| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Older Issues (Not Yet Checked wrt DBMM V2)

Page history last edited by Rob Brennan 13 years, 4 months ago

Go back to Current DBMM Rules Issues




 

Art and Brill Generals

Description:


Shooting- Can Phil please confirm that if in my bound I shoot at an artillery
element that is unable to shoot at me, but it can shoot at another of my
elements, its CF is 2 and not 4, and if I score more, then the artillery element
is suppressed and unable to fire until after its next bound?

Pip dice- I have a Brilliant C-in-C and decide that both Sub-General's commands
pip dice are going to be averaged. When rolling for pips I decide, using a
'Brilliant Stroke', to double the pip score of one of the Sub-Gen's dice, is
this new score then added to the other Sub-gen's dice score and then this new
total averaged? i.e. I roll a 5 for the C-in-C, 4 and 3 for the Sub-Gen's. I
decide to double the 4 score using a 'Brilliant Stroke' and this raises it to 8.
I then add the 3 from the other dice and then average it to 5 each, is this
correct?

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/122954

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

 

CmX clarifications

Number: 57

Description:1a. CmX clarifications

   Posted by: "larahitsthedonkey"larahitsthedonkey

   Date: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:48 am ((PDT))

Hello,

Does anybody know the correct answer to these CmX queries ?

1) Cm(X) move as if Bg(I).  Does this mean they pay an extra pip for being unresponsive troop type as if they were train, or does this only apply to real train, and the move refer to distance and terrain effects ?

2) They fight as El(I) v mounted and Bg(I) verses other troops.  Does this mean they have a ZOD when killed by mounted, but not when killed by foot ?, and does it mean they do not turn to face if contaced on theb flank or rear by foot, but would turn to face if contacted by mounted etc ?

Is there any official clarification about where the limits for these effect start and end ?

Cheers

Geoff

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s):  

ZoD for Ps at 90 degrees to killed element

 

Number: 56

Description:

Posted by: "Lawrence Greaves" 

   Date: Fri Aug 7, 2009 4:23 pm ((PDT))

I destroyed my opponent's element in close combat.

Behind that element, within a base depth, was an element of psiloi, facing 90 degrees left.

According to the rules, psiloi in this position are also destroyed if the element immediately in front is destroyed.

In this case the destroyed elment was not in front of the psiloi, so the psiloi were not destroyed.

Is that how it is supposed to work?

 


 

Mounted infantry deployment

Number: 54

Description: On page 10 mounted infantry are said to be allowed to deploy "as mounted" if htey lack seperate horse holder bases, and "..they deploy..as Camels"... (or) "as Cavalry (I).."- but there is no special deployment provision for mounted troops except that this would restrict mounted light infatry (Ps, Ax) to delpoy only in the centre sector.

 

This appears to be a left over from a previous version of the rules?

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): Exchanging mounted and foot elements, page 10, penultimate para

 


Move distance for elements of different depths turning 180?

Number: 53

Description:

> I did a drawing to be better understood. It is in the files section of

> this

> list with the name "turn". Here is the address :

> http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/APoGSu2bBiXn_DXnExrLvjmpCg2UpzLE-1tmmbZF9CRlZusJTXtGob-XLIAHJh7PKrJqOcvoZUc0p80K4PXfoGVLYQTZgg/turn.pdf

> The problem is the following : when a group not of the same depth turns

> 180°

> what is the final position ? The rule says "the elements becoming its

> front

> edge must end in mutual side edge and front corner contact". I understand

> that some elements must move less than others to have a linear front line.

> It's the case A of the drawing. However I have been told that I was wrong

> and that the group keeps its "shape" (case B of the drawing). Which one is

> correct ?

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number:Sunday, May 10, 2009 6:13 PM

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

 Contact on flank of deep based elements

Number: 52

Description: eg on the flank of an Elephant on a deep base - 80mm in 25mm.

 

If you cannot contact with mutual front corner contact as per pg 33,

then it seems you cannot contact it in the flank at all - even if there

is enough room for all your front to contact it's flank (eg in the El

case perhaps 10mm is covered by another element leaving 70mm of flank

edge "available" s your frontage is 60mm - your entire front edge could

end in contact with the flank).

