Death zone for Train

[LawrenceG]

it does make a difference if you attack the enemy in the rear.

In this case...
"Behind" the dead element is where your attacked element is. (you attack from behind).
"Beyond" the dead element is on the other side of it, heading away from the attacking element.

I see, but, as Orcotheuthis has pointed out, you cannot kill an element beyond the attacked one on its rear. Finally, nothing seems to be changed from version 1.0. A Kn cannot kill two Bw by attacking on its rear. Why this distinction then?

Thank you in advance.

Changing the wording to "beyond" means if you hit an element in the rear and kill it, then the element in front of it will also be killed. i.e. you can kill an element beyond one that is attacked in its rear and this wording was adopted specifically to enable that to happen. Why do people think the oppoite is true?

[landmeister]

And as indicated above, I suspect that the warband only killing one element if attacking from behind is an unintended consequence.

When you say unintended you mean that, in your opinion, Wb should kill two elements too, right?

[landmeister]

Changing the wording to "beyond" means if you hit an element in the rear and kill it, then the element in front of it will also be killed. i.e. you can kill an element beyond one that is attacked in its rear and this wording was adopted specifically to enable that to happen. Why do people think the oppoite is true?

Sorry, Lawrence. Please don't get me wrong. As many in this forum now, I'm not a native English speaker and unfortunately, I have misunderstood many rules in the past (and present) due to DBMM wording. I'm just trying to be as sure as possible that what I read is what must be played.  :'(

[Orcoteuthis]

Changing the wording to "beyond" means if you hit an element in the rear and kill it, then the element in front of it will also be killed. i.e. you can kill an element beyond one that is attacked in its rear and this wording was adopted specifically to enable that to happen. Why do people think the oppoite is true?

There are a number of different cases here.

If I hit an elephant in the rear and destroy it, any friendly (to it) element in front of it is destroyed too. So far, so good  - that's what supposed to happen.

If I hit foot in the rear and destroy it with Wb, any friends to their front are not destroyed, because the bullet about being destroyed behind foot destroyed by warband specifies that the frontal opponent of the destroyed element is warband, and an element attacked in the rear doesn't have a frontal opponent. Similarly for Bw rear-ended by Kn. This is presumably not what's supposed to happen, so it seems Phil and the STAVKA made a boo boo here.