"WMA or Impetus - which do you prefer ?" Topic

I am looking for positive opinions on which one you think is better and has longer lasting appeal ?

I have and like both rule books but have decided i want to concentrate on just one particular rule set and build more armies specifically for that set.

Trying to make up armies that fit both sets is driving me a little crazy! I know in theory you can combine wma bases to make one impetus base but in practice its not that straight forward, particularly as wma units are 3 bases and ideally you want 4 for an impetus base.

So i thought i would ask the knowledgeable and opinioned TMP members, which one should i stick with and which one should i put on the shelf ?

ps I do have an idea which one i will likely stick with but opinions welcome before a final decision!

you could always make an Impetus element from a warmaster unit--just 2 bases in front, 1 base in back on a magnetic impetus move stand. just to confuse you some more ,why not use your miniatures to play command and colours:ancients
very good game system IMHO it has longer lasting appeal
I plan on building armies for Impetus,but also using them for c&c(with casualty markers)

Our group likes WMA for the command and control system, which while simplistic, is surprisingly effective. It got several people in our group to paint armies and we're now talking about a campaign. Command and Colors Ancients, while popular with boardgamers, kiind of left me with the same feeling as the ACW version called Battle Cry. It was fun the first few times then every game seemed like the same after awhile.

Impetus (basic). Very straight forward system.

Is it just me, or are the missile ranges in Impetus awfully long for the scale of the game?

Neither, FoGA.

"Is it just me, or are the missile ranges in Impetus awfully long for the scale of the game?"

No it's not just you. They are overly long, particularly in BI. Less so in Impetus. The latter I caould probably live with.

Especially javlins but you can always tinker about with them.

The BI/I ranges are longer than the normal truncated options you get in most anc/med rulesets (may be slightly too long if you want to get into the actual vs effective arguments), BUT they do help make the game really free flowing and decisive.

Which in answer to the original question makes (IMO)Impetus the best ruleset for the period out of all those listed so far (even though the poster was very specific on which ones he was interested)………but FoGA…seriously….roflmao

I much prefer Impetus for the rules' basing, mechanics, and game flow. As to missile ranges, just limit javelins to 5cm and bows to 30cm maximum, and everything should work out just fine.

Cheers,
Scott

I'm not sure where you guys are coming from with respect to ranges in Basic Impetus. Javelins have a range of 5U in BI, which relative to ground scale seems right- that is less than the full move of light foot unit, the same as a heavy foot normal move, and less than any units charge distance. I think javelins shoot 10cm in WMA.

Most other missile units are ineffective at > 10U if you look at the table of modifiers and consider the VDU of most missile troops, certainly against a foot target. So max ranges may be long, but effective ranges seem ok.

Dave

Facing a similar dilemma myself at the moment. I'm inclined to go with Impetus because it lends itself to using 2 DBx/FoG elements side by side. Having the option of playing several other rulesets if needed seems useful.

Will.

As to missile ranges, just limit javelins to 5cm and bows to 30cm maximum, and everything should work out just fine.

I should have said, "just limit javelins to 5U maximum, and everything should work out just fine." I had the 15mm missile range equivalents stuck in my head!

Cheers,
Scott

I'd jump in the direction of Impetus (well, I have already). For me, the chance that some of your units will do nothing in a turn was a real frustration in Warmaster. In Impetus, you can guarantee that everything will move – getting it where you want it to be is another thing entirely!

I'd be interested to know which way you end up going!

I like both games…and am having the same thoughts about which to go for..To be honest I wouldnt go for either if a lot of people still played Vis Bellica which is my all time favourite ancients set..though in the end I will probably go for Impetus as I like the big bases

Another vote for Impetus……just finishing up painting 2 500 pt armies,Parthians & Sassanid persians all on the big bases.

Trying to turn the FoG players at the club into a more fun game…we'll turn a few i'm sure!!!!!

Cheers Andy

Impetus – love the large bases

Impetus; because things happen that you can't predict…..just like in real life. I've sold WMA and FOG has returned to the bookshelf.

WMA is hardly 'predictable'.

DColtman wrote:
I'm not sure where you guys are coming from with respect to ranges in Basic Impetus. Javelins have a range of 5U in BI, which relative to ground scale seems right- that is less than the full move of light foot unit, the same as a heavy foot normal move, and less than any units charge distance. I think javelins shoot 10cm in WMA.
-------------------
And I think you are looking at the wrong thing.
It's ranges relative to base widths which matter.

A base in Basic Impetus represents a large number of men, like a base in DBA.
1000 or so men take up a frontage of (about) 100 metres if deployed in 2 ranks, say 50 metres if deployed in 4 ranks
Therefore bow range should be about 2 base widths in Basic Impetus, and javelin range should be about half a base width.

If you look at DBA, the ranges are indeed more or less in line with this.
Basic Impetus seems way too high.

..however ranges in Impetus are measured from middle of base to middle of base therefore you only achieve long range results if you're placed directly in front of your target…so it works well imo. 5U is only just over half a base width (8U) and 10U is most bows effective range in the basic game…it's 5 in the full version.

