Introduction
Like most Empire players with the new book, I have been testing different formations of our troops and detachments to get the most out of the new rules. The two best improvements in my opinion are detachments that benefit from Stubborn parents and Archers with archer detachments. I have combined the two into different formations that maximize their usefulness and allow me to manage the battle.
Reference my Battle Reports thread for examples of the formations in action:
--Start of the Battle Report on the regular Griffon Formation (2500 points) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42976.msg714970#msg714970)
--Start of the Battle Report using the Griffon in smaller battles (1750 points) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42976.msg723954#msg723954)
--Start of the Battle Report on an attempt at Griffon Wings (2500 points) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42976.msg717447#msg717447)
--Start of the Battle Report using the Inverted Griffon (2500 points) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42976.msg719362#msg719362)
The Formations
The primary formation I have dubbed “The Griffon Formation.”
--It has a base parent horde of Greatswords or Halberds with the Crown of Command.
--The horde has two detachments. I use Halberd detachments but Swordsmen could also be used for more staying power. I personally run them 3-wide or 4-wide to provide a reduced frontage against the nasty stuff I am trying to hold off on the flanks. If I am lucky enough to get a flank with a Countercharge, most enemy units are not that deep to allow 5-wide frontage full attacks round after round anyway.
--In the front is an Archer unit with musician and 2 detachments of 5 archers. The Archers provide a screen for the horde as well as additional diverters.
--In the back is an Archer unit with musician (sometimes with a Standard too if I need more for Blood and Glory Scenarios) that serves as a bunker for my Lvl 4 Wizard.
The base Griffon Formation looks like this:
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/1Griffon.jpg)
The Griffon Formation could also work for busses and would look about the same:
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/2GriffonBus.jpg)
One of the big complaints of detachments is that smart opponents will charge your detachments at the same time they charge the parent to avoid the Countercharge. The Griffon Formation potentially allows you to re-direct the re-directors away from your detachments. In the below scenario, the opponent charges in blindly without stopping your countercharges.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/3CounterCharge.jpg)
Of course, depending on the situation, a smart opponent might take one extra turn to clear away your archers in order to charge cleanly across the front. Depending on the distance, this may allow your parent unit to charge him instead. Your detachments could charge as well or, as depicted below, move up to cover the precious flanks of the parent.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/4GriffonCharge.jpg)
Also, another benefit of the formation is to have 2 units on each side of the horde/bus to keep your opponent from swarming you and getting your flank. The below graph shows how your archers and detachment will keep your flank clean for 2 turns, maybe 3- allowing your buffed up horde to kill what it is engaging.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/5FlankDefence.jpg)
If you don’t like having an Archer unit directly in front of your horde, either to be sacrificed or to flee away from any charges (causing Panic tests for your horde and Wizard bunker)… another option is the Inverted Griffon Formation. In this one, you expand the frontage of the Archer unit in the rear to 6 wide so you can put 2 Archer detachments in front of your horde detachments that are set back. Each detachment is still within 3” of its parent to start. Once your movement begins, you can move up both side detachments as needed to protect the flanks of the horde.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/6InvertedGriffon.jpg)
If you really want to go all out, you can use The Double-Headed Griffon Formation. This allows you 3 to 4 re-directors per side. I have never used this one personally because I want to get into combat eventually- but it might serve some armies well, especially ones with lots of ranged firepower.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/7DoubleHeadedGriffon.jpg)
Another idea I came up with is using Archer formations to protect artillery, which I have dubbed the Griffon Wing. In deployment you would put an Archer unit with 2 Archer detachments around an artillery piece. In this case, a Helblaster.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/8GriffonWing.jpg)
When an opponent sends something nasty its way, you can “open up” the Wing by placing one detachment in a blocking position (ensuring not to cover 50% of the target) and the other in a reserve position outside the firing arch. If necessary, the parent unit can move up for one final diverter. If you haven’t killed the nasty creature/unit after 3 rounds of shooting at it- at least you got max use out of your artillery piece. This only works for ground-pounders; flying units can only be slowed one round by Archers right next to the artillery piece so the charger can’t fit into the space to charge it.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/9ArtyProtect.jpg)
Last, but not least, is babysitting a Steam Tank. As debated at length in another thread, opponents are parking chaff on the side of Steam Tank preventing it from being able to pivot and only move straight forward due to its Random Movement rules. An Archer unit, preferably with a Life Mage to keep the Tank rolling, could babysit the Tank and provide two archer detachments on either side.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/10SteamTankD.jpg)
This formation would prevent anything from getting within 1” of the side or rear of the Tank. With the flankers one inch back from the front of the tank, it still provides you with a decent arch of movement. You can even increase the distance between the Steam Tank and archers if your opponent’s chaff are on larger bases.
