This page contains an archive of old issues that have been considered by the Commentary team and either "Included" or marked as "Not For Inclusion" by the Committee.
Included in Commentary 6.0.6 14 Jan 2012
Who can Bg(S)/Killing generals/CinCs aid?
Description:It is not clear if Bg(S)/CnCs can aid elements outside their own command.
Notes: commentary p39
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)
How to treat rear elements of spent DBE
Description: seems to be a hole in the rules when one of the elements is spent
Notes: commentary p12
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/139188
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Do ambushers count for all mounted army deployment bonus
Description: a variety of opinions have been expressed
Notes: (Yes, commentary p20)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/138940
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
WWg, Exp etc in columns
Description:There seems to be a fossil in the Commentary from DBMMv1
Notes: (fossil removed from commentary p33)
dbmmlist message number:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/138788
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Flee direction when facing away from shooters
Description: eg Resolving a 2nd flee
Notes: Commentary p42
dbmmlist message number:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/137325
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Hitting the flank of a 2nd rank of troops that can support
Description: some interps say that this kills 2 ranks of LH which is better than hitting the flank of the front element
Notes: Commentary p38 treat same elements destroyed as if lined up on front rank.
dbmmlist message number:
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Fly-bys by Impetuous troops
Description: some people like sponno moves to ignore enemy close-by, others don't
Notes: Commentary p30 Fly-bys accepted
dbmmlist message number:
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Delayed Command Arrival Near Enemy
Description:The Delayed Command arrives "by single march moves". The enemy has troops within 400p of the point of arrival. Can the troops enter the table. At the moment the Commentary only covers the situation where an *ally* is Delayed (until having rolled its first on-table dice it is potentially unreliable and therefore cannot move closer to any enemy within 800p). By analogy, maybe delayed commands cannot enter the table within 400p of march-blocking enemy.
Notes: Commentary p32 split between two items.
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 an off-table CinC (i.e. delayed) use his PIPs to prompt an unreliable AG (or, I suppose, to trigger FF or change PIP allocation?)
Description: na
Notes: No , commentary p27
dbmmlist message number:
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Clarify that within 45 degrees of a weather effect includes at 45 degrees
Description: Need to check if rules are clear on this (like DBM)
Notes:Yes, Commentary p23
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)
Does the first move on-table of a flanking command cost +1 PIP?
Description: It seems to by the letter of the rules
Notes: Yes, Commentary p25
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)
how the order is determined as to who turns to flank first?
Description: ne ive now seen occur twice in the last couple of months is how the order is determined as to who turns to flank first
Think this is a DBMM v2 ripple
ive seen two instances of both the bounding player and the opponent figures being hit on flank and depending on who turns first (they both technically turn at the end of movement) depend which combats occur
Hadnt seen this before - i think its a ripple from the moving/conforming onto a flank following a kill on the previous bound
Suggested playing convention would be the order selected by the player whose bound it is
Notes: Commentary P36.
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): p26.
Flank marching with impressed shipping and Shp(I)
Description: Can you mix impressed shipping and proper naval in a flank march?
Notes: Commentary p21
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/137510
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Overlapping partially fortified troops
Description:When a group contacts another group that is partially behind TF, how are things resolved?
Notes: Commentary p38
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/137693
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Can you form column onto a road for free as a march?
Description:(a couple of lines outlining the issue)
Notes: No, Commentary p25
dbmmlist message number: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/139422
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Night attack: movement without Pip dice
Description:P23 Night attack
"throws no PIP dice until sunrise".
Does this mean that troops in a group with a general, troops on a road and pikes (that all can move without PIP dice) can move at night even though they are "encamped".
The rules seem to say so, though I have not seen it played like that.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc) No, Commentary p22.
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)
Delayed commands coming on in "single march moves"
Description:can they march more than once on the turn they arrive?
Notes: Some material in C v5.0.6 but new issues have arisen and so this thread may still be interesting.
New issues dealt with in C v6.0.6 on p32. LG not aware of any unresolved issues on this.
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/129737
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
When rear rankers are flanked...do they turn if they can support vs any opponents or just vs current opponents?
