Multiple melee

Interesting. That is not how have played it up to now but the final sentence in example 3 does seem clear enough.

Gaius Cassius wrote: Actually I don't think Lorenzo answered the question under discussion.

I think he did unfortuantely

dadiepiombo wrote: As already in contact, B MUST have a melee with A (unless it can disengage).

Pretty definitively so IMO (unless he failed to pick up the actual question - I assumed he did)

dadiepiombo wrote: This has been cleared in Extra Impetus 1, page 27, example 3.

However as discussed above, EG3 doesn’t clear it up – this statement only says A can activate again – the discussion was whether it could participate in (ie restart)  a continuing melee based on the fact that 7.7.4 lists only 1 way that a melee can restart.

Gaius Cassius wrote:  That is not how have played it up to now but the final sentence in example 3 does seem clear enough.

As I say above, EI1 doesn’t clear the question, but Lorenzo’s second statement above does. IMO that’s a rule amendment/change but then Lorenzo has the inalienable right to do that.

I think it’s wrong, I do not understand why the delayed command should be able to kick start the fight again without something (like a new unit) changing the circumstance but if the Big L says it is so, it is so.

I’d suggest that EG3 be updated, changing the final sentence to “ “A” can be activated again afterwards, including to restart the same melee, when initiative goes to his Command”

Lorenzo - that's the point under discussion - if you agree with that proposed edit you agree with RC and GG, if not you may agree with me and GC. I presume you agree with it but I'd be interested to know why you think the delayed command should restart the melee.

I agree Zippee with your basic point.

Based on extensive play of Impetus I believe that in principle that the basic pattern of two melees per turn (one friendly and one by the opponent) should be maintained even when units of different commands are involved in the melee. This pattern is of course varied when there are moving units involved in melee as per 7.7.4.. When two friendly units in the same command melee with a common enemy unit both units are activated at that time and one melee takes place. I don’t see why this basic pattern should change in the event that the two friendly units happen to come from different commands.

I see the analogy with Missile fire helpful. A unit can only fire once per turn and should it fire in the opportunity phase it is marked as fired when the unit's command is activated. The unit in question can move and do other actions but it cannot fire again in the turn (except through reaction.) A unit that melees should, in my opinion, be marked as meleed even if the melee occurs in a previous command activation. The marker would come off if the unit is able to move into a new melee since movement is a basic condition of melee initiation. Notice that for a unit to pursue and initiate a new melee it must move (with the exception of pursuits on the flank of the enemy – there are good reasons for this.)

Gaius Cassius wrote:I see the analogy with Missile fire helpful. A unit can only fire once per turn and should it fire in the opportunity phase it is marked as fired when the unit's command is activated. The unit in question can move and do other actions but it cannot fire again in the turn (except through reaction.)

Trouble being that I'm fairly certain Lorenzo at some point has said that he's dispensing with that restriction - I haven't searched for the reference, think it was the old forum, may be years ago

The reason being simplicity and the lack of requirement for unit memory.

[I deliberately didn't use that analogy in my argument because of that ]

No, Lorenzo didn't dispense with this restriction Zippee. I remembering arguing that it should be dispensed with but he decided that it was needed for play balance. In retrospect Lorenzo made the right call (at least as far as my experience goes.)

Correct if I'm wrong Richard but Granicus' interpretation is the way that we have been playing it in our competitions.

I had that exact issue this afternoon in two successive games and it was the only logical way through it.

I'm much less disturbed by multiple melees than I am by the bizarre ZC issue where a strict reading allows a unit to cross and leave a ZC as long as it clears it completely.

We had a stationary comp B bow CL's ZC crossed at point blank range by an enemy CL on its way to commit some deviltry. A successful counter-charge from the MC unit being attacked then stopped the CL from exiting the ZC. However as it now ended in contact, no fire was possible.

That seems strange to me.

