New rules in Advanced Impetus 2015

About 2 years ago I decided not to add new amendments to the rules until the release of Impetus second edition. On the other hand I hoped to release this book earlier But I have to release Baroque first. Anyway the developing of Baroque has lead to some ideas that in part will be used for Impetus 2 too.

Back to Impetus 2 so far we have tested some changes. Some were better tested, some less. I'm satified with many of the new ideas and it happened to me to have talked with some Italian gamers about these possible changes (you know the gamers )

So the result is that some Italian gamers asked me to anticipate some of these changes in the forthcoming Advanced Impetus 2015. This lead me to rethink my decision and with the idea of give some refresh to the circuit I have decided that some of these changes will be added in the new document.

As I was afraid to add confusion I have rewritten some paragraph of the rules and some parts of the old Advanced Impetus. In other words I put some order on some rules, so it is not just a question of adding stuff.

Now, most of you will be curious about the changes . So far I'm working to optimize these amendments so I ask you for a very few days before explaining the content.

I think anyway (as nothing is still written in the stone) that the adoption will prove a very useful play test.

Well, one of the change can be anticipated as very simple.
It is about the retreat of CM/CL/CGL when in melee with foot in case of draw.
I have already amended this rule avoiding suicidal retreats of mounted troops. The new rule will simply be that it is the player controlling the mounted Unit to decide to retreat 5U+d6 in case of draw. If it helps to disengage, ok, otherwise you stay in contact.
As you see, more simple than the previous amendment.

Lorenzo.

This is great news. Our Cancon 2015 tournament is starting on 24 January in Canberra, Australia.

Would it be possible to test some of these changes there? We have a number of players coming who have considerable experience. You know some of them from this forum.

I'm thinking of some sample games rather than in the formal tournament.

yes, why not. The main reason behind my choice is that this is a way to test them.
The backside is that 2-3 rules are ok, while others are not totally mature but are needed to counterbalance the firts.
Let me a couple of days maximum and I send you the draft (and possibly I will share in the forum)

Excellent.

May we have some broad concepts as to the changes?

Ok, here just a quick idea of the concepts.

COMPULSORY RETREAT OF CM/CL/CGL VS FOOT
As already anticipated in case of draw CM/CGL/CL are not forced to retreat by 5U+d6. It is at player's choice. In other words it is done if this kind of disengagement is an advantage for mounted.
This is something I wanted to add in the past, I simply take occasionto do it now.

EVASION
I have totally rewritten the paragraph on evasion. So this amendment also simplifies the whole paragraph.
Troop that can evade are still
CL/S/CGL/CM
BUT all must take a Discipline test to evade.
There are anyway some modifiers
+2 for CL and S
- 1 for Disordered troops

In other words CL and S can evade if they don't roll a 1 (supposing they are B class and in good order). If in Disorder they must roll 3+ (or still 2+ if A class)
The same for CGL and CM, but more difficult if in Disorder

This rule is the same in Baroque

NEW MELEE MODIFIERS
The +2 Depth Bonus for Warbands VS Foot has been removed.
There is a +1 for "covered flank" for each flank covered. To be covered you must have a Unit even partially adjacent to your side base. This kind of support is given only by units that can form a Group.

This rule is to
a) encourage more the use of Groups. They can be broken during a melee, but keeping a line is usefull. So far the game prized too much the depth. Now having lines make sense. Charging by Group make more sense. Very strong Large Units, unsupported, can suffer agains well formed lines.
b) Better discipline troop will keep more easily these lines.
For the contact it counts only the firsts Units in case of Large Units (so Large Units are not advantaged due to their depth).
I'm preparing some diagrams for this.

There is another +1 modifier for troops with a better Discipline (eg a B class Units VS a C class unit will get 1 die)

So far the rules I'm conviced they can improve the game and have been better tested.

