Empire detatchments and watchtower

[Damocles8]

It not about being unfriendly, it is about informing you that that was no argument... if guy X had something to add, he could have come on here and state it, just claiming that someone agreed with you and thinking this will make people see your point as strengthened is just naive and/or ridiculous.

And about Armybook overriding BRB, this is not a case of this. As I pointed out earlier; If there is no room in a spot to deploy the detachments, do you think that you can still place them, because your army book say they must be deployed within 3"?

(Edit: Talking about a random spot in your deployment zone there, not the watch tower, just to clarify.)

Yeah it is being about unfriendly, when other observers disagree with YOUR opinion, and you blow it off as "don't care about who you talked to." The fact that you won't look at both sides having a reasonable argument that needs to be addressed, really endangers the idea of civil discussion.

[Mercules]

Yeah it is being about unfriendly, when other observers disagree with YOUR opinion, and you blow it off as "don't care about who you talked to." The fact that you won't look at both sides having a reasonable argument that needs to be addressed, really endangers the idea of civil discussion.

Yeah, but your post wasn't an argument, it was an anecdote. It is bordering on an "Ad Populum" fallacy. "I think this and X people agree with me so I must be right."

[Scalebug]

Civil discussion is all fine and well, but it sort of, to have a point, requires that both sides have at least a minimum of merit. One side here does not...

What you are doing now is, when you have no argument, just playing the pathetic victim card "Oh, you are being unfriendly...wah, wha wha..., instead of just saying, "Ok, I realise I had no case". Which everyone had been fine with. You are not a bad person because you were wrong.

[GodlessM]

Man, you're awesome at jumping to conclusions. Lemme try: are you now going to start claiming you would object to your opponent voluntarily bringing less than his allotted points?

Yes. Again, something not being broken doesn't mean ignoring the rules is ok for it. It opens up so many cans of worms, especially when you get down to the fact that what is and isn't broken is completely subjective.

[bad dice]

Well I talked to GOD and he said no

Seriously talking to any one outside the forum is nice and all but we can't do any thing whit it or care about it at all.
Cause well that person isn't here. Hell he might even not exist, he might be Robin Cruddace himself we don't know

Also I think that the point that you must deploy them within 3 so that makes it ok has been addressed on the first page already.

[yabbadabba]

My army book says that the detachment MUST deploy within 3" of the Parent unit when it is deployed, overriding the BRB, seems simple enough of an argument to me.

I don't think it does mate, not when you take everything into account.

[Cambion Daystar]

Wow the friendliness here is so refreshing. My army book says that the detachment MUST deploy within 3" of the Parent unit when it is deployed, overriding the BRB, seems simple enough of an argument to me.

So if you drop the parent in between some impassable terrain, you're also allowed to deploy closer than 24 to your opponent in standard scenario?

[Athlan na Dyr]

So if you drop the parent in between some impassable terrain, you're also allowed to deploy closer than 24 to your opponent in standard scenario?

As was said on page 5 (and probably earlier). Seriously, how on earth did this get to page 7? Detachments have an additional condition on deployment (within 3" of the parent), deploying in the watchtower creates a situation where the additional condition fails, therefore neither the detachment nor the regimental unit can deploy in the watchtower.
Utterly simple and as clear as you like.

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

One could make also fluff reason that the limit resources of a small garrison would mean that a regimental unit with its full complement of support couldn't be housed, fed, watered and so on . Fluff, as with most handwav-ey justifications, can often work both ways if you think creatively enough.

[Cambion Daystar]

As was said on page 5 (and probably earlier). Seriously, how on earth did this get to page 7? Detachments have an additional condition on deployment (within 3" of the parent), deploying in the watchtower creates a situation where the additional condition fails, therefore neither the detachment nor the regimental unit can deploy in the watchtower.
Utterly simple and as clear as you like.

I totally agree. Was just illustrating what a can of worm you are opening when you ignore other deployment rules/restrictions

[decker_cky]

I totally agree. Was just illustrating what a can of worm you are opening when you ignore other deployment rules/restrictions

If people believe they can deploy detachments within 3" of the watchtower, then you don't even need the impassable terrain justification - you could always deploy detachments outside of the deployment zone so long as they're within 3" of the parent unit. 80 spearmen with two 40 man halberd detachments starting at the center of the table (back of unit within 3" of parent unit) in every scenario sound good?