 

There should be another case that allows contact with an edge where your entire front edge is in

 

contact with the enemy flank.

 

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: 92665

Rules page reference(s): Pg 33


Explicitly state shooting priority 

Number: 50

Description: Target priority is only explicitly stated for bows and shot (Pg 34, Target Choice) - it is assumed that otehr types of shooters (WWg, Art, Naval) can shoot at any target within the various other restrictions, at het owners chioce.

 

This should be explictly defined.

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 


When more than 3 shooters shoot, can you choose to use -2 to opponent rather than +1 to shooter and -1 to opponent?

Number: 48

Description:

Situation in a game recently: A line of double ranked bows(O) shot at a group of approcahing Cv & Kn and managed to recoil most out of range. Howeever a single element of Kn(O)was left in position facing the middle of the Bow line.

I accept that only 3 elemsnts can shoot at the exposed element on the next bopund, but my question is/are:- Do I have to support with the rear rank element, or can I chooses to support with the 2 "overlap" elements?

Quite crucial, and I cannot see that this is clear.

I already know that elements that can shoot must do so, but which elements get precedence. ( I would obviously rather shoot the two overlapping elements as the -2 from their shooting assistance is more beneficial than a +1 and -1)

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: godsalljohn" godsalljohn

   Date: Sun Apr 5, 2009 4:24 am ((PDT))

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Can a Brilliant sub-general add 1 to his flank-march arrival die?

Number: 47

Description:

No wrath, you are right, but is this using a stratagem or a brilliant stroke, probably a brilliant stroke ( and one not also mentioned on page 15 )

So what is mentioned on page 15. ' A brilliant stroke can be used to specify a stratagem otherwise not available, to increase PIPS, to change orders, or to gain advantage when moving into close combat', 4 things that you can do with brilliant strokes. Under which would one place one less to arrive to arrive, the only one I can see is as a Stratagem otherwise not available, yet it is not a stratagem.

Confused? Yes but only slightly, it may have been better ( as I said ) to confine Stratagems 'only' to CINC's, also specify what brilliant strokes CINC's can do as opposed to brilliant sub's or ally's ( IE definitly no stratagems ) and also state on page 31 that the minus 1 to arrive is a possible brilliant stroke rather than anything to do with a stratagem.

It is probably just down to wording but why can a brilliant sub or ally ( indeed any but inert generals ) not take, Exaggerated Army Size, Hidden Obstacles, Portable Obstacles, Betrayal, Disguised Troops, Unusual troops or ambush. They are stratagems that seem not to mention CINC's.

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number:  "coughlan.william"  coughlan.william

   Date: Sat Apr 4, 2009 2:51 pm ((PDT))

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Can revealed shooters shoot?

Number: 46

Description:Can revealed shooters shoot?

Notes: Re: Revealed Shooters

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com] On

> Behalf Of David Thompson

>

> --- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Dennis" <a.dennis@...> wrote:

> > I had a group of foot, front rank blades, second rank bows able to

> provide close combat rear support. I found myself advancing against a

> group of enemy bows. During the approach the inevitable 6-1 came up

and

> a front rank blade was destroyed by shooting. This now created the

> opportunity for my second rank bow to shoot at the enemy bow that had

> just destroyed my front rank blade! (They were well within range). So

> the question is, can such a revealed second rank shoot, and if so at

> what factors?

> >

> > Various issues, the enemy have already shot, can they shoot again in

> an exchange? If not, do I shoot with combat factor 3, "shooting

without

> being shot at", against a CF 2 "other circumstances"? Does the enemy

> roll again, or keep their first dice roll?

>

>

> Page 34 para 2 seems to make it quite clear. You must now shoot at the

> bow element and it can not shoot back!

>

> Now. The question is. Is this what Phil intended?

There is already the possibility of shooting at a target and then having

a 3rd party shoot at you without reply, and that clearly is intended.

