|
|
Post by ronisan on Jul 8, 2021 8:46:58 GMT
Hello Tony, but why are you ignoring the five words in the rules which say: „Surviving elephants finish their recoil.“? "An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead." means that an element in such a situation is trapped by the enemy element in its back! -> Recoiler is unable to (start it's) recoil -> Recoiler is in trouble -> Recoiler is eliminated. But an element of elephant can't be hindered to recoil by an element (friendly or enemy) in its back. It always finishes its recoil. So - Recoiling El recoils -> Element behind in its (recoiling) way is in trouble (Or do you think e.g. a Ps flank edge is able to "stop" a recoiling El?  ) -> Element behind is eliminated (if the element behind is also El, both El are eliminated). Cheers, Ronald Ronald, Tony will doubtless answer for himself, but I think his response may be along the lines that a surviving elephant is, by definition, one which hasn't been destroyed. So an elephant which gets a recoil result but which has an enemy element in front edge contact with its side edge doesn't recoil. (Incidentally, you will presumably have seen that the FAQ says that an elephant which has an enemy front edge in contact with its rear edge doesn't recoil either? In other words, the wording of the preceding section - DESTROYED ELEMENTS - trumps what is said in the section on RECOILING OR BEING PUSHED BACK.) A recoiling elephant which meets another elephant is destroyed. A recoiling elephant which meets any other element destroys that element but survives the impact - making it a surviving elephant - and then goes on to complete its recoil rather than ending its move at the point of contact. Menacus S Hello Menacus S, ok - I forgot to mention that. Of course .... I absolutely agree in: “Q: Does an elephant that is contacted both to the front and also to the flank or rear by enemy front edges (“flanked” or “reared”), recoil and destroy the elements behind it? A: No. Elephants that receive a recoil result with enemy in front edge contact to both their front and to their flank or rear are destroyed instead of recoiling. This is the same as all other elements.” E.g. if in Stevie's example no. 5 the rear element would be blue and not red, the El would be destroyed without recoiling. Cheers Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jul 8, 2021 11:06:01 GMT
So there are exceptions to ronisan's "trampling zone". (Or at least an exception.) Actually, Ronisan is right ---> “Dead Elephants trample no men!” But the FAQ mentions a few exceptions where recoiling El do no damage:- Q: What happens if my recoiling Elephants contact elements in a Hamlet or Edifice? A: Elephants that recoil into Elephants in a Hamlet or Edifice destroy them (and are destroyed) as outlined above. Other elements are usually not destroyed. They are pushed back or block recoil as per the standard recoil rules. Elements in Cities, Forts and Camps usually aren’t destroyed unless they are other Elephants. I wonder if I can make my position absolutely clear. What have all these diagrams got in common?  Well, I’ll tell you…the Elephants in ALL these pictures have no room to recoil. So according to the “can’t recoil = destroyed” rule, ALL these El will be lost… …even those in pictures (4) and (5). Fortunately, Phil Barker (bless him) has a rule that says “Recoiling El destroy everyone they meet”… …so NONE of the recoiling El shown here will be destroyed, but those behind them will be trampled. So whatever interpretation people prefer, do please try to be consistent in its use! If (1), (2), and (3) CAN'T recoil, then neither can (4) and (5) (because there isn’t room). And if (4) and (5) CAN recoil, then so can (1), (2), and (3) (“Recoiling El destroy all they meet”). (Players often complain about ‘Barkerese’.Well what chance has he got when people can’t even understand something as simple as “Recoiling El destroy everyone they meet”! 🤪)The way we play (and I have always seen played) in example 1, 2 and 3 the El dies but in example 4 and 5 the unit behind them dies. The reason why is this passage under INTERPENETRATION. Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction to a clear space immediately behind the first element
met, but only if either (a) mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes, Hordes or Elephants, (b) Blades recoiling
into Blades or Spears, (c) Pikes or Bows recoiling into Blades, or (d) Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi.El die in situation 1, 2 and 3 because they aren't facing the same direction and "are already in such contact." El are mounted and if this passage did not apply to El then why didn't it say so? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 8, 2021 13:44:00 GMT
A good reply Tony, and I do see your reasoning…but it’s not what the rules say.
