Implications of Possible Change to Column Rule

[El' Jocko]

Well, since it appears that a change to the column rule is in play, I thought that we should talk about the implications. This is an important change and I think the DBA community needs to take a very careful look so that we know what we're getting. (My intent in this thread is just to look at the pros and cons of the rule change, not whether the text of the rules actually support such a change. We already have a thread for that. smile.gif ) Anyway, here's my initial impression:

First, there are the obvious tactical options that this opens up. This has the potential to give a significant boost to high mobility armies, and an especially big boost to armies with several LH. My guess is that this won't harm game balance...LH armies aren't considered power armies now and are unlikely to become overpowering due to this change.

Second, there has been at least one cheesy move that would become available as a result of this change. This is the one where you can effectively shift an entire line one element right or left for 1 PIP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others out there.

Third, we have the problem that the exact method of forming a column is poorly defined in DBA. Does the lead element have to move straight ahead? Can it wheel and move off, with the other elements falling in behind? Something else?

What have I missed? Anything positive? Anything negative? :confused:

Anybody think the Seljuk Turks are the new power army? :D

- Jack

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Second, there has been at least one cheesy move that would become available as a result of this change. This is the one where you can effectively shift an entire line one element right or left for 1 PIP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others out there.
How would you do this Jack? Surely for one pip you could move into column and move the column one base-width-depth to the left or roght, but you'd need further pips to form back into line?

Andrew

[Pozanias]

Well, I think the scenario to which Jack refers would go something like this:

a line of elements (1-5)

111122222333344445555

they start to form a column behind lead element 1

1111
2222333344445555

this is as far as they get in forming the column the first bound and then (either by choice or necessity) discontinue forming the column.

The line has shifted one element width to the left for one pip.

I think the question should be, does "a group move can include reducing frontage to form such a(single element wide) column" mean that the move must result in the formation of a single element wide column? Meaning that all of the elements that participated in the group move must complete the group move in a single element wide column. If so, that would make El Jocko's move illegal. It would mean a line of three heavy foot could form a column behind the center element.

I happen to think that the language supports completing the formation of the column as part of the group move. But I think there is room for debate.

[ May 10, 2005, 07:45: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Pozanias:

The line has shifted one element width to the left for one pip.
That basic maneuver is allowed in DBAOL (with some other bizarreness) in the "contract group" maneuver; it is sufficiently horrible that many players and tournaments disallow its use entirely as a method of cheating.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
Well, I think the scenario to which Jack refers would go something like this:That's exactly the move I was referring to.


I happen to think that the language supports completing the formation of the column as part of the group move. But I think there is room for debate. Here's the text:

A group move can include reducing frontage to form [a single element wide column]...(I've substituted the exact phrase from the previous sentence for "such a column".)

I'd be comfortable reading this as requiring you to complete the column in one move. Or more technically, the group move could only include elements that finish the move as part of the single element wide column.

That fixes at least this one brand of cheese nicely.

- Jack

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:


Third, we have the problem that the exact method of forming a column is poorly defined in DBA. Does the lead element have to move straight ahead? Can it wheel and move off, with the other elements falling in behind? Something else?
- Jack I think this one could be tricky. Could an element in a group flip around (180 degrees) move towards it's original rear and have the other elements in the group fall in behind? Again, if we accept that the column has to be formed by the end of the move, then this won't be much of an issue -- except for LH, and maybe CV. On one hand, it seems a little funky. But on the other, it would allow LH to act a little more like LH.

I'm not terribly comfortable with this right now (maybe some playtesting would help). But regardless of my comfort level, the rule as I read it seems to allow it.

[ May 11, 2005, 11:49: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
Well, I think the scenario to which Jack refers would go something like this:

a line of elements (1-5)

111122222333344445555

they start to form a column behind lead element 1

1111
2222333344445555

this is as far as they get in forming the column the first bound and then (either by choice or necessity) discontinue forming the column.

Ah, I see, although I'm not clear how often this would be a better move than just using a single pip to hide element 5 behind element 4 - isn't this a bit of a Martian Flip?

