Recoiling and push back

[SteveW]

Hello All,

Having played two BBDBA games using 3.0, there are a couple of things that I am not sure of that are not, as far as I can tell, explicit in the draft 3.0 rules.

To be pushed back by a friendly recoiling element, does an element have to be lined up facing the same direction?

What happens to a recoiling element that cannot recoil the full distance

a. due to a friendly element

b. due to an enemy element.

Steve

[Martyn]

Hello All,

Having played two BBDBA games using 3.0, there are a couple of things that I am not sure of that are not, as far as I can tell, explicit in the draft 3.0 rules.

To be pushed back by a friendly recoiling element, does an element have to be lined up facing the same direction?

‘If it is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushed back unless Elephants or War-Wagons.’

So yes they need to be lined up parallel, but necessarily directly behind.


What happens to a recoiling element that cannot recoil the full distance

a. due to a friendly element

‘A recoiling element that meets impassable terrain, the near bank of a river it cannot cross, friends it cannot pass through or push back, or any BUA or camp ends its move there. An element that cannot start its recoil because already in contact with any of these is destroyed.’

So nothing happens if it meets friends but it is destroyed if already in contact with them

b. due to an enemy element.

Steve

‘A recoiling or pushed back element starting with enemy in any front edge contact with its flank, rear or rear corner, or that contacts an enemy with its rear edge or rear corner, or that is in a BUA or camp, is destroyed. If an enemy element is contacted on its rear edge by a recoiling or pushed-back element’s rear edge or rear corner, or on a side edge by its rear corner, or on a rear corner by its rear edge, both elements are destroyed.’

So an enemy element destroys the recoiling element and the pushed back element.

I think that is right. ;)

[Andrechin]

‘A recoiling or pushed back element ... that contacts an enemy with its rear edge or rear corner, or that is in a BUA or camp, is destroyed. If an enemy element is contacted on its rear edge by a recoiling or pushed-back element’s rear edge or rear corner, or on a side edge by its rear corner, or on a rear corner by its rear edge, both elements are destroyed.’

So an enemy element destroys the recoiling element and the pushed back element.

I think that is right. ;)

If the pushed back element meets enemy, but the recoling one doesn't, from the wording I would say only the pushed back element dies.

This is a big change vs. 2.2: in 2.2 only the front element dies, never the pushed back element. In 3.0 the recoiling element may survive when the pushed back one dies.

Attilio

[Bobgnar]

I understand Steve's confusion as I have been confused by this rule for 9 months. Martyn gives a good overview of the rule, but I was going to point out exactly what Attilio says but he got here first. Let me show a diagram that might show this.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/Topics/Pushback.jpg

[Martyn]

If the pushed back element meets enemy, but the recoling one doesn't, from the wording I would say only the pushed back element dies.

This is a big change vs. 2.2: in 2.2 only the front element dies, never the pushed back element. In 3.0 the recoiling element may survive when the pushed back one dies.

Attilio

I think that as the recoiling element can not complete its recoil if the pushed back element meets an enemy then it to is destroyed. However it could be argued that if the pushed back element is destroyed it is no longer blocking the recoil, but I don't think this is correct.

One for clarification ;)

PS just seen Bob reply which suggests this as well.

[Pillager]

I understand Steve's confusion as I have been confused by this rule for 9 months. Martyn gives a good overview of the rule, but I was going to point out exactly what Attilio says but he got here first. Let me show a diagram that might show this.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/Topics/Pushback.jpg


In Case A, Bd1 is a "pushed back element"

In Case B, Bd2 is a "pushed back element"

Pg12

A ... pushed back element

starting with enemy in any front edge contact with its flank, rear or rear corner,

or that contacts an enemy with its rear edge or rear corner,

or that is in a BUA or camp,

is destroyed.


Pg12

A recoiling element that meets

impassable terrain,
the near bank of a river it cannot cross,
friends it cannot pass through or push back,
or any BUA or camp

ends its move there.


An element that cannot start its recoil because already in contact with any of these

is destroyed.

[SteveW]

Thanks for the diagrams Bob, they help in that situation.

