3 Simple Changes to Impetus for 2017!

I am offering 3 simple changes to Impetus mostly related the EI lists that I think would improve the balance of the game.

1. Make Poor Army Command -10 points. The difference between Poor and Average Army command is huge. Far beyond the 12 point difference (the difference between Average and Good army command seems better placed at 8 points.) We find that Poor army commands have a very difficult time winning for a whole number of reasons. Giving these armies an extra 10 points won’t make a huge difference but everything adds up. Personally, I’d like the get the pointing to the point where a player has to think hard about the advantages and disadvantages or taking Poor or Average Command in a list where that option exists.

2. All VBU 3 or less units automatically become VD 1 units. There are some lists where VBU3 units are VD2. I notice this especially in EI1 and EI2. So for instance in the Seljuk lists the Turcomans are VBU3 VD 2 with 50% able to upgrade to VBU4 (for only 2 points!) In the EI3 the Mamluk and Timurid list have this same option with the difference being that the VBU3 CL is only 1 VD. The upgrade only costs 2 points but brings with it an increase in the VD from 1 to 2. That seems to me to be a good compromise for the army lists. As it stands, certain lists are skewed because of the poor VD assignments.

3. Make all VBU4 FL Impetuous infantry VD 1. These units are very fragile in Impetus and in the warband armies their VD2 status makes them ripe targets for routing commands and armies. With a VD 1 for VBU4 FL Impetuous infantry the CM cavalry (that represent the noble cavalry) in the lists become critical in maintaining the VD of the command (even though these units are not all that effective in Impetus.)

Comments and additions welcome!

Pretty pointless exercise isn't it?

we're all waiting on Impetus II not more amendments to Impetus

That said, can't really find anything to support in the options as suggested, I can see the angst I just think the remedy is overkill.

From what Lorenzo has said in the past Impetus 2 will have no direct impact on the Extra Impetus lists. It could be years before the Extra Impetus Lists are revisited Zippee. In the meantime, we play Impetus at least twice a month and get at least 2 400 point games in an evening making around 50+ games a year. It would be ideal to start fixing the Lists. I've come to appreciate the VD design of the army list is the critical element of the game.

With that said, I do appreciate your comments.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
1. Make Poor Army Command -10 points. The difference between Poor and Average Army command is huge. Far beyond the 12 point difference (the difference between Average and Good army command seems better placed at 8 points.) We find that Poor army commands have a very difficult time winning for a whole number of reasons. Giving these armies an extra 10 points won’t make a huge difference but everything adds up. Personally, I’d like the get the pointing to the point where a player has to think hard about the advantages and disadvantages or taking Poor or Average Command in a list where that option exists.

Can't say I've seen this effect on smaller tables but on bigger tables or in smaller scales it may kick in. 0,12,20 seems a reasonable progression but this isn't an issue to die in a ditch over

Gaius Cassius wrote:
2. All VBU 3 or less units automatically become VD 1 units.

As it stands, certain lists are skewed because of the poor VD assignments.

For some of those light cavalry armies this makes those pesky light cavalry far too good because no only can they oblique, move sideways, shoot all round, evade, move 12U they are now expendable.

I guess to an extent counting them as VD1 would lower the break level of commands and armies but these guys are already the most cost effective units available, especially on larger tables or in smaller scales, so why give them further benefits?

One issue would be the composition or armies. If you play the 60% maximum rule for the largest command then reducing these guys to VD1 has the potential to set up a large number of light horse stands in the smaller command because 6 of them equates to the VD of one large Pike block even though the CL cost far more points.

The pike blockand one attached S then become the largest command and the entire 6 stand CL command becomes a free ranging force with few consequences if they are lost compared to the loss of the rear rank of pike and the S unit.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
3. Make all VBU4 FL Impetuous infantry VD 1. These units are very fragile in Impetus and in the warband armies their VD2 status makes them ripe targets for routing commands and armies. With a VD 1 for VBU4 FL Impetuous infantry the CM cavalry (that represent the noble cavalry) in the lists become critical in maintaining the VD of the command (even though these units are not all that effective in Impetus.)

Same as above. If you do this then your warband command becomes a very low VD command although this is not as bad given the much lower costs of these troops.

It does make it tricky to achieve the correct balance between commands within the army, have a bit of a play with the numbers and see how it goes. Some lists become untenable very quickly if you stick to minima and maxima using the VD1 change.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Comments and additions welcome!

Things I'd like to see:

1: Light Cav:

a) No obliquing/sideways movement

This is simply too powerful, any light cav skip and dance everywhere given their movement rate. I would suggest replacing it with a rule allowing Light Cav to wheel and move as 1 pulse of movement eg you wheel 3BU and then move forward 5BU and then wheel 4BU for a total of 12BU movement. Still manoeuvrable but not quite as zippy as now.

