Bent Columns « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Bent Columns

(33 posts) (10 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Mycenius
Latest reply from Another_Grognard

Tags:

12 Next »

Mycenius
Member

...and by that I meant columns with a bend in them (not the other sort)... ;-)

Is it okay for columns to bend and snake their bases, and end moves with a kink in them... If so what are the implications for changing formation? Or does the whole march column change facing as if one big single base when it wheels, and if so do obstructions, table edges, etc, prevent this?

See Large Image 9 in my recent game report:
http://wargaming.info/2011/lasalle-in-the-hundred-days/
It may be hard to see but on the Hill in the British rear the 79th Highlanders have marched across behind the Foot Battery, and the head of the column (1 base) has done a 45º wheel as the last part of it's movement, so next turn it can change into Line or AC facing vaguely towards the French rather than at right angles to them?

Is/Was this legal? All requirements for Wheeling and March Column movement were met. If the whole column lined up on the leading base the last base might have had part of it off the table edge...

I'm assuming when you wheel the bases in the March Column wheel individually at the same point the leading base did - so if you don't move 4BW there will be a kink in your line until net time you move?

Also if that's correct what's the implication on retreat moves if you lose a combat and survive?

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/turning-in-march-column#post-3283

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Ah well - so I've cheated in both games with Cam then... Bending my columns around obstacles and along roads and the above example... :-o

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Mycenius you might have offended against the 'official' position but I always play the way the way you did in friendly games as it is clearly more realistic, consequent problems elsewhere not withstanding.

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

My take is whether you do it John's way or by the book you can get odd situations - for me as long as a player does it consistently one way or other it does not matter.

Snaking the column, and in particular turning the first base only of a march column as John did (the infamous Khazar Mounted Drill Team move in DBM), opens up options for the next move since you can change formation facing one way or easily move the column off in another way. You get your cake and eat it too.

But doing it by the book, means the rear element of a long march column gets whipsawed around behind the leading bases, being able to move far further than its normal movement rate. This can be a nice sneaky way of getting a base out of shooting/charging arc.

John likes the Khazar way, I prefer the sneaky whipsaw.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

I think either way has exactly the same amount of cheeze and potential issues - the 'whipsaw' for example could end up dumping your formation in a wood or even a town sector or straddling a wall or stream, because you turned a corned and 2-3 BW behind the lead element's 'new' rear is a piece of terrain... Likewise it means you 'can't' turn a column on occasion when in reality you clearly could because of a friendly unit that is in that 2-3 BW to new rear vicinity... Plus as Cam mentions the instant escape for a march column from arc of fire or even from being close assaulted in some situations (or if not completely at least not close assaulted from rear/flank)...

Obviously the snaky version opens other problems - the KMDT cheeze manoeuvres and having your cake and eating it too for having more flexible options for the next move...

But I would point out the distinction that, while you could argue a player would not necessarily need to be deliberately trying it on or being cheezy to cause any of these (for either case), arguably the snaky KMDT type ones cause sitauations that only are simply rules mechanics 'preferences'; and not actual physical terrain or unit related anomalies which can be caused by the abstraction of the unit's position which happens with the whipsaw...

As to which answer is best - who knows - but we know what Sam's preference is... But for me (FWIW) I tend to prefer to avoid anything that magically teleports units (or bases or parts of units) around the table, hence why I hadn't even considered that my snaky type moves of columns might not be what was intended in the rules... Of course YMMV...

:-)

John

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

It's an acknowledged "hole" in the rules that you can't leave a column "bending" around, say, a road in the middle of a forest. Nobody has any objections to "bending" while in the midst of movement, but the move needs to end, somehow, in one of the limited formation shapes shown on pages 12-13.

Incidentally, I tried to fix this in the next game, and realized just how many rules one would have to write to "fix" it. There are potentially a billion unintended consequences because as soon as a unit has bases facing in more than one direction, that raises all sorts of problems in rules that adjudicate things based on facing, or direction, or being "to the front" or "to the flank," and so on.

That's probably why it is so rare to find "bent unit" rules in horse-n-musket games. They're just not worth the umpteen pages and diagrams and exceptions that would be required to adjudicate them.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Yep - fair enough Sam - I figured something like that would be the case... :-)

So what is the 'official line' on the end of a March Column's move - it must end up dead straight, can it do the whiplash move where it's tail teleports into place or must it:

(a) have ended up straight by it's own momentum/movement...

