|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 16, 2020 9:26:07 GMT
Looks as if a good time was had by all.
Interesting theme - may ave to see if I can get the club interested in something along these lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Feb 16, 2020 10:02:27 GMT
Talk about splitting hairs (see Welsh Open thread)! I found myself in a game yesterday arguing the finer points of being uphill and only slowly realising I was in the wrong. In all the years I have been playing this flawed but fantastic game nobody has ever claimed uphill of me in the situation I found myself in yesterday. It’s probably been a case of ‘gentlemanly’ play and not bothering. I have never understood ‘uphill’ and there seem to be nearly as many interpretations as players. Fortunately, it is usually easy to observe if an element is clearly uphill – but yesterday, to my eye, it wasn’t. Since both of us playing the game were near the top of the table and since the uphill issue was critical to us both within the game, we argued. Nothing unpleasant but both assertive. It wasn’t really until Mark Skelton gave me an excellent lesson that I understood how to quickly identify ‘uphill’. So, thanks to Mark for the eye opening eureka moment and apologies to my opponent again. Incidentally, we drew the game. An impossible situation where knights could not enter the steep hills and light troops on the other side could not venture out. Mark’s method (as it shall hence forth be known in my mind) gives some uphill positions which to the casual eye do not look uphill and situations in which players have never claimed uphill against me, but technically I can now see the logic of it. Doh! Don’t ask me to explain it or to post a diagram; I need someone with a better brain than mine on the job. I love playing this game and now at last I think I have a means of quickly and simply deciding ‘uphill’. I plan to explain it to all my opponent’s in future in the hope that I don’t start splitting hairs and worse, find to my horror that I am in the wrong. As for the wider Bakewell Winter Wimps tournament, it was a great theme which generated many excellent games and was played, as usual, by a warm and friendly group of guys. It may never get warm in the Peak District but visually it is stunning and after a long drive, it was a joy to behold. I took Nabataeans II/22a. Having just painted the Ps bowmen for the army just before the tournament was announced I knew that if I was able to attend it would be Nabataeans. Although not a strong force, particularly since it needed to be Ps strong, knowing that alternate games would be played with my opponent’s army I felt that it didn’t much matter what I took. Mark let me use his excellent Petra inspired camp which was perfect. I expected lots of knights and light horse which is why I took maximum fast bows and it was the bows, when in my hands, that did the most damage yesterday. With the extremes of army types – some very light and others with lots of knights – terrain proved to be a very significant factor. I saw knights mowing down their light infantry enemies in open terrain and at other times knights having nowhere to go and being played completely out of the game. Thanks Simon, for a great day – I only wish we lived a bit closer to each other. Colin the Wimp At the end of the day Simon suggested the following way of deciding who's uphill: Take the central point on the rear edge of both elements. Measure the distance of each to the hill's central point. Whoever is closest is uphill. We didn't have time to consider every situation but on first glance it look pretty foolproof to me. What do people think? |
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Feb 16, 2020 10:37:55 GMT
Just been trying that out, Sheffmark. Like Mark’s Method (in which he draws a line through the contact edges) it appears to work but gives uphill to elements in some situations that, at first glance, don’t appear to be uphill and in the past players probably didn’t claim uphill. It works but it feels almost like changing the rules. If the FAQ group hasn’t made a ruling on this (and I have not seen anything) it would be good if they could come up with a clear method for determining uphill.
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Feb 16, 2020 12:19:04 GMT
At the end of the day Simon suggested the following way of deciding who's uphill: Take the central point on the rear edge of both elements. Measure the distance of each to the hill's central point. Whoever is closest is uphill. We didn't have time to consider every situation but on first glance it look pretty foolproof to me. What do people think? I don't know what the issue Colin was alluding to was but rear edge has nothing to do with uphill. This proposed method certainly won't work if elements are of very different depths (i.e. 6Kn v Ps) and the longer element is astride the hill top. |
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Feb 16, 2020 12:39:15 GMT
I will be setting the dates for the Bakewell Open in June shortly. Simon Just a heads up, PAWS Summer DBA is scheduled for 27th June this year. |
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Feb 16, 2020 12:39:36 GMT
That’s a very good point, Bill. I’ve just tried a 20mm deep base in contact with a 60mm deep base and Mark’s Method still seems to work – draw a line from the hills centre point through the nearest point of the contact edges and whichever front edge is nearer the hills crest is uphill. Does this work or can you offer an alternative simple method?