I don't see how you could prevent the column-move-towards the original rear, but I've been playing the rule this way for years now without ever feeling the need to do such a thing. Single element moves will almost always be a more effective way to get to your own rear.

The way I have used this rule quite frequently is to move LH or Cav around a flank, usually at a range of 300-400p from enemy foot elements (further if they are bow, of course). By approaching in line I may mislead my opponent as to my intentions (although rarely) and keep my options open for longer.

Of course there may be more 'innovative' ways to use this rule that I haven't seen, but again lets beware the Martian Flip: sometimes the 'cure' is worse than the disease.

Andrew

[Ares]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Second, there has been at least one cheesy move that would become available as a result of this change. This is the one where you can effectively shift an entire line one element right or left for 1 PIP. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others out there.I don't see how you can squeeze this one out of the text of the rule... clarify please?

Third, we have the problem that the exact method of forming a column is poorly defined in DBA. Does the lead element have to move straight ahead? Can it wheel and move off, with the other elements falling in behind? Something else?Again, read the rule on this: you can only reduce frontage , and "no other reductions or increases in frontage or changes in direction or facing can be made."

This means you can form the column for one pip only if it ends up facing the same direction as the original line of elements (or group of elements) comprising the new column. You could then change the facing of the column by wheeling, in a separate bound (unless you are making a second/subsequent move).

That's my take on it, anyway. smile.gif

Eric

PS Disregard my first comment above; I've just looked at Pozanias's example.

PPS Is this whole thing seen as a "new" interpretation? I don't think there's anything in it that hasn't always been permitted by the wording of the rule; could this just be a collective "aha!" moment?

[ May 11, 2005, 13:09: Message edited by: Ares ]

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by adsarf:
Ah, I see, although I'm not clear how often this would be a better move than just using a single pip to hide element 5 behind element 4 - isn't this a bit of a Martian Flip? The purpose of the move would be to improve match-ups at the last moment. I do happen to think this could be quite a powerful tactic, but I hope it's a moot point because if you accept that the group move must end with the column fully formed than this maneouver would not be allowed anyway.


Originally posted by adsarf:

I don't see how you could prevent the column-move-towards the original rear, but I've been playing the rule this way for years now without ever feeling the need to do such a thing. Single element moves will almost always be a more effective way to get to your own rear. I disagree completely. A line of LH would be able to quickly withdraw and redeply much more efficiently with this reverse column manoeuver. As I said below, though, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Pozanias:

a line of elements (1-5)

111122222333344445555

they start to form a column behind lead element 1

1111
2222333344445555
Originally posted by adsarf:
Ah, I see, although I'm not clear how often this would be a better move than just using a single pip to hide element 5 behind element 4Suppose elements 1,3,5 are Kn and elements 2,4 are Bw. The enemy elements they are nearly facing are respectively Kn/Bd/Kn/Bd/Kn/Bd etc. One moment ago you were lined up for disaster; suddenly you slide every element in your line one EBW to the left and you are lined up for victory. Totally stupid, totally without historical merit, totally gamesmanship.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Ares:

This means you can form the column for one pip only if it ends up facing the same direction as the original line of elements (or group of elements) comprising the new column. You could then change the facing of the column by wheeling, in a separate bound (unless you are making a second/subsequent move).
Although I think this would be the simplest way, I don't think it's what the rules actually say.

A group move *can include* reducing frontage.... That means to me that a group can reduce frontage in addition to other movement (e.g. pivoting on a corner, moving straight ahead, etc).

The "no other changes in direction or facing" bit means no other changes beyond what's been allowed for -- like pivoting/wheeling.

[ May 11, 2005, 13:37: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
I'd be comfortable reading this as requiring you to complete the column in one move. Or more technically, the group move could only include elements that finish the move as part of the single element wide column.
I agree with Jack on this. While its a debatable point, this particular intrepretation isn't in conflict with the written rules and seems to prevent the cheese. As long as there's no abuses, I'm all in favour of letting LH get to do their thing better. This might even help them out a bit on 24" boards.

