Multiple Moves with Impetuous Troops

This came up on the weekend..... and needs to be put to bed

Move restrictions placed on Impetuous troops, do they apply to all moves in an activation ?

As an example could they fulfil their compulsory move requirements in their first move to then say oblique in the next ? (not normally an option for these guys) or are these compulsory move restrictions applied to each move?

My, my two identical questions - is this coincidence or conspiracy?

As I said on t'other thread:

Zippee wrote:
Yes. We have always played that once the unit has moved the mandatory full move distance (straight or wheeling) then it is no longer constrained by the impetuosity rules and can attempt to manoeuvre.

The key to me is the statement "must move one full movement phase straight ahead" - this would say something like  "must move straight ahead a full move each movement phase" if the second interpretation was correct. It's one of the few (only?) uses of the term 'movement phase' so it's use is probably very deliberate.

Still it's a brave man that attempts to manoeuvre his warband in the face of the enemy once within 30u less a full move

We handled that like Zippee.

The question that has been asked is why would an impetuous unit get a window of 'controlled' movement like that ? ... do they suddenly have a moment of clarity ? to then revert back to their 'uncontrolled' hubris in the next activation ?
Does seem like an oversight when viewed in these terms

I disagree, you need to see the whole activation as the unit's action.

So an impetuous unit wants to slide to the left - it can do so but at the same time it also moves one whole move straight forward or towards the enemy.

No unit actually stutters across the field in a series of dice rolled activations and DT checks - that's artificial mechanics that arrive at the net effect required.

Asking the question re 'a controlled window of movement' is to completely misrepresent what an activation of movement and manoeuvre actually represents.

A unit of French knights (for example) wheel and move towards their closest enemy completing their compulsory move... to then be able to sidestep away from that same 'closest enemy' possibly achieving to avoiding it all together ? does seem a little counter-intuitive.

As I mentioned on the other related subject we too play it like Zippee. First move must meet the requirement, any further moves are at the player's discretion. Since most impetuous units have a discipline rating of C it means making the second move brings considerable risk of disordering. I would usually only risk disorder to get into melee, not to avoid or side step a problem. Those French knights (8/5) are mighty nasty so putting them out in the open in disorder seriously risks them taking a disorder loss and going from 13 dice to 7.

Tarty wrote:A unit of French knights (for example) wheel and move towards their closest enemy completing their compulsory move... to then be able to sidestep away from that same 'closest enemy' possibly achieving to avoiding it all together ? does seem a little counter-intuitive.

Yes it does, but whatever you do rules wise, people will make weird choices. It takes a weird set of game objectives to make avoiding contact with your knights and leaving them disordered in range of the enemy a more desirable result than crashing into the enemy.

(And why did they wheel towards if the player wanted to avoid? It's optional not compulsory - this seems a very convoluted and 'forced' example )

But again, once the move(s) are made you need to create a narrative of the whole, not the parts. So perhaps the noble at the head of those knights doesn't want his men to engage that frosty pike block but to go past it but C&C being what it is his nobles are pushing ahead anyway - the net effect of his efforts to successfully avoid the pikes is to leave his unit in a vulnerable, confused mess and much closer to the enemy than he wanted.

All in all not a great tactical decision for the unit commander but one the player might well make under the constraints of winning a competitive game.

Yes it is a rather convoluted example I agree and certainly not something that I would do.
From what I can recall we have only ever applied the Impetuous restrictions on the first move of an activation in our games but this 'other' interpretation was brought up at the club and I thought it deserved some airing.

French knights would take the most direct path to contact and the thought of trying to sidestep the stakes and the English longbow units at Agincourt or attempt to slide out of their firing arc would have been the last thing on their mind

Tarty wrote:
French knights would take the most direct path to contact and the thought of trying to sidestep the stakes and the English longbow units at Agincourt or attempt to slide out of their firing arc would have been the last thing on their mind

Anyone willing to sidestep his French knights in front of English archers, within short range needs his head examined. he's almost bound to be disordered and then the incoming will shred him - or as a minimum cost him a VBU and his impetus.

One wonders why the player allowed them within 30u in the first place - once you get that close, you have to 'go for it' the time for moving to the flank was way before then!

Straight ahead through the stakes into the archers may not look like a good plan but it's a darn site better than whiffling around within bow range. Even if he does manage to get out of arc - the English are going to take that -1 to turn and shoot because you're disordered and all they need is a hit.

Sounds to me like the sort of 'cunning' plan a new player will experiment with - it's not the way to win at Impetus. Not that there are any easy wins for knights against longbows with stakes head-on - go fight the English somewhere else.

Tarty wrote:Yes it is a rather convoluted example I agree and certainly not something that I would do.
From what I can recall we have only ever applied the Impetuous restrictions on the first move of an activation in our games but this 'other' interpretation was brought up at the club and I thought it deserved some airing.

French knights would take the most direct path to contact and the thought of trying to sidestep the stakes and the English longbow units at Agincourt or attempt to slide out of their firing arc would have been the last thing on their mind

Hey Tarty, one the blessings of the Forum is that is functions as a kind of "Court of Appeal" with Lorenzo acting as the Supreme Court of Impetus. We all bring out own idiosyncratic way of reading the rules to our games so it is good to get a broader agreement of what the rules say. Even Zippee and myself have had some of our unique ways of reading the rules effectively challenged on the Forum! In this case, I would say that the "other" reading of the rules is incorrect, both in terms of the rules themselves (the rules are very clear on this) and in terms of the "narrative" or explanation of what exactly is happening on the table top (which is more open to debate and one that I am less worried about as I get older.)

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Hey Tarty, one the blessings of the Forum is that is functions as a kind of "Court of Appeal" with Lorenzo acting as the Supreme Court of Impetus.

Of course being an Italian Supreme Court - bribery, blackmail and coercion are perfectly acceptable methods of obtaining the 'right' verdict. Just ask Galba or Sulla or Pompeius or Caesar

That worked out well for Caesar lol

Zippee wrote: Of course being an Italian Supreme Court - bribery, blackmail and coercion are perfectly acceptable methods of obtaining the 'right' verdict. Just ask Galba or Sulla or Pompeius or Caesar

Is that how you explain our continually losing rules debates with Cyrus? I always thought it was on the merits of the case but it seems that you're suggesting that Cyrus may have gotten to him (ie. Lorenzo!)

The compulsory move is the first. Then the player can try, and I say try, to do what he wants with the second (and next) move(s).

Now if the Unit is in disorder no second move.

A second move can easily lead to disorder as impetuous troops usually have D=C. And that disorder can be very close to the enemy for obvious reasons.

Of course the player can take his risks. If successful it means that the troops started frenzy but officers were succesful to impose some kind of discipline in the process.

Great thanks Lorenzo that's cleared that one up