Gaius Cassius wrote:No, Lorenzo didn't dispense with this restriction Zippee. I remembering arguing that it should be dispensed with but he decided that it was needed for play balance. In retrospect Lorenzo made the right call (at least as far as my experience goes.)

I know it was never enacted as an official amendment but I was left with the impression that it was under serious consideration for 2ed, so did not want to raise it in connection to this thread. But I agree that the analogy is a good one.

it does prove the point though that until something is in the official amendments sheet a forum posting is not a rule change. Forum posts get lost and changed over time.

This clarification really needs to be entered in the official log

starkadder wrote:Correct if I'm wrong Richard but Granicus' interpretation is the way that we have been playing it in our competitions.

But not in ours! Which is the point.

starkadder wrote:
I'm much less disturbed by multiple melees than I am by the bizarre ZC issue where a strict reading allows a unit to cross and leave a ZC as long as it clears it completely.

We had a stationary comp B bow CL's ZC crossed at point blank range by an enemy CL on its way to commit some deviltry. A successful counter-charge from the MC unit being attacked then stopped the CL from exiting the ZC. However as it now ended in contact, no fire was possible.

That seems strange to me.

Happy to agree that is strange, and I see no particular reason why it should be.

However I do think it a subject for its own thread - this one is quite long and involved enough

probably I missed the point.

All of you agree that a Unit that ends in contact with an enemy must continue the melee in the next turn or during the enemy's turn?

Lorenzo,

the question is this:

A continuing melee has formed between three units, Blue1 is engaged by Red 1 and Red2.

Red1 and Red 2 are in different commands, for the sake of argument Red1 is in Command 1 and Red2 is in Command 2.

Red player wins initiative with Command 1. He chooses which units in that command to activate in turn until he comes to Red1. Red1 is activated and the continuing melee is rolled for, Red1 and half of Red2 as a supporting unit add their dice pools.

Both Red and Blue pass their Cohesion tests so the melee remains a continuing melee.

Later in the same turn the Red play activates Command 2.

What happens when he gets to unit Red2 that is involved in the continuing melee? Does the melee get retriggered or does the face that Red2 was activated as a support unit in the activation of Command 1 prevent activation in Red2's "home" Command2 and thus the melee reamins "frozen" unless impacted by a completely different unit in Command2?

when Red2 is activated it will fight his melee and as its position says it is a supporting Unit, Red 1 will fight again as a main unit, supported by Red2.

Now, trying to better explain the reasons, a melee "restarts" when it happens within the same activation. Otherwise when we have a draw the melee is not over. Simply it continues during another activation. Usually during opponent's activation.

So if we have Red 1 in contact with Blue1 and the melee ended in a draw, the melee is not over. Is simply frozen for a question of timing. The 2 Units are continuing their fight, simply we will know how it ends in a future "episode".
If within the same activation another Red Unit beloging to the same command of Red1 charges Blue 1 (we are still in the same activation, still say during Command 1 activation) it restarts the melee. But I use "restarting" simply to say it continues now, not in a future turn/activation.

Don't know if it is clear. But this is the only way to deal with multiple melee that take time in a longer period. The starting concept is that if you activate a Unit in contact with the enemy, then you have to continue the melee.

Using GG's example if Red1 and Red2 are both in the same command then there is only one melee initiated by Red in that turn (assuming that no new units enter the melee and a draw occurs in the dice rolling.) In Blue1's activation another round of melee will occur in the same turn (either before or after Red's.) We all agree on that.  

The question occurs when Red1 and Red2 are in different commands. Assume that the Red1 command activates and the melee occurs between Red1 and Red2 and Blue1. We have played it that when Red2's command activates Red2 cannot initiate another round of melee because Red2 does not conform to the requirements of 7.7.4. We would mark Red2 in the same manner as when a unit on opportunity fires before its command is activated. A firing unit cannot fire again in it's own activation having fired through opportunity earlier in the turn. In our understanding unless Red2 can move during its turn it cannot activate a melee.

