|
|
Post by righteousaussiegamer on May 30, 2016 4:21:50 GMT
Hey guys,
Some confusion at a recent game, someone was saying 'that a PS that was backed up directly by another PS and recoiled was destroyed because?... it couldn't interpenetrate it', the exact wording being lost in space-time. Anyway it seemed to be just that, a PS with another PS directly behind it would be killed if recoiled, due to the last para of Recoiling_or_Begin_Pushed_back.pg12 and its inability to interpenetrate. I can't really imagine how this could be right. And yet "official FAQ" and "phil agrees" was used by more than one person. Mind you I even hear myself saying 'at previous tournaments' and 'in 2.2' occasionally to try stop an argument about a fairly well established rule.
a) The front PS would still push the other PS back (assuming all other normal limitations, why wouldn't it) right? It just means it can't interpenetrate it.
b) It could certainly definitely flee through it. Unlike LH which is destroyed if it flees with another LH directly behind it (maybe the confusion came from this rule also?). It would just be completely bizarre if it couldn't recoil but could flee.
c) I think the confusion may have come from 'Interpenetrating_troops.pg9.para2.(d)'='Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi'. but it looks pretty similar to 2.2. Somehow a PS not being able to interpenetrate means it can't push-back? But I can't find anywhere it says anything like that.
d) To interpenetrate you must be facing the same-way, but don't need to be completely lined-up when you recoil into (putting you directly lined-up behind what you pass through, which follows the para1 rules of the same section). So normally you can be 5mm in front and 10mm to the left and still end up lined-up directly behind something you recoil into and can interpenetrate, but if not you must push it directly back (which is probably more dangerous and disordering in general).
e) In addition to that PS can push-back normally now as interpenetration is seemingly optional anyway (erm, unlike "in 2.2") which makes the thing even more baffling when you consider that if the PS was in front of a BD it could now push it back instead of interpenetrating it.
Anyway hope this is mostly right. Not entirely sure that I've got the argument right.
If the PS backed up by another PS is killed when recoiled, why?
cheers,
Alex.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 30, 2016 6:52:33 GMT
You have noted the important points regarding Ps; interpenetration is allowed as either a tactical move or if the combat result is flee.
And "an element directly in contact with a recoiling Ps recoil as well, except Ps."
As to why, I believe this has to do with the formation they use to manoeuvre and fight in; "recoiling troops retain their formation while making room for those being pushed back".
Reading the definition of troop type on page 4, psiloi do not manoeuvre in formation but "swarm" about to pester the enemy with various missile weapons. In such circumstances they would be easily destroyed as an effective unit if caught in the right circumstance such as you described above.
If I recall earlier discussion about this topic, the goal was to have Ps perform as they did historically. One significant change under 3.0, Ps could move in line as a group through terrain that others would have to in column formation.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousaussiegamer on May 31, 2016 4:19:53 GMT
Heya,
Ok, I guess I don't really want to be going over old ground. So maybe I should be directed to the previous conversation?
I accept historical interest and accuracy, though Dba is more of a game than many ancients rule-sets, and the 12 element rule (instead of points) means that basically there has to be some balance in the troop types (to make it interesting), just like in chess if you could choose your own 15 optional pieces I know which I'd choose (15 queens thanks), and in 3.0 PS have been given some useful (tricky) advantages... which seem to enhance their role in the battles, but honestly from my perspective they needed help, and I'd have to be feeling pretty brave or crazy to take 12 (unlike nearly every other troop type).
"An element directly in contact with a recoiling Ps recoil as well, except Ps." is this actually in the text? or is it a rewording of Interpenetration.para2.(d) and para3 and the last line of the recoiling_push-back section? Not that I mind a good re-wording, just checking, because I can't find it.
If it is a re-wording then doesn't it then also have to be true that Interpenetration.para2.a) follows the same rule? 'Mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes, Hordes or Elephants'. Just for clarification, that would also mean mounted would be destroyed recoiling (or not) into PK, HD, or EL. As it is identically worded.
