Jump to content


Photo

Official Game Rules


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
295 replies to this topic

Poll: Official Game Rules (55 member(s) have cast votes)

What should be the official game rules for Stratego.com?

  1. We should follow the ISF Rules. (38 votes [69.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.09%

  2. Voted We should make changes and have our own official rules. (17 votes [30.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.91%

What should be Stratego.com’s rule with respect to multiple chasing? (See Reply #41 for an explanation of what this is)

  1. Voted It should not be allowed. (This is the ISF interpretation) (30 votes [71.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.43%

  2. It should be allowed only in limited circumstance such as when it is necessary in order to defend one’s flag. (9 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  3. It should always be allowed. (3 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

Vote

#261 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:51 AM


(Monday Sept. 29, 19:30 GMT) EDIT : Changes have been made to the definitions of "chase sequence" and "counter chasing sequence". Plus the parenthetical descriptions for 11.2 and 11.3 have been changed. The word "endlessly" has been removed. GaryLShelton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Wednesday Oct.2, 02:30 GMT) EDIT : Two changes have been made in this update. The parenthetical description following the Article title "Repetition of Threatening Moves" has been eliminated, as we felt the title was sufficient in itself without the extra wording. Also, we have further revised the parenthetical description of 11.3 once more. It now seems to be a good balance of accuracy and graspability. Beginning with the heading "Final Version..." just below, this version will be identical to the Final Version printed at the bottom of this thread page. GaryLShelton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Version, Oct.2, 02:30 GMT

To all forum members, the following is the latest version of the proposal The Prof and I have been working on for a new Article 11 of the official ISF rules. It will completely replace the current Article 11 and take effect in January 2015, if approved. We have added language to address scout threatening, distance chasing, and a new proposal to address counter chasing. In addition we have clarified the language in general and eliminated the use of the controversial word "continuous" in the current rules. This should be very close to the final version we send to the ISF. Please feel free to comment on the contents, but know that time is short at this point. The Final version will be decided upon by the end of Tuesday by The Prof and myself. Note that any text in red applies only to the part of our proposal to block counter chasing. It can be removed without harm to the rest of the wording. GaryLShelton
__________________

11. Repetition of Threatening Moves

11.1 Definitions:

For one piece to trap another it must be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule (10.1). In this case the opponent's piece is said to be trapped.

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can, on that player's next turn, attack or trap an opposing piece if that piece does not move. 

To evade is to immediately move a piece away from an opposing one that threatens it.

chasing move is a move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid attack by the piece that is threatening it, and which is immediately followed by a move of the threatened piece to evade a potential attack or to avoid becoming trapped. 


chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be chasing.

counter chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is either a move of a trapped piece that is immediately threatened by his opponent, or is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be counter chasing

chasing piece is a piece that makes at least one chasing move during a chase sequence, or during a counter chase sequence. These sequences may involve one or more chasing pieces.


11.2 (Limits the chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured) 
A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square it already moved to during the chase sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on that player's immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.

11.3 (Blocks a return to chasing that is done to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player who is counter chasing moves a piece that is trapped, and that piece is immediately threatened by the opponent, then on his or her next turn the player may not move a chasing piece to a square that it already moved to during the sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence.


  • KARAISKAKIS likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#262 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,009 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 September 2014 - 09:20 AM

Interesting how you guys have been working on this, posting the progress, but no poll to be found on here to see how the players feel about this - you're basically acting on your own, representing no one but yourself in your proposal to the isf.


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 

Have an ongoing issue with the MT and in need of a "lawyer?" Nortrom Stratego Legal Services offers their services pro deo.

