Empire detatchments and watchtower

[Scalebug]

@ SCALEBUG - If the first part of your post was directed at me (?)

It obviously wasn't, it was directed at the guy being stubborn and wrong... you posted while I had the window open, and I just threw in an answer to your point there in an edit afterwards.

But yeah, money in the proverbial hat is on the FAQ going towards the detachment checking if their parent unit would have been eligible for steadfast status against what the detachment is fighting, if they are not actually doing so themselves. That is how people are seeing it for now, thus the abcennce of further debate, while waiting for the FAQ. It comes down to the writer not taking the possibility of the detachment fighting by themselves.

Second possible outcome is them going for a RAW verdict, that Steadfast will only ever aply if the main unit is in combat, and even then only if they lose (in case the detachment is in a separate fight, but still within 3", unless the main unit is in a building, as they then always are steadfast, or is an archer unit in the woods, or Greatswords, or led by a character kitted out for stubbornness, where they would get steadfast from being stubborn.

In any case, it is not the end of the world, the main flaws in the Empire book are other things, the clear rules and pointscosts that shouldn't have passed through playtesting unnoticed... why would one take a repeater handgun marksman when it costs less to take three rank-and-file gunners, for the same output of fire but three wounds? Wasn't the Mechanical horse already something nobody took, did you hadto make it worse? Why did the Grandmaster increase in cost like the general and captain, but without getting the breaktest ability they obviously payed for? Was it a good idea to put all the usefull effects of the magic wagon to one of them, and the so-so abilities to the other? Things like that...

[DaemonReign]

All right. Sorry for misunderstanding Scalebug.
What you refer to as the 'general consensus' on Steadfast Detachments is not what my group will be implementing pending the FAQ.
But yeah the FAQ seems pretty inevitable! haha And Yes the simplest way of resolving the issue would of course be to say something like: For the purpose of determining whether a Detachment is Steadfast, it may count the ranks of the Regimental as though these ranks belonged to the Detachment itself.
I get that.
My only gripe is that this isn't actually 'passing over Steadfast', instead - it's a whole new mechanic, that should have been clearly written in the Army Book, period.
Because yes, it's the simplest assumption to draw from this (mess) and it also happens to be the most versatile and usefull interpretation possible (in a situation where Stubborn is already, clearly, passed over) - and I'm having trouble going all that way on the basis of assumption, that's all.
RAW leads to insanity though. That what makes it catastrophic IMO.

But you may be right there are more important flaws if you go into details. I am no expert. And the Empire player in our group would never use the Mechanical steed anyway because he hates the bloody thing (aesthethically).
In fact, I might buy him one some day just to annoy him. *lol*

[yabbadabba]

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"

No they don't.

This is a storm in a tea cup, and I feel the same way about the detachment rules as Daemonreign knows. All in all for me this thread has come to represent the worst in interwebz rules lawyering.

[geldedgoat]

No they don't.

Yes, they do. It's as simple as "all triangles are shapes but not all shapes are triangles".
"the detachment must be placed within 3" of the parent" - restriction applies to detachment
"the parent must be placed within 3" of the detachment" - restriction applies to parent
"the parent and detachment must be placed within 3" of each other" - restriction applies to both

All in all for me this thread has come to represent the worst in interwebz rules lawyering.

No. It wouldn't take long to find out via Warseer search that I play Chaos, not Empire. And even if I did, arguing that detachment deployment in the watchtower scenario is vague enough to allow more than one interpretation is hardly nitpicking for advantage. Putting a 20-man swordsmen unit in the tower and its handgunner detachment in the deployment zone (or reserves, or not at all) isn't broken by any stretch.

[Mercules]

Let me put it very simply.

You have a way to satisfy all the rules, for sure, as they are written in the book. You have another way that doesn't satisfy all the rules, for sure, as they are written in the book and you have to change the wording a little to make them work. Which one seems like the appropriate approach to determining if you can deploy a Regimental Unit in the Watchtower?

[Danny76]

Yes, they do. It's as simple as "all triangles are shapes but not all shapes are triangles".

That doesn't apply though as the triangle example alludes to these rules/statements being very different things.

I'd say the that you could argue that this quote fits.

All triangles are shapes. But not all these triangles are the same size.
Which matters not for the example.

These are all related to one another. Not like three separate rules that you could use (all are rules but not about the same thing).

It's like this, for the detachment to be placed the parent has to abide by the detatchments rules to allow it to follow them itself.
Sucks for them right? Having to follow someone else's rules for no benefit of their own.
As I said before it is all placed at once, so as you place it. All parts of the unit must be legally in place before that units deployment is complete..