I personally would only use this formation against an opponent who consistently uses the pivot trick against you- otherwise all you are doing is narrowing the direction your Tank can go. (Please don’t comment in this thread on the legality of the pivot trick- use the other thread for that. I offer this formation only as a way to mitigate the tactic.)
I have used The Griffon Formations successfully in several recent battles. I hope that it generates some thought and discussion on how we can best use our detachments. I look forward to your comments and suggestions! :::cheers:::
I don't quite see what is special about the army. You have diverters (skirmishers) up front...and then? :?
It's not only the presence of skirmishers, that's the presence of supertiny units of 5 men skirmishers.
Add also that the combat units benefit all from the Ld of the main parent unit.
Furthermore, this variant below is very original with crossed links between parents and detachments.If you don’t like having an Archer unit directly in front of your horde, either to be sacrificed or to flee away from any charges (causing Panic tests for your horde and Wizard bunker)… another option is the Inverted Griffon Formation. In this one, you expand the frontage of the Archer unit in the rear to 6 wide so you can put 2 Archer detachments in front of your horde detachments that are set back. Each detachment is still within 3” of its parent to start. Once your movement begins, you can move up both side detachments as needed to protect the flanks of the horde.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/6InvertedGriffon.jpg)
-=-=-
I could see utility in using handgunners for the wizard bunker.
Otherwise, the runners out front really need to be archers because they are skirmishers. They are -1 to shoot at and their maneuverability in getting in the opponents way as diverters is unmatched.
Hmm, but COULD it work with just handgunnners?
In that formation, only the mage bunker could be replaced with any other shooter.
The front detachments must be skirmishers, i.e. Archers.
At work today (I know, I know- I should have been working :-) ) I was trying to think of a better way to answer your question LSP.
I think the graph below, depicting the start of my turn 3, shows the value in having the formation with all of its detachment support.
My Greatsword horde could realistically deal with two of the three nasty blocks facing it in the front (Blackguard, Hydra, Corsairs) in combat at one time. Fighting all 3 at the same time would probably wipe out the horde in a few combat phases. No matter how many I was fighting, if the Cold One Knights came flying in from the flank you could just forget it- game over.
If the Cold Ones had severely wounded the STank on the previous turn, I would have shifted units labeled 1, 2, and 3 towards that side to keep the Knights off my flank for 3 rounds (using one diverter per round). The Luminark, labeled 4, would have been a last ditch effort if my horde was depleted to the point it could not take on the Knights. Which means I could have avoided a fight with his killy knights the rest of the game.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/Example.jpg)
After shifting those diverter units over, I would have pushed my horde into the center to force the start of combat and used my last archer unit (like I did in the game) to get in the way of the Blackguard to keep them off my Knights and out of combat for one turn.
My Knights, on the other hand, finished off the DE Warrior tarpit by Turn 4, and had they caught it, could have potentially gotten a rear or flank charge into his battle line on Turn 5. Most likely he would have used at least one of his harpy units to stop my left Halberd detachment and would not be able to stop the Knights from eventually joining the center fight.
The best thing I can say in defense of the formation is that it gives me many options, especially when I am facing lots of stuff I don’t want to fight at the same time. I can quickly swing them to where they are needed, as depicted in the example above.
The points I lose to buy time are not that great- 120 for stubborn Halb detachments, 80 for the Archer parent, and 35 for the Archer detachments. They allow my 430 point Knight block and 573 point Greatsword Horde time to work their hatred on the enemy.
Hope that helps. :::cheers:::
Absolutely- Swordsmen are a good choice for the main block's detachments. As another poster in the thread mentioned, they are also good as a bus as the main block.
I personally use Halberds as the detachments because I want them to kill a few bad guys while they are sacrificing themselves for the greater cause. If you have enough killing power in the rest of your list, then Swordsmen are a premier choice.
Buff Support
How prayers and buff wagons work with the formations was asked earlier too- I didn't expand on them because I didn't want to clutter up the discussion in the beginning- but below are a few graphs I worked up on my thoughts on how they could fit in.
The first one is placement of one or two arcane altars straddling the rear wizard bunker.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/ArcaneBunker.jpg)
All of their buffs will likely not reach all the main line detachments. Running one is a little easier- I would put it on whatever side you think needs the most love.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/Placement.jpg)
As far as passing out buffs, the AL/WP in the main block will of course pass their buffs on to the two side detachments while the buff wagons range what they can from the rear. However, with a horde as the main block, it is unlikely you can keep everything in range once movement and combat starts.
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/Buffs.jpg)
Another option with one buff wagon is to have it run vertical (the triangle shows its facing in the graph) to get more out of the rectangular chariot base to reach more distance and more easily cover the detachments. This might seem WAAC to some- personally I can imagine a leader or important symbol running up and down the front line of troops right behind them to motivate them (and in this case, buff them).
