Can a Spanish force claim Home Field Advantage if it is the attacker in the game?
In other words, roll successfully to become the attacker, get the extra units, then put all of those units in fortifications and play for a draw, which is a Spanish marginal victory?
No, they can´t.
Pg 76
Home Field Advantage
............ If this army has chosen to defend,
and is defending in this battle, then the defending army
may choose one of the following set-up options:
It appears that I mis-stated my question.
If the Spanish player has elected to be the attacker, do the following Spanish Special Rules still apply (p118):
1. Militia, Infantry, and Veteran Infantry units may begin in entrenchments.
2. They'll be back: If the game ends in a draw, it is considered a Spanish marginal victory.
Or is the Spanish player permitted to become the attacker, collect the extra units, put everyone behind entrenchments, sit back and play for a marginal "victory" (a.k.a: a drawn game)?
Dear oh dear oh dear!
Kevin in San diego wrote: "It appears that I mis-stated my question"
No you just asked the same question: "If the Spanish player has elected to be the attacker?"
and the answer still remains NO! on all points. Because they are attacking and not DEFENDING.
Why on earth would anyone want to do that in a game of toy soldiers? Is 2.5 hours of time you'll never get back worth a marginal victory & such a dull and unbalanced game for your opponent?
You've said yourself that its cheese; i'd have left it at that
There seems to be several separate rules applying here. My reading is they apply as follows:
1) Home field advantage. This only applies if defending.
2) Entrenchments. This seems to apply whether attacking or defending.
3) Viva Espana. This seems to apply whether attacking or defending.
4) They'll Be Back. This seems to apply whether attacking or defending.
So in terms of the original question, my answer would be:
Can a Spanish force claim Home Field Advantage if it is the attacker in the game?
No
In other words, roll successfully to become the attacker, get the extra units, then put all of those units in fortifications and play for a draw, which is a Spanish marginal victory?
Yes
I can't see anything that limits these rules to only when defending - anyone point to a rule?
Cam
No, but the stiltons a bit strong now!
and pack up the toys against anyone who wants to game that way; let them get on with it if winning means that much to them
If it's the rule, then its an abuse of it and i'll lay odds an unintended consequence
See you in the carpark then D on the 23rd! ;)
Trev
Can a Spanish force claim Home Field Advantage if it is the attacker in the game?No
I don't think that's quite true Cam (although the effect is the same in theory) - to be a pedant - and further to Vilcum's original response - reading the rules:
Page 118 states: "Against any Opponent the Spanish have the Home Field Advantage".
Page 76 - the wording of 1st Para implies you can always have Home-Field Advantage it's just you need to _choose_ to Defend to get the 2 bullet point option and the terrain replacement option.
So I read this as You can always have Home Field Advantage - and the Spanish always do regardless due to Page 118 - it's just if you choose to attack (rather than defend) you don't get to make the choice about table edge and 1st or 2nd set-up (the 2 bullet points) or terrain replacement.
So regardless of Attacking or Defending you always get to have "Home Field Advantage" status if eligible - even if you can't use the benefits.
(And the nett effect being significant only perhaps in the sense that the other side can never have Home Field Advantage - in this case against the Spanish - regardless; and also perhaps that the Spanish specially could use attacking as a cunning ploy in a tournament style environment since opponents may expect them to always want to try and defend)?
2) Entrenchments. This seems to apply whether attacking or defending.3) Viva Espana. This seems to apply whether attacking or defending.
4) They'll Be Back. This seems to apply whether attacking or defending.
I can't see anything that limits these rules to only when defending - anyone point to a rule?
Yep. Nothing Attack or Defend related I can see. The Spanish get to begin entrenched so regardless can have their units in line and already entrenched.
So choosing to attack with Spanish - then starting with everyone entrenched in line and then holding out for a Draw is legal - albeit reminiscent of some nasty attitudes some Ancients Tournament Players tend to have with WRG & DBx rules! ;-)
...but then if you are playing Spanish in a tournament... Might be a legit tactic?!! :-o
...and you'd definitely have "Home Field Advantage" regardless - you just couldn't use any of the options/benefits from it if attacking... ;-)
So, let me get this straight. By this interpretation of the rule:
A. Spanish are the Attacker
B. They Entrench etc
C. They ignore the Objective
D. If its a Draw they get a marginal Victory
So in effect, you've turned the rules on their head by forcing the Defender to attack but with less troops than they'd be entitled to. Not only that, the Spanish, by attacking get more troops [defending]than they should have.
