Topic: Proper use of detachments?

[Lord Solar Plexus]

What I'm trying to figure out is how to avoid my opponent jumping on those more vulnerable units first? Especially if I were to use shooters.

Honestly? No idea. When I asked the same question, the usual response was akin to "L2P Noob", and as you see, people would rather debate all kinds of fiddly rules details or the merits of flaming crossbows, War Altars or Steam Tanks than to give you a sufficiently detailed idea about how to protect a detachment from a cavalry charge. Okay, Calisson is an exception.

One of the problems is that parent + 1-2 dets + WP + Captain + a few magic items = easily 600+ points for this "brigade". Does it really make much sense to assume the opposition has only one single unit for 600-700 points? Sure, some do, but many don't. Even a 500 point deathstar could easily have some support. So how do we protect us from multiple charges? And what's the backup plan when the WP dies on the turn you're charged?

[Commisarlestat]

With detachments I tend to not use them due to the charge problems etc. best bet is to let them be charged and work out how to get them to stick. Snooty units become detachments for me out of ease if I am taking 10 handgunners anyway I might as well have them as a detachment they get bonuses where they wouldn't if on their own.
Try throwing the detachments ahead of your force as a speed bump then put effort into them dealing with the enemy. Once the enemy break through they are depleted and this your fresh mainline units can deal with them with a slight advantage. It may be easier than tricky manoeuvring which would come to nought against a decent opponent.

A

[Holy Hand Grenade]

I have tried using detachments in several different ways, sizes, formations, and unit types with the new book.

I am finding that each new list I make starts moving more and more towards how I used to use detachments:  in 5 man re-directors and in shooty bunkers for my mage.

The main reason is not the new rules-  it keeps coming back to math.  Point for point, I can find better uses in spending them on other toys or in creating another unit.  Our troops (and other toys) are just too expensive to create a 25-30 man detachment to go along with that 40-50 troop block.

Because like LSP points out-  any smart opponent knows how to jam up your detachment and prevent the sandwich.  The points your opponent spends on these re-directors/harassers is certainly cheaper than your detachment.  And, if what hit your detachment costs more than it, you are probably removing those points in the near future- while your opponent has the parent unit tied up.

The best combo I found is a halberd detachment with my Greatsword block.  The GS hold the line while the stubborn detachment protects their flank or gets in on the action.  In the end though-  I will likely just remove them for more Greatswords.  The jury is still out.

   

[Unuhexium]

I might be wrong here, but a detachment gaining Steadfast from an unengaged regimental unit is a pretty creative interpretation. Steadfast isn't a rule you have by default. It applies to units at the end of a combat phase. A unit can't be Steadfast if it isn't in combat (well, Stubborn units can, but that's a different rule altogether). Thus, an unengaged regimental unit cannot pass Steadfast to its detachments because it doesn't have the rule.

On the subject of flaming (and fabulouth (said in a high note and a lisp at the end)) handgunners or crossbows. I like the idea but my main concern is that they don't pack the punch to wound the monster in the first place. The main purpose of this tactic is to combat hydras, right? if we start with 10 crossbows, BS 3, shooting at long range (usually the case), 3.3333... shots will hit. S4 vs T5 means that normally 1 of those shots will wound and then the hydra has a 6+ Sv. Sure, we only need to put one wound on it, but it's still a gamble. T5 is really the edge of where this tactic is at all possible. Using it to combat trolls or regenerating ogres is much more viable though.

[Holy Hand Grenade]

... they don't pack the punch to wound the monster in the first place.

Probably much easier to throw Soulfire off a WAlter near a Stank and call it day. 

[Hetelic]

40 man unit of crossbows/ gunners with 2x 20man detachments. Take the charge = stand and shoot goodness

[Unuhexium]

Are you aware how impossibly large that formation is? It comes in at somewhere around 86 cm wide, 34" for you who haven't quite left those quaint medeival ages yet. 
Is is doubtful whether or not parts of that formation would even see what you want to shoot at.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

I like the idea but my main concern is that they don't pack the punch to wound the monster in the first place. The main purpose of this tactic is to combat hydras, right? if we start with 10 crossbows, BS 3, shooting at long range (usually the case), 3.3333... shots will hit. S4 vs T5 means that normally 1 of those shots will wound and then the hydra has a 6+ Sv.

The Hydra comes with a 4+ AS I believe, and a unit of Shades in front makes it pretty safe.

40 man unit of crossbows/ gunners with 2x 20man detachments. Take the charge = stand and shoot goodness

Is it a good idea to spend 800 points to hurt a 175 point monster? As I said before, nearly every opponent will have more than one unit. It'd be a rare tactical masterpiece if everything else is dead or occupied.

[Unuhexium]

I had accounted for S4 and AP (for handgunners) as an optimal scenario. Thus the 6+ instead of 4+. 10 guys are unlikely to cut it. Increase the detachment to 12 and the numbers are in our favour, if ever so slightly. It is an interesting tactic and worth considering. Without in-depth knowledge of our book, I reckon most people will let Soulfire pass on an unengaged unit, thinking it is just a poor trick to draw out dispell dice or deter a charge on that unit.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I might be wrong here, but a detachment gaining Steadfast from an unengaged regimental unit is a pretty creative interpretation. Steadfast isn't a rule you have by default. It applies to units at the end of a combat phase. A unit can't be Steadfast if it isn't in combat (well, Stubborn units can, but that's a different rule altogether). Thus, an unengaged regimental unit cannot pass Steadfast to its detachments because it doesn't have the rule.

