Topic: The power of detachments in the movement and charging phases.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

What I am missing is also the fun. It was fun to have small detachments (3x3), that could be used very tactically and flexibly, and make a real difference. Now you have to shift far bigger blocks around. It is more a heavy, but rather blunt axe, than the light but sharp sword it used to be. Admittedly, the Detachment rule is not to blame for that; it is just the consequence of how the 8th edition works. 

[commandant]

EDIT: Perhaps a clearer way to make my point is this:
detachments are all about augmenting your static combat res. Empire can bring more static res to a combat than, I think, anyone. You negate their charge bonus by also charging, you get their flank. But static res isn't what it used to be. If static res were still an important part of the game, then maybe. But in the current environment? Nah.

If that is your point then you are living in the past.   Detachments were about increasing your combat res but not anymore.   Before detachments countercharging gave you +4 combat res normally but that isn't the point anymore.   Now combat detachments are about increasing your number of attacks with the added benefit of the +3 swing in CR as an added benefit.   Having 2 combat detachments increase your attacks by 20-28 depending on what you are fighting.

How many points is an arch lector, bsb, hurricanum and 80 halbs?

Arch lector costs nothing because he exists anyway.
BSB costs nothing because he exists anyway.
Hurricanum costs nothing because it exists anyway.
80 Halberdiers cost 180 points because 50 of them exist anyway.

Its back to the example of the 2 units of forty halberdiers.   Your orc player can charge one of the units with his savage orcs confident that he can beat it by enough to make it run away and chase after it.  He can ignore the second unit because it can't act.

He can only ignore them, if he is sure to win combat and break the unit. Given that, these days, most combat turns into grinding, that is a big if.  In my turn, the Halberdiers can and will act. If they are powerful enough not be ignored as Detachments in the previous turn, they are equally powerful enough not to be ignored as non-Detachments in the next turn.

Why is my way [that the detachments countercharge] better than your way [that the large unit countercharges]?   For ease of understanding I will use 'you' or 'your' when describing the two units and 'my' or 'mine' when describing the one unit with detachments.

On the face of it I would agree that your point that if a unit is powerful enough not to be ignored as detachments it is powerful enough to not be ignored as non-detachments the next turn should be correct.   However I firmly believe that this is not the case for the following reasons.

[1] In order for your attacks to be as good as mine you need to invest more than I do.   My detachments gain the buffs [hatred etc.] from the parent unit where as you need to purchase.
[2] In your method the opponent gets double [or slightly less than double maybe depending on how many models you kill] of attacks as he gets in mine.   This is a serious consideration.   This is because in your method your opponent get two rounds of combat while in my method he only gets one.
[3] All of my attacks arrive at the same time where as yours are staggered.   A foe could be reasonable certain that he would be able to defeat you 30 attacks in round one and then defeat your 30 attacks again in round two.   He might not be as sure of being able to defeat your 58 attacks in turn one.   
Any unit we are talking about is going to do a bucket load of attacks and could kill 20 halberdiers the first round and then kill another 20 the second time around.   Against your output of 30 attacks they could weather the storm.   30 attacks = 22.5 S4 hits.   58 attacks = 43 St4 hits.   

Battles are about concentrating your forces.   In my method my forces are better concentrated than yours and therefore much more dangerous.

I will look at Rein's points later.   I wouldn't want people to think I was ignoring them but I need to eat.

[Finlay]

lol commandant, CMON SON.

"Arch lector costs nothing because he exists anyway.
BSB costs nothing because he exists anyway.
Hurricanum costs nothing because it exists anyway.
80 Halberdiers cost 180 points because 50 of them exist anyway."

[Baluc]

Its back to the example of the 2 units of forty halberdiers.   Your orc player can charge one of the units with his savage orcs confident that he can beat it by enough to make it run away and chase after it.  He can ignore the second unit because it can't act.

He can only ignore them, if he is sure to win combat and break the unit. Given that, these days, most combat turns into grinding, that is a big if.  In my turn, the Halberdiers can and will act. If they are powerful enough not be ignored as Detachments in the previous turn, they are equally powerful enough not to be ignored as non-Detachments in the next turn.