Description: I popped a Ps into a Pk block and a Sp into the flank of the 2nd rank of the block. Tuning to face says that if the rear ranks can provide support "in any bound" that they do not turn and it counts as a flank on the front rank. It would be useful to specify that/if this "any bound" only refers to the current opponents so eg vs Ps do you turn and vs Sp you do not turn? (I think this is probably what is intended)
Notes: Included in C v5.0.6 but new issues have arisen. C v6.0.6 has an additional comment on how the flank contact affects combat outcomes on p37.
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)
Diagrams for Sponno moves Issues
Description:(Re: spontaneous movement question
Posted by: "lawomicron" llawomicron
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:15 pm ((PDT))
Notes: C 5.0.6 has some but needs more.
All points raised re the diagrams (fig 5a) in the DBMMlist message below were added on p46 of C v6.0.6.
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/127551
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Sponno Lh(S) column question
Description:Can a sponno element get out of a column when the head of it is in combat?
Notes: 5.0.6 could be extended in this area. Included in 6.0.6 page 30.
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/127089
Lawrence's definitive example: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126915
Phil says NO: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126985
(despite the rules?)
and again
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126900
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Rear edge flank march arrival
Description:(a couple of lines outlining the issue)
Notes: Not in 5.0.6. The issue was whose rear edge do they arrive on. The enemy's, Commentary 6.0.6 page 32
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/127074
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
How many elements of Bge for a command size 9?
Description:ie can u count the 1st bg element towards the min of 10 elements to be allowed bge?
Notes: In 5.0.6 but should add x-ref to p14 Generals and their Commands
dbmmlist message number: Da Phil sez: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126755
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Death Zone Oddity When hit in the Rear
Description:"In 2.0, the rules for death zones were changed to say "beyond" the
> > destroyed element instead of "behind", meaning that if, eg., an El is
> > hit from behind any friends in front of it are liable to be destroyed
> > by panicked pachyderms.
> >
> > However, it seems that in some of the commonest cases of death zones,
> > friends beyond a rear-ended element are still safe: both the bullet
> > about Wb killing foot two deep and that about Kn or CmS killing Bw/Sh
> > two deep specify that the destroyed element's *frontal* opponent is
> > Wb/Kn/CmS. A rear-ended element does not have a frontal opponent, so,
> > frex, warband hitting blade from behind can only kill one element,
> > despite the same Wb being able to kill two elements if attacking
> > frontally.
> >
> > Is this intended? If so, why?
Notes: Not in 5.0.6. added in 6.0.6 p40, zone of death still applies.
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126232
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Included in Commentary 5.0.6 13 Feb 2011
Night Attacker
Description:Found one contradiction whilst reading through:
In the deployment section on pg 22 it says that the time of day could "allow the
side moving first to attack at night". However in the time of day section on pg
23 it states "the side deploying second can decide at stage (2) deployment
whether to start the battle immediately ..."
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/123057
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Do Baggage Commands get a PIP die?
Description: 'GENERALS AND THEIR COMMANDS
An army is divided into 1-4 Commands, each including at least 4 or more mounted
or foot elements totalling at least 4 ME, and also a General's element which
must be recognisable by his figure or standard, plus any other troops or command
baggage. Army baggage must be in an extra command without a general.'
'PLANNING PIP ALLOCATION
One dice will be thrown each bound per command, the score of which is its Player
Initiative Points (PIPs).'
I think the above makes it quite clear that each command, even the army baggage
command without a general, has to have a pip dice.
Notes: Rob: They do not get a PIP dice and this is an inconsistency in the text.
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/123144
Rules page reference(s): p26 is quite clear they do not get a pip die.
Disheartened or Shaken Unreliable Allies
Description: V2 says all elements of unreliable allies become disheartened in some circumstances but elements are no longer disheartened, they are instead shaken so the rule is unclear.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/123722
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Shooting at Encamped Elements
Description:
> I think what is missing is something to say that once troops have moved,
> they are no longer counted as encamped. I suppose that that may have been
> so obvious as not to merit a specific mention!?
>
Or even that once they have rolled a Pip dice they are no longer encamped
since they are getting into the ranks and getting ready for battle.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Re: First V2 game. Did we get it right?
Posted by: "Peter Kershaw"
Date: Sun Aug 1, 2010 2:53 pm ((PDT))
Rules page reference(s): p23
Do Single Elements Force Marches to be Straight ahead Only?