And you boys think that thats a good result somehow??
Whether it is ethical was not the question - only whether it is allowed.
If we all agree the rules do allow it, then the next issue is whether it was intended or whether it is unintended (and so whether Sam should change it).
Cam
Given the game as a whole and the requirement for Attacker/Defender & Objective, i don't agree that that can possibly be the Rule as written let alone intended.
You may have found a loop-hole (arguably) but that's hardly in the spirit of the game IMO
James
I agree that it is chessy. But I think it is important that "the rules" and "the spirit of the rules" match. I think Sam has written a good set of rules, but that a few points like this and the imbalance of the army list need fixing. This would turn what is a good set of rules into a great one. It would not hurt the non competition type players to have more clarity in the rules, and it would mean that Lasalle would have a much better of becoming more of a standard for competitions.
Rich
I agree with Rich, Cam, and Borodino, that the net effect of the Spanish advantages while attacking can be pretty cheesy. These issues actually did a large part to kill off the campaign we were attempting to run with Soldier Emperor. I've enjoyed most of my Lasalle games with my Russians vs. French, but when playing against the Spanish, I would only want to use Empire French, in order to have on-table cavalry to neutralize the Spanish cav, and have something to work his flanks when he sits down in his entrenchments.
Cheers
You would think that when playing a game it would be acceptable to 'play by the rules'. However, there are several posters here who seem to think that there is also a metagame that transcends the rules that all decent gamers should abide by. The problem with this approach is that no two players metagame will be the same. So whereas abiding by the rules should be clearcut, abiding by the metagame is not.
For those people who I have lost already what I am talking about is this. You can't attach some kind of game-word moralistic blame on someone who tries to win by using the rules. That is why we have the rules in the first place. If the rules give an unlooked for outcome then the issue is with the rules not the player. In a friendly game the players can agree to modify the rules to eliminate the undesired outcome. In a tournament the organiser can do the same. If however you play with the rules as is don't blame your opponent for playing legally within the rules just because you don't like the rules.
Lasalle is a great set of rules. However like most other rule sets there are a few flaws. If these bug you you should discuss it with your opponent before the game and agree an amendment. Don't sulk if your opponent uses legal rules against you. Nuff said!
Well, some people have a metagame (Jay Laura calls it the "Don't Be A Turd" rule, found on page 137.)
But yes, I do agree that this is a potential flaw in strict tourney competitions. Fortunately, it probably also has a very simple fix. Something like this, perhaps:
If the Spanish player opts to attack (and wins the subsequent roll to do so), then he may no longer begin with Entrenchments, and the Spanish no longer win on a Drawn game. Rather, an attacking Spanish army that wins a Marginal Victory, gets to treat it as a Decisive victory.
Thanks Sam.
Christ some common-sense at last!
I don't get those people who can see that a particular "rule" is flawed, exploit it for all they're worth then claim that they are playing the game.
Do i think that i'm playing some meta-game? No, but i suspect that i'd have more fun gaming against Jay Laura than some of the posters on this thread.
James
James
What is rule abuse to one might not even appear on the other mans radar.
In my metagame multiple attack columns manoeuvring shoulder to shoulder and forming a Macedonian style phalanx don't happen. Neither does cavalry charging through woods to attack infantry. I could quote lots of other examples.
However, if I have not discussed this with my opponent before the game I don't plan on getting offended just because the other man does what the rules allow.
Where do you draw the line on so called rule exploitation? Its all about personal opinion. A lot of players know next to nothing about the period so will just go with what the rules indicate.
I would accept the specific issue that started this thread does push at the boundary. However, the problem is better solved by tightening up the rules before the game starts not by abusing the perpetrator.
What is rule abuse to one might not even appear on the other mans radar.
<< possiby but not on this occasion. Even those who want to follow the rule to the letter acknowledge that its "cheesy" "unethical">>
In my metagame multiple attack columns manoeuvring shoulder to shoulder and forming a Macedonian style phalanx don't happen. Neither does cavalry charging through woods to attack infantry. I could quote lots of other examples.
<< you could but i find its the person not the rules that makes it enjoyable for both players. By the way, neither of those examples would give me an issue; they're in the RB, they apply to both sides and neither is trying to gain an advantage that is not available to the other>>
However, if I have not discussed this with my opponent before the game I don't plan on getting offended just because the other man does what the rules allow.