There are a couple more I'm less convinced, that need more playtesting.
One is the progressive reduction of Impetus. Something that in Italy is welcome (but not by all).
Now it can work in some cases, but not in all.
For Impetuous Large Units it would be too penalizing as it would mean that you start loosing impetus with the first loss in the rear rank (unless you want to give them a kind of infinite impetus starting with the frontal unit).
CP with VBU=8 and I=5 would be terrible on the other hand.
Now this rule would have been partially balanced by a defensive shot by T. That is Discipline Test and if you pass you can roll as many dice as your VBU once contacted (same procedure as pilum, but not automatic and available also with some losses).
Still some modifiers here
-1 for Disorder
+1 for Longbow A

If you imagine a 100YW game, French would benefit of longer impetus but the English could deploy also a line of MAA and longbowmen with the benefit of longer and better disciplined line and archers could provide some additional shot before melee.
But as already said these 2 latest rules have not been tested enough and at the moment I think I will not add.

Final comments
The aims of these amendements are from one side to reduce the movement of CL (and S). If you get close to a enemy to shoot at him you take a little more of risk. CL is still a powerful troops but with no the 100% of impunity in some case.

On the other side the amendments want to improve the concept of lines and give more advantages to better disciplined troops. So far cheap Large Units were totally preferred to regular lines. Now this may change the balance a little.
Please note that the rules on "covered flank" (still to find a proper name) can benefit also irregular troops if well handled.

Ok these are the concepts. The rules so far are at a good stage in Italian. Once fixed I translate them.

dadiepiombo wrote:
COMPULSORY RETREAT OF CM/CL/CGL VS FOOT
As already anticipated in case of draw CM/CGL/CL are not forced to retreat by 5U+d6. It is at player's choice. In other words it is done if this kind of disengagement is an advantage for mounted.
This is something I wanted to add in the past, I simply take occasionto do it now.

I like it

dadiepiombo wrote:
EVASION
Troop that can evade are still
CL/S/CGL/CM
BUT all must take a Discipline test to evade.
There are anyway some modifiers
+2 for CL and S
- 1 for Disordered troops

In other words CL and S can evade if they don't roll a 1 (supposing they are B class and in good order). If in Disorder they must roll 3+ (or still 2+ if A class)
The same for CGL and CM, but more difficult if in Disorder

Like this as well.

Can they still multi evade?

dadiepiombo wrote:
NEW MELEE MODIFIERS
The +2 Depth Bonus for Warbands VS Foot has been removed.

EXCELLENT! Cheap VBU 5 + I 4 is plenty already!!!

dadiepiombo wrote:
There is a +1 for "covered flank" for each flank covered. To be covered you must have a Unit even partially adjacent to your side base. This kind of support is given only by units that can form a Group.

Again, excellent.

Does this stack with support units? e.g. someone hits the middle of a phalanx and has to fight 2 units (main and support). Does the main unit get a +2 bonus as well for the unit to either side?

If the adjacent units are engaged do they provide the +1?

Does the +1 count if a Unit is hit in the OPPOSITE flank?

dadiepiombo wrote:
This rule is to
a) encourage more the use of Groups. They can be broken during a melee, but keeping a line is usefull.

Cohesion, command and control rather than milling about and charging all over the place like Brown's cows! Love it.

And don't go assuming my favourite army being Macedonian has anything to do with it....

dadiepiombo wrote: So far the game prized too much the depth. Now having lines make sense. Charging by Group make more sense. Very strong Large Units, unsupported, can suffer agains well formed lines.

The end of the "Yorkist Death Star" will make many happy.

COmmand and control to ensure cohesion again. Excellent.

dadiepiombo wrote:
b) Better discipline troop will keep more easily these lines.
For the contact it counts only the firsts Units in case of Large Units (so Large Units are not advantaged due to their depth).

Not sure if I understand this fully. Do you mean the depth does not provide the +1?

Given adjacent units give the +1 I'd be happy for depth to do so as well. It does make sense.

dadiepiombo wrote:
There is another +1 modifier for troops with a better Discipline (eg a B class Units VS a C class unit will get 1 die)

Not so sure on this one. Disc has always represented movement cohesion, not combat. Removing the warband +2 is reasonable but given they are usually C grade this may be too much cumulatively (although it also addresses the Roman infantry issue).

