. Given the experience I have had with the company I would not like people to see that post as a recommendation.

Back in mid May I ordered a Commands & Colors hex mat from Tinywargames UK. They replied on the same day to my query and I paid for the order, with '7 days international delivery' promised for the shipping. A couple of weeks later, at the end of May, I got sent a tracking number with an estimated delivery date of June 18th. June 18th came and went. There was no update on the tracking website. It still said what it had said originally: 'sent to hub, in transit'. 

Early July I emailed the supplier. There was a process to follow if you wanted to find more information on an order but the inquiry had to come from the email address of the supplier. I asked them if they could follow up. 

The email bounced. 

I tried again, and the email again bounced. I checked their website: they now had a new email address with gmail as the provider rather than their original handle. 

I emailed this address, and got a reply. "We'll check".

I then got a notice from the shipping company straight away, June 6th, saying that the item had been returned to sender as it had failed a customs check. There was a photo of the item safely returned to the original address as proof.

Several days later, July 9th, I got an email from the company asking me to check that my address was correct. I thought this was odd. I've never had an issue getting stuff delivered from overseas before, but I confirmed with the Post Office here in NZ, replied with the best address to use, and asked them to let me know if they needed me to pay again for shipping.

I have not heard from them since. 

I have emailed three more times, each time with no response. 

I have not had any tracking notification sent to me.

A few weeks ago I asked if anyone on the Society of Ancients forum knew the owners and could ask what was happening. No one did. 

I then left a post on their facebook page asking if they could email me. They replied to my post with the original tracking number (the one that had been returned to sender weeks before) but did not email me and have been silent ever since.

As it is now more than three months since I placed the order, I feel it is fair to post here to say that I would be very careful if you are dealing with this company, especially if you are ordering from outside of the UK. 

An internet search seems to show that I am not the only one who has had problems with them. 

It's a real shame as they seem to offer an excellent product, but it is only excellent if it gets to you! 

Tunis, 310 BC, dispositions.

Over the past few evenings I've had that restless 'I want to play something but don't quite know what' feeling. First night I ordered a second copy of Memoir '44 so that I can stage larger scenarios; second night I did some painting; third and fourth nights I watched re-runs of The Sopranos. 

Tonight I decided to set something up.

I pulled out the Lost Battles scenario book and Tunis jumped out at me as a battle I'd not done for a long time. 

Agathocles of Syracuse. What an interesting character. I don't think I would like to have had much to do with him on a personal level, but you have to take your hat off to a fellow who would stage an invasion of Africa from Syracuse, while Syracuse was besieged!

This Lost Battles scenario gives Agathocles the advantage in army quality, 60 to 51. He has a mix of hoplites and generic heavy infantry elevated by his own inspired leadership. He has no cavalry at all, and just one unit of light infantry, but that is elite. 

Agathocles himself leads the left of his line with two units of veteran hoplites. The light infantry is on his right, in advance of the bulk of the hoplites. The centre and centre left is mainly heavy infantry. 

All of his troops are either veteran or average in quality.

The hastily-assembled Carthaginians under leaders Bomilcar and Hanno combine a dangerous mounted arm with mixed-grade infantry. The terrain does not allow the chariotry and cavalry the space to best use the advantages they offer. The light infantry is poor, and while the tip of the heavy infantry spear is strong, the iron behind is suspect.

Carthage has leaders on both ends of the line, but the leaders are of uninspired quality. It will be a hard fight for the Africans. 

Points to note: 

• hoplites have special characteristics in Lost Battles. They hit hard, and must all-out attack if the opportunity arises. Their morale is more fragile than standard heavy infantry. 
• the terrain is against the Carthaginian mounted. They could attempt to manoeuvre onto the flanks, but the command cost to do so is high. 
• Agathocles seems to have the advantage in troop quality and terrain, but nothing is assured.  

Greek light cavalry - Xyston

 Another few figures finished. More Greeks, Xyston again.

On rules lawyership, and matters pertaining thereto

Jon Freitag recently did one of his famous data dives and looked into people's least favourite things about wargaming.

Rules lawyers were top of the list. That's right, not expensive, errata-riddled rulebooks; not cheats; not figures that break at the ankles; not stubborn mould lines; not kickstarter addictions; it is rules lawyers that get under our wargaming skin. 