Description: this text is dense, the answer is NO but some people might be confused.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/125508
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Can lining up in a TZ be used to avoid PIP costs in unusual/perhaps unintended ways?
Description:
Can you turn a clumsy Irreg onto a flank for 1PIP ? No. But the text has been misintepreted to mean this (see dbmmlist thread below).
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/125758
: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/129478
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
How to apply the reduced PIP cost for reaching an element that you didn't start in contact with?
Description: There are 2 schools of thought on this - the reduced PIP cost for moving short if ending in contact with friends only applies if you were not in contact with them at the start of the bound OR if you were not in contact with them at the start of the current move (eg in a series of march moves)
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/125747
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Can Bd in DGo follow up after combat?
Description: There is an exception to follow-ups if an element "reaches" DGo, do this mean an element already in DGo cannot follow up through the DGo? Rob's view is that to be consistent with the movement rules "reaches" needs to mean reaching a new piece of terrain, hence if you are currently in the DGo then you can follow-up.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/125906
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Deployment in a BUA & command Radius
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Description:P.22 - Initial Deployment reads as follows (I have broken it into numbered sentences for ease of this post):
"1. Except for those in a fortified BUA, all elements, fortifications and obstacles of each [on table] command must deploy inside a rectangle parallel with the battlefield edges that does not intersect any other command's rectangle.
2. Except for army baggage commands, command baggage and ambushers, they must also be within 800p of their own general if land elements...
3. All elements except ... troops in fortifications or in ambush must deploy as groups.
4. All elements included in an army baggage command must deploy in 1 group unless all within TF or PF."
From the above, it seems pretty clear that troops within a fortified BUA can be deployed jumbled up with each other (1, 3 and 4 above) so I could, in theory, use Bge(O) to defend parts of the walls and troops from a non-baggage command to defend other parts (wondering about manning towers with Bge(O) here, since any troops in a tower get +5 but die on being beaten, so being q.k. for being Bge really makes not a lot of difference!)
What I am not entirely clear about is whether "they must also" from sentence 2 means that the sentence is a further restriction on only those types of troops to which sentence 1 applies - i.e. whether or not troops within a fortified BUA must be deployed within 800p of their general? I think that is correct, but am not 100% sure.
If garrison-troops must be within 800p of their general, that prevents placing a BUA on the opponent's side of the table unless the garrison is itself a command small enough to fit entirely within the BUA (which would not be that unreasonable - the game is then simulating the relief of a siege). If not, it mirrors the position as it was in DBM (yes, I know, Rule 1: "DBMM is not DBM" :o) ).
Tim Child
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126053
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Resolving Cornforming for front to front enemy elements contacted in the flank
Description:Would be an idea to give an explanatory diagram of how this works since it is an unusual case.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126116
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Sea and Frozen Sea
Description:I am permitted to choose a Sea as the invader where it is
an allowable type in both my list and the defender. What if the type in my
list is FS (Frozen Sea)?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126704
then from Da Phil: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126761
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Overlap contact on side edge of DBEs
Description:Is it an overlap when you side to side contact the rear element of a DBE?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126867
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Flank Attack Stratagem Issues
Description:CAn you do 2 flank attacks? does it take a BS when you roll a 6 to arrive?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/127249
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Does it cost 2 PIPs to redress your lines with Regs?
Description:If an element is recoiled due to shooting and you move that column up to line up again with friends does it cost 2 PIPs for moving short?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number:
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
How many PIPs to form column?
Description: There is no exception for forming column from the moving short PIP cost, does this mean you pay an extra PIP? (No)
In addition if the column wheels do you pay an extra PIP(s) then?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number:
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Can you march around enemy or friendly PF?
Description:(a couple of lines outlining the issue)
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 do Backwards pivots as part of a sponno advance?
Description:Yes, if you can contact the
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/128604
Phil: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/129054
Summary from Lawrence http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/129332
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Included in Commentary v5.0.6 13 Feb 2011
Do you sometimes ignore flanks to hear rear edges as part of a sponno advance?
Description:Yes, always
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/128604
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
When is a Concealed Command Revealed
Description:this effects PIP allocation
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 ignore the flank deployment distances with the Changing command stratagem?
Description:> I choose changing deployment as a stratagem.