I see this as no different.

dbmmlist message number: Posted by: "Michael Campbell"mikekiwi2001

   Date: Wed Apr 1, 2009 2:56 pm ((PDT))

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

When is a concealed command revealed during a night attack?

Number: 45

Description:

Night moves rules querys

   Posted by: "dragonfan_79" dragonfan_79

   Date: Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:08 pm ((PDT))

Hi seeking advice around something that came up last night in a game.

Initial deployment occured an hour before dawn with me encamped, unable to throw pips or move.No moon so visibility reduced to 80p. I had used a concealed command strategem and had one command hidden behind a hill.

The question was when should that hidden command be revealed? The rules state at the end of my second bound.My question is do I have a bound when I can't throw PIP dice or move? It seems odd that with visibility reduced to 80pc and me unable to make any moves I have to deploy a hidden command? We took it to be that I didn't actually have a bound until I could throw PIP dice and then deployed it after the second of those.Not sure which is correct.Another quirk I saw was that if dusk falls during a game then flank marching is halted but if the battle starts at night flank marching continues.Not sure why?

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Max recommended depth for TF/PF

Number: 44

Description:It would be useful to specify a depth to prevent abuse/inform players of norms

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: Phil comments http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/88131

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Does the loss of Exp trigger the 1 or 2 ME loss for an adjacent command breaking?

Number: 43

Description: The text just (apparently) says "has lost elements" rather than "has lost ME" hence the loss of 0ME elements still counts. This could be considered unintuitive and hence a statement would be good.

 

How could it be any clearer?   A command takes the penalty if it has "lost at least one element" - Exp are elements - so if you lose an Exp the command takes the penalty.

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/88277

Rules page reference(s): Pg 43, Broken commands, 3rd para


 

 


No warning for arrival of delayed command

Number: 41

Description: Delayed commands arrive on their rear edge IMMEDIATELY teh required dice roll is achieved, and any enemy nearby do not flee so are likely to be caught in a compromising situation.

 

should ther be some warning or flee to enable such troops to have some chance of responding?  Is hter any reason why a delayed command should not be seen arriving "some way off" like flank arches are?

 

Note this is not an interpretation issue - the ruels are perfectly clear.

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Can you slide onto a flank through a TZ using the 80p to line up?

Number: 39

Description: there is an interaction here between the p33 and p32 rules. Just because you are allowed to use the 80p to line up in a TZ does not imply that you can break the TZ rules when doing so (although it seems ever increasing numbers of people are playing this way).

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: raised by rob

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Can Exp turn more than 90 degrees with the extra 80p to line up?

Number: 37

Description: Can an Exp use the 80p extra move to line up to turn more than 90 degrees?

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: raised by rob

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

When does the -1 for unable to recoil apply?

Number: 36

Description:

Looks like:

Everything takes a -1 if stuff behind blocks a recoil and recoil IS a

possible result.

Foot and mounted, but not train, take a -1 if stuff behind blocks a

recoil and recoil IS NOT a possible result.

Horde in a second rank CAN be pushed back by any land element (read

the section on recoiling, 3rd para). Therefore horde lined up behind

anything except naval(including other horde) will NOT give a -1.

Horde cannot suffer a recoil combat result, but a recoil is not the

same as being pushed back.

Horde whose theoretical recoil would be blocked by something else

clearly would get a -1, but a 2nd rank of horde does not block a

recoil.

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: Lawrence Greaves"

   Date: Tue Feb 3, 2009 9:42 am ((PST))

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)

 


 

How do deployment rectangles interact with changing commands strategem?

Number: 34

Description:This is unclear.

Notes: Tim Child brought this up.

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


Placement of BUA superimposed on a hill

Number: 33

Description:BUA/hill placement is different to DBM, this might confuse some people

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/87290

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 

Bts on Rv in Spate

Number:32

Description:

Doug M:

Also note that the page on naval seems mildly contradictory - ie: Rivers in Spate are difficult going (bottom of the page), while at the top of the page, Bts only treat upstream in spate as difficult going.