I have a bit of difficulty around this. Not because I have been traumatised by any lawyers, but because I have a sneaking suspicion I might be one. 

I am going, therefore, to do the most rules-lawyerish thing possible, and mount an inquiry.

1) What is a rules lawyer? 

What do people mean when they use the term rules lawyer? Wikipedia has one answer:

A rules lawyer is a participant in a rules-based environment who attempts to use the letter of the law without reference to the spirit, usually in order to gain an advantage within that environment.^[1] The term is commonly used in wargaming and tabletop role-playing game communities,^[2] often pejoratively, as the "rules lawyer" is seen as an impediment to moving the game forward.^[3]

Carlos Caro on Quora has another:

A rules lawyer is a person who insists on rules in an RPG, wargame, or other sport/game being followed to the letter. This applies to games besides Dungeons and Dragons. A rules lawyer is a person who insists on Rules As Written (RAW) and scorns Rules As Intended (RAI)

A Steven Dashiell starts short and sweet before elaborating exhaustively in an article through Analog Game Studies:

A rules lawyer is a player who argues and interprets the rules of the game during play

A thread on the Boardgamegeek site solicits plenty of responses on rules-lawyering, but one by a Dave Weiss is pithy:

It's the manipulation of the rules to favor the lawyer

Going by these definitions rules lawyers seem to share three main characteristics. The first is rules pedantry, the second is arguing over rules, and the third is the tendency to make this all work in the rules-lawyer's favour.

So we have pickiness in applying the rules, but with a tendancy for this pickiness to be somewhat selective, with the sense that there is strict application of the rules when it suits. We have a willingness to argue over the interpretation of rules, with these interpretations again tending to advantage oneself over others. Finally, we have one's table-side manner used in a kind of metagame to bring advantage. 

2) How is a rules lawyer different from an ordinary player?

Knowing the rules and applying them in the pursuit of tabletop victory is not a bad thing. In fact, it is the essence of wargaming. The rules that define the arena we operate in regulate play and allow us to formulate plans, make decisions, and take action towards specific goals. Rules are necessary, and knowing the rules is essential for the game to work.

It is also not a sin to want to win. Some people are happy win lose or draw. Others, for their own reasons, want to get a W. 

The things that make a rules lawyer's behaviour different from that of an ordinary player are, I would suggest, a) motivation and b) degree. Ordinary players can question rules interpretations, point out rules forgotten or misapplied, consult rules books and argue points. When it becomes rules-lawyerish is when the motivation is to gain an undue competitive advantage for oneself (interpretations become selective, or rules are applied less scrupulously if to apply them would benefit an opponent) or to throw someone off their game.

The other point of difference is degree. The rules lawyer will do these things as a matter of course. An ordinary player might become picky and/or argumentative about the rules in a tense situation when there is something riding on the result, if they are playing someone they have taken a dislike to, or if they feel they are being taken advantage of. The rules lawyer will exhibit these traits regularly: he is serially picky, argumentative and self-interested.

3) Am I a rules lawyer?

Now we come to the heart of the matter. 

The answer for me is, I think, both yes and no. I could come across as a rules lawyer in some situations. I like to get rules correct, and if there are times that rules may need some discussion, or a point argued, I will usually have the discussion or argue the point. But I also like to be fair, and I like to be consistent, so I would hope that it would not seem as if my motivation for being careful / picky / pedantic was to gain an unfair advantage. That said, in the heat of the action, my idea of fair and my opponent's may not quite line up, so I can imagine a person could question whether the motives behind my penchant for pedantry were always pure. 

I grew up in a large family with competitive instincts. In our house you never got to take a move back in chess. You touched a piece, you moved it. There were no 'gifted victories' to ease you in. I still carry some of that mentality with me and I have to fight against it a little.

So yes, I do tick the 'matter of degree' box as well, unfortunately.

As with all things, I try to pick my audience. I love a hard battle against an opponent similarly experienced and with something on the line, but do try to temper my approach to the environment. Still, there are one or two times I have been a little ashamed of my rules-pedantry. One occasion was at the end of a game of Machiavelli, when I pointed out an error in how victory points had been calculated. The recalculation then gave the win to me. The problem was that the initial reading of the score would have given the win to a high school lass in her first game with the group. 