>
> On one battle, I deploy the cavaly and elephants on table, and at stage four i
>can choose to swap over their deployment areas. To all intents and purposes all
>works well, the light horse may well be off on a flank march and are off table.
>
> What actually happens however if the light horse are not off table?
>
> The commands deploy on table, but the light horse are deployed in the flank
>sector. The cavalry and elephants can't be deployed in that sector, but if
under
>
>the changing deployment stratagem, I choose to swap over the light horse and
the
>
>elphants, i naturally get flank sector elephants.
>
> I suspect I won't have been the only obtuse person to have queried this, but I
>can't find the answer. Is it intended that this is exactly what the stratagem
>allows?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/128806
Phil nails it: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/128876
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Can SBE Bw(X) aid SBE Bw(X) from behind?
Description:(a couple of lines outlining the issue)
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: PB response http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/129660
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Fixed in DBMM V2
Rule contradiction - sliding sideways into a gap
Number: 12
Description: WE did find 1 apparent contradiction in the rules in Cannae yesterday -
sliding sideways into a gap of <80p.
Page 32, "Moving through Gaps..." 2nd bullet at the top of the page says
quie specifically that you can slide sideways in a gap <80p if ending in
_front-edge_ to _front-edge_ contact.
Figure 23 on page 60 shows and example in hte middle diagram of an
element sliding sideways in to flank contact (it says "legal").
Early in the game we had an example where a Bd was able contact a
portion of the side of a Cv element, and then slide sideways into a gap
that was _just_ big enough for its depth to lap around a Cv element.
The 2 players each picked one of these to argue....of course!
I "ruled" that it was not legal - there was no basis for me to rule
either way, but it looked silly/cheesy having an element in such a small
gap possibly killing the enemy.
IMO it needs to be sorted.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number:mikekiwi2001 Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:34 pm ((PDT))
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Art(O) on Wagon
Number: 17
Description:
It is simply a Gap in the rule, to be filled by reason (or run crazy in the contradictive circle chip,chip).
The Basing for Artillery is 4x4 cm
the Basing for Waggons is 4x8cm
The rules (and the lists) provide for Artillery on Waggons.
In DBM these where 4x8cm.
The only reasonably conclusion (for me) is, that art to be mounted on waggons
(as the lists demand) fight and overlap with 8 cm depth (as the rules demand) and are thus
based as waggons (as the basing compartment alows for warwaggons) no matter
that Artillery NOT on Waggons has to be based 4x4cm.
I know, rules lawyers like to stick to the letter of every rule for itself, and as They find no entry for "artillery on waggons" do see a Problem.
But every rule has to be measuered against systematic and aim of the rules as a whole and thus I
see this to be the valid conclusion and a Solution.
A word from Phil that the gap should be filled (or dbmm1.1 ;-) like this would be very welcomed so!
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Tilman Walk" walktilman
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:06 am ((PST))
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Figure 23 shows Auxilia "Y" moving into a gap smaller than 80p
Number: 21
Description:
Rule contradictions
Posted by: "Mike Campbell" mikekiwi2001
Date: Tue Jan 6, 2009 12:36 am ((PST))
Just another one (to add to shattered/broken and dud tactical advice...):
Moving thourhg a gap less than 80p wide is only allowed to line up in
_front-edge-to-front-edge_ combat (top of page 322, 2nd bullet)
Figure 23 shows Auxilia "Y" moving into a gap smaller than 80p (and
specificially says it is less than 80p lest there be any doubt) using
the free movement to line up, and contacting the _flank_ of spear "E".
I'm pretty sure both can't be right...??
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)
Is disheartened permanent even if caused by a temp ME loss?
Number: 35
Description: yes, but it is hard to find. Maybe include this?
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)
Contact on flanks of deep formations
Number: 42
Description: Pg 35, "Turning to face" para 3 seems to be a bit meaningless.
In DBM it used to be that contacting the 2nd or 3rd ranks in the flank counted as contact on the front rank, and this rule in DBMM seems to be trying to say the equivalent, but is just confusing and/or meaningless - ie if you contact the 2nd rank on its flank you have not contacted the font rank, therefore the front rank is not "the first of 2 or more elements contacted in flank" and so the rule doesn't apply.