Note that if they are A grade then they can still oblique/sideways under that rule


b) Shooting halved through non frontal edge

Something that comes from Baroque and represents a good change for troops capable of 360 degree shooting

c) Evasion changes facing

All Troops (not just CL) evading run away but are then facing in the direction of the evasion move

2: Medium Cavalry

a) These buggers do NOT get to evade.

3: Main unit

The unit with the most dice is the main unit. Currently it is possible for a unit to join a melee and the dice for that unit's side are actually less than those the Unit would have if the other unit from it's side were not present.

4: Impetus Bonus

a) Halved rounded up at loss of first VBU
b) Lost entirely at half original VBU


5: Shoot and Charge

All dice are to be split between the shooting and melee. eg if you have VBU6 then you can choose to shoot 2 less one for movement for one dice of shooting and melee 4 (plus and Impetus bonus). Some of the Byzantine cavalry with VBU 6 Imp3 can shoot 5 dice, charge into melee and roll another 9 dice. Absolutely crazy.

6: Power up formed Longbow A

Give them something if they stay stationary because VBU4 and their firepower is very weak compared to their historical effect. Reroll misses or something similar.

7: Pursuit after melee

a) Support units of any type may pursue if the main unit does so.
b) If the main unit is under half strength then any supporting mounted unit may pursue even if the main does not

Just a few to add to the pile...

Gaius Cassius wrote:From what Lorenzo has said in the past Impetus 2 will have no direct impact on the Extra Impetus lists. It could be years before the Extra Impetus Lists are revisited Zippee.

That's a reasonable statement, however what you seem to be seeking is 'balance through army lists and points values' and that's a mythical wild goose chase - the holy grail was last reported just over the next hill . . .

The lists aren't balanced, points systems aren't fair and equal - that's just the way life is, endless tweaking and amendments to chase that dragon are fruitless.

To my mind most of the things listed by yourself and GG are irritants found in certain games against certain opponents, not all games against all opponents. And that's just how it is, you can't eliminate the misbalances because that's inherent to the historical flavour of the game.

Some things are likely to happen (like 50% dice from non frontal shooting) others are not - CM will always be able to evade, they'll need to test but they can evade, otherwise you're destroying their historical representation in the name of game balance.

Sorry but to my mind this all smacks of wanting an elusive level playing field of equitability for tournaments and having watched various rule systems kill themselves in the past with never-ending amendments chasing that myth, I'd rather recognise it up front as a fruitless exercise and move on to something more profitable - like getting rid of the (for the most part) flaky beta lists and more (and better) full lists.

Zippee wrote:
Sorry but to my mind this all smacks of wanting an elusive level playing field of equitability for tournaments and having watched various rule systems kill themselves in the past with never-ending amendments chasing that myth, I'd rather recognise it up front as a fruitless exercise and move on to something more profitable - like getting rid of the (for the most part) flaky beta lists and more (and better) full lists.

A fair call in some respects, equally we have an Advanced Impetus living document that gets modified at the start of each calendar year to introduce changes such as these.

Equally I absolutely agree with you on the Beta lists, a thorough revision should be part of the review process and the sooner the better.

Zippee, your totally correct about the lists never being perfect or totally balanced. With that said, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix problems in the lists or try to better model the armies we are representing. Interestingly, we can see a growing refinement in the lists in the later supplements. The differences between the Mamluk or Timurid lists in EI3 and the Seljuk or Syrian State lists is precisely around the points I am talking about. I am pretty confident that were those former lists in EI2 done today they would mirror those in EI3. Let's fixing them today with patches etc..

With respect to the Beta lists I think it was a mistake to not get all the lists out at the front end of the game system. One of the advantages of the ADLG is that the game comes with the lists and they are complete. I don't want to deny Lorenzo the opportunity to make a decent return on his game system but I think the delay in getting the official lists out and the challenges of refining and updating them is hurting Impetus overall in the gaming community.

Zippee wrote:Pretty pointless exercise isn't it?

we're all waiting on Impetus II not more amendments to Impetus

That said, can't really find anything to support in the options as suggested, I can see the angst I just think the remedy is overkill.

100 percent agree

Impetus needs a general update that requires time.
Adding small changes just creates more confusion as can force the game to a direction that is not where there rules need to go.
Sometimes simplifying things is better than create more details that generate more issues.

Working at Basic Impetus 2 proved to be a good exercise.

The aim is to release a system that can work with the existing lists, maybe with few adjustements (eg VDs standardization) but that must be done when the rules are completed.

A second step will be the release of new lists. Not in the traditional Extra Impetus format, but just books of lists. It would be nice to have all lists in just 2 books (ancients and medieval) but I suppose to have not enough room.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:

Zippee wrote:Pretty pointless exercise isn't it?

we're all waiting on Impetus II not more amendments to Impetus

That said, can't really find anything to support in the options as suggested, I can see the angst I just think the remedy is overkill.