Usually this is only the case if one player wants it to be. Usually combats last until one player commits the resources to end it that can be the first round or the 4th. I can conceive of a meta where detachments can play a role here.

Personally I've used detachments to change direction of flight, prevent supporting units from engaging my halberd horde. I don't use the detachment rule frequently but there is use there. If the OP is trying to convince people there is some merit to the ability I agree. It is situationally beneficial but conversely there are many situations where it can be beneficial. Hell I've used detachments to block off frontage to prevent enemies from being able to attack characters. They are also an excellent way of extending the range of your Leadership.

[valmir]

No general in his right mind is going to let you counter-charge 28 attacks into his flanks. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that having 58 attacks is better than having 30, but why would anyone ever charge you under those conditions unless they were going to just shrug it off?

On the other hand, I can slam pretty much any unit from my army into your 14-dude detachments, obliterate them and bitch-slap you all up in the flank.

Although, I guess if your explicit position was "detachments are amazing against idiots", which is what you seem to be arguing, then I'd be forced to agree.

[commandant]

lol commandant, CMON SON.

"Arch lector costs nothing because he exists anyway.
BSB costs nothing because he exists anyway.
Hurricanum costs nothing because it exists anyway.
80 Halberdiers cost 180 points because 50 of them exist anyway."

Please point to a reasonable Empire Army list that does not have a general [it need not be an arch lector but if it is he serves 2 functions], a BSB and some halberdiers.

Admittedly the Hurricanum doesn't appear in all lists so add another 120 points.

No general in his right mind is going to let you counter-charge 28 attacks into his flanks. I don't think anyone is going to dispute that having 58 attacks is better than having 30, but why would anyone ever charge you under those conditions unless they were going to just shrug it off?

That was the point at the start.   By existing they force the opponent to commit resources he wouldn't otherwise have to commit, often more resources than their own cost.

On the other hand, I can slam pretty much any unit from my army into your 14-dude detachments, obliterate them and bitch-slap you all up in the flank.

There are 14 attacks but the detachment should have at least 20 models [maybe even 25]

If the OP is trying to convince people there is some merit to the ability I agree.

The point of the OP is only to show that they are worth the price we pay for them, if they are used.

Although, I guess if your explicit position was "detachments are amazing against idiots", which is what you seem to be arguing, then I'd be forced to agree.

Not at all, I am saying that by existing they allow you to control the movement of the game in a way you otherwise wouldn't be able to because

No general in his right mind is going to let you counter-charge 28 attacks into his flanks.

[valmir]

I don't think that really constitutes any control over the opponent's movement beyond what you might have normally. I make movement decisions all the time about what I think I can charge, and what I think I can't. What I want to be charged by, and what not. Where I want the combat to happen, where not.

I feel like your argument boils down to the sort of truism where you're just saying "when you take detachments, my opponent plays Warhammer".

[Furycat]

I'm looking forward to my next game, I hadn't realised that I don't have to pay for my arch lector and BSB. And those 50 free halberdiers will be handy as well. I must have skipped over those parts of the army book.

The problem that you overlook as that these elements are NOT free. They cost points, and those points are also available to your opponent. Only he doesn't have to spend them trying to prop up his shitty-ass infantry.

[commandant]

Not at all.   It changes the charge choice from

I can charge that infantry block

to

I can only charge that infantry block if I deal with these other two infantry block.

That is very different from

I feel like your argument boils down to the sort of truism where you're just saying "when you take detachments, my opponent plays Warhammer".

If you consider what most army's have.   1-2 combat elements, 4-5 support elements and some chaff [if you don't count heros and lords that are not independent].   Therefore in order to deal with a single combat element of your army your opponent needs to go from using one combat element to one combat element and two support elements.

240 points tends to buy you one support element at best.   Therefore in order to attack your opponent needs to commit two of his support elements.   Therefore you are costing him two support elements at the cost of one support element yourself.   

That leaves him down a a support element and you up a support element.   Therefore you are up 2 support elements.

There is a question about using chaff to block the detachments.   This is an option but as was pointed out the the halberdiers will blast through most chaff with the 14 hatred fueled attacks.   

However it is an option that you need to deal with because it does allow your opponent to stagger your attacks, which is a problem for you.   I think that units of 5 knights are useful for clearing chaff.

