Error in the Lasalle rule book, page 38.

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Error in the Lasalle rule book, page 38.

(7 posts) (2 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Another_Grognard
Latest reply from Another_Grognard

Tags:

Another_Grognard
Member

Hi Sam and fellow Lasalle gamers,

I had mentioned this before in the thread "Lasalle Rules Book Questions", but I had to check again after reading Sam's response. I had another look at it last night when I got home from work and I'm now certain that it is an error.

The error I'm referring to is the sixth bullet (or circumstance) under "Units that do not Fall Back from combat" on page 38. The rule states, "Units in certain circumstances ignore a fall back as part of their combat result." The key word here is "ignore". Then it lists six circumstances where a unit will "ignore" a fall back result. However, the last one, "A unit whose fall back is blocked by enemy units or not sufficient to break contact with enemy units" should be removed.

Lets look at the Austrian vs. French example on page 39. If the close combat is inconclusive and if the French scored fewer hits, instead of breaking, the Austrian unit would have to fall back instead. Why? simply because according to the sixth bullet (or circumstance), "A unit whose fall back is blocked by enemy units or not sufficient to break contact with enemy units" ignores a fall back as part of their combat result. Since they "ignore" the fall back result, the Austrian unit will have to fall back instead during step d) because, "If the loser is still there (he didn't fall back), then the winner has to fall back, instead."

So you see, this is why I think that sixth bullet (or circumstance) that allows a unit to "ignore" a fall back as part of their combat result is an error. It should be removed. However, that same statement is under "Units that may not take a Fall Back Reaction" and properly so, but the statement should not appear under both headings, only the latter one.

Yes, there is a rule that states, "If, when required to fall back as a combat result, a unit can not fall back at least 1BW /and/ break contact with /all/ enemy units, then it is broken, instead." But when a unit "ignores" a fall back result, it is no longer "required" to fall back. That is when step "d)" kicks in and the winner has to fall back, instead.

Unless I got it all wrong and in the example I speak of on page 39, it's supposed to be like that. That is, the Austrian unit is supposed to fall back even if the French unit loses. But to be honest, if that were the case, I would find that uncharacteristic, because it means having enemy behind you is good. Or am I missing something here.

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

Don't think there is an error, although the wording on p38 could be confusing.

From my reading, there are two parts to fall back:

1) Who can choose to fall back in the reaction phase (p37-40)
2) Who falls back after combat (p59)

p38 lists 3 types of units that cannot choose to test to fall back in the reaction phase.

p59 lists the 5 types of units who after losing combat do not fall back. In addition, a unit that can't fall back due to enemy or terrain and does not meet those 5 criteria is broken. This is summarised on p38 as units who "ignore" a fallback. Quite why it is restated on p38 is unclear. Note that it does say they ignore it "in certain circumstances" which is pretty good pointer this is not a rule that can be read by itself. It is not wrong, but only a summary of the full rules on p59, and "ignore" is an unfortunate word.

The example of p39 only refers to whether the Austrian infantry can fall back in the reaction phase (they can't) not what happens if they lost combat. If that diagram was instead on p59, then it would say if the Austrians lose combat they will be broken, since they can't fall back.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

> From my reading, there are two parts to fall back:
>
> 1) Who can choose to fall back in the reaction phase (p37-40)
> 2) Who falls back after combat (p59)
>
> ... it "in certain circumstances" which is pretty good pointer this is not a rule
> that can be read by itself. It is not wrong, but only a summary of the full
> rules on p59,and "ignore" is an unfortunate word.

Yes, it is sort of in two parts. But it clearly says "ignore a fall back as part of their combat result" which refers to Close Combat and not Reactions. So it is sort of intermixed here.

> The example of p39 only refers to whether the Austrian infantry can fall back in the
> reaction phase (they can't) not what happens if they lost combat. If that diagram was
> instead on p59, then it would say if the Austrians lose combat they will be broken,
> since they can't fall back.

Yes, the example I'm referring to on page 39 is used for a reaction example, but I'm using that same example for may combat example. And I'm saying that the French unit lose the inconclusive combat and not the Austrian unit as you noted.

Overall, my suggestion is for new readers to remove that sixth bullet (or circumstance) under "Units that do not fall back from Combat" because it seems to be an error. Without it, everything reads just fine.

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"Yes, the example I'm referring to on page 39 is used for a reaction example, but I'm using that same example for may combat example. And I'm saying that the French unit lose the inconclusive combat and not the Austrian unit as you noted."

The Austrian unit is broken if it losses combat. p59 explicitly states a unit that losses combat and does not meet any of the five bullet points and cannot fall back due to enemy or terrain is broken. That is a very specific rule.

On the other hand p38 merely says the unit in combat "ignores" a fallback - which is consistent with p59. In five of the dot points it will ignore the fallback and the enemy will fall back instead. In one of the dot points, it will ignore the fallback and is broken instead. So in all six cases the unit does ignore the fallback - but with two possible different outcomes.

Reading "ignore" as "the enemy falls back instead as per pg 59" but ignore the bit that it is broken instead is not a reading of the rules I would agree with.

It would be clearer if p38 said "Under certain circumstances (see p59) ...", or if ignore was fully defined as per p59, or if that entire section was removed from the reaction page (since it is not full summary of what is on p59 and has nothing to do with reactions).

But I don't think it is an error.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Your response is a bit confusing. Especially when you keep switching the French and Austrian units. But it sounds like you agree in that the sixth bullet (or circumstance) under "Units that do not Fall Back from combat" on page 38 is misleading because of the term "ignore". And as we pointed out, the sixth circumstance is absent form the list on page 59, and rightly so, since it would only cause confusion.

So yes, that one line is out of place, because if it were removed, everything would read just fine.

Note that the same is line is included under both headings on page 38:
1) "Units that do not Fall Back from combat"
2) "Units that may not take a Fall Back Reaction"
Only under "Units that do not Fall Back from combat" and the six circumstances that "ignore" a fall back is where is should be removed. It needs to stay under "Units that may not take a Fall Back Reaction".

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

I am saying is that the bullet points on p38 are technically correct (but I can see how they could be confusing).

A unit that cannot fall back if required to after losing combat due to enemy or terrain "ignores" the fall back. This is because they are broken instead. In the other dot points, the unit also "ignores" the fall back. The enemy falls back instead.

Yep I got my units round the wrong way. But I am still arguing that your conclusion below is wrong:

"Lets look at the Austrian vs. French example on page 39. If the close combat is inconclusive and if the French scored fewer hits, instead of breaking, the Austrian unit would have to fall back instead. Why? simply because according to the sixth bullet (or circumstance), "A unit whose fall back is blocked by enemy units or not sufficient to break contact with enemy units" ignores a fall back as part of their combat result. Since they "ignore" the fall back result, the Austrian unit will have to fall back instead during step d) because, "If the loser is still there (he didn't fall back), then the winner has to fall back, instead."

If a unit loses but can't fall back due to enemy behind them, they break instead. End of story. They don't try to fall back - they break instead.

So pg38 is in my opinion correct. If you think I am wrong, then only Sam can say what he intended. If you want to suggest alternative wording, then I am sure Sam would happily consider it.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Still no verdict on this by Sam. Also, I'm surprised no one else has suggested or said anything about this in regards to what they think. As Humphrey Bogart once said, "It's just you and me kid."

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.