DBMM 'Challenge Amendments' - shared by Julian Hannam, 5 January 2026

Have you lot seen these “Challenge Amendment” rules in the link? https://www.bhgs.org.uk/dbmm-at-roll-call.html

Points changes, movement amendments, other tweaks. The foreword to the amendments says: 

'This is NOT a draft version 3 of DBMM, which would be a matter reserved for WRG and in particularly our esteemed author, Phil Barker, who owns the copyright. They are more in the nature of experimental “house rules” applying to one competition only, that we hope will improve gameplay, present some new tactical challenges, or adjust issues that have had many players asking “why?” for years. That said, the results of the experiment may inform any future development of the official DBMM rules (so give us plenty of feedback).' 

https://www.bhgs.org.uk/uploads/9/3/2/3/9323122/bhgs_challenge_2026_dbmmx_v1.pdf

Dirk Heinsius

Interesting

• 5d
• Reply
• Share

Vincent Cholewa

Many thanks for sharing this, Julian. I have been reading the challenge amendments on my phone, which I don’t recommend! I will read them properly on a desktop or in a printed version.

However, there seems to be some interesting food for thought. I certainly agree with irregular cavalry S and I not being clumsy and (having an ulterior motive) I like the idea that regular auxiliaries can choose to pursue or not.

I’m not so sure about quite a few troop types’ AP costs becoming [something].5. Is it unnecessarily further complicating already complicated rules? 

The wording of the  amendment about contacting a flank while in a TZ is doing my head in. I will reread later.

Thank you again, and it will be interesting to see how these amendments develop and if they are adopted further. 

• 5d
• Reply
• Share
• Edited

Julian Hannam

Vincent Cholewa great! Let the tightened eye squints and brain twists over this begin!

• 5d
• Reply
• Share

Alastair Duncan

Heretics and apostates!

• 5d
• Reply
• Share

Josh Barton

points reduction for spear is much needed. As the rules say they should be the basic element of the period but they are so, so bad in DBMM you never want to take anything but Irr Sp(I)!

• 5d
• Reply
• Share

Andrew Bennetts

Jokes aside, these are worth keeping an eye on as likely to be under consideration for any DBMM 2.2+ (not that any such new edition is likely in the foreseeable future)

Most of these I like but there are a couple I have reservations about.

• 4d
• Reply
• Share

Julian Hannam

Andrew Bennetts you are right Jokes and the DBMM rules do not sit well together - or should I say “adjacent to the front base edge”

• 4d
• Reply
• Share

Ben Vartok

Definitive change would be my preference over these trials (by ordeal).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/3163571160469121/