When Page 12 paragraph 4 says “If 2 (recoiling) Elephants elements meet, both are destroyed”,
does it say “but only those facing the same direction”?…no, it does not.
Likewise, when it says ““If the recoiling element is Elephants, all friends or enemy met are destroyed…”
does it say “but only those facing the same direction”?…again no, it does not.
All it says is recoiling Elephants destroy everyone they meet.
It doesn’t matter what type of element is met…
It doesn’t matter whether they are friend or foe…
It doesn’t matter which way they are facing…
Recoiling Elephants destroy everyone they meet, period.
So why try to add words that are not there?
Elephants have a special ability, a sort of super ability, that no other troops have.
When they recoil they destroy all those that they meet. ALL of them.
(the sole exceptions being those elements in BUA’s and Camps…
…and according to the FAQ, even these if they are also elephants).
Adding words that are not there, such as “but only those facing the same direction”,
takes away and waters down the elephants unique special ability.
It is especially true in the case of picture number 3, where the rear element has
been deliberately left ever so slightly off of being lined-up to the Elephant’s rear.
This is exactly the artificial, unrealistic, gamey positional trickery that caused
my mates and I to give up playing DBA 2.0 some 20 years ago!
Surely you don’t endorse this sort of chicanery.
I thought DBA is supposed to have moved on from such things.
Of course, such artificial, unrealistic, positional gamey chicanery will no longer occur…
…if the rules are followed ‘as-they-are-written’ without adding words that are not there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jul 8, 2021 14:12:07 GMT
That is fine, but that wasn't what we agreed on based on our reading. Several of us looked at it and decided that was the best course which suited those of us that play in our group/conventions. Remember that (at least for us) wargaming is a social group effort and some of us don't care that much one way or another as long as the rules are applied consistently to everyone. We try to do our best but these rules are exhaustingly difficult to figure out since aspects of them are not in one area and organized in a logical fashion for us mortals to understand. Seems that to be clear the following should have been added: "A recoiling or pushed back element whose rear edge or rear corner meets terrain it cannot enter, a battlefield edge, friends it cannot pass through or push back, enemy or a city, fort or camp ends its move there. An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil and is destroyed instead unless Elephants.FWIW I don't have a personal preference one way or another but we will continue to play they way we do until it is resolved by official FAQ (good luck with that - the last two things I brought up weren't resolved due to a hung jury) since I do not want to have to retrain our entire world we come in contact with only to find out we weren't doing it correctly either when we made the change. That is a very tall order and not something I signed up for.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 8, 2021 14:33:20 GMT
Fair enough matey. I use House Rules all the time, so I can hardly complain if you do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jul 8, 2021 14:37:49 GMT
Fair enough matey. I use House Rules all the time, so I can hardly complain if you do the same. Yep, we allow people to switch dice in mid play (or God-forbid shake two dice in one hand but only one rolls out keeping the other one), not have visible camp followers and I am sure many other things. |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 8, 2021 15:41:06 GMT
Fair enough matey. I use House Rules all the time, so I can hardly complain if you do the same. Yep, we allow people to switch dice in mid play (or God-forbid shake two dice in one hand but only one rolls out keeping the other one), not have visible camp followers and I am sure many other things. I am absolutely with you on the invisible camp followers. |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jul 8, 2021 16:15:21 GMT
So am I |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 8, 2021 17:04:46 GMT
We don't allow invisible camp followers. Highly camouflaged ones are perfectly fine though.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 8, 2021 20:39:09 GMT
I like cloned camp followers that can be temporary or permanent as per the rules!
Also duplicitous camp followers that can emerge from either camp!
Jim
|
|
) -> Element behind is eliminated (if the element behind is also El, both El are eliminated).