100 percent agree

Interesting being part of a community! Different points of view.

Kind of curious about how much you guys play Impetus outside of tournaments. Seriously, do you play in a club setting on a frequent basis? I have no idea what the experience is for many of you on this Forum. As I mentioned above, we play 2/3 times a month with four guys at a local games club. Easily get in 2 400 point games in a night and occasionally we can squeak in a third round. Probably between the 4 of us we use 25 different army lists so we see these armies a lot. The strengths and weaknesses of the lists become quite evident over time.

dadiepiombo wrote:Impetus needs a general update that requires time.
Adding small changes just creates more confusion as can force the game to a direction that is not where there rules need to go.
Sometimes simplifying things is better than create more details that generate more issues.

Working at Basic Impetus 2 proved to be a good exercise.

The aim is to release a system that can work with the existing lists, maybe with few adjustements (eg VDs standardization) but that must be done when the rules are completed.

A second step will be the release of new lists. Not in the traditional Extra Impetus format, but just books of lists. It would be nice to have all lists in just 2 books (ancients and medieval) but I suppose to have not enough room.

Appreciate the update Lorenzo.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Interesting being part of a community! Different points of view.

Kind of curious about how much you guys play Impetus outside of tournaments. Seriously, do you play in a club setting on a frequent basis? I have no idea what the experience is for many of you on this Forum. As I mentioned above, we play 2/3 times a month with four guys at a local games club. Easily get in 2 400 point games in a night and occasionally we can squeak in a third round. Probably between the 4 of us we use 25 different army lists so we see these armies a lot. The strengths and weaknesses of the lists become quite evident over time.

or maybe your regularly playing just three other players gives you a very slanted view?

Not the place or time to start arguing but your regular response to anyone who challenges your opinion would seem to be to suggest you have more experience than the rest of us. Maybe not intentional but that's pretty much how it reads from here. Apologies in advance if that causes offence, not the intention.

To address the OP, no I think we don't need another set of changes, whatever the experience of the players suggesting them. We need Impetus v2 as soon as is possible, and if that is not "soon" an updated pdf of Impetus 1 with the various amendments included, but ONLY if this doesnt delay I2. I'm heartened to hear Lorenzo is at least thinking about moving away from the published lists, as it will make I2 more easily realised, particularly if the H is to be adopted.

Anyway - Pax for 2017

I am curious Cyrus about how people play Impetus. For instance, is your experience with the game mostly at tournaments or in a club setting? The only visible sign that the I see of people's playing experience is from the sign ups for the local English tournaments. What you guys are up to outside of the tournaments is a complete mystery to me.

I do think there are real advantages with playing against a wide range of opponents with a wide range of army lists. In our case, we often see the same armies played for extended period. One of the guys in our group played his Lancastrian list for many evenings tweaking his list along the way. It gave the rest of us an opportunity to see how the Lancastrian list plays out in a way that a tournament can't. I think this is part of the wisdom that people like me bring to the Impetus community. Having many voices helps enrich the community.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Interesting being part of a community! Different points of view.

Kind of curious about how much you guys play Impetus outside of tournaments. Seriously, do you play in a club setting on a frequent basis? I have no idea what the experience is for many of you on this Forum. As I mentioned above, we play 2/3 times a month with four guys at a local games club. Easily get in 2 400 point games in a night and occasionally we can squeak in a third round. Probably between the 4 of us we use 25 different army lists so we see these armies a lot. The strengths and weaknesses of the lists become quite evident over time.

I play in a similar format to yourself - sometimes more often, sometimes with more players but at home in my games room not at the club. Sometimes we go for extended periods without playing as we're playing something else.

We generally play one 500-600 point game rather than several small games. With a very extensive (and elderly) collection I can field just about any list with some substitutions, so I have no idea on the number of lists we use.

I have no interest in tournaments - nothing against them but that isn't the format I want to play. I play games for the historical 'narrative' not competition.

None of the clubs I attend is big into Impetus - the main one has moved from FOG to S&S to ADLG. I occasionally convince them to dabble but really until Impetus II arrives I've little chance of improving on that. There is a considerable view that Impetus is plagued by constant updates and amendments and people are wary of it as a result - a view echoed several times on the Meeples podcast recently.

And whilst I think Lorenzo has the right solution in the living AI document and we know the rule book has remained as a single edition, that isn't the general impression I see outside my little group.

Gaius Cassius wrote:One of the guys in our group played his Lancastrian list for many evenings tweaking his list along the way. It gave the rest of us an opportunity to see how the Lancastrian list plays out in a way that a tournament can't.

You see this is an utterly alien concept to me - I'm uninterested in the competition meta.

