Jump to content


Photo

Obscure 1961 rule


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,268 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:46 PM

In the very first entry on the adjective "obscure" in my dictionary, it is defined as, literally, meaning "covered over".   

 

Well, I have one for everyone that is "covered over" by a lot of time and non-use.  Now I won't risk any bodily appendages, but I will wager a cut-to-the-quick fingernail clipping that not one in 100 of you could say you know this one, or have even heard about it.  

 

What I am talking about is not the Scout move and strike argument.  The 1961 box rules clearly state under RULES FOR MOVEMENT.  Rule #8...The Scout MAY NOT MOVE & STRIKE in the same turn.

 

This rule is pretty clear in the original American game, and it's an old hat argument at this point.  For some reason the old rule was dropped in favor of the current move and strike for the Scout, which I am okay with, though I don't know when it changed or why.

 

No, the obscure rule I am starting this topic about is one that I NEVER played, even though it was there plainly in the box lid rules for my old game board version.  I restate Rules #5 and #6 verbatim here, just as they appear under RULES FOR "STRIKE" OR ATTACK in the game box lid.  

 

HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE FOLLOWING RULE? 

 

Rule #5.  To strike (or attack), the player, whose turn it is, takes up his piece and lightly "strikes" the opponent's piece while at the same time declaring his piece's rank.   The opponent answers by naming the rank of his piece.

 

---so far, so good, but wait---

 

Rule #6.  The piece with the lower rank is lost and removed from the board.  The winning higher ranking piece is then MOVED IMMEDIATELY INTO THE EMPTY SQUARE FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY THE LOSING PIECE.  

 

[Emphasis in the original.]

 

Did you get that?  If a lower ranking piece strikes you, you win, but you also have to be moved into the lower piece's square.  Then you can take your turn.

 

Am I right?  Do less than 1 in 100 know this rule?

 

I find it fascinating that this rule could be right there and completely ignored.  I myself never played it this way, nor knew of anyone who did.  If this is not the most un-heard-of rule in Stratego, I don't know what is.  How it could change the game if implemented, I can only guess.  "Obscure" is a valid descriptor for it, to be sure.

 

Now, I am a kind of guy that generally likes and respects authority.  I come from the 1961 American Stratego version and will always be tied to it.  Should all the rules in it be made gospel is an ongoing question, however.  



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


#2 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:57 PM

I think those rules were dropped because they are awful. A scout loses most of its power in the original rule. And the other is just nonsense.


  • vowles_23 likes this

gg


#3 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:36 PM

I have read somewhere also about a scout they have to move one square in X direction to "face" that direction.  Once they are facing that direction then they can move X number of squares only forward the direction they are "facing".  Problem with that rule is, how could you tell if a scout was facing forward towards your opponents zone, or facing to the right side of the edge of the board or facing towards your own zone? 

 

I agree that the rule if a lower piece attacks you and loses, but you must go their square is just ridiculous!  It totally changes the game concept around and glad to hear they got rid of that rule. 


  • bboys2012 likes this

#4 trickz

trickz

    Major

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

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:57 PM

It's always been a vague story with the Stratego rules.
There's not a single game on the planet that has such debatable issues as Stratego.
The scout is one thing, the chase rule that has changed through the years is another (5m-2s)...
As long as I play I've always known that a scout can fly and attack at the same time.
But I didn't use to play with the 2s rule before, that was new.

This game is just undefinable, I think there will always be debates about some rules untill eternity :)
I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#5 Lady Kathryn

Lady Kathryn

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:28 AM

Gary asks: Does any one remember...?


 The 1961 box rules clearly state under RULES FOR MOVEMENT.  Rule
#8...The Scout MAY NOT MOVE & STRIKE in the same turn.


Sure do. Its an option on meta, and ISF rules Sec 5.3 says not:

A scout can attack from any distance in a straight line provided that the squares between itself and the attacked piece are vacant.


 

HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE FOLLOWING RULE? 

