7.7.2 Loss of Melee and Retreat of the defeated Unit

The above rules states in part:

If a unit in melee routs then friendly Units that are even partially behind them and within 1H of their rear are disordered and take 1 permanent loss to VBU.

I am not quite sure to which Units this applies. For example, if you have group, does this apply to all adjacent units within 1H of the routing unit?

In addition, what if this causes another unit to be routed? Does the new rout affect other units?

No. The unit impacted by the routing unit has to be partially behind it (not beside.) Just keep the 2nd line more than 1H distance from the 1st line. The challenge though is that often through melee, retreats and pursuits what was a decent distance between the two lines gets compressed quickly. And yes, if the unit routed through routs itself because of the rout loss then the consequence is that same. Haven't seen this happen too often in Impetus games though (I have played 400+ games over the years.)

That's what I initially thought, but I second-guessed myself. Thanks again for your help Gaius.

On 7.7.2 one further point beginning 2nd para for our gaming we extended it to read 'if a unit(or front unit of large unit) is routed.... and again last line on page 44 extended to read likewise.
Definition of large units is it consists of 2 or 3 units so as written when rear unit vbu drops to 0 could be construed melee lost and casualies caused on units 1H behind.

ejc, is this a club interpretation or have you decided to amend the rules? In large units the loss of back stands in Impetus does cause the rout effect to my understanding.

Also my opinion. The loss of a rear rank is not a rout.

I suppose my comment is more of an in house rule and has 2 parts to it.
If a unit of 3 deep pike inflicts say 3 casualties after DT but receives 1 in return if that 1 reduces rear rank to VBU to 0 they way the rule is worded would mean this would cause loss of melee. As a group we didn't like this hence suggested change of wording.
The second point is the death zone we could have left that ad in rules but as large not collapsed decided to extend house rule to that as well. In reality as you say doesn't happen that often normally only S units that have evaded or moved out of way behind large unit

I agree with your first point. Losing a back stand is not the same as a unit routing. The casualties roll through the large unit. As far as your second point, in reading over 7.7.2 you might be correct about back stands not causing a rout effect. The wording is unhelpful. It mentions "units". Large Units are made up of 2 or 3 "units." The question is whether losing a back stand/unit constitutes the unit routing. I am now uncertain that it does. We probably need Lorenzo's ruling on this.

Interesting point. Sometimes the rules refer to a large unit as a collective whole, but other times as a amalgamation of two or three units. Which applies in this case?

Gaius when we discussed it as a group the main reasons that influenced us to go the way we did were:-
1/Because we were unanimous on the 1st point and because the wording for both was virtually the same seemed a bit strange giving different interpretation.
2/Our view that the casualties inflicted to units behind only arose from the total disintegration of a unit causing chaos behind it. Not really the situation here.
3/A unit could be totally destroyed by missile file which does not generate a death zone behind. The loss of a rear unit which could still be winning a melee shouldn't have a worse outcome.

As you say the rules aren't clear on this point. Its one of those things we can all read the same words and come up with different interpretations. Regards Eric

I think we play it the way we do because of Impetus 1 and perhaps based on conversations on the first Forum. Can't remember anymore. Willing to reconsider. This is definitely a designer decision since I think one could rationalize it either way.

Until I hear differently from Lorenzo, I will play it that the entire large unit would have to rout for the 7.7.2 to apply. Losses and loss of cohesion will occur to any unit during the course of a battle, but until the regular unit or entire large unit hits VBU - 0 it is still fighting, and should not cause disorder in other units simply because a back unit routs. I obviously could be wrong, so I hope Lorenzo addresses this matter soon.

That's how we play it too.

not sure to have understood cotrrecly the doubts, but when you remove a Unit from the table (routed), before removing it chec if you have other friendly Units behind. If you have then all these Units (rarely more than one) will get 1 loss. If the affected Unit is a Large Unit then the loss will go to the Unit on the rear, like all losses taken by LUs.

The question Lorenzo is whether, in large unit, when the back stand is removed does it cause a rout effect on units behind it.

So for instance a large unit of Spartan Hoplites loses the back stand and there is a friendly unit behind it within 1U does that unit suffer the rout effect (obviously if a front stand of a large unit is removed it would do so.)

yes, it does.

Thanks Lorenzo, my thinking was wrong. That's a good thing because it makes large units more on par with two single units; and large units can be composed of diverse units, like bowmen and infantry, and losing one of those elements has to be a bit demoralizing to troops behind the large unit.

Glad to know we've been playing it correctly for the last 10 years! As I was mentioning above, it was likely discussed and clarified on the First Forum. It might be a good idea to amend the relevant terminology. A unit is made up of one stand, a large unit is made up of two or three stands. When a stand is removed it causes a rout response in units immediately to rear and within 1U distance of the removed stand. I think that would make the matter clearer.

Well we've been playing it incorrectly all this time

Thought 'Large Unit' meant exactly that ? 1x Unit ! ....losing a stand doesn't rout 'the unit' and so no routed into effect for the chaps behind ?

This assumption is incorrect.

Will have to fix that....

a Large Unit is formed by 2 or 3 Units. It performs on the battlefield as a single Unit for most purposes, but it is still formed by more Units and that's why usually you loose one Unit at time, each with its own VD.

The terminology is confusing people Lorenzo. It is okay to have a Forum like this to clarify things but I think the better approach is to be clear from the beginning. Always a challenge in rules writing.

I confess to have been surprised at this clarification. I've always played that the rear bases of Large units are removed without risk to those behind and within 1H. I'm pretty sure that has been the common understanding here in the UK, certainly for Impetus 1, having played in a number of competitions around the country. Obviously an understanding from Imp 1 does not necessarily translate to Imp 2.

I shall now deploy LU's more carefully now!

Like you Aureluis rule 7 2 2 did not come into effect until front unit destroyed. We now have the official rule which is good to know if taking part in competitions or against another group of players. We try to keep house rules to a mi imum but in this case decided to make a house rule to continue to play on playing as we had been
Our thoughts were we viewed loss of vbu not solely loss of men but loss of fighting strength caused by loads of other reasons such as laoo of cohesion drop in fighting spirit desertion. Couldnt see what difference the loss of say 1 vbu would effect unit behind just because in might coincide with removal of rear base for gaming purposes. I would be quite happy to leave all bases on table if it wasnt for keeping tabs on unit stregth4 and loss of VD. Incident in last game side attack hitting rear unit both took 1 loss so a draw but that 1 loss removed the rear base so no longer in contact didnt seem to make much sense.
We love these rules but large units give us most concern. Such as FP in front missile behind so in melee missile men die first!

Sorry for spelling in last post wasnt wearing my specs! I didn't emphasise our main point that we felt that its not attritional losses that cause chaos to units behind but only when a unit totally collapses which in the case of a large unit would be the front unit. Like the way Baroque deals with large units.

ejc wrote: We love these rules but large units give us most concern. Such as FP in front missile behind so in melee missile men die first!

This point has been mentioned a lot over the years (including by me!) Lorenzo's rationalization is VBU loss is more a matter of morale than actual casualties. When a unit is under stress in melee or missile fire the rear ranks would be the first ones to begin heading for the rear. The front ranks would be the most committed and battle hardened and most likely to hold in to the end. That is why in a FP/T combination the T suffers the first VBU effects. Having thought about it I think Lorenzo is correct.