Page 1 of 3

Column bonus for battle line?

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:01 pm
by Primarch
Ok, question came up in a game today.




xyz
xyz
xyz
xyz



3 Seperate units, all in column, and all in side edge, or battle line if you will. Can they use a general, and gain the extra inch of movement during a march move? I am unsure what the rules say, but surely this wasnt the intent. Basically in difficult terrain, this medium foot battle line marched, and so moved 8 full inches.

Yes, they are all individual columns, but they are moving as one cohesive unit that is certainly not one large column.


Any thoughts would be appreciated.



Clay

Why not?

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:27 am
by marioslaz
I guess you do right. A column move better in difficult terrain because it's more complicated keep a line in good shape due to obstacle like bush, rocks and so on. If a man must deviate to move around a such obstacle, this accomplish better with a short frontage. A BL formed by 3 BGs in column can be thinked as a formation of 3 units marching together side by side, so the bonus of second move, but each one need only to pay attention to keep ordered its own short front, so the bonus of 1 UM. Anyway, in a such formation the 3 BGs will have some problem to line up in battle formation. In fact you will be in need of a full move straight forward, and which isn't a second move, to shift laterally x and/or z to leave y enough space to expand. If you remember also that if you shift a BG, that BG cannot expand, you see that you need at least 2 turns to expand your BL of column BGs.
Bye,
Mario.

Re: Column bonus for battle line?

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:23 am
by nikgaukroger
Primarch wrote: 3 Seperate units, all in column, and all in side edge, or battle line if you will. Can they use a general, and gain the extra inch of movement during a march move? I am unsure what the rules say, but surely this wasnt the intent. Basically in difficult terrain, this medium foot battle line marched, and so moved 8 full inches.

Yes, they are all individual columns, but they are moving as one cohesive unit that is certainly not one large column.


Any thoughts would be appreciated.



Clay
I believe this was asked of Richard at Usk this weekend and his answer was no they do not get the bonus.

Re: Column bonus for battle line?

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:51 pm
by MkV
nikgaukroger wrote:
Primarch wrote: 3 Seperate units, all in column, and all in side edge, or battle line if you will. Can they use a general, and gain the extra inch of movement during a march move? I am unsure what the rules say, but surely this wasnt the intent. Basically in difficult terrain, this medium foot battle line marched, and so moved 8 full inches.

Yes, they are all individual columns, but they are moving as one cohesive unit that is certainly not one large column.


Any thoughts would be appreciated.



Clay
I believe this was asked of Richard at Usk this weekend and his answer was no they do not get the bonus.
This should be FAQ'd if that is the case. The rules say that the Battle line moves at the speed of the slowest BG and the each BG moves 4 in Difficult while in a column. There is no mention anywhere of multiple BG's formations, only that they must be in edge to edge corner to corner to contact, and can only do advances. I'm OK with the ruling, but the RAW trend we are seeing does not support that prohibition.

Mark

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:52 pm
by carlos
Needs to be FAQ'ed or put in amendments as it contradicts what the rules say.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:27 pm
by frederic
I would love shooting on such units :D

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 4:28 pm
by shall
I believe this was asked of Richard at Usk this weekend and his answer was no they do not get the bonus.
Not an unreasonable ruling, but as someone has said not what the rules say.

Personally I don't mind them getting the extra representing a force of columns moving in parallel. It is a very vulnerable formation to get yourself caught in so there are definite risks. I have ruled it this way FWIW.

Nor would I mind particularly if we said it had to be a BL in column to qualify. Hardly game turning stuff IMHO.

Guess we had better decide one way or the other between us. :idea:

Si

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:45 pm
by nikgaukroger
shall wrote: Hardly game turning stuff IMHO.

Indeed.


Guess we had better decide one way or the other between us. :idea:

Si

Probably for the best :P

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 7:47 pm
by nikgaukroger
Its mildly intriguing as to what the rules actually say.

P23 in battle group formations explains about a BG in column - 1 base wide and must kink where it wheels.

P134 glossary definition of a column essentially repeats this.

P30 on battle lines has no mention.

P41 says "troops in column" move at +1MU blah, blah. No mention of either Bgs or BLs.

Strikes me that if a BL of multiple BGs each in a column can get the +1MU if it were to wheel each individual BG would have to kink separately to meet the requirements of p23.

Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:07 pm
by hazelbark
:evil: Bleck. Banish them.

The whole idea I presume of the +1 for column is that they are in some kind of path following formation and not occupying the full width probably. This is how they meander through terrain.

The whole notion is reverse engineering the old Column rules form 17th-19th century rules IMO. A SYW line is slower than a column because the line marches in dressed ranks etc. The line moves slower, but most people and rule say the column moves faster.

In our period I think people would be hard pressed to find a battlefield column, which is why I think the +1 through terrain is finding a hidden path at a scale not represented.