[Volund]

Originally posted by Redwilde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by El' Jocko:
I'd be comfortable reading this as requiring you to complete the column in one move. Or more technically, the group move could only include elements that finish the move as part of the single element wide column.
I agree with Jack on this. While its a debatable point, this particular intrepretation isn't in conflict with the written rules and seems to prevent the cheese. As long as there's no abuses, I'm all in favour of letting LH get to do their thing better. This might even help them out a bit on 24" boards. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I think this is sensible. It presumably means that a line like this

11112222333344445555

could form a column this way:

1111
2222----333344445555

or this way:

----2222
----1111333344445555

but not in the cheesy way that shuffles everybody sideways. Only elements 1 and 2 move, and if you want to be able to extend the column on the next move, you have to push element 2 forwards, let 1 fall in behind and keep it in contact with 3. That way only elements 1 & 2 move (spending 1 pip) and 3-5 stay still.

Kim

[ May 11, 2005, 14:22: Message edited by: Volund ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Ares:
This means you can form the column for one pip only if it ends up facing the same direction as the original line of elements (or group of elements) comprising the new column. You could then change the facing of the column by wheeling, in a separate bound (unless you are making a second/subsequent move).Why would you limit the change of facing to a subsequent move? I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I don't see it in the rules. A group move can "include" reducing frontage, but the rules don't explicitly preclude other actions while doing so.

PPS Is this whole thing seen as a "new" interpretation? I don't think there's anything in it that hasn't always been permitted by the wording of the rule; could this just be a collective "aha!" moment? The difference is that the proposed rule would allow you to form column anytime you want, not just to pass a gap or enter bad going. The problems that I listed at the beginning of the thread aren't new, but they're likely to occur more often if we adopt this new playing convention.

- Jack

[ May 11, 2005, 14:40: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
I think this one could be tricky. Could an element in a group flip around (180 degrees) move towards it's original rear and have the other elements in the group fall in behind? Again, if we accept that the column has to be formed by the end of the move, then this won't be much of an issue -- except for LH, and maybe CV. On one hand, it seems a little funky. But on the other, it would allow LH to act a little more like LH.I'm not entirely clear with what you had in mind here. Are you talking about the lead element of the column wheeling 180 degrees on a front corner, or doing an about face in place?

Assuming the first of those, I don't think it's even possible because of the movement cost. A single element 180 degree wheel costs 80mm of movement if you measuring directly from start to finish, just over 125mm if you measure the arc (which is the way I think you should measure it). So even an element of LH can't complete the wheel in one move.

- Jack

[Ares]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Why would you limit the change of facing to a subsequent move? I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But I don't see it in the rules. A group move can "include" reducing frontage, but the rules don't explicitly preclude other actions while doing so.

[my stuff snipped]

The difference is that the proposed rule would allow you to form column anytime you want, not just to pass a gap or enter bad going. The problems that I listed at the beginning of the thread aren't new, but they're likely to occur more often if we adopt this new playing convention.
- Jack In the second-to-last paragraph on page 8 where columns are discussed, it seems pretty clear regarding the purposes for which a column can be formed as part of a group move, so I still don't understand where the idea that you can form a column "any time, any where" is coming from.
I think the tidbit from Phil Barker was referring to elements forming column which were already in bad going, but said column was then going to continue through bad going, so met the criteria for forming a column according to the rule.

re: limiting the change of facing - I'm gonna be late for work if I try to explain this now, will try to get back to it tomorrow...

ERic

[Martian]

Aren't we a bit premature on this?


A group can always reduce frontage to become a column. "Such a column" means "a single element wide column". Presumably some one's rule lawyer opponent told him he couldn't do it, or the matter would not have been raised. I'm amazed that anyone should take it on himself to do so. In my opinion he should get a life.

Phil

Bob, what EXACTLY was the question you asked Phil?

Knowing Phil, 'always' in the above may not mean 'anytime, anywhere.'