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Feb 16, 2020 12:47:02 GMT
At the end of the day Simon suggested the following way of deciding who's uphill: Take the central point on the rear edge of both elements. Measure the distance of each to the hill's central point. Whoever is closest is uphill. We didn't have time to consider every situation but on first glance it look pretty foolproof to me. What do people think? I don't know what the issue Colin was alluding to was but rear edge has nothing to do with uphill. This proposed method certainly won't work if elements are of very different depths (i.e. 6Kn v Ps) and the longer element is astride the hill top. I agree Bill. Having thought about it a bit more, I wonder if one approach would be to say that to count as uphill you have to be completely on the hill and to be able to trace a straight line from anywhere on your front edge, through your rear edge to the nearest point of the ridge line or the agreed centre point of the hill. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Feb 16, 2020 13:51:34 GMT
I will be setting the dates for the Bakewell Open in June shortly. Simon Just a heads up, PAWS Summer DBA is scheduled for 27th June this year. Simon Thanks Bill - will make sure there is no clash. Also, I believe the Mercian will be early July. |
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 16, 2020 17:52:55 GMT
That’s a very good point, Bill. I’ve just tried a 20mm deep base in contact with a 60mm deep base and Mark’s Method still seems to work – draw a line from the hills centre point through the nearest point of the contact edges and whichever front edge is nearer the hills crest is uphill. Does this work or can you offer an alternative simple method? Colin The rules imply that all hills consist of a ridge from one end to the other. Most people would actually perceive a hill as an irregular cone sloping up to a point (the summit). If given the chance, I would always suggest that we play the latter, and assume that he hill is essentially conical. We should then define a point as the summit and mark it in some way. To find which element is uphill extend a line from the summit to the elements. If the line contacts a rear edge first, that element is uphill. iI it contacts the side edges, continue the line through the point where the front edges meet. The element through which the line then passes is downhill. Scott |
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Feb 16, 2020 18:12:55 GMT
Thank you, Scott. Clear, concise and I can’t not make it work. Your definition is essentially the same as Mark’s except I don’t think Mark looks at rear edges first.
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Feb 16, 2020 23:10:06 GMT
I don't know what the issue Colin was alluding to was but rear edge has nothing to do with uphill. This proposed method certainly won't work if elements are of very different depths (i.e. 6Kn v Ps) and the longer element is astride the hill top. I agree Bill. Having thought about it a bit more, I wonder if one approach would be to say that to count as uphill you have to be completely on the hill and to be able to trace a straight line from anywhere on your front edge, through your rear edge to the nearest point of the ridge line or the agreed centre point of the hill. Simon No, how much of either element is on the hill is irrelevant. The uphill element only needs part of its front edge on the hill. |
|
|
|
Post by diades on Feb 17, 2020 16:09:26 GMT
First. Sadly unable to make it; the news will show you what is going on in Herefordshire and with warning I was concerned about being able to get home. What a Wimp! Anyway looks like fun was had by all, well done Simon and congratulations to Colin. I am always a supporter of someone who shares my approach of fielding what has been recently finished!
Second, hills. Everyone seems to "nearly have it" by my reckoning, which is not intended to sound half as condescending as it may appear, simply that most of the descriptions above seem to be just a fraction more complicated than necessary. Bear in mind that two elements in frontal combat have front edges that share the same line. If any of that line is on the area of a hill, one element may be uphill. Simply (not always practically so easy) draw a line from the closest point on those front edges to the closest up hill marker, be that ridge or point. Whichever element the line passes through (and there can only be one) is uphill of the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Feb 18, 2020 8:19:46 GMT
I hope you are keeping dry, Diades.
