DBMM New Zealand

What Price a Win?

Driving back from Greytown earlier this week, I was pondering the results. In the Classical division, the podium scores were 67, 66, 61. In the Late Roman and Dark Age division they were 70, 59,58.

So basically a solid win and three draws gave you a good chance of a podium finish. Without checking, I don't think this is an outlier as, in most tournaments I can recall in recent years, a score of 65+ would probably get you a gong.

Do people think we should perhaps prioritise outright wins more than we currently do?

One option would be to rank players firstly by wins and then use actual scores to separate players with the same number of outright results. This would mean 2 wins and 2 losses would automatically rank ahead of 1 win and 3 draws.

Another option might be to return to 400AP armies. Smaller armies break more easily and thus lead to more decisive games.

Thoughts?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/3202394533253450

Julian Hannam

Top contributor

You might recall I was saying 400 AP 'feels' like a better army size for the table space we have, and so more decisive. Not always great for me, admitted, but better for the game.

Lawrence Greaves

In a draw you get the full 3.5 hours of DBMM and both come away with points. What's not to like?

Tilman Walk

The same can be said about watching X-ball on TV and munching popcorn together. But it's not actually playing the game ...

Alastair Duncan

Smaller armies???? Heresy!!!!

Lawrence Greaves

Tbh whatever system you use, there will be some situations that seem unfair, so I suppose you could cycle through different scoring systems in different years.

Ben Vartok

All-star contributor

The 8x5 table suits 400points and crafting a list becomes more important than filling out the 50points with whatever is left/stratagems. Armies would be cheaper to buy. So less toys but actually more toys/armies because you buy another army and get painting sooner!

Bruce Ferguson

Rising contributor

I think unless the perception is that a high proportion of players are playing for draws rather than taking risks to get a win then the status-quo is fine.

Nick Buckby

450 is a bigger issue than many people think.

Analogy incoming…

Rugby is a 15 person game. There is a place for the tall, short, agile, powerful, speedy, chunky.

Add two more players per side and then don’t change the size of the pitch or the rules of the game.

What you then have is [something rugby-ish].

What you don’t have is *rugby* as the meta becomes 8 tight forwards, 5 loosies and 4 backs.

At the end of the day, organising an event is a lot of work so the organiser can do what they want.

If people want to come and play stodgeball, they will.

Ben Vartok

All-star contributor

What's rugby?

Neil Williamson

Top contributor

Nick Buckby I'll take the short and chunky

Tilman Walk

I fully support the thoughts and propositions for changes.

In adition, I much liked the minimum rounds proposition, that I played in some tournaments abroad.

It goes like this:

If players have not finished round X ( like 5 or 6) after Y time ( like 2 hours?) you have to play in flash mode. Moves are to be done in Z Minutes (we played 5) after rolling pip. No figures to be moved after Z minutes. Opponent takes time Combats to be played normally. Game ends after round #Œ (like round 10) is reached, or a result or regular game time + 30 minutes or so ends, whichever is first.

I think this is a much better reflection on what actually came to pass with indecisive generals at the helm. After opening moves their troops struggle to move because Mr Cunctator can't make up his mind. Why would that slow down his opponent too? Sounds right, doesn't it? It leads to much more fulfilling games imho, not games with an artificial stop. You couldn't call time on a real battlefield either.

A real draw would be fine, 2 players looking at each other across a river, neither daring to move. That happened in history. But most of our draws are artificial, the game getting stopped short in the midst of action because of some time limit that is in effect imposed unilaterally by the slower player. So the game results do not reflect the same # of rounds. Without playing enough moves to achieve something doesn't feel for me like I want to spend hours on. A fair game should give the opportunity to actually score imho. I am not known to move fast, do I don't think this is a partizan opinion, but one for the good of the game.

2d
Reply
Share
Edited

John Way

Rising contributor

Tilman Walk Yeah I like the idea of a time limit for a bound

Neil Williamson

Top contributor

Tilman Walk Rather than a set number of minutes per turn, I think it would be better to have a chess clock. In a 4 hour game give 2 hours to each player less an agreed amount for aggression dicing, terrain choice and deployment planning.