I am now happy that so long a a recoiling unit can partially recoil the required distance it halts. If it cannot recoil at all it is destroyed. I also note the situation where a pushed back element can be destroyed, thus preserving the recoiling element.

I am trying to look at DBA 3.0 without reference to DBA 2.2, and trying to pin down explanations.

My initial reading of the sentance

"....friends facing in the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushed back..."

had me thinking that recoilers interpenetrate if allowed, but if they could not interpenetrate then they push back the friend met (whether they are lined up or not).

My second thoughts were that the stipulation "friends facing in the same direction" applies to both interpenetration and pushing back. I assume that this is the consensus.

And this is all making my head hurt!

[Martyn]

I understand Steve's confusion as I have been confused by this rule for 9 months. Martyn gives a good overview of the rule, but I was going to point out exactly what Attilio says but he got here first. Let me show a diagram that might show this.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/Topics/Pushback.jpg

Bob, looking at your diagram, in B is the pushed back element Bd2 already in contact with the Kn? and assuming that Bd1 is already in contact with Bd2. If so isn't Bd1 the only one to be destroyed because it is already in contact with an element it can not push back?

‘A recoiling element that meets impassable terrain, the near bank of a river it cannot cross, friends it cannot pass through or push back, or any BUA or camp ends its move there. An element that cannot start its recoil because already in contact with any of these is destroyed.’

[Bobgnar]

Thanks, Martyn, yes, I miswrote my text. I was trying to show too much. One big issue I wanted to show is that you have the inconsistency between outcomes where the recoil with push back involves friends or terrain vs. when enemy involved. In the first of these cases only the recoiler is destroyed.

If there are enemy involved, then the pushed back one is destroyed, sometimes the Recoiler is not destroyed. If the enemy is in a position with some front edge contact with the second element, then the pushed back is destroyed but not recoiler.

[Dangun]

‘If it is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushed back unless Elephants or War-Wagons.’

Just as an aside, it is unclear to write a rule that starts with an adverb (in this case "not") and then proceeds to a list because its unclear whether the adverb modifies the first part of the list or all elements of the list.

Again, confusion could be reduced by the use of bullets or a colon.

[Si2]

Push back and pushing back have never really been defined.
It's not defined in V3 either.
Can an element being pushed back, push back another, or does it have to be a recoiling element to push back?

[david kuijt]

Again, confusion could be reduced by the use of bullets or a colon.

I've always said, nothing reduces confusion like a bullet in the colon.

[Pillager]

Push back and pushing back have never really been defined.
It's not defined in V3 either.

Can an element being pushed back, push back another, or does it have to be a recoiling element to push back?

True, but "close reading" reveals that two states of being referred to as "interpenetrated" and "pushed back" exist. You can determine which state an element is in, and follow the corresponding rule.

Only an element which is "met" can be interpenetrated or pushed back. That implies physical contact. So a 3rd rank could be interpenetrated, but not pushed back:


Pg12
If the recoiling element

1) is Elephants, all friends or enemy met are destroyed.

If it is not Elephants,

2) friends facing in the same direction

2a) are interpenetrated if allowed,

2b) otherwise pushed back unless Elephants or War-Wagons.

3) If 2 elephants meet, both are destroyed.

[Bobgnar]

As I recall, all elements in a column of any number can be pushed back, if the front element is forced to recoil. Where do you get the idea that only one element can be pushed back by a recoiler. Moreover, a second element in contact with one in front will be pushed back, with no movement of the front element to "meet", that is run into, the one behind.
XXXX
AAAA
BBBB
CCCC
DDDD
If X forces A to recoil, it will push back B-D.

[Pillager]

As I recall, all elements in a column of any number can be pushed back, if the front element is forced to recoil. Where do you get the idea that only one element can be pushed back by a recoiler.

By the wording used. The word "met" implies making contact. A 3rd rank is never in contact with the first rank, who is the recoiler.

Given the large scale of DBA, it is not unreasonable to limit pushing back to one rank immediately behind the front rank.

Pg12
If the recoiling element

1) is Elephants, all friends ... met are destroyed.

If it is not Elephants,

all friends ... met

2) ... facing in the same direction are

2a) interpenetrated if allowed,

2b) otherwise pushed back unless Elephants or War-Wagons.

