Slitherine

dave_r wrote: What happens if the kinked column is as a result of a compulsory move?

Explain?

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: What happens if the kinked column is as a result of a compulsory move?

Explain?

A 2x2 formation which fails it's test to charge has to drop a base back because of friends and if enemy is not directly ahead of it must wheel, thereby ending in a kinked column (dependent upon the VMD)

A pursuit move also suffers from the same problem.

This happens all the time (i.e. a couple of times in each game).

Trasimene is the same as the Wald....road column, in which case as soon as contact is made they deploy out of it as being in a 5 -8 men wide march column near the enemy is not a fighting formation. On top of it the width to length of our modeled "column" is no where even close to a road march column. I'm not sure why we are bothering to allow the formation. I guess this has been an issue for tournament play in the uk where being in a one wide formation resulted in certain cheese? I guess I never saw it in the us....It just seems to have added a lot of issues with version 2 of the rules....

Ian

This thread is similar to the one in which a player was insisting that he could reform from a kinked column into a formation facing in the direction of any base in the column. Clearly a misapplication of the rules and adequately slapped down by RBS. For my purposes, bases behind the front rank do not qualify as front rank, therefore they have no front edge. Contact will therefore be on a flank. If the charging/pursuing BG meets the requirements for a flank charge against that BG it should be properly rewarded.

gozerius wrote:...For my purposes, bases behind the front rank do not qualify as front rank, therefore they have no front edge. Contact will therefore be on a flank. If the charging/pursuing BG meets the requirements for a flank charge against that BG it should be properly rewarded.

But in the specific, real life example that started this thread the first point of contact was not a flank but a correctly exposed front corner. Such a contact is covered by an explicit RAW. It would be difficult to rule that this particular front corner was, in fact, a flank to be 'properly rewarded'.

zoltan wrote:

gozerius wrote:...For my purposes, bases behind the front rank do not qualify as front rank, therefore they have no front edge. Contact will therefore be on a flank. If the charging/pursuing BG meets the requirements for a flank charge against that BG it should be properly rewarded.

But in the specific, real life example that started this thread the first point of contact was not a flank but a correctly exposed front corner. Such a contact is covered by an explicit RAW. It would be difficult to rule that this particular front corner was, in fact, a flank to be 'properly rewarded'.

Now we are finally getting somewhere. Two good summary points of this lengthy thread.

I'd like to add one more comment. RBS (the authors) do not allow BGs in corner to corner or side to side contact to charge each other. They devote a whole section to these situations. I'd like you guys to also address this issue in determining this possible flank situation in your further comments, please.

And another question. RBS has stated that a kinked column is a legal formation so it can't reform. So if a kinked column was charged, would anyone not allow it to feed more bases into the melee; and, if so, why?

You bring up a good point. But since the column is in fact in side edge contact with, AND directly in front of the pursuing BG, which takes precedence? I maintain that a non front rank base of a kinked column cannot be contacted on its front edge. The BG is a single file and does not present multiple front edges. any contact of a non front rank base must therefore be a flank contact. Whether it qualifies as a flank charge would depend on the charger's relation with the front edge of the column. If the contact is a legal flank charge the contacted base must turn 90 degrees, if not, it is a normal charge. If the base turns, the column formation no longer exists and the BG can reform as allowed in the rules. If the charge is a normal charge then the normal conforming rules must be implemented, taking into account that this is a situation which requires the conforming BG to slide back to the point it is in a normal front edge to front edge contact with the contacted file or a valid overlap position. Feeding bases in is then treated normally.

I have seen a kinked column (ab)used to get troops forward into a precarious position, but one that they, because of the RAW, could not be flank charged. So to all of you saying this is rare, etc : bollocks

And its easy to write an amendment/FAQ/stop the cheese ruling.

Columns count all bases as facing the direction of the leading base of that column.

I would also add: columns count disordered for combat POA (not CMT)

philqw78 wrote:I have seen a kinked column (ab)used to get troops forward into a precarious position, but one that they, because of the RAW, could not be flank charged. So to all of you saying this is rare, etc : bollocks

Who would do such a thing?

dave_r wrote:it ends up being a complete lottery as to what happens when you call an umpire, based on whether he favours one person

This might fall into the "you shall reap what you have sown" category, methinks, Dave.

rbodleyscott wrote:This might fall into the "you shall reap what you have sown" category, methinks, Dave.

So how about an actual "ruling" on the original post please Richard?

IanB3406 wrote:Trasimene is the same as the Wald....road column, in which case as soon as contact is made they deploy out of it as being in a 5 -8 men wide march column near the enemy is not a fighting formation. On top of it the width to length of our modeled "column" is no where even close to a road march column. I'm not sure why we are bothering to allow the formation. I guess this has been an issue for tournament play in the uk where being in a one wide formation resulted in certain cheese? I guess I never saw it in the us....It just seems to have added a lot of issues with version 2 of the rules....

