Newbie queries

Hello, I have  a few basic rules queries:

1) When moving a group a second time and taking disorder tests does the group take a single test as a whole, applying to each unit within the group (based on the worse discipline value making up the group) or do I roll a disorder test for each unit which is part of the group?

2) If a group is broken during a movement (lets say by enemy opportunity shooting since I don't know the answer to Q1) what happens?
The group is still active, but it's no longer a group - so how do we complete the movement / actions of the units which previously made up the group?

3) Impetuous troops - they move toward visible enemy but I can't see anything about what is or isn't visible except for missile fire - if they are behind FP is presume the heavies block their view?

4) Impetuous troops - if they move impetuously, can they be given a further move requiring a discipline test and move again normally?

5) Impetuous troops - It seems that they will involuntarily interpenetrate friends in the path to visible enemy, but then I saw some other comments about advanced impetus saying this is no longer the case, so can you please spell out what they will and will not do in terms of bursting through friends?

6) If I deploy an impetuous unit on oppotunity I think it can stay this way indefinitely and remain under control - obviously it won't be doing a lot but it can stay there under control until it loses the status of being 'on opportunity' ?

7) If a unit is on opportunity and evades, is it still on opportunity (providing it is not now disrupted) ?

8 ) Also just pointing out (and checking) that the latest QRS available from the impetus website (v 6.0 with the orange/peach at the top) doesn't seem to be fully up to date - I noticed the melee clarifications are not on this sheet, so which should I be using to learn the game?


and lastly (for now) having unattached generals seems a very poor choice - I understand that they cannot be killed, but the CS is then from the edge of the table and there's also no plusses for having commanders with units - does anyone use this?
Is there a modifier to the cost of generals if unattached?

Here is my responses to each question stuuck. Hope this helps.

1) I believe at the player’s choice. You are allowed to roll as a group or each individual unit. (I have to admit that I can’t find the rule for that though.)

2) A group completes its move as a group even if it is broken up in the middle of the turn. Since the group is now broken it cannot take a subsequent move in that turn.

3) Impetuous troops have their line of sight obstructed only by terrain. Friendly and enemy units do not obstruct line of sight.

4) Impetuous troops are only obliged to compulsory moves on their first move of their activation. After that they perform like all other units.

5) Impetuous troops do not burst through friendly units that they cannot normally penetrate. They pile up behind them now.

6) Yes.

7) No.

8 ) Use the one most up to date until something better arrives?

9) Unattached generals are a poor choice (something I’d like Impetus 2 to fix!) and I’ve never seen them taken in army lists.

stuuk wrote:Hello, I have  a few basic rules queries:

1) When moving a group a second time and taking disorder tests does the group take a single test as a whole, applying to each unit within the group (based on the worse discipline value making up the group) or do I roll a disorder test for each unit which is part of the group?

Single group as a whole mate. Once the group is formed then the Discipline Value becomes that of the lowest value within the group (p15 rule 2.5)

stuuk wrote:
and lastly (for now) having unattached generals seems a very poor choice - I understand that they cannot be killed, but the CS is then from the edge of the table and there's also no plusses for having commanders with units - does anyone use this?
Is there a modifier to the cost of generals if unattached?

The only benefit is that they cannot be killed and break your command/army. Generally speaking most people use attached commanders, esp those with Poor or Average Command Structures that go out of command if they advance too far across the table.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

Single group as a whole mate.  Once the group is formed then the Discipline Value becomes that of the lowest value within the group (p15 rule 2.5)  

Neither 2.5.2 nor 5.2 answers stuuk's question. The D rating of the lowest unit in the group is used (we rarely see units with different D ratings grouped together) as you suggest GG. But the question was whether you have to roll for the group with one roll or can roll for each unit in the group. I believe that player can chose one or the other.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

Single group as a whole mate.  Once the group is formed then the Discipline Value becomes that of the lowest value within the group (p15 rule 2.5)  

Neither 2.5.2 nor 5.2 answers stuuk's question. The D rating of the lowest unit in the group is used (we rarely see units with different D ratings grouped together) as you suggest GG. But the question was whether you have to roll for the group with one roll or can roll for each unit in the group. I believe that player can chose one or the other.

That's an interesting point, can't say I've seen it interpreted that way. Not to say it isn't the case, just never seen it.

5.2 says the "Group (2.5.2) moves like a single Unit" which would tend to suggest it is done as a single roll but the alternative interpretation could be done on the basis that the test is not actually movement. Overall I'd suggest that's stretching it, but if someone wanted to do it I'd have no qualms allowing it.

Impetus itself does not state one way or the other (at least I couldn't find direction on this in the rules a while back when I went looking for it.) So I am wondering where my group got the above interpretation. It must either be the Old Forum or our imagination.