[yabbadabba]

Yes, they do. It's as simple as "all triangles are shapes but not all shapes are triangles".
"the detachment must be placed within 3" of the parent" - restriction applies to detachment
"the parent must be placed within 3" of the detachment" - restriction applies to parent
"the parent and detachment must be placed within 3" of each other" - restriction applies to both

Sorry mate but you have got that all wrong.

No. It wouldn't take long to find out via Warseer search that I play Chaos, not Empire. And even if I did, arguing that detachment deployment in the watchtower scenario is vague enough to allow more than one interpretation is hardly nitpicking for advantage. Putting a 20-man swordsmen unit in the tower and its handgunner detachment in the deployment zone (or reserves, or not at all) isn't broken by any stretch.

And you have totally missed my point here.

[DaemonReign]

Putting a 20-man swordsmen unit in the tower and its handgunner detachment in the deployment zone (or reserves, or not at all) isn't broken by any stretch.

That depends.
In the kind of games (4k and up) that I usually play I'd call it nothing more than a completely unnecessary 'breaking of rules'.
In the kind of games (1,5-2,5k) that are 'standard' (it seems) for most people it actually opens up for a lot of filthy tricks that I don't think any self-respecting player wants to see.
Ok so you've deployed a 20 man regimental in the WatchTower, next you deploy one 10-man detachment on each side of the building in a one-model-wide conga formation.
If the enemy tries to charge the WatchTower you'll counter-charge with one of your Detachments, and they'll be Stubborn and have a small enough frontage so that it'll take a few turns to hack them all down regardless of what the opponant does really.. and then after that you got your other ten-man-detachment who can 'rince and repeat' of course.
And that's looking at this in a bubble, where in the meantime we don't even concider that fact you got the rest of your entire army swarming up around the WatchTower in order to keep the enemy away from it (or away from the flanks of those conga-line detachments).
So yeah, I play Daemons (har har!) and I am not prone to calling things 'broken' left and right.. but what you're suggestion would definately be a contender for that position in my book.

Empire's new detachment rules, in my opinion, (without 'cheating' at the WatchTower, and even without the most favorable interpretation of Steadfast) have definately buffed the army as a whole. As far as I am concerned the general point-increase to troops is totally warranted by those Detachment-rules. It was my first thought when reading the new book (and laughing myself to tears over the Steadfast mess, at that), and it was noticed directly when I played against Empire for the first time with the new book.

So instead of trying to squeeze gamey 'cheats' out of something that's already awesome-sauze - whether you're doing it for yourself or someone else - I'd suggest rejoicing in the fact that Empire will give us all a good run for our money from here on out!

[T10]

While the detachment must deploy within 3 inches of the regimental unit, it does not have any special permission to deploy outside the normal deployment zone.

If you can somehow deploy the detachment both within the normal deployment zone AND winthin 3 inches of the unit in the tower: Go ahead!

Another alternative is to take a unit without detachments and avoid making a problem for yourself.

[geldedgoat]

You have a way to satisfy all the rules, for sure, as they are written in the book.

No, there's no way to satisfy all the rules. You can either ignore the detachment's deployment restrictions (either those found in the Empire book or BRB) by deploying it outside of the deployment zone, deploying it in the deployment zone away from the parent, holding it in reserves, or not deploying it at all (did I miss any?), or you can ignore the rules specifically allowing the parent unit to deploy in the watchtower by applying the detachment restrictions to the parent, something that is in no way prescribed by the rules. No matter how you choose to play it, if you have an Empire player wanting to place a valid parent unit in the watchtower, you have to break or ignore at least one rule.

That doesn't apply though as the triangle example alludes to these rules/statements being very different things.

That's because those three sentences are different rules. I wrote them the way I did because they have a very simple SVO order that shouldn't be too difficult to parse.

[F]or the detachment to be placed the parent has to abide by the detatchments rules to allow it to follow them itself.

Page number?

That depends.

No, it doesn't. Reread that sentence of mine that you quoted. I gave three different deployment options, none of which involved placing the detachment outside of the deployment zone and within 3" of the watchtower.

[Scalebug]

No matter how you choose to play it, if you have an Empire player wanting to place a valid parent unit in the watchtower, you have to break or ignore at least one rule.

Or, and this is what is so baffling that you just not seem be able to understand; No matter how much the Empire player may want to put a unit there, he is unable to, because of the rules!

Illustrating with another example, ignoring the watchtower for a second; Your deployment zone, there is two pieces of impassible terrain, with a gap (including the 1" away from terrain margin) wide enough for your parent unit to go in. Just because the detachment rules say that the detachments must be placed 3" away, it doesn't suddenly mean you can place them in the impassible terrain, it means you will have to find somewhere else to place your parent unit to begin with.