He may be linking his response to Bob to his response to me about groups in bad going being able to form column.

So any group can always form a column to follow a road, cross bad going or a non paltry river or to pass through a gap.

To move as a group, each element must move parallel to, or follow, the first of them that moves and must move the same distance or wheel through the same angles.

I think this rule must still be followed.

In order for the group move to be valid a element must fall in behind an element of the group that moved prior. So your sideways shift is not a legal move EVEN if the end element started on a road.

Marty

[ May 11, 2005, 17:35: Message edited by: Martian ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Martian:
Aren't we a bit premature on this?I agree with you and Eric that this change isn't a given yet. But if there are problems with it, I'd rather know now. It's easier to oppose the adoption of a rule change than to roll one back.


In order for the group move to be valid a element must fall in behind an element of the group that moved prior. So your sideways shift is not a legal move EVEN if the end element started on a road.I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing with Mark, that an element can't do the sideways shift unless it ends it's move lined up behind the lead element? Or are you saying that an element can't do the sideways shift at all?

- Jack

[Martian]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Are you agreeing with Mark, that an element can't do the sideways shift unless it ends it's move lined up behind the lead element?
Stated that way...then YES I agree with Mark.

An element of the group should move to fall in behind a lead element and no element of the group can exceed it's maximum movement rate for the terrain.


Originally posted by El' Jocko:
Or are you saying that an element can't do the sideways shift at all?

[/QB]The sideways shift is limited to moving up to half an element base width sideways to line up with enemy within 1 element base width ahead.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Ares:
In the second-to-last paragraph on page 8 where columns are discussed, it seems pretty clear regarding the purposes for which a column can be formed as part of a group move, so I still don't understand where the idea that you can form a column "any time, any where" is coming from.
I think the tidbit from Phil Barker was referring to elements forming column which were already in bad going, but said column was then going to continue through bad going, so met the criteria for forming a column according to the rule.
If you accept that "such" refers to "a single element wide column" then it is very clear that a group can form a column without restriction.

"A GROUP MOVE CAN INCLUDE:

1) reducing frontage to form (a single element wide) column

or

2) (reducing frontage) to pass through a gap between terrain features or troops of at least 1 element base width

,

3) following a road

, or

4) moving up to half an element base width sideways to line up with enemy within 1 EBW ahead".

I don't *think* there's any other way in the English language to read that sentence. So, as long as no element exceeds it's movement distance a group can form a column as a group move. Period.

Then the rules go on to say:

"Otherwise a group move can only move straight ahead or wheel by pivoting around a front corner".

This means that group moves NOT including points 1 - 4 above must move straight ahead or wheel.

The last sentence is a little bit redundant, but it may be there to remove confusion about group moves in the past.

"No other reductions or increases in frontage or changes in direction or facing can be made".

In other words, if it wasn't explicitly listed as allowable, it's not.

[ May 11, 2005, 19:06: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[Martian]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
If you accept that "such" refers to "a single element wide column" then it is very clear that a group can form a column without restriction.

"A GROUP MOVE CAN INCLUDE:

1) reducing frontage to form (a single element wide) column

I must be dense...now I finally see the point people have been hammering at.

So the question needing a final clarification from Phil is does 'such a column' refer to ANY single element wide column or only to a column formed by requirement in order to group "move by road, or across bad going or across any but a paltry river."

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Martian:
I must be dense...now I finally see the point people have been hammering at.

So the question needing a final clarification from Phil is does 'such a column' refer to ANY single element wide column or only to a column formed by requirement in order to group "move by road, or across bad going or across any but a paltry river." Well, he did respond already. He said that "such" refers to "a single element wide column". (See the thread titled FORMING A COLUMN - PHIL RESPONDS).

Having said that -- I, for one, don't happen to think Phil's word is the final authority on rules interpretations. He's very careless with his responses. However, I do happen to agree with him on this (purely from a grammatical perspective).

