| Jeremy Sutcliffe | 01 Nov 2009 2:16 a.m. PST |
Since when has this belonged to Impetus alone? I seem to have come across "march" moves to get within effective fighting distance in many a set of rules. This business of hair splitting points scoring between various sets of ancients rules! It's worse than politicians. Commenting on today's debate a spokesman for the FoG party said, "………. |
| Martin Rapier | 01 Nov 2009 2:22 a.m. PST |
Yes, this is hardly a new development. Strategos even has special rules to stop you riding your light cavalry right across the enemy baseline on turn one…. If anything, people should spend more time on the 'preliminaries' – if these include things like deploying the army for battle (often the only time a commander could influence the outcome). A game where average moves are 4" and the table is 48" deep is never going to be much fun though is it? |
| Caesar | 01 Nov 2009 7:07 a.m. PST |
It seems that Barker is not the only one… |
 John the OFM  | 01 Nov 2009 9:48 a.m. PST |
This slobbering love affair between TMP Polls and Impetvs is getting embarrassing.
Get a room! You are scaring the horses and Children! BTW, Jeremy Sutcliffe is correct. Warrior/WRGt has "March" deployment moves too. |
 20thmaine | 01 Nov 2009 1:54 p.m. PST |
Went with no opinion – actually I think it can work ok if done right, but I've never played Impetus (at least, not THIS impetus, there is also a set by Newbury Rules called Impetus) so I can't really say if they got it right or noit. So it's good if done well, but can mess things up. sometimes=no opinion ! |
aecurtis  | 01 Nov 2009 3:33 p.m. PST |
It works better if you have variable scale, like Flames of War… |
| aecurtis | 01 Nov 2009 3:35 p.m. PST |
"…there is also a set by Newbury Rules called Impetus…" Are we thinking of "Shock of Impact", perhaps? |
| Connard Sage | 01 Nov 2009 3:38 p.m. PST |
SoI were published by TTG Allen |
| zapper | 01 Nov 2009 5:30 p.m. PST |
|
| Who asked this joker | 01 Nov 2009 9:18 p.m. PST |
Just start the fight with in 2 moves for gosh sakes! What do you need with all of these "march moves" and such? One move to missile range and one move to melee range. 2 moves all together. |
| aecurtis | 02 Nov 2009 12:56 a.m. PST |
"SoI were published by TTG Allen" I know, but I don't recall a ruleset named "Impetus" by Newbury. |
| 20thmaine | 02 Nov 2009 11:40 a.m. PST |
"…there is also a set by Newbury Rules called Impetus…"Are we thinking of "Shock of Impact", perhaps?
very possibly maybe I should go and dig through my rules stack in the gaming cupboard. I think SOI were TTG. Maybe I'm getting a little confused. Maybe it's time to stop drinking. Oh, pour me another one somebody….. |
| CPBelt | 02 Nov 2009 1:11 p.m. PST |
Warmaster can do this as well, if you push your luck just right. Pushing your luck at the right moments is what makes WM/WMA so dangerously interesting. |
| Feet up now | 02 Nov 2009 3:06 p.m. PST |
I have an infantry heavy Army but still voted No as the extra movement and influence of chariots and cavalry in ancient warfare should still have a special place in early deployment. |
| Dave Crowell | 03 Nov 2009 10:05 a.m. PST |
DBA can result in games that are pretty much right into battle. So can WAB, or Impetus, or…. The key is depth of table, set up zones, and troop movement rates. Saying that armies need to start farther apart (more move between them) so that the actions of a General deploying his battleline can be simulated is balderdash! The player setting troops on the table is simulating the general's influence on ordering the battleline. "If anything, people should spend more time on the 'preliminaries' – if these include things like deploying the army for battle (often the only time a commander could influence the outcome)." This may be true, but it need not be modelled ny pushing figures about the table top. It *can* be, but it doesn't *need* to be. Many Ancient battles took the form of the two armies lining up facing one another and setting to. Much the model that wargamers decry. Bases should be larger and movement and shooting ranges should be much shorter if you want a realistic battle. |
| Warbeads | 04 Nov 2009 9:20 a.m. PST |
Not an ancients player but I do play fantasy (Fantasy Rules! 2nd Edition) where, IIRC, you can start melee on turn 2 if both sides advance thier infantry straight at each other or even turn 1 if cavalry versus cavalry. It is a little bit like driving past an accident on the freeway to watch the discussions on assorted "Ancients era" rules lately. Gracias, Glenn |
| (Leftee) | 04 Nov 2009 9:19 p.m. PST |
I thought preliminaries meant getting the beer, setting up the table and player aides etc. If you want maneuver that usually occurs before you set your stuff up on the table. Try a campaign. As above, many games occur at the point right before impact not the few days before jockeying for position. Ask Charles the Bold how interesting maneuvers in front of the enemy worked for him.
'Stars and Bars' is one ruleset that had flanking and off table movement during an actual battle, but that's the ACW and on a large scale.
Impetus, or any other set for that matter, really doesn't randomize set-up except maybe for terrain, and there is some judgment allowed there too. What's the problem here? I like boardgames and (simple) campaign rules for strategic decisions. A miniatures game for me is all about the push of pike, arrows and other pointy objects. Leave some flank space on the table and it's all good. |
| losart | 05 Jan 2010 8:51 a.m. PST |
LOL, didn't notice this poll and the following discussion. I should check this section of TMP more often ;-)
Well, actually I do like preliminaries…ehm, well not only in wargames ;-)
Joking apart I never though in this way, simply I wanted a game that could be played in one evening as my standard time is 2-3 hours (and I suppose is the same for most of the gamers). Was there another rules called Impetus? Really? |