All of which is a Battle line should not be a collection of columns, because the units aren't likely that organized shoulder to shoulder. But I can see where the rules fall silent.

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:09 pm
by babyshark
Banish them indeed. The notion of a BL of shoulder-to-shoulder columns getting extra move fails the laugh test. A BL of one-after-the-other columns (that is to say, a column of columns) getting extra move does not.

Although Dan is right to say that the truth would be that columns move at normal speed and lines move at reduced speed.

Marc

Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 2:39 pm
by nikgaukroger
Strikes me that due to the abstraction in FoG a BG could well be a number of "units" each in column anyway ...

Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2009 6:26 pm
by hazelbark
nikgaukroger wrote:Strikes me that due to the abstraction in FoG a BG could well be a number of "units" each in column anyway ...
Yep. It is the battle LINE of columns that is the issue.

The column +1 is not necessarily a combat ready formation and the details of such were tossed out as unneeded detail, which I think was a wise decision.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:33 pm
by batesmotel
In the thread on kinky columns viewtopic.php?p=75130#75130, Richard stated that a "column" in a battle line does not count as a column. So hopefully this should be a closed issue.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:42 pm
by babyshark
batesmotel wrote:In the thread on kinky columns viewtopic.php?p=75130#75130, Richard stated that a "column" in a battle line does not count as a column. So hopefully this should be a closed issue.
Good point. To quote from the relevant post:
rbodleyscott wrote:This is just getting silly now. Let's not invent difficulties just for the sake of it. Clearly a battle line is not a column of march, nor can a BG that is part of a battle line be a column of march.

Yes, of course the rules can be interpreted that way, but it would be silly, wouldn't it?
Marc

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:07 pm
by MkV
babyshark wrote:
batesmotel wrote:In the thread on kinky columns viewtopic.php?p=75130#75130, Richard stated that a "column" in a battle line does not count as a column. So hopefully this should be a closed issue.
Good point. To quote from the relevant post:
rbodleyscott wrote:This is just getting silly now. Let's not invent difficulties just for the sake of it. Clearly a battle line is not a column of march, nor can a BG that is part of a battle line be a column of march.

Yes, of course the rules can be interpreted that way, but it would be silly, wouldn't it?
Marc
So does this mean that we can act contrary to any rules we think are silly? Asking for official clarification on what "Rules as Written" is what these forums are for. The rules say they can, its not even vague. Asking for the fact that they cannot to be put into the FAQ or Errata is entirely reasonable. Is it silly that a unit cannot march without a general attached even if in command range? It doesn't matter, we play it that way because that's the way the rules say we do. The rules say an unit in overlap only does not pursue, the FAQ says it does. FAQ trumps rules so that's the way we play it. If we start trying to reason out every rule in that manner we will start down a slippery slope.

And for the record, I could care less which way it is. I could mentally justify it either way as an abstraction of columns moving in close proximity, or as a line of soldiers holding hands on the way to Grandma's house. :D I say let the authors decide how they want their rules played and put in the FAQ or errata so we can all get back to trying to use every devious trick in the book to mercilessly crush our opponents 25-0 while pretending all we want is a "Good Game" :wink:

Mark

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:31 pm
by Primarch
In another thread, I warned that going strictly by the RAW was going to become an issue, and it is starting to look like I was right. By the RAW the move is perfectly legal, but the Author thinks its a silly idea. That doesnt sound like he is willing to FAQ, or errata these kinds of rules. While I agree with him, I think it is silly and doesn't make sense, but thats what the rules he wrote allow you to do.

Being that the ruleset is fairly new, I think Mark is right, these forums have to be used for these kinds of things. Is there a real process for having rules amended, or FAQs or any of that?

I saw some wierd war wagon movement last night that is bound to become a problem, but so far seems perfectly legal according to the RAW. Again, I advise you guys, that RAW is NOT the way to play a game, any game. You start having people use the dictionary in those discussions, and logic arguments, and anyone who majored in English in college start throwing in their 2 cents, and it just becomes a big mess.


The better route, is to find the holes, RAW or otherwise, bring them up, and have the author/developers dig in and fix the holes.



Clay

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:41 pm
by david53
Marc

use every devious trick in the book to mercilessly crush our opponents 25-0 while pretending all we want is a "Good Game" :wink:

Mark
You've found me out weres all my LH gone now :wink:

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:12 pm
by shall
I think the simplest soluition is to amend the glossary definition of single-element column ...

it says "a BG must be...." and we probably should have said "a BG or BL ..."

Si

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:33 pm
by zoltan
A column is more manoueverable than a line (follow the leader vs stay in line with the blokes either side of you).

Files side by side are not a block of columns - that's called a phalanx or BL in FoGspeak! The FAQ should make clear that a column is a maximum of 1 base wide with no other bases touching it on either side.