[ May 11, 2005, 20:41: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
A line of LH would be able to quickly withdraw and redeply much more efficiently with this reverse column manoeuver. As I said below, though, I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. For LH making multiple moves then yes, you are right, column-to-the-rear could be more effective than single element moves (assuming many pips are available, and you wished to move more than 500p to your own rear), but however you force them to form column and wheel, LH with plenty of pips will always be able to get to where they want to go, provided there are no enemy in the way. Forming column will, in the long run, be more pip intensive, since you need to use as many pips to get out of the column as you would have done to retire by single elements in the first place.

The issue would be more significant if slow-moving troops could get an advantage this way, and it seems clear to me that they don't.

Andrew

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by adsarf:
For LH making multiple moves then yes, you are right, column-to-the-rear could be more effective than single element moves (assuming many pips are available, and you wished to move more than 500p to your own rear), but however you force them to form column and wheel, LH with plenty of pips will always be able to get to where they want to go, provided there are no enemy in the way. Forming column will, in the long run, be more pip intensive, since you need to use as many pips to get out of the column as you would have done to retire by single elements in the first place.

The issue would be more significant if slow-moving troops could get an advantage this way, and it seems clear to me that they don't.

Andrew Yes, I'm happy to agree with you. Really, I think El Jocko has shown that it can't be done anyway so it's irrelevant (until someone figures out how it can be done :D )

So, have we reached a consensus here? If "such" does mean "single element wide column", then:

* columns can be formed at any time
* all the elements participating in the group move must end the move in column (which means the bogus 1 element shift left or right is illegal)
* the 180 flip can't be done because movement restrictions

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
So, have we reached a consensus here? If "such" does mean "single element wide column", then:

My views only, for what they are worth

* columns can be formed at any time

Agreed


* all the elements participating in the group move must end the move in column (which means the bogus 1 element shift left or right is illegal)


Not yet sure about this.

On the face of it it is a reasonable interpretation of the rule as written, but we interpret 'to line up facing' in a more general and permissive sense in the ZOC rules, so why do we interpret 'to form (such a) column' more strictly in this rule? Consistency in approach would be desirable, if it can be achieved.


* the 180 flip can't be done because movement restrictions

I play 25mm, so it *can* be done by most mounted, but brings advantage only to LH; I do agree with you that it is a non-issue.

Andrew

[ May 12, 2005, 09:44: Message edited by: adsarf ]

[Ares]

I now realize that my confusions and opinions about this are a result of being convinced of a set of preconditions and provisos for forming columns as a group move, which aren't really there. The order in which Phil put his sentences in the relevant paragraph led me to think you could only form the column for such and such a purpose, and it doesn't really say that; it just says you have to be in column for those purposes.

That phrase "such a column" is what threw me off - I mistakenly took that to mean you could only form a column - as a group move - for the purposes listed in the first sentence. My mistake.

And I do agree that the restriction in the last sentence makes the cheesy group move under discussion illegal (as it is a reduction in frontage not used to form a column).

I'm all better now. :rolleyes:

Eric

[Sarduri II]

"Totally stupid, totally without historical merit, totally gamesmanship."

While entirely agreeing that this -sideways movement- use of the "forming a column" rule is clearly an abuse, I would hesitate to call for historical merit if I were using an extended battle line of Kn/Bw/Kn/Bw...(or Kn/Bd/Kn/Bd...)- be it ever so effective upon the field. tongue.gif

That having been said, may I lend my small support for;

* all the elements participating in the group move must end the move in column (which means the bogus 1 element shift left or right is illegal)

as being the clearest road out of this.

As an aside; has this helped us in any way with resolving the question of reducing fromtage to pass a gap?

