Messages

1

Rules Questions / Re: Passing through

« on: April 13, 2022, 04:53:49 PM »

I think it is usual to move the lead spontaneous element to it's normal position, then treat the recoiling element as the one not  able to clear the base. If multiple sponno elements are moving, they stay as a column and all end up in their proper position; the recoiling elements are moved back far enough to clear all the bases.

To be honest, I think this practice is based more on what happened in DBM than on a detailed analysis of the DBMM rule wording. Might be a question for the commentary team to examine.

2

Rules Questions / Re: Passing through

« on: April 12, 2022, 06:09:19 PM »

Phil Barker during DBMM development made it clear (in other contexts) that he doesn't want spontaneous columns to get split up.

3

Rules Questions / Re: Passing through

« on: April 10, 2022, 06:27:36 PM »

These answers are based on the wording on p 32 of version 2.1, which is the one I have to hand. That is:

An element that will not clear the base of a friendly element or gate tower it passes through stops at that element
or tower's near edge if the move would end in contact with enemy and is not spontaneous. Otherwise, it is placed
immediately beyond the first such element or tower, friends previously there shifting in the direction moved to
make room. Any elements following it stop at the first friendly element's or tower's near edge.

Figure B I think is correct.

Figure C I think most players would move the sponno column as a solid block and the recoiling troops recoil as far as necessary for all of them to exit the rear of the column that moved. The assumption is that each Ax recoils out of the back of each LH after it passes through, but does not push back other LH as they would also be passing through the recoiling element.

E I'm not sure, but it seems a possible approach to take. Another possibility is Ax A and B get pushed forward so A ends in contact with enemy. However, the option I prefer is they stop behind the first auxilia they reach because they have to stop behind Ax A which they can't clear, which means they also can't clear Ax B so must stop behind it, which means they can't clear Ax C, and so on. It's only in the "Otherwise" sentence that there is provision to displace other troops .

F correct.

Note that in 2.1 non-spontaneous LH cannot pass through other troops, but I've assumed they can for the purposes of this question.

4

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: December 19, 2021, 06:35:49 PM »

On the point about -1 for flank edge contact, Neil is correct and Lawrence is not. The -1 to enemy gives friends to the front a greater chance of winning the combat (2 elements attacking 1). If you are only on the flank of an enemy and that enemy does not turn, you do not still inflict the -1 (being now 1 to 1). In other words, you do not have a greater chance of winning the combat by being just on the flank, but if you do win, that win can become a quick kill, so there is still an advantage to a flank-only attack.

Anthony

The tactical factor in the rules is

- 1 For each flank overlapped and/or enemy element in front edge combat with a flank or rear edge.

Nothing there about having to be in combat on the front edge as well.

In most cases, elements that do not turn to face a flank contact also count the edge in combat as a front edge, so would not suffer the -1. But this is a specific exception for specific elements.

5

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: November 03, 2021, 05:59:20 PM »

As I understand it, the philosophy of the rules is something along the lines of that what is allowed is only that which is specifically mentioned as being allowed. That is, if a rule provides specific cases for its application it can't be applied to other cases.

(I don't see the forward movement of the LH out of the River as movement contrary to p20 as I think it's effectively another form of EMTLU, and EMTLU allows a range of movements which aren't otherwise allowed in normal movement - for example, a group of elements can't slide sideways in normal movement but can do so as EMTLU.)

EXTRA MOVEMENT TO LINE UP IN CLOSE COMBAT OR TO LINE UP IN A TZ
An element or group in edge contact but not already lined-up as specified above must (and any moving in an
enemy TZ may) immediately move (expending no PIPs) the minimum extra up to 80p needed to end lined up
with an enemy edge (or any fortification) by (a) a sideways shift and/or (b) wheel or pivot; or to (c) shorten group
frontage by 1 element by moving blocked elements the minimum distance to end immediately behind others.

In the third quote (from the rules) forward movement is not specifically mentioned as being allowed. This means the second quote contradicts the first quote.

