1
Rules Questions / Re: TZ and Artillery edge
« on: May 25, 2022, 01:16:36 PM »
I would certainly allow it.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Rules Questions / Re: Passing through
« on: April 17, 2022, 10:14:07 PM »
You’re right.
Passing through defenitly needs explanation or a consencus.
I even looked now at the old rules DBM and DBMM v. 1.
One thing I learned from this is interpenetrating elements of a group can split.
But is wasn’t clear to me if this was valid for only non-impeteous troops.
Lets look at the current rules:
Elements making a spontaneous advance pass trough friends in their path… the following events occur: “Other non-impeteous troops---- recoil (see p. 40) as each successive element passes through.”
Passing through defenitly needs explanation or a consencus.
I even looked now at the old rules DBM and DBMM v. 1.
One thing I learned from this is interpenetrating elements of a group can split.
But is wasn’t clear to me if this was valid for only non-impeteous troops.
Lets look at the current rules:
Elements making a spontaneous advance pass trough friends in their path… the following events occur: “Other non-impeteous troops---- recoil (see p. 40) as each successive element passes through.”
QuoteAn 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.
In my opinion, if passing through:
An interpenetrating element moves its intended movement if it can pass all friendly (interpenetrated) elements with this movement.
But, the leading/first interpenetrating element, that can’t totally clear one or more interpenetrated friendly elements, must either stop before or beyond the nearest interpenetrated friendly element it can’t clear.
This nearest interpenetrated friendly element stays put.
If this interpenetrating element must stop beyond an interpenetrated element, friendly elements beyond the interpenetrated element make room by shifting in the direction moved.
If this interpenetrating element must stop before an interpenetrated element, there is no rule that other friendly elements make room by shifting in any direction whatsoever.
So this interpenetrating element must stop before interpenetrating any element!
So, in some cases an interpenetrating group will be split by an interpenetrated group, in which case the interpenetrated group isn’t split.
Of course, there is the matter of recoiling.
A recoil (p 40) is a base depth (max. a base width), not more, or a 180° turn, often not enough to make room.
If Phil wanted to hold together a spontaneous column, the last sentence should be (or something like that):
"Any non-sponteneous elements following it stop at the first friendly element’s or tower’s near edge, however any spontenous elements following it keeps in contact with the preceding spontaneous element, other friendly elements previously there shifting opposite to the direction moved to make room."
3
Rules Questions / Re: Passing through
« on: April 13, 2022, 09:23:15 AM »
Of course, it is always the intention (of Phil Barker) of the rules that matters.
So, in other words:
If a column is spontaneous the leading element is always placed ahead of the first element it can’t clear, pushing forward other friendly elements (or even back if itself or any forward pushed element is blocked by an enemy element or otherwise).
The other spontaneous elements follow directly behind the leading element, pushing back other friendly elements.
Good to know
So, in other words:
If a column is spontaneous the leading element is always placed ahead of the first element it can’t clear, pushing forward other friendly elements (or even back if itself or any forward pushed element is blocked by an enemy element or otherwise).
The other spontaneous elements follow directly behind the leading element, pushing back other friendly elements.
Good to know
4
Rules Questions / Re: Passing through
« on: April 11, 2022, 09:54:22 PM »
Thanks again Lawrence.
In both version, 2.0 and 2.1 rules these are the same.
First of all I think it is bad practice to voluntarily interpenetrate friendly troops if those troops can’t be totally cleared, but if this happens it is nice to know what to do
In my opinion a normal recoil will take place for an element if passed through by impetuous friends regardless of any extra shifting forward (or back) to make room for any passing element that will not clear a base.
I like to think that a sponno column won’t end as a solid block, see the new example.
With a movement straight forward LH E and F would reach the positions as in figure K.
All Ax has to ‘recoil’ when LH E interpenetrates it, in this case instead they turn 180° (page 40).
As in figure L LH E must thereafter immediately placed beyond Ax A.
If LH F follows LH E immediately thereafter, Ax A has also a normal recoil, but LH F has still to stop at the near edge of Ax A, see figure M.