<< so you're planning on working through the RB before each game with your opponent?>>
Where do you draw the line on so called rule exploitation? Its all about personal opinion. A lot of players know next to nothing about the period so will just go with what the rules indicate.
<< i agree that it's a subjective issue as to what makes an enjoyable game >>
I would accept the specific issue that started this thread does push at the boundary.
<< Just a tad!!>>
However, the problem is better solved by tightening up the rules before the game starts not by abusing the perpetrator.
<< have i abused you or anyone else? This is adults playing with toy-soldiers. If its not about having fun, for both players, what is it about? If i disagreed with an opponent about a rule during a game, i'd hope we could roll a dice for it, move on and then discuss it properly later over a beer/coffee >>
You would think that when playing a game it would be acceptable to 'play by the rules'. However, there are several posters here who seem to think that there is also a metagame that transcends the rules that all decent gamers should abide by.
Who are the "Several Posters" Alan? To date there has only been one proposing actually using it in a game - namely the OP (Kevin). Not a single other person has proposed doing what was proposed - so I'm surprised by the comment.
Cam & Myself (and subsequently Rich) have all raised consistently the same theme - that while it may not be 'sporting' the rules seem to allow it - so in a tournament sense it will get exploited by less scrupulous players. While Cam, Rich, or Myself would likely never do so other players may in competition environments - and that would be detrimental to both how the rules are perceived and the tournament... Perhaps you mis-interpret what people have previously said, but I for one can't find anyone other than Kevin proposing to actually play the 'cheese' option...
However, the problem is better solved by tightening up the rules before the game starts not by abusing the perpetrator.
-
BTW & FWIW: In New Zealand Napoleonics has been a pretty dead era from a convention & tournament perspective for 12+ years, and prior to that it was dominated by the absolutely dreadful Corps d' Armee rules over the period 1990-1998-ish - While there are lots of pockets of players in every region of the country playing many different rulesets there is little consensus and little attempt to run Nappie events at Cons (or when there is it's using a local rules preference that isn't played anywhere else in the country)! Lasalle is one ruleset that seems to have the pulling power in terms of simplicity of play, authenticity of simulation, and so on, and which has reasonable numbers of players around the country interested in or playing it. However the couple of events last year have identified the imbalance in (some of) the current AB army lists from a competition perspective - so if it turns out there are exploitable 'cheese options' as well this will undermine it's growth - it only takes 1 person per tournament to be a munchkin and play this way to quickly ruin it for all...
:-)
Have no fear Mycenius, im sure the competitions run in Wellington this year will have the games "meta" at the heart of any rule tweaks used.
Tim
“there is also a metagame that transcends the rules that all decent gamers should abide by”
Metagame? A horrible disease you get by sharing wargames figures? Or a robot in Transformers?
“For those people who I have lost…”
Yup – that’s me!
Goodness have I touched a nerve :-)
Kevin asked a perfectly legitimate question. He didn't suggest he would do this himself or that anyone else should do this. As far as I can see he was just pointing out a possible flaw in the rules that could be exploited and making the forum aware of it.
Trev and James responded in their posts with comments that seemed to me to indicate a disapproval that goes along the lines - that no decent wargamer or human being would suggest, let alone do such a thing.
Trev
"Dear oh dear oh dear!"
and
"No, but the stiltons a bit strong now!"
James
"Why on earth would anyone want to do that in a game of toy soldiers? Is 2.5 hours of time you'll never get back worth a marginal victory & such a dull and unbalanced game for your opponent?
You've said yourself that its cheese; i'd have left it at that"
and
"And you boys think that thats a good result somehow??"
The implication being that there is an unspoken set of non-written rules (the metagame) that each player should abide by. The problem I was pointing out in relation to this that inevitably any two players are likely to have two different sets of unwritten standards. Therefore in any game there will still be potential for offence to be caused because player A's action does not fit in with player B's unwritten and non-discussed standards.
That is why we have rules in the first place so that there cannot be misunderstandings because the answer is in the rules. Otherwise its akin to playing chess and then criticising your opponent after the game, because he took your pawn en passant and you think the en passant rule is an exploitation, of what to you is a rule flaw and something that no decent chess player would do, even though it is allowed by the rules.
