Empire detatchments and watchtower

[Damocles8]

Well, yes, but now you are applying the captain obvious solution, charging the detachment, without realising how in this situation the detachment may well be a fair bit behind the building (and add to that the buildings size, since it "is" the parent unit at the moment), and still (reasonably) safely be able to countercharge someone attacking the building. Say the watchtower has a 6" side, and placed in the middle correctly, so 3" of it is on your opponents half of the table, after the 12" over to the center line, and then the detachments is another 3" behind that, you are already looking at 18" needed, and that is before considering that you are going diagonally (since you likely wanted your main assualt unit going for the tower itself, the shortest route), for another handful of inches... provided it was a straight run without any terrain in the way to start with... It is not as easy as you think it is (and that is assuming you even have some speedy horseys in your force to begin with).

It doesn't matter though, the rules are not gray... they don't become gray just because someone want it to read some way or other.

No need to get snarky, hey my army book overrides the rulebook, and the army book says I must deploy my detachment within 3" yadda yadda yadda, would I try this in a game? No, but it would be nice to have a ruling for rules lawyers or even to correct the differences between army book rules and the main rule book.

[yabbadabba]

No, but it would be nice to have a ruling for rules lawyers or even to correct the differences between army book rules and the main rule book.

What are those differences, because this has me genuinely confused.

[Damocles8]

What are those differences, because this has me genuinely confused.

ok differences may not be the word I was looking for, irregular situations would probably be closer.

But, say an Empire player starts with control of the watchtower, and all of his core units that fit the requirement to hold said tower (20 models I believe) also have detachments, what happens? The detachments must be placed within 3" of the parent unit, yet the parent unit is in the watchtower.

[Scalebug]

You don't have to deploy a unit in the watchtower, even if you win the roll-off, it is an option.

Detachments are not the only thing that would stop you from starting in it, being an all-cav army or simply having no unit with 20 or less models in it, or simply it not being a good idea, you are giving the enemy a 1st turn charge possibility, and if you don't have anything that would stand a chance it may just be like giving it to them turn one, so you might be better off not deploying there.

[yabbadabba]

ok differences may not be the word I was looking for, irregular situations would probably be closer.

But, say an Empire player starts with control of the watchtower, and all of his core units that fit the requirement to hold said tower (20 models I believe) also have detachments, what happens? The detachments must be placed within 3" of the parent unit, yet the parent unit is in the watchtower.

Deploying in the Watchtower is not compulsory; the Empire player forgoes the advantage of deploying a core unit in the Watchtower by default.

[TsukeFox]

Units must deploy in their deployment zone.

Okay, that was a little short: Unless they are explicitly excluded, like scouts, or the one single unit in the WT scenario. That's the parent - the detachment is not allowed to deploy outside its DZ, and therefore you cannot deploy any part of this "brigade" in the tower. We've had this before.

Same difference with Skaven weapon teams- big no on both

[Damocles8]

Deploying in the Watchtower is not compulsory; the Empire player forgoes the advantage of deploying a core unit in the Watchtower by default.

And is therefore put at a major disadvantage in that scenario.....

[GodlessM]

And is therefore put at a major disadvantage in that scenario.....

Not even by a long shot. Usually deploying your 20 crappy dude means you take a turn 1 charge and all of a sudden your 20 crappy dudes have been replaced with his 40 awesome dudes. It is nearly always better to go second in that scenario unless you are totting 20 Chaos Warriors.

[Mercules]

And is therefore put at a major disadvantage in that scenario.....

Then maybe the consideration for having the scenario as a possibility would be to have a unit that is not more than 20 strong with no detachments? Not, the game must change it's rules so that I don't have to be inconvenienced when building my army. I mean if you don't bring banners for Blood and Glory then who is to blame when your general dies and you lose the game? You, or the game rules?

[yabbadabba]

And is therefore put at a major disadvantage in that scenario.....

Them's the breaks. It becomes another strategic decision when designing an army list.

[geldedgoat]

Why not have the parent unit and detachment(s) simply lose the detachment rules and be treated as independent units once the parent is deployed in the watchtower?