If LH F doesn’t follow LH E immediately thereafter, Ax A has not to recoil, and LH F has to stop at the near edge of Ax B, see figure N.
I feel more for figure M myself, but in both circumstances the outcome will be a mess.
This doesn’t look strange to me, when impetuous troops runs through an orderly formation.
But probably your interpretation is more playable
In both version, 2.0 and 2.1 rules these are the same.
First of all I think it is bad practice to voluntarily interpenetrate friendly troops if those troops can’t be totally cleared, but if this happens it is nice to know what to do
In my opinion a normal recoil will take place for an element if passed through by impetuous friends regardless of any extra shifting forward (or back) to make room for any passing element that will not clear a base.
I like to think that a sponno column won’t end as a solid block, see the new example.
With a movement straight forward LH E and F would reach the positions as in figure K.
All Ax has to ‘recoil’ when LH E interpenetrates it, in this case instead they turn 180° (page 40).
As in figure L LH E must thereafter immediately placed beyond Ax A.
If LH F follows LH E immediately thereafter, Ax A has also a normal recoil, but LH F has still to stop at the near edge of Ax A, see figure M.
If LH F doesn’t follow LH E immediately thereafter, Ax A has not to recoil, and LH F has to stop at the near edge of Ax B, see figure N.
I feel more for figure M myself, but in both circumstances the outcome will be a mess.
This doesn’t look strange to me, when impetuous troops runs through an orderly formation.
But probably your interpretation is more playable
5
Rules Questions / Passing through
« on: April 10, 2022, 11:01:50 AM »
With a movement straight forward LH E and F would reach the positions as in figure A or D.
Figure B:
If both LH are not spontaneous LH E has to placed past Ax C pushing forward Ax A and B.
LH F has to be placed before Ax D.
Figure C:
If both LH are spontaneous Ax B, C and D have to recoil two times.
Placement of LH E will not be hindered.
LH F has to be placed before Ax B, pushing back Ax C and D.
Figure E:
If both LH are not spontaneous LH E has to placed before Ax A pushing back Ax B, C and D.
LH F has to be placed before Ax C, pushing back Ax D.
Figure F:
If both LH are spontaneous Ax B, C and D have to recoil two times.
Placement of LH E and F will not be hindered.
I am playing DBMM v. 2.0, page 32
Are mine assumptions correct?
Figure B:
If both LH are not spontaneous LH E has to placed past Ax C pushing forward Ax A and B.
LH F has to be placed before Ax D.
Figure C:
If both LH are spontaneous Ax B, C and D have to recoil two times.
Placement of LH E will not be hindered.
LH F has to be placed before Ax B, pushing back Ax C and D.
Figure E:
If both LH are not spontaneous LH E has to placed before Ax A pushing back Ax B, C and D.
LH F has to be placed before Ax C, pushing back Ax D.
Figure F:
If both LH are spontaneous Ax B, C and D have to recoil two times.
Placement of LH E and F will not be hindered.
I am playing DBMM v. 2.0, page 32
Are mine assumptions correct?
6
Rules Questions / Re: Weather changes
« on: January 14, 2022, 09:23:45 PM »
So, even Phil Barker can't predict the weather
Thanx Barritus!
Thanx Barritus!
7
Rules Questions / Weather changes
« on: January 01, 2022, 03:41:33 PM »
I never quite understand weather changes.
Every army starts the game with 4 PIP-dice including dummy dice.
During the game the dummy dice will be removed.
The odds that a weather change will take place with 4 dice are much smaller that that it will take place with 3 or even 2 dice.
So during the game the odds that a weather change will take place grow.
Is that the intention of the rules?
Every army starts the game with 4 PIP-dice including dummy dice.
During the game the dummy dice will be removed.
The odds that a weather change will take place with 4 dice are much smaller that that it will take place with 3 or even 2 dice.
So during the game the odds that a weather change will take place grow.
Is that the intention of the rules?
8
Rules Questions / Re: WWg(S) in Close Combat
« on: July 05, 2021, 08:35:29 PM »
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.
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.