It also penalises the Impetuous CP as well, not so sure that is warranted.

dadiepiombo wrote:
There are a couple more I'm less convinced, that need more playtesting.
One is the progressive reduction of Impetus. Something that in Italy is welcome (but not by all).

Overall a good idea but it makes high Impetus troops a very cheap option to get big dice compared to VBU. Not dead set against it, will like to see it played out.

dadiepiombo wrote:
Now it can work in some cases, but not in all.
For Impetuous Large Units it would be too penalizing as it would mean that you start loosing impetus with the first loss in the rear rank (unless you want to give them a kind of infinite impetus starting with the frontal unit).

Leave Large units as they are now, there needs to be SOME benefit to having so many troops tied up in rear ranks. The Impetus loss being determined by the front rank (i.e. remains Fresh until the rear unit is eliminated AND they take 1 VBU loss) does that.

Only exception - Large units comprising a rear rank or missile troops should lose Impetus straight away as they are not able to fill the melee capable losses. THe Large unit still retains its full VBU until the rear rank of archers are dead but they lose Impetus according to losses of the archers.

dadiepiombo wrote:
CP with VBU=8 and I=5 would be terrible on the other hand.

They have always been monster units and they cost appropriately. They are usually lower discipline as an offset and not normally capable of becoming Large Units so they start losing Impetus immediately.

Plus there are multiple mechanisms for countering their Impetus - long spear, pike, halberd, fortification, terrain etc.

Heavy cavalry should be menacing.

Or if you want a quicker step loss take 2 Impetus off for every VBU loss suffered by the front unit. i.e. the I=5 unit would become I=3 after one VBU loss, I=1 after 2 losses and I-0 after 3 VBU are lost. Given the cheapness of Impetus dice vs VBU dice that is probably a good balance.

dadiepiombo wrote:
Now this rule would have been partially balanced by a defensive shot by T. That is Discipline Test and if you pass you can roll as many dice as your VBU once contacted (same procedure as pilum, but not automatic and available also with some losses).
Still some modifiers here
-1 for Disorder
+1 for Longbow A

Closing fire makes sense.

I would suggest a modifier for Troop Discipline here (A= +1, B=0, C=-1 as a suggestion) and also a range modifier (-2 if you want to hold your nerve and shoot at Point Blank)

dadiepiombo wrote:
If you imagine a 100YW game, French would benefit of longer impetus but the English could deploy also a line of MAA and longbowmen with the benefit of longer and better disciplined line and archers could provide some additional shot before melee.
But as already said these 2 latest rules have not been tested enough and at the moment I think I will not add.

Maybe put them in as Optional pending further testing?

dadiepiombo wrote:
Final comments
The aims of these amendements are from one side to reduce the movement of CL (and S). If you get close to a enemy to shoot at him you take a little more of risk. CL is still a powerful troops but with no the 100% of impunity in some case.

On the other side the amendments want to improve the concept of lines and give more advantages to better disciplined troops. So far cheap Large Units were totally preferred to regular lines. Now this may change the balance a little.
Please note that the rules on "covered flank" (still to find a proper name) can benefit also irregular troops if well handled.

Ok these are the concepts. The rules so far are at a good stage in Italian. Once fixed I translate them.

Love it!

Couple of other areas for discussions:

Pike/LongSpear/nonreach weapon infantry: The longer weapon should nullify enemy Impetus if 2 steps longer (i.e. Pike vs non reach weapons) or halve it if one category longer (pike vs long spear or longspear vs non reach) but once melee has been formed then in subsequent rounds the benefit is reversed and the shorter weapon gets the benefit during the closer in phases. Resets to longer weapon advantage once melee has ceased and there is a gap between combatants (i.e. in a drawn melee the shorter weapon retains advantage).