(b) What about the situations I described above where straightening the column may end up with the last base or more in other terrain (like woods, or a town sector) or straddling an obstacle (like a wall or stream) - the column wont' have paid to move over/through such nor does it seem fair to penalise it with that on it's following move since it never actually 'entered' that terrain...?

:-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Scruff
Member

We too have had this discussion down here, and the consensus was snakey march columns, but when you change formation, its on the lead element.

cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

We too have had this discussion down here, and the consensus was snakey march columns, but when you change formation, its on the lead element.

That certainly seems like a sensible compromise that would alleviate the whiplash/wagging tail issue and alleviate much of Sam's points from the other side of things! So the moving player pays the price for leaving the column bent of being constrained to do any initial manoeuvre next turn on the 1st base only. I guess too the "more than half in front" thing can just fall as it may okay, and using the front base to determine whether flanked will work too (although largely irrelevant I assume if in March column). I think that would work well - So I guess that just leaves possibly the direction you fall-back in the unlikely event of losing a combat and not being destroyed while in a bent march column as a hole - would it be to the rear of the front base or the last base in the column or halfway in between the 2 directions?

Posted 1 year ago #
Scruff
Member

I would say, run back the way it came, as the snake was to avoid some sort of obstacle, it needs to pass back past it going the other way.

cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
DaKiwiMike
Member

You can wheel when you fall back anyway (p38) - so it's owning player's choice, wheeling on the front base.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

You can wheel when you fall back anyway (p38) - so it's owning player's choice, wheeling on the front base.

Except as Scruff said the rear of the column might be off to the opposite side bent round a field or town sector or something - so you'd have to do the wheel and fall back from the perspective of the rear stand IMO, then have the other stands conform in order to it's front once moved...?

...and you are also on the brink, the cusp, of the slippery slope Sam referred to of suddenly needing thousands of words to cover all the contingencies... So it would need to be something simple and robust - I think making fall backs relative to the rear stand is probably the closest to that...?

Just some general musings...

Posted 1 year ago #
DaKiwiMike
Member

Yeah - I was actually agreeing with Scruff. In that although currently you can't legally leave a column bent after moving, assuming we allow that then a fall back the way it came is legal because you are currently allowed to wheel as you fall back anyway.

So whether you make it from the front or back it doesn't really matter because with a wheel relative to either you can achieve the same thing...if that makes sense at all.

I'm not saying it'll be exactly geometrically the same, but generally the same.

So I would make it fairly free - wheel on the front or the rear, player's choice.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

So whether you make it from the front or back it doesn't really matter because with a wheel relative to either you can achieve the same thing...if that makes sense at all.

No it doesn't... :-)

...because a column could have a huge 90º bend to the right in it's middle and what you are suggesting (the front base wheeling) means it could actually fall-back wheeling to the left side (the opposite side relative to it's current position) so the tail of the column would have whiplashed (or wagged it's tail) through a 180º arc of something like about 14BW (or more!) in circumference - that's one super fast withdrawal ¼ of the way across the table by the tail-end-charlie base! ;-)

But conversely the opposite is not true - if you make it that they always wheeled (& measured) from the rear base, while the front base might move a small distance more overall to fall into line in front of the rear base's new position (with the 2nd & 3rd bases etc intervening), you can't cause the same huge teleportation of bases ¼ of the table length (and it will by default cause the withdrawal to roughly emulate the original approach route - i.e. the front base will more or less have abstractly moved back along where the column was originally positioned and should always finish somewhere not too distant from where the rear base originally started)... :-)

At least that's how I see it - if you allow bent march columns and allow the front base to pivot for a fall-back, you are just gonna create hugely cheezy manoeuvres where units teleport around and be back with what Sam was trying to (indirectly) avoid!

Of course the whole situation should be a 1 in 1000 one anyway - I mean - who lets their March Columns get near enough to be close assaulted by the enemy anyway?!! :-o

;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Snaky columns for me and an application of common sense to deal with any resulting anomalies.