Thoughts?
thanks,
Alex.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 31, 2016 17:24:09 GMT
Heya, Ok, I guess I don't really want to be going over old ground. So maybe I should be directed to the previous conversation? I accept historical interest and accuracy, though Dba is more of a game than many ancients rule-sets, and the 12 element rule (instead of points) means that basically there has to be some balance in the troop types (to make it interesting), just like in chess if you could choose your own 15 optional pieces I know which I'd choose (15 queens thanks), and in 3.0 PS have been given some useful (tricky) advantages... which seem to enhance their role in the battles, but honestly from my perspective they needed help, and I'd have to be feeling pretty brave or crazy to take 12 (unlike nearly every other troop type). "An element directly in contact with a recoiling Ps recoil as well, except Ps." is this actually in the text? or is it a rewording of Interpenetration.para2.(d) and para3 and the last line of the recoiling_push-back section? Not that I mind a good re-wording, just checking, because I can't find it. If it is a re-wording then doesn't it then also have to be true that Interpenetration.para2.a) follows the same rule? 'Mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes, Hordes or Elephants'. Just for clarification, that would also mean mounted would be destroyed recoiling (or not) into PK, HD, or EL. As it is identically worded. Thoughts? thanks, Alex. I think you are correct with the Mounted Troops recoil. As far as I can see at least. 3.0 is clearer, but, as always, still difficult to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 31, 2016 17:24:27 GMT
Note, if the Ps behind the recoiling Ps is lined up with it, the front Ps pushes it back. There is only destruction if the rear Ps is blocked, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 31, 2016 19:37:53 GMT
I think the confusion stems from the fact that interpenetration and recoils are in separate sections of the rules.
In the recoil section the text says,
" If the recoiling element is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction can be interpenetrated if allowed (see p.9). If not, they are pushed back far enough to make room unless they are Elephants or War Wagons. Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back otherS."
So we know from page 9 that the PS does not interpenetrate, moreover, the element behind is not elephants or war wagons, so the PS pushes back the PS behind it.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousaussiegamer on Jun 1, 2016 3:29:55 GMT
Hey guys,
To do some paraphrasing:
Are we actually talking about three different definitions, in two sections?:
1) Recoiling - which only happens to the original element (I think only due to combat?) which must move directly back a distance based on its type. (as defined sort of defined in "recoiling or being pushed-back" pg12).
2) Pushed-back - which happens if an element is 'recoiled into', and moves that element enough to allow the completion of the original elements recoil. Although a pushed-back element is like the recoiling element it 'cannot interpenetrate or push-back others'. (as defined sort of defined in "recoiling or being pushed-back" pg12).
3) Interpenetrating - which happens if the recoiling element 'recoils into' a friend it can and chooses to interpenetrate, in which case recoiling immediately ends with the originally recoiling element being placed immediately behind the interpenetrated element (as sort of defined in the "Interpenetrating troops" pg9).
To continue paraphrasing the last paragraph of 'Recoiling or being pushed-back' is also relevant:
The first line approximately says if an element is moving back (via recoil or push-back) and moves into anything it stops moving, no further recoil or push-back.
The last line approximately says if you are 'already in' (referring to previous sentence) such a position before moving back (via recoil or push-back) then you are destroyed, which means:
1) If you are recoiling you are destroyed if the element 'meets terrain it cannot enter, a battlefield edge, friends it cannot pass through or push-back, enemy or a city, fort or camp'. Normally a recoiling element can indeed push-back another friendly element and so most of the time it only matters if what a pushed-back element can do.
2) A push-ed back element is restricted more than a recoiling element and 'cannot interpenetrate or push-back others' last line para3. Which is why 'now' the front element of a column 3 or more elements deep dies on a recoil. Because it starts (before moving at all) in a position that cannot push-back the element behind it because that element cannot push-back the element behind it (the first element is recoiling, the second is being pushed-back, the third element is being (but unable to be) pushed back by an element that is itself being pushed back, and so the recoiling element which is the first can't do any of it and is destroyed, 'poof').
I'm reasonably sure also that an element does not have to be lined-up (its side-edges in the exact same alignment) but does need to be facing exactly the same direction (front edges parallel and head to tail, even if separated) with an element to either push-back or interpenetrate it.
Any other thoughts..?
cheers,
Alex.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 1, 2016 23:56:40 GMT
Just clarify, you push back the rear Ps only if it is lined up with the recoiling element as I understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 2, 2016 3:19:44 GMT
Hey guys, Some confusion at a recent game, someone was saying 'that a PS that was backed up directly by another PS and recoiled was destroyed because?... it couldn't interpenetrate it', the exact wording being lost in space-time. Anyway it seemed to be just that, a PS with another PS directly behind it would be killed if recoiled, due to the last para of Recoiling_or_Begin_Pushed_back.pg12 and its inability to interpenetrate. I can't really imagine how this could be right. And yet "official FAQ" and "phil agrees" was used by more than one person. Mind you I even hear myself saying 'at previous tournaments' and 'in 2.2' occasionally to try stop an argument about a fairly well established rule. Anyway hope this is mostly right. Not entirely sure that I've got the argument right. If the PS backed up by another PS is killed when recoiled, why? cheers, Alex. Looks like you got it all correct Alex. Yes, the Ps recoil and push back the rear Ps. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by righteousaussiegamer on Jun 2, 2016 3:20:17 GMT
Yes, I think you're right "PrimusPilus" though I think "lined-up" is different from "facing in the same direction".