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Sarduri II:

While entirely agreeing that this -sideways movement- use of the "forming a column" rule is clearly an abuse, I would hesitate to call for historical merit if I were using an extended battle line of Kn/Bw/Kn/Bw...(or Kn/Bd/Kn/Bd...)- be it ever so effective upon the field. tongue.gif That's a good point, and funny to boot. smile.gif



Originally posted by Sarduri II:

As an aside; has this helped us in any way with resolving the question of reducing fromtage to pass a gap? Not directly. But I think this new understanding of the key sentence (new to some of us anyway) did help to clarify reducing frontage to pass through a gap. Although I wouldn't say anything was *resolved*, there seemed to be general agreement that as a group is passing through a gap it can reduce frontage as necessary to fit through the gap. So a 5 element wide line passing through a 3.5 element wide gap could reduce frontage to 3 elements. How it does so is up to the player.

11112222333344445555

could become

222233334444
1111----5555

or

111122223333
--------4444
--------5555

or

111133335555
----22224444

etc.

As long as no element moves more than it's maximum distance.

[ May 12, 2005, 19:08: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Sarduri II:
I would hesitate to call for historical merit if I were using an extended battle line of Kn/Bw/Kn/Bw...(or Kn/Bd/Kn/Bd...)- be it ever so effective upon the field. tongue.gif
I used that example because it was clear, not because it was historical. I could as easily have mentioned Pk/Ps/Pk/Ps/Pk (which, in echelon, is a fairly good representation of how the Swiss fought in several of their battles -- blocks of pike separated by gaps occupied by skirmishers) or Bw/Bd/Bw/Bd/Bw (which is one (of several) valid interpretation for some of the English herse formations in their HYW victories over the French) and so on.

If I was the Swiss and was facing Kn/Ps/Kn/Ps/Kn with my doubled-pike interspersed with Ps, I would sure be bent if suddenly some bogus "make column" rule allowed the line of Kn to suddenly be opposite my Ps, and their Ps to be opposite my Pike.

[Sarduri II]

The validity of your objection is not in dispute!

Indeed I did, and do support the interpretation which (hopefuly) would prevent such mischief.The intention of the example was very clear, but I could not resist the jab...


Now about this historical line of Kn/Ps/Kn/Ps...?

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Sarduri II:

Now about this historical line of Kn/Ps/Kn/Ps...? What, you don't just want me to give you one historical "alternation" formation, you want me to give you two that fought each other? Pshaw!

Let me put it to you this way -- any historical commander with a brain, given a Swiss formation as described before and tools of skirmishers (LH or Ps) and heavier cavalry (Cv or Kn) on his own side will see the advantage of the Kn/Ps formation if aligned correctly.

[John Meunier]

We don't know enough about the micro-level arrangement of most medieval deployments to dismiss or endorse Kn/Ps/Kn/Ps do we?

We could say that it represents the Ps supporting the Kn rather than screening them in front. Given the nature of the game, I don't see this as out-of-bounds.

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by John Meunier:
We don't know enough about the micro-level arrangement of most medieval deployments to dismiss or endorse Kn/Ps/Kn/Ps do we?
Yes, I think we do really. David cited the Swiss to justify his Pk/Ps/Pk set up, and we know a good deal about the tactical details of battles involving the later Swiss. No-one in reality ever attempted the tactics David is suggesting, but of course they hadn't read the rules so didn't realise that if you killed a few Ps elements, the Pike would just go away (nor did they realise that giving your horsemen more armour and longer lances made them much more vulnerable in hand to hand combat with a pike block - really dense these medieval types!)

Andrew

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by adsarf:
(nor did they realise that giving your horsemen more armour and longer lances made them much more vulnerable in hand to hand combat with a pike block - really dense these medieval types!)
Knights aren't classified by equipment, Andrew. There are lots of cases in the earlier Middle Ages where the same equipment is used by Cavalry or by Knights in DBA -- the difference is how the troops behave. I suspect that the Burgundians, Germans, and Italian Condotta were perfectly aware that a "do-or-die" charge into the sharp pointy ends of a pike block was a "die" charge.