 

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”


#263 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 28 September 2014 - 12:31 PM

 

To all forum members, the following is the latest version of the proposal The Prof and I have been working on for a new Article 11 of the official ISF rules.  It will completely replace the current Article 11 and take effect in January 2015, if approved.   We have added language to address scout threatening, distance chasing, and a new proposal to address counter chasing.  In addition we have clarified the language in general and eliminated the use of the controversial word "continuous" in the current rules.  This should be very close to the final version we send to the ISF.   Please feel free to comment on the contents, but know that time is short at this point.   The Final version will be decided upon by the end of Tuesday by The Prof and myself.  Note that any text in red applies only to the part of our proposal to block counter chasing.  It can be removed without harm to the rest of the wording.  GaryLShelton

__________________

 

11. Repetition of Threatening Moves (Limits chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

11.1 Definitions:

For one piece to trap another it must be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule (10.1).  In this case the opponent's piece is said to be trapped. 

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can, on that player's next turn, attack or trap an opposing piece if that piece does not move. 

To evade is to immediately move a piece away from an opposing one that threatens it.

chasing move is a move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid attack by the piece that is threatening it, and which is immediately followed by a move of the threatened piece to evade a potential attack or becoming trapped. 

chase sequence is a string of consecutive turns in which every move made by a player is a chasing move.   The player making these moves is said to be chasing.


counter chase sequence is a string of consecutive turns in which every move made by a player is either a move of a trapped piece that is immediately threatened by his opponent, or is a chasing move.  The player making these moves is said to be counter chasing

chasing piece is a piece that makes at least one chasing move during a chase sequence, or during a counter chase sequence. These sequences may involve one or more chasing pieces. 


11.2 (It is not allowed to endlessly chase one or more pieces that cannot be captured.)
A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square it already moved to during the chase sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on that player's immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.

11.3 (It is not allowed to chase an opposing piece in order to try to prevent the loss of a trapped piece.)

If a player who is counter chasing moves a piece that is trapped, and that piece is immediately threatened by the opponent, then on his or her next turn the player may not move a chasing piece to a square that it already moved to during the sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence.

 

 

 

Oh boy,

 

Where to begin?

I see you did change the word "continuously".

However, the replaced word is even worse....

So we look up the defintion of "endlessly" :

 

1. Being or seeming to be without an end or limit; boundless: an endless universe; an endless conversation.
2. Formed with the ends joined; continuous: an endless chain.
 
Now some logical thoughts about the definition :
1. Without an end or limit so that means it's goin' on all the time or in fact non stop.  Is this the case? No.
2. What do we read here? Continuous?  So endless is a synonym for continuous which means that "endlessly" is the same as "continuously".  I don't have to explain what this means, right Gary?
It's funny and even ironic that there is a mentionning of an "endless chain".
So in this case it should be an endless chain of attack attempts according to you I guess?  
No, the chain is broken after each attack.  Funny this word is used to make the definition since it's the key word in it all.
Yes, a chain can be endless but that's ment in a total other context than here.
The fact alone that two players play on each turn makes it automatically impossible to have any kind of chain whatsoever in the game.
The why is obvious : the chainreaction is interrupted.
 
 
As for the definition, your rewritten rules fail dramatically.
 
Let's now look at the mathematical equation.
So if you want to ban double chasing and counterchasing, then this means that BOTH forms of chasing have to be mathematically equal.  
The logic would be : or you ban them both legally and if not, then you should allow them both legally.
It's obvious you want to ban them both but are they mathematical equal? 
Yes, they are cuz' :
 
double chase : attack, pull away, attack pull away or : zero operation
counter chase : attack, counterattack ,pull away, pull away : zero operation
 
So in fact there is NO difference between counterchasing and double chasing since the outcome will be the same, namely a zero operation.
That means that the chain will also break in the counterchase cuz' since continuously means endlessly and in both cases, it's obvious this is NOT the case, this means that both are in fact legal.
 
 
So according to the definition AND the mathematical equation it makes perfect sense to assume these are VALID moves.
 
 
 
 
For the rest, I have to agree with Nortrom.
It's really disgusting you guys act on your own with absolutely zero percent common sense.
Not only with the rules, also with the tie judgements.
There is no poll and it's again the slogan : "Our vision or the highway".
Where's the credibility in that?  There isn't any!
 
 
I'm fed up with this "endless" or let's make it "continuously" fight.
I give up,.....I don't know what else to do anymore but it's just completely hopeless.
There is a reason that the land of the MT is in total conflict and that are a lots of fights in the team itself.
No wonder,....inconsistency is the main issue.
 