Ian

Well, it isn't really. At Teutonberger Wald the Romans thought the germans were their friends until the treachery occured. At Trasimene the Romans knew that the Carthaginians were there and that they had a force ahead of them, which is why they were pressing up the lake shore to start with. What they didn't realise was that the enemy were to their flank as well. So one side were in fighting formation, one side wasn't. Generally, of course, generals wouldn't go close to the enemy in a narrow column. Though perhaps Scipio went close at Baecula.

It might be possible to re-write the rules to avoid the use of single element wide formations. however, there are a number of practical issues with that:

- bad timing, V2 just done; so no v3 in foreseeable future
- a few formations (e.g. BGs of 4 pike, Roman triarii) really need to be a one wide BG
- there are some situations in the game where it get's awkward if you don't have columns - e.g evading per p173/24-1 or pursuing through a gap.

Of course, it could have been possible to have the columns but not have them kinked. But the bottom line for me is that I've not seen any viable close in use of kinked columns under V2, so i don't have a problem with them.

I don't see why they have to be kinked. The bases are far overdepth anyway.

I'm sure someone will remind me

dave_r wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: What happens if the kinked column is as a result of a compulsory move?

Explain?

A 2x2 formation which fails it's test to charge has to drop a base back because of friends and if enemy is not directly ahead of it must wheel, thereby ending in a kinked column (dependent upon the VMD)

A pursuit move also suffers from the same problem.

This happens all the time (i.e. a couple of times in each game).

Yep messy. But troops in wild pursuit of a foe often lost discipline and formation. I see that as an acceptable historical side benefit.

lawrenceg wrote:

Blue and red are on opposing sides. Blue is about to start pursuing routers. Red was in overlap against blue in the melee. The front rank of blue is entirely behind red’s front edge. Blue’s pursuit hits the front corner of red’s kinked base. According to the rules as written, is this a flank charge?

Rereading the rules there is a way to count this as a flank charge perhaps. The base which is kinked is clearly a legal charge contact as the front edge of blue will hit the from=nt corner of red and that is one of the legal charge contact definitions.

In the land of dairy products, someone might argue that you can only charge an enemy BG in the flank if you are behing the front edge of the first base in the BG AND behind the base of the first kinked base in a BG. A punch up may, or may not, ensure. Anyway, let's say you agree that you cannot charge Mr Kinky in the flank.

"OK I'll pursue straight ahead and that'll become a charge on that first kinked base"

Then you might point out that although you can't charge that base in the flank your charge does qualify as a flank charge because you've read a bit further in the rules (p60 9-5):

"For a charge to qualify as a flank charge both of the following must apply:
- The first part of the enemy battlegroup contacted must be the side edge or rear corner of one of it's bases.
- The charge cannot include a wheel...."

I'd claim I'm going straight forward so no wheel and my first contact (note it doesn't say first legal contact) is the side edge of the front base of the column, which I'm touching to start with.

grahambriggs wrote:I'd claim I'm going straight forward so no wheel and my first contact (note it doesn't say first legal contact) is the side edge of the front base of the column, which I'm touching to start with.

This should be good. Time to start this week's supply of popcorn.

grahambriggs wrote: I'd claim I'm going straight forward so no wheel and my first contact (note it doesn't say first legal contact) is the side edge of the front base of the column, which I'm touching to start with.

Surely in this context the word 'contact' implies a change in state? i.e. going from a state of bases not touching to a state of bases touching, achieved by one of the bases moving (however small the movement is)? Otherwise all situations where opponents were in side edge to side edge contact would become 'deemed' charges/pursuits without the need for the charger/pursuer to move?

zoltan wrote:

grahambriggs wrote: I'd claim I'm going straight forward so no wheel and my first contact (note it doesn't say first legal contact) is the side edge of the front base of the column, which I'm touching to start with.

Surely in this context the word 'contact' implies a change in state? i.e. going from a state of bases not touching to a state of bases touching, achieved by one of the bases moving (however small the movement is)? Otherwise all situations where opponents were in side edge to side edge contact would become 'deemed' charges/pursuits without the need for the charger/pursuer to move?

Oh, that's a good one. You'd be in high demand in Wisconsin dairy country.

Agree with Zoltan. The rules clearly define how to engage a BG when starting in side edge to side edge contact. Once in contact you are in contact and cannot charge that BG (too close). I don't know for sure, but I have a hunch the authors would cite pages 82 to 84 "BGs Already In Contact But Not Yet Committed To Close Combat" and disallow the charge. The only thing I've seen in these threads is a desire to punish the opponent for using a kinked column close to the enemy and frustration if not allowed to do so.

The only thing I've seen in these threads is a desire to punish the opponent for using a kinked column

I'm struggling to see what's wrong with that!

What we have here is an anomaly or loophole. There are two approaches that you can take with loopholes, close them or exploit them. I prefer the first of these options.

I agree that the current wording needs to be clarified as to whether it was intended that a front corner contact on a base that's not in the front rank as in the examples discussed should constitute a frontal charge, effectively giving the kinky column multiple front ranks. If this clarification supports the view that such a contact should be a flank charge then an errata entry is probably required to placate the literalists and frustrate the cheesemongers.

I guess that some clarification as to whether such a formation is facing multiple directions might be required but to be honest I am not convinced that Graham or even Dave really believe that.