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: Date: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:40 am ((PST))

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


Moving into overlap if starting in a TZ

Number: 31

Description:

 

The 3rd bullet under TZ's says you can cross one to:

 

"Line up in close combat with an enemy front edge its front edge has

contacted, or as an overlap."

 

The trouble with this is that there's no qualifier on "or as an overlap"

- it does not, as written, limit you to only moving not overlap with an

element you have contacted the front edge of (as I read it).

 

Ie the bit about overlaps can be read as "line up as an overlap", and

that is how some gamers not on this list have read it.

 

I'm pretty sure that it is supposed to mean as Chris wrote above, and it

should be re-written as:

 

"Line up in close combat with an enemy front edge its front edge has

contacted, or as an overlap on such an element", or

 

"Line up in close combat with or as an overlap on an enemy front edge

its front edge has contacted."

 

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): 32, Threat zones


Issues surrounding treatment of elements in a bent column

Number: 30

Description:

1/ What does it mean for various aspects of the rules that each element is "treated as" lined up behind hte front element?  Eg for TZ's are TZ's taken from the actual position of hte element, or from where the element is "treated as" being?

2/ What does it mean for following bent tracks in D/RGo - if hte following elements are "treated as" directly behind the front element does this mean they are not on the road so have to move at off-road speed?

 

possibly other issues?

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: DBMM forum message thread http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=430.0

ref also http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/87922 and het subequent thread for more discussion of various issues

Rules page reference(s): Page 29, 3rd para starting "Each element of a column...."



TZ Shuffle

Number: 28

Description:

TZ shuffle - http://tinyurl.com/5enhx2

Notes: Updated outcome:

 

 

dbmmlist message number: Comment by Chris Handley

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


Timing of lining up to TZ

Number: 27

Description:

[1] Timing of TZ lining up - http://tinyurl.com/5conuk

 

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: Comment by Chris Handley

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)

 


Repulse with Zero Length Recoil/Moving out of Contact

Number: 20

Description:

1.9. Re: Rule question re a column contacted on a side edge

   Posted by: "Lawrence Greaves"  lawomicron

   Date: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:56 am ((PST))

--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Campbell" <campbellm@...>

wrote:

>

>

>

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com]

On

> > Behalf Of Lawrence Greaves

>

>

> > --- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "arvnranger" <truong@> wrote:

> > > "A repulsed element first recoils". [p41 para2];

> > >

> > > "A recoiling element ends its recoil prematurely if its rear

edge

> > > or rear corner _starts in contact with_ or meets ...

> > > an enemy element." [p40 para 7]

> > >

> > > A legal flank contact must be touching the rear corner?

> > >

> > > Cheers,

> > > Ivan.

> > >

> >

> > I note that this rule would prevent an element in full side-edge

to

> > side-edge contact with an enemy element from recoiling if you

> > interpret it that way (which appears to be the syntactically

correct

> > intepretation).

>

> Is a recoil of 0 paces still a recoil?  It ends prematurely but the

rule

> doesn't stop it from happening at all.....

>

> This would make pursuing a very attractive option as

> > it gives you an extra -1 for no recoil to the next combat, as

well as

> > the overlap. However, I don't think anyone, including Phil, plays

it

> > that way. The corner's rearward movement needs to be physically

> > obstructed for it to count.

> >

> > Even if it does apply, the recoil ending prematurely (even before

it

> > starts) does not stop the repulse from taking place (does it?)

>

> IMO no - as you've realised.

>

Hmmmm. If a recoil of 0 paces is still a recoil, how can there ever

be an element in a position to "prevent any recoil"?

I think it is supposed to work like this:

For a recoil, the rear corner is allowed to slide along an enemy edge

and/or past a corner.

A recoil that ends prematurely at 0 p is a "prevented recoil".

Repulse cannot occur if the initial recoil is prevented (because the

repulsed element must first recoil).

Once a repulsed element has recoiled, it can slide along enemy

elements already in contact, but not contact any new enemy. It cannot

contact a new enemy TZ (although on P 32 it says you ignore TZ when

making an outcome move).

For a normal move straight back in a TZ, the moving element can slide

along enemy elements already in contact, but not contact any new

enemy.