 
Gary,...you're a good guy but what's goin' on now is absolutely a JOKE.
 
Btw : I'm NOT THE LAST COWBOY if I see the above polls.
Not that I consider those polls as being a true reflection of the mass players.
Those are not representable facts but only the votes from some few oldskool die hard Meta vets.
And you know it  ;)

I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#264 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,903 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 28 September 2014 - 02:04 PM

I like very much the fact that between the discussions above and the latest version now you have been able to find a way to write it with a very simple and clear text. Nevertheless I have 2 remarks:

 

1) It is said that a player is said to be chasing when he makes a chase sequence so what is exactly the move that is considered "the first chasing move"? Is it the first move of a chase sequence or the first move that is "a repetition" of a move already made during the same sequence?

 

2) Based on the statistics of your poll "double chasing and counter chasing" it looks like there are more players in favour of allowing counterchasing. I understand your last version above could be valid also without the red text should it be decided to allow counterchasing, correct? In such case that counterchasing would be allowed, for how long should it be allowed?

 

anyway ... good job

 

napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#265 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,009 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 September 2014 - 02:10 PM

If it is allowed, it is allowed endlessly. (Untill one of the players stops it)


"Rock is overpowered, paper is fine" - scissors

See this thread for live gaming updates

See this thread my blog post

 

Have an ongoing issue with the MT and in need of a "lawyer?" Nortrom Stratego Legal Services offers their services pro deo.

 

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”


#266 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 28 September 2014 - 02:28 PM

Oh jeez, this is still going on?

 

I've to ask it again..

Why do you guys want to change this rule drasticly?

Is it just for Stratego.com? If that is the case, nothing will change/happen the next few months, I guess.

 

Does something occured at , e.g. WC in Greece? or any other live-games? Aren't games more obvious (draws/victory) when playing live with a referee and people watching?

 

Is it to get rid of the "continuesly"-term at the ISF-rules?

 

 

 

As I see it and hear from others , shit only happens here at Stratego.com, right?

Well, once again, nothing will change here, so what is the point?


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#267 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 28 September 2014 - 02:49 PM

If it is allowed, it is allowed endlessly. (Untill one of the players stops it)

 

 

autodraw after x-amount of moves 

if that's implemented, nothing's endless


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#268 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 28 September 2014 - 03:13 PM

autodraw after x-amount of moves 

if that's implemented, nothing's endless

 

This would be the one and only answer to many of the problems here..

Draw refusers, endless double chasers, chasers, endless counter-chasing, the annoying reports on them, endless shufflers who refuse draws -.-

 

Unfortunatly , well, we all know why


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#269 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:11 PM

Interesting how you guys have been working on this, posting the progress, but no poll to be found on here to see how the players feel about this - you're basically acting on your own, representing no one but yourself in your proposal to the isf.

 

This has been talked about publicly for many months, and we took into account many comments of others.  People stopped responding after a while because this thread I think got too full of long posts about details people didn't want to read, so Gary and I started writing our "walls of text" privately.  However, I always welcome the opinions of the community.  We just did another poll regarding double chasing and counter chasing.  It's clear the counter chasing is the most controversial part of the proposal.  However, it seems that there never has been much disagreement about the other changes to the rules that the proposal makes.  You (Nortrom) have been on record supporting the other aspects such as scout threatening and distance chasing, and I thank you for that.  We colored the "counter chasing" text in red so if the ISF does not agree then that part can be removed and I think we still would have a great proposal that would do the following:

 

1)  Improve the clarity of the definitions and rules

 

2)  Correct the definition of threatening (currently the scout does not "threaten" if moves in line with a piece with spaces in between because the rules say a piece must me next to another in order to threaten it)

 

3)  Reduce the number of pointless moves that can occur before a chase must stop (our criteria of moving to a square so that it threatens a piece that already evaded is more efficient than the current rule of creating a board position that has already taken place)

 

4)  Prevent chasing from a distance.  This is done by expanding the definition of threatening to include when a piece moves so that it could trap another if that piece doesn't evade.