I'm looking forward to my next game, I hadn't realised that I don't have to pay for my arch lector and BSB. And those 50 free halberdiers will be handy as well. I must have skipped over those parts of the army book.

I think you will find that you are paying for those things regardless of how you use them, therefore their cost does not enter into this discussion.   It is a bad attempt at a strawman.

[Furycat]

I think you will find that you are paying for those things regardless of how you use them, therefore their cost does not enter into this discussion.   It is a bad attempt at a strawman.

It doesn't matter how mandatory they are, those are points that you pay and tie to that unit. Your opponent gets those same points to spend, only he does NOT have to tie them to a particular unit just to make it work. It's like saying that those Khorne Warriors are free, because hey he would be getting some core anyway. Do you really not see the point here, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

Would you classify a Demon Prince as 'free'? I mean, he has to take a general right? The fact is that while YOUR general is trying to make your infantry suck less, his is off obliterating entire flanks of the battlefield all by himself. And the best part is, that even WITH your general in there, his infantry *still* massively outclass yours.

[valmir]

Okay, so how many points is this formation we're talking about?

You've got - what? - 50 halberdiers? And then two detachments of 20 dudes? Plus a warrior priest? So we're already at 635 points (depending on the detachment you choose), and that's before the BSB.

I have a cav-heavy Wood Elf army. It's clear to me that the majority of frontal charges into your parent unit are going to mess me up. So I don't do that. I also don't tend to charge Phoenix Guard in the front (or at all), so this isn't really down to the detachment rule. It's down to choosing match-ups, which is what Warhammer is about.

What I would do, however, is use a couple of units of Wild Riders to obliterate both of your detachments. Which they would. I'd be hoping your parent unit would panic, but that's not essential.

Now, the thing here is that, regardless of what I then do with my Riders (depends on how many you kill back), you now have a large block of unsupported, mediocre infantry sitting out there in the middle of nowhere. Because you've tried to deathstar up on the detachment rule, you've let yourself no room for tactical flexibility. Using this formation, I can either obliterate or neuter over a quarter of your army with less than 300 points of mine. If my dice go really bad, and I lose those units entirely, it's not even a big deal. Because a single big block of halberdiers is scaring nobody.

For less points, two units of 40 halberdiers, both with WP and no detachments, parked next to and supporting each other is something far more tactically flexible and, were I standing opposite that, far more terrifying - because if I can't break them in one turn, I'm screwed.

In the situation I outlined above, the presence of your detachments actually offers me the opportunity to wreck your face. Don't pretend that me doing so is somehow an immense tactical victory on your part by virtue of the fact that you've convinced me not to charge your parent in the front.

[Grutch]

Excellent discussion on just how flawed and poorly (hastily) designed the 8th edition detachment rules are.  Crudface should fire himself from his job for this. 

[Darknight]

lol commandant, CMON SON.

"Arch lector costs nothing because he exists anyway.
BSB costs nothing because he exists anyway.
Hurricanum costs nothing because it exists anyway.
80 Halberdiers cost 180 points because 50 of them exist anyway."

This was also kind of my reaction. I will certainly concede that many armies will field an Archlector and that most will have a BSB and that some will have the hurri and 50 halbs . . . but one has to factor the cost of those in somehow. The models exist in the army because they have been paid for.

And, more importantly, while they can impact more than one unit (and so the costs can reasonably be stretched over several units) they do have to be localized; the hurricanum affects only units within 6". Well, 80 halberdiers is 51.2 sq inches in area, which (if arranged in a purely arbitrary square) is 7.15" wide and tall. So, on the side where the halberdiers are, the hurricanum can affect no other unit. Allow for another unit to the other side, and the hurricanum is only impacting two units - so the price has to be shared with them in any calculus.

One can allow units in front of the hurricanum - likely only two units - which (when moved away / defeated) give way to secondary units at the sides . . . but calculating that is tricky; the price of the hurricanum is divided among four units, but each only gets the benefit of the hurricanum for half the time if there were only two. So, the same effective "price".

Empire troops can (and should!) be buffed to Hell and back, but one has to count the price somewhere.