Rule #5.  To strike (or attack), the player, whose turn it is, takes
up his piece and lightly "strikes" the opponent's piece while at the
same time declaring his piece's rank.   The opponent answers by naming
the rank of his piece.

Yes, I remember. Sometimes played that way when young. ISF says:

 

6.2 Moving, attacking and losing your piece
 take your own piece in your hand
 touch or turn the opponent‟s piece
 show and mention the rank of your own piece

 


Rule #6.  The piece with the lower rank is lost and removed from the
board.  The winning higher ranking piece is then MOVED IMMEDIATELY INTO
THE EMPTY SQUARE FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY THE LOSING PIECE.

 Am I right? Do less than 1 in 100 know this rule?

I remember this. Gave chance to opponent to capture your piece if you had won your attack, or cost you move to get out of danger. NOT in ISF rules. Nobody ever played that way.

:)

 Those 1961 rules you refer to were probably thought up by the same employee at Milton-Bradley who came up with the Marshall being 'One'.

 

All the rules are based on the following:


"It was in fact designed by a lady, Mademoiselle Hermance Edan, who filed a patent for a 'jeu de bataille avec pièces mobiles sur damier' (a battle game with mobile pieces on a gameboard) on 11-26-1908. The patent was released by the French Patent Office in 1909 (patent #396.795 [9]). Hermance Edan had given no name to her game but a French manufacturer named "Au Jeu Retrouvé" was selling the game as L'Attaque as early as 1910... "
Depaulis further notes that the 1910 version divided the armies into red and blue colors. The rules of L'attaque were basically the same as the game we know as Stratego. It featured standing cardboard rectangular pieces, color printed with soldiers who wore contemporary (to 1900) uniforms, not Napoleonic uniforms.

The name STRATEGO was first trademarked by a Dutchman named Jacques Johan Mogendorff in 1947.
The modern game, with its Napoleonic imagery, was originally manufactured in the Netherlands by Jumbo, and was licensed by the Milton Bradley Company for American distribution, and first introduced in the United States in 1961. (although it was trademarked in 1960). The Jumbo Company continues to release European editions, including a three- and four-player version, and a new Cannon piece (which jumps two squares to capture any piece, but loses to any attack against it). It also included some alternate rules such as Barrage (a quicker two-player game with fewer pieces) and Reserves (reinforcements in the three- and four-player games). The four-player version appeared in America in the 1990s.
:)
Finally, for Trickz: I don't know how we figured this one up, but 'back then' we played that IF the same piece moved the same 2 squares 3 times in a row, that piece was lost automatically. If there were 2 pieces doing it (2-square rule), upon the second piece making the 3rd move, Both pieces were lost regardless of rank. I suppose this was our answer to the 'endless chase' scenario.


wc 2010x2.jpg

#6 Diedes

Diedes

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:43 AM

Nice information in this topic, was fun to read, thanks!



#7 Lady Kathryn

Lady Kathryn

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 83 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Major

Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:45 AM

Merci, mon ami!


wc 2010x2.jpg

#8 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,268 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 11 March 2013 - 03:28 AM

Lady Kathryn, you caution me to change my wager that not one in one hundred on this site knows about rule #6, to a safer 5 persons now.  You have some history there.  Thanks.  The L'Attaque game featured only 36 pieces instead of 40 but was indeed very similar.  

 

Myself being a child of the 60's I grew up with the Marshall being #1 and thought it was the only way until I saw a newer version in the 1990's.  I don't know who thought of the change, as apparently the "European" version as I see it called, was the original.  I wonder if someone thought at the time that it might allow for future piece expansion?  I mean, you could create a #10 and #11 piece that were successively weaker than the Scout.  But if the Scout is a #2 already and the Flag is #1, then you can't expand...unless you go into a zero or negative numbers.  Maybe?

 

For whatever reason, I have always viewed the Marshall as Numero Uno and could never change.  It would be akin to asking me to drive in England.  Some mighty flaky things might happen!