[yabbadabba]

No, there's no way to satisfy all the rules.

Yes there is. Deploying in the Watchtower is an option, not compulsory. A detachment deploying within 3" of its parent unit is. You can still easily play the Watchtower scenario without deploying a unit in the Watchtower and without breaking any rules.

[DaemonReign]

No, it doesn't. Reread that sentence of mine that you quoted. I gave three different deployment options, none of which involved placing the detachment outside of the deployment zone and within 3" of the watchtower.

You're right on this very minute detail actually. Sorry. Turns out I did, in fact, read your post waay too quickly and assumed you were talking about placing the Detachment (illegaly) in no-man's-land.

What you were talking about is simply making up rules - but I agree it probably wouldn't be 'broken' to forfeit your Detachment becayse you have no way of legally placing them once the Regimental has been deployed in the WatchTower, nor would it be 'broken' in the general sense to deploy aforementioned Detachment(s) in your Deployment Zone (by definition >3" away from the WatchTower/Regimental) - but both alternatives are either 'houserules' or just plain incorrect.

What I said about actually deploying those Detachments in no-man's-land still stands though. 'The Most Important Rule' should be enough to deter anyone from even thinking down that path..

[Mercules]

No, there's no way to satisfy all the rules.

Yes there is... Deploy in your own deployment zone. The 20 man unit in the Watchtower is OPTIONAL. Deploying ALL your army in that scenario is not optional. Deploying anything other than the single unit in the Watchtower outside the deployment zone is Illegal. Since you can't deploy in the Watchtower without breaking another rule then you can not take the OPTION to deploy a unit in the Watchtower.

[GodlessM]

Is anybody else troubled by the increasing trend lately of answering rules questions with, "it's not broken, so it's ok to break the rules?"

On-topic, I don't think anybody can put it clearer than Mercules has above.

And geldedgoat; can you please explain to me how you can deploy the detachment within 3" or the parent without also having the parent deployed within 3" of the detachment and both within 3" of each other? They may all be different clauses and sentences, but they amount to the same thing and that's all that matters.

[Athlan na Dyr]

And geldedgoat; can you please explain to me how you can deploy the detachment within 3" or the parent without also having the parent deployed within 3" of the detachment and both within 3" of each other? They may all be different clauses and sentences, but they amount to the same thing and that's all that matters.

What I think he is trying to argue is this
step 1: place the regimental unit in the Watchtower
step 2: try to place detachments. Can't!
step 3: seeing as the regimental unit is already deployed I can't place it somewhere else
step 4: the hell do I do with the detachments?

Which of course is irrelevant as the regimental unit and its detachments are deployed all at once, (i.e. they are placed in the same period of deployment as it would take to deploy a single unit.)
Ergo the watchtower is an invalid location to deploy the regimental set, as the detachments cannot be placed within 3" and within the deployment zone, just as if the regimental unit was surrounded by other units/ impassable terrain/ the edge of the deployment zone. Hence, the regimental unit could not be deployed there.

Of course, in a friendly pick up game the option is there to merely cross off 'detachment' for the two detachments in the army list.

[Cambion Daystar]

Yes there is... Deploy in your own deployment zone. The 20 man unit in the Watchtower is OPTIONAL. Deploying ALL your army in that scenario is not optional. Deploying anything other than the single unit in the Watchtower outside the deployment zone is Illegal. Since you can't deploy in the Watchtower without breaking another rule then you can not take the OPTION to deploy a unit in the Watchtower.

Can't say it much clearer than this. +1

[bad dice]

There's no rule for not being able to deploy a unit is there?

You have two options. One is valid (deploy unit and detachment in deployment zone) and the other is entirely optional and leads to an invalid rules situation (detachment can't deploy in deployment zone and within 3" of the parent unit). You can't make the invalid decision, so the unit simply can't deploy in the watch tower if it has a detachment.

This is the right way to look at it if you ask me
Any thing else is just looking for a excuse to break the rules

[Damocles8]

This is the right way to look at it if you ask me
Any thing else is just looking for a excuse to break the rules

Not that there isn't a legitimate fluff explanation for having a detachment outside of a watchtower or anything.....

[bad dice]

There is also istn't a legitimate fluff explanation for me not winning every game cause my orcs are awsome.
But that has noting to do whit the rules.

Just like this thread.

It's all just arguing that one should be able to break the rules, cause well yea I just want to and empire is special.

It's just silly. You can't do it live whit it and include a unit whit no detachments. It's the worst scenario any way so it can live whit one more thing that f's it up.