11

If both flags are blocked by bombs, and there are no miners left, The rules state that if you have no movable pieces left you lose the game.

What if each player has one moveable piece left, and the one with the lower piece simply runs away?
If the player can't be caught, he can't lose, and a draw would need to be called, correct?

Mike Meade
  • 111
  • 1
  • 3

5 Answers5

11

I've not found any reference to rules concerning draws in any of the rules pdfs on line. The rules do say

A piece cannot move back and forth between the same two squares in three consecutive turns

If a player had no legal move other than "moving back and forth" they would lose as unable to play.

It is possible that a piece could never be caught in a game of Stratego if they were being chased around any of the 4 empty lake spaces. This situation doesn't seem to be covered in official rules but it does seem to be covered in the International Stratego Federation rules. I don't know if they have any official affiliation with any Stratego publisher. They say

It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly. The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place.

Those rules also say

A match ends in draw when:

  • at the end of the official playing the match has not ended yet.
  • both players agree to a draw.
  • the arbiter declares the game a draw.
  • both players have no movable pieces anymore.
  • both personal clock times have run out and this is mentioned by at least one of both players.

I should stress these are the. ISF rules and not in any published version. People playing at home would be unlikely to use a clock for example.

So whilst the rules do not officially call the situation you give a draw, it seem sensible to me that both players should agree to this if the game is impossible to end otherwise.

StartPlayer
  • 10,576
  • 24
  • 47
  • The ISF rules extend the house rules found in the Jumbo boxes:, quote: "1.2 The ISF Game Rules are based on the Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules (see article 5). The ISF Game Rules focus on potential conflict situations during tournaments, which are not described in detail in the Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules" – TemplateRex Mar 10 '21 at 21:50
  • And furthermore: "05 Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules The ISF Game Rules are based on the Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules (version 2006). The Jumbo Stratego Original Game Rules which are not incorporated in any other article are listed below" – TemplateRex Mar 10 '21 at 21:51
7

You are correct. If a player can't be caught, he can't lose, and a draw would need to be called.

On BGG, Pursuit thread, Alejandro Lizarraga is saying:

The only scenario when I can think that a persecution can extend indefinitely is when a player has one single moving piece left in the board with his flag surrounded by bombs and the opponent has run out of bombers already. In this very particular case, the tournament rules concede a draw game, but I think only after completing two full circles around the board.

The rules specify two ways to win:

  1. capture the flag
  2. opponent can not make a move in his turn
L. Scott Johnson
  • 11,004
  • 1
  • 19
  • 47
Cohensius
  • 4,220
  • 18
  • 48
2

If all the games me and my sister played over the years, one comes to mind. Our flags were in opposite corners and bombed in, we each had one miner, marshal, spy, and a few other pieces (no scouts) left. The game continued for two days before we realized it was unwinnable.

For those "can't repeat a position" guys; there's about 10^38 positions before repeats become a problem.

Joshua
  • 159
  • 4
  • Since Stratego does not randomly move to any possible board position, the number of potential board layouts is irrelevant. It's those that can and do repeat which are not permitted, and repeats can and have been issues in games before. – Nij Mar 01 '21 at 21:44
  • @Nij: It was in this case. Wide open board jockying for advantage; tight loops did not occur. – Joshua Mar 01 '21 at 21:46
  • 1
    In what case? The question is about rules in general, an answer based on one specific game is less than helpful. – Nij Mar 01 '21 at 21:55
  • @Nij: Question: Is is possible to have a draw? – Joshua Mar 01 '21 at 22:05
  • So, how does mentioning the number of possible positions (many of which are illegal or inaccessible, and are not freely obtainable from any other position) help answer that? - It doesn't. – Nij Mar 01 '21 at 22:10
  • @Nij: Some people were attempting to argue that a draw would not occur because somebody would be unable to move due to repetitions and thus lose by being unable to move. I have produced a scenario from a real game where it would not occur within a human lifetime. – Joshua Mar 01 '21 at 22:47
  • Which is perfectly true. You can be trapped in a situation where no moves are possible except for repetition. And your response was that the game state has a huge number of possibilities, without explaining why this number is either relevant or useful. – Nij Mar 01 '21 at 22:49
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Nij Mar 01 '21 at 22:49
0

It sounds like it should be a loss for the player who is running away. In this situation you have a case where neither player can win by capturing the flag and both players have movable pieces the victory should go to the player with the highest piece left. However there would be two situations where this would be different.

  • Players have 1 movable piece left of different ranks: person with lower ranked piece loses.
  • Players have 1 movable piece left of equal rank: game is a draw as they would eliminate each other when attacked.
  • Players have 1 movable piece left one is the marshal and one is the spy: game would continue until either a draw is agreed to or one player is able to capture the other piece.

In this case I don't think it is advisable to reward a player with a draw for being able to move around the board when they have no chance of winning.

