Slitherine

Doing a headcount of an opponent's units after set-up can provide some useful intel on his strategy and tactics.

1)The exercise familiarizes one with the details and strengths/weaknesses of the opponent's forces.

2) Adding up an opponent's points which are visible on the board gives one additional info on the opponent's potential number and compositions of ambushes and flank marches.

Cheers

I once had a guy do this to me during a DBM competition, then accused me of cheating. He had miscounted the points. Great way to start a game I think I'll stick to trusting my opponent in the overall spirit of friendly games.

Steve

At the Oxford Doubles one of our opponents lent over and spent a minute measuring the first piece of terrain I was putting down. I asked him "is the whole game going to be like this?" To which he replied ......... "yep"

Oh well ... it takes all sorts, and let's face it in this hobby we have all sorts.

Ray

Personally I think it does more harm than good since a great deal of the overall "fun factor" will be sacrificed in the hope of gaining some small measure of advantage in the competition. If I had some reason to think someone I was playing had too much stuff for the points we were playing I might ask after the game and if the totals were off bring it to the referee's attention, but doing it before tells your opponent you care a whole lot more about winning than you do playing an enjoyable game for several hours. IMHO of course, your milage may vary

Dave

You all missed the point - You've got cheating on your minds.
No one is being accused of point-shaving/cheating [viz. 801 instead of 800 points!].

A player should always observe the opponent's forces, and do an accounting to gather any available intel from the point count:
1) Headcounts, types and capabilities of the opposing force to understand better the opposing force.
2) Total points to determine if ambushes and/or flank marches are planned.
The intel is there, use it for your battle strategy and tactics development.
It is folly not to.

Cheers

Under dbm it was easier to flank march or hide troops, but in FoG most people know their opponents will have 12-14 units at 800 pts so it is not as critical.

rayfredjohn wrote:At the Oxford Doubles one of our opponents lent over and spent a minute measuring the first piece of terrain I was putting down. I asked him "is the whole game going to be like this?" To which he replied ......... "yep"
Ray

Bring a 4x6 rectangular and 12 and 16 MU circular templates to enable even the spatially challenged to check terrain quickly!

I agree intel work on the opposing army is good generalship, but not good if it slows the game.

Mike

Claudius wrote:
2) Total points to determine if ambushes and/or flank marches are planned.

You'll get the hint on these from the number of BGs deployed in the last 1/4 of the opponents deployment.

Never been on for counting ...

Under DBX world I used to respond to counting by giving them the answer rather than suffering the wait - i.e. "you can see the whole army" or "i'll tell you how much is missing and save you the bother - 38pts"

Mind you to be fair to the "counters" out there ............ one did tell me I had 20pts in ambush expecting 20 Ps and I told him he could see everything on table. We played on a bit and he puzzled for a while and said again that I must have 20pts in ambush, and I said again I didn't. During his move I had an add up and disvoered my spreadsheet had an error in it overpricign some troops.

I was playing with 380pts..

I then comfirmed to him that he could see everything on table and I had 20pts missing, but rather more missing than he was expecting !!

Si

shall wrote:Never been on for counting ...

Under DBX world I used to respond to counting by giving them the answer rather than suffering the wait - i.e. "you can see the whole army" or "i'll tell you how much is missing and save you the bother - 38pts"

Same here - far better than waiting for some tedious sod to get through adding up your army (and quite possibly getting it wrong causing another delay)

shall wrote:Under DBX world I used to respond to counting by giving them the answer rather than suffering the wait - i.e. "you can see the whole army" or "i'll tell you how much is missing and save you the bother - 38pts"

Well, asking can take time too, depending on who - being fairly numerate I can probably do the sums quicker myself, and it was easier in DBM whilst waiting for an opponent to deploy. It was having a rough idea of what's flanking or in ambush that mattered. 5AP either way wasn't important - 20AP is some Ps, 80AP is a serious ambush - type of thing.

I was playing with 380pts..

First round at a competition, I once gave in even doing a rough count as there just seemed to be so much, so I decided I must have miscounted somehow and didn't want to waste time. It was really a struggle to win as well, I swear they seemed to be coming out of the woodwork (well, it was Wallachian), but I got there in the end.

My opponent then played someone with the same army choice in the next round who quickly spotted he was using 500AP (not his error, I hasten to add, he'd been given the list, a doubles list I assume).

That weekend was a disaster though, and the first was the only game I won... ho hum.

I'm not sure what the big rush is all about ... maybe just pre-battle adrenaline ... or a cultural decline in basic math skills.

During the 4-phase deployment of troops, it is relatively easy to do a quick calculation using the Army list books.
Just jot down the opponent's headcounts in pencil by the appropriate Army table items, multiply and sum up.

The more obsessive may do a quick check that Army core minimums and maximums are met, appropriate chronological/period units types are used, and optional unit maximums are not exceeded.

