Empire detatchments and watchtower

[yabbadabba]

The problem is, except for that little FAQ blurb Tzeentch Lover just gave us concerning deployment in Dawn Attack, I haven't seen anything that states what to do if a unit can't be deployed normally.

But there is nothing to stop the Empire unit and its detachments deploying normally.

[geldedgoat]

But there is nothing to stop the Empire unit and its detachments deploying normally.

Correction: There's nothing stopping the parent unit from deploying normally. The detachment, however, is a different story.

[yabbadabba]

Correction: There's nothing stopping the parent unit from deploying normally. The detachment, however, is a different story.

Where is the correction? The parent unit and detachment can deploy normally in the deployment zone; nothing stops them from doing that.

[Scalebug]

But there is nothing to stop the Empire unit and its detachments deploying normally.

Exactly, the reason the FAQ was pointing to how to resolve it for that particular scenario is simply that it is one where it is not too unlikely to happen, and thus needed an "official" resolution. The dice go one way, and you are suddenly supposed to deploy a large chunk of your army in one quarter of the space normally available to you. It can quickly fill up, especially if it happen to be piece of scenery or three in there as well.

But normally there will be room to deploy your army somewhere else, and if it isn't it is likely because you are playing larger point sizes that is recommended for a default table, have to small a table, insist of placing terrain in the way, that may be larger than the game assume it "should" be (Use of "a citadel wood" or "citadel watchtower or similar structure" isn't just a blatant attempt at pushing those kits, but also an indication of what is the dimensions of terrain the game is intended to use), or you are simply unwilling to deploy your army in ways that happens to not be optimal (units behind each other, that intended horde deployed deep instead of wide, etc).

[Damocles8]

Because there isn't two sides? Seriously mate I am one of the most liberal players I know, and compared to some on warseer, I am a rules hippy; but this is black and white. I honestly cannot see any other way to interpret this. An Empire unit with a detachment cannot deploy in the watchtower, and what reinforces this is there is no compunction to deploy in the watchtower. The scenario explicitly allows for this situation.

OK, lets pose the simple question. I deploy my unit of 20 Halberdiers in the watchtower. Where do my 10 Swordsmen and 10 Handgunners go? If we can answer this logically then we might get somewhere.

Within 3" of the watchtower, where the Army book says they deploy.

[yabbadabba]

Within 3" of the watchtower, where the Army book says they deploy.

How do they do that then? Neither the scenario nor the army book allow it.

[Scalebug]

Say you place your unit of halbardiers up to on the 12" line in the deploymentzone, do you then think you are allowed to put their handgunner detachments 3" further in on the table?

(No, you are not, because that is not in the deployment zone... same with the watchtower scenario, you are allowed to place a unit in the tower, over what normal deployment. It gives no other allowances, which is why you cannot go there with detachments).

[Iraf]

Say you place your unit of halbardiers up to on the 12" line in the deploymentzone, do you then think you are allowed to put their handgunner detachments 3" further in on the table?

(No, you are not, because that is not in the deployment zone... same with the watchtower scenario, you are allowed to place a unit in the tower, over what normal deployment. It gives no other allowances, which is why you cannot go there with detachments).

This is the best example so far, IMO. You guys changed my view long ago, yet this puts the final nail in the coffin.

[Damocles8]

Say you place your unit of halbardiers up to on the 12" line in the deploymentzone, do you then think you are allowed to put their handgunner detachments 3" further in on the table?

(No, you are not, because that is not in the deployment zone... same with the watchtower scenario, you are allowed to place a unit in the tower, over what normal deployment. It gives no other allowances, which is why you cannot go there with detachments).

All I'm saying is that both sides have their arguments, it needs be clarified.

[geldedgoat]

Where is the correction? The parent unit and detachment can deploy normally in the deployment zone; nothing stops them from doing that.

The parent unit can deploy normally in the watchtower. The detachment cannot deploy normally.

Say you place your unit of halbardiers up to on the 12" line in the deploymentzone, do you then think you are allowed to put their handgunner detachments 3" further in on the table?

(No, you are not, because that is not in the deployment zone... same with the watchtower scenario, you are allowed to place a unit in the tower, over what normal deployment. It gives no other allowances, which is why you cannot deploy detachments within 3" of the watchtower).

Yes, the rules explicitly support this.

But normally there will be room to deploy your army somewhere else, and if it isn't [...]

Can anyone finish that sentence with how the players are to proceed with the game (supported by the rules, obviously)? I would think it's something that's come up before.

[Scalebug]

Well, you didn't understand my point at all there... Is this whole thing because of a language barrier on your part or something?

Trying to rephrase it; It is not an issue, because it will not happen, unless in extreme circumstances. If it does happen after all, there is no actual rule for it, you will have to improvise. The obvious solution is taking the answer regarding the Dawn Attack scenario, from the FAQ, and use reserves. The less constructive solution is to consider the game frozen and just stand there :P... but in any case, it should not come up, unless you have done something odd, as I listed.

[yabbadabba]

Can anyone finish that sentence with how the players are to proceed with the game (supported by the rules, obviously)? I would think it's something that's come up before.