Thanks for the answers everyone.
Got through our first game without too much head scratching. Currently playing this versus 'Sword and Spear' looking for a better system than FoG..

Sword and Spear looks quite interesting (based on TMP discussions) but I can't speak directly to the game having never played it.

We gave FOG a try for a while but found the system kind of wearying and pedantic.

Impetus takes many plays before one really gets it. I remember ordering Impetus in desperation having played many other game systems. When I got it i looked it over, was unimpressed and put it on my shelf for a year. Only when I was out of options did I  pull it down again and read it carefully. A friend and I started playing. Our first instinct was to start making changes to the rules to better satisfy ourselves about how game should play. After a couple of extra players joined in we went back to the rules as written, rebased all our figures and started to learn Impetus properly.

Impetus challenges a lot of assumptions about gaming and history. It took some time to accept the decisiveness of the Cohesion Test. Luck plays a significant part in Impetus. The game system is very dynamic and produces a wide range of results that cannot be scoped out in advance. Melees can grind out turn after turn or they can be decided in one activation.

The one thing I love about Impetus is that each game really is unique, even with the same armies. Without imposing a complex command and control system the armies prove challenging to control and winning and losing have many contributing factors.

So play many games stuuk before you decide on Impetus.

I've played many games of many things and although S&S is good it does have a few things I didn't like too - it's certainly not 'perfect' out of the box as it were. (the author has dice activation as his central mechanic - that's fine, but he's made it a bit too important in several places for my liking..)


Impetus looks to be very good, though I have to say that unattached commanders seem badly done (wouldn't it be better to have them roaming on the table providing a command bubble only?)

Also, I think the cavalry looks a bit too good. (I'm looking specifically at knights) I can see that the lack of ability to vary VBU has meant that they end up being 6 or 7's because they are armoured - as Impetus lacks a way to make them say a 5 but give them extra defence.
My worry is they can steam roller things which perhaps they shouldn't be able to (like heavy foot) too easily - and of course they have a great number of hits which isn't really comparable from what I know of historical battles..

I agree with you stuuk about unattached generals needing improving. No one uses them so that tells us something. I think unattached generals are essential to giving a more realistic take on generals like Scipio and Hannibal that commanded from the back.

As far as cavalry I think you'll find that they are aren't as tough as you think. Quite vulnerable to missile fire and good infantry will usually beat them (remember FP get an extra +1 on the CT against mounted units.) With the new rules on protected flanks infantry is even better matched with good quality cavalry than before.

Yep I'm not saying that it's a good tactic to hit FP with CP - just that it's probably more favourable than in many rule sets, and that the cavalry with 6 or 7 hits can afford to try it and see how it goes.

7 dice of killing stuff has the potential to roll over things. I would have preferred if the impetus number was higher for cav/kn and the base VBU a little lower.

In our first game the other day we had a Pike block (2 deep) hit a unit of Bactrian CL who failed to evade with a one and then promptly smacked the pike for 3 losses.
It was something like 3 dice to 7.

Remember stuuk that Impetus is a game of VD in the end. When players first start they are often fixated on VBU and total dice rolled. Then one starts to look carefully at points. The final realization is that Impetus is a game of VD. All good cavalry are VD3. While they can cause some harm they are fragile and their loss is felt quite hard on the VD.

We don't find CP overvalued in Impetus and are quite vulnerable to other unit types. But when they get a few breaks they can overpower other units.  

Pike block against Bactrian CL. Yes, once in a while these things happen in Impetus. It could represent a host of things but it doesn't likely represent the CL engaged in literal hand to hand fighting. A pike block with a good front stand (VBU5) in good order would require 3 hits from the CL and a roll of 6 on the CT to take 3 losses. Again it does happen in Impetus because the range of outcomes is so wide.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Pike block against Bactrian CL. Yes, once in a while these things happen in Impetus. It could represent a host of things but it doesn't likely represent the CL engaged in literal hand to hand fighting. A pike block with a good front stand (VBU5) in good order would require 3 hits from the CL and a roll of 6 on the CT to take 3 losses. Again it does happen in Impetus because the range of outcomes is so wide.

It's one of the things I like about Impetus, there is the possibility a pathetic unit will fight out of their skins (my favourite - a bunch of Christian pilgrims acting as cannon fodder in front of the "chivalric" cavalry stopped my Macedonian phalanx for several turns), an elite unit will be held up despite rolling handfulls o fdice (bear in mind I've twice had Alexander leading the fresh Agema hit the enemy in the clacker and fail to score a hit for two entire turns - 4 melee phases, rolling about a dozen dice for the initial charge and about 10 thereafter), there is the possibility the elite men in metal will disintegrate (Teutonic Knights rolling several bad CTs in a row whilst failing to flee from some Pike blocks who kept catching them) or even the entire army dissolve (leader killed and a bad roll on the leader loss table).