3) If 2 elephants meet, both are destroyed.

EDIT: The reader is required to deduce that friends NOT "facing in the same direction" cannot be recoiled or pushed back. The possible results need to be deduced as well.

This is a place where a table would convey all the information clearly.

[peleset]

For the sake of clarity and reducing the number of these threads, has anyone ever thought to suggest to PB that he let some proffessionals look at his rules and clean them up a bit?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3YcVM6tnYw0/TMVL4TJNTxI/AAAAAAAABW8/WNq5AcfEg4w/s1600/dba2.jpg

[larryessick]

For the sake of clarity and reducing the number of these threads, has anyone ever thought to suggest to PB that he let some proffessionals look at his rules and clean them up a bit?

Yes. We've even suggested *professionals* to him. However, if the work going on in this thread is any indication of professional work I think we're just as well off without the help.

[Martyn]

By the wording used. The word "met" implies making contact. A 3rd rank is never in contact with the first rank, who is the recoiler.

Unfortunately the word 'met' has several possible meanings not all require physical contact. Therefore it is unclear as to exactly what is intended.

Historically a push back has included multiple elements, presumably v3 continues with this. However as usual the intention is not as clear as it could be.

Add another to the list.

[Si2]

Can an element be 'pushed back' sideways?
Is 'back' the same direction as 'directly to it's rear'?
Towards it's own baseline?

[Martyn]

Can an element be 'pushed back' sideways?
Is 'back' the same direction as 'directly to it's rear'?
Towards it's own baseline?

I think that the element has to be facing the same way so can only be pushed back backwards. If it is side on (perpendicular) to the recoiling element then it is not pushed back and the recoiling element stops when it contacts this element.

The recoiling element moves directly to its rear so the pushed back element would follow this movement. The direction would depend on its facing at the time the combat occurred which caused the recoil. The baseline has no bearing on this.

[Bobgnar]

So what happens to a friendly element in contact with the rear edge of an elephant if the elephant must recoil. You suggest that the rule says only element "met" are destroyed. That is, only elements that move into contact with a friend.

"If the recoiling element is Elephants, all friends or enemy met are destroyed. "


Also, I am not sure why you say players must deduce "that friends NOT "facing in the same direction" cannot be recoiled or pushed back." If the text gives a positive rule, must the converse also be stated. This seems clear to me, at least,
"Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction to a clear space immediately behind the first element met"

Must the text also say, "but cannot do so if friends are not facing in the same direction." If every positive rule must give the opposite too, then much more text needed.


By the wording used. The word "met" implies making contact. A 3rd rank is never in contact with the first rank, who is the recoiler.

Given the large scale of DBA, it is not unreasonable to limit pushing back to one rank immediately behind the front rank.

Pg12
If the recoiling element

1) is Elephants, all friends ... met are destroyed.

If it is not Elephants,

all friends ... met

2) ... facing in the same direction are

2a) interpenetrated if allowed,

2b) otherwise pushed back unless Elephants or War-Wagons.

3) If 2 elephants meet, both are destroyed.

EDIT: The reader is required to deduce that friends NOT "facing in the same direction" cannot be recoiled or pushed back. The possible results need to be deduced as well.

This is a place where a table would convey all the information clearly.

[Dangun]

Also, I am not sure...

Awfully written rule.
What does "met" mean?
Is "met" like "contact" between friendly elements?
is it meant to distinguish between in contact and not in contact at the beginning of a bound?

Bob, I don't think we need extra language to deduce that friends not facing in the same direction cannot be recoiled or pushed back. But its not obvious what does happen to them.

[Pillager]

Bob, I don't think we need extra language to deduce that friends not facing in the same direction cannot be recoiled or pushed back. But its not obvious what does happen to them.



Exactly. Absent the extra language in the same paragraph, its perfectly possible that on page 53 it will tell you what does happen to them, and it might start with being recoiled or pushed back followed by some other sort of effect.

"I once met a woman from brest..."

[Bobgnar]

So is a friendly element directly behind and in contact with a recoiling elephant not destroyed because the El travelled no distance?

[Martyn]

Just to clarify, I assume that if an El recoils with a column of three Sp behind it (I know stupid position to get into) are all three Sp destroyed as the El recoil distance is sufficient to meet all of them.