To others who are reading this apart from Trev and James, I would point out that Trev and I have been friends for 30 years and that I know of James indirectly through Trev and I hope to be meeting and playing him in the near future. The point being there is nothing personal in this and its just a bit of fun debate and banter. I agree wholeheartedly with James that it is just playing with toy soldiers and I for one never take it too seriously. Generally speaking I don't much care if I win or lose as long as the game was fun and had a good narrative to it. My attitude to wargaming is very much 'Black Powder'.
Unfortunately Trev is on holiday at the moment and probably has better things to do than check the forum so we may have to wait a week or so for his reaction to this turn in the thread.
Hi Alan - I think you've missed the point mate - I wasn't having a go - I was pointing out that you seem to have presented the view that everyone who's posted here bar a couple have all proposed _PLAYING_ that cheese move if given the opportunity - which is furtherest from the case. Your latest reply again seems confusing and to reinforce & repeat this - you are actually reiterating what every poster has said bar Kevin (the OP who hypothesised the scenario), but seem to be implying in a odd way only You, James & Trev might play to your "spirit of the rules" and the rest of us lot might be all Munchkin gamesmen? I'm sure that's not your intent - but that's what I read into both your last 2 posts... :-)
If the rules say you can do it _someone_ will do it somewhere - Now in this specific case it's not a flaw with the rules or a loophole, just a case of an unforeseen application of a non-core rule that is easily fixed by a minor wording change as Sam has proposed.
And it's not an unreasonable ask for a rule set to be robust and still inspire gentlemanly play - a rule set can do both. I dislike the 'meta-game' babble that many people use - a rule set is a rule set - to imply there are 2 'levels' to it is a nonsense IMO - there are gentleman gamers and there aren't - that has nothing to do with a rule set per se, but has everything to do with the players. :-)
You can still be a 'Gentleman Gamer' and reasonably expect your rule set to be robust - to assume that to have the former means you must sacrifice some of the latter is just silly... :-)
Mycenius
I didn't think for a minute that you were 'having a go'. Also it is obvious that no one has proposed playing this cheesy stratagem and I stated as much in my post. You asked who the several posters were that I was referring to and I have told you. I took several to mean more than one (although strictly speaking I think several should be defined as more than two - my mistake), and the 'several' in question I was referring to are Trev and James. As would be clear from having read their preceding posts.
I totally agree that there shouldn't be two levels to the game - that was my point! The rules are the rules, like them or not. I was stating that Trev and James seemed to be suggesting that there should be two levels and I disagree. Also I was not asserting that the two levels were gentlemen and others. The two levels are just that - number one what the rules say, number two some other version that only exists in the players head.
Yes of course if its in the rules someone will do it at some point. What I objected to was some moralistic reaction against someone who drew attention to the fact there was a cheesy rule . If you don't like what the rules allow, change them - but don't complain if you don't change them before the game starts and someone 'exploits' what is permitted.
So to be clear there are the rules, the rules and only the rules. If the rules allow it it is legitimate until the rules are changed by the author or the agreement of both players. Lastly is is perfectly OK to ask a question about whether you have understood a rule correctly even if the query relates to some cheesy or unintended consequence of said rules :-)
You make a number of assumptions there Alan.
If there is a higher plain of wargaming then i've yet to find it - not that i'm looking.
As you've singled Trev and i out [he is indeed sunning himself somewhere [shudders], then allow me to retort.
What do i expect from my opponent when wargaming particularly with those that i don't know that well & in a tourney situation?:
1. to know the rules of the game within reason and how to apply them;
2. to be competitive but fair-spirited ie i don't want arguments whether that charge is 1mm out etc
3. basically, not to be a cock [see page 137]
4. overall to do your part to make it a fun game for both.
Naturally, i would expect to abide by that
Clear enough for you Alan? [grin]
James
Hi James
The last time I played in a competition was circa 1979. However, apart from playing a bit more competitively and forgetting what was historically accurate (e.g. my cavalry may well be charging in the woods in a competition :-)), I wouldn't in general terms play or behave any different in a friendly or competition game.
As to your list I would wholeheartedly agree with 1, 2 and 4. However as my copy of Lasalle has only 136 pages I can only assume page 137 is part of your metagame - just teasing :-)
Number 4 is paramount - the only possible reason in my book to play with toy soldiers is to have fun! Ideally with mates or with mates yet to be, along with some good natured ribbing and general banter.
I would add to your excellent list - don't blame the rules and whine when you lose, don't blame the dice. Let the winner enjoy his victory.
Anyway I will have to be nice in our competition as the likelihood is that the only chance i will have to win will be through Nobility Points :-)
You must log in to post.