Flank charging a kinked column

[dave_r]

I would logically state that the BG has bases facing in more than one direction, therefore it is facing in more than one direction.

And I would state that, logically, this is nonsense.

You are seemingly using a spurious argument that differs depending upon the situation to achieve the result you want?

No, I have consistently stated that the relevant front facing is that of the lead base of the column. It was you that added the spurious case of a BG charged in the rear.

It is defined differently on page 23 though.

"In general, troops must be in a rectangular formation with all bases facing in the same direction, .... There are five exceptions to this case.

1. columns - a battle group that is one base wide is a column of march and must be "kinked" at points where it has wheeleed."

[vexillia]

Enjoying the popcorn?

Yes thank you.

[dave_r]

And also page 60 where it states

"If the enemy battle group is facing in more than one direction, it has more than one front edge for this purpose - the above requirement must be satisified for all of them"

This clearly indicates that it is _not_ just the front edge that counts as it isn't just talking about the front edge of a BG.

[kevinj]

That is a ludicrous perverse interpretation intended to either stir up argument or manipulate a rules mechanism. Even if the column has individual bases with a different facing to the lead one, that does not make them additional front ranks for the purpose of determining elegibility for a flank charge. The rule on facing more than one direction is to cover situations where the front rank does so, as in the diagram above.

[bbotus]

Point of information, please. If 2 BGs are in head to head melee and one of them is a kinked column with base 1 head on and bases 2, 3 and 4 kinked, I have 2 questions:

1. Does base 2 get to fight in the melee?
2. Does the kinked column count as fighting in 2 directions?

[kevinj]

1. Yes. Remember that kinking is just a mechanism necessitated by using solid bases to represent the area covered by a body of men. This assumes the BG is not knights or chariots of course.
2. No. For the same reason

[spike]

That is a ludicrous perverse interpretation intended to either stir up argument or manipulate a rules mechanism. Even if the column has individual bases with a different facing to the lead one, that does not make them additional front ranks for the purpose of determining elegibility for a flank charge. The rule on facing more than one direction is to cover situations where the front rank does so, as in the diagram above.

I'll get sharpening a stick for you Kevin, it looks to me like Dave is being a bit of an arse with this one.

[philqw78]

manipulate a rules mechanism.

I firmly believe

[grahambriggs]

That is a ludicrous perverse interpretation intended to either stir up argument or manipulate a rules mechanism. Even if the column has individual bases with a different facing to the lead one, that does not make them additional front ranks for the purpose of determining elegibility for a flank charge. The rule on facing more than one direction is to cover situations where the front rank does so, as in the diagram above.

It's rare that I'll defend Dave but he is not actually interpreting. He is just repeating the way the rule is written. You've assumed that it means troops fighting in two directions or in orb and maybe it should. But it doesn't say that, it says "facing in more than one direction". I don't think it's too big an issue as kinked columns can't do a great deal as it is, so I'd be impressed if the cheese of using them actually pays benefits.

[bbotus]

That is a ludicrous perverse interpretation intended to either stir up argument or manipulate a rules mechanism. Even if the column has individual bases with a different facing to the lead one, that does not make them additional front ranks for the purpose of determining elegibility for a flank charge. The rule on facing more than one direction is to cover situations where the front rank does so, as in the diagram above.

It's rare that I'll defend Dave but he is not actually interpreting. He is just repeating the way the rule is written. You've assumed that it means troops fighting in two directions or in orb and maybe it should. But it doesn't say that, it says "facing in more than one direction". I don't think it's too big an issue as kinked columns can't do a great deal as it is, so I'd be impressed if the cheese of using them actually pays benefits.

I think if you reread the rule on page 60 you will retract your defense of Dave. It talks about the front edge of the file. So even though the column is kinked, the front edge of the file is not at the kink.

[grahambriggs]

That is a ludicrous perverse interpretation intended to either stir up argument or manipulate a rules mechanism. Even if the column has individual bases with a different facing to the lead one, that does not make them additional front ranks for the purpose of determining elegibility for a flank charge. The rule on facing more than one direction is to cover situations where the front rank does so, as in the diagram above.

It's rare that I'll defend Dave but he is not actually interpreting. He is just repeating the way the rule is written. You've assumed that it means troops fighting in two directions or in orb and maybe it should. But it doesn't say that, it says "facing in more than one direction". I don't think it's too big an issue as kinked columns can't do a great deal as it is, so I'd be impressed if the cheese of using them actually pays benefits.