An element with an enemy front edge in contact with all of its side

edge, or side edge plus front corner to front corner, meets the

definition of close combat, therefore it cannot move straight back in

a TZ.

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number: (a significant message in a thread about this issue, eg Phil Barker's response or the first message in a thread)

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


Moving to Contact

Number: 18

Description:

8a. Re: Questions on Contact Pg33 v Fig11, Fig24a

   Posted by: "Thomas Thomas"  medieval_thomas

I've included some specific comments after each of your points. I appreciate the valient attempt to make sense of "MOVING INTO CONTACT', and EXTRA but it simply cannot be done.  You use many references to knowledge and asssumptions outside the rule book (even to understanding tricks left over from DBM).  This has always been an acceptable model in ancients.  At every comp one is often handed a 20 page book of "clarifications" and rules to "illuminate" the written rules.  If I had a buck for every ump who told me "I know the Rule says X but it really means - as everyone knows - Y", I could have long ago retired. 

This model is now failing.  For all its faults FOG does nor require this level of outside knowledge and interps.  Inventing "sequential" rules for reading the rules is hardly a subsitute for sound principles of rule subordination observed by all other technical writers.

I suspect playtesting is largely at fault here.  The playtesters just accept that a confusing rule needs commentary/interps not re-writing.  The goal of playtesting should be to eliminate the need for a commentary not increase its length.  It has been acceptable that players eventually understand how the rule works with little consideration for the complex process of outside references needed to get there.  This will not work in the future. 

The rules as written are in conflict (I've shown this page to several tech writers and they agree).  I understand that the accepted interp is the wierd Fig 14 (rather than 11) which produces a dumb result.  Most logical and knowledgeable gamers will presume EXTRA should control here though they would be (appparently) wrong.

Playtesters need to step up their game if we are to be of any help to Phil.  Insisting all is hunky dory will not work in this market.

TomT

______________________________

__

From: "

To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 4:46:04 PM

Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Questions on Contact Pg33 v Fig11, Fig24a

>Your the only person to even attempt to address these problems, so I

>do appreciate the effort. I suspect for many they are equally

>baffleing as to why three similar situations - groups moving into

>contact are handled in three completely different ways and mostly by

>ignoring the EXTRA rule.

>

>Concerning Figure 11, if we assume that Group B-C is shoved over so

>that front corner strikes front edge rather than front corner by a

>millimeter (and heaven help the players and umps who have to make

>these half millimeter calls on "corner" or "edge"),

>this will have Blade B in Spear Ys TZ causing more problems.

No, being in the TZ is irrelevent, because the rules on Pg33 are

predicated on the geometry of INITIAL CONTACT.

TZ only constrains the manner of movement towards the enemy; once

Initial Contact is made other rules come into effect.

Tom Says:

 If Group B-C slides over to make Front Edge contact it will get into Spear A's TZ.  Now your saying that Spear A's TZ is irrelevant.  That Blade B can simply move through it to contact Spear X using EXTRA?

This seems to violate several of the TZ rules on page 32.

1) The Mover is only allowed to make initial contact with its own

front edge or front corner.

Note that front corner is implied by Fig16 and was verified as

correct by the author when I asked.

2) The Element(s) Contacted can be Initially Contacted on any one of

the four surfaces listed on the top of Pg33.

3) "Final Contact" geometry must be as specified in the details for

each of the 4 surfaces.

4) EMTLU is often used to achieve the required Final Contact. Use of

EMTLU is sometimes "constrained" by the details on the top of pg33

for the particular surface contacted.

 

Tom Says:

The problem is when is EMTLU used to acheive final contact.  The rule on its plan face applies anytime groups contact, your saying sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.  Nothing in EXTRA says its constrained by MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT  which refers to elements not groups.

EMTLU also applies if your merely in a TZ so its application has nothing strictly to do with contact. 

By all rules of logic and legal drafting it should apply with the same force as MOVING INTO CONTACT.  Your saying sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.  While you have by outside means determined which rule predominates - most readers will not have this option.