 

We hope that those who are against counter chasing will still see these benefits in the rest of the proposal and support these changes.  But there are a size-able number of players who would also like to see counter chasing prevented and we owe it to them to give them the opportunity to have their views considered by the ISF.



#270 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:20 PM

I like very much the fact that between the discussions above and the latest version now you have been able to find a way to write it with a very simple and clear text. Nevertheless I have 2 remarks:

 

1) It is said that a player is said to be chasing when he makes a chase sequence so what is exactly the move that is considered "the first chasing move"? Is it the first move of a chase sequence or the first move that is "a repetition" of a move already made during the same sequence?

 

The first chasing move is the first move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid capture which is immediately followed by that piece evading.  However, nothing happens at that point.  The rule doesn't block a move until a player attempts to move a piece that already made a chasing move during the current chase sequence to a square that it already moved to during the chase sequence and so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the chase sequence.

 

2) Based on the statistics of your poll "double chasing and counter chasing" it looks like there are more players in favour of allowing counterchasing. I understand your last version above could be valid also without the red text should it be decided to allow counterchasing, correct? In such case that counterchasing would be allowed, for how long should it be allowed?

 

Yes, without the red text counter chasing is allowed without limitation.

 

anyway ... good job

 

thanks!

 

 



#271 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 28 September 2014 - 05:28 PM

 

Oh boy,

 

Where to begin?

I see you did change the word "continuously".

However, the replaced word is even worse....

So we look up the defintion of "endlessly" :

 

1. Being or seeming to be without an end or limit; boundless: an endless universe; an endless conversation.
2. Formed with the ends joined; continuous: an endless chain.
 
 

 

The parts in parentheses on 11.2 and 11.3 are not actually part of the rules.  They are meant to explain in a simple way what the rule does.  So using the word "endlessly" was just a simple way to communicate the intent of the rule.  The part that comes after is the "real" rule which describes the specific effect it has during the game.  We could remove the two statements in parentheses and it would not subtract anything from what the proposal does.



#272 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 28 September 2014 - 07:19 PM

If it is allowed, it is allowed endlessly. (Untill one of the players stops it)

1) It is said that a player is said to be chasing when he makes a chase sequence so what is exactly the move that is considered "the first chasing move"? Is it the first move of a chase sequence or the first move that is "a repetition" of a move already made during the same sequence?

2) In such case that counterchasing would be allowed, for how long should it be allowed?

napoleon 1er


Napoleon 1er, the first question is really good. It doesn't matter, technically, to the rule because it doesn't rule against a single chasing move, as The Prof said earlier. I suppose it's a small thing, but I would argue that chasing actually begins with a single move that threatens. But, as I said, it's a moot point.

For 2), no, there's nothing in this about a 10 minute limit, but here again we are taking about the ISF and not this website. What we do here will be another discussion.

The "moved to" language was a very key change for us in both the chasing and counter chasing sections. Previously, you will have observed, we employed "already occupied" and found the new wording better for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the comments.

Gary

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#273 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 28 September 2014 - 08:29 PM

Oh boy,
 
Where to begin?
I see you did change the word "continuously".
However, the replaced word is even worse....
So we look up the defintion of "endlessly" :

Trickz, as TP said this word isn't part of the rules, officially, but I agree with you that it has that air. We'll work on this. Thanks for pointing it out.

The fact alone that two players play on each turn makes it automatically impossible to have any kind of chain whatsoever in the game.

I disagree here. It is totally possible to have a "string" of my turns, and then yours. So, to surmount your objection to "continuously/endlessly" type words, possibly we could say "a string of consecutive turns by one player".  How do you feel about the word "consecutive"?

If you don't like it, perhaps the best answer would be to merely slim both the chasing sequence def.'s down some more to the following: "a string of turns by one player"?

What do you think Trickz?

 
As for the definition, your rewritten rules fail dramatically.
 