Your time is then used for terrain placement, and your bounds but you can decide how long you want to ponder over a turn. If you run out of time and your opponent is still going, you cannot move except for compulsory outcome moves and just fight in situ.

You would need some time etiquette rules to prevent opponents time wasting on your bounds (eg. Switch the time to your opponents) and stopping the clock for toilet breaks.

I've thought about trialling it but have always chickened out, unsure how it might be received.

Nick Buckby

Neil Williamson the average wargamer treats time as an unlimited resource. It would be great if they didn’t.

The reason I learned to play quickly, even riskily, (albeit under rule sets and a meta that more rewarded aggressive play) was to make the most of whatever time cautious plodders left me.

Tilman Walk

Neil Williamson the other system is trailed and works. It's not a massive shift. Imagine the umpire has to tell a player, he now can't move at all? That's a player who gets so frustrated, will he come back. Plus the chess clock system doesn't help to get a minimum number of turns into a game without killing the synchronising of games for all players. While looking nice in theory, tabletop players are not chess players. Using chess clocks needs training and culture. And a player can still waste his 2 hours of time on 5 moves. Doesn't help the current frustration, rather makes it worse imho. Capping time per move after the initial moves to guarantee a minimum of turns played is the easier approach . And needs no extra equipement

Bruce Ferguson

Rising contributor

Neil WilliamsonAs a player who usually makes my moves faster than my opponent I would receive it positively

Neil Williamson

Top contributor

Tilman Walk I can't see a large difference between the methods. They are both variants on the same theme. A chess clock system is used in other game systems.

Personally, I do not like the idea of having only 5 minutes for a turn. It could be really crucial and with lots of options. A flank march might arrive and you have a lot of troops to deploy. A broken command can make your troops impetuous.

Other turns might be easily completed in a minute, but you cannot bank the saved time for future turns.

I'm not sure of the desire to have a minimum number of turns in a game and what it is trying to achieve. A defensively played game can go through opening turns very quickly by just sitting and waiting. An unreliable ally can cause a player to wait. So you can get through lots of turns with not a lot happening.

I appreciate that using a chess clock takes some getting used to and some may object. It does however ensure the same time available for both players and it is up to them how they use it.

From a Tournament Organisers pov it does ensure that games end at the same time.

The objection to being not able to move because you have run out of time is, I think, unfounded. You will be able to quite clearly see if you are running out of time and modify your play accordingly. You would stop sweating the small stuff and just concentrate on the critical part of the battle. In practice, I think a time out would be very rare.

Sorry to go on.

Vincent Cholewa

Admin

All-star contributor

I agree with Julian, Nick and Ben. I think for competition games, the rules work better at 400AP. More decisions have to be made about your list: what to include, how many, what to leave out, etc. 400AP also poses more questions in game play about protecting flanks, covering gaps, when to press forward or hold. We get a more decisive game.

2d
Reply
Share
Edited

Jon Willacy

I personally think the points score for competition games supports playing for a draw. However, I am stupid and always prefer to see wins than draws. That is why I never win games of DBMM

John Way

Rising contributor

So we went through this same issue with DBR last decade. We settled on 400AP armies and a Win/Draw/Loss with points to decide ties. This moved the needle back to actual wins, with a fair proportion of the remaining draws being mutual breaks.

Now I play more DBMM I see the same issue coming in where players are of similar skill levels.

The other issue is how 450 disadvantages more mobile armies disproportionately. At 400 they have some room to manuever, 450 increases the chance of being marched off the table with minimal flanks to exploit.

450 is fun for casuals with a game a day, 400 for the win for 2x in a comp. IMHO.

2d
Reply
Share
Edited

James Davies

As an emperor, a soldier or a citizen, the general with one win and three draws is preferrable to the one with two defeats and two victories.

W.J. Watts

Playing both 450 & 400AP games/events as much as possible, I find that the AP size seems to have NO effect on the likelihood of a decisive outcome.

W.J. Watts

Funnily enough, Tilman's comments on fixed number of bounds has recently come up on my radar as a "minimum number of bounds" concept with no fixed game time duration.