 

>In any case whether its corner or edge contact makes no difference

>to the EXTRA rule - in no way does it distingush between these two

>cases. It reads: "A contacting ... group that is not lined up...."

NO -- it says "ELEMENT OR GROUP." See explanation for Fig24a for why

this makes sense.

Tom Says:

"OR" means if either side of the statement is True the rule applies.  Saying "ELEMENT OR GROUP" is irrelevant as long as "Group" is True the statement which follows applies.  Nothing in the explaination of Fig 24a overturns this standard principle of logic.  In Fig 24a Blade Group Y-W ignores EXTRA and stops but in Fig 11, the Group does not ignore EXTRA and proceeds forward (by your explaination even if Blade B sticks out into the TZ of Blade Y).

Thats why I asked whether the prescence of Group A-C "turned off" EXTRA for some reason not noted in the rule.

>This covers both edge and corner contact. So it makes no difference

>how Fig 11 is drawn EXTRA should apply.

Fig11 is primarily meant to illustrate how DBMM prevents a geometry

trick used in DBM.

TYPO: The Initial Contact must be intended to be upon the Front Edge

(not corner as illustrated) .

Therefore the Final Contact geometry is "both front corners of the

initiating element must end touching the enemy front corners..."

EMTLU is used by the Mover in order to achieve Final Contact as

specified in the details for "FRONT EDGE Initial Contact" on the top

of pg33 -- and the blocking enemy elements must shift out of the way

to allow it to fit.

Tom Says:  this just restates the problem, EMTLU is used to achieve final contact sometimes and sometimes not.  Sometimes elements are kidnapped and sometimes they use EMTLU to line up (like Fig 11).  Its eccentric and depends on referenceing rules outside the rule itself - a huge NO/NO for both techinal and legal writing.

>This gets us to Fig 14, by its terms EXTRA should apply here

It does. The rule for CORNER on the top of pg33 must be appled

_first_: the Contacted Element must choose between using EMTLU to

shift, or not. The Contacting Element simply does not have the

option to use EMTLU in this case.

Tom Says:  I understand this is your take on the rules.  No where in the rules does it say this or suggest when EMTLU is negated.  All angled group contacts begin with a single element (otherwise you won't need ETMLU to pivot).  Your saying that a subsection of a different rule negates ETMLU to produce an absurd result (that of Fig 14).  This violates many standards of technical/legal drafting.

ETMLU either stands alone (as presented) or must stand in lower priority on a list of priorities in 'MOVING INTO CONTACT'.

Your contruction comes from use and practice and outside information.  It is not implied by the rules as written (though it may be correct, that hardly helps a reader w/o access to Phil).

> (and produce a reasonable result - ie Warband Group A-B line up on

>Blade group X-Z by free pivot/shift) . But the contradictory

>'corner' rule in a different rule section

>(and EXTRA is not subordinated to the MOVING IN CONTACT section

The rules must be applied sequentially.

Tom Says:  sequencial priority is not a sound principle of technical drafting.  For all sorts of reasons you may want a latter prinicple to control a previously stated rule.  An arbritray rule about order of presentation controlling other rules (with no reference to the other rule) will create a rule lawyer paradise where other rules that "sequentially proceed" another rule somehow negate or control it.

ETMLU provides an example.  Since sequencially it occurs last should last control? and negate that above.  Or do earlier unreferenced rules negate the plan meaning of a latter rule? 

It also means you have to read an entire rule book to look up one rule.  Some other rule not in the rule your reading but taking "sequential priorty" might then negate the rule your reading.  Not good rule drafting.

> - Phil seems to use small case to indicate subordination to a large

>case rule) somehow nullifies it to get the very odd result of Blade

>X being kidnapped by the Warband.

>Nothing in the rules themselves or their structure indicates which

>rule should control.

The rules must be applied sequentially.

> Logic suggests EXTRA but the Fig says Corner.

The rules must be applied sequentially.

>Bringing us to Fig 24a, actually Blade Group W-Y does not conform to

>the wording of EXTRA (you call it EMTLU), the Group does not

>pivot/shift for free to line up with the Group D-E, but instead one

>element is yanked out of line by the magnetic Spear.

