Skirmisher Dispersal

Unit of CM want to charge with 2 moves during the 2nd move to contact target unit skirmishers were in the way they didn't evade so were dispersed but got lucky and disordered the CM. This meant that the CM were already disordered when taking the discipline test for second move into contact with target unit. The CM failed this test so do they:-
1/ Take a VBU loss for 2nd disorder.
2/ Ignore test as already disordered
3/ If had passed test somebody cheekily suggested the pass should rally the previous disorder caused by the skirmishers.

Not covered by rules I favoured 1/ . eric

Provided the CM will contact the target unit with their 2nd move (the charge) then they contact and fight disordered. If not then they end the 2nd move disordered.

You only take a loss for a second disorder as a result of a cohesion test so that doesn't apply here.

The discipline test is unnecessary - the CM is disordered by the SK and that's that, they would not be able to conduct a 3rd movement.

Thanks so no need to take discipline test for 2nd movement? In other parts of rules further disorder can cause VBU loss not just on cohesion test but as rules silent on this point your reply sounds right. Eric

I think the only instance where a unit takes a loss other than from combat (ranged or melee) and the related cohesion test is for a leader loss - which itself can only be a result of combat...

Disorder does not stack is the baseline - once disordered further disorder (outside of combat) is irrelevant.

The one i was thinking of was a disordeted support unit forced to withdraw which doesnt take a cohesion test but 2nd disorder causes a loss.

I think the test for 2nd movement is taken immediately after the movemente and before combat.
In your example the CM would start the melee already disordered and would suffer a cohesion loss for the 2nd disorder.

Thankyou Jorneto. May i take this opportunity to thankyou for the playsheets you put online. We've been using them for a while and find them very helpful with the adfitional info. Would recommend others give tham a try. Eric

jorneto wrote:I think the test for 2nd movement is taken immediately after the movemente and before combat.
In your example the CM would start the melee already disordered and would suffer a cohesion loss for the 2nd disorder.

It is not clear for me what causes the 2nd disorder in your example. Damage in the ensuing melee or a DT failure at the end of the 2nd move before melee?

ejc wrote:The one i was thinking of was a disordeted support unit forced to withdraw which doesnt take a cohesion test but 2nd disorder causes a loss.

Yeah, but it's forced to withdraw because the main unit took a cohesion test - its combat related, that's the point.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

jorneto wrote:I think the test for 2nd movement is taken immediately after the movemente and before combat.
In your example the CM would start the melee already disordered and would suffer a cohesion loss for the 2nd disorder.

It is not clear for me what causes the 2nd disorder in your example. Damage in the ensuing melee or a DT failure at the end of the 2nd move before melee?

He says the SK disordered the CM when they dispersed, so the CM are disordered before they end their 2nd move and make contact. No Disciple Test required. They fight disordered.

Gaius what caused the 2nd disorder was the move into contact after being already disordered by skirmishers. Eric

Gaius Cassius wrote:It is not clear for me what causes the 2nd disorder in your example. Damage in the ensuing melee or a DT failure at the end of the 2nd move before melee?

If I'm right the sequence should be:
CM does 2nd move - ending in contact
CM makes DT - and fails, becoming disordered.
S makes an attack  - and hits, giving a further disorder that results in a cohesion loss
S disperses

Jorneto as the CM conact the skirmishers first isnt that the 1st cause of disorder then move to contact and take discipline test which they fail and thats the 2nd cause for disorder?

In the meantime I checked the rules at 7.8.1, just in case...

CM contacting S doesn't cause disorder.
Their 1st case for disorder is failing the DT for the 2nd move.
Then ensues the melee where the CM gets its 2nd disorder

The SK got lucky with their Defensive Fire I presume and caused a disorder on the CM.

Read the second paragraph of 7.8.1

What caused the 1st disorder was the skirmishers who rolled a 6 on melee dice before their dispersal. The CM then completed their move which was their 2nd move into contact then failed discpline test for that 2nd move so 2 causes of disorder in second move.

My understanding is that the disorder for a 2nd move DT failed test applies for the entire 2nd move. Not just at the very end of it.

But this might need some clarifying.

That is not how we play it. In the above scenario the CM is disordered first by the melee with SK and then finishes its move and should make a DT test. Since it is already disordered it doesn't need to roll for disorder for the 2nd move (as per Zippee.) There is no double disorder in this situation.

Jorneto that would make sense but would mean if deemed to be disordered when skirmishers disbursed gives extra minus on CM cohesion test is that intended?
Don't think covered in rules unless you think there is an assumption of the rules that double disorder causes vbu loss. In this case they've been disordered by skirmishes if further disordered by movement should have some effect?

For double disorder, the point is in the order of events.

If you consider first the melee and then the 2nd move, the second disorder would cause no further effect. If you reverse the order then there will be a cohesion loss to the cavalry.
Cumulative disorder causes losses only if the 2nd is caused by combat.

How do you treat, for example, a CM doing a 2nd move to charge a T that delivers defensive fire which causes disorder.
First the shooting and then DT for 2nd move or the inverse order?

In this example we check CM for movement disorder then defensive fire. This adds strength to your argument that CM disordered in movement before skirmish dispersement.

CM only tests for the 2nd move after it completes its movement. That was certainly true for Impetus 1 and I haven't seen indication that Impetus 2 changed this. Remember, when the S unit is moved through by the CM on its way to its target the contact is not like a regular melee. The CM does not roll any dice and does not pursue after the S unit is dispersed. Had the S unit been the target of the charge and there was a melee then I think the regular rules would apply.

Yes, agreed.
But note that the situation is treated differently in Impetus 1 and 2.

With version 1 we would simply move the CM to contact the formed unit, remove the S and finally do the DT for disorder before melee. In this case it's completely irrelevant if we consider the CM disordered at the start or at the end of the 2nd move.

With version 2 there's this new step "in the middle" where the S fight back. And in this case being disordered before, matters.

The example 1 in 7.8.1 describes a similar situation. But the DT seems to have been forgotten.

As not clear in the rules we made a house rule on the night the same as zipee and gaius. On reading Gaius last post not so sure now. If the CM had declared a charge with their second move on the skirmishes the CM would have moved into contact with the skirmishers then take and fails DT and becomes disordered presumably some time before contact. Why would it be any different if the CM were just going to move through CM and disperse skirmishers. It would not see unreasonable to assume they were actually disordered throughout the whole of the 2nd move and its just a gaming mechanism to move into contact and take DT before any combat caused by their movement is adjudicated. (Also has the advantage of committing the CM to completing their movement before they know result of DT test) Eric

it's about intent.
If the CM are targeting a unit beyond the SK then they are looking to brush them aside and keep moving, so the disorder doesn't stop them completing their movement.

If the CM only ever intend to target the SK then that's as far as they would move - further movement (assuming success) would be classified as pursuit.

I don't think it is just a mechanical thing - think of it as the order given: "charge the hoplites beyond those slingers" and "charge thos e slingers, clear them away" are different tasks - I would be disappointed if the cavalry kept chasing the slingers after dispersing them, clearly I want them under control.

At what point movement disorder overcomes a unit is moot, we can't deal in shades of grey, there has to be a mechanical point at which we decide and that is (for good reasons) at the conclusion of the movement.

It's no more abstract than any of the other game abstractions we have to accept.