Hi Sam, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment on this post. But I feel that Dutchy has a very good point, and it seems that more and more Lasalle players are learning of this “Fall Back and than Charge your attacker” tricky strategy. That is, during the Reaction Phase (step #1) of a player’s turn, their unit that was charged can attempt to Fall Back (on the average, a 66 percent chance of success). Then, during the Activity Phase (step #3) of the same turn it will charge the unit that charged it. This is especially useful for the defender, as Dutchy has pointed out, since it could delay the final combat result for one turn. Or more, because if that unit which was originally attacking has suddenly become the defender can attempt to pull the same “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” trick strategy during that player’s Reaction Phase and Activity Phase to be once again the attacker. You begin to see these units moving back and forth on the table but going no where.
In fact, if you have experienced units that have a +1 vigor subcommander, and you are the defender, it could be a crucial mistake for you not to pull this “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” trick during your turns that you are charged because you have a 83.3 percent success rate of delaying close combat. And as Dutchy pointed out, “By doing this you lose no ground, as you are in the same original position as before, but now the unit that was defending is now attacking with no chance of breaking, rather than a defender with a chance of breaking.”
This “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” tricky strategy will certainly delay the attacker in attempting to reach their objective. It will also “enhance the player's chance of holding his objective area as the combat is resolved one turn later, with the bonus of being the attacking unit rather than the defending unit.” Sounds like a great idea and many players are catching on to this little sneaky trick. If fact, I think the madness will spread. This is why we have imposed a simple house rule to prevent this, but more about this later.
To illustrate this “Really silly situation in Lasalle” concern, I have seen several interesting situations where a player has been able to use this tricky tactic of “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” in their favor to produce a ridiculous outcome. In fact, there are too many to mention here, but there are two very funny ones that come to mind as they recently happened.
Situation One:
A Russian Dragoon cavalry unit with four bases and in Waves formation charged a French Cuirassier unit with four bases in Waves formation in the flank. It was a perfect flank attack in that the Russian Dragoons made contact at 90 degrees. Now, you might be thinking that the French Cuirassier unit was in trouble, right? Nope. In fact it was the Russian Dragoons that were in trouble. What happened was that the French player decided to perform a Fall Back during the Reaction Phase (66% change of success). The player rolled a “4” on a d6 and so successfully and fell back 4BW. During the Activity Phase of that same turn, the French Cuirassier unit decided to charge the Russian Dragoons in their flank! Remember, cavalry can wheel up to 2BW before charging. As a result, those attacking Russian Dragoons who had cleverly maneuvered into a position to charge French Cuirassiers in the flank have now instead become the victim of a flank attack by the same French Cuirassiers they charged! You can imagine how frustrated those Russian Dragoons were.
Situation Two:
A British Guard unit with six bases in Line formation was attacked by not one, not two, but three French veteran infantry units in Attack Column formation. Aware of the possible defeat of his British Guard unit against three attacking French columns, and also wanting to delay the French on their way to the objective, the British player decides to Fall Back during the Reaction Phase of his turn. He doesn’t even consider standing and firing as a reaction after muttering, “If I decided to fire, I could at best do one DISR, maybe two if lucky enough, to only one of the three attacking units. Not good enough to turn the tide. My best chance is to Fall Back, and that is what I’m doing”. Since the subcommander in control of the British Guard unit has a +1 vigor, he is confident that the unit will be able to Fall Back. The player rolls a 2 on the d6 (the +1 vigor was needed) and the British Guards fall back 2BW (even roll).
