Do Elephants that recoil into friends always destroy both??

[imported_JLogan]

The rules clearly state that friends met by recoiling elephants are destroyed. However, it seems to me from reading the rest of the recoil para. on p.11, that whenever recoiling elephants meet any such (automatically destroyed) friends, the elephants themselves must also always be destroyed, since it "meets........friends that it could not pass through or push-back" (i.e. since elephants can never pass thru or push back friends...because the rules clearly state they always destroy them).

Have I got this correct?

Bob's Commentaries seems to support this, since it has destroyed/destroys under every row in the column for elephants recoiling; but then it confuses me a little by having an asterisk by (type of friends met) Eelephants and WWG, to note both (ie. recoiler and recoiled into) are destroyed. Why wouldn't the asterisk be by all types of friends met?

Can anyone confirm I have this right - or if not, why not? Many thanks!

[konstantinius]

My interpretation is that El are only destroyed themselves when they recoil into another El (or Wwg). When recoiling into other friends, the El destroys them but not itself.
In Bob's commentary on 2.2 it is stated that an El recoiling into any friends results into both being lost. However, this is contradicted by the following table and the asterisks. I believe it to be a misprint since the 2.1 rules are pretty clear on the subject.
Someone please correct if I'm wrong.
Cheers, K.

[imported_JLogan]

Thanks for your response. Your interpretation (i.e. the recoiling elephants themselves are only destroyed if into friendly elephants or WWG) seems to be echoed elsewhere; even perhaps by Bob's commentaties (hence the asterisks?).

But I struggle to find where it says this in the rules. Where do you see it? The only mention of it I can find seems to be in the 3rd sentence of the recoiling para. on P.11, that starts "If not....."? But the "If not" specifically excludes elephants; so none of it can apply to a situation of recoiling elephants?

Also, the general theme of recoiling into friends seems to be that if there is a conflict (i.e. any situation where friends cannot be passed through or pushed back), then the recoiler always dies first. The unique thing about elephants is that the rules additionally make explicit that friends met by recoiling elephants always die. So if both are not always destroyed, it would be the only (?) situation where the recoiler is not destroyed, but the recoiled into is? Seems strange/inconsistent if it were so?

[xeswop]

"2. Any friendly elements behind an Elephant will be destroyed, even other Elephants and War Wagons and Pikes, up to the depth of the Elephant's base.
Enemy elements will be destroyed only if they are in the positions described at the end of the recoil paragraph. An elephant recoiling into a friendly elephant or War Wagon results in both being lost."

This is the text in my commentaries. I did not try to explain the logic of the rule but with this and the table, I hoped to tell what happens with various recoil options. I try to avoid quoting much of the rules in my text.

The text seems quite clear. "A recoiling element moves its own base depth (width if less) to its rear without turning. If it is elephants friends met are destroyed. If it is not elephants, friends facing the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushes back unless elephants or war wagons. A recoiling element ... that meets friends that it could not ... push back ... is destroyed"

Elephants cannot push back Elephants or War Wagons so are destroyed.
Thus it seems clear that elephants destroy any element behind, and are destroyed themselves if the element behind is one that is not one that could be pushed back, e.g., facing other than same direction as the elephant.

[konstantinius]

I stand corrected. There's no misprint in Bob's commentary. In the phrase "An elephant recoiling into a friendly elephant or War Wagon results in both being lost", I misread the second "elephant" for "element".
As far as the rules are concerned, the key phrase is actually just before the "If it is not..." part. On p. 11 the recoiling paragraph starts with "a recoiling element moves its own base depth (width if less) to its rear without turning. If it is Elephants, friends met are destroyed". Nothing about the El itself being destroyed untill the completion of the "If it is not Elephants..." part.

[imported_JLogan]

Bob (and Konstantinius);

Many thanks. I'm still not seeing it. Here's why.

1. Recoiling Elephants can never push back, nor pass through, anyone. They always only destroy friends recoiled into (rules very clear here). Hence, they must always themselves be destroyed if recoiling into friends, since they are always recoiling into friends that they neither pass thru nor push back - only destroy.

2. The phrase in the rules "If it is not (elephants), friends facing the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushes back unless elephants or war wagons." as I read it says none of it (i.e. this phrase) applies to situations of Elephants recoiling (i.e. If not....). It tells me rather that ONLY all other recoiling elements (i.e. any except for Elephants) that meet friends facing the same direction interpenetrate if allowed, otherwise they (i.e. everyone except Elephants) push those friends back, unless those friends are Elephants or WWG (in which case the recoilers are destroyed).

3. If Elephants are not always destroyed by recoiling into any friends, as I believe the rules say they are, then it would be the only situation in the rules where a recoiler survives and the recoiled into does not. This is contrary to the whole trust of the rules on recoilers meeting other elements -friendly or enemy - which is, the recoiler always dies first; then maybe, the recoiled into might also. It seems strange/inconsistent to me if such an exception is intended (and I believe it is not).