1) In the watchtower scenario the player may deploy a single core unit no more than 20 strong. Its not compulsory.
2)The Empire book names both detachment and parent as units; therefore they are separate entities on the board
3) The Empire book also describes the unit as coming from the section that the parent unit comes from
4) Finally the Empire book states that the parent and detachment must deploy within 3" of each other.

Can anyone add to this or are these all the facts?

[geldedgoat]

4) Finally the Empire book states that the parent and detachment must deploy within 3" of each other.

If it did, that would certainly disallow the parent from deploying in the watchtower. Does it? What Mercules quoted earlier doesn't state that. I know the previous edition didn't state that, and I didn't recall seeing it change in the current edition (but, like I said before, I don't have access to the current edition anymore, so I can't verify that).

[Danny76]

If it did, that would certainly disallow the parent from deploying in the watchtower. Does it? What Mercules quoted earlier doesn't state that. I know the previous edition didn't state that, and I didn't recall seeing it change in the current edition (but, like I said before, I don't have access to the current edition anymore, so I can't verify that).

But your trying to construe the wording that it only needs to apply one way and not the other.
The point is, the Empire book states you place the whole group of parent and detatchments at once onto the table abiding by its rules (3" and all). You are assuming you can place the parent and then go, ah now my detatchment, but it can't be placed.
But the rules don't say do them one after another..



EDIT: Also just to add, if they can't be placed as per your rules interpretation, they can not ever come on as reinforcements later or just be put in the deployment zone away from it's unit. They will never be used in game.
They can't be placed within 3" of the parent AND in the deployment zone.
They can't come on as reserves (as the rule states they can only come on as reserves WITH their regimental unit).

[geldedgoat]

But your trying to construe the wording that it only needs to apply one way and not the other.

No, I'm not. Until someone posts a rules reference stating otherwise, the restrictions preventing a detachment from deploying within 3" of a parent in the watchtower specifically apply only to the detachment. Nothing in the rules demands that the parent abide by the same restrictions.

Again, these rules all have different meanings:
"the detachment must be placed within 3" of the parent"
"the parent must be placed within 3" of the detachment"
"the parent and detachment must be placed within 3" of each other"

You are assuming you can place the parent and then go, ah now my detatchment, but it can't be placed.
But the rules don't say do them one after another..

I'm fairly certain I never made that argument. Obviously you'd have to physically place the parent unit first since the detachment is dependent on the parent's placement (but not the other way around), but no, I'm well aware of the sequencing (or lack thereof) that the rules stipulate for parent and detachment(s).

[theunwantedbeing]

I'm well aware of the sequencing (or lack thereof) that the rules stipulate for parent and detachment(s).

They deploy at the same time, the detachment rules do say this.

[geldedgoat]

They deploy at the same time, the detachment rules do say this.

I know, that's why I added "or lack thereof".

[DaemonReign]

I still find it on the verge of ridiculous that the 'issues' being discussed with regard to Detachments is stuff like this Thread.

First of all, I absolutely wouldn't allow an Empire opponant to deploy any Detachments in no-man's land (within 3" of the WatchTower). No way. Forget it. I'd pick up my models and leave.

Secondly, there are much more 'serious' issues with Detachments. The whole Steadfast-mess is just as unresolved now as it was a few weeks ago. I find it.. almost scary.. how little that's being discussed concidering what a blatant rules-loop it represents. This Forrest/Buildings/WatchTower-crap are really really small and insignificant issues in comparison.
Oh well..

[Scalebug]

Are you trying to "win" this argument by simply being stubborn?

Because all you are doing is refusing to understand what we, and the rules, are saying... Really, realise you are wrong and drop it! You have no case at all.

Secondly, there are much more 'serious' issues with Detachments. The whole Steadfast-mess is just as unresolved now as it was a few weeks ago. I find it.. almost scary.. how little that's being discussed concidering what a blatant rules-loop it represents.

Well, TBH I think people have realised that it wasn't that big a "mess" as initially yelled about... Sure, it is a case of unfortunate wording and assumption on the writers part, but we can see how the rule is intended to play out, and can be pretty sure that this is how it will be clarified in a FAQ. That's why the discussion died down. It's just one of those things that you can find faults in if you really want there to be, but otherwise it is not an issue, really.

[DaemonReign]

@ SCALEBUG - If the first part of your post was directed at me (?) I guess it will suffice to say that the rules are indeed clear. One unit of 20 Core may deploy inside the Watchtower. If the prerequisite for that happening is that you also deploy a unit ILLEGALLY outside of the tower, then you obviously can't deploy there at all.

As for the Steadfast bit. That bit is a catastrophy of rules-writing regardless of how the FAQ it. I'm guessing you're going with the interpretation that Detachments gets to count the ranks of the Regimental with wild abandon - who cares if the Parent is steadfast or even in combat, right? Well that's what they should have written then.. Because what's written now doesn't make any sense and can only be resolved with arbitrary interpretation of 'RAI'.

And yes GW will FAQ it one way or the other, and everybody who 'guessed' something in particular will be able to say that they were right/wrong whatever. That's ad hoc. Has no relevance.