MORE TACTICAL LESSONS FROM HOPLITE BATTLES

I hope that you will be kind enough to allow me to respond in print to several of the comments which were inserted into my recent article ("Tactical Lessons from Hoplite Battles of the 4th" Century IX-3).

First, the pursuing Argives and Arcadians at Mantineia would not be allowed under the WRG VII rules to have simply turned to face the oncoming Spartans. Rather, as per pages 37 and page 26 they would be required to rally with a flank towards the Spartans as happened historically. In fact, WRG VII allows a rather better simulation of Mantineia compared to Tactica, since WRG VII incorporates mechanisms to simulate the initial Argive and Athenian flight while Tactica does not.

Second, WRG VII differs considerably from previous editions in limiting the ability of units to turn to face threats through its restrictions on approach and counter moves.

Third, the reference from Asclepiodotus is on both page 293 and page 295 line 5 of the Loeb edition. To roughly quote "right or left facing is the movement of the individual man to the right or left. This takes place when the enemy falls upon the flanks and wish to counter attack...". So, Mr. Duncan Head is simply wrong in stating that such a drill did not exist, and other rules authors appear to have also missed this source, or attempted to generalize from hoplite to phalanx tactics, in my view incorrectly.

Fourth, as to the value of Asclepiodotus as a source John (Boehm) might have continued from the translator's notes, "it would be a mistake to think too lightly of the value of these late theoretical works (which form the basis for many other respected authors such as Aelian and Arrian). These works must consist in large part of quotations from early military handbooks and are of the utmost historical value. The materials for a reconstruction of Macedonian tactics are in large measure preserved here."

Maneuvering by rank was not in fact unknown even in the 4th Century B.C. Spartan army, it is the documented method for transposing the position of the commander from the right to left (see Andreson and Lazenby). I hope to submit an article in the near future comparing the maneuvers described by Asclepiodotus compared to the earlier Spartan Constitution. Thank you once again for your time. -- MICHAEL GUTH

THE FINAL WORD ON COPYRIGHT

I read Dr. Hantz's letter addressing the copyrights of rules authors with a great deal of interest. His assumption seems to be that copyright law treats all published material as artistic or literary material. This is not the situation, The assumption fails to recognize distinctions among other materials, including games, that copyright law recognizes.

The following applies only to games other than video or computer games, as the audio-visual and software components of those games would change the situation somewhat.

It appears that there are actually two issues presented by Dr. Hantz's letter: (1) does an author of a set of rules have the right to see that his rules are strictly followed vithout changes or amendments, and (2) can an author receive royalties when his games are played in public?

As to the first issue of changes and amendments, rules authors may not appreciate adaptations but they will need to learn to live with them, Copyright holders may prevent others from reproducing, preparing derivative works, distributing, publicly performing, or displaying their work, (17 United States Code sec 106). These are the 'exclusive rights" of a copyright holder which continue after the sale of an item. This statute does not allow them to prevent the use of their work even in an altered form. Those property rights ceased with the sale of the work.

More to the point several exceptions to the copyright protection exist: "in no case does copyright protection.., extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work," (17 U.S.C. sec. 102(b)). Essentially copyright protects the form of expression of an idea, not the idea. For miniature gamers this means the law only applies to the printed rule book itself. The idea, in this case the game system, is not protected. Game authors and publishers may only expect to be protected from having their rule books illegally copied and distributed, not from having the rules modified or adapted.

Specifically copyright case law has generally excluded games, game systems and methods of play, from protection, with a few exceptions worth noting. Here are those exceptions:

• box art and labels
• game board design
• playing card design
• boards which qualify as maps
• the wording of instructions, (the rules) so as to prevent a literal or closely paraphrased copying.

Further, the method of play, the game system, can be distinguished from the form of instruction, the rule books; any mechanical or structural similarities, the parts and playing pieces, do not constitute an infringement as long as the artwork is different, (see Nimmer, below, sec. 2.18 (h)).

So the miniature gamer has little to worry about from copyright protection. Our game boards and playing pieces are individually crafted to suit our tastes. with regards to the rules, gamers must avoid creating a literal or closely paraphrased copy of the original. This should be no problem for anyone that wishes to modify a set of rules.

Copyright law, applied to miniatures games, seeks to prevent counterfeit copies of game rules from being sold, depriving an author and publisher their deserved remuneration. It does not prevent the public from enjoying the use of those games, even when they wish to change them.

Here are some suggestions for clubs and individuals who wish to write a supplement to a published set of rules. Avoid quoting large sections of the text in a body of rules, or reproducing them in whole and then annotating them. Also avoid usingthe same name in the title of the modifications or there may be trademark problems to deal with. Adaptations should be produced like a set of errata sheets with changes made by reference, elimination, substitution, or incorporation.

