From my reading, column attack was actually first used because of inadequate training for the troops attacking. In other words, the French had lots of volunteers that were not trained to fight in line initially so they fought in columns.
The French that were 'blown away' by a steady line, as is mentioned, were done so by veteran troops. But to say that only 2nd rate foot in line lost to these columns is not the case. There are plenty of examples of this happening. Battle is a peculiar thing. There are no assurances that what happened yesterday will happen today. In wargames, we model this with unit morale or dice rolls for outcomes.
I think the Sharpe novels illustrate this quite well. While the British line did hold more often than not to a column, it was quite a shock to see so many French in column coming at you. If anything, it becomes a test of wills between the combatants. Who will run away first? The stalwart British 'thin red line' or the brave deep column of French soldiers that ignore the fact that those around them are getting shot at? It still comes down to a test of wills. If the French can stomach the losses of attacking a line in column, they when the column crashes against the line, the line will collapse.
I am currently reading (again) Glover's, The Napoleonic Wars: An Illustrated History 1792 - 1815. The Revolutionary War period is when the French first tried the combat columns to success and they were hardly fighting second rate troops. Even if they were second rate, so were the French volunteers! What is interesting is that on one day the columns succeed and on another day or battle they don't.
Under Napoleon in Italy, the French army is successful but in the same period, the armies in Germany are being beaten by the Austrian contingents. Same formations, similar tactics but different outcomes. No doubt that Napoleon's use of artillery certainly came into play as he was an artillery officer and the fact that France's artillery arm survived the collapse of the monarchy much better than the rest of the army did. Also, it must be mentioned, that the French Tirailleurs (skirmishers) gave both the Prussians and Austrians fits as they had no integrated skirmishers to counter the French who numbered in the thousands in this role in individual battles. The combination of softening by artillery and skirmishers certainly made the line formations more vulnerable to the column attacks of the French too. I guess you can say this is a special circumstance created by the skirmishers and artillery...
Eventually, the French volunteers learned to fight in line. But column and mixed formations that Napoleon favored certainly had their impact. The ability of the French to maneuver so quickly on the battlefield certainly gave the Austrians much trouble. The French took advantage of the stagnancy of their enemies linear tactics to the full.
While many argue that the Prussians early and in the catastrophic loses of 1806 were the case of poor troop quality and antiquated tactics, I would argue that the troops performed well but were poorly led and certainly not trained or prepared to deal with the rapid adaptability of the French on the battlefield, the French skirmishers and the truly combined armed tactics using cavalry, infantry and artillery in proper coordination that the French used time and again. The inability of the Allies to coordinate two armies together on the battlefield early on did much to help the French too.
Back to the point at hand, all things being equal, I would imagine that the line will shoot up the attacking column. But then again, nothing is certain and die rolls certainly help model the uncertainties involved.
Chris