[commandant]

For less points, two units of 40 halberdiers, both with WP and no detachments, parked next to and supporting each other is something far more tactically flexible and, were I standing opposite that, far more terrifying - because if I can't break them in one turn, I'm screwed.

I'm interested in how 80 halberdiers with two full commands and 2 warrior priests = less points than 80 halberdiers with 1 full command and 1 warrior priest.

Empire troops can (and should!) be buffed to Hell and back, but one has to count the price somewhere.

The cost does need to be paid.   I was just pointing out that Finlay's line of "this can't possibly work because you need to pay for all this stuff" included a lot of stuff you need to pay for regardless of what tactics you use.

Also I'd point out that the Hurricanum kinda go added and the captain kinda got dropped as people decided to argue about prices.   The only real buffs that I calculated on having were hatred and hold-the-line.

What I would do, however, is use a couple of units of Wild Riders to obliterate both of your detachments. Which they would. I'd be hoping your parent unit would panic, but that's not essential.

Wild riders must have gotten a lot better because in the old book they only did 2 attacks [I think they have frenzy now] so 2 attacks from the guy and 1 from the horse.   You need to kill all 10 guys in the detachment before it stops being steadfast.   If I have put the subborn crown on my arch lector [another 40 odd points] then you need to kill all the guys in the unit before it is going to run.   How many wild riders would you need to ensure that you kill 20 halberdiers in one turn.   As far as I can tell 7 wild riders = 182 points which means that you are overspending 120 points to kill my detachments.   I assume as a lot of the WE lists I've looked at seem to take them in groups of 7 that 7 would be enough to kill 20 halberdiers in one turn.

I wonder what I could do with 120 points.

Admittedly I haven't read the new wood elf book.

Now, the thing here is that, regardless of what I then do with my Riders (depends on how many you kill back), you now have a large block of unsupported, mediocre infantry sitting out there in the middle of nowhere.

Where did I get a large block of unsupported infantry from?   The detachment is only going to be 6 inches wide at most which means that this large block of unsupported infantry is at most 8 inches from its support if you destroy the detachment.   Remember I need to keep its other support close because if you charge the detachments instead of the parent I need to be able to charge into the flank of your unit if the detachment doesn't die 100%.

This is a defensive and fairly compact army, it doesn't have many elements that cartwheel off by themselves to the other side of the board.

For less points, two units of 40 halberdiers, both with WP and no detachments, parked next to and supporting each other is something far more tactically flexible and, were I standing opposite that, far more terrifying - because if I can't break them in one turn, I'm screwed.

While this may look more terrifying it isn't.  I have already looked at why two large units are worse that one large unit and two small detachments units.   It comes down to staggered attacks v non staggered attacks and the fact the foe gets to attack twice v attack once.

Excellent discussion on just how flawed and poorly (hastily) designed the 8th edition detachment rules are.  Crudface should fire himself from his job for this. 

Or at least how underused they are because people have decided they are poorly designed.   

[Newt]

Wild Riders have 1 attack, frenzy, and devastating charge at str 5 ASF Aromor piercing.  With mount, 5 would get 20 attacks on the charge, 15 rerollable.  With sheilds they are 4+ 6 ++, bye bye detachment

5 wild rider FC = 130 pts

[valmir]

The mounts also have frenzy. So a unit of five has 15 rerollable S5 attacks, and another 10 S4 attacks. A unit of 6 (very common setup, and easier for head-math-hammer purposes) is reliably doing something on the order of 18 wounds. And sure, with your stubborn crown, those two remaining dudes are going to be pretty annoying for me. But now your talking about adding a lord with hardcore items to the formation (a lord who, if we're playing the "getting characters for free" game, I may have already sniped to death with my waystalker(s)).

But this isn't really about wild riders, or even wood elves. It just happens to be the army I know best. Even under the old Woodie book - in fact, especially under the old woodie book - I used to love it when empire opponents took combat detachments, because those represent pretty easy points compared to large blocks.

Again, big block with two big detachments does not a deathstar make. (a) there is absolutely nothing forcing me to engage it at all, and (b) there aren't many armies I can think of that don't have the tools to take it apart pretty reliably. I mean, you put your (now 800-ish point - or 950-ish if your lad's on an altar) formation down on the table, and I'll put down an equivalent points value of my army, and I'm going to decimate you. Absolutely decimate you. Not despite your formation, but because of it. With freakin' Wood Elves!

