Where are all the rules questions gone?

[william]

  Seems that all the rules questions are now being asked on the YAHOO group, it's a pity because they get very complicated there and people are much more civil to each other here.

Are there really no more immponderables to solved here? Has everything been sorted out by all the Cv(S) type of posters? Must be a sign of progress in the better understanding of DBMM.

One thing of note did occour in my last game marched into the flank and rear of a Lh(S) and decided according to the rules the Lh(S) did not turn to face, as the Lh(S) was in a group of three we did have difficulty ( because of TZ's) how the other two Lh(S) reacted to the contact to their flank.

William

[MikeCampbell]

One of the advantages here is that you can post pictures if you have the ability to draw them in the 1st place!! :/

What was the problem?

the Lh do not turn to face because they ahve been contacted on flank and rear - that's simple enough & covered by para 4 of "Turning to face" pg 35.

Were the Lh in column and you contacted the rear of the column and along 1 flank of the rear element?

If so then the other will turn as I read it, and the flanking element wil have to fight it and not count agaisnt the enemy contacted on its rear - see the 1st sentence under "turning to face" - the middle element in the column will have part of an enemy element in contact with its flank (so meets the criteria "....contacted only on its flank edge....") to turn to face - so therefore does so.

the flanking element will therefore have to move sideways to line up with it - which will stop it flanking the one hit in the rear....assuming that the enemy LH(S) are in a column of cours.

I dont' see what TZ's have to do with it?

[william]

  If I knew how to add pictures I would but my computer skills are worse than my gaming skills ( and they are terrible ), only bought it up as interest.

In DBM if you contacted the flank of a line of Cv deep, then those that would have been legally contacted would turn to face the others falling behind these and was wondering is it still the same ?

You are very good to respond Mike,

Thank you

William

[MikeCampbell]

Yes it's still the same (or if there are small differences I haven't noticed them) - see "Turning to face" page 35, para 2:

If an element's front edge contacts the flanks of 2 or more such elements, all these turn to face if that furthest to the front must do so, the second and subsequent elements moving to behind that in front.

I'm pretty sure the effect is the same as it was in DBM.

[Sgt Steiner]

Hi

>One thing of note did occour in my last game marched into the flank and rear of a Lh(S) and decided according to >the rules the Lh(S) did not turn to face,

Any troop LH included do turn to face if Marched Into on rear.
If onto flank then normal turning to face applies (ie if no frontal opponnent)

At least thats how I play and understand it 

Cheers
Gary

[andrew]

I'm pretty sure the effect is the same as it was in DBM.

Almost.  A key departure is the sequence of play.  This is now : make all moves etc., shoot, then turn elements to face.

Andrew

[andrew]

Are there really no more immponderables to solved here? Has everything been sorted out by all the Cv(S) type of posters? Must be a sign of progress in the better understanding of DBMM.

I agree questions get lost in the Yahoo group and we have a better environment for managing / monitoring threads here.

It could be there are no more questions but I seriously doubt it.

One thing I have realised is that if someone wants to be bloody-minded with an interpretation, then no amount of reasoning will actually change their mind.  It brings to mind the saying that you can't have a rational argument with someone who is being irrational, or have a logical debate with someone who has fundamental beliefs.  Take for example the Lazarus-like resurrection of the sponno movement / elements vs columns question.  No amount of logic can convince some posters their interpretation is incorrect, so it begs the question : "why bother responding?".  That's about where I have got to with DBMM issues.  Don;t get me wrong - I love the game, I can't stand people trying to weasle an advantage through a bollocks interpretation of, what I believe is, a clear-cut rule.

Cheers and happy wargaming!!
Andrew