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): Pg 35, "Turning to face" para 3
Contact on flank of 2nd rank
Number: 51
Description: consider an element contacting the flank of an enemy Cv/Kn/Lh that is also contacted to its front. The flanking element also contacts part of the flank of a 2nd rank.
If the front element is killed the flanking element remains in contact with part of the flank of the former 2nd rank element.
The tactical factor -1 for having enemy in contact with flank, and for being killed if getting less do not require the flanking enemy to be in contact with the entire flank, therefore they both still apply.
However this confuses some people who think that the flanking element must have to make some move to contact the entire flank edge....but hen what happens if it cannot do so.......
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: DBMM forum thread http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=510.0
Rules page reference(s): Pg 33, 35 (contacting and contacting flank of 2 or more elements), 37 (tactical factor), 38 (combat result)
Doubling PIPs with Inert CinC & Brilliant Sub General
Number: 55
Description:
Martin Stephenson <vexillia@googlemail.com>
To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 3 August, 2009 11:32:17 AM
Subject: [DBMMlist] Inert CinC & Brilliant Sub General - Possible FAQ?
If this is an FAQ please point me in the right direction.
If I take this combination in a Later Polish army there are two ways of working out the Brilliant General's PIP score when using a brilliant stroke:
Method #1
--
(Raw dice x 2) - 1 PIP from inert CinC
Method #2
--
(Raw dice - 1 PIP from inert CinC) x 2
Reading page 26 seems to favour method #1. Is this right?
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)
Exp of Disheartened Command
Number: 58
Description:
Here is an interesting one that came up in a DBR 100 (120 point game)
An element of stampeding cattle go sponno, race across the table but before they reach their target their command is disheartened.
However V.1 and current tranches say elements of a disheartened command can not be sponno.
Now in most games expendables die early but in this game they didn't.
It would seem to me that expendables that have gone sponno should not be affected by Disheartened but remain impetuous. If so this should be added to the sponno paragraphs. Elements of a disheartened command except expendables already sponno......
I would also suggest that Expendables that have not gone sponno when their command becomes disheartened are removed (as their attendants run away, or immediately become sponno, ie the attendants fire them up and flee.
Now in V.1 it says pips cannot be used to halt a expendable that has gone sponno, this appears to be deleted from current tranches.
Surely once gone sponno no pips should be spent on them (can't find this in recent tranches. Also if they meet the opponents rear table edge they are removed. (as they did in the game in question.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Expendables Spono then disheartened then what
Posted by: "Jeff Herbert" (Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:58 am ((PDT)
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
In Commentary Version 4.1.4
Can Bw contact the rear element of a Cv/Ax DBE?
Number: 8
Description:
Whilst playing against Geoffs 'lucky cheeky chappies' or Early Samauri
as he preferred to call them an interesting sistuation cropped up. My Bw
(X) are approching a double based element of Cv and Ax to the flank.
Can I move into contact with the Ax part of the double based element?
This will result in the elemnt turning round and the cavalry being in
the front. I have now effectively moved into contact with mounted which
I am not allowed to do. Should I be able to do this?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/76448
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Declaration of POs
Number:7
Description:
It was the first time that I used PO's. At deployment I declared the
elements with PO's as I felt it would be obvious that someone had a
great big stake ready to hammer into the ground. Should I have done
this or just waited until I deployed them?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/76448
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
More Feigned Flight
Number: 6
Description:
Thu Aug 21, 2008 3:17 am ((PDT))
There would indeed appear to be two interpretations available. The literal interpretation is that feigned flight elements turn perpendicular to their edge of entry, giving a very good chance that their formation is totally shattered. The looser interpretation allows fleeing formations to maintain their cohesion and gives some degree of choice as to direction of flight , as long as it is towards edge of entry. I could live with either of the above, so long as everyone accepts the same interpretation (cue commentary team!). Unfortunately, the looser interpretation also allows formations to split and elements to go in different directions whilst fullfilling the requirements of the flight towards the edge. And that last seems like remarkable value for a 5 point stratagem.
Neil.g
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)
Pressing forward in both bounds
Number: 5
Description:
Page 33, second paragraph:
"or in either sides bound by pressing forward, pursuing......"
