Art De La Guerre

[Za Otlichiye]

Page 71 says simply that a unit gains a +1 if higher on a hill.
Page 64 gives a precise definition, but one limited by the assumption that the unit is fighting through its front edge.

[Ramses II]

I understand the point you make, but "Them's the rules" as others might say.
Basically a decision was taken to ignore all abilities and factors of units in Melee support, mainly because this was found to be too powerfull if everything was included.

[Za Otlichiye]

I think you are anticipating another, rather interesting set of quesitons.

What I actually had in mind was something like.

[Ramses II]

Like I said, only those units that are deemed to be "in melee", as defined on P60, consider special abilities and any other melee modifiers. Unit(s) that are in melee support only add +1 and their Base factor.
While it might seem to be a good idea to try to consider other factors like the supporting units being uphill, these are ignored until the original enemy is destroyed and the uphill unit becomes the Main unit in that particular melee.

Them's the rules . . . .

[KevinD]

[Za Otlichiye]

Yeah this is the case where common sense and page 71 should rule. Unit 1 is higher than unit A and should get the +1.

The case where both are facing uphill (Unit A is attacking the rear of Unit 1) is the more difficult question. Unit 1 is still higher than Unit A. Neither qualify according to page 64. Shouuld unit 1 get the +1 just as it does in the downhill example? or does being attacked on the rear disqualify it?

[Za Otlichiye]

[Zoltan]

Guys has this situation ever come up in a game of ADLG you have actually played? You do play games don’t you, and not simply spend time posting obscure theoretical rules scenarios? 🤔

[Ramses II]

[Hazelbark]

No problem exists until imaginations invent that which is not. Then they develop more tortured problems.

[Snowhitsky]

Gentlemen. ADLG is a set of rules written to play quick, fun games. While I have no problem helping to explain the more complex points of the rules, personally, I am starting to find your "how many angels can dance on a pinhead" philosophical dissertations a tad wearisome.

In case of doubt or conflict in a game, I refer you to p11 and the disputes section. For theoretical delirium please use the "Other topics" section. Thank you.

[Longtooth]

Amen, brother!!

[Za Otlichiye]

[madaxeman]

[ethan]

Height advantage on a hill is one of the MOST contentious things I have ever seen debated in ancients rules across multiple rules sets. The ADLG solution might not be perfect but it is generally at least pretty clear - which IMO is worthwhile. I at one point advocated for something even simpler and more abstract to make it even clearer...Yes it possibly can create odd situations where "that doesn't look like it is uphill to me" happens - but the rule is till clear (especially in conjunction with the rules on what a hill must contain, peak and crest line). Probably there is still some room in there for an umpire to rule particularly "clever" pieces illegal but that is always a thing without requiring topologically painful definitions of terrain to be written.

I will note I once umpired a tournament and had the argument presented to me that "there is no possibly position on this hill where anyone can claim a height advantage" and that was in reference to a piece the opponent had created and placed....