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

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

current DBMM rules issues

Page history last edited by Lawrence Greaves 9 years, 1 month ago Saved with comment

Go to current issues with the DBMM Commentary

See Also: old DBMM rules issues  for a list of issues fixed in DBMMv2 or addressed in previous Commentary documents.

    1. Example Issue
  1. Issues Raised Since 14th Jan 2012
    1. Adjusting Flank Contact
    2. Can you recoil, repulse or flee through a single corner of friends at an angle?
    3. Can "always dismount" troops deploy dismounted?
    4. What is the effect of False Reinforcements stratagem?
    5. Commentary wording error - Irregular Brilliant Generals 
    6. Commentary clarity - Impetuous Mounted in Difficult Going
    7. Commentary suggested tidy-up - impetuous columns
    8. Commentary error - Moving along fortifications
    9. Commentary error - contacting a rear corner
    10. EMTLU of over 80p needed when contacting enemy
    11. Commentary clarity - Destruction of fleeing elements
    12. Example Issue
    13. EMTLU while sponno moving straight ahead
    14. Non-moving element obstructed from lining up
    15. Deployment of mounted light infantry on notional camels
    16. Example Issue
    17. Example Issue
    18. Example Issue
  2. Issues Raised Since 1st Dec 2010
    1. What happens when a group at an angle has insufficient distance in an EMTLU to align fully
    2. Placing rivers/roads not facing towards their destination edge
    3. Contacting columns in the flank
    4. EMTLUing along a side edge after combat
    5. Lawrence rout distance issue
    6. Lawrence rout direction issue
  3. Issues Raised Since the Release of DBMM Version 2
    1. Can allied contingent troops be added to the army baggage command?
    2. How do you decide the direction of FF?
    3. Grading factors and pressing forward
    4. Hitting Flank of Enemy through TZ?
    5. Does the tactical factor for upslope and upslope in fortifications both count?
    6. ME Lost by Army when a Command Breaks
    1. Which Allied Generals can contribute to an Army Bge command?
  4. Older Issues (Not Yet Checked wrt DBMM V2)

Use as much of the following template as you find useful when adding to this page (just cut+ paste the template and then begin editing):

Example Issue

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)


Issues Raised Since 14th Jan 2012

 

Adjusting Flank Contact

Description: If an element finds itself with enemy in contact with a flank and not lined up, and the enemy cannot line up, must the flanked element line up instead?

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

dbmmlist message number: #141034  http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141034

and http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141045

Rules page reference(s): p 33

 

Can you recoil, repulse or flee through a single corner of friends at an angle?

Description: Everyone understands the recoil rules as limiting passing through to friends facing the same way, except for recoiling psiloi. However, the rules do not explicitly state this.  There appear to be no limitations on repulsing and fleeing elements.

Notes: Probably we are playing as Phil intended but he left it as implicit (but not conclusively)  in the rule wording.

dbmmlist message number: Thread started at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141006

Rules page reference(s): p32 and p40

 

Can "always dismount" troops deploy dismounted?

Description:A perennial on the DBMMlist group, occurring three times between Nov 2011 and Jan 2012

Notes: Yes they can

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141074)

Rules page reference(s): (p10)

 

What is the effect of False Reinforcements stratagem?

Description:The rules say each enemy command "has its ME total temporarily reduced by 2ME". In DBMM2 most of the occurrences of "has its ME total temporarily reduced by 2ME" were replaced by "has 2ME added to its losses" but this one was missed. Was it accidental or deliberate? How should we play it?

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

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141069)

Rules page reference(s): (p16)

 

Commentary wording error - Irregular Brilliant Generals 

Description:Current wording not strictly correct.

Notes: misplaced "only" changes meaning from that intended.

dbmmlist message number:  http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1646

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

  

Commentary clarity - Impetuous Mounted in Difficult Going

Description:Commentary wording open to misinterpretation

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

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1647)

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


Commentary suggested tidy-up - impetuous columns

Description: Several clarifications can be combined into one.

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

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1647)

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

 

Commentary error - Moving along fortifications

Description: Current wording contains an incorrect statement.

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

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1648

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

 


 

Commentary error - contacting a rear corner

Description: Commentary allows an EMTLU for the attacker but rules do not support this.

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

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1649

Rules page reference(s): (p 33)


EMTLU of over 80p needed when contacting enemy

Description:sometimes an element close to the enemy can only contact it at such an angle that an EMTLU more than 80p is needed

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

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1649)

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

 

Commentary clarity - Destruction of fleeing elements

Description:Wording in 6.0.6 slightly confusing

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

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1650)

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

 

Example Issue

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)


 

EMTLU while sponno moving straight ahead

Description:If sponno moving "straight ahead" can an element/group EMTLU either mid-move and continue in the new direction, or at the end of the move?

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

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141204

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141223)

Rules page reference(s): (30, 32)

 

 

Non-moving element obstructed from lining up

Description:(A group moves into the front of a single and forces it to line up. Other elements in close combat obstruct it from lining up. What happens?)

Notes: By the word of the rules, the obstructing elements are moved out of the way. A more sensible result would be that the moving group has to line up.  This can be just about got by applying a rather dubious interpretation of the rule wording. I suggest a playing convention to this effect would be helpful.

