retreating from melee and interpenetration

A query arose in our game today which I would appreciate help with. Following a loss in melee a CP1 unit had to retreat 2H. 1H behind the unit was a Light Artillery unit. So the 2H move would land the CP1 unit on top of the Art. From 5.11.2 it says a unit can interpenetrate any unit (even if move distance remaining is not enough) if the interpenetration is allowed under 5.11.1. . 5.11.1 (2) says Art can be interpenetrated by any unit so the CP1 unit can go through.
The query however is does the CP1 unit move to the rear of the Artillery (a move greater than 2H or does the CP1 unit move its 2H and the Art unit moves forward in front?
I had thought that the comment in 5.11.2 of even if move distance remaining is not enough meant that in this case the CP1 unit moves more than 2H as the comment implies an additional distance to clear the unit unit being interpenetrated but is this correct?
The issue arose due to the comment in 5.11.1 that (When dealing with interpenetration a unit being interpenetrated can be forced to move forward). My thought was however that this comment referred to voluntary interpenetration as per the heading on 5.11.1 not for a forced move under 5.11.2

The CP1 moves behind the artillery. The artillery is not displaced.

Thanks for the response. This is how I thought it was

So the cav, who were push back in battle cab escape, because the can use the artillery to gain extra distance!  That is daft! The pursuing cav should at least be able to do the same as their pursuit distance was equal to the retreat. The artillery being swept away, just like skirmishes fighting a melee.

This is just another example of some of the “silly” things in these rules . In the same battle pikes were hit in the flank by a charge . The pikes were already in melle from the front.  The pikes were still able to use more dice than the combined attackers?


I like imp 2 in general, but the rules do need proper amendments.

If the rule writers are not prepared to omit this and correct these silly’s, then playing groups should right their own.

Those of us who used to play WRG 6th ( a very successful and popular set of rules) did this and that keep the set going forever 35 years! These amendments became standard for all the major completions in UK.

Who said anyone was pursuing?

And if they are what do you think happens to the artillery - and then the pursuit hits the CP1 that retreated.

think it through before asking us to return to the quagmire of 6ed

I did think it through.

The original retreat was 2 h and the pursuit 2 h

After the retreating cav were moved behind the artillery the distance became over 3 H!

So they got away having moved more than the pursuit of 2 h!.

There is a minority of instances where the pursuit can't achieve the additional <less than a base depth> additional distance. In the vast majority of instances the pursuit will encounter the unit the retreaters passed through.

In those few cases then the retreat outpaced the pursuit, which is always a possibility for a slew of reasons. Nothing is guaranteed.

Who knows how far the CP retreated before reaching the artillery? 1H, 0.5H, 1.5H? All the pursuit needs do is reach the artillery to maintain contact and the melee/pursuit is renewed.

If they can't make it as part of the pursuit in this activation then they'll be charging the artillery in the next activation. With very similar outcomes but maybe, just maybe the CP command can get something organised in the meantime. That activation break is one of the fundamentals of Impetus, it generates the chaos and uncertainty required.

Zippee wrote:Who said anyone was pursuing?

And if they are what do you think happens to the artillery - and then the pursuit hits the CP1 that retreated.

This is how we would've played it.

Artillery gets swept off the table. So retreat distances is only 2H.

Possibility of multiple melees in the same activation is a big part of Impetus. The 'Bloodthirsty' card often comes in handy for this at the right time.

Hi Tarty,
Retreats sadly don't sweep artillery off the table - 5.11.2 is clear on that (even if its not very clear on anything much else). If the pursuers catch them they will be dispersed of course but given the depth of a CP base that won't happen here (unless the pursuers are CL and roll high).

The OP doesn't say what defeated the CP but assuming it wasn't CL the maximum pursuit is 2H as they have to be mounted to pursue mounted. The retreat table is more generous than the pursuit table, normally the pursuers would have a flat 33% chance of failing to catch the CP regardless of the retreat and a 50/50 on a roll of 3-6. It is always more likely that retreaters will get away.

Its certainly an abstraction and an overriding of that math that retreaters passing through their own reserves can get away more often still  but I think that can be rationalised in any number of ways.

In this case, the victors if they successfully pursue at all, halt 0.5H away from the artillery if they roll 5 or 6, 1.5H away if they roll 3 or 4 - what happens next really depends on activation sequencing. We have no idea if its the CP command's activation or not. Have the artillery activated yet or not. What other units are around. Lots of possibilities.

We've had this come up many times, the combined base depth of an intervening friendly unit and the retreat move outstripping a pursuit....often letting the retreater 'off the hook'.

You're right it is very much an abstraction.

Base depth - Yes that old nut. Unfortunately this has always been an issue (even for 6th ed.. heh heh) But we're playing with models so a necessary evil.

Like I said an extra 2H pursuit with a played Bloodthirsty card is often the quick fix if you're feeling unfairly treated . For 3pts it's worth it so you can move on and enjoy the rest of your game.

Yep agreed.

I'm just mindful that quite a lot of people don't seem to like the cards so wasn't bringing them up as an offset.

There has been a lot of smoke and mirrors here, trying to defend a bad issue in these rules.

This is what happened.

1. Two cav units fought, both were high quality cp units. Worth 3 points each.

2. One cp unit lost and was forced to retreat, the other unit was able to purse..

3. Both unis throw the dice needed to create a 2 h retreat and a 2 h pursue.

4 A second melee should have occurred, but the retreating unit contacted the artilary, was in its path.

5 the cp unit was then placed behind the artillery unit, thus make an extra retreat move so as to avoid contact with the pursues.

6 the artillery were hit and removed from the game.

This game was placed by 4 players, three of which considered this to be be wrong and just gamesmanship. A 3 point save for the cost of 1 point.


In my view these rules need to be clarified, no retreating unit should exceed their move distance!

I refute any smoke and mirrors. You've been answered at length. If you don't like the rules, alter them or play something else.

Hope wrote:There has been a lot of smoke and mirrors here, trying to defend a bad issue in these rules.

Hmmm no don't think so. We've had a discussion about an 'abstraction' within the rules.

I'm still mystified how the artillery was contacted and removed and if it was why pursuit was not continued into the original CP unit. Smoke and mirrors indeed!

I am a bit confused. Are you arguing about "simulation" or 1 point lost instead of 3?

You can overdetail every ruleset by adding tons of amendments with the result people get bored.

What happened on this game sounds not so strange.
Retreat distance is somewhat an abstraction. Succesful pursuit the same.
You can or you cannot reach a retreating enemy according to several variables.
In the process pursuers can be distracted by many things on the battlefied. Also an artillery.
CP is not stopped anyway by the artillery. Maybe the final duel with the retreating opponent CP is just delayed.