Shouldn’t you have written that last ‘uphill’ as ‘downhill’? Or am I becoming completely baffled by this thread and emails offering solutions?
You mention a ridge line (something I am used to using), but on an oval hill with a crest line and with elements beside the crest line having the contact line perpendicular to the crest line, neither one is uphill if you measure to the nearest point on the crest. The line runs straight along the contact edge. One element is uphill if there is only a centre point.
I think this is where I went wrong at Bakewell – I’m so used to using ridge line hills and this was the situation I was in. We were playing on my opponent’s huge unmarked felt hills. I am contemplating scrapping all my ridge line marked hills and making yet another set with only centre points.
I have to say I’m getting some peculiar looking uphill positions playing with two bits of MDF and a piece of felt with a dot in the centre.
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by diades on Feb 18, 2020 9:24:29 GMT
I hope you are keeping dry, Diades. Shouldn’t you have written that last ‘uphill’ as ‘downhill’? Or am I becoming completely baffled by this thread and emails offering solutions? You mention a ridge line (something I am used to using), but on an oval hill with a crest line and with elements beside the crest line having the contact line perpendicular to the crest line, neither one is uphill if you measure to the nearest point on the crest. The line runs straight along the contact edge. One element is uphill if there is only a centre point. I think this is where I went wrong at Bakewell – I’m so used to using ridge line hills and this was the situation I was in. We were playing on my opponent’s huge unmarked felt hills. I am contemplating scrapping all my ridge line marked hills and making yet another set with only centre points. I have to say I’m getting some peculiar looking uphill positions playing with two bits of MDF and a piece of felt with a dot in the centre. Colin Firstly apologies. The line needs to be from the centre of the contacting edges, in fact anywhere along the edge other than the end, to ensure it goes through an element. If you draw the line from the contacting front edges, the line to the hilltop will pass through the Uphill element. If the line runs along the contact edge through neither element, either to the cone apex or the nearest point of a ridge line depending upon which hill depiction you have chosen, then neither is uphill. i use conical hills. If a ridge line is used, the method still works, but assumes the ridge is of constant height. If the ridge line is straddled by the contacting edges, then neither is uphill, they are both on the crest. The complication is that most people naturally envision a sloping ridge line. In this case the highest point of the ridge also has to be specified to address the straddle issue as a secondary discriminator. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 18, 2020 14:05:07 GMT
Thanks to all the players for coming to Bakewell for the Winter Wimps Tournament and playing in the usual good spirit. The idea behind this tournament was that you had to have at least 6 LH and/or Ps and that you played with your opponent's army in alternate rounds. Here is a quick summary of the overall rankings and armies being played: 1 Colin O’Shea II/22a Nabatean 2 John Saunders IV/33 Epirot Byzantine 3 Mark Johnson II/37 Parthian 4 Pete Duckworth I/48 Thracians 5 Tim Rogers I/48 Thracians 6 Neil Mason II/67b Ostrogothic 7 Nick Wright-Carter III/74b Seljuk Turk 8 Frank Shaw III/16 Khazar 9 Mark Skelton II/58 Alan 10 Rob Rush I/3 Nubian 11 Pete Davis III/35 Feudal Spanish 12 Baldie 1/48 Thracians 13 Phil Johnson II/37 Parthian 14 Colin Alcock II/57 Later Moorish I will be setting the dates for the Bakewell Open in June shortly. Simon A belated ‘congrats’ to the redoubtable Mr Hittite....another fine performance. Sounds like a fun day was had - I love ‘marginal’ army themes 👍. Makes a change from the min-maxing, and is far more of a challenge, especially with the ‘using opponent’s army for every other game’ idea. |
|