Do you see my point? What have I missed/misunderstood? Thanks as always!

[Badger]

Originally posted by Bob.:
The text seems quite clear. <snip>"A recoiling element ... that meets friends that it could not ... push back ... is destroyed"
...and recoiling elephants cannot push back friends, because the friends are destroyed, not pushed back. This is a separate sentence from the "If not elephants..." one, and so can't be assumed to only apply to non-elephants.

I think your reading of the rules is spot on, JLogan -- even if that's not what The Barker intended. I think this is ANOTHER prime example of why bulleted lists and other graphical techniques in organizing the rules would be invaluable.

[ March 29, 2004, 13:07: Message edited by: Badger ]

[xeswop]

Players are free to play the game anyway they want.

You can always destroy any elephant that recoils into a friend if that is what you like.

This is not what the author intended, not what he has written and not how most people play this aspect of the game, not how interpreted for NASAMW events. Maybe so interpreted by other groups putting on events. Some players may think that an elephant destroyes friends behind so cannot push them back and are thus themselves destroyed. They can think what they want, I do not think that. I think that an elephant recoils into friends other than El and WWg and destroys those friends, and because the El is a mounted type, it thinks it could have pushed back those friends and keeps recoiling a base depth. If it recoils into El or WWg or friends not facing the same direction, as a mounted type, as it destroys them, it thinks it too is messed up and so lost. The outcomes of mounted types apply to elephants except as otherwise noted.

The rules on this aspect of the game are written to make an exception to the basic tenet of the game that the recoiler is destroyed in problem cases. If the elephant was to be destroyed if it recoils into a Ps then the rule would say any elephant that recoils into any friend is also destroyed. Phil expects people to apply some external knowledge to the rules, he does not write for every little nuance. A problem, true, usually, but in this case ok. The elephant recoils into any friend and destroyes it. If the friend is El or WWg, both are destoryed. Take the simple interpretation. In any event, do not put friends behind elephants.

Originally posted by JLogan:
Bob (and Konstantinius);

Many thanks. I'm still not seeing it. Here's why.

1. Recoiling Elephants can never push back, nor pass through, anyone. They always only destroy friends recoiled into (rules very clear here). Hence, they must always themselves be destroyed if recoiling into friends, since they are always recoiling into friends that they neither pass thru nor push back - only destroy.

2. The phrase in the rules "If it is not (elephants), friends facing the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushes back unless elephants or war wagons." as I read it says none of it (i.e. this phrase) applies to situations of Elephants recoiling (i.e. If not....). It tells me rather that ONLY all other recoiling elements (i.e. any except for Elephants) that meet friends facing the same direction interpenetrate if allowed, otherwise they (i.e. everyone except Elephants) push those friends back, unless those friends are Elephants or WWG (in which case the recoilers are destroyed).

3. If Elephants are not always destroyed by recoiling into any friends, as I believe the rules say they are, then it would be the only situation in the rules where a recoiler survives and the recoiled into does not. This is contrary to the whole trust of the rules on recoilers meeting other elements -friendly or enemy - which is, the recoiler always dies first; then maybe, the recoiled into might also. It seems strange/inconsistent to me if such an exception is intended (and I believe it is not).

Do you see my point? What have I missed/misunderstood? Thanks as always! [/QB]

[Dave Crowell]

I play that recoiling elephants destroy any friends unfortunate enough to be standing behind them (the original "buttocks of death"), the elephants themselves are not destroyed unless the friends are elephants. Elephants are never pushed back by recoiling friends and cannot be passed through by recoiling mounted.

The other two note worthy elements for consideration are Pike (not passed through by recoiling mounted but are pushed back) and War Wagons (interpenetrated by mounted if facing same direction, but not pushed back).

Thus elephants are destroyed if they recoil into: 1. other Elephants regardless of facing; 2. Any element that is not a friend with the same facing.

NB the interpentration rules allow El to interpentrate Wwg with the same facing. By Bob's rationale of "what the Elephant 'thinks'" the elephant would therefore "think" it had penetrated the War Wagon and not be destroyed. At least by my reading of 2.0

To me the destruction of the friendly by Tantor is the exception, the elephant's fate remians that of any mounted in the same circumstances.

I can easilly see the elephants not paying overly much attention to the small squishy things underfoot in these cases.

[Andrechin]

Originally posted by Dave Crowell:

NB the interpentration rules allow El to interpentrate Wwg with the same facing.Oooops, I missed that!

So the correction once I suggested to Bob for the commentary (El recoiling into WWg both are destroyed) is wrong: only the WWg are destroyed, since El could interpenetrate them.

Attilio