It is amusing to say adding equipment and a longer lance suddenly makes them vulnerable to pikes, but it ain't so. In Spain in the 15th century you have horsemen who are armored as heavily as any German from the same period, and using lances that are as long, but they are thin lances that they throw, rather than doing a psycho "break them or die" charge. They are classed as LH, not Kn.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by adsarf:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pozanias:
[qb] So, have we reached a consensus here? If "such" does mean "single element wide column", then:


* all the elements participating in the group move must end the move in column (which means the bogus 1 element shift left or right is illegal)


Not yet sure about this.

On the face of it it is a reasonable interpretation of the rule as written, but we interpret 'to line up facing' in a more general and permissive sense in the ZOC rules, so why do we interpret 'to form (such a) column' more strictly in this rule? Consistency in approach would be desirable, if it can be achieved.


Andrew Your point is a valid one. I suppose it becomes a question of consistency vs. game play. Although I completely agree that consistency is desirable -- it may be that game play is more important in this particular case.

[ May 13, 2005, 14:14: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[xeswop]

Originally posted by Pozanias:
I, for one, don't happen to think Phil's word is the final authority on rules interpretations. If the author's word is not the final authority, then what will be?

[xeswop]

While HOTT has no relevance for DBA, it seems to me to fully clarify the the column forming questions for those who cannot do so otherwise.

[John Meunier]

Originally posted by adsarf:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Meunier:
We don't know enough about the micro-level arrangement of most medieval deployments to dismiss or endorse Kn/Ps/Kn/Ps do we?
Yes, I think we do really. </font>[/QUOTE]Let me put it this way: If the general wanted to have his foot archers support his knights, then how do we represent that?

If in DBA those archers are Ps, then one way might be to alternate elements. You might rather have the Ps in front of the Kn or on the flanks or even behind. But the point is that elements are an abstraction.

In real life, having archers support the knights might mean having one or two archers standing in formation next to each individual mounted knight. But you can't do that with elements unless want to create some new element types.

As for no one knowing that killing a few Ps would rout the Swiss army, you are correct. There are good arguments to make some elements more valuable than others in terms of breaking an army. But that is a different issue than if our knowledge of medieval tactical formations is exact enough to tell us whether representing this as Kn/Ps/Kn is somehow out of bounds.

To argue that Kn/Ps/Kn is ridiculous, I think you'd have to show that medieval generals never supported their knights with light infantry. We know some ancient armies supported Cv with Ps.

NOW. Whether Kn/Ps/Kn is a good idea in DBA is a different kind of question.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Bob.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pozanias:
I, for one, don't happen to think Phil's word is the final authority on rules interpretations. If the author's word is not the final authority, then what will be? </font>[/QUOTE]I mean no disrespect towards Phil. In fact, I think very highly of him in many ways. But, I have played DBA with him, I have watched him play DBA against others, I have heard him answer questions in person, and I have seen his email replies. He does not know the DBA rules as well as many of the people on this board. And I think he responds to emails without ever opening his own copy of the rules. He's written rules for many games, and many versions for every game -- I don't think it's a crime if he can't keep them all straight. Especially DBA right now, which appears to be his lowest priority.

So, to answer your question. For NASAMW, the answer is you Bob (or more accurately, it is the CHUMP - which is you :D ). Other regions have their own means of determining the final authority. For the international community as a whole, I think this forum does a pretty good job.

[ May 15, 2005, 16:30: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[xeswop]

I wanted to contine the interesting thread started by Mark, seperate from the column discussion, so I moved it to the Rants and Raves section, under, Whose Rules?

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by John Meunier:
To argue that Kn/Ps/Kn is ridiculous, I think you'd have to show that medieval generals never supported their knights with light infantry. We know some ancient armies supported Cv with Ps.
Well the original issue was about the Later Swiss list. I think I can give you a pretty detailed account of most of the battles fought by that army (certainly all the major ones) but it would be tedious and further derail the thread. We can start a new thread if you really want to debate the point (as you know, I give way to no-one in my eagerness for the cut-and-thrust of a truly pointless debate), but let's not muddy this one further.

On the point of principle, though, shouldn't we be aiming for tactics we know to have been used, rather than those that we made up, but can't categorically rule out?

Andrew