"Question about recoiling in DBA 2.2" Topic

Recently we have been having a discussion about the interpretation of a rule in a spanish forum. Since the original text is in English, I think we could use some native speaker's opinion :)

In DBA, when a troop is defeated, it recoils (most of the time, depending on a table). Recoiling means it moves backwards without turning. If it finds other friend troops on the way, and they are aligned, they push them. The question is… can those pushed back troops push back additional troops? Can you chain the whole army that way?

Here's the whole paragraph from the book, with each sentence numbered:

[1]A recoiling element moves its base depth (width if less) to its rear without turning. [2]If it is Elephants, friends met are destroyed. [3]If it is not Elephants, friends facing in the same direction are interpenetrated if allowed, otherwise pushed back unless Elephants or War-Wagons. [4]A recoiling element starting with enemy in any front edge contact with its flank or rear, or that recoils from shooting entirely on its rear edge unless from a BUA, or that meets enemy, impassable terrain, friends it cannot pass through or push back or any BUA or camp, or that is in a BUA or camp, is destroyed. [5]Enemy contacted on their 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, are also destroyed.

For example, if we have the following scenario:

----B1----
----P1----
----P2----
----P3----
----P4----
----P5----

B1 wins against P1. P1 has to recoil, which means moving backwards. On the way to retreat, it finds P2. It pushes back P2, but P2 (and not P1) finds P3 on the way.

It's my understanding on the rule that only recoiling elements push back others, and therefore, P2 can't be pushed back, therefore P1 would be destroyed.

However, others have argued that everything is pushed back, P2 pushes back P3, P3 pushes back P4, and so forth, the whole army if needed.

Wow… I haven't played 2.2 in over 5 years.

In DBA 3 it can't. I know that for sure. Deep
columns in DBA 3 are fragile.

I think I remember that in 2.2 the whole column is pushed back.

I will check my rules this evening.

Joe Collins

Yes, the whole column is pushed back. If one of the pushed back units meets enemy or a friend it can't push back, then the original recoiling element at the front of the chain is destroyed.

If you ever get your army in that position you deserve to loose them all.

I'd say that only an element unable to push back or interpenetrate is destroyed, not the first element.

It can get even more complicated if you mix the right sort of elements in the column but those are just silly. Why should rules have to cope with such nonsense situations.

But how does the original recoiling element (P1) get pushed back without meeting a friend (P2)?

In DBA-3 columns of 3 or more can't be pushed back and can cause death.

79thPA, the problems only occur when meeting friends who are not facing exactly the same of opposite direction, or are elephants, or who are in a position where they can't be pushed back.

Welcome to Barkerese 101.

If you read the rule carefully it is perfectly clear – complicated, but clear. I have never understood why people have so much trouble reading their own language when it is written with precision.

@GildasFacit, that was hilarious!

2.2 had no clear rule on pushing back a column. There was no limit as long as all the elements were aligned and none of the elements being met were elephants or war wagons. Yes it seems silly, but you could in theory push an entire army back in column. It almost never happened on the table hence the reason it was probably overlooked in the rules originally.

This was changed in 3.0.

Dervel – the rule is clear and covers any length of column, you even say that yourself, so how can you say that there is no rule for attacking a column. There is no rule for pushing back a column because that may not be what happens.

Stop assuming that the author is wrong and try to read carefully what has been written and then apply it to a specific situation – you will find that it produces a result. Just because you can't predict easily what will happen does not mean that the rule is unclear.

@GildasFacit
I never said there was no rule ("no clear rule"). I never said the Author was wrong. By definition the Author of the rules is right because they are his rules. I said there was no clear rule, in my opinion and others, hence the reason we are discussing it now. In actuality this column rule thing was one of the clearer rules in that system. If you read the requirements you would come up eventually with the conclusion that you can push back an unlimited number of elements. In 2.2 there was no reason you could not back up an entire army in column. It seemed so crazy that many people interpreted this as an omission in the rules and are searching for the answer is this really true? I think the people that worked with the Author on 3.0 may have suggested that this was not very realistic and therefore they changed it.