Element Y is the ONLY element that has made Initial Contact.

The way the rules work is that as soon as ANY element of a group

makes Initial Contact, the group stops moving and you proceed

sequentially down Pg33 to achieve Final Contact.

Tom Says:  thats an interesting rule but not stated in the rules.  For instance in Fig 11 Blade Group B-C doesn't stop moving even though only element C has contacted - element C does not break contact and conform to Spear W as it should under "Front edge".  It ignores "MOVING INTO CONTACT' goes straight to EXTRA keeps moving and conforms as a group.

> This violates the wording of EXTRA which says "group that is not

>lined up moves up to...".

NO -- the GROUP is NOT in Initial Contact.

Tom Says:  yes the Group is in intial contact.  Any element of a group is part of a group and initiates contact.  Just as in Fig 11 only element C is in initial contact but the Group conforms.  All angled group contacts will be by one element initially - that's the purpose of EXTRA - to make the rest of the group conform.

> If Group W-Y conformed to EXTRA, it would then wheel into Group A-C,

Wheeling into Front Edge Initial Contact is geometrically impossible

-- enemy D is in the way.

Tom Says:  nothing in EXTRA says anything about it being negated by other enemy Groups.  The movement is clearly stated to be "extra to normal movement".  Pursuits and Pressing forward cause you to crash into other enemies.  Why not EXTRA?  Your inserting extra rules into EXTRA that may be correct interpretations but are certainly not in the rules themselves.

Fig24c illustrates how DBMM resolves the geometric trick that made

contact impossible under DBM.

Your other options: The mover could move group W-X by themselves and

then Y separately and make contact with all 3 elements. But the

defender would get an overlap; which is a reasonable benefit

considering that angling D is a realistic tactic.

> nothing in EXTRA covers this situation - though most logically the

>elements would break off the Group W-Y as they made contact in a

>general rush to contact.

If they were Impetuous that is what would occur; all 3 elements would

be moving independantly. But non-impetuous troops require PIPs to

break up their group; that's just the way the rules are written.

Tom Says:  EXTRA specifically says it "expends no extra PIPS" so this would not prevent Blade Group Y-W from advancing and breaking up.

>If as you suggest Fig 11 and Fig 24a are the same situation then its

>odd we get dramatically different resolutions. (Fig 11 the Group

>obeys EXTRA and wheels into contact, Fig 24a the Group stops and an

>element gets kidnapped.)

>

>Thanks for response but I think the problem remains. On a side note

>trouble often arises when rules handle similar situations (groups

>moving into contact) in wildly different ways based on trival

>differences.

>

>Anyone cut this Gordian Knot? Do people in general feel Figs are

>wrong? Since I'm trying to teach game would like to get it right.

>

>TomT

Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)

dbmmlist message number:    Date: Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:47 pm ((PST))

Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)


 


 


 

 

8a. Re: Baggage Query
   Posted by: "Les" laparsons@blueyonder.co.uk lap1964
   Date: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:18 am ((PDT))

How about 20 ME,as i take it it only gets to be 2 ME,if its Reg Bge in a Army Baggage Command.But they only add 1 ME each when used as Command Baggage.
LES


> >> --- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Adrian" <adriancoombshoar@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > A few people had a query that was not successfully resolved at Britcon.
> >> >
> >> > If you have a command that is 22ME, 4 of which were contributed by two
> >> > elements in an Army Baggage command, how many ME have you actually lost
> >> > when totting up the total at the end of the game for working out VP's,
> >> > considering that this could impact on whether you lose 10% or 20% if it
> >> > were only the actual ME that were lost were counted, i.e. the 18 actual
> >> > ME that count as lost or the full 22ME with the baggage contribution?
> >> >
> >> > What is the answer chaps?
> >> >
> >>
> >
> > I think it is 22 not 18.
> >
> > On page 42 under LOST AND/OR REMOVED ELEMENTS it states 'The full ME of a
> > broken command count as lost'
> >
> > David 'Inert' Thompson
> >

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.