Oh I forgot - among wargamers in the middle of a game common sense is as rare as hens teeth :)

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Oh I forgot - among wargamers in the middle of a game common sense is as rare as hens teeth :)

Err, Yurrrrpp! ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
DaKiwiMike
Member

Yeah, you're correct - I was really thning about wheeling the same way as the column was bent. I agree the effect would be more extreme and therefore open to exploitation wheeling from the front. You could still get some pretty weird manoeuvres from the back - like continuing the 90 degree bend by another 90 degrees the same way so you fall back in the direction the front was originally facing, i.e. a U-turn.

I can see why Sam left this alone - my brain hurts.

I do have a solution however - a unit in bent column can't fall back voluntarily and if forced to by a close combat result it is instead broken, that will stop exploitation. :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

I do have a solution however - a unit in bent column can't fall back voluntarily and if forced to by a close combat result it is instead broken, that will stop exploitation. :-)

Phil Barker would be proud! ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
DaKiwiMike
Member

Thank you - it's the punish the cheese approach...

Dammit - I just worked out what I need to fill out my 28mm Austrians, about another 200 infantry for the core list. Sodding big battalions...at least the cav units are small with only 2 to a base.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Thank you - it's the punish the cheese approach...

There are actually plenty of legitimate genuine reasons to do it - I've done it about 5 times in 2 games - I did it 3-4 times alone in the 1809 game:
http://wargaming.info/2011/a-little-1809-lasalle-affair/
So I don't think you should necessarily arbitrarily punish everyone because of the off-chance some crazed fool thinks he can get some cheeze benefit from it...

...after all, if it happens a March Column will have been attacked and done pretty well to just survive to start with (unless it's Cam of course). e.g. 4D v. 8D before other factors, so that's a typical average of 1.3 hits to 2.7 hits, so I think it's something like the Column should die half of all occasions regardless, the balance being a fall-back about 30%+ of the time, the remainder being a draw or a lucky win causing the attacker to fall-back or the extremely agaisnt the odds destruction of the attacker...

So I don't think arbitrary destruction is warranted, or necessary... :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Valmy92
Member

Perhaps an even simpler way to interpret this: anything that the unit wants to do has to be based on its front base. Anything in terms of determining flanks or rear is based on what is most DISadvantageous to the "bent" unit. I'd figure fall backs caused by combat should always be directly away from the unit that caused the result (as a principle, that may not be the letter of the rules).
Phil

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I think bendy columns are OK, but as always it is the intent that matters. Bending a column around as you move to avoid interpenetration, terrain or table edges seems reasonable and realistic.

But ending bent if you could straighten the column should be avoided if possible.

What kicked this off was John asking about turning the head of a march column to end:
__<<<<<< __<<<<<< vv vv

Personally I dislike this move (the KMDT in DBM). Its intent is not always to move around terrain or fit into a gap. What it does is gives the players two options on the direction to change formation next turn (form up on the front base in one direction, or form up on a rear base facing another way).

I think it is good manners if a player can END a march column move straight (without interpenetration or ending in terrain or bases falling off the edge of the world) they should do so. It simplifies so many things - and is technically legal.

But there will be times they can't straighen up - and since it is illegal they should avoid doing anything that may been seen as giving them an edge from not being straight.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Perhaps an even simpler way to interpret this: anything that the unit wants to do has to be based on its front base.

Hi Phil - you need to see the earlier part of the thread - for fall-backs this is the worst option possible - allowing extremely cheezy teleporting of the rear half of the unit ¼ of the way across the table in extreme cases... Using the front base as the only option for formation changes while moving is fine (but I'm not convinced necessary), but for fall-backs from combat it's no good if you allow bent columns...

Anything in terms of determining flanks or rear is based on what is most DISadvantageous to the "bent" unit.

Yep. Except it's largely irrelevant as there is nothing in the rules that that really matters as a March Column gets halved in combat anyway, AND if you think about it there is no situation where someone can contact a bent column somewhere other than the front base's front edge, and NOT be considered behind the flank of the front base - no matter how bent the column is - so it's a superfluous statement (part of those thousands of unnecessary words Sam was avoiding). :-) Unless a column is in a totally bizarre & lopsided "U" and you hit the rear edge of the rear stand there is no other way you could be in front of the front stand... :-)

I'd figure fall backs caused by combat should always be directly away from the unit that caused the result (as a principle, that may not be the letter of the rules).