[larryessick]

Just to clarify, I assume that if an El recoils with a column of three Sp behind it (I know stupid position to get into) are all three Sp destroyed as the El recoil distance is sufficient to meet all of them.

Yes, absolutely.

[Martyn]

Just to clarify, I assume that if an El recoils with a column of three Sp behind it (I know stupid position to get into) are all three Sp destroyed as the El recoil distance is sufficient to meet all of them.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes to -
It's a stupid position,
all three Sp are destroyed or
both are correct.:silly

[Bobgnar]

Just to clarify, I assume that if an El recoils with a column of three Sp behind it (I know stupid position to get into) are all three Sp destroyed as the El recoil distance is sufficient to meet all of them.

I believe so. Pillager seems to think no, if first Sp were in contact.

The position text is a statement not a question :)

[larryessick]

I believe so. Pillager seems to think no, if first Sp were in contact.

Pillager's position is that an element in contact with the rear prevents even the start of recoil or that it is not "met" during recoil? If the former then there might be merit in some context if the later then it is simply bogus as every DB game has always recognized that elements behind are met during recoil regardless of whether in front to rear contact or not. In the case of elephants, since nothing prevents their recoil, even the former POV has no merit.

Next he'll have us requiring that the two elements stop, exchange hellos and shake hands as a sign they've met. Let's be certain to enumerate equally spurious and ignorant bits into the rules as well.

[Pillager]

So is a friendly element directly behind and in contact with a recoiling elephant not destroyed because the El travelled no distance?

Can't determine. Does "met" mean "meeting or already in contact with" or not?

You could argue that the elephant is destroyed.

The elephant cannot start its recoil (so is destroyed) because the 2nd rank element is "friends it cannot pass through or push back." The friends have that status because they are given the status "destroyed."

Pedantic, yes. But more words would make it clear by saying "friends it is not eligible to pass through or push back per the Interpenetration section of the rules, or who cannot be passed through or pushed back at the moment due to circumstances listed in this section."

[Pillager]

Pillager's position is that an element in contact with the rear prevents even the start of recoil

"An element that cannot start its recoil because already in contact with any of these is destroyed."


or that it is not "met" during recoil?


Can't determine.


every DB game has always recognized that elements behind are met during recoil regardless of whether in front to rear contact or not.


Exactly how is that psychic knowledge passed on to new purchasers of the rules ??? Or is it akin to "race memory?" Calling Shirley MacLaine...

[Martyn]

Can't determine. Does "met" mean "meeting or already in contact with" or not?

You could argue that the elephant is destroyed.

The elephant cannot start its recoil (so is destroyed) because the 2nd rank element is "friends it cannot pass through or push back." The friends have that status because they are given the status "destroyed."

Pedantic, yes. But more words would make it clear by saying "friends it is not eligible to pass through or push back per the Interpenetration section of the rules, or who cannot be passed through or pushed back at the moment due to circumstances listed in this section."

Perhaps adding "friends it cannot pass through, push back or destroy..etc" would clarify what we think the intention is.

[larryessick]

Exactly how is that psychic knowledge passed on to new purchasers of the rules

By having a grasp of the English language.... :eek

[Dangun]

By having a grasp of the English language.... :eek

Larry, do you think this is a helpful addition to the thread?

An interpretation is helpful. Insisting something is clear, when it is not, is not helpful.

[larryessick]

Larry, do you think this is a helpful addition to the thread?

An interpretation is helpful. Insisting something is clear, when it is not, is not helpful.

I think that this thread, like others, greatly overstates the degree of uncertainty that there is in the rules and comes very close to objecting just for the sake of objecting -- or finding fault just for the sake of finding fault.

I think that there are so many vocal people attempting to derail 3.0 development that they find every little mole hill to complain about in the vain belief that somehow it will raise a mountain to block the revision.

It is well past the time for such behavior to stop. Phil will publish 3.0. Finding make-believe problems will not stop that from happening. This is very much a case of inventing a problem and it is both silly and irresponsible.

It is one thing to ask what is meant if a person genuinely does not understand. It is another to continually insist that the answer they get back cannot possibly be right and that the rules need additional clarity for people to understand them.