My hilarious comment was referring to the above quote by you:

If you read the rule carefully it is perfectly clear – complicated, but clear. I have never understood why people have so much trouble reading their own language when it is written with precision.

My mistake, I thought you were joking because in many areas of the rules it is not clear. Sometimes because the result seems strange, sometimes because of the conservation of words (lack of examples) and sometimes because the sentence structure is so poor. This is why different people can read the same rules and get multiple interpretations of what they think the author meant. This is why people spend a lot of time on forums like this one and others debating what did he intend by this or that rule. Pages and pages are written debating this and have been since the first release of DBA.

Just because you can't predict easily what will happen does not mean that the rule is unclear.

If people read and reread a rule system and are not sure what is supposed to happen in different situations that occur during the game isn't that sort of the definition of not clear?

We were obviously taught to use English in different ways. To me this is a precise description of exactly what should happen, written with a minimum of 'style' and 'explanation' that clutters up so many rulesets these days.

If people think there must be an error because it doesn't do what they think should happen then I'm stunned. That must class as the daftest reason for criticising a ruleset that I've ever heard.

Any ancient army caught by an enemy in column of march would be destroyed – that is obvious.

Phil's rules are clearly difficult to read and interpret – that must be why they are probably the most used rules over a long period in the history of wargaming.

Just because the Internet gives people the opportunity to 'discuss' their misunderstandings doesn't mean the fault lies with the rules, at least not entirely.

Your final quip is ridiculous I didn't say that at all. I said PREDICT, not understand – a totally different meaning.

I'm not saying they are perfect, no rules are, but I get sick of this continual carping by people who do not read the text carefully enough.

@GildasFacit

We were obviously taught to use English in different ways. To me this is a precise description of exactly what should happen, written with a minimum of 'style' and 'explanation' that clutters up so many rulesets these days.

I was taught to use English to communicate ideas and create common understanding. I hope you are not trying to claim the "different English language thing between Americans English other forms of English". I have seen this used before to explain DBx style rules. I don't know anything about your educational background, but just to be clear there is only one English language when it comes to grammar and sentence structure. Dialect, pronunciation, word choice might be different, but the rules on constructing a complete sentence in English are the same. As for all the clutter in other rules, if you mean diagrams and explanations of game mechanics? I think many people find those actually quite useful. Even DBA 3.0 tried to add in some diagrams to help with the latest changes to the rules. If you mean a lot of glossy pictures of minis, then just fluff and not necessary, but fun to look at. There is a significant difference between succinct and simply brief.

Any ancient army caught by an enemy in column of march would be destroyed – that is obvious.

I don't know about destroyed, but this gets to the issue and the reason I think the original poster asked the question, i.e. he was asking why the entire column is pushed back because it seems obvious as you yourself point out that an ancient army caught in column of march should have some pretty big issues, and probably cannot push back the entire army. However, this is not the case in 2.2, the column simply backs up. The lack of understanding comes from that fact that this simply seems counter intuitive to many people.

If people think there must be an error because it doesn't do what they think should happen then I'm stunned. That must class as the daftest reason for criticising a ruleset that I've ever heard.

Also, once again not sure if you are joking? Rulesets not doing what people think should happen historically is not only a reason why people would criticize them, but is actually one of the driving forces behind people writing their own sets of rules or creating house rules and or FAQs to fix those rules that do not make sense to them. Writing new versions of the rules like DBA 3.0 for example. That does not mean the original rules are right or wrong, just that a person did not agree with the original rules as written or they thought they could improve on them. Even DBA 3.0 has a committee working on an FAQ to fix and or clarify things in the rules that come up during play.

Phil's rules are clearly difficult to read and interpret – that must be why they are probably the most used rules over a long period in the history of wargaming.

These two concepts are not connected. While I think the game concepts and many aspects of DBA are actually quite brilliant, that doesn't change the fact that the rules are difficult to read and digest due to the nature of the writing style. I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say they play DBA because of the incredible and riveting writing.