That's not what's in the rules mate, since a fall-back can include any amount of wheels desired... :-) The main issue with that I see is it creates the DBM/DBMM style issue of bases not being able to retreat because they hit obstructions (terrain or other units) and aren't allowed to deviate to avoid them or pass through gaps... :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

I think it is good manners if a player can END a march column move straight (without interpenetration or ending in terrain or bases falling off the edge of the world) they should do so. It simplifies so many things - and is technically legal.

But there will be times they can't straighten up - and since it is illegal they should avoid doing anything that may been seen as giving them an edge from not being straight.

I'll consider myself appropriately 'scolded'! :-o I think that's fair though, but I'd suggest that as long as half (or maybe over over half) the front of the column is bent it should be considered okay (i.e. the unit has almost completely turned) and/or any formation changes (at all times) must be made around the bases in the front part of the column on the new facing not the tail end guys on the old facing...?

Posted 1 year ago #
DaKiwiMike
Member

I think on this one we're just going to have to rely on good manners from the players with the guiding principles being try not to leave them bent at the end of the move and if you do then the formation changes should be around the front bases only.

I think I'm agreeing with both John and Cam (and Sam for that matter) - I'd better have a lie down!

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Hi everyone,

So, let me get this straight. A march formation cannot have any bends in it at the end of its movement. When done moving it must look exactly like the "March" formation examples on pages 12 and 13 of the rules. It may never end its movement looking like something as shown on page 14. This is only allowed by unlimbered artillery. Correct?

I can accept this, but to be honest, until now I figured it was okay to put a bend in your march [column] formation. Doesn't happen allot, but when moving past terrain features or other obstacles, sometimes a player doesn't have a choice because the unit does not have enough movement to clear the obstructions. Especially when moving along a curvy road in a large wooded area.

We have never done it, but yes, I can see how some players may be tempted to use their long snaking march formations to create some sort of tricky-dicky situation. Personally, that's just bad gamesmanship.

So here is my concern, does the march [column] formation have to remain in its rigid straight elongated formation at all times when moving? That is, when a march formation wheels, what happens? Does the whole march formation swing around behind the leading base, or does each base follow the leader with each wheeling at the point the leading base wheeled?

So, what happens when a unit in March Formation moves and for some reason it cannot clear the obstruction without putting a "bend" in the long line of bases? Like moving along a curvy road in a large wooded area for example.

Earlier, Sam said, It's an acknowledged "hole" in the rules that you can't leave a column "bending" around, say, a road in the middle of a forest. Nobody has any objections to "bending" while in the midst of movement, but the move needs to end, somehow, in one of the limited formation shapes shown on pages 12-13. But we need to come up with a universal ruling on this for all Lasalle players to follow.

I do want to point out that depth of "infantry and cavalry units are much too deep" (page 14, Lasalle) and this is do to the miniature figures themselves and not some game rule.

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Well, I just found this response by Sam Mustafa on a different thread:
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/wheeling-through-gaps-clarification#post-9748

- - - -

Now, I realize that in the case of a March column, that raises some questions about how the remaining bases act, if the front one wheels. For instance, do they suddenly swing around behind the first one, or do they proceed like battleships in a line, each wheeling at the moment they move forward and reach the turning point?

To be honest, I don't really have an answer for that, other than to say that the unit must end in a legal formation and not "sitting on" any friends.

- - - -

I guess that means a unit moving along a curvy road in a large wooded area will always have to move using reduced movement allowance since a portion of the unit will always be in the wooded area because it will not be allowed to bend and conform to the curvy road. Bumber.

May all your roads be long and straight :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Borodino
Member

Cam said "... but there will be times they can't straighen up - and since it is illegal they should avoid doing anything that may been seen as giving them an edge from not being straight."

Personally i'd be relaxed about the whole thing provided both agreed in advance or played it that way from the off and no-one was trying to gain a meaningful advantage by doing so.

Just my £0.02

James

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

To be honest, I don't really have an answer for that, other than to say that the unit must end in a legal formation and not "sitting on" any friends.

Yes - that comment of Sam's (or a similar one) has been pointed to previously in another post as well (see top of thread). You could argue therefore that when you move a March Column only the front base matters for all movement and the balance of the bases just materialise directly to it's rear at the end of the move...

P.S. I can report that Cam & I had no bendy columns in our game today! ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.