Niall Taylor's battle report from the Birmingham Playtest:
Living in the rural North East of Scotland has many benefits but does mean that it is quite difficult for me to play DBx as regularly as I once did. However, when I saw on the list that my old mate Gordon was organising a DBMM test I thought it would be a great idea to take a trip down to Birmingham and give the new rules a try out. I had read them through but never played so that would be a bit of a challenge � especially since my last game of any sort had been 18 months ago.
I decided to use Sung Chinese. Largely because I've had the army for many years and never dared use it in DBM. Bd and Bw seemed to be a reasonable combination and the ability to have a command of train without a general gave me three regular command dice along with the ally. Without going into detail my list consisted of; CinC with Bd and Bw, a few psiloi and Hd(O) and a couple of elements of Kn(F); Sub with much the same except Cv(S) instead of Kn(F), a train command of Art(O), and Art(I) and an Ally of Bd and Bw. I also had 6 TF. It was probably more of a DBM composition than DBMM but I wasn't too concerned about that in my first try out. The idea was to attack with the CinC and Sub while defending with the ally and Art behind the TF.
First game was against David Thompsons West Sudanese. Loads and loads of Bw(I) in 3 ranks � I think 75 in total. A group of LH(O) on each flank. 3 commands. The table was largely open apart from a small wood just off my baseline about 2 feet in from the right table edge. I was the invader and there was no weather. The Sudanese deployed first with their three commands lined across the table.
My first thought was that this looked just fine. Surely my Bd/Bw combo would be able to roll over at least one Bw(I) command? I lined up my CinC against the right Bw command, my Sub next and then the ally. The artillery sat behind the TF angling back to the wood on my baseline.
My first surprise was after my deployment when David then deployed 4 elements of Exp(O) in front of my sub generals command. My response was to bring my Bw through my Bd to counter them. This was successful with 3 Exp shot down at the first volley. The last one charged in but died. OK so far but then came the difficulty as I discovered that, unlike DBM, my Bd could not interpenetrate my Bw in return. This left me with a front rank of Bw which was not what I wanted against the massed Bw(I). I never really got out of this position properly and the Sub Generals Bd didn't play much part in the game.
This meant that my CinC went in alone against the right Bw command. Some good shooting by the Bw(I) killed a couple of Bd and the remainder could make no impression. The factors were much closer than DBM with the Bd on a 4 and the Bw on a 3 in the first round. The (I) only counting if less was a significant factor. If the Bd could hold on until the next round then it would become 5-2 but none of them did so. Eventually, the heavy shooting of the Bw(I) began to take its toll and the CinCs command was broken.
In the centre, my ally was showing how it should be done, backed up by a couple of Bd from the Sub General. Gradually, they carved their way through the biggest Bw(I) command and came close to breaking it but the Bw(I) counting as � ME meant that I had to kill huge numbers to get the command. Unlike DBM where I would be killing two at a time, here it was only one and getting the number required in the time available was always going to be an uphill task.
Nothing much happened on my right where the leftmost Bw(I) command eventually took a couple of shots at some Horde behind the TF but to little effect. When time was called it was a 15-10 win to David.
A good game and I learned a great deal. The ability to march into contact with light troops was an eye opener as was the resilience of the Bw(I). I was also a bit surprised to discover that deployment maps came before weather! I could have played a lot better but I was spending most of my time re-reading the rules and trying to remember how to play the game.
Game 2 was against Tony Denis and his Marian Roman. There was more terrain here with a river blocking Tony's right flank and a rough hill on his right. I had some gentle hills in front of my deployment area. I invaded. My idea was much the same as the previous game but hopefully better executed this time. My Ally deployed on my right behind a hill, the artillery between them and the central hill and behind TF. The Sub General behind the central hill and my CinC between the Sub and the river on my left. Tony had a Bd and Ax command on his right, a large Bd command in his centre and a Cavalry and Ax command on his left.
It was at this point that we remembered about time of day and discovered that, due to an initial roll of 4-4 and a subsequent one of 6-4, we only had 3 bounds each until sunset! In retrospect this meant that the game was probably guaranteed to be a draw. This was especially true due to the time it took us to work out exactly what the time of day rules meant.
The initial flurry of action took place on my left where Tony bravely tried to storm the central hill with his Cv(O). The attack was repulsed with loss by my Bw. By the time that was over, the sun was setting and after a couple of bounds of dusk the action ended here as neither side could see the other.
In the centre the two lines of Bd clashed with the Chinese having a slight edge due to a wider frontage and Bw support. Gradually the Romans were whittled down but time ran out before anything decisive could happen. The surprise I got here was charging my Kn(F) into some apparently vulnerable Ax(S) only to discover some anti cavalry pits in front of them! One Kn died and the other was happy to get out alive.
When the game ended I was a couple of elements off breaking the centre Roman command but it ended 14-11 to me.
All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed both games against very pleasant opponents. I learned a good deal about DBMM and liked playing the rules. I will almost certainly stick with them unless AoW takes over completely and there is nowhere to play them which I doubt. I suspect that you have to play the game with a willingness to come to a reasonable interpretation of what is intended in a given situation (or throw a dice) where the rules are ambiguous. This might well be a handicap in competitions against some of the more competitive players but that's something I'm willing to put up with.
So I'd say many thanks to Gordon for arranging the day and congratulations to Phil for delivering a very interesting set of rules.
Niall