9
Rules Questions / WWg(S) in Close Combat
« on: June 19, 2021, 03:42:48 PM »
Two Bd(O) move in Close Combat with the side-edge of WWg(S).
The rules (Turning to Face Flank or Rear contact) say:
a) As train, the WWg won’t Turn to Face and
b) WWg(S) count edges normally.
How will this be handled in Combat?
The rules (Turning to Face Flank or Rear contact) say:
a) As train, the WWg won’t Turn to Face and
b) WWg(S) count edges normally.
How will this be handled in Combat?
10
Rules Questions / Irregular Clumsiness
« on: June 06, 2021, 01:29:44 PM »
Does a group of Irregular Sp moving in column has to spend an extra PIP for Irregular Clumsiness if the front element of the column wheels (not along a road, river or terrain feature)?
I expect it does.
If the front element of te column moves straight ahead, but other following elements do not, it doesn't have to spend this extra PIP, I expect.
Do I understand this correctly?
I expect it does.
If the front element of te column moves straight ahead, but other following elements do not, it doesn't have to spend this extra PIP, I expect.
Do I understand this correctly?
11
Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat
« on: May 09, 2021, 10:31:41 AM »This could mean an element that is further behind the flank could not do a flank attack while an element more towards the front can do a flank attack.
You understand it correctly, but It is a choice… after all it is a houserule.
My original proposed houserule makes it possible to line-up in flank edge contact, when moving only straight ahead this turn, until reaching the enemy-TZ, allowing a full flank edge contact instead of a corner-to-corner contact.
If this line-up would reach the front border of the TZ it would be, at 80p, subject to the TZ, so not allowed. However this doesn’t apply to the left or right border of the TZ.
Players can argue that this houserule should only apply when, as in my latest example, the flank isn’t at an angle (other than 90°) from and completely in front of the moving element. In that case your example wouldn’t be allowed. My adjusted houserule should prevents other circumstances.
This isn't very satisfactory, so you could consider adopting a "house rule" or "playing convention" that allows the flank contact.
By the way, my preference is for my original houserule, in which case your example would be allowed, but I really like to know if you would give one of my houserules a try, and in that case, which houserule you prefer.
12
Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat
« on: May 07, 2021, 03:31:39 PM »
A great example!
In this case Ps would move straight ahead contacting LH on its flank.
It is possible because it stays outside the TZ of the other LH.
Thereafter Ps will line-up in full flank edge contact until its right rearcorner reaches the right border of the TZ, where it stops before entering the TZ.
This would be a (proposed) legal contact.
On the other hand, would the right rearcorner of Ps reach the TZ before it made full contact with the flanke edge the move shouldn't be allowed.
If you don't want to allow this specific movement to be possible the houserule could change allowing full flank edge contact if both:
a) the attacking element moved only straight ahead this turn contacting the enemy immediatly in full flank edge contact
b) to line-up in corner to corner contact would hypothetical cross the left or right border of an enemy TZ
This also prevents attacking the flank from an angle.
In this case Ps would move straight ahead contacting LH on its flank.
It is possible because it stays outside the TZ of the other LH.
Thereafter Ps will line-up in full flank edge contact until its right rearcorner reaches the right border of the TZ, where it stops before entering the TZ.
This would be a (proposed) legal contact.
On the other hand, would the right rearcorner of Ps reach the TZ before it made full contact with the flanke edge the move shouldn't be allowed.
If you don't want to allow this specific movement to be possible the houserule could change allowing full flank edge contact if both:
a) the attacking element moved only straight ahead this turn contacting the enemy immediatly in full flank edge contact
b) to line-up in corner to corner contact would hypothetical cross the left or right border of an enemy TZ
This also prevents attacking the flank from an angle.
13
Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat
« on: May 06, 2021, 08:03:16 PM »
Very nice that you help to to make up my mind.
In my last example LH B moves straight ahead in full flank-edge contact with Ps W.
In my proposal this full contact is allowed because a line-up in corner-to-corner contact would hypothetical cross the right border of the TZ of Ps X.
Of course a real line-up into the TZ is not allowed, so the line-up stops at reaching te TZ.
