Several questions that arose during play . . .

1. Section 5.3 of the rules states: “Impetuous troops that are within 30U of any visible enemy unit at the start of the turn . . .”
I gather that visibility is determined as per 6.3.2 and the diagram on the left side of page 35 of the rule book?
I wondered about this as I had a few situations where large units of warbands were kind of stacked up like airplanes waiting to land at a busy airport. The way forward was blocked because the leading unit was involved in combat, but a portion of the second line large unit could see what was happening to its front.

2. In Section 7.6.2 (page 39) it reads: “Apart from routed S, CL, and ART units, other routed units disorder and cause 1 permanent loss to units behind them that are even partially within 5U of the projection of their rear.”
So, if an impetuous FL unit of warband moves through a screen of skirmishers to charge a Roman line and is subsequently destroyed by a combination of pila and gladii, then the skirmishers will lose 1 VBU and be marked disordered, right?

3. Referring again to Section 7.6.2 (this time on page 38), it states: “The unit that suffers the most permanent losses to their (its) VBU after a failed cohesion test (and not due to accumulation of disorder) has lost the melee.

A unit of Roman legionary infantry and a unit of German warband are engaged in a death struggle. In the second round of the contest, the Romans make a poor cohesion roll, losing 3 damage, and wind up broken/destroyed. The Germans, however, roll even worse on their test and take 4 points of damage (it was a large unit with 2 damage points left on the second rank unit). By a strict reading of this rule, the Germans have lost the melee.

This does not seem right. What am I missing?

4. I was going to ask about (revisit) the topic of main units and support units as described in paragraph 5 of Section 7.7.3, but on rereading, think I may have interpreted the procedure correctly.

Here’s hoping the following diagram clarifies my concern(s):

X is the enemy unit
Y and Z are friendly units
0 is a space holder


000000XXXXXX

000YYYY00ZZZZZ

When activated, the side with Y and Z units moved into melee. Y moved in first, just making corner to corner contact. Each unit fought as a main unit and the result was a draw. Continuing with its activation phase, the Z unit was moved into the combat. (Incidentally, Z got impetus but I didn’t give it to X as it was already engaged.) In this new combat, Z and X are the main units and Y is no a supporting unit, rolling half the dice rounded up, of course.

If Z wins the combat and forces X back 2Us, then both Z and Y have to roll to see if they pursue to continue the fight, correct?

Now then, if I moved in first with unit Z, then is would be a main unit versus main unit X. Let us say that this melee was also a draw. Since it is still my activation phase, I move in with unit Y. I don’t think Y can be a main unit here, but it will restart the melee, right? Z and X will fight another round, with Y as the supporting unit, right?

Thanks very much for your feedback and instruction.

Chris

1. Impetuous troops can get stacked up so deployment is important. Interestingly we have one player who will sometimes intentionly stack impetuous foot behind a unit of FP and then when he is ready move the FP sideways and let the FL thunder forward.

2. Correct.

3. Lorenzo ruled a while ago that routed units always lose the melee no matter how many losses the other unit takes.

4. Not exactly. When X retreats Z can advance automatically and Y can advance if it is an impetuous unit, CP or Chariots (take a look at the very end of 7.7.3) If Y was a unit of CP it would pursue at the same time as Z. It is possible for Z and Y both to contact X in the pursuit phase or one or the either or neither but they never pursue sequentially.

As an aside, when it says Chariots may pursue as support units does this mean both CGP and CGL? Never gave this much consideration until recently when I built up a Middle Assyrian army.

Point 2 is correct, but note that EI3 and Advanced Impetus say that non-impetuous FL and T are added to the list of troops that do not disorder or cause a loss to troops behind them if they rout.

On point 3, I believe Lorenzo's ruling was that the unit with the most losses loses the melee. See http://impetus.forumsland.com/impetus-about3521-0-asc-15.html
Actually Gaius, you were one of the ones who vote for that option (as did I)!

AncientWarrior, it may seem odd that a unit can lose a melee when its opponent routs. As noted in the earlier discussion, it can become important if there are supporting units in the melee. You can think of it as being because unit that routs causes so much damage to its opponent that the opponent recoils as well. Note also that, in determining losses, you can have 'negative' values, so a unit with VBU 2 that fails its cohesion test by 3 has suffered 3 losses, not 2, when determining which unit has lost the most.

On 4, I agree with Gaius. Only some support specified support units are allowed to pursue, and all pursuits are completed before any new melee is fought, when multiple units can pursue.

Rogerc

Hey Roger, that conversation was four years ago (hard to believe!) I had been gaming Impetus for about 6 months or so. The rules do not state clearly what the result is in AW's scenario. Lorenzo disagreed with us in our commentary and I thought in another subject he made a ruling. Note what he says in the subject you refer to:

"In Impetus 2 I was thinking to add that if a Unit is routed then this is the looser, no matter of the losses."

We now play it the way Lorenzo describes above. You rout you lose the melee (I changed my mind and in truth it is a lot easier to figure out who loses the melee in this scenario rather than go through all the math.)

In the scenario described above the question was around impetuous FL.

Gents,
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. Figured that the question about losing a melee by getting routed and losing by taking more damage had been addressed years ago, but still wondered based on the written material I have. Makes sense to me that the obliterated unit is the losing unit.

Still working my way through, albeit enjoyably, the intricacies of melee - of the give and take, of the pursuit and counter, etc.

Will post notification on the proper forum board when my battle report has been accepted and posted on Lone Warrior blog. (Fingers crossed.)

Thanks again.

Chris  

if you make that a destroyed unit looses the melee is ok. I would not allow in competition just to be close to what is written now, but in a friendly game it make sense and will be officialized in Impetus 2.
In most cases anyway the 2 situations coincide