The other lesson from this discussion is that it is a good idea to accurately count up your own army's points.
Not sure why someone would not do that if only to avoid looking silly.

rayfredjohn wrote:At the Oxford Doubles one of our opponents lent over and spent a minute measuring the first piece of terrain I was putting down. I asked him "is the whole game going to be like this?" To which he replied ......... "yep"

Oh well ... it takes all sorts, and let's face it in this hobby we have all sorts.

Ray

There is however a viable response to this in a doubles game. Turn to your partner a say a bit to loudly 'christ, you get some right wankers at competition don't you?'.

Adam

Well a little observation is in order in the early days too. At a recetn competition a player unknowningly did not take Hannibal as an IC abut took the Hannibal in Italy troops reasoning that it was a detechment from hannibals army. ANother player did not realize the 800 point should have included generals. Now before you think people were stretching things, there were a number of other factors that made it clear these were well intentioned learners.

In the old DBM days, i would do a rough math in my head and only if it was coming out funny would i actually tote up numbers.

But some observations of trying to divine a flank mrch or what is coming down 4th is a goodidea too.

Claudius wrote: The other lesson from this discussion is that it is a good idea to accurately count up your own army's points.
Not sure why someone would not do that if only to avoid looking silly.

I use a simple Excel spreadsheet to create my final army list and do the tallying--but I also do 'back of the envelope' calculations (as you note--we are talking about arthimetic here, pretty basic stuff when I'm 'blue skying' an new army list.

Cheers,

Dale

Counting is not a bad idea, I made two mistakes which:
1) I made an exel DBM sheet, but while playing with the list did not extend the SUM() to include
2 Ps(S). When my opponent claimed I was using 406 points, I was flabbergasted, showed him my exel sheet
and claimed "No way". I felt very foolishly afterwards.
2) Playing away from home, I took some spare figures, for every troop type(In case of damage/lost figures).
By mistake I placed 2 extra Ax(X) figures on the table, playing with 14 and not 12. But the wargaming gods rewarded my
mistake by placing the Ax, directly in front of some Bw. And I lost the command, which would have lived longer if it only had
12 AX.

After those two incidents, I dont take offense to any opponent counting my points.

rayfredjohn wrote:At the Oxford Doubles one of our opponents lent over and spent a minute measuring the first piece of terrain I was putting down. I asked him "is the whole game going to be like this?" To which he replied ......... "yep"

Oh well ... it takes all sorts, and let's face it in this hobby we have all sorts.

Ray

Why bother? Just give him and his partner the game as a walkover and go and do something else with your time. That's what I would do, instantly. You only get one life and it's too short to spend it with people like that. If a wargame means that much to him, let him have it.

It's precisely because of people like him that I rarely go to competitions now. Pay £5 a gallon for petrol to get there or hand over a wad of cash as petrol money to the friend who does the driving, only to end up playing someone who removes all the fun from the activity with the social grace of a stroppy hormonal teenager?! No thanks.

Why bother? Just give him and his partner the game as a walkover and go and do something else with your time. That's what I would do, instantly. You only get one life and it's too short to spend it with people like that. If a wargame means that much to him, let him have it.

It's precisely because of people like him that I rarely go to competitions now. Pay £5 a gallon for petrol to get there or hand over a wad of cash as petrol money to the friend who does the driving, only to end up playing someone who removes all the fun from the activity with the social grace of a stroppy hormonal teenager?! No thanks.

As a comp organiser the other side of it goes as well. I had been drumming up support and promoting FoG in my area. A couple of chaps expressed some interest and when I finally asked for confirmation of attendance replied.

"Not sure- I played in a comp once in 6th edition and played some people who were a$$h0les". If people are that damaged by one incident god-knows-how-many-years-ago and bring that attitude to the comp I'd rather not have them.

AlanYork wrote:Why bother? Just give him and his partner the game as a walkover and go and do something else with your time. That's what I would do, instantly. You only get one life and it's too short to spend it with people like that. If a wargame means that much to him, let him have it.

It's precisely because of people like him that I rarely go to competitions now. Pay £5 a gallon for petrol to get there or hand over a wad of cash as petrol money to the friend who does the driving, only to end up playing someone who removes all the fun from the activity with the social grace of a stroppy hormonal teenager?! No thanks.

Perhaps I have been lucky, but I can count on one hand--two fingers, actually--the number of times that anyone has done this to me in a tournament. And in one of those occasions my opponent was correct (I had traveled from the US to Rome for the IWF and brought along terrain measured in inches rather than metric; oops).

The most annoying experience I have had at a tournament was a non-tournament "just for fun" player griping and whining that his troops should be able to do x, where x is not allowed by the rules.

Marc

Isn't that like crying over spilled milk?