home

Author Topic: New steadfast  (Read 50024 times)

Offline Calisson

  • Bar Brawlers
  • Members
  • Posts: 738
  • From Druchii.net
New steadfast
« on: October 21, 2012, 07:22:42 AM »
I'd like not to spoil the couple of threads about the new FAQ generally speaking.
So here's the space to talk about steadfast, for you (and me) hard core rule lawyers!  :icon_razz:

References:
steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation (10 pages thread, before FAQ)
Sharing steadfast (23 pages thread, before FAQ) and a summary of all definitions here
New faq & errata for empire comming up (mostly wishes, kept alive when FAQ arrived)
BRB FAQ up (newest thread about FAQ)

EDIT: jump directly to the summary => here

FAQ:
Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes.
Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast.
However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.


Here are some understanding which I can make mine (with my changes in red):
So, the logical progression to determine who has steadfast goes like this;

Count parent ranks (call P)
Count ranks of enemy fighting parent (call E) (if any)
If E is greater than P, detachment does NOT have steadfast. End.
Count ranks of enemy fighting detachment (call e)
If P is greater than e, detachment has steadfast. End.
Else, detachment does not have steadfast. End.
If the Detachment is within 3" of Parent you have to count the ranks of the parent to determine if the detachment is steadfast.  The Parent does not have to be in the same combat or in combat at all.  The exception is if the Parent is in combat with an enemy with more ranks than the Parent (so denying the Parent unit steadfast) then you cannot use the Parents ranks, even though it may still be more than what the detachment is fighting.
The debate seems pretty closed on those cases.
I see no need for parent to be in melee at all indeed.


There are some situations not covered by the FAQ, where the AB/BRB ruling still apply and the FAQ is irrelevant:

When the parent is stubborn, then the detachment is stubborn regardless anything else:
- parent has "stubborn" special rule => detachment is stubborn
- parent is joined by "crowned" character => parent is stubborn => detachment is stubborn
- parent is in a building => parent is always stubborn, despite not having ranks => detachment is stubborn
- skirmisher parent is in a wood  => parent is always stubborn => detachment is stubborn

On that part, we could resume the heated debate about whether steadfast lasts permanently or not.
However, as nothing has changed with the last FAQ, it is not useful to rephrase the arguments.
I'd suggest just to refer to the links above and not to argue about that very specific issue.


When detachments are steadfast on their own merit, I believe that the BRB is clear enough, regardless about what happens with parent regiment.
Of course, this could be debated.
- detachment is joined by "crowned" character => detachment is stubborn
- detachment is in a building => detachment is stubborn
- skirmisher detachment is in a wood  => detachment is stubborn


On the other hand, there are cases which seem to be covered by the FAQ, but which could be debated.
This is when the parent unit has more ranks indeed, but has lost stubborness for other reasons than being in combat against an enemy with even more ranks.
What happens when the parent is in a river => never stubborn, regardless of ranks => ???
1- use parent's rank anyway, as per FAQ RAW.
2- FAQ shouldn't be used, detachment could be stubborn on its own merit, i.e. using its own ranks
3- detachment can't be stubborn because parent has lost its stubborn ability, per FAQ RAI.
Personally, I'd be tempted to say that 1 is RAW but 2 is more reasonable. That's just an opinion.



Soooo?
What is your opinion?
« Last Edit: October 30, 2012, 04:48:27 PM by Calisson »

Offline Syn Ace

  • Members
  • Posts: 4748
  • Misinterpreting GW rules since 1991
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2012, 07:25:09 AM »
I would answer but I'm in the process of jabbing a pointy stick into my eye.  :icon_mrgreen:
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, first make sure that you are not, in fact, just surrounding yourself with assholes.

— Popularly but incorrectly attributed to William Gibson

Offline matt217th

  • Members
  • Posts: 151
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2012, 09:06:48 AM »
The FAQ is clear enough on the main issues about steadfast and detachments.  It covers the regimental unit being in combat and not being in combat.  It clearly states several times that it uses the regimental units ranks to determine steadfast as I pointed out in the FAQ post.



When the parent is stubborn, then the detachment is stubborn regardless anything else:
- parent has "stubborn" special rule => detachment is stubborn agreed
- parent is joined by "crowned" character => parent is stubborn => detachment is stubborn agreed
- parent is in a building => parent is always stubborn, despite not having ranks => detachment is stubborn point of contention,  I would not count this as being stubburn, unless it was a regimental unit that was stubburn due to special rules or magic items.  Although I can see the other point of view.
- skirmisher parent is in a wood  => parent is always stubborn => detachment is stubborn I would still count ranks of 5 or more models to determine this, although its unlikely that you would hae deployed enough :)


On the other hand, there are cases which seem to be covered by the FAQ, but which could be debated.
This is when the parent unit has more ranks indeed, but has lost stubborness for other reasons than being in combat against an enemy with even more ranks.
What happens when the parent is in a river => never stubborn, regardless of ranks => ???
1- use parent's rank anyway, as per FAQ RAW. As the check is by counting the regimental units ranks, I would use this one.  As per the FAQ, we are not checking if the parental unit would be stubburn.
2- FAQ shouldn't be used, detachment could be stubborn on its own merit, i.e. using its own ranks
3- detachment can't be stubborn because parent has lost its stubborn ability, per FAQ RAI.
Personally, I'd be tempted to say that 1 is RAW but 2 is more reasonable. That's just an opinion.