Yes, Empire is about combined arms, and yes in a large game you can rely on additional support from outside this formation, but in terms of where you're sinking your points, and where it's possible to build synergies within the list, there are simply much better options. You're dropping almost half of your points into formation that simply can't reliably cause the destruction it would need to at that value.

It comes down to staggered attacks v non staggered attacks and the fact the foe gets to attack twice v attack once.

Which is sound logic, but it's a situation that no competent opponent is ever going to allow to happen, so the point is moot.

[Mortim]

Coming home from my last tournament (107 players) , seeing yet again no Empire players at the top of the tourney (best Empire was at 27th, I was 34th)... With the top 10 filled with 7 spots to DE/HE with all similiar armies (4 RBT+ All Cav/flyers)... I started to think that what we like to call "Combined Arms is the key to success for Empire" is a thing of the past.

We got used to combined arms with detachment rules etc... Now our detachment systems isnt useful but we are still trying to build combined armies...

The current meta, judging from the last 4 big tourneys I ve been to this year, tells me that its all about Themed armies that focus on a few parts/phases of the game: like DE All dark riders +RBT shooting/avoidance supported by Flyers/Pegheroes/Lv4 death/life.

[Grutch]

Or at least how underused they are because people have decided they are poorly designed.

I used them well enough when 8th edition rolled around.  I stubbornly tried to stay with them and make them work, but even attempting to draw my opponent into the loving countercharge embrace the detachment failed to leave a dent. 

Valmir and Fandir made the point for me,  it's a hefty price investment for a very situational difficult to accomplish return.  The price hikes on infantry alone was a massive mistake on the part of Cruddace, it further makes the point that detachments are clearly not worth it based on the cost of everything at the moment.  We're really squeezed and the buck stops with that talentless hack who's leading design at GW.

On the battlefield a typical meta cookie cutter army will dominate over your proposed list.  My heart goes out to you commandant,  if you could make it work please show me.  Send battle reports!

[commandant]

We got used to combined arms with detachment rules etc... Now our detachment systems isnt useful but we are still trying to build combined armies...

I don't think we do try and build combined arms anymore.   

We have accepted as a given that Warhammer must be an offensive game and we are not even trying to make use of the more defensive tools we have.

The 8th ed Empire book was not even out before people had decided that detachments were useless in 8th ed and despite a massive change to how detachments work that belief has never been seriously challeneged.   This can be clearly seen by Fandir linking all his arguements to a thread that was discussing the 7th ed book in 8th ed.

We got used, in that time period when we had the 7th ed book in 8th ed, to being the top of the pile and not needing to have a combined arms army anymore and when that was taken away we pined after it rather than trying to see how the new army book worked.

If as Valmir suggests he will use Wild Riders to deal with detachments then the Empire army out resources the Wood Elf army by the difference between the amount of resources committed.   Therefore it becomes a question of how to use that advantage but instead of people asking that question everybody is following the current hive mind and insisting that the advantage doesn't exist.

[Finlay]

Not at all.   It changes the charge choice from

I can charge that infantry block

to

I can only charge that infantry block if I deal with these other two infantry block.

This is only true if your opponent is going to be able to either wipe out, or break, the unit in one turn. Seeing as you extoll the use of Gswords or CoC, this doesn’t seem too likely.


Yes, the empire army normally takes a lector, bsb, etc. but they should be counted in the cost of the formation when figuring out if you’re getting “value” from forcing your enemy to deal with it.

Again, if the enemy out shoots or out magics you, they can simply ignore the main battleline, and use 100% of their force to win the chaff war, before turning on the main line.


"240 points tends to buy you one support element at best.   Therefore in order to attack your opponent needs to commit two of his support elements.   Therefore you are costing him two support elements at the cost of one support element yourself.   

That leaves him down a a support element and you up a support element.   Therefore you are up 2 support elements."

only if you can bring It all to bear at once, and because you are using m4 troops and trying to entice the enemy to come to you with shooting/magic, you can’t.



