Hm, what a curious game: Stormerne vs. WhisperzQ. I wonder if lin. rule nr. 11 is to prevent such ending of the game (a true draw)? Then the white soldier next to the throne can be killed...

Hm, there have been many proposals for changing the rules lately:
1) Ughaibu (and other, like myself) wants to change the 'rule' "eternal check = draw". AbigailII wants them at least specified;
2) I want to change the rule that allows jumps over the castle;
3) Stormerne wants to implement the Raichi rule, so just like check in chess it is illegal not to block;
4) I want to implement Lin. rule nr. 11.

Are there enough players who agree with the changing of (some of) the rules?

If not, should there be another Tablut (v.2) on Brainking so we can compare the two sets of rules in actual gameplay?

I would add that a repetitive attack SHOULDN'T end in a mutually agreed draw but in a loss for the repetitive attacker (for reasons given below). That would make an agreement even less probable. So I agree with AbigailII.

Don't forget to join the 2005 ughaibu Tablut Open Tournament!
Creator: Daniel Snyder

< Snigfarp>
My initial translation:
The castle can PREVENT, just like a third piece, that when a soldier stands on 2 (f.i. e4) and an enemy is on 3 (f.i.e3), it (the soldier) could be killed.

I'm sorry, maybe I understand you wrong, but the literal meaning is just the opposite of "a piece can be captured by a single enemy against a central square, as some reconstructions have it."

Do you mean you find the translation of "intercludere...ut" with "prevent...that" incorrect?
"intercludere" has several meanings (http://www.dictionary-translator.com/english/Lat
in-English/i/intercludere%20--%20block%20up.sh
tml)
and I think a translation with "block" (the castle blocks (prevents) the killing of a soldier on e4 when an enemy is on e3) is quite literal. Indeed, I choose a translation that makes sence to me. A translation like: The castle can seperate (some-one), [...], so that if a soldier stands [...etc...] it would be killed", doesn't make sense to me in the game.

My later addition had the following rationale:
One could assume from my translation of this rule that a soldier next to the castle is absolutely safe. I THINK though, and tried to argue, that this is implausible. It just handles the situation of a soldier between castle and an enemy, and that the castle "protects its neck". It doesn't say anything about the sides (so the other rules apply).
I don't see my addition as a correction, however. It is meant as a clarification of how brainking rules and lin. nr. 14 are compatible.

I hope I didn't totally miss your point? Please tell me when I'm flooding the forum :)
I hope this discussion helps you with the book you are planning to write. It would be great when Tablut gets more attention!

I think by the way that "could be killed" means "could be killed in one move with another enemy". He CAN be killed from the sides.

<Snigfarp> You are also correct :)
Rule nr. 14 is difficult. I would translate it thus:
The castle can prevent, just like a third piece, that when a soldier stands on 2 (f.i. e4) and an enemy is on 3 (f.i.e3), it (the soldier) could be killed.
So it contains no new information.
Notice that Lin. uses the latin word "trio" wrong, and this makes an accurate translation difficult. I think my translation of the word intercludere is correct because else the rule COULD perhaps mean something like: the castle is hostile to all pieces. We don't want to go there :) Actually I think playability should be a factor when translating the rules.

Strange is rule nr. 9: "etiam Rex" doesn't mean "except for the king" (like Smith) but "EVEN the king".
Should we conclude that the king is also killed by two pieces except in and around the castle? I don't think so because it would contradict with rule 3 and 5. If two pieces were enough to kill the king, then the king CAN be killed when he is on c3 with no pieces on a3, b3, c1, c2. Namely when an enemy is on d3 and another one moves to c3. And since rule nr. 5 says the kings exit can't be prevented in this situation, the king MUST always be captured with 4 (or 3 with the castle).

So: either Linn. meant "praeter" (except for) in stead of "etiam", or he meant that even the king should be taken off when captured.

< Ughaibu> That is correct. There is no rule at all about draws or perpetual attack.
Just like nowhere is stated who begins (white or black) there is also no rule about perpetual "check". Which means we have to invent at least two rules.
I like the new rule at brainking which says that white begins, because black is principally reacting to white in Tablut. It fits well in the game.
I don't like the new rule at brainking which makes repetition of moves a draw. Because practically always it is only white who can force a draw, it is a big advantage for white, and it disrupts the game because it distracts black from its target (capture the king) into preventing a draw. It doesn't fit in the game at all, in my opinion.

I suggest the rule should be discarded and replaced by one of the following (or a better one of course!):

A) A threat that will lead to a sure victory may not be repeated more than twice. After that, the offensive side must make another move.
(http://user.tninet.se/~jgd996c/hnefatafl/
hnefatafl.html)

B) The first player who brings about exactly the same position of the pieces for the third time loses the game.

C) When exactly the same position occurs on the board for the third time, white loses the game.

Yes! I found them in the 1913 version.
Here are the full notes in latin, I hope to translate them soon.

I put my own notes between {}.
The "?" between [] is from the editor, not from me.

Leges. {here is a note inserted: “Jfr. det till annat spel hörande, på nästa sida afbildade brädet.” I guess it means something like: these illustrations (of the pieces) belong to the game, just like the picture of the board on the next page.}

1. Alla få occupera et mutare loca per lineam rectam, non vero transversam, ut a ad c, non vero a ad e.

2. Nulli licitum sit locum per lineam rectam alium supersalire, occupare, ut a ad m, alio aliqvo in i constituto.

3. Si Rex occuparet locum b et nullus in e, i et m positus esset, possit exire, nisi mox muscovita aliqvod ex locis nominatis occupat, et Regi exitum praecludit.