You are certainly not wrong: "a pretty creative interpretation" is the least one can say.

[Noght]

I might be wrong here, but a detachment gaining Steadfast from an unengaged regimental unit is a pretty creative interpretation. Steadfast isn't a rule you have by default. It applies to units at the end of a combat phase. A unit can't be Steadfast if it isn't in combat (well, Stubborn units can, but that's a different rule altogether). Thus, an unengaged regimental unit cannot pass Steadfast to its detachments because it doesn't have the rule.

You're not wrong.  Creative is an apt description methinks.  The changing of the Detachment rule regarding flank access, supporting charges and causing panic make them more risky than in the past.  My strategy for using them as redirectors/speed bumps will change.  Which is why HHG mentioned the GS detachments as a solid choice because at least you get the 8 LD test, not great but it's better than nothing.

Noght
p.s.  Fidelis and I are posting exact responses...

[Unuhexium]

15+ swordsmen as a detachment to greatswords works great, but it's doubtful if I'll use close combat detachments for any other units. I don't find it hard at all to get flank charges with them. Place the detachment an inch or two back from the front of the regimental unit and about the same distance to the side. If the regimental unit get charged, the detachment is in the attacker's flank zone more often than not.

[redflag]

The flank charge is a bit of an issue in this edition especially since detachments can cause panic unlike the previous edition.  Assuming that detachments are steadfast even if the parent is not in combat this should not be too bad (at least in close combat), however if the detachment is not steadfast that means any opponent worth his or her salt would charge the detachment and get an easy victory (no standard, maximum of half the models of the parent unit) and if lucky panic the parent unit.

[Talben21]

Detachments do have some uses, despite what the above posters have said. They give us a quick and easy way to strip Regeneration, for example. We accomplish that by putting a Priest in the parent unit, having a shooting unit as a detachment, and casting Soulfire. The benefits of the prayer extend to the detachment, which means that you can strip that pesky Regen off the Hydra before you cannon it off the board.

True but who cares about the Hydra now? A unit of Demi-gryphs with the flame banner are going to tear through a hydra like its a wet paper bag! The 2nd hydra can easily be handled by the cannon/HBVG combo or even a stank!

Empire no longer fears the hydra like before!

[Noght]

Not going to refight the Steadfast/Detachment/Regiment thing but I'd suggest you talk about this with you opponent ahead of time to make sure you're both on the same page.

If you are building a list for a Tourney, you better contact the TO.  You might be in for a surprise otherwise, just saying.

Noght

[Lord Solar Plexus]

I rarely feared Hydras, more a HPA, and I don't see detachments helping out with those. The DGK's could at least deal it a few wounds with the banner...but I digress.

Yes, I believe it isn't easy to adequately protect detachments from getting charged. Placing them further back is one option - and as with everything, it will sometimes work or and sometimes not. Using terrain is an option but that can go both ways when you suddenly cannot charge anymore. Blading the parent is an option but it only works for one child, and might be inadvisable when there's more than two enemy units around.

I personally think that the best idea is to have only either very small dets as throw-away diverters or single large'ish stubborn ones - crown and GS come to mind. Slightly angled towards their parent, it should be irrelevant who is charged, and the threat of the parent in the flank might already be enough to force your opponent's hand. The obvious counter to this would be a staggered advance to again threaten the flank of your parent but not everybody and every faction can and will pull that off - and in such a situation you could charge in yourself.

Holding a detachment back could lead to unwanted difficulties when you are trying to combo-charge though...

[DonJulio]

One tactic for flank charge is to position your detachment angled at 45degrees slightly in front of your regimental unit.  If your opponent charges the dettachment (he still needs to charge the front of the detachment), then he has to "close the door" and expose a flank to your parent unit. If he charges the parent unit,  then you countercharge to its flank.
If he holds, then  you shoot him one more turn.

Of course, this can only be done if there are no enemy units that may flank-charge your detachemnt.

[Syn Ace]

*edit Nothing to see, keep moving

[DonJulio]

The drawing is very clear, thanks Syn. I still believe that you get a better chance of flank charge if you do what I said above.

[Raulmichile]

Damn!  I can't see the pictures!!!!

[Corax13]

Fascinating! Shows how much deployment of the detachments come into play.

If you stayed back an inch but with a slight \ angle, would it allow you to charge the flank of the enemy?

Then again, whenever you angle a defensive unit, you commit yourself (not as much with the muso free reform now, but still an issue with shooters). 

[Syn Ace]

The drawing is very clear, thanks Syn. I still believe that you get a better chance of flank charge if you do what I said above.

Yeah, I think yours will work if GW rules that the detachment gets Steadfast from it's parent's ranks even if the parent is unengaged. If not, they can charge the detachment, kick its ass, and probably make it run (that's what happened to mine) and possibly pursue out of the parent's charge arc.

[DonJulio]

Yeah, I think yours will work if GW rules that the detachment gets Steadfast from it's parent's ranks even if the parent is unengaged. If not, they can charge the detachment, kick its ass, and probably make it run (that's what happened to mine) and possibly pursue out of the parent's charge arc.

It can work fine if the detachment is stubborn (which may be achieved by different means), it is not necessary to invoke the steadfast rule.

[Noght]

Nice pics Syn!  Just remember it only matters what the front rank positioning, if a majority of the front rank only is in the flank then you can charge the flank legally.

Noght

[DonJulio]

Nice pics Syn!  Just remember it only matters what the front rank positioning, if a majority of the front rank only is in the flank then you can charge the flank legally.

Good point Noght, then you get to flank-charge in any of the situations shown in the pictures.