Sorry, errr...and what about 5 questions now? :)

[landmeister]

Dear wise DBMMers,

Could you shed some light on this obscure points, please? 

1. On page 30 is read that impetuous that cannot move spontaneously must use a tactical move or stay in place. Impetuous moves are made AFTER tactical moves. Does it mean that I must check all my possible spontaneous moves BEFORE making any tactical one in order to avoid missing them later? . What a weird thing! :/.

2. Sorry, I don?t understand the last (X) troops specified on the first paragraph of Distant Combat. Is it talking about Boats (X) or Galleys (X) and Boats (X)?

3. Elements close enough to table edges count as overlapped in an enemy bound if that: ??would prevent a real or hypothetical enemy element moving into, OR RECOILING FROM, an overlap position?. Ok, I know when you cannot move into because the gap between my element and the edge is less than 4 cm, but what about a hypothetical element recoiling from? This is the case when your group is not perpendicular to that edge but angled. A hypothetical enemy Elephant recoiling or a hypothetical enemy Bd? Depths are different so the hypothetical recoil is too.

4. Recoiling elements on fortifications. Please correct me, an element must recoil a base width (not depth) when loses a combat while on a PF wall walk and when that recoil would put me back on a TF. Is this correct? I guess not but wording is not clear.

5. Recoilers must stop when they: ??contact with or meets: friends it can not pass through or past?? Sorry, but what is ?passing past? ?

I promise I will not write more messages like this. I will try to split them out! 

Thank you very much.

[Platypus]

Dear wise DBMMers,

Could you shed some light on this obscure points, please? 

1. On page 30 is read that impetuous that cannot move spontaneously must use a tactical move or stay in place. Impetuous moves are made AFTER tactical moves. Does it mean that I must check all my possible spontaneous moves BEFORE making any tactical one in order to avoid missing them later? . What a weird thing! :/.

I'm not wise, but..

This is what happens in practice anyway. You roll for PIPs, then you look at your troops (Actually you've already looked at your troops while your opponent has been moving). You work out which ones will do the right thing when moving spontaneously, which ones are going to get into trouble, curse under your breath because you don't have enough PIPs to get them out of trouble, do your tactical moves, then move the spontaneous ones.

Basically it says that if an impetuous element can't do the proscribed moves, and you haven't already moved it tactically, then it stays in place. If it didn't mention the tactical move, people might get the impression that an impetuous element that can't move spontaneously, can't move tactically either.....

2. Sorry, I don?t understand the last (X) troops specified on the first paragraph of Distant Combat. Is it talking about Boats (X) or Galleys (X) and Boats (X)?

Boats (X). I thought all Galleys can shoot?

3. Elements close enough to table edges count as overlapped in an enemy bound if that: ??would prevent a real or hypothetical enemy element moving into, OR RECOILING FROM, an overlap position?. Ok, I know when you cannot move into because the gap between my element and the edge is less than 4 cm, but what about a hypothetical element recoiling from? This is the case when your group is not perpendicular to that edge but angled. A hypothetical enemy Elephant recoiling or a hypothetical enemy Bd? Depths are different so the hypothetical recoil is too.

I'll take a raincheck on that one.

4. Recoiling elements on fortifications. Please correct me, an element must recoil a base width (not depth) when loses a combat while on a PF wall walk and when that recoil would put me back on a TF. Is this correct? I guess not but wording is not clear.

Recoiling back from a PF or TF is always a base width. This is to allow room for the attacker to move over the fortification. Don't know where you got the "when that recoil would put me back on a TF". If says off a PF wall walk or back from a TF.

5. Recoilers must stop when they: ??contact with or meets: friends it can not pass through or past?? Sorry, but what is ?passing past? ?

Ah, that is to allow elements to recoil along the edges of friends. Otherwise no troops in edge-to-edge contact would be able to recoil as they would always "contact friends".

I promise I will not write more messages like this. I will try to split them out! 

Not a criticism, put single questions are easier to deal with because I don't have to do the "quote" stuff.

G^is,
JohnG

[landmeister]

I'm not wise, but..

Believe me, you're wiser than me! 

Basically it says that if an impetuous element can't do the proscribed moves, and you haven't already moved it tactically, then it stays in place. If it didn't mention the tactical move, people might get the impression that an impetuous element that can't move spontaneously, can't move tactically either.....

Ooops, This is just what I think!  If you can't move tactically, you can't move spontaneously. When is the opposite not true? 

Recoiling back from a PF or TF is always a base width. This is to allow room for the attacker to move over the fortification. Don't know where you got the "when that recoil would put me back on a TF". If says off a PF wall walk or back from a TF.

Well...ehem...I'm Spanish and I'm still improving my English. This is why I'm making so many nasty questions, sorry 

Ah, that is to allow elements to recoil along the edges of friends. Otherwise no troops in edge-to-edge contact would be able to recoil as they would always "contact friends".