W.J. Watts

I would like to have an NZ 15mm event available here.

In addition to doing it at 450AP as the table ratio would handle it, I was working through how minimum bounds without unlimited time would work (not yet resolved).

Currently thinking 10 pairs of bounds but with a (lose your lunch time) extension if required to play them out.

Tilman Walk

without a time limit, many players (including me) can easy use up 6 hours. You explode your tournament when you allow that. Each such players has not only his opponent, but the next opponent's waiting, it just doesn't work. That's why the "Blitz" rules were invented. They work, trialed in several tournaments I took part in.

W.J. Watts

Historically, when battles were turning sour, generals did one of three things

1) take big risks on a tide turning action

W.J. Watts

2) change to the defensive and try to extract themselves with the minimum additional casualties (a losing draw)

3) run away, leaving the army to it's fate.

As players we do 1 & 2, (3 being embarrassing). So we all in our own way will play for a "draw" at some point to avoid the outright defeat. It is NOT the same as playing for draws to maximise the weekends VP count.

Andrew Bennetts

Author

All-star contributor

W.J. Watts True in history. However games can often play out differently. Player gets into a good position, doing enough to secure a 14-11 or similar, and then shuts up shop. There is no incentive to push harder and take a risk for the win if a series of 14-11 or similar results keeps them in contention.

Bruce Ferguson

Rising contributor

Andrew BennettsI would say the chance to convert 14 points to 22 is well worth the risk. I think players are more likely to get impatient at this point

Lawrence Greaves

Bruce Fergusonthere's also the risk that someone else gets 22.

Andrew Bennetts

Author

All-star contributor

Bruce Ferguson This is exactly the point. You may recall a game we had a couple of years ago where, by skillfully 6-1ing a general of yours I broke a command and got into a 14-11 or 15-10 position. Hindsight says I should have pushed for the win but at the time I thought, first game of the weekend against a tough opponent I’ll take the safe option. Now if there had been an incentive to go for the win…… Which is the point of why I started this thread - do we need to incentivise wins? Lots of interesting views but clearly no obvious consensus

Phillip Nash

Andrew Bennetts I agree with you. I like the MeG scoring approach, in which you only score for opposing units you destroy/rout with a max of 15 points per player. A game where both players are cautious and draw might see them both get 2-6 points. On the other hand a well fought and bloody draw or close win , should see higher scores (e.g.12-12 or 15-12), and a convincing win might be 15-6 (or there abouts). The incentive is for players to get stuck in and go for the victory (or at least be aggressive) and makes for a more decisive game. I would love to see something similar in DBMM. 13-12 draws for a player sitting in a corner and a boring game are a travesty imo

Bruce Ferguson

Rising contributor

Andrew BennettsIf it's the game I think you are referring to both of us spent much of the game unable to attack because of too much terrain. On a 8 x 5 I find this happens more often these days

Ben Vartok

All-star contributor

4. Throw their toys.....

Phil Malthus

Rising contributor

Too far from competition tables to offer an opinion on sizing & scoring, really, but for slow play ... I've always thought chess clocks would be a fair solution (and not very expensive, as I recall)

Andrew Crampton

This is not a new issue. I recall the whole rational for the current point system was to give meaning to all the draws. It is meant to give incentive for players to try for a winning draw.

The are designed as competition rules so players will always gravitate towards dependable solid troops which decrease the chances of losses.

Paul Graham

Rising contributor

I like 450 pts!

Tilman Walk

Paul Graham so do I, but we would need larger tables (or a smaller scale) to give outmaneuvering a better chance imho.

Shaun Robinson

That’s what we did in glory is fleeting comp at Call to Arms - it worked well and pushed people to go for the win. No complaints from anybody.

Neil Williamson

Top contributor

It also might be as simple as 400ap suits earlier armies and 450ap suits later armies.

As it's DBMM though, just like the rules, there will be exceptions such as the actual weather, the game weather, the day of the week, the geographical region, what we had for breakfast, and if we ran out of armour wash.

Good luck to the TOs.

Friday, 13 February 2026

Big discussion about points, both AP and for results - posted by Andrew Bennetts 11 February 2026