It would (can) only be pushed-back if they were facing "in the same direction". If they there was no gap between them to start with, the front element would be destroyed, if they started with a gap between them (of even 1 mm), the front element would stop recoiling when it met something it couldn't push-back or interpenetrate.
(recoiling or being pushed-back) uses "in the same direction" and (Interpenetrating troops) uses "in exactly the same direction" for the same question of whether a friend is facing the same direction or not. I think they are "the same" ("exactly the same") thing. So assuming that.
a) "Facing in the same direction" I think means that the two element's front edges are parallel (but not necessarily overlapping horizontally side-to-side), and they are both front-to-rear (and the elements are not necessarily touching).
b) "Lined-up" I think means that the two element's side edges are parallel (and completely overlapping horizontally side-to-side), but they can be front-to-front, or front-to-rear, or rear-to-rear (and the elements are not necessarily touching).
In the Interpenetrating troops section. The first paragraph uses different terminology than the second, and I'm pretty sure it is deliberate. Once again to paraphrase.
a) Front to rear interpenetration: An element (assuming it can interpenetrate) can do a tactical move or flee through another element it starts "at least partly directly in front of" (to me that is within the two lines extending from its side edges, so at least partially overlapping horizontally side-to-side), and it doesn't matter the facing it starts with (obviously it does matter if its fleeing), it ends up (assuming it has enough movement) lined-up behind (not necessarily touching) what it passes through. or
b) Rear to Front interpenetration: An element (assuming it can interpenetrate) can do a tactical move or flee through another element it starts "lined-up behind" (completely overlapping horizontally side-to-side), and it doesn't matter if its facing front-to-rear or other (obviously it does matter if its fleeing), it ends up (assuming it has enough movement) lined-up in front of (not necessarily touching) what it passes through. or
c) Recoiling interpenetration: A recoiling element (assuming it can interpenetrate) can pass-through (free move) if facing "exactly in the same direction" (parallel front edges front-to-rear) to a clear space (one that the recoiling-element would fit completely within) immediately behind the first element met (I take to mean exactly the space behind the element recoiled through, and so there may be some lateral/horizontal side-to-side shift of the recoiling element to be 'lined-up', it could mean without this shift?) at which point the recoiling element stops recoiling completely. Or if it can't do that and has to push-back the element it recoils into, with all the other possible outcomes.
Wheww. I hope that makes sense, and no errors have crept in.
Any more thoughts?
have fun,
Alex.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickyta on Oct 2, 2020 13:17:36 GMT
Hey,
I'm a new player of DBA, and I don't understand why PS can't recoil through allied PS.
I'm very confused about this point of rule.
Page 11 - DBA 3 (english version)
INTERPENETRATING TROOPS.
(d) Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi.
Do I suppose recoiling PS are considered as foes during a such confused movement?
But why only for allied PS... seems strange for me. Nor a historical raison nor logical.
Thx for your help. And sorry for my bad english.
Cheers.
Nic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Oct 2, 2020 13:35:36 GMT
Hey, I'm a new player of DBA, and I don't understand why PS can't recoil through allied PS. I'm very confused about this point of rule. Page 11 - DBA 3 (english version) INTERPENETRATING TROOPS. (d) Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi. Do I suppose recoiling PS are considered as foes during a such confused movement? But why only for allied PS... seems strange for me. Nor a historical raison nor logical. Thx for your help. And sorry for my bad english. Cheers. Nic. I always rationalized this as they freaked out the other flighty guys behind them causing them to get pushed back instead of not taking their place. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 2, 2020 14:16:42 GMT
Hey, I'm a new player of DBA, and I don't understand why PS can't recoil through allied PS. I'm very confused about this point of rule. Page 11 - DBA 3 (english version) INTERPENETRATING TROOPS. (d) Psiloi recoiling into any friends except Psiloi. Do I suppose recoiling PS are considered as foes during a such confused movement? But why only for allied PS... seems strange for me. Nor a historical raison nor logical. Thx for your help. And sorry for my bad english. Cheers. Nic. nickyta, Welcome to the Fanaticus Forum. The description of Psiloi, page 4 might give some insight. “… These fought in a loose swarm hanging around enemy foot, pestering it with a constant dribble of aimed missiles at close range and running out of reach if charged.” I view the element of skirmishers directly behind recoiling psiloi will naturally make room. Attempting to ‘recoiling through’ would run the risk of the second element not standing its ground. |
|
|
|
Post by nickyta on Oct 5, 2020 6:40:14 GMT
Thank for your replies.
I will meditate on this : )
|
|