My God! Was it really necessary?!  . This is one of the things I hate from Barkerese. 

And thank you very much

[Doug M.]

I will try and cope with this one...

"3. Elements close enough to table edges count as overlapped in an enemy bound if that: ??would prevent a real or hypothetical enemy element moving into, OR RECOILING FROM, an overlap position?. Ok, I know when you cannot move into because the gap between my element and the edge is less than 4 cm, but what about a hypothetical element recoiling from? This is the case when your group is not perpendicular to that edge but angled. A hypothetical enemy Elephant recoiling or a hypothetical enemy Bd? Depths are different so the hypothetical recoil is too."

Ok, in the case of elements that are angled towards the table edge (this is the only time when a recoil would take a 'hypothetical' opponent off the table), the only impact would be that they count as overlapped. Yes? But they can only count as overlapped when actually in combat, so I would say the effect would be that you move an element into contact that cannot recoil - then the angled element counts as being overlapped.

cheers

[Platypus]

Hola,

Basically it says that if an impetuous element can't do the proscribed moves, and you haven't already moved it tactically, then it stays in place. If it didn't mention the tactical move, people might get the impression that an impetuous element that can't move spontaneously, can't move tactically either.....

Ooops, This is just what I think!  If you can't move tactically, you can't move spontaneously. When is the opposite not true? 

Say an element is foot defending a river edge. It cannot move spontaneously, but you can move it tactically. Say an element is facing backwards and cannot go closer to visible enemy (and the other three points don't apply).  In that case it cannot make a legal spontaneous move, but you can move it tactically.

Well...ehem...I'm Spanish and I'm still improving my English. This is why I'm making so many nasty questions, sorry 

Ne gravas. No problem.

Ah, that is to allow elements to recoil along the edges of friends. Otherwise no troops in edge-to-edge contact would be able to recoil as they would always "contact friends".

My God! Was it really necessary?!  . This is one of the things I hate from Barkerese. 

Oh yes! Some people insist that the rules are played "as is written". Barker also says that as well (except I believe he actually doesn't mean it in the same way). Barker puts these things in because people insist that if he didn't, then some players will interperate it "as written". Thus without the "pass" bit no troops would be able to recoil if they were in edge-to-edge contact! Hence "Barkerese".  Now as an example, take Warhammer Ancient Battles. Once described to me as a hole with some rules around it. People seem to be able to play tournements with this set quite happily, so I don't know why every work in DBMM must be scrutinised.

G^is,
JohnG

[landmeister]

Ok, in the case of elements that are angled towards the table edge (this is the only time when a recoil would take a 'hypothetical' opponent off the table), the only impact would be that they count as overlapped. Yes? But they can only count as overlapped when actually in combat, so I would say the effect would be that you move an element into contact that cannot recoil - then the angled element counts as being overlapped.

Ok, but who chooses the element used as a measure? Imagine I'm the angled element (Bowmen) frontally attacked and I'm just 3 cm away from that edge (measuring directly from my rear corner to that edge). I  will choose a Bd element to justify that "an element can recoil", but my opponent sure would choose a Cv element and would say "No, you can't"  . What happens now? 

Thank you again

[landmeister]

Hola,

Say an element is foot defending a river edge. It cannot move spontaneously, but you can move it tactically. Say an element is facing backwards and cannot go closer to visible enemy (and the other three points don't apply).  In that case it cannot make a legal spontaneous move, but you can move it tactically.

Ooops, you're right! 

Oh yes! Some people insist that the rules are played "as is written". Barker also says that as well (except I believe he actually doesn't mean it in the same way). Barker puts these things in because people insist that if he didn't, then some players will interperate it "as written". Thus without the "pass" bit no troops would be able to recoil if they were in edge-to-edge contact! Hence "Barkerese".  Now as an example, take Warhammer Ancient Battles. Once described to me as a hole with some rules around it. People seem to be able to play tournements with this set quite happily, so I don't know why every work in DBMM must be scrutinised.

This is the kind if things that should change in the DBx world 

Thank you

[Doug M.]

Ok, in the case of elements that are angled towards the table edge (this is the only time when a recoil would take a 'hypothetical' opponent off the table), the only impact would be that they count as overlapped. Yes? But they can only count as overlapped when actually in combat, so I would say the effect would be that you move an element into contact that cannot recoil - then the angled element counts as being overlapped.

Ok, but who chooses the element used as a measure? Imagine I'm the angled element (Bowmen) frontally attacked and I'm just 3 cm away from that edge (measuring directly from my rear corner to that edge). I  will choose a Bd element to justify that "an element can recoil", but my opponent sure would choose a Cv element and would say "No, you can't"  . What happens now? 

Thank you again

I would imagine it is whatever actually makes contact...  if the bowmen are frontally attacked, then if the attacking element can recoil, then the bowmen do not count as overlapped. So in your example, a cavalry element attacking the bowmen, the bowmen count as overlapped.

