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.
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):
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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