Question about Charges and Reactions.

I have a question using an image as an example.



Group A and B declare a charge. C and D are a group. Is it possible for C and D to react such that both C and D are in the melee?

If they counter charge, it doesn't work at least as far as I can tell. As you can see in the example C and D move 1H forwards and then A and B move up but A and B still end up only touching D.

Geometrically, with the angles given that appears to be the only possible outcome.

The combat will be between B and D with A and C in support. That's not so very different from it being two combats BvD and AvC in reality as far as favouring one side over the other goes (assuming no 'super unit' in the mix )

I'd say it was better - it's more likely that the charge of Group AB is successful and pushes back Group CD (or not and fails to impress) than it is to say that B was successful and A was not.

And I'd be happier that my group wasn't split up in that way as well.

In the situation above, I don't think C will support D, which is the problem. It would be Flank Support, but not a regular Support unit in the melee.

The melee above would just be A supporting B against D would it not?

It just feels bad to me that the soldiers are basically facing each other, they are all charging at each other, but there is a very big difference in the result of the melee based on whose turn it is.

Maybe pedantically speaking and if you can really trust the micro management of the move measurement. And you allow AB to stagger forward but not CD...

At my table it would be BvD with support from A & C.

If the Counter Charge can be delayed until after the charging unit moves, then C could move up to A. But since Counter Charge moves 1H before the charging unit moves, there's no chance for C and D to stagger.

I agree with you about the accuracy of things. But if you could be perfect in the movement, say digitally, it would also be nice to have the rules work as intended. I feel the intent with Counter Charge is to allow these units to fight, but I can't seem to make it work in this situation.

I get what you are saying. The geometry of Impetus allows A and B to gang up on D in a way that seems artificial. It comes down to game mechanics. There are certain advantages of coming in for an attack on an angle in Impetus. That is the game. There a certain disadvantages that have to do with keeping Groups together and pursuit distances that work against attacking on angles.

If there's nothing in the rules now that allows C to get into that melee when A and B charge, I feel it's just a small tweak away. Something I really liked about Impetus was that it seemed the intent of many of the rules was to be accommodating of such situations.

Like, maybe for a Counter Charge reaction, the Counter Charging units can use Bonus Speed after the Charging models have moved? Or they get to move up to the remainder of their Charge Speed.. something like that.

It should be pointed out that with the corner of A touching D none of A is contact with C so C is not involved in the melee.

How many games of Impetus have you played homedrone? Sometimes things look like a big deal at the beginning but then turn out to be not so big after extensive play.

I don't have any major problems with the current rules. Yes, there is a sequencing issue and A and B will get a jump on D for the 1st round. After that anything can happen. The permutations are almost infinite.

Hi Gaius. That's actually the crux of this issue, that C is not involved in the fight, but it feels bad. The units are practically facing each other, running at each other, but the outcome is largely influenced by turn order. I'm looking for that to not be the case.

I admit, I am far from experienced at the game. That's why I came here to ask if there was something I was unaware of that could get the result I was looking for. As I said earlier, when I first read the rules, it seemed like it was accounting for things like this with rules like Counter Charged, but in practice I found the intent can fail when the rules are applied strictly.

It's a particular geometry thing that requires a particular angle of contact - it's hard to engineer for advantage.

The same would be true if we ignore the counter-charge, we can end in the same situation. It's artificial but there need to be rules.

In a tournament type situation it would need to be played with the opening avantage to AB over D. That may or may not be a big deal.

As I say, at my table I tend to rule for the situation not the mechanic and I'd take that as a group combat but to be fair that's a judgement call - I'm happy to play that way, others want the rules to be absolute.

It then comes mostly down to how you narrate the outcome. Although we can see that the mechanical margins are very slight, we can tell ourselves that AB were in echelon and the weight fell first on D which had to hold or crumble before C could make it. Or perhaps the commander of C was slightly slow reacting and D got hung out to dry.

It's a situation I wouldn't lose any sleep over. It's a temporary advantage that could be for any number of reasons explainable by the black box of the combat dice.

A handful of extra combat dice doesn't translate to catastrophe - I'd rather AB had the extra dice than D be disordered for instance... The game is about the cohesion test not the number of dice rolled but it takes time for that reality to emerge for new players.

The issue on that for me is that you can't control cohesion tests, your control is getting dice advantage. So optimal play is to try and get this situation. Which is a kind of micromanagement I wanted to avoid.

This is not a fringe situation. This is 4 units facing each on a slight angle, so it must come up often. Counter Charge seems like the rule implemented to avoid this, but it didn't. With a tweak, it can. And then the optimal play doesn't hinge on micromanaging the movement anymore.

It's a fringe situation because most of the time an angled charge will hit both or clearly only hit one opponent in this situation.

You control CTs by avoiding disorder more than anything else.

I agree that allowing the counter-charge to step to ensure combat would be nice but wording that would be awkward when you get down to the nitty gritty.

To piggy back onto the thread.

If a unit declares a charge and enemy evade do the chargers still move with or without the extra movement and can they simply decide not to move if the original target has evaded.

See 5.10.2 The Potential Charge

"If the contact is not made because the other Unit evaded and no other contact is made, the Potential Charge is considered a normal move"

5.7.1 says "charge speed is only used when a Unit declares a charge, even a 'potential charge'.

So yes you can use the extra movement and yes you have to move "at least up to the point where the contact could [sic] occur" as per 5.10.2

This is not a fringe situation.

I think you will find that this scenario comes up less often than you might think. Why?

1. B is now turned in such a way that its flank is more exposed to the enemy. Flanking becomes an easier option.

2. Also, if you are the player controlling C,D you did have the option in previous moves to wheel so that the angle doesn't work.

3. Perhaps there is an E unit to right of D that is ready to support D's position. Taking A/B vs C/D doesn't provide us with enough information.

Also, you are overestimating the advantage. Imagine that A,B are both FL 5/1 and they charge together into D which is also FL 5/1. In the melee A/B have 10 dice and D has 7 dice. A small advantage but hardly decisive. The number of hits for A/B is about .6 more than D.

When I first started playing Impetus I thought impetus was the most important number. And then I focused on VBU. Then it was cost of the unit. Finally I have come to realize that Impetus is game about VD.