A base in Basic Impetus represents a large number of men, like a base in DBA.
1000 or so men take up a frontage of (about) 100 metres if deployed in 2 ranks, say 50 metres if deployed in 4 ranks

With respect, it appears to me that your calculations are a bit off. Close-formation troops normally are thought to have taken up about 1 metre of frontage per man. Your numbers allow for a frontage of only 0.2 metres per man, which would be less than half the space required for phalanx troops deployed with 'locked shields,' and less than a quarter of the frontage needed for other close-order troops.

Maximum bow range in Basic Impetus is 2.5 base widths, and javelin range is 1.25 base width. That gives a rough ground scale of 1U = 8 metres. A Unit would then represent a frontage of 80 metres, with close-formation troops deployed 80 files wide and up to 20 ranks deep. Scales and ranges are different in full Impetus, but work out just as well.

Cheers,
Scott

Maximum bow range in Basic Impetus is 2.5 base widths, and javelin range is 1.25 base width. That gives a rough ground scale of 1U = 8 metres. A Unit would then represent a frontage of 80 metres, with close-formation troops deployed 80 files wide and up to 20 ranks deep.

Correction: the maximum bow ranges for Basic Impetus actually suggest a ground scale of 1U = 10 metres. The rest naturally follows from there.

Cheers,
Scott

scales are somewhat tricky in wargames and I never trusted too much. As designer I preferred to work out a good balance between movement and shooting, keeping the shooting more visual. It is the overall effect that counts because it is the overall result that brings you to make the correct tactical choices.

Back to the original question if you like both sets, why don't you play at both? Impetus works great also with 2 WMA base to make one Impetus unit.

Dexter, have you actually played it and found the ranges off, or is it just your impression from reading the charts and rules? We ran a large Crecy game at our club and it felt right. Courses for horses perhaps :)

Dave

Bow range is 20U (40cm in 25mm) – I think that's excessive for a 'big battle game'
A base is 6U wide – therefore I would expect bow range to be 12U

By comparison, bow range in 25mm DBA (60mm wide bases) is 8cm; that's a pretty big difference; I'd expect the range in BI to be 16cm-24cm at most , to keep the same proportion to the base (and in WMA, where a unit is 18cm wide in 25mm, a Bow Range of about 30cm – which it is.

Basically, if missile ranges are large compared to unit frontages, then it isn't a big battle game any more.
(IMO, of course).

Ah, but bow effective range is usually not more than 10U if you consider the modifiers, which means for most shortbow armed units it would be comparable to DBA in relation to frontage. At 20U only weapons like longbow or quality crossbow/composite bow can really reach the opponent with much effect, and less so against foot.

D

As said I preferred to put shooting ranges more in relation with the movements than with the frontage of a Unit, that in every Ancients game is somewhat abstract, unless you are convinced that all Ancients armies were splitted into Units of the same size.

By comparison, bow range in 25mm DBA (60mm wide bases) is 8cm; that's a pretty big difference

At a ground scale of 1 inch(2.5cm) = 50 paces(38 metres), or 1cm = 15 metres, 8cm would represent a bow range of only 120 metres. As the average range normally ascribed to ancient composite bows is more on the order of 200 metres, one could argue that 8cm is rather too short, along with the effective javelin range of 0.

And yes, I know all about the reasoning that DBA represents shorter 'effective' bow ranges, and that javelin ranges are nonexistent because they are 'subsumed' into the footprint of the base. While those abstractions don't really 'work' for me personally, I can easily understand the rationale behind the arguments, and how they fit into the overall design of the game. The same could be said for BI. In fact, I would argue that the missile ranges used in DBA and BI can all be justified quite satisfactorily, both in historical terms and especially in the results derived from the different game mechanics used in each (I can't speak for WMA). Sometimes, when one has grown accustomed to a certain 'look' on the tabletop, it can happen that something different might appear to be 'wrong' at first glance, even when in fact it isn't.

Cheers,
Scott

I don't play WHA but have played Impetus and did'nt think much of it.

My friends and i play a Fire and Fury Ancient variant and i do enjoy it.

Captain Gideon

Impetus is certainly the game for me, although WMA would probably be my second choice. When I choose a set of rules, I'm looking for a fun challenge. When one starts breaking out formulas to try and justify or determine missile ranges based on ground scale, as it is reflected in unit frontage size as an abstract model of… Zzz… Zzzz… Zzzzz…

Sorry… couldn't resist ;)

But it just goes to show that some people can suck the fun out of anything. Or perhaps the more diplomatic way to say it; different strokes, different folks.

00 JET 00…..I think you hit the nail on the head there mate….

Was playing Impetus last week and both of us players had a real blast…been playing Ancients for nearly 20 years now and this was the most fun we'd had gaming the period….

Cheers Andy

I have Impetus and am looking forward to playing it. WMA did nothing for me personally. It has an approach to modelling C&C which many seem to like but I'm not so keen on that model personally. Bit too random. I always feel that the armies feel and play bland under it too. Not enough flavour.

I enjoy playing Impetus more than any other ancients set in many years. The fact that the ground scale and missile ranges also happen to work out well is a definite bonus.

Cheers,
Scott

Basic Impetus for me every time – a game where the rules are free, yhou never know quite what will happen and you can get a game complete in about an hour and a half – just right for an evening at the wargames club.