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141627)

Rules page reference(s): (p 33)


Deployment of mounted light infantry on notional camels

Description:Mounted Ax and Ps cannot deploy in the flank zones. Except they can if the camels are not depicted by figures.

Notes: No doubt that the rules say this, although implicitly. IMO (LG) A rule revision issue more than for the commentary.

dbmmlist message number: (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/141990)

Rules page reference(s): (p10)



Example Issue

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)


 


Example Issue

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)



Example Issue

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)





 

Issues Raised Since 1st Dec 2010

 

 


What happens when a group at an angle has insufficient distance in an EMTLU to align fully

Description:Can the move be made, does the group get split, do you have to move with only part of the group?

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)

 

Placing rivers/roads not facing towards their destination edge

Description:(a couple of lines outlining the issue)

Notes: This was agreed for inclusion but has not been included in commentary 6.0.6 http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1573

dbmmlist message number:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/137583

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

 

Contacting columns in the flank

Description: Lawrence G says there are issues here

Notes: Discussion starting at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1506

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/130086

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

 

 

EMTLUing along a side edge after combat

Description: A question has come up on the DBMM forum about what to do when an EMTLU after combat along a side edge would move into the TZ of a flank-protecting element.
My[Tim] view, for the reasons explained there, is that the EMTLU does not happen in this particular case.
http://dbmm.org.uk/forums/index.php?topic=816.0

Notes: Commentary P43 - this is in the section on pursuit, but would be better in the section on moving into close combat as it can happen when there is no pursuit. See also new issue "Adjusting a flank contact" above.  

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)

 

Lawrence rout distance issue

Description:apparently sometimes you rout towards the enemy

Notes: Routing elements "act initially as if fleeing as a combat outcome". Do they move the same distance as when fleeing as a combat outcome, or double distance?

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/137479

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

 

Lawrence rout direction issue

Description:apparently sometimes you rout towards the enemy

Notes: Routing elements "act initially as if fleeing as a combat outcome". This means recoil, turn 180, flee. If the element is already facing away from the enemy then it will turn 180 and flee towards them. It has happened in one of my games.

Suggested playing convention: If the element is not in close combat, treat it as an outcome of distant combat, as if shot at by the nearest enemy element. Then it will turn 180 instead of recoiling if the nearest enemy is behind it, turn again and flee away.

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/137479

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


 

Issues Raised Since the Release of DBMM Version 2

 

 

Can allied contingent troops be added to the army baggage command?

Description:(a couple of lines outlining the issue)

Notes: Not addressed in C v5.0.6

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 do you decide the direction of FF?

Description: :Is it directly towards the base edge or towards some player picked point on the base edge? Does "towards" mean directly towards the base edge at 90 degrees? Since all FFing elements go in the same direction, does this have an impact on your choices?

Notes: In 5.0.6 but could do with further clarification/a diagram.

Wording was improved in C v6.0.6 but I had an opponent in the MK1-day 2012 attempt to flee elements in the normal "close combat outcome" direction, so it needs more emphasis that even elements in combat must go in the nominated direction, not the normal direction. (LG)

dbmmlist message number:

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

 


 

Grading factors and pressing forward

Description:Does I count for shooters vs pressing forward? (Yes in V2 - only affects compulsory press forward for impetuous troops)

Notes: Not in 5.0.6 Not in 6.06.

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/127072

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


 

Hitting Flank of Enemy through TZ?

Description:If 2 enemy elements are at 90 degrees to each other in V1 one of them could be protecting the other's flank. In V2 *as long as the contacting element only moves straight forward" then it can contact. A diagram making this explicit would be nice

Notes: In 5.0.6 but needs expanding to cover more cases. Not changed in 6.0.6. Especially need to add that the whole move must be straight ahead as it came up at Derby 2011.

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 tactical factor for upslope and upslope in fortifications both count?

Description:Yes

Notes: Not in 5.0.6 nor in  6.0.6.

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126228

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

 

 


 

 

ME Lost by Army when a Command Breaks

Description:8a. Re: Baggage Query
   Posted by: "Les"
   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
> >

Notes: Not in 5.0.6 some dbmmlist discussion during the year about timing of application + "chain reaction" army breaks.

Not in 6.0.6. Consider adding clarifications to the effect that:

The ME counting as lost is the ME of the command (the number you have to lose more than 1/3 of to be broken);

The ME penalties on each command also count towards army break even if they do not cause other commands to break.  

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)


 

 


 

 


Which Allied Generals can contribute to an Army Bge command?

Description:baggage
from allied contingents that are not:
* sub-generals, or
  * internal to an army list that does not appear in its own list of
enemies.

cannot contribute to army baggage

Notes: In 5.0.6 but probably worth re-visiting. No change in 6.0.6. Specifically there is an error in the clarification because external (foreign nation) regular allies cannot change sides even in a civil war so they can always contribute to army baggage. We could also look at the situation where an external list is of the same nation but a different political affiliation/faction and the two list each other as possible enemies.  http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/dbmmclars/message/1645

dbmmlist message number: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/123274

Rules page reference(s): p14


 

 


Older Issues (Not Yet Checked wrt DBMM V2)

 

 



Comments (0)

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