[landmeister]

I would imagine it is whatever actually makes contact...  if the bowmen are frontally attacked, then if the attacking element can recoil, then the bowmen do not count as overlapped. So in your example, a cavalry element attacking the bowmen, the bowmen count as overlapped.

I'm afraid not. This Cv is fighting against my Bw, they are not fighting in an overlap position. The rules say: "...any element...counts as overlapped in an enemy bound if a battlefield edge would prevent a real or hypothetical enemy element moving into, or recoiling from, AN OVERLAP POSITION." So no matter who I'm frontally fighting, is the overlap position what matters.

Let me change the example. I have a Bd group pressing against an enemy Ax group. The Ax are very close to their own rear table edge. The last Ax element is in the following position:

Ther rear edge facing its own rear table edge at an angle of 20? and can recoil, but if does so, this corner will contact such table edge. The distance between its front corner (drawing a line prolonging the front edge) and the table edge is 6 cm, so a friend (if available) would be able to move into an overlap position, BUT depending on the base depth of this friend, it would or would not be able to recoil from that overlap position. If friends are a Sp element, it can recoil, if it is another Ax element, it can't.

So if we consider that this Sp element can be used as a hypothetical enemy element moved into this OVERLAP POSITION, my Bd will count as overlapped. If we take another Ax, they will not. What a strange thing, isn't it? 

Thank you

[Tim Child]

Re the "overlap for near to table edge" issue:

Hmm, I'm confused now.  I thought that the intent was (relatively     ) clear; an element so close to the table edge that it can't be overlapped safely (i.e. an overlapper would be in a position where it couldn't recoil if it was in turn attacked itself) counts as being overlapped anyway.  The "hypothetical element" is there to prevent players saying that this only applies if the enemy has a spare element/PIPs with which he could have tried to overlap but for the "edge of the world". 

The only exception is for lights, baggage and troops on fortifications.  In other words, troops that (in the Barker vision of battlefield behaviour) have some business being out on the extreme flanks don't need the "edge of the world" remedial measure.

I agree that it gets into issues of interpretation when you're examining the recoil point.  We're dealing with the recoil of a hypothetical enemy here, so IMHO that must mean any hypothetical enemy, including El, chariots, etc.

In other words, anyone (apart from the exception for light troops etc.) who has the edge of the table less than 160p of straight ahead of their front corner suffers -1 for an overlap whether or not there are enemy troops available to do the overlapping.

Tim Child

[toby]

That seems to be the only sensible interpretation. I will put up a clarification on the main website to that effect and see if anyone (Phil the Silent?) comes up with a better interpretation.

[landmeister]

Re the "overlap for near to table edge" issue:
In other words, anyone (apart from the exception for light troops etc.) who has the edge of the table less than 160p of straight ahead of their front corner suffers -1 for an overlap whether or not there are enemy troops available to do the overlapping.

Sorry, but I can't follow you right now. Why 160 p? And why straight ahead of their front corners? Should'nt it br from its rear corners? Please, excuse my ignorance, but this is one of the most obscure points of the rules right now  :'(.

Thank you

[Hammy]

This is an interesting discussion but isn't it actually moot as there is no big deal if you can't recoil in DBMM (unlike DBM where not being able to recoil is BAD).

You could argue that an element within 40mm automatically counts as overlapped as it could not be flanked by an elephant but ......

I fear that when Phil wrote this rule he was remembering bad recoils or that when he wrote it recoils in DBMM were bad and it never got changed.

[Tim Child]

The 160p is because this is two chariot or Elephant base-depths.   

I'm measuring from the front corners, because that's where the hypothetical overlapping enemy Elephant/chariot's front corner would be.  You then measure the hypothetical chariot's base depth (80p) and recoil (80p) from that point.

Tim Child

Re the "overlap for near to table edge" issue:
In other words, anyone (apart from the exception for light troops etc.) who has the edge of the table less than 160p of straight ahead of their front corner suffers -1 for an overlap whether or not there are enemy troops available to do the overlapping.

Sorry, but I can't follow you right now. Why 160 p? And why straight ahead of their front corners? Should'nt it br from its rear corners? Please, excuse my ignorance, but this is one of the most obscure points of the rules right now  :'(.

Thank you

[Tim Child]

The issue about recoiling has not gone away when you are at risk of being recoiled off the table edge. That's still a BAD thing.   

Tim

This is an interesting discussion but isn't it actually moot as there is no big deal if you can't recoil in DBMM (unlike DBM where not being able to recoil is BAD).

You could argue that an element within 40mm automatically counts as overlapped as it could not be flanked by an elephant but ......

I fear that when Phil wrote this rule he was remembering bad recoils or that when he wrote it recoils in DBMM were bad and it never got changed.