Just because the Internet gives people the opportunity to 'discuss' their misunderstandings doesn't mean the fault lies with the rules, at least not entirely

At least not entirely, ok then partially, since absolutes are almost always wrong. Lack of visible discussions would not indicate there are no misunderstandings either. If not for the internet, you are correct nobody would be online arguing about the rules. They would argue in their gaming groups until they established locally how to interpret the rules. Each little pocket would have their own way of resolving any sticky part and then only argue when those different groups came together to play. Even with the internet this happens with DBA and lots of rules. So this is not making your point that Mr. Barker's rules are clearly written.

Your final quip is ridiculous I didn't say that at all. I said PREDICT, not understand – a totally different meaning.

Stop assuming that the author is wrong and try to read carefully what has been written and then apply it to a specific situation – you will find that it produces a result. Just because you can't predict easily what will happen does not mean that the rule is unclear.

Let's talk about both of these points again. Where did I say the author was wrong? And how are you using the word PREDICT?
I was using this definition of predict: "to say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something." And this version of Understand: "to perceive the intended meaning of or interpret a particular way".
In this case what happens in DBA 2.2 when you attack the head of a long column and the leading elements loses the combat roll, but is not doubled or quick killed. I would interpret (understand) the consequence (from the definition of predict) to be the entire column backs up unless there are elephants or war wagons involved.
If we cannot predict what will happen as a result of actions in the game like an element losing the combat role, how do we play the game? When applied to rules we need to be able to predict the consequences of our actions and die rolls unless everything is simply random and made up on the spot?

I'm not saying they are perfect, no rules are, but I get sick of this continual carping by people who do not read the text carefully enough.

Who was "carping"…. The guy asked a legitimate question? In my response, I simply gave my opinion of why he may have been confused and also pointed out it was changed in 3.0 thus affirming why he might have thought the result seemed odd. That's not carping it's communicating with other people.
Your response to his question was:

If you ever get your army in that position you deserve to loose them all.
I'd say that only an element unable to push back or interpenetrate is destroyed, not the first element.
It can get even more complicated if you mix the right sort of elements in the column but those are just silly. Why should rules have to cope with such nonsense situations.

Your response was neither helpful nor correct.
I normally do not post on DBA threads anymore because I no longer play the game, but a guy who is playing the game asked a question on the rules and it did not seem like he was getting much of a response.
Sadly, I just noticed that miniMo answered him and I could have skipped this whole trip down memory lane (facepalm)

As a DBA playtester and a member of the FAQ committee, I can testify to the interpretative problems. Phil is frankly a genius in his field and that is why his rules esp. DBX are perhaps the most played rules in the word – despite the presentation.

But Phil is a big picture stream of consciousness writer who has little patience for explaining the details.

But what a fantastic big picture it is…

To answer the question in 2.2 you can push back a whole column of "correctly aligned" friends. But not so in 3.0, something we got him to fix. (In 3.0 a Pushed Back element cannot Push Back another element. But most importantly a Recoiling element that can start its Recoil is not destroyed so your own troops are far less dangerous to your survival than in prior editions.)

One solution to most DBX problems is to get a copy of DBA 3.0 – its by far the best and most advanced version of DBX mechanics both from a simulation and play ability level. A huge effort by a team of developers (all volunteer by the way) from several continents went into creating 3.0. (Many of them historians and game designers in their own right.) Its advantages cannot be understated (and its a bit easier to decipher and has very helpful diagrams).

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games

Here in the middle of the USA we still play DBA. 2.2.We just never got around to trying 3.0 . As far as rules questions they will always be with us no matter what rules set you use or the versions you play. Having someone like Phil be the originator makes it more likely.Getting version 3.0 might solve some rules questions but there will be more.

Yes you can push back a whole army in a column In DBA 2.

Mega dittos to all of those who have said DBA three improves the game so very much. Yes there are still some questions, but very esoteric, most solve by an FAQ sheet. Is certainly understandable that people don't like to change. I'm still playing WRG 1, Bolt action one, Flames of war first edition. I think I will stay with test of honor first edition.

Thank you for your answers, the questions was more about the why because it doesn't seem that text said anything about it, and being non native English speakers it gets harder to get a "correct" answer, although it seems even in English there are interpretive issues. However, Thomas´ answer is obviously on point and seems the most correct interpretation. Thank you all.