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


#9 Guest_deliciousonions_*

Guest_deliciousonions_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2013 - 12:19 PM

To Gary L Shelton,

 

the wording of that last move might have been worded wrong or maybe as you say it was just altered - otherwise it would mean the mine would move forward if it were attacked by any piece other than a sapper...



#10 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,268 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 05 June 2013 - 04:08 AM

Deliciousonions, I never thought of that, but you're right, that is precisely what the rule would cause to happen if followed as written.  Interesting point.  Thanks.  GLS



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


#11 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 05 June 2013 - 04:39 AM

in the other sites 1961 rules variation of the game they rarely play but enable at that site, the scout can hit from a distance and not have to stop short of its target.

When this rule is applied erroneously then the scout can actually attack from 8-9 rows away, thus "pulling" a marshall across the board to the other side of the game board, within 1 square of a spy.

Be glad we don't use that version here.



#12 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,268 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:12 PM

in the other sites 1961 rules variation of the game they rarely play but enable at that site, the scout can hit from a distance and not have to stop short of its target.

When this rule is applied erroneously then the scout can actually attack from 8-9 rows away, thus "pulling" a marshall across the board to the other side of the game board, within 1 square of a spy.

Be glad we don't use that version here.

 

Maribo, you and deliciousonions have come up with two good points.  It would be an interesting cross of rules to allow the scout to strike at a distance, like we do on this site, and still maintain that the piece it struck had to take the scout's original place...which as you say, could be 8-9 spaces away.  But whether we allowed the "pulling", as you aptly call it, of the Marshal clear across the board or only one space (if the 1961 rule were in place of not moving and striking in the same turn), it would still be the Marshal's turn next and he could then strike or move out of the way.  Still, I can see that one could line up his pieces and force the Marshal to guess which direction would be safe to move to....this whole rule would definitely set up a possible trap.  Nice point.  Thanks.

 

I didn't start this thread to push for these rules.  I just brought them up because I found them interesting, especially this "pulling" rule.  Designated Baby said it most succinctly, I think, to call this rule nonsense.    GLS



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


#13 redbarron

redbarron

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 22 September 2013 - 01:38 AM

I read all the posts to this discussion and there are some thing which are incorrect.

 

Milton Bradley have published at least three version of the rules.

 

Three pieces from the original rules or 1961 rules state

 

The "Flag" and the "Bomb" pieces cannot be moved.

 

If a player strikes an opponents piece, the piece with the lower rank is lost and removed from the board. The winning higher ranking piece is then moved immediately into the empty square formerly occupied by the losing piece. When equal ranks are struck, then both pieces are lost and removed from the board.

 

When any piece (except a Miner) strikes a Bomb (Bang!) that piece is lost and is removed from the board. The Bomb does not move into the empty square, but remains in its original position at all times.

 

Cira 1968 (I am not sure of the exact year but about then, I was given a set in 1968 with the old rules, but a friend I met later was given a set with later rules about the same time, big argument which I lost because we were using his set)

 

These are the rules that GaryLShelton is referring to.

 

A rule was added that a scout could not attack unless it was next to the piece that was to be attacked, (the no range attack rule)

 

Finally the rules were changed to the rules now known as Classic rules. where the attacked piece does not move, but scouts were again allowed to attack from range.

 

deliciousions, no one had mentioned the third point above which clearly states bombs never move.  It was not worded wrong as the repeat of the bombs never move wouldn't be required if the intention of the second point was that only attacking pieces move on winning.

 

I maintain that the original rules were meant to be played with the attacked piece being moved as stated in the rules, because if it was not the intention that the attacked piece was moved, no one would have put the "The bomb does not move into the empty square" sentence into the third point above.

 

I have had many arguments that no one ever played like this or it wasn't meant to be like this etc.

 

On another site you can play with the 1961 rules, and yes it is a very different game which I will explain later.

 

Having played many games there, I have met many players who have said "I remember playing like this as a kid", mainly players from USA.  As a kid in Australia I always played with the 1961 rules with scouts being able to move opponents pieces across the board.