Now here is the interesting part, the British player sees an opportunity here. Since he fell back 2BW, he can wheel up to 1BW and charge those three pesky attacking French infantry units. But because he wheeled 1BW before charging, he makes contact with only one of the three French units and not all three. The British player is all excited now since he has delayed the attacking French force one more turn, and maybe more. He thinks the French player will attempt to fall back with that one solitary unit being charged, and then during the activity phase of the French turn, the French player will charge with all three units again thereby soaking up three precious turns total (French Turn, British Turn, French Turn) with a possibility of a forth and fifth if he could just fall back again if attack. However, during the French turn, that one French unit failed to Fall Back (rolled a “1”) and broke during the Combat Phase since the French scored two hits and the British five (Decisive). Despite protests from the French high command, in this case, the best tactic for the British unit was to carry out the “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” trick. That is, take full advantage of the loophole in the rules.
There are so many other situations were players took full advantage of the loophole which produced results just as funny as those mentioned above, but I have also seen that see-saw effect others have mentioned above because the player attempting to hold an objective area wants to delay the attacker as long as he can, and the player attempting to take the objective doesn’t want to be disadvantaged by suddenly being the defender in a close combat when he was the attacker just a moment before. For example:
1) French Turn: A French Veteran unit attacks an Austrian Infantry unit during the Activity Phase. Combat takes place during the Austrian Turn.
2) Austrian Turn: The Austrian unit falls back during the Reaction Phase, than Charges its attacker during the Activity Phase.
3) French Turn: the French unit falls back during the Reaction Phase, than Charges its attacker during the Activity Phase.
4) Austrian Turn: The Austrian unit falls back during the Reaction Phase, than Charges its attacker during the Activity Phase.
5) French Turn: The French unit falls back during the Reaction Phase, than Charges its attacker during the Activity Phase.
*) This goes on until one side or the other fails a discipline test or until the battlefield situation changes.
There is something to be said about this “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” trick, especially if you are defending an objective area. It’s a great way to frustrate and delay the attacker and get the advantage in combat.
So is there a loophole in the Lasalle rules? Oh yea, and it can work very well for those defending an objective. Is there a plug for that hole? Yes, and it is a simple fix too. We have initiated a simple house rule. On page 31, add one more bullet under Who May Charge Whom? “- A unit may not charge if it performed a Fall Back during the Reaction Phase of the turn.” This will certainly put an end to any “Really silly situation in Lasalle” or to be more precise, it puts an end to the “Fall Back and then Charge your attacker” tricky tactic.
As I mentioned before the rules do state on page 37, “A unit that is in contact with enemy units at the beginning of the Reaction Phase may attempt to fall back, thus avoiding combat altogether.” Hmmm, “…thus avoiding combat altogether.” Seems to suggest that a unit cannot charge an enemy unit during the Activity Phase after it performed a Fall Back reaction since its “avoiding combat altogether”, but Sam has confirmed that this is not the case.
Sam, some quick responses to your answers if I may:
Q1) Avoiding combat by falling back is not guaranteed, nor is it even wise in many cases, given the limited number of turns for the attacker, and the necessity of the defender to hold an objective.
A1) For the player defending an objective area, this is in fact a good idea because you delay the attacker and “By doing this you lose no ground, as you are in the same original position as before, but now the unit that was defending is now attacking with no chance of breaking, rather than a defender with a chance of breaking.”
Q2) The original question proceeds from a false assumption about the game favoring the attacker. The role of the attacker is in fact so difficult that we had to compensate him with bonus units.
A2) Yes, roll of the attacker is a difficult one, yes, I agree to that. However, the defending unit in a combat is at a disadvantage and this is why gamers have been attempting the “Fall Back and than Charge your attacker” trick. Trust me, it works. I have seen it turn a game many times.
Q3) Cavalry battles in particular in this era were frequently characterized by a back-and-forth flow of movement that I think the falling back reaction simulates nicely. As for infantry vs. infantry, I think we can all agree that historical accounts are full of stories of units moving forward, falling back, trying again, pushing the enemy, getting pushed back again, and so on. Battle could often be fluid.
A3) I agree, in that historical accounts are full of stories of units moving forward, falling back, trying again, pushing the enemy, getting pushed back again, and so on. However, there is a limit and this trick of “Fall Back and than Charge your attacker” can create some very silly situations… more times than average it seems.