Your explanation Lorenzo is that Red2 does reactivate the melee because even though it has already meleed in Red1's activation it is now able to to do so again in its own. So when two friendly units in differing commands are in melee with one enemy unit there will now be 3 rounds of melee between them in one turn and not 2.

We think that keeping consistency between the two above scenarios is the better approach for Impetus. We don't understand why friendly units from differing commands should initiate more melees than friendly units in the same command. Red should only be able to initiate melee once per turn in these cases regardless of the commands Red1 and Red2 belong to.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
We think that keeping consistency between the two above scenarios is the better approach for Impetus. We don't understand why friendly units from differing commands should initiate more melees than friendly units in the same command. Red should only be able to initiate melee once per turn in these cases regardless of the commands Red1 and Red2 belong to.

Whilst I can see your point I disagree, every unit activates in their command activation, this is just another example of passive activation. The bloodier the merrier.

And if anyone wants to try and use it as a tactic they need to be very good to take into account Command Radius and also the possible effect of losing units from different commands and VDT for total army break. In comps where a 60:40 split is mandated as the maximum position the loss of 1 unit in the other command is often enough to finish the game when the smaller command breaks.

Again, a whole lot of consequences for the options chosen. That is the thing I like best about Impetus. The player makes al the decisions and must live with teh consequences.

Impetus only allows units to engage in missile fire once per turn, regardless of when the unit itself is activated. So command activation isn't the be all and end all.

I fully agree with your sentiments GG but I do not think they apply to only one side of the discussion. You can apply the same "consequences to decisions" mantra to either way of playing. Thus they are irrelevant to the method used (other than as a mutual goal).

I simply do not understand why a combat should be fought 3 times purely because of a quirk of the command initiative rules. To turn the question round, why is it not appropriate for all units in the same command to reactivate the combat but acceptable for an interloper? The combat is continuous in reality (as L says above) so why are we passively being allowed to conclude it without first being tasked to do something to give us that ability (ie move a new unit in)?

The analogy with opportunity firing is a good one. However I feel compelled to point out that units that move (opportunity, pursuit, evade) out of sequence don't lose their activation movement. S it's not quite as clear cut as GC demonstrates.

For me what feels wrong is that there is no decision node being replicated. The player is not striving to activate this combat to his advantage, it just happens. It rewards passivity and removes decisions. This to me is a bad thing.

It does however add simplicity, also a good thing.

but how many times can really happen that you have 2 units in melee belonging 2 different commands and also that they remain in melee with a single unit after 1 or 2 melee rounds?

dadiepiombo wrote:but how many times can really happen that you have 2 units in melee belonging 2 different commands and also that they remain in melee with a single unit after 1 or 2 melee rounds?

Not that often in my experience but I'm not sure that makes any difference to the question. Should a second command reactivate a situation just because - or should a decision node or event trigger it.

Well, my original question arose because I had a game with frequent drawn combats - and I had elements of 3 of my commands fighting one enemy command. So it was not uncommon in that game.

On the night our interpretation was that each activation produced a combat, but it did feel slightly unusual, hence my raising it here - why should command structure affect the frequency of combat?

An important follow up question is would it be possible to exploit this 'extra' combat round to advantage? I think it would be difficult but possible.

Difficult in the extent that elements from different commands have to be entered into combat separately - thus missing out on friendly support, suffering from enemy support etc. Isolated units coudl suffer, but maybe they should.

starting with the presumption that this is a very rare case that 2 units or even 3 belonging to different command can start their activation still in contact with an enemy unit, the rules simply follow a linear approach.

1) When you activate a Unit and thatr Unitis in contact with the enemy, it must take its round of melee

2) If the Unit above is a a supporting Unit it will remain a supporting unit.

This is a passive activation and I tried to explain in Extra Impetus 3 page 27 where in example 3 there is not a specification if the unit is the main or the supporting. It will start a new round of melee and the other Unit will do the same when active in the odd case they are still there after more than 2 rounds of melee