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/Vertical.jpg)
With a bus formation as the main block you will likely have to run a buff wagon to one side or the other because of its depth.
Also, with the Inverted Griffon, you could squeeze a buff wagon in vertically but it gets really tight back there. After your first movement, the buff wagon could face forward with your wizard bunker running 3 or 4 wide next to it. Whatever floats your boat.
Like the other graphs, these are just suggestions. The only limitation is your imagination and army list.
Awesome questions.
1. I don't have as many archers to replicate the original Griffon. What do you recommend one could use instead?
You could run an Inverted Griffon with the rear parent being another ranged type if you have them or even a long single file of spearmen. Spearmen could reform after the formation moves away and still be a decent bunker for a mage.
However, I think I wouldn't bother with this and just use my answer to question #2.
2. Do you think a similar approach is possible without an archer parent but with a combat parent and just its two detachments (say, 5 archers, 20 combat troops)?
This is exactly what I used to do before creating the Griffon.
One example of a great setup would be if you had two main blocks side by side, each with one diverter and one combat detachment. All the detachments go towards the flanks and the middle is secure because the two block are mutually supporting. Like so:
(http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/DoubleHorde.jpg)
Of course, you don't have to have another horde to protect the opposite flank- it could be a bus, cavalry, STank, whatever.
3. Does running combat detachments 3- or 4-wide really help at all?
My combat detachments usually start on the table as 3-wide or 4-wide... but it really depends on what the opponent has. If he has elite forces, nasty critters, etc they stay that way. Only getting 5 elite models in base contact with the detachments is MUCH better than 7 elite models which appears to be the norm frontage anymore.
I run them the normal 5-wide in two circumstances: if they facing off against a unit that has lots of models and is deep so the extra frontage will give me attacks if I get the flank; or if they are facing off against sub-par infantry and I want a greater number of total attacks.
One of the things I love to do is change them up as the game goes along. I will reform them to suit whatever the next threat they are facing is.
4. Speaking of anvils, the formations seems to be quite good at keeping the horde safe on its way to the homerun. The question that came to my mind is whether the GS horde can be expected to defeat its opposing number on its own.
I can only speak to my experience- but at 2500 points I have yet to lose my horde in 10+ battles. The detachments have usually kept their flanks secure while the Greatswords do their work. Also, the formation usually allows me to get the charge off- which as mentioned previously allows me to throw Power Dice their way to buff 'em up.
Even if they get nuked by some magic spell and lose half their number, I have been able to use them to fight what they still can handle and hold off units I don't want to fight with the detachments.
:::cheers:::
I've been using these types of tactics since the new book. One thing that works well is the use of a big swordsmen bus with BSB and WP (and even a wizard in the second rank if you like) as the parent unit so that it can stay steadfast and not have to worry about the CoC, with a big halbardier detachment (15+, 21 is ideal for 7x3). The archers skirmish ahead of the line so that they can keep detachment safe so that they either charge the parent and get the counter charge or charge the archers so you can get to charge back, possibly even getting a rear & flank combo charge. The habardiers do some decent damage, the swordsmen soak it up and provide ranks. It gives you a big bonus on static CR as the charge bonuses cancel out so you're up by a flank and however many ranks you've got left (as you will undoubtedly be cancelling their rank bonus), and quite possibly an extra banner too. Could be +5 up just on the static CR, so you can afford to lose a few more wounds then your enemy and still win the combat. There's not many units will remain steadfast against a bus of 40. It can also take on superior troops as it will likely keep its steadfast and give you a bit extra punch you need to win the attritional war that follows.
Cheerio,
Ben
Hopefully Ben sees this, but I'll take points from any of you about it; I'm still reading through this thread for only about the second time, so I apologise if this was already answered, but Ben's way of putting his Wizard in the second rank sounds dodgy to me in terms of keeping the Wizard alive.... After all, if he's dead he can't buff anything, can he?!
Further to my earlier version of this post, I was looking at your suggestions for the double-horde tactic sub-type of the Griffon formation, as per this image: (http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w495/DaHoffmans/DoubleHorde.jpg)
Would you say that Empire spearmen simply aren't worth it in a horde formation, either in this or in the single horde sub-type Griffon formation from earlier....?
Also, regardless of unit type, do you think the double-horde Griffon formation can work with either 40/20 for 30/15 Parent/Detachment units, and whether it's worth using 10 archers per detachment in either of these cases, or do you find you get away with 5? If you find you get away with 5, what opponents do you generally do this against, and under what Comp. restrictions, if any?
I'VE FINALLY DONE IT, BY SIGMAR!! My first Griffon Formation list!! Please find at the below link, if any of you feel like commenting:
http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=49997.0