If the element providing the TZ (Ps X) would be pointing at the moving element (LH B), the moving element is most probably moving through the TZ.
By the TZ-rules you may not move through a TZ into flank edge contact.
If not moving through the TZ the line-up will probably cross the front (not left or right) border of the TZ-ing element.
By official rules and my proposed houserules this is also not allowed.
In both cases the move isn't allowed.
If the element providing the TZ (Ps X) would be pointing away from the moving element (LH B) the line-up will stop at the left or right border of the TZ.
But maybe I miss something...
In my last example LH B moves straight ahead in full flank-edge contact with Ps W.
In my proposal this full contact is allowed because a line-up in corner-to-corner contact would hypothetical cross the right border of the TZ of Ps X.
Of course a real line-up into the TZ is not allowed, so the line-up stops at reaching te TZ.
I suspect you will find some cases where you can make contact that probably shouldn't be allowed when the element providing the TZ is at an angle.If have tried to incorparate this automatically in my proposal.
If the element providing the TZ (Ps X) would be pointing at the moving element (LH B), the moving element is most probably moving through the TZ.
By the TZ-rules you may not move through a TZ into flank edge contact.
If not moving through the TZ the line-up will probably cross the front (not left or right) border of the TZ-ing element.
By official rules and my proposed houserules this is also not allowed.
In both cases the move isn't allowed.
If the element providing the TZ (Ps X) would be pointing away from the moving element (LH B) the line-up will stop at the left or right border of the TZ.
But maybe I miss something...
14
Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat
« on: May 06, 2021, 10:15:32 AM »
Lawrence, it took me a week to think about your comment
I sure would like to know which intentions Phil had when he made those 'moving into flank edge combat' rules.
In my vision, in this case, the defensive influence of an element reach out far beyond the borders of his TZ.
This is in contradiction of Phils own rule that it is an absolute requirement to move in real life combat.
As a houserule I would also allow full edge contact if both:
a) the attacking element moved only straight ahead this turn
b) to line-up in corner to corner contact would hypothetical cross the left or right border of an enemy TZ
I just have to try it out in my next (after Corona) battles
I sure would like to know which intentions Phil had when he made those 'moving into flank edge combat' rules.
In my vision, in this case, the defensive influence of an element reach out far beyond the borders of his TZ.
This is in contradiction of Phils own rule that it is an absolute requirement to move in real life combat.
As a houserule I would also allow full edge contact if both:
a) the attacking element moved only straight ahead this turn
b) to line-up in corner to corner contact would hypothetical cross the left or right border of an enemy TZ
I just have to try it out in my next (after Corona) battles
15
Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat
« on: April 28, 2021, 01:56:13 PM »
Thanks again Lawrence.
I probably understand the rules now, but unfortunately it doesn't always make sense to me.
Just an example:
LH A/B/C move in CC with Ps V/W/X (picture A)
Only Ps W wins (not doubles) his combat, LH B is Repulsed (picture B)
Next Ps W assists Ps V with a flankcontact on LH A (picture C), but Ps V loses (not doubled) (picture D)
LH B can't go anymore in CC with Ps W again, because of the TZ of Ps X.
This, for example, looks strange to me, by pivotting Ps W it will be 'save' for any flank attack.
By the way, if Ps V had won the combat LH B could go certainly in CC with Ps W.
These where just some thougts.
I will just follow the rules correctly from now on.
I probably understand the rules now, but unfortunately it doesn't always make sense to me.
Just an example:
LH A/B/C move in CC with Ps V/W/X (picture A)
Only Ps W wins (not doubles) his combat, LH B is Repulsed (picture B)
Next Ps W assists Ps V with a flankcontact on LH A (picture C), but Ps V loses (not doubled) (picture D)
LH B can't go anymore in CC with Ps W again, because of the TZ of Ps X.
This, for example, looks strange to me, by pivotting Ps W it will be 'save' for any flank attack.
By the way, if Ps V had won the combat LH B could go certainly in CC with Ps W.
These where just some thougts.
I will just follow the rules correctly from now on.
Pages: [1] 2