"I was just pointing out that Finlay's line of "this can't possibly work because you need to pay for all this stuff""
that wasn't my line.

my point is, if your battline costs 1000 pts, which I think 80 halberdiers, a lector with CoC, hurricanum, and captain bsb does, as a dwarf player I can take a unit with costs 600 points which can kill it all. (600 pts of hammerers. done. I'd have to look at the maths, but I also think a block of ibreakers with an oathstone would be fine enough just to tie up all of your battlline. it takes a lot of str4 attacks to dent t4, 4+ armour and 5+parry.) (or for Valmirs wood elves, 5*5 units of wild riders. 650 pts. )

this then means I have 1400 points of chaff and support to kill your 1000 points of chaff and support.
and I have at least 3 turns to do so, before then being able to turn my attention to the battleline with more than just the 600 pts which are already good enough to whoop it's facehole open.

[Vauln]

WTF are all these Elf, Dwarf, Lizard, Chaos, Undead players doing on the Empire forum? Do any of you really play Empire? I mean really, when was the last time you really played the Empire? I do believe there are other (lesser) forums out there for y'all.

[Finlay]

Xenophobia is frowned upon in the empire, ya know. I thought you were meant to be Staunch allies with dwarfs.

Furthermore I'm not sure there's a "if you haven't played a game in x time, you're not allowed to post" restriction either.

[valmir]

I dunno. I got a super nice empire name. Elector of ostland and that. Whereas "vauln" seems to be derived from "vaul, the smith" - a wood elf deity.

Empire were my first wfb army, under 6th edition. And I loved them. But Each army book since then has taken them in a direction I've liked less and less. Also, I HATE the 7th ed state troops box.

It's fair to say that the fact that I haven't played them in 8th means I'm not exactly talking from a standpoint of expertise, here. On the other hand, I have a fair bit of experience standing opposite empire armies with what was one of the weakest builds of one of the weakest armies.

[Ambrose]

Detachments have been working for me so far.
I don't have my STank built yet and have never fielded one.
We play mostly 2500-3000 point battles.

Last three battles where I used Empire detachments helped in two of them.
First battle was vs. Ogres, an army I have a problem with.  Detachments countercharged which saved my horde unit.
Second battle was vs. Skaven.  We had near equal units on the board so I understand people saying detachment rules don't do anything above just having an extra unit, but being able to countercharge (my opponent knew the rules) did influence his decisions on movement and deployment.  I was again able to counter charge which helped against a large block of skaven.

The third battle I didn't use detachment rule as my swordsmen went off to fight other stuff because it was the right thing to do.  Being able to use this unit as an independent unit in addition to a detachment did not hinder me, but allowed more freedom IMO.  It was there if I needed it but it wasn't needed for that battle.

In regards to saying it wasn't my infantry that won the battle, it was my demigryphs and knights, etc.  I disagree with this.  Yes I use them, but they have their own work to do.  My knights charge around getting chaff and war machine hunting, demigryphs deal with mournfangs, helpits, etc.  My infantry certainly did its job and again, the detachment rules worked for me.

Is it point for point better than other armies?  no.  But that is not why I play Empire.  I play empire because I love being the underdog.  I enjoy seeing my men stand in the face of superior armies but still holding their ground, taking the field inch by inch.

I did not play other editions.  I also don't feel it is fair to compare current army books with past army books.  I think there were different games.

I am surprised so many people who don't play the Empire, or who hate the current book, or who are bored with it spend so much time complaining about it.  Personally I enjoy reading reports on how the rules have worked for them, not how they hate it.  I appreciate Commandants, and others, in their attempts to encourage the use of detachments.  I enjoy them.  It feels right for Empire.

Ambrose

[valmir]

Nobody is saying that you "shouldn't" use them, or that that are unusable. The issue is that empire troops have a certain value for this rule built into their points cost, which makes them over costed against almost any other army. For the same cost, skeletons have better armour, cause fear and can be easily raised from the dead.
I like the detachment rule, conceptually. But (a) 8th ed army book nerfed it; and (b) it doesn't really play to the strengths of the 8th ed core rules.
Of course it CAN work. Anything can work if you're good enough, or your opponent is inexperienced enough. But when the "proof" of its working involves sinking half of your points into a single, easily avoided formation, then colour me a bit sceptical.