"A Comment on Randomness in Impetus" Topic

I have played about 3 games of Basic Impetus and 2 games of the full version of the rules, and I just wanted to share some thoughts.

I have played mostly 300 point games but I think to really get a feel for the tactical elements of the game you must play 400-500pt games. This is because at 400+ provides more scope for different commands and organizations making the initiative roles and planning much more important.

A lot of the criticism of the game is that the die results are too randomized, but I don't think of the results as randomized but rather as accelerating the conclusion of combat. For example, in last night's game my Gaul cavalry was completely routed by my opponent's Romans (each CM VBU=5), this occurred in about two rounds of combat. I also play and enjoy other ancient rules, and if that exact same result would've occurred in say 4-5 rounds of combat, you wouldn't consider it random, you would just consider that your cavalry lost a fight on the flank. So I don't think it's necessarily the end result that creates the perception of randomness but rather the timeframe in which it occurs.

The benefit of accelerated results is that it allows me to play a larger game on a club night than I would normally with other ancient rule systems. Last night's game saw my Gauls completely routed after about 1.5 hrs of play in a 300pt game. In some other systems this game would have taken 3+ hours to play with equivalent numbers of troops/units.

I like Impetus a lot, but I think you've got to acknowledge that luck can play a great part in it, more so than in most other ancient games.

That's fine by me, I know that's what the game is like and I can live with it – even when I'm doing really rather well until a few unlucky dice rolls mean that my general dies and my whole army routs off the field.

But there's a certain tension around the game at the moment as a tournament scene builds up. Tournament players just don't seem like the level of luck involved in the game as it is.

I do but then I'm not a normal competition gamer. Roll on the Scottish Open in September!

Should have said "most tournament gamers". See you at the event. I'm Chief Gopher and scorekeeper – not playing.

Doesn't luck kinda play a big part in real battles?

Jaz
6sided.net

Yes, luck plays a part in real battles, but that doesn't mean that tournament gamers will like it. They want a system where they can say the results are mostly due to skill.

Surely leadership was a very personal thing in the ancient world, and leaders were expected to lead from the front.

If the general was unlucky and died even if his army was winning, that would have been it. Game over. Sounds like a historically accurate game to me!

Well, the army leaving if the Leader died is true in most situations unless maybe your Goths.

Thanks,

John

Yes, I was making a generalised statement. Obviously not true one hundred percent of the time.

(generalised – you see what I did there?….I'll get me coat…)

You can buy up to 3 cohesion test re rolls when making up your army. Skillful use of these can go a long way to negating the vagries of chance.

What I particularly like is the simplicity of Impetus, no more head scratching trying to work out who goes where when knight elements go impetuous as in DBM, in Impetus they just head towards the nearest eligible target for a move, simple. No sequence of play with sixty or so things to look at as in FoG and Impetus doesn't think light infantry can keep pace with cavalry all game, doesn't value peasant slingers the same as Varangian Guard and best of all no working out combats file by file….yawn!

There's no Barkerese (though Phil Barker is a giant of the hobby IMO and I love 6th edition and DBA), they don't look like a Haines Car Manual and they are written in conversational English, by an Italian!!!

In light of all that I can forgive Impetus the odd extreme random occurence, surprising stuff happens in war, it's not chess.

Alan sums it up pretty well to me.

I call Impetus the little game that could.

Another thought that came to mind; is Impetus by having routed units removed from the table missing the whole dynamic of units rallying after a route and getting back into action? This was an important factor in many battles of the period.

Actually, when did routed units rally and return to battle in the ancient period. Nothing comes to my mind.

I like Impetus a lot. The "randomness" deals very well with all the recorded instances of two units coming together where sometimes its all over in no time and the times where it becomes a real slog. Also sometimes a winning unit emerges unscathed other times they're done.
They do an excellent job of replicating the varying outcomes described in historical accounts.
So in essence they're no more random than real life….

I don't think Impetus is more luck-based than the other games I play, Might of Arms and FoG. But the events leading to a units rout happen in a different time-frame than the others.

In Impetus you don't have the regulated step-based diminhing of morale state, you have a unit losing VBU (and so ovverll ability) unitl it routs (sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly).

The turn system adds to this, as does continuing melees from pursiut. Your not watching a unit degrade to rout in moale steps from turn to turn -- your watching a unit in combat, sometimes stalling, and sometimes flying to victory or defeat.

Streaks of luck often effect one unit or area of the game quickly, making Impetus very dynamic. I suspect it impacts we players emotionally differently too.

Perhaps Impetus isn't more random than other games, but our emotions more affected by luck.

Randomness adds flavour but there is nothing as frustrating as losing to dice. Dice boxes can be a good thing.

"Actually, when did routed units rally and return to battle in the ancient period. Nothing comes to my mind."

I've spent the last couple of days thinking on this one, if anyone has examples it would help, otherwise I'll have to relent on my point.

I played a lot of the full version. It is far more cleaver than you first think. Battle plans, support troops order of movement all count far more than luck.

There is a certain element of chaos in Impetus and you need to have a backup plan for most thing – results are never sure. However I still find that interaction of units of different quality is very reasonable. Peasants will lose against knights 90 per cent of all times (probably even worse odds).

What Impetus has is a very brutal system of units getting spent and then eventually ceasing to be useful. Dont expect your painfully battered knights to rout those peasants 90 per cent of all times.

Overall, there is more luck then with the more rigid sytems like DBx. Especially, there are no cases where units are immune against others, which I do like.

For a system that cant slide below a 1 or is automatically a fail on a six, I cannot agree it is random to any great extent at all

Really 'lucky ' people will obviously agree that it is luck because unlucky people cannot do anything about it. Obviously, If it was skill, they could by playing better.

I have only ever won anything by luck

"Actually, when did routed units rally and return to battle in the ancient period. Nothing comes to my mind."

Well the Battle of Kalavrye for a start. Alexios Komnenos successfully rallied his broken army for another attack on the army of Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder, helped by the fact that he had captured Bryennios' horse IIRC. Bryennios' army was in some disarray after an attack on its camp by their own Pecheneg mercenaries so didn't pursue Alexios' army from the field, which allowed them to be rallied.

OK Fred, but in Impetus terms that's a unit being beaten, falling back and either outdistancing the pursuit or the other unit deciding not to pursue, followed by a rally and getting stuck back in. That happens a lot in Impetus