4. Si Rex tali modo exit, est praelium finitum.

5. Si Rex in e collocaretur, nec ullus s. ejus, s. hostis miles esset in f g sive i m, tum aditus non potest claudi.

6. Ut Rex aditum apertum vidit, clamet Raicki, si duae viae apertae sunt tuicku.

7. Licitum est loca dissita occupare per lineam rectam, ut a c ad n, nullo intercludente.

8. Svecus et muscovita in gressibus alternant.

9. Si qvis hostem 1 inter 2 sibi hostes collocare possit, est occisus et ejici debet, etiam Rex.

10. Si Rex in arce 1 et hostes in 3bus ex N:r 2, tum abire potest per qvartum, et si ejus in 4to locum occupare potest, si ita cinctus et miles in 3 collocatur, est iter regem et militem qvi stat occisus. si qvatuor hostes in 2, tum rex captus est.

11. Si Rex in 2, tum hostes 3, sc. in a alfa {I couldn't import the right sign for alfa} et 3 erint, si capiatur.

12. Rege capto vel intercluso finitur bellum et victor retinet svecos, devictus muscovitas et ludus incipiatur.

13. Muscovitae sine rege erint, suntque 16 in 4 phalangibus disponendi.

14. Arx potest intercludere, aeque ac trio [?], ut si miles in 2 et hostis in 3 est, occidat.

{Here is a board inserted, which looks like this:
>http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/graphics/tablut2.gif

but with letters and numbers on the squares
a = d4
b = c4
c = b4
e = c3
i = c2
m = c1
f = b3
g = a3
n = b1
alfa = f4
1 = e5
2 = d5, e4, e6, f5
3 = c5, e3, e7, g5
4 = starting places black pieces}

1. Arx regia. Konokis Lappon., cui nullus succedere potest.
2 et 3. Sveci N:r 9 cum rege et eorum loca s. stationes.
4. Muscovitarum stationes, omnia in prima aggressione depicta.
O. Vacua loca occupare cuique licitum, etiam Regi, idem valet de locis characterisatis praeter arcem.

Yes, I also found out that the books of the library I mentioned below are one and the same Swedish-with-Latin book, labelled incorrectly as two different versions in the catalogue. It's a later version than the 1913 version, and no mention of Tablut. The same for a german translation.
In Smith, the Tablut passage is just after the throwing sticks you mention.
The later Swedish version has omitted the Tablut passage entirely.
I wonder if the notes in Latin about Tablut which Smith omitted ARE present in the Swedish version of 1913. I have to order from another library to find out - I went to Amsterdam but it was lost (what kind of barbarian loses this kind of books???).
Or did you already found the 1913 version? That would imply Smith is the best we got.

By the way, I found an interesting reference today:

C. Linnaeus, Lachesis Lapponica, J. E. Smith, Ed., London 1811, ii., p. 55-58. This account is not complete, but only gives a translation of the first twelve entries. The complete original notes in Latin can be found in C. von Linné, Iter Lapponicum, Uppsala, 1913, p. 155-156. (Carl von Linné was born Linnaeus, but changed names to von Linné after he was raised to the peerage.)

Source: http://user.tninet.se/~jgd996c/hnefatafl/hnefatafl.html

In the library of my university they have both a latin and a swedish version:

Caroli Linnaei Iter Lapponicum dei gratia institutum, 1732
and
Iter Lapponicum : Lappländska resan 1732
I'll look up the latin version, since I can't read Swedish.

Thanks for answering!
Hm, the Swedish original (or was it in Latin?) is indeed very important for this kind of interpretation...
But actually I think when we take the English version as the best we got, there still IS the ambiguity of "admitted" in the phrase "No other person can be admitted":
1) admitting stands for ending on the square, or:
2) admitting stands for being on the square, so when moving from e3 to e7 you must be admitted first to e4, then to e5, then to e6 and finally to e7 (in one move of course). When there is one square where the piece is not admitted, like when a piece is standing on e4, or because it's not admitted to e5 since it is the throne, you can't move from e3 to e7.

In the second interpretation a move looks more like "walking" and the first more like "jumping".
So to me the phrase still isn't clear at all.

Rule 2 doesn't help either it seems: does it mean 'you can't jump at all' or 'you can jump as much as you want but just not over the heads of any other piece'?

I can't solve the interpretation dillemma but to me the "walking" interpretation makes rule 11 less "ad hoc" and it would make the rules cleaner/more simple, because then it directly follows from rule 2 and the text of fig.1.
On the other hand, the second sentence of rule nr. 10 looks like the summum of an 'unclean' rule, so I admit it's not a decisive argument.
To me the "walking-not-jumping/passing"-interpretation would be strengthened when it would make the game more balanced, although again it would be circumstantial evidence.

I'm brand new here and already a question/comment : )
About capturing the king with only three attackers and the castle (rule linnaeus 11): as was pointed out earlier, why can't the king just pass the throne? I suggest it is because the throne can't be passed at all, by no person at all. Maybe the text of figure 1 "to which no other person can be admitted" was incorrectly interpreted as "no-one can occupy the throne, but can pass over it since it is not mentioned in rule 2." Maybe it should be interpreted as "no-one can occupy nor pass the throne." Then rule 11 would make more sense.
I don't know if this interpretation is plausible but it would influence the game a lot (more than accepting rule 10 for instance).
I'd like to hear some opinions about this...