Examples:

by reference: "Rule 16(c) should read 15 figures, not 25 figures."
elimination: "Delete the morale section in its entirety."
substitution: "Chart 1 should be replaced by the following diagram."
incorporation: "Add the following rule to the casualty computation."

Admittedly the suggestions made here may irk the occasional games author, but they are not illegal.

Reproduction of substantial parts of the original rules with these changes may be a violation of copyright. However, in some instances reproduction of sections of an original set of rules may be considered as an explanation of the manner or method of play, which is not illegal. It would be possible to write a game player's guide to playing a particular game, or a magazine critique of a game, without violating any copyright laws. As you may already have gathered there is a lot of flexibility in copyright; the courts try to balance the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the legitimate consumer. Often the lines and definitions are not as clear as we might assume.

As to the second issue of fees or royalties for publicly played games, rules authors are not playwrights and should not expect a new source of income. Copyright protection for public performance or display is limited to: literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, motion pictures, pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, individual images of a motion picture or other audio-visual work(s) (17 U.S.C. sec. 106 (4), and (5)). As one court said about a book of contract forms, and it could easily apply to rule books: "No one reads them as literature; their sole value is in their usability," American Instit, of Architects vs. Fenichel, 41 F. Supp. 146, (1941). Compulsory licensing for public performance only applies to "artistic" or "literary" creations. Games have not been considered for this kind of copyright protection.

Finally, as an anecdotal corollary, I believe the courts would find this fuss over the interpretation and adaptation of game rules among hobbyists to be amusing and ironic. Among jurists there are competing schools of statutory interpretation, analogous to the game rules debate. These competing views are loosely known as "legislative intent" and "plain meaning". The former supposes the legislators, the rulemakers, know best how to interpret the laws they make; their intent is an overriding consideration in applying the law. The latter supposes that the judges know best how to interpret the laws; the meaning of the law should be plain from its language. Needless to say the debate continues with the Federal courts going one way and the states courts going the other. Personally in political matters I favor the legislative intent school, but in games I think the judges should be allowed to exercise their discretion.

In preparing this answer I have relied on Nimmer on Copyright, (1989), a well known legal treatise on the subject. I am not a copyright lawyer, though I do have my law degree; my specialty is legal research.

(Signed) Spencer F. Clough. Assistant Reference Librarian, Barco Law Library, University of Pittsburgh.

ANOTHER VIEW ON THE NIMBLENESS OF ANCIENT UNITS

I very much enjoyed Mike Guth's article on Hoplite Tactics in your last issue.

It seems that the dilemma of wheeling to face a flank attack hasn't yet been solved by WRG or TACTICA. Our club's own set of rules takes into consideration two factors everyone else seems to overlook.

Digressing for a moment, it is historic fact that Alexander's phalangites and Spartan morai, and even Epanminondas soldiers could change face fairly quickly. In Arrian's History of Alexander & Indica, I found a passage on p. 25, vol. I, Loeb Classic Library edition, which clearly indicates that complex maneuvers were routinely carried out, even in the face of an enemy host. Also, Xenophon's Hellenica describes a maneuver during the prelude to the Battle of Mantinea (362 BC) that is almost certainly a change of face from battle-line to column (Xenophon, Hellenica, Penguin Classics, p. 345).

Returning to the main point, the issue should not be CAN the unit being flanked turn, but DOES IT HAVE TIME to turn before the blow lands.

Our rules solve the problem in two ways. First, any unit attacked 90 degrees or more from its facing cannot wheel due to the focus of attention in the men of the unit, which would obviously be to their front, and also due to the restrictive vision imposed by the helmets of the men in the unit.

Second, a unit can't wheel if the unit attacking it is within 1/2 its normal move. Our reasoning is simple. Enemy troops too close to a unit surely aren't going to wait around until their target is ready before they launch a flank attack. And even if the intended target unit does wheel, it is considered disordered as it hadn't had enough TIME to deploy.

Hopefully, this will help the authors in their dilemma and keep those players who push the rules to the breaking point honest. -- MIKE CARR, Carson, IA

MANY ANCIENT GAMERS DO NOT GAME WRG

In Courier Vol. IX, No. 1, there is an article by Scott Holder that starts off with a little essay explaining why ancients gamers are different from the rest of the Miniatures world. Paragraph 2: "we ancient gamers are an anomaly in miniature wargaming mainly because we run tournaments (just like our boardgame brethren do) at conventions. we are an anomaly because we have adopted one set of rules to the game period, WRG 7th."

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com