This contradicts page 40:
Pressing forward is only allowed in your own bound.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: dbmmclars list by Neil Fox Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Wheeling out of line
Number: 4
Description:
a new player pointed out that DBMM does not state that the rear area of an element can occupy its adjacent element while it wheels out from side to side contact.
This means it can be claimed that a group lined up adjacent to each other and one of its element wants to wheel out in must move forward straight first then turn after its rear corners have cleared the front corners of its adjacent friends.
Even if it was the end element and wheeled away from an adjacent element it would have to move straight ahead first.
By habit this is not what has been play by the main stream players as DBM was not played that way due to the wording of the design philosophy below which is missing from DBMM.
Can you tell Phil about this and that it needs to be fixed or confirmed that it meant to be missing and we have to change the way we play.
DBM had the following notes in its DESIGN PHILOSOPHY :-
"If it still worries you, remember that base depths are over-scale. For example, the four ranks of close order infantry represented by an element of spearmen may occupy only 4 paces depth in real life, but the element base depth represents 30 paces in 15mm scale. There is room for a little space between enemies. Similarly, multi-element depth formations include space behind the supporting ranks once they have closed up for combat. Moving troops often only occupy the first few mrn of their base, so may not have as far to move when turning as it may seem, and can wheel out of line with adjacent troops without having to clear the front of their neighbours'base first."
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: came up at Britcon
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Can Bg(S) generals be disheartened?
Number: 3
Description:Need to investigate this "
Discussion of Bge (s) reminded me that it's pretty weird that an Ax(i)
general can't be disheartened but a Bge (s) general can be."
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: (Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:46 pm ((PDT))
Rules page reference(s): (specif pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
BgS and army Bg
Number: 2
Description:Close reading of the rules suggests that a command containing Bg(S) cannot also participate in army Bg
Phil then said:(Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:10 am ((PDT)))
I see no reason why a non-allied command cannot have both command and army
Bge. For example, a Parthian army could have a Bge (F) arrow-supply camel in
its command, but still have tents in the army Bge.
Phil
Frontier Walls and Blocking Terrain
Number: 11
Description: If a woods is placed completely crossing the 240-400 pace band where
the FW is supposed to go, is the FW discarded and all points paid for
it lost?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Posted by: "twaddlin" Date: Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:07 am ((PDT))
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Move-Shoot-Melee Sequence
Number: 10
Description:
-- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Burt" <steve.and.mary.burt@...>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:45 AM, arvnranger <truong@...> wrote:
> > [it] I notice that elements contacted on the flank don't turn until
> > before close combat; under 3.1 they turned after movement. Could the
> > element contacted in the flank be shot at (before turning)?
>
> Elements in contact with an enemy front edge are not an eligible
> shooting target, so no.
>
[it] That's how I've always played it - just trying to get the
definitive sense of that from the rules as written.
p34: Shooting is not permitted at or by an element that is in close
combat or the next contiguous element to its rear.
p35: Close combat occurs when an element has moved into, or remains in,
front edge contact with an enemy element (or an intervening
fortification or PO it is defending behind) in any of the ways
described in MOVING INTO CLOSE COMBAT on page 33. This is called being
in front edge combat.
<ascii alert>
.AAAA
.
B1111
B
B
B
A cannot shoot at 1 because 1 is in close combat? Do we:
(i) deduce this because B, meeting the criteria from p35 and thereby
being in front edge combat, must be in close combat against [something
else], in this case 1?
(ii) consider the front corners of 1 to be part of the front edge?
I just wonder whether the delaying of turning to face until after
shooting, rather than immediately after all movement, was included to
permit the scenario above. Nasty.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:38 pm ((PDT))
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Is two fortified BgO sufficient to use the Delaying Battle Strategem?
Number: 16
Description: A fortified camp is a requirement for this strategem, but is it sufficient to take 2xBge(O) surrrounded by TF and then either take no other Bge or take it as I,F or S thus avoiding the need to spend further AP on TF?
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: ???
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Lack of rules for deployment of FO
Number: 15
Description: Yes, I agree Andrew, deploying these obstacles outside your own
deployment area will sometimes be the optimum tactic, it may not work
on occasions, but could severely limit the opposition at other times.