[Scalebug]

Why not have the parent unit and detachment(s) simply lose the detachment rules and be treated as independent units once the parent is deployed in the watchtower?

Because that is not how the rules work... which is what is being discussed. House-rules and mods are all fine and well, but not the issue here.

[geldedgoat]

Because that is not how the rules work... which is what is being discussed. House-rules and mods are all fine and well, but not the issue here.

The rules don't prescribe how to handle the situation, which is why it's being discussed.

The parent unit can meet all the normal criteria for being deployed in the watchtower: single unit, core, infantry, under 20 models. Why then would you assert that the parent unit is the issue, and thus cannot be placed in the watchtower? That may be a better solution than restricting the detachment from being placed at all, sure, but it still requires you make up rules. It just seems more sensible to treat the units regularly, as a detachment isn't any cheaper than a normal independent unit and comes from the core allotment (unless the detachment rules have changed dramatically in the newest edition - I haven't seen it yet).

Why make up a rule when you can simply ignore the one causing the issue?

[Scalebug]

Why make up a rule when you can simply ignore the one causing the issue?

Huh? You are the one making up rules here, no one else. You want to change how the detachments work, cutting them free from the parent unit, when the sollution is right there; You simply cannot use that unit!

"The player that controls the tower may deploy a single Core infantry unit of no more than 20 models in the tower if they wish to do so."

There is no issue, the rules are simple and clear; The scenario tells you how to set up, and a unit with detachments is unable to fulfil those criteria above, because of how its own rules work. Because of this they are unable to set up in the watchtower, just like a unit of 21+ models, or cavalry, or non-core is.

[geldedgoat]

Huh?

It might help if you read the paragraph just before the sentence you quoted.

[yabbadabba]

The rules don't prescribe how to handle the situation, which is why it's being discussed.

They do. In fact they are quite specific. Detachments must be deployed within 3" of their parent unit, whereas the scenario stipulates that the player may place a unit in the watchtower. These two ensure only one interpretation, that a core unit with detachments cannot garrison the watchtower.

[Scalebug]

It might help if you read the paragraph just before the sentence you quoted.

I did...

As I said, we are not discussing houserules, or how to "fix" anything, we are pointing out how the rules work. I don't want to offend you, but you don't seem to understand this, do you?

[geldedgoat]

They do. In fact they are quite specific.

No, they're not. The watchtower scenario outlines exactly what criteria a unit must meet before it can be placed in the watchtower. An empire parent unit with detachment can meet every single one of the criteria, so the parent cannot be the issue.

Detachments must be deployed within 3" of their parent unit, whereas the scenario stipulates that the player may place a unit in the watchtower.

These two entirely separate rules refer to two entirely separate units, the detachment and the parent. What you're proposing places restrictions on one unit that are specifically designated to another. That's fine if you want to play it like that, but don't confuse that with any sort of RAW.

As I said, we are not discussing houserules, or how to "fix" anything, we are pointing out how the rules work. I don't want to offend you, but you don't seem to understand this, do you?

I understand it perfectly, which is why I'm not defending a made-up rule as RAW like you and others seem to be doing. What I proposed is not specifically outlined in the rules, but it requires a smaller hole be overlooked than shifting restrictions from one unit to another. Like GodlessM said, Occam's razor...

[Scalebug]

Believe me, you are not getting it... sorry, but you are wrong, it is as simple as that. It may also be that you have misunderstood GodlessM's post above, and/or Occhams Razor...

You solution is no different from tweaking the scenario to allow a 25 strong unit in there, or a special choice infantry unit because you had no core, or any other modification. As in, sure, you can do it, but it is no longer playing the scenario as written.

[geldedgoat]

You solution is no different from tweaking the scenario to allow a 25 strong unit in there, or a special choice infantry unit because you had no core, or any other modification.

What? Where are you getting this from? Increasing the unit size beyond 20, using anything other than core, using anything other than infantry, or placing more than one unit inside the tower are all specific violations of the watchtower rules. A unit of twenty swordsmen with a detachment does not violate any of those rules. None. The problem comes with the detachment (and only the detachment), which violates other rules.