Generals - as per other discussions Leaders have an effect based on their skill level

Interpenetration - any unit that interpenetrates another gets -2 on shooting per unit interpenetrated. The never ending cab rank of CL shooters is ridiculous, they can shoot 360 degrees so that reflects their mobility capability well enough already.

Pursuit - in the event of a multiple melee the winning main unit can choose not to follow up but the support unit still can (but only after the main unit has called follow up or not). This addresses the situation where the main unit has fought the enemy to a standstill at significant cost to itself and is down to 1 or 2 VBU left but the support unit that arrives is fresh and ready to continue the fight.

Fortifications - if the defender is adjacent to the fortification at the point of contact by the charge the fortification benefits apply, if the chargers can use manoeuvre to avoid the fortification and still contact the defender then they have done well and the fort is nullified. This also gives better flexibility for fortifications which seems reasonable.

All in all I think the proposed changes are excellent, love the development!!

to answer to all questions

1) Yes multiple evasion allowed as usual. Simply a D Test is required for all.

2) Flank support counts everytime and is added to a support unit

3) Yorkist Death Star never raised  CP cannot form large unit with FP, it was a wrong interpretation

4) Depth bonus is as usual for Large Units. Only impeuous FP/FL (warbands) have no longer the +2.
Large Units have already big advantages, time for Lines to recover some advantage. I mean if you have an army that cannot form Large Unit is not  a tragedy, you can create lines longer than opponents with LU

5) D to counting in melee. According to tests it helps to balance (most test made with legionaries VS warbands). There are many Large Units not impetuous but cheap with D=C that are very strong. D is linked with training anyway. Drilled troops can fill better gaps etc.
As you notice it can penalise some impetuous troops, the reason behind the progressive reduction of impetus. But the rules is not yet mature and I don't want to create too many exceptions. The -2 impetus for each loss is something I' considering anyway. But I see pros and cons. I mean it works for some troops not for Others (eg CP with VBU 6 and I=3 just save 1 die at the end at the fisrt loss)

Defensive fire by T is to balance it. In Baroque and probably in Impetus 2 opportunity works in a different way. You test at the moment, you don't put previously in opportunity. But we are going further and in a terrain still under test.

OK, Lorenzo

We'll test these first three at Cancon in some extra field games, at least. I will run these by the players and, if they are happy, we will use them in the 28mm group.

COMPULSORY RETREAT OF CM/CL/CGL VS FOOT

In the case of a draw, CM/CGL/CL are not forced to retreat by 5U+d6. It is at the player's choice. In other words it is done if this kind of disengagement is an advantage for mounted.

EVASION

Troops that can evade are CL/S/CGL/CM but all must take a Discipline test to evade.
There are modifiers
+2 for CL and S
- 1 for Disordered troops

In other words CL and S can evade if they don't roll a 1 (supposing they are B class and in good order). If in Disorder they must roll 3+ (or still 2+ if A class)
The same for CGL and CM, but more difficult if in Disorder


NEW MELEE MODIFIERS

No +2 Depth Bonus for Warbands VS Foot.

There is a +1 for "covered flank" for each flank covered. To be covered you must have a Unit even partially adjacent to your side base. This kind of support is given only by units that can form a Group.

This rule is to encourage the use of groups and lines.
Better discipline troop will keep these lines more easily.

For the contact it counts only the front Units in case of Large Units (so Large Units are not advantaged due to their depth).

There is another +1 modifier for troops with a better Discipline (eg a B class Units VS a C class unit will get 1 die)

Comments

These amendments are designed to reduce the movement of CL (and S). If you get close to a enemy to shoot at him you take a little more risk. CL is still a powerful troops but not with 100% of impunity in some cases.

On the other side the amendments want to improve the concept of lines and give more advantages to better disciplined troops. So far cheap Large Units were totally preferred to regular lines. Now this may change the balance a little.

Please note that the rules on "covered flank" (still to find a proper name) can also benefit irregular troops if well handled.


Just two things
Is it alright to post these on the Cancon Impetus 28mm Facebook page for discussion? And I have assumed that "first" in the melee modifiers means the front element.