I think if you reread the rule on page 60 you will retract your defense of Dave. It talks about the front edge of the file. So even though the column is kinked, the front edge of the file is not at the kink.

Breaking that section into sentences, but not deleting any words:

"The charging battle group starts with at least one base entirely behind a straight line extending the front edge of the enemy battle group.

If the enemy battle group has some files stepped forward, its front edge is taken as the front edge of the file on the flank charged.

If the enemy battle group is facing in more than one direction, it has more than one front edge for this purpose - the above requirements must be satisfied for all of them."

So the only time it talks about the front edge of a file is when some files are stepped forward. You only have one file with a column, so it will never have some files stepped forward. The bit Dave is on about is the next line.

[bbotus]

So the only time it talks about the front edge of a file is when some files are stepped forward. You only have one file with a column, so it will never have some files stepped forward. The bit Dave is on about is the next line.

Yes. But I think the intent is there for files. And, if you accept that a base can only fight in melee to its front and that a kinked 2nd rank base may fight in melee against the front of the column, then the conclusion should be that it doesn't count as facing in a second direction and it is only a game mechanism for columns. Either that or don't allow it to fight as a 2nd rank in melee.

[wildone]

I'm running Conquest down here in NZ in a couple of weeks and I've been asked how I would rule if this came up so this is my answer on the local wargaming forum:

Normally my ruling on something like this would be determined by the quality of the alcohol bought for me. However for medical reasons I'm banned from drinking.

So unless the rule writers state otherwise, the rulings for Conquest are:

1) The front edge of the leading element determines the facing for the column for the purpose of flank charges.

2) A kinked column has no affect on the number of bases that may fight. In other words if a kinked column of pike is attacked frontally and the kink is between the 2nd and 3rd ranks then all 4 ranks count in the melee.

The section on page 69 that says a kinked column of skirmishers can't evade is interesting because as far as i'm aware its the only time skirmishers can't evade.

regards
Brent

[petedalby]

That all seems very sensible Brent - well done.

The only thing I'd encourage you to add is to ensure anyone attempting a cheesey move does not profit from it.

[grahambriggs]

I'm running Conquest down here in NZ in a couple of weeks and I've been asked how I would rule if this came up so this is my answer on the local wargaming forum:

Normally my ruling on something like this would be determined by the quality of the alcohol bought for me. However for medical reasons I'm banned from drinking.

So unless the rule writers state otherwise, the rulings for Conquest are:

1) The front edge of the leading element determines the facing for the column for the purpose of flank charges.

2) A kinked column has no affect on the number of bases that may fight. In other words if a kinked column of pike is attacked frontally and the kink is between the 2nd and 3rd ranks then all 4 ranks count in the melee.

The section on page 69 that says a kinked column of skirmishers can't evade is interesting because as far as i'm aware its the only time skirmishers can't evade.

regards
Brent

I'd be surprised if it comes up.

Skirmishers can't evade if they are in hand to hand combat (other than as an overlap). I've lost many LF units by getting involved with enemy LF then being swatted as proper troops arrive

[dave_r]

That all seems very sensible Brent - well done.

The only thing I'd encourage you to add is to ensure anyone attempting a cheesey move does not profit from it.

I think as long as we all know what will happen _prior_ to the event happening then there isn't a problem. I don't _make_ the problems, I just _point out_ the problems

Don't shoot the messenger!

[petedalby]

I don't _make_ the problems

Are you sure?

[dave_r]

I don't _make_ the problems

Are you sure?

It wasn't me that had the problem with the kinking column

[grahambriggs]

That all seems very sensible Brent - well done.

The only thing I'd encourage you to add is to ensure anyone attempting a cheesey move does not profit from it.

I think as long as we all know what will happen _prior_ to the event happening then there isn't a problem. I don't _make_ the problems, I just _point out_ the problems

Don't shoot the messenger!

And worth pointing out that with the nerfing of columns in V2 cheese with columns has pretty much disappeared. The V1 problem with kinked columns was that it was possible to wheel a BG, particularly of 4 cavalry or drilled MF into a position where they could do an intercept, perhaps into a flank. The V2 changes effectively rule that out.

[petedalby]

It wasn't me that had the problem with the kinking column

Fair point!