Sure, they're statistically unlikely, as they should be, but they did happen in reality and they can happen in our game.

Somebody (Tartty?) once told me Lorenzo is a Professor of Mathematics at Milan Uni, the Impetus system could be a result of that level of statistical knowledge as applied to wargaming.

Yep, certainly after a single play I cannot say anything more than 'we enjoyed it'. I didn't personally have a problem with the pike being beaten in melee.. clearly the Bactrians danced at 50ft and shot them a lot. Even then, with a distinctly lucky result for the Persians - it earned them nothing. The back of the pike unit still had a hit left and the front was still fresh.

It is interesting that Impetus is so very different from everything else though - I can't even think of another game which has a lot of medium foot who are javelin armed and want to throw the javelin rather than fight in melee - it's almost always abstracted out - 'L'art de la Guerre' might do it - nope just checked 'Peltasts' are medium foot in that game.

S&S has them as medium foot with no shooting capability. So does FoG and DBMM.
Hail Caesar probably does, though almost everything can shoot in that game (even heavy foot) so it doesn't really count. I think Impetus probably gives quite a different game to all the others then, which is good - it's nice to try something genuinely different rather than just a slightly different implementation.

stuuk wrote:

7 dice of killing stuff has the potential to roll over things. I would have preferred if the impetus number was higher for cav/kn and the base VBU a little lower.

.

what you have to remember is you can charge in, roll seven dice and get five hits, and your opponent, rolls three dice and gets no hits.
Then he does his cohesion test, he gets a one, becomes disorganised and your expensive cavalry stick.
In his next activation he piles other units into them and OK they're hard, but they're pretty soon chewed down in situations like that :-)
There is a lot of subtlety, for example at times it can be more important to win the initiative than it is to win a particular melee. At other times it can be desperately important not to become disorganised (like ending up standing still in front of missile troops) whilst at other times it's a risk worth taking (when it means you do that extra move and crash into the flank of the enemy)
Jim

I often use unattached generals when I have an army with a Good Command Structure. 

It is, at least, a recognition of the influence of structure. The poorer the CS the more necessary it is for an attached general. Obviously, it is also more dangerous (personal bravery, after all). As it should be.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: That's an interesting point, can't say I've seen it interpreted that way.  Not to say it isn't the case, just never seen it.

5.2 says the "Group (2.5.2) moves like a single Unit" which would tend to suggest it is done as a single roll but the alternative interpretation could be done on the basis that the test is not actually movement.  Overall I'd suggest that's stretching it, but if someone wanted to do it I'd have no qualms allowing it.

Hey GG, after talking it over with our Impetus group we decided to go with your interpretation. If a Group activates it rolls one DT as a Group for second move etc..

It would be great if Lorenzo could confirm this approach.

I agree with Granicus. It's how we play it in Oz.

are you speaking about the Discipline Test for a Group? If you activate as a Group then you make the test as a Group. An attached Leader gives a +1 modifier but if Units have different D, then you use the lowest.

As for unattached Generals you can find them in Baroque and in Impetus 2 in the future. They can be attached or unattached during activations, with pros and cons, of course.

Is there a list of the new stuff in Impetus 2 ?

A few more queries after another play:

1) Can units evade as a group (we thought no)

2) What happens when a units wins in melee, pursues, but hits a unit other than the retreating unit which is already in melee having just been charged?
(we thought that the pursuer ceases to pursue and becomes a supporting unit in that combat which is then fought, even though the pursuer has already fought this turn)

3) is there a definition of a supporting unit (we thought a unit which is in contact with an enemy but is not the main unit - is this correct and specifically must it be in contact?)

stuuk wrote:
1) Can units evade as a group (we thought no)

Evasion is individual Units, you are correct.

stuuk wrote:
2) What happens when a units wins in melee, pursues, but hits a unit other than the retreating unit which is already in melee having just been charged?
(we thought that the pursuer ceases to pursue and becomes a supporting unit in that combat which is then fought, even though the pursuer has already fought this turn)

The pursuit and subsequent contact retriggers the melee (refer 7.7.4) including Units that are in other commands that have already activated this turn.

The unit with the most frontal contact with the front of the enemy Unit becomes the main, the others are support. The pursuit Unit from the previous melee is the only unit that gets impetus dice as it is the only involved unit that moved.

stuuk wrote:
3) is there a definition of a supporting unit (we thought a unit which is in contact with an enemy but is not the main unit - is this correct and specifically must it be in contact?)

You are correct, and yes it must be in contact (refer 7.1).

Are we playing correctly - turning around (180 degrees) seems to be quite a bit harder than 'walking backwards' which is a disorder but happens automatically.

Seems really tough to turn about..

anybody? thanks.

Yes it is really hard to turn about in Impetus.