Recent Posts

91

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on April 28, 2021, 04:12:40 PM »

This is a known situation that arises sometimes and which the rules do not handle very well. By the rules as written you cannot contact the flank in this case.

What you can do is contact the front, but it can get messy and is not always possible.

Another option is to move B forward so it TZs W and half a base to the right so it will be correctly lined up if it moves straight ahead on its next move. On its next move it can then use item (c) from:

Move straight forward either (a) a full tactical move without contacting enemy, or (b) into contact with
an enemy front edge or front corner only, or (c) moving directly towards the enemy exerting the TZ.

(in the Threat Zone section) to contact the flank (if W hasn't moved by then).

This isn't very satisfactory, so you could consider adopting a "house rule" or "playing convention" that allows the flank contact.

92

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat

« Last post by Marcel Bos on April 28, 2021, 01:56:13 PM »

Thanks again Lawrence.

I probably understand the rules now, but unfortunately it doesn't always make sense to me.
Just an example:

LH A/B/C move in CC with Ps V/W/X (picture A)
Only Ps W wins (not doubles) his combat, LH B is Repulsed (picture B)
Next Ps W assists Ps V with a flankcontact on LH A (picture C), but Ps V loses (not doubled) (picture D)

LH B can't go anymore in CC with Ps W again, because of the TZ of Ps X.
This, for example, looks strange to me, by pivotting Ps W it will be 'save' for any flank attack.
By the way, if Ps V had won the combat LH B could go certainly in CC with Ps W.

These where just some thougts.
I will just follow the rules correctly from now on.

93

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Close Combat

« Last post by LawrenceG1 on April 27, 2021, 07:01:07 PM »

Yes.

94

Rules Questions / Moving into Close Combat

« Last post by Marcel Bos on April 27, 2021, 12:40:56 PM »

See attachment.

Ax A moves into Close Combat with Wb V.
Ax A tries to line-up with Wb V, but is obstructed by enemy Wb W.
Therefore Wb V has to line-up with Ax A,but is obstructed by Ax B (partially in front of Ax A)
So, Wb W has to be moved out of the way, so Ax A can definitively line up with Wb V.
Is this the right way to play?

95

Rules Questions / Re: Moving into Flank edge contact

« Last post by Marcel Bos on April 24, 2021, 08:23:36 PM »

It is a lot clearer now, thanks!

96

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).

97

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).

98

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.

99

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?

100

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.