The unbeatable formation

[LawrenceG]

so if I put an enemy element to A's right,
facing the opposite direction to A
so the "real" positions of B, C are in its TZ
but the "treated as" positions of BC are not in the TZ

then B, C are not TZed ?

[MikeCampbell]

if you're saying what I think you're saying, then yes - it cuts both ways - the "treated as" positions are where they are affected by TZ's and where their own TZ's apply from.

[LawrenceG]

OK, so I could move the enemy element straight ahead through the "real" positions then, treating B and C as if they were off to the side?

[MikeCampbell]

Can't see why not.

Using more and more extreme examples will not change what the words mean.

Either you play to the simple meaning of the wording, or you do not....and if you do not then feel free to rewrite the rest of the rules too......

[LawrenceG]

Can't see why not.

Using more and more extreme examples will not change what the words mean.

Either you play to the simple meaning of the wording, or you do not....and if you do not then feel free to rewrite the rest of the rules too......

OK, so if column ABC is marching along a curved road through difficult terrain then the group must use the off-road movement speed because B and C are not on the road.

Apart from falling foul of reductio ad absurdum, if the rule had the meaning you use, there would be no need for kinks to be allowed at all.

I'll play using the simplest meaning that actually makes sense.

OF course, if Phil had worded it more clearly in the first place then we would not have needed to go through this process.

[MikeCampbell]

OK, so if column ABC is marching along a curved road through difficult terrain then the group must use the off-road movement speed because B and C are not on the road.

no - not at all... if in column then only the move of the front element need be measured and hte remainder of the elements in the column are trested as moving the same distance (page 29 the para starting "Each element of a column....") - so they all get to move at road speed even with this.

good try tho

[LawrenceG]

OK, so if column ABC is marching along a curved road through difficult terrain then the group must use the off-road movement speed because B and C are not on the road.

no - not at all... if in column then only the move of the front element need be measured and hte remainder of the elements in the column are trested as moving the same distance (page 29 the para starting "Each element of a column....") - so they all get to move at road speed even with this.

good try tho

page 28 "A group move cannot exceed the maximum move distance of its slowest element", which would be one of those off-road.

[MikeCampbell]

The bit I pointed out on page 29 says that they all get to move the same distance as the front element - hence the slowest move is as far as the front element moves.

[LawrenceG]

The bit I pointed out on page 29 says that they all get to move the same distance as the front element - hence the slowest move is as far as the front element moves.

No, the bit on p29 says they count as having moved the same distance as the front element ("treated as if moving the same distance").

It does not say that the maximum distance they are allowed to move is the maximum distance the front element is  allowed to move.

The front element cannot move more than the max distance allowed to the other elements. If it did, they would count as having moved further than their allowed maximum distance (which is obviously not allowed).

[MikeCampbell]

How does "treated as if moving the same distance" mean anything other than they move the same distance?

I think you are clutching at straws.

Going back to the orignal point that elements in a bent column are treated as being behind the element in front - you don't like the implications so you are doing whatever you can in order to make it appear unreasonable.

IMO you are the one being unreasonable - the situations you have tried to bring up to discredit the position are covered by it without much bother if you accept it as it is written.  There is no need to try to make them unworkable - that's just counter-productive and is the kind of thing that gives Phil's rules whatever bad name they have - they cover what htey need to but people don't like them and persist in arguing them long after their point is lost.

could they be better written - of course they could - much of DBMM is like that.  Could the rule be changed so as to reflect whatever it is you'd prefer?  Sure - and if it is that'll be fine too.  but there's nothing wrong with it as it is either.

But now you are going out of your way to try to make them not work.  there is just no need to do so.  I'm sorry you don't like the rule, but you really should just accept that it is what it is and get on with the game.

[LawrenceG]

How does "treated as if moving the same distance" mean anything other than they move the same distance?

People used to get this wrong in DBM as well. It's a rather subtle distinction between "move" as in distance you actually move and "move" as used in a wargames sense of how far you are allowed to move, often called "movement allowance" in game rules, but carrying the physical sense of "speed".

I don't think it means exactly "they move the same distance" and it does not mean "it is given the same movement allowance". I'll explain what I think it does mean by way of an example:

Consider a column of 2 elements of chariot Cv, A and B with A in front. Lets say it has turned right 45 degrees and stopped straight after the wheel, so the rear right corner of A is touching the front edge of B somewhere near its left hand end.

Next bound, A advances straight ahead 240 p.

If B "moves the same distance", its front left corner will not reach A's rear left corner. There will be a gap between the elements. So it certainly does not mean "they move the same distance".

What you are supposed to do is wheel B at the line of the original wheel and then butt it up against the rear of A. In reality, it has moved further than A. However, it is "treated as if moving the same distance", i.e. treated as having moved in this case 240p. THe max move distance for Cv is 240p, so this is OK.

Now suppose B is Kn. The max move distance for Kn is 200 p .  If B followed A in the column, it would count as having moved 240p. That exceeds its maximum move, so it is not legal. To move this column, A moves 200p and B is butted up against its rear. B has actually moved about 220p, but is treated as moving the same as A, i.e. 200p. This is its max move distance so this move is allowed.


"Treated as if moving the same distance" does not mean they have the same movement allowance. If you have a column of LH in front and Art(S) behind, it does not allow the Art(S) to move at LH speed. It constrains the LH to move at Art(S) speed, but allows the Art(S) to exceed its normal move enough to catch up the extra distance caused by the kink.

[MikeCampbell]

Lawrence I am a prety simple sort of person - and I find your explaination complicated, difficult to follow, and unconvincing.

So I'm going to stick with my nice easy version instead.

[LawrenceG]

Lawrence I am a prety simple sort of person - and I find your explaination complicated, difficult to follow, and unconvincing.

So I'm going to stick with my nice easy version instead.

OK. I'll stick with my nice easy version too.

[MikeCampbell]

What's easy about the bent column being "un-attackable" from the flank?

[william]

  As a matter of interest from the initial question, could element 1 contact the front corner and part of the front edge of B ( would be front edge to front edge within a zone of control ) forcing B to line up with 1 immediatatly ? If this were to happen would B still be in a column ? Would B have to conform ( because it is in a group contacted on an outside corner, Therefore chose to fight in place but count as overlapped ?

William