 

To date NO one has produced a set of rules in any language that doesn't translate to what is written above published before 1968.  The only argument ever given is "We have always played like this" mainly by players not even born in the '60.

 

Just looking at the rules once more, the first sentence says

 

The Objective of the game is to capture the opponent's flag.

 

How often are players really trying to find the opponents flag with the classic rules ? (Rarely)

 

The problem with ISF classic is that doing nothing is such an advantage, everything comes down to the one significant attack during the game and the odds are against the attacker.

 

The problem with the original rules is that it is a far more complicated game, the game manufacturers could not really publish it as an 8+ game, more like a 18+ game.  The advantages are that one bad attack doesn't lose you the game, because attacking is not such a disadvantage players would know how to play with the original rules will setup with a plan of attack and they will try and capture the flag.

 

In the original rules the test and take strategy of classic falls down, you can not test a piece while blocking it in place.

 

The blocking of pieces from attacking falls down because scouts can move them out of the way.

 

In general a game of 1961 rules is quicker to play than classic, about half the number of moves and just defending is a losing strategy, unlike classic.

 

I have only ever played the one game with the 1968 rules (remember big argument) but would expect that it would be similar to classic in that you could defend to advantage.

 

 

Hope that clears up history of the rules since 1961.

 

 

 

 



#14 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 22 September 2013 - 05:02 AM

To Gary L Shelton,

 

the wording of that last move might have been worded wrong or maybe as you say it was just altered - otherwise it would mean the mine would move forward if it were attacked by any piece other than a sapper...

 

Actually, I think bombs have no rank. Therefore that clause would have no applicability since it only affects ranked pieces?


How can I help you?

#15 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,268 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 03 March 2014 - 08:11 AM

I am just now coming back to this thread in March 2014.  That was a good and lengthy response by RedBarron, and a nice point by LTG.  I was visiting with The Prof the other day and he told me that he not only knew about the obscure rule but that he actually played with it at some time.  I wonder if he followed the Scout's "pulling" (as maribo described it) to suck pieces away.  I'll have to ask him on that.  

 

Whether the bombs have a rank or not the clause LTG refers to only solidifies the situation, I'd say, on their movement after getting struck.  

 

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


#16 scottrussia

scottrussia

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 814 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Spy

Posted 09 March 2014 - 10:34 AM

I played as a youth with the scout not being able to attack across the board (had to "fly" next to the piece).  It has the effect of limiting the ability to identify attacking pieces and requires two moves to do so.

 

I also had the attack and then move the other piece forward (or to the side), but we gave up on that one pretty quickly as my father didn't like that rule!!! (and since he was my main opponent that's just the way it was if I wanted him to play when he had time).  I can remember attacking with a couple sevens and my spy once I found the one - after having that work a few times against him he decided on different rules :) - If I recall correctly I might have not made it obvious that his one had actually been moved to a different square! (I was about 6 or 7 when I started playing).  But I do recall that I had a friend that played this way - it made for big swings in momentum as if you got your one hit with a four and it moved forward and was then next to another good piece you could take that one with your move.  Beyond that I can't really remember too much about it since I played the majority of games without that rule.

 

I agree with the comment that it made it more of a capture the flag game.  One of the big negatives on the site (to myself) is the total lack of attempts to attack and actually capture the flag. Its somewhat depressing when an opponents first eight moves is to move the same piece forward two spaced and back those same two spaces.  Or to move forward a space and have me attack and then retreat.  I don't even bother playing those folks any more - just hit the resign button and move on looking for a decent game.


​Spartan Warriors

KING of the Battlefield!!!!!!


#17 Herodreamer79

Herodreamer79

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Lieutenant

Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:02 PM

the way Stratego is played on this site -The rules that are set- is the way IT SHOULD be played.

 

The game has been ruined in the United States because of these ridiculous rule changes...

 

Not to mention the adoption of that Euro Numbering system with the 10 as a Marshall..

 

i hate it. it's absolutely maddening.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users