Let's now look at the mathematical equation.
So if you want to ban double chasing and counterchasing, then this means that BOTH forms of chasing have to be mathematically equal.  
The logic would be : or you ban them both legally and if not, then you should allow them both legally.
It's obvious you want to ban them both but are they mathematical equal? 
Yes, they are cuz' :
 
double chase : attack, pull away, attack pull away or : zero operation
counter chase : attack, counterattack ,pull away, pull away : zero operation
 
So in fact there is NO difference between counterchasing and double chasing since the outcome will be the same, namely a zero operation.

You know, you've been saying this 'zero sum' thing for awhile now, but it just doesn't make sense. In the world of games done by turns there will always be a duality of player moves. Every two moves back and forth will add to 'zero' in this logic. If you're saying that a chase and then a pull away adds to 'zero' for both double and counter chasing, then the same must be said for single chasing. There you have a threatening move, then a pull away; a threatening move, then a pull away... all until the Two Squares rule kicks in to stop this 'zero' game. So this math doesn't mean anything. It doesn't prove anything. Even you stopped talking about getting rid of Two Squares a long time ago now, remember?

G
ary



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#274 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 29 September 2014 - 08:50 PM

 

Oh boy,

 

Where to begin?

I see you did change the word "continuously".

However, the replaced word is even worse....

So we look up the defintion of "endlessly" :

 

Trickz, the word "endlessly" has been removed, along with a few other changes just posted in the (19:30 GMT) EDIT of the latest version at the top of this page 14.    Even though "consective" has been left in--and it does mean uninterrupted just as "continuous" and "endlessly" both do--the use of "consecutive" here is to describe the series of turns of both the players taken together, not just the one player who is chasing.  His moves are interrupted, as you have pointed out, simply by the opponent's alternate moving.  But here what the term "series of consecutive turns" means is something like the following:  A moves, B moves; A moves again, B moves again; etc.  This is a series of moves by both players that is clearly uninterrupted.  Within this sequence there are chasing moves, and it is against these moves that the enforcement sections 11.2 and 11.3 will act.  

 

There are no more of the uninterrupted problems remaining in the rule, I hope you'll agree.  

 

Gary


  • HardRain_Lenny likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#275 HardRain_Lenny

HardRain_Lenny

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 01 October 2014 - 08:06 PM

My original posting isn't applicable anymore.



#276 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 02 October 2014 - 03:31 AM


Everyone, here it is. Beginning with the Article title "Repetition of Threatening Moves" this is what The Prof will present to ISF, along with backup examples and supporting documents. Thanks for the recent comments that helped us to make some final changes. Good Luck, The Prof!

GaryLShelton

Final Version, Oct.2, 02:30 GMT

To all forum members, the following is the latest version of the proposal The Prof and I have been working on for a new Article 11 of the official ISF rules. It will completely replace the current Article 11 and take effect in January 2015, if approved. We have added language to address scout threatening, distance chasing, and a new proposal to address counter chasing. In addition we have clarified the language in general and eliminated the use of the controversial word "continuous" in the current rules. This should be very close to the final version we send to the ISF. Please feel free to comment on the contents, but know that time is short at this point. The Final version will be decided upon by the end of Tuesday by The Prof and myself. Note that any text in red applies only to the part of our proposal to block counter chasing. It can be removed without harm to the rest of the wording. GaryLShelton
__________________

11. Repetition of Threatening Moves

11.1 Definitions:

For one piece to trap another it must be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule (10.1). In this case the opponent's piece is said to be trapped.

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can, on that player's next turn, attack or trap an opposing piece if that piece does not move.

To evade is to immediately move a piece away from an opposing one that threatens it.

A chasing move is a move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid attack by the piece that is threatening it, and which is immediately followed by a move of the threatened piece to evade a potential attack or to avoid becoming trapped.


A chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be chasing.

A counter chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is either a move of a trapped piece that is immediately threatened by his opponent, or is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be counter chasing.

A chasing piece is a piece that makes at least one chasing move during a chase sequence, or during a counter chase sequence. These sequences may involve one or more chasing pieces.


11.2 (Limits the chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)
A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square it already moved to during the chase sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on that player's immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.