It may be possible to get to your conclusion by a self-consistent set of arguments, but this isn't it.

This sort of thing would have to be covered by a suggested playing convention in the commentary as there is no "right " answer per the rules as written. I suspect it is a very infrequent question to arise in games, so probably not a priority for the commentary team.

6

Rules Questions / Re: The DBMM Commentary

« on: October 23, 2021, 09:55:04 PM »

An updated commentary (v7.1.1)  has been issued.

Unfortunately it is too big to attach to this message, but you can get it from https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist/files   (you may have to sign up to access it).

7

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: October 20, 2021, 08:37:44 AM »

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

8

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: October 15, 2021, 08:07:47 PM »

Well, the second question is easily dealt with. The rule you cite is there to clarify what happens if you are in combat on your front edge and another edge (i.e. you fight only what is in front, with a negative modifier). As you noted, the -1 for flank contact applies whether or not there is front contact.

The river question: waders turn to face boats that contact their flank, so there is precedent for violating the 45-135 degree rule. It would not be unreasonable to permit turning to face and/or lining up in combat at any angle in any direction. I thought there was a rule allowing this explicitly, but I can't find it. What you did was also reasonable with the information you had available.

9

Book 2 / Re: Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« on: September 03, 2021, 11:16:08 AM »

How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter

Another way of looking at this is to ask : When you use armies that you do win with, how do you win?

10

Book 2 / Re: Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« on: September 02, 2021, 04:17:24 PM »

The higher scoring players using it at the Milan ITC tend to win 1 game, sometimes 2 (out of  4 ) (based on the records I've kept). In 2018 Fabio Terpin scored 73 points off his 4 games, I don't know the separate results.

The army has so many options it may take a lot of experimentation to find the design that works for you.

One of the players in the UK has done very well with the inert version, with 4 Art(F) shooting over Bw. It's not unbeatable, though. Greg Russel used the inert version at CANCON a couple of years ago, I don't know if he won any games but he probably did.

You can extend your options by using mostly the same figures for Patrician Roman.

11

Rules Questions / Re: Overlaps on rear support

« on: August 15, 2021, 06:57:05 AM »

No.

But an enemy front edge in contact with a supporting element's flank counts as a flank contact on the front element.

12

Rules Questions / Re: WWg(S) in Close Combat

« on: July 06, 2021, 11:05:14 AM »

Thanks again Lawrence!

But what if the Wwg(S) was a Bge(S).
Do I understand it correctly that in that case the contacted side of the Bge(S) will be the front edge, the Bge(S) fights both Bd(O) in turn this bound and the Wwg(S) gets a -1 for a overlap (at least in the first combat)?

It seems a completely different combat situation.

Correct, assuming you meant to write: "... the Bge(S)  gets a -1 for a overlap (at least in the first combat)".

13

Rules Questions / Re: Arrival Surprise

« on: July 06, 2021, 11:00:38 AM »

Interpreting "place of arrival" as "the place where something arrives" is simpler than interpreting it as "the set of all places where something might potentially arrive".

This was also the practice in earlier versions of DBMM and its predecessor, DBM.

14

Rules Questions / Re: Arrival Surprise

« on: July 05, 2021, 11:36:37 AM »

And the correct interpretation is...

the flee rule is applied when the flanking elements are placed on the table ie. they flee in their opponent's bound. The place of arrival being where the flank marchers actually enter.

15

Rules Questions / Re: WWg(S) in Close Combat

« on: June 20, 2021, 11:15:29 AM »

Since the edge counts normally:

The blade adjacent to the front corner (i.e. the "front half" of the flank edge) fights. Is is in close combat with the flank edge of the WWg so the WWg gets a -1 combat factor for enemy in close combat with its flank.

The other blade has not met the criteria for moving into close combat against a flank edge, therefore does not fight. However, if the first blade recoils or is destroyed, it will adjust its contact by sliding 80p to contact the "front half" of the flank edge. It will fight in the following bound.

If the WWg just loses, nothing happens. If the WWg scores half or less, it is destroyed.