Excellent all round.

well, probably before sharing on FB is better to have the complete text, but I think is ok. Opinions are welcome, those there is room only for clarifications not for big changes

dadiepiombo wrote:well, probably before sharing on FB is better to have the complete text, but I think is ok. Opinions are welcome, those there is room only for clarifications not for big changes

That area is for the players and you, Lorenzo.
We will use them as they are. That is the purpose of it.

They are sensible and straight-forward changes.

ok

I am not at all certain about the modifications. We will give them a try and give feedback. Even though each modification makes some sense the overall the effect is to make Impetus a more fiddly game.

I do not like the idea of progressive reduction of impetus and it should be mentioned that when this was brought up on the old Forum the vast consensus was against it. The voices on the new Forum are smaller in number and I am concerned that not enough feedback will be garnered here.

Some specific comments.

COMPULSORY RETREAT OF CM/CL/CGL VS FOOT
Not sure about this. This may give the player too much control over events.

EVASION
Not a big fan of this change. Especially as it relates to foot versus CL. The idea that Foot can catch CL frontally at any time seems a bit ridiculous to me.

I would have preferred the following:

If S/CL/CM/CGL evade they take a discipline test at the end of the move. If they fail the test they disorder. Disordered units that evade and fail the DT lose one VBU. The idea here is that the unit slowly fritters away as it continually evades.

NEW MELEE MODIFIERS
The +2 Depth Bonus for Warbands VS Foot has been removed.
There is a +1 for "covered flank" for each flank covered. To be covered you must have a Unit even partially adjacent to your side base. This kind of support is given only by units that can form a Group.
There is another +1 modifier for troops with a better Discipline (eg a B class Units VS a C class unit will get 1 die)

Both sound interesting. Is the +1 modifier is for number of dice thrown in melee or to the CT? I presume the former. If it is the latter then I am not a big fan of this change.

forget about progressive reduction of Impetus. It is something that at the moments doesn't convince me either. I simply shared the idea.

CM/CGL/CL withdraw not compulsory is just in case of draw.

Evasion is how works in Baroque. It works. There was another system I liked more, but didn't work the same. Givibg Disorder to a failed evasion means you never evade beacuse of fire.

As for the last question the +1 modifier is just in melee. They count but not too much.

whilst i am not a fan of the "step reduction" in Impetus, i DO see the rationale behind other players desire for it.

it would be a BIG game changer, or i should say a big army changer!

my only feeble reason against it is the thought of more counters or book keeping.

so (for the second time this Year...sticking my neck on the block!)

i never like totally new rules, they are always hard to judge until play tested to death, i always preferred adapting existing rules...baby steps so to speak.

impetus already has a rule 2.6.1 that defines a units VBU status:-  fresh (no loses), worn (1/2 lost VBU). worn also has other effects!

can we say fresh units have full impetus, worn have nil. others (fatigued?) have half impetus rounded up.

this way has no need for "extra" counter/markers, you can tell if its fresh (no loses) fatigued (taken one or more) worn (half) just by its casualty markers.

rounding up is important to give units of I=1 something until they are knackered.

a unit of Teutonics has full VBU8 thus full I5..okay a no brainer
its takes a loss, VBU = 7 I=3.

once it is VBU 4 the gerries have run out of steam and are knackered I=0


once again, i think this is a small change in rule that could have a large change on the way the game is played? careful what we ask for!

Won't the new proposed rules on evasion mean that LH are caught too often?

Most are B class, so 1/6 they will fail to evade. As effective firing normally only occurs within short range it means that they will regularly be caught by enemy mounted. Armies relying on large numbers of LH would see significant losses from this I would think.

as said, no change in impetus.

CL can fail in mostly case only by rolling 1.
Now, if you want to have no risk at all to be caught by foot it will be enough in most cases to stay no closer than 5U. If you do, you take a small risk.

