31
Rules Questions / Re: Passing through
« Last post by LawrenceG1 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.
Recent Posts
32
Rules Questions / Re: Passing through
« Last post by Marcel Bos 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
33
Rules Questions / Re: Passing through
« Last post by LawrenceG1 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:
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.
Quote
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.
34
Rules Questions / Passing through
« Last post by Marcel Bos 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?
35
Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking
« Last post by Neil Williamson on January 17, 2022, 12:05:05 AM »Thanks Anthony
That's a very pragmatic and logical approach to the situation where the rules are not clear.
It is also the position I'd always assumed before starting to overthink things.
It would be useful if the rules committee would endorse this.
Thank you again
Neil
That's a very pragmatic and logical approach to the situation where the rules are not clear.
It is also the position I'd always assumed before starting to overthink things.
It would be useful if the rules committee would endorse this.
Thank you again
Neil
36
Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking
« Last post by Fon Tok Nak on January 16, 2022, 07:14:38 AM »As I have two armies with significant numbers of naval elements, I have had similar ponderings.
In relation to generals, I think the question is one of command difficulty (p.27). If a general is on a naval vessel, is he 'on the battlefield'? I would say that he is. Even though his element is not on the table, his troops know where he is and can see his vessel. (Indeed, I have to have something that clearly identifies my general's vessel so that I know which one he is on!) For sure, the men on his vessel will know that he is with them.
Following from that, answering 'yes' to both questions 1 and 2 seems reasonable, especially 2.
I am not entirely sure that I understand question 3. Whether a naval element is regular or irregular is determined by the vessel's type, not how it's crew moves on land. A naval and its embarked element do not a group make, so I suspect this is a non-issue. (As an aside, some crews might be particularly adept at sailing but then poor at soldiering to the point that they only become available at all when the naval has already been taken, typically marines.)
The example of marines, while not proof, reinforces why the answers to questions 4 and 5 are 'no'. I don't know of a list that allows marines to be taken without the naval they crew. In some lists, the only troops that can go on the naval are marines - they must go together.
Finally, consider the parallel of mounted infantry and their mounts: would anybody allow mounted infantry to move on their mounts and then dismount and move again and not call that marching? Or anything mounted - for example, Kn move and dismount as BdS, then the BdS move. Was the BdS element part of the Kn move?
Anthony
In relation to generals, I think the question is one of command difficulty (p.27). If a general is on a naval vessel, is he 'on the battlefield'? I would say that he is. Even though his element is not on the table, his troops know where he is and can see his vessel. (Indeed, I have to have something that clearly identifies my general's vessel so that I know which one he is on!) For sure, the men on his vessel will know that he is with them.
Following from that, answering 'yes' to both questions 1 and 2 seems reasonable, especially 2.
I am not entirely sure that I understand question 3. Whether a naval element is regular or irregular is determined by the vessel's type, not how it's crew moves on land. A naval and its embarked element do not a group make, so I suspect this is a non-issue. (As an aside, some crews might be particularly adept at sailing but then poor at soldiering to the point that they only become available at all when the naval has already been taken, typically marines.)
The example of marines, while not proof, reinforces why the answers to questions 4 and 5 are 'no'. I don't know of a list that allows marines to be taken without the naval they crew. In some lists, the only troops that can go on the naval are marines - they must go together.
Finally, consider the parallel of mounted infantry and their mounts: would anybody allow mounted infantry to move on their mounts and then dismount and move again and not call that marching? Or anything mounted - for example, Kn move and dismount as BdS, then the BdS move. Was the BdS element part of the Kn move?
Anthony
37
Competitions / Re: Cancon 2022 - Saturday 22 January - Sunday 23 January
« Last post by Barritus on January 16, 2022, 03:30:57 AM »This event has been cancelled due to a lack of entries.
38
Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking
« Last post by Neil Williamson on January 16, 2022, 03:13:32 AM »I've still mulling this one over. I've posted it to the New Zealand Facebook group and copied it here.
Naval Gazing
A few curly rules questions.
Page 10 "... each naval element always carries and can disembark one land element..."
This seems to suggest that the two elements are separate. However, you can argue that because the naval element cannot move if there is no land unit aboard, then they are treated as a combined unit.
Questions
1. Does a general on a naval element add a +1 combat factor if the naval element is in combat or being shot at?
2. Does a general on a naval element that is in frontal combat suffer command difficulty?
3. If regular naval elements carry irregular troops do they still benefit from -1 PIP for one move or halt?
4. Can a naval element make a tactical move to shore, and then the land element make a tactical move in the same bound to disembark?
5. Can a land element embark and then, in the same bound, the naval element make a tactical move ?
If they are separate elements then I think the answers are
No, no, yes , yes, yes.
If they are a combined unit then I think the answers are the opposite
Yes, yes, no, no, no.
Or I suppose we could pick individual situations that suit us at the time lol.
Any thoughts if wisdom?
Naval Gazing
A few curly rules questions.
Page 10 "... each naval element always carries and can disembark one land element..."
This seems to suggest that the two elements are separate. However, you can argue that because the naval element cannot move if there is no land unit aboard, then they are treated as a combined unit.
Questions
1. Does a general on a naval element add a +1 combat factor if the naval element is in combat or being shot at?
2. Does a general on a naval element that is in frontal combat suffer command difficulty?
3. If regular naval elements carry irregular troops do they still benefit from -1 PIP for one move or halt?
4. Can a naval element make a tactical move to shore, and then the land element make a tactical move in the same bound to disembark?
5. Can a land element embark and then, in the same bound, the naval element make a tactical move ?
If they are separate elements then I think the answers are
No, no, yes , yes, yes.
If they are a combined unit then I think the answers are the opposite
Yes, yes, no, no, no.
Or I suppose we could pick individual situations that suit us at the time lol.
Any thoughts if wisdom?
39
Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking
« Last post by Neil Williamson on January 16, 2022, 02:37:23 AM »And then...
If they are separate elements, does the general on board the ship give bonuses to the ship?
Does it add +1 combat factor to being shot at and close combat?
If the general's ship is in close combat, is there a command difficulty for PIPs.
If they are separate elements, does the general on board the ship give bonuses to the ship?
Does it add +1 combat factor to being shot at and close combat?
If the general's ship is in close combat, is there a command difficulty for PIPs.
40
Rules Questions / Re: Naval and disembarking
« Last post by Neil Williamson on January 15, 2022, 05:57:42 PM »Thanks Anthony
The answer seems to solely depend upon the interpretation of "An element can be part of 1 tactical move..." on page 28.
The elements are separate (as per page 10) and the land troops are merely carried along and not part of the naval move
OR
They are integral, as you have logically argued, and the land element is part of the naval move.
I'm still firmly on the fence with this one, and frequently change my mind on the interpretation.
The answer seems to solely depend upon the interpretation of "An element can be part of 1 tactical move..." on page 28.
The elements are separate (as per page 10) and the land troops are merely carried along and not part of the naval move
OR
They are integral, as you have logically argued, and the land element is part of the naval move.
I'm still firmly on the fence with this one, and frequently change my mind on the interpretation.