Given my time again I would keep my trap shut. 

4) Is being a rules lawyer such a bad thing?

The results of the survey Jon analyses leaves little doubt - it is a bad thing. The worst thing! It is the thing that drives people away from particular opponents, from gaming groups, from particular games, and even from games at all. 

The best that I can hope for is to be a rules lawyer that is 'lawful neutral' but I suppose I am not the one who gets to judge! 

5) What can I do about being a rules lawyer?

Aside from ringing or emailing every person I've played with to apologise for any negative experiences they may have had, I think the thing to do is to be aware of the tendency and try to catch myself. 

Is it worth telling people before I play that I have a tendency to be a bit picky with rules and if you think I'm being a dick, tell me so? This may smooth things with an ordinary player, but if you are up against a fellow rules lawyer - especially one who is lawful evil - they will school you like a rookie!

6) What do people think?

Do you have rules lawyer tendencies? If so, when? 

Do you not? Not even a little bit?

Have you had particular experiences either as a rules lawyer or as the victim of one?

How would you suggest a rules lawyer go about making themselves more acceptable as a gaming opponent? 

Finally, a wildcard: why do people exhibit rules-lawyerish behaviour? Is it performative hyper-masculinity? Is it to establish uber-nerd cred? It it to mask deep-seated personal inadequacites? Is it just a bad habit?

I would value your thoughts!

Bloodied but unbowed - Undaunted North Africa part 1.

SP was able to come over Sunday to the dungeon to squeeze in a bit of gaming before the working week whacked us over the head again.

What shall we play, I asked. Something I know, was the reply.

After a bit of consideration I settled on Undaunted North Africa. We'd gone through Undaunted Normandy and knew the rules.

As it turns out, there was a bit to get our heads around. The first thing is the change from squads to individual men (it took a moment to sink in that in U:NA the troops cards all had the same name); the second is the introduction of vehicle crews; the third is the different paths to victory.

We decide to play through the scenarios in order as a campaign. SP has taken the Long Range Desert Group. I will be the Italians. 

Game one: Landing Ground 7

First game is a secure vs destroy scenario. I have to control three points of objectives to win; SP has to destroy three points of objectives to win. I can only control with my rifleman; SP can only destroy with his engineer. I advance my rifleman too far. SP hits him hard, and destroys the depot and the aircraft for three points.

Game one to SP! The engineer is the hero. 

Photo above shows casualties sustained. We did this wrong: we only count casualties removed from board, not cards lost. Casualties then are 0-0.

Game two: The Hammer

It is another control / destroy scenario, with the hanger, the aircraft and the supply depot all counting as one point each. SP can only destroy with his engineer; I can only control with the medium tank or the rifleman.

I don't quite understand the vehicle rules correctly but feel I can manage on the fly.

I am wrong. I pin my hopes on the medium tank, get my machine gunner killed, and am too cautious with the rifleman. I am too static and not able to balance fire and movement. SP wins with good play. I am not finding my rhythm, am putting my guys in exposed positions but not seizing opportunities. 

I am also seriously spooked by SP's sniper!

Game two to SP: casualties 0-1. Heroes aplenty for SP: my pick is the sniper; his is probably the engineer.

Game three: And the Anvil

This is a different game entirely. SP has to control objectives; I have to prevent him. He can only control objectives with a Staff Sergeant or Sergeant. All I have to do is hold in place and shoot up those two chaps. 

This strategy I can manage! SP caught out by first-time vehicle rules and is not quite sure how to proceed. I have no such issues. Eventually I get the dice to do as I ask them.

Game three to me: casualties 2-0.

Cards lost for the LRDG.

I am not quite sure what to make of Undaunted North Africa. The rules are simple enough, but how they work in play is trickier than it first appears, and we were consequently unsure of our strategies.

SP adapted more quickly and more surely than I did, and showed boldness at the right times. Luckily for me, scenario three is a bit of a puzzle for the LRDG player otherwise I think I would be three games down. 

As it is, we will regroup and go again another time.

It was an excellent way to spend a Sunday afternoon, and sure beats painting the fence!