Slitherine

Bold statements ... Surely if they wouldn't use it, then aren't you saying in your own argument that in game between 2 "competent"players (whatever that may be) the move will almost certainly have no effect on the game.

Alas, lesson lost.


No, I am not saying that at all. In a game where the player is using a list that almost doubles your number of BGs, he can do this move and be reasonably safe in doing so. If you were in a position to stop this move, then of course, it will have no effect as he won't use it.

However, that doesn't always happen.



Clay

No, I am not saying that at all. In a game where the player is using a list that almost doubles your number of BGs, he can do this move and be reasonably safe in doing so. If you were in a position to stop this move, then of course, it will have no effect as he won't use it.

However, that doesn't always happen.

I am confused now.

If you are saying an 18 bg army will tend to outmanouvre a 10 bg army then this is self-evident and one would be prudent with such a small army in that knowledge. FWIW the average army over here is in the 13-16 range for comps. The Britons I had vs Graham had 13. Seemed OK to me. It would have been easy to get a losing draw, which is all I would expect in such a mis-match.

The argument seems a mix of two separat issues : 1) that many BGs can potentially outmanouvre few (but the few have more staying power per BG); 2) the impact of +1 MU for column. I had understood this stream was about the latter.

As for the lost lesson, so be it; but you only need 2 Bgs of skirmishers to obstruct the 2 BLs of multi columns pretty well. So 2 bgs keeping6 occupied for a while.

Why was the extra 1MU such an issue - it is not easy to exploit?

Could you give specific situation lest I am missing something?

Si

I would welcome an FAQ, although this formation would never have occurred to me. It's not workable; unless I've missed something (always a possibility) a group of parallel columns in a Battle Line can't wheel

The Battle Line rules are unclear whether the side-to-side and/or front-to-back articulation of the constituent BG's must be maintained. I've always thought they would have to be, though it's not spelled out (but I may have missed this.) In any case, it's impossible to kink the inside BG without those on the outside of the wheel splitting in half, and each BG must remain articulated.

If, instead, the bases of each column are kept in front-to-back contact, the kinks don't line up during the wheel and the rear stands of the BG's interpenetrate when the outside BG angles into the one adjacent. This certainly applies if the move is finished mid-wheel; whether this is required during a move is arguable, I suppose (what isn't arguable on this forum?) given the discussion on moving pike phalanxes out of line.

Which leads to the next question: would such a formation be illegal by dint of being, by its very nature, unable to make an otherwise legal move?

PS while reading the UK Snow thread, it occurs to me that columns are like bendy busses, and rear elements the bicycles

Of course many can outmanuever few, and it is indeed about the +1 mu for the battleline columns. My point is that it is already a huge advantage to have that many BGs, not something most armies can do. So, the +1 mu is just piling on at that point, and should be addressed.


Either way, I dont think it's reasonable to be able to march a battle line of "columns" no matter the size of your army.



Hope that was as clear as mud!



Clay

Of course many can outmanuever few, and it is indeed about the +1 mu for the battleline columns. My point is that it is already a huge advantage to have that many BGs, not something most armies can do. So, the +1 mu is just piling on at that point, and should be addressed.

Mud totally transparent thank you. S elaving the number of BGs as a separate issues ....

What confuses me is how the +1 can have such a big effect on a game. I am wondering if the rules have been misinterpreted in the game you mention.

Just to be clear:

1. The +1 MU applies ONLY if you have a reduced spead cf open terrain. So for MF if can only apply at all if the troops are in DIFFICULT GOING. Whenever I have seen this attempted it has been aliability as the troops are DISRed by terrain and very vulnerable to any skirmishers. There is no +1 any other time at all. Was this perhaps being claimed at other times?

2. They can't wheel at all moving this way as they can't kink the claimed columns.

3. They are very vulnerable as they cannot expand out easily if 3 or more BGs as expansions are BG moves.

4. You get plenty of warning as they are difficult to form up as this needs individual BG moves. In general therefore it will be created at deployment for all to see.

So the only time I saw it done, it was from the start of a game so there was plenty of time to deal with it - especially given they were using it to get through a marsh. Some decent LF bowmen could cause them considerable chaos.

Si

In the game, it was laid out at deployment, so indeed it was there from the beginning. The BGs were indeed also in Difficult going, and were moving their full 4 inches per move, so 8 inches per turn with a march using only 1 general. This is really a bit more effective if the army using this tactic does not have the PBI, and so can move and march before the other army can react, or throw their own skirmishers forward.

The main factor I think, is that the MF were able to clear the terrain a full turn before they would have had they been only moving 3 MUs per movement. This may not seem like a lot, but there are times that one turn is crucial. Having played a good bit and done so well as you have, I think we can again agree on this point.


Again, I don't see this issue affecting every game, but it is in there, and should be addressed. Right now the rule goes completely against the author's intent according to RBS and few others. If that's truly the case then I'm glad it's going to be fixed.

So the only time I saw it done, it was from the start of a game so there was plenty of time to deal with it - especially given they were using it to get through a marsh. Some decent LF bowmen could cause them considerable chaos.

To this point, certainly if you know in advance all the parameters, then surely you would bring the proper army to deny the use of it. However, life's not always so perfect.




Clay

Right now the rule goes completely against the author's intent according to RBS and few others. If that's truly the case then I'm glad it's going to be fixed.

Not really. One author intended one thing, and another the other.

As I said originally I think a decent case can be made for either.

Si

My mistake then. Where does this leave us then? I assume it is still going to be fixed?



Clay

Changed yes. As I am pretty ambivalent we have agreed to allow +1 MU for a BL or BG entirely in single column only, unless Terry sees some issue with this which I doubt. This is of course not what the rules say, but if the general feeling is to prefer it then its a small amendment. This was stated on an earlier page so just play it this way with author support in future.

We will FAQ in due course, if need be.

Have fun.

Si

Thank you.



Clay

No problem. We try to help.

I trust you will be reporting on your successful ambush of a column BL on a road through a wood soon .... now there's a challenge to engineer.

Enjoy Fogging.

Si