Why would I want to 'tweak' the same list endlessly - the lists are an ends to a means, to place a reasonable facsimile of an historical force on the table to be opposed by a similar force. The points ensure they are of some kind of commensurate power/size/ability and we don't look for anything more balanced than that.

Our games are however always historically 'in period' - we're not pedantic about it but we'll always select opposing armies of the same geographical area and within the same date ranges.

For instance last week we played Hungarian v Wallachian, mid-late 15th century. Lots of variables, CM bow v CP some impetuous, CL horse archers and lots of foot archers,, crossbows, handguns, both T and S with some FP and warwagons. Lots of variability (the Hungarians had 5 CL all with different stats), two different army systems and differing command structures. We had a great game that was the usual see-saw battle that finally ended in a costly Hungarian victory.

But we won't be playing those armies again and again and again, we'll do something different this week, and the week after, etc. And if the Hungarians come out to play again in a few months they'll probably find themselves facing Turks or Albanians or Venetians not Wallachians.

I play both tournaments (not so many now because the UK scene has shrivelled somewhat) and club games. I don't like open tournaments as I prefer historical match ups, but you don't always get that choice.

Playing repeatedly against the same player using a Lancastrian List (for example) teaches you nothing about the strengths and weaknesses of the Lancastrian army, just about the play style, skill and preferences of that player. Indeed you can safely say they will probably play their other armies in a similar way, it is human nature. In effect we play the man not the army, so extrapolating "lessons" from that experience against a particular player and army and applying them to the army as a whole is very counter productive.  

Play a different player with the "same" army and you may get a much broader appreciation. For example in both tournament and club games I've faced Early Imperial Romans played by maybe a dozen different players, and in every occasion the experience has been different and interesting. I won't name names but I've encountered Gimmick Romans, Impetuous Romans, Timorous Romans, Defensive Romans, Artillery Romans, Cavalry Romans, Incompetent Romans, Professional Romans and Aggressive Romans to name but a few. My view on the strengths and weaknesses of that army is therefore based not on a particular play style of one player but more on repeated exposure to the army itself. I think that makes it slightly more valid, but only slightly.

Ideally I would like to see Lorenzo "task" a couple of players to combine all the current Advanced Impetus and the main rules into a pdf that he could check once completed and authorise for distribution until v2 is available.

Competitions for me are purely a public relations exercise....and an excuse to get together for a meal
The 'community' aspect is what I enjoy the most not so much the competition itself, that's just me not everyones the same and that's ok.

Can't stress how important it is for stability while Gaius may have a few points we could all probably come up with more. I agree it's not a good look in the end.

For 'friendly' games I can't see why you couldn't change things anyway...go for it. I'm constantly checking out other published army lists especially with Baroque at the moment. They're always home/club games though.

We just play friendly games at home, usually 500-600 pts. ADLG or FOG are for tournaments.

I would prefer that Impetus 2 change as little as possible. It really doesn't need many changes except the amendments integrated into the rules book. My biggest frustration is the game is still looking up a rule, then saying, "nope it was changed in 1.7" and digging thru another document.

Like I have said many times before, I would pay RIGHT NOW for a PDF of Impetus with the amendments included.

I have stayed away from the forum for a while.

One suggestion that might improve the current amendments is to produce PDFs of any pages that require amendment (laid out as in the rules) and make it a free download. These could be inserted in the copies of your already-purchased rules.

starkadder wrote:I have stayed away from the forum for a while.

One suggestion that might improve the current amendments is to produce PDFs of any pages that require amendment (laid out as in the rules) and make it a free download. These could be inserted in the copies of your already-purchased rules.

True - but I suspect would take almost as long as integrating everything. I think it is important that nothing is allowed to distract Lorenzo from I2 hence the suggestion a player group handles it

Might be quicker to insert what's left of the actual rules into AI and call it the FINAL version.

Possibly put it up on Wargames Vault for £4 and concentrate on Impetus II although that possibly depends on how much stock of Impetus books Lorenzo still has.

Zippee wrote: depends on how much stock of Impetus books Lorenzo still has.

That's the killer isn't it ? pretty much makes printed stock obsolete

Yup - but I suspect that is the case already

stecal wrote:I would prefer that Impetus 2 change as little as possible.  It really doesn't need many changes except the amendments integrated into the rules book.  My biggest frustration is the game is still looking up a rule, then saying, "nope it was changed in 1.7" and digging thru another document.

I tend to agree with you Stecal. The basic system of Impetus works well for me. Impetus just needs a more thorough rewrite with more examples and a more detailed discussion of the situations that can arise. I think there are some elements of the game that Lorenzo wants to change (impetuous for example) and that is fine with me. It would be great to get all the lists done and organized into two books. I think the Beta Lists show how this could be done in an efficient and concise manner.

Beta lists need a thorough and objective looking through - far too many super troops imho