However, one issue which I cant seem to get an answer on is the
distinction between FOs and HOs. For example, the Samnite obstacles
are FOs, there is no mention of hidden obstacles in their list, as
there is in the Burmese list for example. (where both FOs and HOs
appear)
There seems no mention in the rules for the deployment of FOs, only
for Hidden obstacles, which are a class of FO. The two are clearly
related, but how are FOs which are not hidden deployed on table? Do
we assume the same restictions as for hidden obstacles, eg mapped at
teh end of stage 2 of deployment? The rules do not seem explicit.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Sat Nov 8, 2008 6:18 pm ((PST))
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Scoring system bug - mutual demoralisation
Number: 14
Description:During MOAB 08 it was noted that a mutual demoralisation result between a 3 command army and a 4-command army results in the 4-command army getting a larger share of the VP (15-10???). Surely this should be a 13-12?
Notes: This item was included in the commentary but no fix was proposed and the unequal scoring explicit in the rules was supported.
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)
Cost of HO
Number: 13
Description: Many people have not realised that the cost of HO is 4AP per element frontage since you must pay the 2AP for a FO and an additional +2AP to make it a HO.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: 78943 (Phils response confirming 4AP cost)
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Army Bg and Allied Commands with Sub-generals
Number: 19
Description:
Posted by: "Michael Campbell" campbellm@caa.govt.nz mikekiwi2001
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:09 pm ((PST))
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Jer Morgan
>
> I'm sure someone asked this before, but don't recall if it was
> answered.
>
> Are allied commands led by sub-generals (Vikings) eligible to
> contribute to army baggage or not?
I asked and Tim Child was hte only person to reply here.
But see the more extensive discussion at the website -
http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=400.0 - even if they can
contribute they get no benefit from it - see the last post on page 2 of
the discussion.
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)
BwX combat outcomes
Number: 22
Description:
4a. Kn vs Bw(X) combat outcome
Posted by: "andrea.picarelli" andrea.picarelli@idsdental.it andrea.picarelli
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:51 am ((PST))
A doubt I have...
Kn flee if loosing vs. Bw.
Bw(X) fight and HAVE close combat outcomes as Sp.
Does HAVE above refers only to their own outcomes or does it mean
they "give" enemy Sp outcomes as well?
Thanks for help.
ANdrea
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): Page 7, Troop Definition for Bw(X) - "They fight frontally as and have the outcomes in close combat of spears...." - this is not a rule issue IMO - it is a single person not reading the rules properly. The wording "fights as" is long established in DB* and means that it inflicts and suffers outcomes as the troop type specified - unless there is some other exception listed.
Colour of PIP die for Ambusing Reg commands
Number: 26
Description:
Posted by: "David Mather" mather@ntlworld.com belis1960
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:58 am ((PST))
- cant remember if what dice do you roll for an small command eg 8 or
less with general (and is part of a regular command structure) that
is in ambush is in there - it isnt covered in the commentary - I
suspect its the same as concealed command (which is in the
commentary) but....
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)
(X) Troop types
Number: 25 (see also 22 & 23)
Description: Inconsistancy with wording of how various troops graded as (X) apply different factors and what they count as
From: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of evanspll
Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2009 4:45 a.m.
.
.
For the sake of consistency, we can look at all X grades that "morph"
types in Close Combat and are thus open to interpretation (Those
morphing for shooting are relatively self explanatory). We get:
Cm(X) which fight as El(I) vs Mounted and Bge(I) vs others
Bw(X) fight as Sp(O) or (I)
Ps(X) which substitute Art distant combat factors and "effect" vs
elements which are not not Ax or Ps
Art(X) which use Exp combat factors and opponent combat outcomes
The latter two specify that the effect on the opponent are as those
of the morphed type, so can be taken as resolved in the current
wording.
.
.
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: 86948
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Defender's ambushes
Number: 24
Description:
Posted by: "Michael Campbell" campbellm@caa.govt.nz mikekiwi2001
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:48 pm ((PST))
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Tim Child
>
> A Defender can place up to two ambushes, each of which can be up to 8
> elements.
>
> Is there anything to stop the two ambushes being side-by-side in the
> same terrain-piece, and thus in effect being one ambush up to 16
> elements?
IMO ...it depends!
If the ambushes are from 2 different commands then that's fine as they
are 2 different groups.
But if they are from the same command then putting them together in 1
group is in breach of the rules - they can only be in groups of up to 8
elements.
