Skip to search.
dbmlist · De Bellis Multitudinis and DB* related

Group Information

  • Members: 1500
  • Category: Wargaming
  • Founded: Aug 18, 2000
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Flank Marches PIP requirements and useage?   Message List  
Reply Message #194275 of 195222 |
Re: Flank Marches PIP requirements and useage?



--- In dbmlist@yahoogroups.com, "JC" <curranjohng@...> wrote:
>
> -- In dbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Zorn <jrz3@> wrote:
> >
> > Too bad he didn't want to take the time to offer the rationale for why FMs
should work this way. I still think it's daft.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dbmlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dbmlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
John GL
> > Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 4:48 AM
> > To: dbmlist@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [dbmlist] Re: Flank Marches PIP requirements and useage?
> >
> > I asked RBS - here are (part of) my question and his reply.
> >
> > "When a flank march arrives by march moves, does each group have to complete
its first march so that all bases are fully on-table, before making a further
march move? For example, a block of warband on 15mm deep bases could arrive only
3 elements deep, as a 100-pace move would mean that the fourth rank would be
partly off-table. War wagons have to arrive sideways as their depth is greater
than their move.
> >
> > That was always the official interpretation.
> >
> > Richard"
> >
> [JC] I presume the Flank March rules are that way to avoid the conflict you
would have between a notional column, half of which is still off the board and
still OK to come on, versus what is supposed to happen if the front part is
attacked and has to partially recoil off the board, when of course any element
not completely on the board should be removed. In the latter case is the tail
of the column lost without ever coming on board? You can make rules to get
around this but the official current approach has the merit of being both
straightforward and clear (and the demerit of being non realistic).
>

I don't think this is really an issue. What marches onto the table need not be
the head only of a column - it's a column in its own right. Any stragglers
could be a considerable distance behind, and probably are (depending on how soon
the player rolls another 6).

In my experience it's rare for stragglers to be left off-table anyway, though I
have heard tell than some players do this to induce any enemies fighting the
first arrivals to flee...

Cheers

John GL




Sat Feb 4, 2012 3:47 pm

jandagrahaml...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Message #194275 of 195222 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

... [JC] I presume the Flank March rules are that way to avoid the conflict you would have between a notional column, half of which is still off the board and...
JC
curranjohng Offline Send Email
Feb 4, 2012
3:39 pm

... I don't think this is really an issue. What marches onto the table need not be the head only of a column - it's a column in its own right. Any stragglers...
John GL
jandagrahaml... Offline Send Email
Feb 4, 2012
3:47 pm

So would this march rule interpretation affect on table march moves? For instance, I once played a game where my opponent marched a long column of cavalry, up...
rjfoxon Offline Send Email Feb 16, 2012
4:24 pm

Hi Richard, Well, firstly, nothing has changed here :) IMO stressing the continuity of march moves changes nothing, in the case given there is no "spend two...
a1jer Offline Send Email Feb 16, 2012
4:46 pm

Richard Surely the additional expansion inch only counted for the moves that the expansion started in so the column advance was still limited to 4 inches a go....
Drew Jarman
drewjarman Offline Send Email
Feb 16, 2012
5:58 pm

... snip ... Technical point, 3rd+ march by irr cav, 4th+ by regs is +1 pip. Regards Jer...
a1jer Offline Send Email Feb 16, 2012
6:44 pm

Drew, Well, it was a long time ago so I can't remember details, but generally armies set up 12 inches apart, so you can't march forward more than twice without...
rjfoxon Offline Send Email Feb 16, 2012
11:04 pm

Richard Overall the difference is probabably minimal if on table march moves are considered as continious movement as played at some clubs (ref see page 18 of...
Drew Jarman
drewjarman Offline Send Email
Feb 17, 2012
12:47 am

Well I'm with Richard here, I've always played it that every expansion must be a legal move keeping in mind the memory less nature of DBM. A long column of...
david809904 Offline Send Email Feb 17, 2012
9:35 am

Dave In which case: Elements with only two inches of expansion movement can only ever expand a single element from the head of a column [and only on one side]...
Drew Jarman
drewjarman Offline Send Email
Feb 17, 2012
10:41 am

Drew, 2 things: As this is no longer a FM debate, please don't use that title as it will only confuse. I have never seen anyone try to claim multiple march...
david809904 Offline Send Email Feb 17, 2012
10:44 am

Hmm, that's weird, there are 2 titles to these posts! Drew ignore my clause 1:-) As to expansion, remember an additional 50 paces are available to an expanding...
david809904 Offline Send Email Feb 17, 2012
10:50 am

Hi Folks, Must admit I'm with Jeff on this one...as if you can march onto the table (logic says) you are just continuing your flank march - so should be able...
Gavin Pearson
gavindbm Offline Send Email
Feb 4, 2012
11:14 am
 First  |  |  Next > Last 
Advanced

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help