Against other mounted armies, well CP (that will not benefit of impetus reduction) may have some chances to take a CL, but still it is not so easy. You cannot foolishly charge hoping your opponent rolls a 1. Maybe with a Disorderd CL, but still chances are against, though anyway this situation must be risky for CL. Simply CL cannot perform with impunity in front of CP.

We have decided not to use them in the main event, Lorenzo but we will use in some demonstration games. I will give you all the feedback we can.

Some interesting changes.

Evade

I understand that the changes match Baroque and so are settled. As others have said, it seems odd that infantry, such as FP, now have a chance of catching non-disordered CL or S when advancing on them from the front.. It is particularly unfortunate for the S who will be dispersed. At least the CL can try to fight.

If the discussion of this isn't wholly closed, I wonder if consideration could be given to adding evade as an automatic option for CL/S/CGL/CM on opportunity. So I could 'buy' my evade the previous activation to avoid the new test. It could be useful when I want to use S as a screen. Think of it as giving advance orders to the S/CL etc. to run when the enemy approaches.

Covered Flank

I guess it'll take a while to understand the full effect of this. It is 'given only to units that can form a Group'. So presumably a disordered unit cannot have a covered flank, nor can a disordered unit provide such flank cover. That could make the pilum rule more important.

I presume mounted cannot provide flank cover to infantry and vice versa. On the other hand, S can provide cover for either. Maybe this is the new use of S, making up for their reduced evasion.

Do I want to put my FP on deeper bases, if the cover applies only to the front rank of a large unit?

Warband

Easy to understand the change. I expect we'll see fewer warband around.

Reduction of Impetus

I'm glad this has not yet been included. This discussion has already shown that the effect will depend critically on the exact form of reduction. As frazer said, an army changer, if it were to happen. Balancing with a benefit to T doesn't help other troop types, particularly CM or CL who now may not be able to evade the CP charge.

So we'll see how they play

RogerC

Evade.
I consider the option of Unit on opportunity. Make sense.
For the rest if you get caught by foot is just because you tried to shoot at him in the ZOC area (no one ever blamed the catch as a ZOC reaction) and you was unlicky to roll 1 on DT.

Covered Flank
Also units in disorder can give flank protection and even if in melee. To have this you need to start as a Group, then once the melee starts you will no longer bee a Group (reetreats/pursuits/disorder) but will have an advantage to keep a line and not to "disperse" your force. For C class troop it will be more difficult but not impossible.
To make an example warbands can benefit of this if charge by few scattered CP. Provide they keep a kind of line.

As for Large Units limited to front rank, what I want to say (and there will be some diagram) is that the contact for the flank protection must be between the fron units, as otherwise beeing deeper the Large Units would benefit of this flank contact longer than unit on a single rank.

A for warbands they will be less lethal to foot (still pretty strong) and less weak against CP (if they form a line)

Always good to see some rule changes - keeps everything fresh and makes everyone have a rethink.

And maybe even buy a new army - painted of course

I am a fan of gradual loss of impetus. No need for extra markers either if every casualty = 1 off VBU and 1 off impetus. Seems rough to me that an 8/5 can go from 13 dice to 6 from one lucky shot. They really are glass cannons at the moment.

The other changes all seem reasonable although I share a fear of adding in too many fiddly rules. Simplicity has always been part of the Impetus magic in my view.

Always happy to try new rules and in keeping with tradition will propose them for the Wales Open (April 4th) if Lorenzo has them ready and wants them used.

Hi,
If the main unit in a melee gets a plus 1 for each supported flank would a supporting unit in that melee
get a plus 1 on its dice?

Hello Lorenzo,

I will put the possibility of the same first three rules past the organisers (Currently in Brisbane) for the Cancon 15mm Impetus at the end of month tourney in Canberra, Australia. I imagine this is too late notice for us though.
Will observe our big cousins if they do adopt them.

Regards,

AC.

In general I would leave to organizers the timing for the passage from Advanced Impetus 2014 to AI 2015.
This is mainly my fault to have take longer to take this decision.
Players need time to assimilate and there is no hurry.