Support Units Retreating

Another question I've been asked to get an 'official' answer to.
7.7.3 Multiple Melee last paragraph.
"If the Main Unit is Routed,the Support Units retreat" .... are they also Disordered ?

I'm going to make a call on this and say yes ....think it's just common sense.

They have to be, surely?

starkadder wrote:They have to be, surely?

You would think so wouldn't you ?......even if not actually written in black and white routing usually means they've lost the melee as well.

This topic was discussed on the Old Forum and it was ruled by Lorenzo that a unit that routs automatically loses the melee even if the non routing unit took more losses (it does happen occasionally.)

In this case units supporting the routed unit would retreat and become disordered at the end of the turn.

I think the rules are open to a bit of wrangling because of the sequence - ie main unit retreats and is disordered support units also retreat. My understanding is that the retreat disorders you, so there is no reason to repeat "in disorder"

Cyrus The Adequate wrote: My understanding is that the retreat disorders you, so there is no reason to repeat "in disorder"

Yep nailed it one ....well this is the answer I'll be giving people if asked again.
Thanks for the old forum reference Gauis....good to know cheers. Thought it had been discussed before but couldn't find it.

I agree that support units which retreat are disordered. The sentence bridging pages 40 and 41 of the rulebook says that if a unit 'is beatan and forced to retreat, then friendly Support Units will also be Disordered and forced to retreat'. So I think that must also apply if the main unit is beaten and routs. The support unit shouldn't be better off if the main unit is beaten and routs rather than is beaten and retreats.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that a unit which routs automatically loses the melee. I think this is the thread you were thinking of, Gaius.
http://impetus.forumsland.com/impetus-about3521.html
While Lorenzo initially thought that a unit which is destroyed automatically loses, my understanding is that by the end of the thread (second page) he was persuaded that the losing unit of a melee is one with most VBU loss. That was my view, and I believe you were also of that view, Gaius. I see that Lorenzo didn't put the clarification into EI5, so I suppose it is still open to question.

RogerC

Good point RogerC. Thanks for finding the subject. Yes, clarification is needed because although I argued against it I had the sense that Lorenzo had ruled that units routing automatically lost the melee. That is how we've played it for the past few years and it seems to work well.

I can see that saying the routed unit must automatically lose keeps things simple. But I prefer the interpretation that losing is based on the VBU loses for those extreme cases where the total effect of the main and support unit on the enemy far outweighs the damage suffered by the main unit.

The example I gave on the other thread of a VBU = 1 main unit with a powerful support causing e.g. 5 losses to the enemy but losing the melee by receiving a single hit remains persuasive to me. You can't choose which is your main unit and which is your support unit, but the way the two are distinguished seems to me more a 'rules' effect than anything else. Surely a unit attacking an enemy in the rear and causing lots of casualties wouldn't be put off (retreat) just because the enemy has managed to kill enough of the unit to its front to make that unit ineffective.

The debate in 2012 was finely balanced, and it is interesting that the issue has not gone away. Maybe this is one for some other time. I worry that I am hijacking this thread away from the original question.

RogerC

What would you do RogerC in a case where the main unit has a VBU of 1 and rolls a 6 on the CT and the opposing unit has a VBU of 4 and also rolls a 6? Technically the second unit takes more hits and would lose the melee were it not for the fact that the first unit routs. Would you consider the theoretical loss into consideration?

In such a case I would say that the main unit has 5 permanent losses and the opposing unit has 2. So the main unit (and any supporting unit) has lost the melee. I am not troubled that 5 permanent losses on the main unit is more than its current VBU. I am travelling and haven't got the rules with me but I seem to remember that the definition of permanent losses doesn't prohibit losses greater than the VBU. Of course, a unit with a negative VBU routs.

I rationalise this by thinking of VBU = 0 as the unit being reduced to the point where it is not effective, rather than being totally wiped out. After all, there must be some men left to be routing.

So I think having the unit with more losses as the loser can work without oddities, although I can see that there is also a logic to say that a unit which routs has automatically lost.

RogerC

I think the problem arose because a unit with a VBU of 1 only had 1 loss to take, so it was entirely possible to inflict more losses in actual VBU and still be routed \ destroyed. The real problem is when the other player is contacted in the flank at the same time and "looses" because he can only cause 1 vbu loss. That's why theoretical loss is important

The unit that routs is the looser, if the other doesn't route.

In case of flank attack, as Cyrus says, it counts the number of theoretical losses, no matter of the actual VBU and real losses.

I think we could be creating a bit of a mess if we start considering theoretical loses. On the Old Forum Lorenzo ruled that in a melee where both main units rout any support units on both sides retreat disordered. I am not keen to start counting theoretical losses in melee when support units are present.

The problem with that is that the mechanics of the game only allow casualties to be caused on the main unit.

If that is the case then in the circumstance where the main unit has only 1 VBU left, the maximum casualties that can therefore be caused is 1.

If a fresh Pike unit VBU 5 and 3 ranks deep is grinding its way through an opponent that is at VBU1, and the pike is contacted in its flank by anything. The pike causes 4 hits to the main opponent and the main opponent rolls a six on the cohesion test, but the ACTUAL VBU lost is only 1, however the Pike suffers a hit and rolls a 6 too, suffering 2 losses - should the Pike be destroyed??? If you work on actual losses it should, but that is ludicrous.

The current system allows units fighting as flanks to do so with impunity - the reverse of that has to be theoretical losses would need to be counted IMHO

If the main unit routs then the opponent wins - that bit seems to me the simplest way to deal with it

I don't think that such losses are "theoretical" - I think they are the losses taken.

Unit A takes 4 losses, Unit B takes 3 losses.

Unit A loses - I don't care what the VBU is or what the state of Unit B is. At this point Unit A has lost. If Unit B is also destroyed, because it had VBU 1 or flank contact or whatever, then so be it.

Support units retreat disordered if their main unit loses and/or retreats/routs or is destroyed.

I don't agree that losses are only counted if you actually have VBU to lose. They represent an abstract scale of victory not an absolute accounting of casualties.

I agree Cyrus that "if the main unit routs the opponent wins" is the simplest way to deal with it and I am leaning in that direction too. It does create a few oddities in Impetus that I can appreciate frustrates players. For instance in a melee one side with a weak main unit and a powerful support unit on the flank. Yet if the main unit routs the powerful support unit has to retreat disordered. We could do what Zippee and others are recommending and count the the loses to see which side loses the melee but I still think it not only complicates things but may create unintended consequences.

The current wording of 7.6.2 probably supports your view:

The Unit that suffers the most permanent losses to their VBU after a failed Cohesion Test has lost the melee

it's that pesky "to their VBU" bit   it would be clearer if it was deleted.

Either way we get anomalies, just depends which you find most anachronistic.

Units winning melees but routing as they have VBU 0, units drawing with enemy that then rout as they have VBU 0, etc.

Maybe it should be rephrased to:

The Unit that suffers the most permanent losses to their VBU after a failed Cohesion Test has lost the melee unless the enemy was routed, either by being reduced to VBU 0 or due to a flank contact. In these situations the Unit (and any support units) remain in place as if it won but is incapable of pursuing; enemy support units retreat disordered.

Maybe it should be "incapable of voluntary pursuit" but I prefer the image of the unit staggered and surprised to have survived, reeling from what was clearly a very bad combat.