11.3 (Blocks a return to chasing that is done to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player who is counter chasing moves a piece that is trapped, and that piece is immediately threatened by the opponent, then on his or her next turn the player may not move a chasing piece to a square that it already moved to during the sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence.


  • HardRain_Lenny likes this

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#277 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 02 October 2014 - 09:10 AM

What does this mean for two opponents both chasing pieces (counter-chasing each other) which none of them are trapped by the 2 Sq. Rule?


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#278 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 02 October 2014 - 09:49 PM

What does this mean for two opponents both chasing pieces (counter-chasing each other) which none of them are trapped by the 2 Sq. Rule?

 

It is not possible for both players to be chasing, since in order for one player to be chasing the other player must be evading.   It's also not possible for both players to be counter chasing since if one is counter chasing then he is either making chasing moves or moving his trapped piece, while his opponent is either evading the chasing moves or is threatening the trapped piece each time it moves.


  • GaryLShelton likes this

#279 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 02 October 2014 - 11:39 PM

What does this mean for two opponents both chasing pieces (counter-chasing each other) which none of them are trapped by the 2 Sq. Rule?

 

To build on what The Prof said, there is no chasing unless there is immediate evading.  The situation you describe, PsychoPatty, has one person threatening, and then on the very next turn his opponent doesn't evade but threatens him right back, if I understand you correctly.  This kind of thing will resolve itself in one of two ways if neither objective piece can be captured. Either the first player who threatens the other will decide to quickly take his objective piece, and the second player will likewise take his objective piece.  (Both will have won a piece and lost a piece.)  Or the first theatening player will move his own piece that's being threatened out of harm's way and begin an indefinite loop.  In the latter case the Two Squares rule, and possibly the More Squares rule, will come into play to temporarily halt these actions, but they will not actually permanently block this series of moves.  Our Proposal replaces and improves upon the "More Squares" rule (Article 11), but it will not prevent this kind of series of moves from going on forever either, as each "chase sequence" would be broken by each player's own evading.   

 

The purpose of our new Proposal is to stop one or the other player from being unsportsmanlike.  We cannot help a game where both players want to play a crazy unending loop of turns.  No set of rules could.  Oh, except a game clock or Auto Draw....or possibly an ump who wanted to throw both players out!

 

There is an interesting potential difference here between our new Proposal and the current ISF rules.  Having said the above about PsychoPatty's situation (where both players could forever evade attack by roaming back and forth over three or more squares), if the first player who threatened did happen to find his opponent's piece limited to two squares of movement, and the second player chose to threaten right back, instead of evading, then this would now bring into force the counter chasing part of our Proposal to the benefit of the first threatening player, as the second player will have left his piece in line with its attacker and no way of escape.  As with any counter chasing situation the ISF would allow it to proceed indefinitely, at the present time, but our Proposal would end this in favor of the first threatening player, as the second player would be blocked from continuing his chasing when it attempted to repeat itself.  

 

We'll have to get The Prof to echo on this.

 

Gary



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#280 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 02 October 2014 - 11:48 PM

Trickz, the word "endlessly" has been removed, along with a few other changes just posted in the (19:30 GMT) EDIT of the latest version at the top of this page 14.    Even though "consective" has been left in--and it does mean uninterrupted just as "continuous" and "endlessly" both do--the use of "consecutive" here is to describe the series of turns of both the players taken together, not just the one player who is chasing.  His moves are interrupted, as you have pointed out, simply by the opponent's alternate moving.  But here what the term "series of consecutive turns" means is something like the following:  A moves, B moves; A moves again, B moves again; etc.  This is a series of moves by both players that is clearly uninterrupted.  Within this sequence there are chasing moves, and it is against these moves that the enforcement sections 11.2 and 11.3 will act.  

 

There are no more of the uninterrupted problems remaining in the rule, I hope you'll agree.  

 

Gary

 

 

Whatever, I'm fed up with reacting on it.

It's pathetic bs and there is absolutely no common sense that two miners can win against two sergs with both sealed flag.

You can talk what you want, it's just a tie and that's that.

I'll chase till I die :)


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users