Joe W
  • 14,098
  • 2
  • 46
  • 71
  • 1
    Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c&ab_channel=klatica     – Cohensius Mar 01 '21 at 22:01
  • @Cohensius You are right it is just my opinion but I don't see why you would reward someone in a losing position with a draw just because they are in a position from keeping the game from ever ending. – Joe W Mar 01 '21 at 22:24
  • 2
    Imho this situation is similar to one of the draw reasons in Chess: "Impossibility of checkmate", for example: king and bishop versus king. One can say that the player that have a king + bishop should win, but really it is just a draw. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draw_(chess) – Cohensius Mar 02 '21 at 07:21
  • @JoeW: "I don't see why you would reward someone in a losing position with a draw just because they are in a position from keeping the game from ever ending." Sure, but if they can force a draw, then it's not a losing position. Vice versa, I might say "I don't see why you would reward someone in a drawing position with a win just because they... um... bore easily?" I'm honestly not sure what the rationale would be for awarding a win to either of the players, given that we're assuming both players are literally unable to win, according to the rules of the game, from the present position. – Quuxplusone Mar 02 '21 at 16:47
  • @Quuxplusone Outside of games that have game/player time limits there is no indication in the rules about how to handle this. This situation is not covered in the basic game and would only be covered under rules that add some sort of time/move limit to the game such as a tournament. In normal gameplay this could cause a game to never end until either one player declares that they lost or both players agree to a draw. In the examples I gave it is more of a case that one player can win if they catch the piece and the other player can't win no matter what. – Joe W Mar 02 '21 at 17:28
  • 1
    Joe W, regarding your logic of not rewarding a player who has no chance of winning --- neither player has a chance of winning. So by your logic, both players must be awarded a loss. Number of points awarded in a match should remain constant, so best solution is a draw when neither player can win. – Philip Schiff Mar 03 '21 at 14:19
  • @PhilipSchiff My logic is that the only thing preventing one player from winning and another player from losing is an endless chain of moves that can never end. So it is possible for one player to win if the endless chain of moves was to end. In this case you have one player who doesn't want to lose/draw and one that doesn't want to draw. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 14:20
  • The essence of your comment is that "I don't like that it awards a draw to a player who I feel deserves to lose, because he did not win". However the shortcoming with your proposed remedy is that it "awards a win to player who does not deserve it, because he did not win". – Philip Schiff Mar 03 '21 at 14:21
  • @PhilipSchiff I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 14:22
  • @Cohensius In chess there are rules that govern when a draw occurs which is not the case in Stratego except in tourney play. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 14:24
  • @JoeW it meant you say "if only the player was able to catch the other, he could use his superior piece to win" and I am saying "it doesn't matter because the if is false". – Philip Schiff Mar 03 '21 at 14:30
  • @PhilipSchiff It seems we disagree on this and the rules don't allow for a draw in normal play. Tournament play may have draws but that is because they add in additional rules to prevent an endless game like this from happening. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 14:32
0

I would say yes. Take this scenario:

  • Red has more overall pieces, however the only powerful piece it has left is the Marshall. Included in the pieces is at least one Miner, who has not yet moved, so it looks like a bomb. Red's flag is buried in a two lines of unmoved pieces and is likely encased behind yet to be discovered bombs.

  • Blue has significantly fewer pieces, but they are clearly more powerful, For example, they may still have the Marshall, the General, and a Major. However Blue no longer possess a Miner to clear bombs. Let's also say that Blue's bombs have been clearly determined and the flag location has been pretty much exposed so it is forced to play defensively.

Which player is leading the game?

If Red is forced to trade to the death like checkers, then Blue.

However if game is Capture the Flag, should Blue be forced to try to "discover" the flag? Should the General be forced to try and capture an unmoved piece hoping it is not a bomb? Blue also cannot be overly aggressive on Red's side of the board or it could expose a mad dash by Miner(s) supported by as many pieces as it needs to cause confusion. The Red Marshall can bully both the Blue General and the Major if left unattended. Red has options to win and shouldn't be forced to trade (or even move) pieces because they are the only player who can capture the flag.

To me this looks like a clear tie because neither side is compelled to give up its advantage in the end game.

Marc Ferree
  • 1
  • 1
  • That seems strange as players could keep a piece from moving in order to hide what it is. For example they could not move the spy until they know where it is needed. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 14:53
  • Right and not moving a piece is a big part of causing a draw. There is value in an unmoved piece. There is also value in an unidentified moved piece.

    What I am getting at is there is situations where one sides strength is the power of its remaining pieces. There are also situations where one sides strength is the number of pieces (or Miner/Scout skills). There is certainly significant power in identifying bombs and flag location.

    These differences in power creates clear draws that are more complex a Marshall chasing a General around a pond.

     – Marc Ferree Mar 03 '21 at 17:46
  • Right but not moving a piece that could be moved shouldn't factor into the decision as players have the choice to attack the piece if they think it is a bluff. Not to mention this is a problem because there are no rules around draws. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 18:07
  • Ok but take my scenario. What should blue do, what should red do? If the back two rows of red is mostly intact and complete unmoved, what should blue do? It only has 3 pieces left keep in mind. – Marc Ferree Mar 03 '21 at 18:10
  • Play the game? Send in lower power pieces to try and find the bombs? – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 18:12
  • This was a game I had against the computer. I was red. There was no way I could move a piece or it would be captured. – Marc Ferree Mar 03 '21 at 18:30
  • Answering that situation is outside the bounds of this question. – Joe W Mar 03 '21 at 18:31
  • I don't think this should be ruled a draw. It might develop into one as play continues. But red can perhaps win through good play. Blue can win if all of red's mobile pieces are destroyed so that red cannot move. – David Siegel Mar 03 '21 at 19:04
  • So who won the game above? I was red. I could never move my miner because blue hovered the flag. So my choice was shuttle my Marshall and Scout forever OR lose. Blue was in the same boat. Either the computer exposed its flag or played to tie. – Marc Ferree Mar 03 '21 at 19:27
  • I would recommend getting a board and playing it out. Or download an app and get in that situation. For me, I lost a major early so I sacrificed my General and other Major to wipe out his back row. If I played traditionally it was a guaranteed loss but I put the computer in a bad spot. – Marc Ferree Mar 03 '21 at 19:27
  • You really have to play an over the board game and lose even though you have more power to understand why quantity of pieces is important too. – Marc Ferree Mar 03 '21 at 19:29