Of course separating them by a little bit would solve that.
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)
el vs ps(x)
Number: 23
Description:
Posted by: "mikekiwi2001" mikecampbell@paradise.net.nz mikekiwi2001
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:47 pm ((PST))
--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, Doug Melville <dougmelville@...> wrote:
>
>
> curious whether we played this one right....
>
> el(s) rolls one down on ps(x)- does the el get the +1 for s vs foot?
the definitions say ps(x) have factors and 'effects' like art.
does 'effects' include grading factors? or is it merely the combat
outcomes table, then the el gets to count +1 vs foot?
since no-one answered before I will :)
IMO yes the elephant gets the +1 for being (S) - the Ps(X) takes the
factors and effects of artillery - but it is not "counting as"
artillery - hence the exception for being (S) against artillery does
not apply.
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)
PIPs in Column formation
Number: 29
Description:
PIPs in column formation - http://tinyurl.com/6bmq7l
Illustration is not quite presenting the whole picture - the widely accepted interpretation is that it is the "final" front corners that are important, since the distance moved can only be measured after movement - at which point the corners noted are no longer the front corners and hence they are not relevant.
Notes:
Updated: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 (Vexillia)
The above is partial and rationalises a preferred solution rather than addressing the issues raised. Issue has been clarified by Chris Handley - tinyurl.com/b8xoe3 - and blog post above updated accordingly. Rules on page 27 require clarification to exclude column formation from "front corner" rule.
updated 16/3/09: The above is partial because only a partial argument was put forward in the original "problem" - the existance of an easily rationalised alternative was never mentioned othe than all otehr alternatives being roundly condemned as "the usual rubbish from the usual suspects"!
dbmmlist message number: See answer from Phil on this topic - http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/40435 - final corners count, nothing else. Although relevant this answer needs to be handled with care as it pre-dates publication of the rules in March 2007 and comments like "The column is obligated by p.29 to make its full move" refer to rules that didn't make the final draft.
updated 16/3/09: The statement in the message is that only the front corners count. The rest of it is discussion about how to best say so - the statement of intent still applies even if the subsequent rewording did not get it right.
Rules page reference(s): Page 27.
Does S count when hit in the rear?
Number: 40
Description: Some say yes, some say no...
The argument exists because the first line of grading factors mentions "frontal close combat opponent" - however it applies to all grades, not just (S) - so if (S) does not count then neither does (I) or (F).
The counter argument is that if your opponent is in front edge contact with your rear then he (she/it) is still a frontal close combat opponent
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: created by Rob
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Not for Inclusion
Considered during DBMM v2 Finalisation
What effect do HO in rivers actually have?
Number: 49
Description:
was is the point in using hidden obstacles in a river to hinder boats?
I have been unable to find any disadvantage.
Boats suffer no combat penalties for being in difficult and they move across the HO at full speed.
There are plenty of (usually Chinese) army lists quoting stakes hidden in a river.....
1st response -
Good question. I can't find anything on the relevant pages for naval (being 10, 20, 22, 28 & 40). I expected there would be some reference to this on either page 37 for the combat factors (there is nothing) or page 40 (for shipwrecks) but there is nothing that I can see.
I would have thought a boat crossing a HO would either incur a combat penalty in that or the next bound and /or be shipwrecked. I too can't find anything, unless I'm missing something? Although it would be an interesting tactic if there was a benefit : putting HO in a river to counter your opponents boats!
Andrew
Notes: this was fixed in DBMM v2 with the inclusion of a DGo tactical factor for naval.
dbmmlist message number: original question posted my Neil/foxgom at http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=501.0
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Considered During Commentary Version 4.1.4
Min number of commands
Number: 9
Description:
realise this question may not be 100% relevant but I thought I would
ask anyway. Page 14 states "an army is divided into 1-4 commands".
Page 1 of the lists states "An army must have a commander-in-chief
(C-in-C) and at least one other general."
So what is the minimum number of commands / generals? 1 or 2? I
realise the question may never come up but one day I would like to
fight an opponent with only 1 command! :)
Notes: (some tracking information on status, updates etc)
dbmmlist message number: Date: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:07 am ((PDT))
Rules page reference(s): (specific pages of the rules that are relevant for this issue)
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.