Table Edge « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Table Edge

(5 posts) (3 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Alan Charlesworth
Latest reply from Peoples_Republic

Tags:

No tags yet.

Alan Charlesworth
Member

For the first time in a game I have a situation where two units are at the edge of the table (with their rear facing the table edge) and and are attacked by the enemy.

In the first combat the result is decisive and and in the second inconclusive in the attackers favour. In both instances the compulsory advance of the attackers takes them off the table edge.

There is no rule for this, the only reference being FAQ 2 on page 128, where it is confirmed that there is no rule for this situation. The players are supposed to agree a house rule to cover the situation. Unfortunately we did not agree solution in advance as this has never happened before for us and we had forgotten that this is not covered in the rules.

Although our game is not a competition game I was wondering what competition organisers have done in relation to this as it would be necessary to have agreed a formula for the competition in advance of the game?

Posted 1 year ago #
Crottin de Chavignol
Member

Gut feel would be not to unduly penalise the attacker, so they should just stop at the edge of the table.

Posted 1 year ago #
Peoples_Republic
Member

""There is no rule for this, the only reference being FAQ 2 on page 128, where it is confirmed that there is no rule for this situation. The players are supposed to agree a house rule to cover the situation""

I don't feel that it quite says that.

Sam suggests as a house rule if you haven't made a rule before the game, you should not come back.
But I agree it is not very firm or decisive.

There are rules like that in the Lassale rules that need clear rulings particulary in tournament games otherwise there are disagreements particulary when you have something abstract such as a edge of a table.

My take on it was, commanders constantly had trouble with troops following routing troops instead of staying in the critical battle areas or holding a line and not exposing holes in it and isolating themselves close to the enemy. Particulary with cavalry, going swaning off and inexperienced or gunho officers.
So I always make it clear if you have to mandatory move off you have to do it and not come back before the game because its seems more historic, perhaps at the cost of game playability though.
IF i wrote the rules I would have a discipline check to pass not to leave.
But it hasnt happened to me because I don't get my units in that situation. I shoot at units close to the edge or hold them. And if there is a clear ruling then you know what to do or not too.
Cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

PR - not quite sure what you disagree with about my phrasing, as Sam wrote "I opted not to write a rule for this", so there is no official rule. A 'house rule' as I understand it is a colloquialism for a variant agreed between players that is not official.

What I was interested in was if any tournament organiser had anticipated this issue and if so what they had decided to apply in their tournament.

Posted 1 year ago #
Peoples_Republic
Member

No big problem.

You said it says there is no rule.
""There is no rule for this, the only reference being FAQ 2 on page 128, where it is confirmed that there is no rule for this situation. The players are supposed to agree a house rule to cover the situation""
Im just saying at the end of everything sam says.(the last paragraph of FAQ 2 on page 128
""Sam suggests as a house rule if you haven't made a rule before the game, you should not come back.""
or If u haven't made a ruling before the game you play that.
Thats what sam is suggesting as a rule. which is the way I play it.
But I agree it is not very firm or decisive.
You do bring up a interesting point with this and I was just sharing my views on it.
I just saying to make it clearer there isn't no rule on the subject. Theres a suggested house rule. LOL.
And I brought that up because the suggested rule is the one I follow and it problably is the historic realistic thing that would happen. The units would problably carry on off the focused field of engagement.

But I can see that this does not reward the attacker winner so I could go the other way for a playable game that rewards tactics. There just needs to be a firm rule to follow.

I agree with you there needs to be a clear tournament rule for this, and this has come up before.

Cheers.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.