column definition

You did not say it in terms.  However, it is implicit in your assertion that a group which one element wide and two deep is not a column.  "A group move ...across bad (not rough) going must be in or into a column..." (page 8).  Similarly, if a river is other than paltry, "only single elements or groups in or forming a column can cross it during a game..." (page 9). 

So, to return to my earlier question, are you seriously contending that a group of warband which is one element wide and two deep cannot cross bad going or a non-paltry river as a group (for a single PIP) because they are not a column?

And if we are going down the "show me where it says in the book" line of debate, perhaps you could show the community where it says that a column must be three or more elements deep (or words to that effect)?  The explanation of changing moving from a group into a column doesn't cut it.  The plural encompasses the singular.  

Simple :

Column = beyond the first element, in one element wide.

Beyond the first element.

So, start from one more element beyond the one ahead and so on...

2+


It's implicit p.8 in TACTICAL MOVE, last paragraph
It's implicit p.9 in CROSSING A RIVER
The example P.17 REDUCING FRONTAGE, doesn't limited at all the depth

And beyond that, all the rules needed to limited a "column" to a 3+ elements are NOT in the book...
The rules works IF a column is a 2+ elements.

It was, of course, your own arguments...

Here are a few other absurdities that would occur if elements two deep were 'not' classed as a column.

Destroyed Elements, top of page 12:-
        “An element that has an enemy front edge in contact with its side or rear edge is destroyed
         by recoiling, being pushed back, fleeing, or being in a column whose front element is destroyed.”
(If elements 2 deep were 'not' classed as a column, then those behind wouldn't be destroyed,
only those that were at least 3 or more elements deep…which is ridiculous)

Pursuing on page 12:-
        “Otherwise, an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed
        (and all elements in a column behind such an element) must immediately pursue.”
(If elements 2 deep were 'not' classed as a column, then those in front would pursue,
and those that were at least 3 or more elements deep would also pursue, but if only
two deep then the second element would not pursue, preventing rear-supporters from
also pursuing and breaking-up a formation…which again is ridiculous)

So I agree with Solal71 (welcome to Fanaticus by the way ) and Menacussecundus…
…who are both saying the same thing. 
An element lined-up behind another is in a column formation, no matter how deep.


Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2020 FAQ: ancientwargaming.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/dba_faq_q1_2020_final.pdf
(Note: a "404 Error Message" means you are using a mobile device...the Fanaticus Wiki can only be accessed via a computer)

My apologies solal71. I had muddled you and goldenhorde.

Oh I don’t know…it seems very realistic to me.
After all, the last order they received from their Command-in-Chef was
“Follow the blokes in front” (that is what a column is).

You, with the all-seeing-eye of an eagle flying over the battlefield, may want to
micro-manage every single element and not have the rear ranks pursue, but what
does the local officer or clan leader on the ground think?

Seeing their mates in front beating the enemy they too may become swept up in
all the excitement and impetuously surge forwards thinking victory is near.
Or being so far back they can’t even see the enemy, and all they know is they were
told to “follow those in front”…so they do, no matter how deep they are in the column.

And what about the negative effects of the front rank pursuing while those behind don’t?
If I were one of those in the front I wouldn’t be happy if my mates behind me hang back!
And what about Warbands or even worse Pikemen in rough going?
They don’t get rear support, so off they’d go on their own, possibly into good going with
no support. That doesn’t seem realistic, nor is it borne-out by the historical accounts.

It all depends on what you as a wargamer think your little metal painted soldiers are.
Are they nothing more than radio-controlled robots, that always do what they are told?
Or do they (sometimes) have minds of their own, and occasionally disobey orders or
do things that their Commander-in-Chief doesn’t want them to do?

As for the destroyed effect when in a flanked column, remember that elements can be
be destroyed by being doubled. And when flanked in the rear of a column and the front
element is doubled, the rules say those behind are also destroyed (think of it as the rear
elements, already being flanked themselves, and seeing their front put to flight or killed,
also flee off the battlefield…or maybe even drop their weapons and surrender).
This too seems fairly realistic.

Now you could House Rule things if you like, but the problem with House Rules is your
opponent has to also agree with them. And I think you’ll find many players pointing
their fingers at Page 8, Tactical Moves, third paragraph, where it quite clearly says:-
                 “A column is a group only one element wide”…
…with NO mention of how many elements must be in that column.

I do agree with you that some of the rules are badly written or even illogical Goldenhord.
But that doesn’t mean they ALL are.

I personally think it daft that solid Bows gain +1 when side-supported by solid Blades…
…Bows can’t form ‘shield walls’! So why should they gain a +1 just from solid Blades,
because their flank is being well protected, but not from solid Spears?
But I do understand the reason for this rule.
It’s an excuse to give an artificial much needed boost to a very weak troop type.
And it encourages players to deploy the Hundred Years War English historically.
(Although whether other armies, such as the II/74 Palmyrans, deserve the same
ability is very questionable)

But getting back to deep columns pursuing…you do actually have a choice you know.
No one is forcing you to form such deep columns.
You could always think ahead and leave a gap between the column leaders and those behind.
Even a mere 1mm gap will do the job, and prevent those behind from also pursuing.

Something that Phil Barker once said a long time ago is:-
“We shouldn’t make rules that prevent players from making mistakes”…
…and I entirely agree with him.