Recent Posts

91

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Flank edge contact

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on April 24, 2021, 08:01:49 PM »

If we ignore the fact that Ax W's TZ prevents the flank contact, the 2nd sentence in the moving into close combat section (In my edition 2.1, I think it is the same in 2.0) starting "A move is cancelled ..." is clearly intended to be an exception to the "absolute requirement" (otherwise there would be no point in its being there).

92

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Flank edge contact

« Last post by Marcel Bos on April 24, 2021, 04:12:53 PM »

Thank you Lawrence for the explanation! 

I have attached another example E.
This movement won't also be allowed by the rules, am I correct? Because Cv A can't line-up correctly.
Do you understand why the most important rule 'absolute requirement'... 'in real life' etc. should be dismissed in this case?

By the way, it is not so easy to buy the rules 2.1 (at a normal price) in the Netherlands 
I have to wait, and try to buy one at a wargame-fair (when it is organized again).

93

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Flank edge contact

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on April 24, 2021, 03:38:27 PM »

A is correct. Because this is an allowed contact, the blocking element does not have to be moved out of the way.

C I think is ambiguous. You could argue that "any element in close combat" is preventing lining up which would mean the move is not allowed. Or you could argue that lining up is blocked by enemy, which means you don't need to line up (so the fact it is also blocked by a friendly element becomes irrelevant). Using the "must move into contact " principle suggests the "is allowed" argument should prevail.

D Now only a friendly element is blocking lining up, and the blocking element is in close combat, so the move is not allowed. Note, even if the friendly Cv was not there, you would still not be allowed to do the move as the TZ of the enemy would prevent lining up; you would have to line up with the front of the 2nd enemy element instead.

FYI the most recent edition of the rules is 2.1 (2016) Available from   https://www.lulu.com/shop/phil-barker/shop/phil-barker/de-bellis-magistrorum-militum-version-21/paperback/product-1vgrmpyz.html?page=1&pageSize=4

By the way, the forum at  https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist gets more traffic than this one, but this one has a better signal-to-noise ratio.

94

Rules Questions / Moving into Flank edge contact

« Last post by Marcel Bos on April 24, 2021, 01:36:12 PM »

I am using DBMM version 2.0 and am strugling with Flank edge contact.
There are 4 examples moving Cv A into Flank edge contact with Ax V, see the attachment.

Is example A correct? Its is a full edge contact and Ax W is blocking Cv A lining up in corner to corner contact with Ax V.
Or does the blocking Ax W have to moved out of the way, as in example B, making it impossible to move Cv A in Flank edge contact because of the TZ-rules?

Example C should be correct. Its is a full edge contact and Ax W is blocking Cv A lining up in corner to corner contact with Ax V.

Example D should not be possible, because in this case Cv B (not an enemy) is blocking Cv A lining up in corner to corner contact with Ax V.
That would be very strange, because of the absolute requirement that troops that would move in close combat in real life must do so in the game.

What do you think?

95

Rules Questions / Re: Expanding an impetuous group

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on April 15, 2021, 08:55:24 AM »

The way the rules are written tends to lead to a lot of that.

In this particular case it is "expand a column" not "expand the frontage of a unit" which is the usual formulation in other rules, so it's an easy mistake to make.

96

Rules Questions / Re: Expanding an impetuous group

« Last post by Neil Williamson on April 14, 2021, 10:17:05 PM »

Thanks and thanks for the tip
Looks like ive been playing it incorrectly for 3 years

97

Rules Questions / Re: Expanding an impetuous group

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on April 13, 2021, 10:54:13 AM »

Expanding a column only involves the elements in the column. You have to hold the elements that are not in the column separately.

In this case 1 PIP to expand the column, 1 PIP to halt everyone else.

Top Tip: When using ASCII art, use the "code" tag to set a fixed width font.

Code: [Select]

Original formation
ABCDEFG
HIJKLMN
      O
      P

New formation
ABCDEFGO
HIJKLMNP

98

Rules Questions / Expanding an impetuous group

« Last post by Neil Williamson on April 10, 2021, 01:48:21 AM »

Say I have some impetuous LH(S) in a group and I wish to expand the frontage.
Do I have to hold the rest of the group when the column expands?
So if I'm the group below, is it just 1 pip as a whole group move, or is it regarded as 2 groups (GNOP being separate sub group, see below) and therefore 2 pips. 1 to hold and one to expand the GNOP column?

Original formation
A B C D E  F  G
H  I J  K L M N
                       O
                       P

New formation
ABCDEFGO
HI JKLMNP

Ref. pages 28 and 29 in the rule book (32 to 33 in later reprints)

99

Book 2 / Re: Late Romans and African Vandals

« Last post by Barritus on February 09, 2021, 10:14:57 AM »

At Ad Decimum, the Vandal cavalry performs well, but are let down by their commander.

Fair point.

But my concern is that the combination of rules and troop classifications as they exist at the moment don't re-create those Byzantine-Vandal battles as we understand them.

In particular, with an Inert general leading Irr Kn (F) if the generals get few or no PIPs then the Irr Kn (F) simply go charging towards the enemy.

What I'm reading of the battles against Belisarius is that when the generals (in particular Gelimer) failed to actively lead their cavalry, what the cavalry did was to stand around scratching their backsides, rather than charging wildly at the enemy.

In other words, if we want to re-create the behaviour of the African Vandal army when led by Gelimer, then either the rules for the behaviour of impetuous troops led by inert generals need to change, or the classification of those troops needs to change.

I'm open to either change - as I've pointed out in another thread the inert classification might be usefully replaced by two classifications: one for generals who make normally non-impetuous troops impetuous, and one for generals who make normally impetuous troops non-impetuous. And Gelimer could easily be placed in that second category while still leaving the Vandal cavalry as Irr Kn (F). Alternatively, it might be argued that massed Irr Kn (I) led by an inert general is still a scary fight for an Early Byzantine army as the Kn have a quick kill against all the Cv and Bd in the army.

100

Rules Questions / Re: The DBMM Commentary

« Last post by Fon Tok Nak on January 16, 2021, 05:02:32 PM »

https://groups.io/g/DBMMlist/files

The most recent version (v7) is dated 8 January 2018.