The word "met" is a common English word that every one of us can look up in a dictionary in order to determine its meaning. Basic understanding of English will enable us to determine which meaning and usage is appropriate. Since nothing prevents recoils by Elephants everything met by them -- that is, everything they encounter during a recoil move -- is destroyed. That includes things in base to base contact with them. The only things that prevent recoil completely for any element are things facing in different directions, war wagons and other elephants. Elephants are not stopped in these cases but instead destroy the element(s) facing in different directions, destroy the war wagons or are mutually destroyed along with the other elephant.

This is simple reading comprehension, basic English and the answer that was given when the question first came up. There are pages of discussion that are a total waste of time and effort because the simple and straight forward reading is ignored in favor of invented problems in comprehension.

Do I think it helps the discussion? Most certainly.

It is a discussion that should not even be taking place.

[Dangun]

I think that this thread, like others, greatly overstates the degree of uncertainty that there is in the rules and comes very close to objecting just for the sake of objecting -- or finding fault just for the sake of finding fault.

I think that there are so many vocal people attempting to derail 3.0 development that they find every little mole hill to complain about in the vain belief that somehow it will raise a mountain to block the revision.

It is well past the time for such behavior to stop. Phil will publish 3.0. Finding make-believe problems will not stop that from happening. This is very much a case of inventing a problem and it is both silly and irresponsible.

It is one thing to ask what is meant if a person genuinely does not understand. It is another to continually insist that the answer they get back cannot possibly be right and that the rules need additional clarity for people to understand them.

The word "met" is a common English word that every one of us can look up in a dictionary in order to determine its meaning. Basic understanding of English will enable us to determine which meaning and usage is appropriate. Since nothing prevents recoils by Elephants everything met by them -- that is, everything they encounter during a recoil move -- is destroyed. That includes things in base to base contact with them. The only things that prevent recoil completely for any element are things facing in different directions, war wagons and other elephants. Elephants are not stopped in these cases but instead destroy the element(s) facing in different directions, destroy the war wagons or are mutually destroyed along with the other elephant.

This is simple reading comprehension, basic English and the answer that was given when the question first came up. There are pages of discussion that are a total waste of time and effort because the simple and straight forward reading is ignored in favor of invented problems in comprehension.

Do I think it helps the discussion? Most certainly.

It is a discussion that should not even be taking place.

Dismissing other peoples concerns may appear arrogant or contemptuous.

The simplest explanation of questions and other evidence of uncertainty is that there is a lack of clarity.

There is no evidence that your grasp of English is better than the rest of us, or even better than average, making your explanation that the answer is "simple reading comprehension" particularly unlikely. Your conclusion that the question might conceal a disruptive agenda is therefore even less likely.

[jacar]

I agree with Larry that this thread is a bit odd. The rules are pretty clear about what happens.

First off...

An element that cannot complete a recoil stops unless it contacts an enemy. In that case the element is destroyed.

An element that can't recoil because it is in contact with something that can't move (impassable terrain, another element not facing the same direction) is destroyed.

An element that recoils into an elephant is destroyed.

And elephant that recoils into a element destroys that element.

So, if an elephant is in contact with another element that is facing exactly the same direction and the elephant is recoiled, that element in contact is destroyed and the elephant continues to recoil.

Same case but the element in contact is not facing the same direction, the elephant AND the other element is destroyed.

Elephant on elephant recoiling in any situation. BOTH are destroyed.

All easily taken from the rules.

John

[Pillager]

The word "met" is a common English word that every one of us can look up in a dictionary in order to determine its meaning.




So here is the proof that Larry is wrong. The rules are NOT written in English; they are written in that inscrutable dialect known as Barkerese.

[larryessick]

So here is the proof that Larry is wrong. The rules are NOT written in English; they are written in that inscrutable dialect known as Barkerese.

This is yet another obvious effort to obfuscate. Once more Pillager makes an effort to falsify the issue by making irresponsible and derogatory claims.

[jtstigley]

In my view in Fig A the Bd1 is destroyed but the Kn only recoils the distance between Bd1 and SpA.
In Fig B Bd1 cannot start its recoil and is therefore destroyed.