I would answer but I'm in the process of jabbing a pointy stick into my eye.  :icon_mrgreen:

Can I use the stick after you have finished?
I am Catholic. Purgatory is the best I can hope for, in this and the next life.

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2012, 09:43:32 AM »
Note that in all the above, it is enough if the enemy has an equal number of ranks to deny steadfast. In addition (and once more) stubborn =/= steadfast and the two should not be mixed up.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Ratarsed

  • Members
  • Posts: 1064
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2012, 10:21:55 AM »
The FAQ is clear enough on the main issues about steadfast and detachments.  It covers the regimental unit being in combat and not being in combat.  It clearly states several times that it uses the regimental units ranks to determine steadfast as I pointed out in the FAQ post.
Unfortunately the FAQ does not cover the regimental unit not being in combat. The question only asks about regimental units in the same combat or another combat but not in no combat at all. Likewise the examples given only have the regimental unit in a combat fighting an enemy unit. This unfortunately still leaves the questions " what if the regimental unit is not in combat at all?" "Does your answer cover that situation as well?"

However there is a strong implication that you just simply count the regimental ranks and being in combat is not a requirement for the regimental unit. Unfortunately implication leaves me short of certainty so I would like GW to re visit this answer and nail it once and for all. In the mean time just using regimental ranks for determining steadfastness would seem a reasonable way of working things given the FAQ answer they gave and also provides some useful tactical options for detachments which is welcomed.

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2012, 11:31:45 AM »
+1.
Given that the likely reading of the FAQ actually contradicts both the Army Book (which it is supposed to clarify) and the BRB, it is not too much to ask that it should be unequivocal.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Darknight

  • Pure of Heart
  • Members
  • Posts: 7547
  • Dipped in Magic, Clothed in Science
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2012, 11:56:07 AM »
The fact the FAQ says "in a different combat" and "not in the same combat" as two possibilities leads me to believe these are intended to be read as different situations.

"In a different combat" is positive - "I am married to a different woman than Fandir is" would be an equivalent sort of phrase.

"Not in the same combat" is negative - "I am not married to the man Weib is" would be an equivalent sort of phrase. Note that neither of these phrases say one is actually in combat / married to a man (same thing?) - they merely say what is NOT.

I would argue. therefore, that the two phrases (clumsily written!) point to a regiment being in combat OR NOT as allowing its ranks to be counted for steadfast.

Unless the parent unit is in combat with a unit which has equal or greater ranks in which case the detachment can never have steadfast. Ever.

Completed Projects | History of Ophelia VII

Quote from: PhillyT
Everyone finds their balance between satisfaction and obsession.

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2012, 12:00:41 PM »
A simple "not in combat" instead of "not in the same combat" would have done the trick. But I think they merged different questions here (e.g. Do Detachment and Regiment have to be in the same combat? What happens if they are in different combats?) with a very unfortunate result.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline matt217th

  • Members
  • Posts: 151
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2012, 12:01:18 PM »
The FAQ is clear enough on the main issues about steadfast and detachments.  It covers the regimental unit being in combat and not being in combat.  It clearly states several times that it uses the regimental units ranks to determine steadfast as I pointed out in the FAQ post.
Unfortunately the FAQ does not cover the regimental unit not being in combat. The question only asks about regimental units in the same combat or another combat but not in no combat at all. Likewise the examples given only have the regimental unit in a combat fighting an enemy unit. This unfortunately still leaves the questions " what if the regimental unit is not in combat at all?" "Does your answer cover that situation as well?"

However there is a strong implication that you just simply count the regimental ranks and being in combat is not a requirement for the regimental unit. Unfortunately implication leaves me short of certainty so I would like GW to re visit this answer and nail it once and for all. In the mean time just using regimental ranks for determining steadfastness would seem a reasonable way of working things given the FAQ answer they gave and also provides some useful tactical options for detachments which is welcomed.

It looks like it is going to be a divided issue again, based on how you interpret the English used.

Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat?

If it was written how you are suggesting it would read, '...can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit's ranks even if that unit [is involved] in the same combat or is involved in another combat?'

If it was the case that it was just clarifying the regimental unit being involved in another combat then it would read, '...can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit's ranks even if that unit is onvolved in another combat?'

'not in the same combat', is the comment relating to not being in combat, or the following part of the same sentance is repeating itself.
I am Catholic. Purgatory is the best I can hope for, in this and the next life.

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 7941
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #9 on: October 21, 2012, 12:07:38 PM »
Not in the same combat and in a different combat mean the same thing.

If you are not in the same combat then you are in combat, just a different one.   If you were not in combat then there would be no need for the word 'same' in the sentence.   

I am not married to the same woman Soth is means that I am married, just to a different woman.   It does not mean I am not married.   If I said I am not married to the woman that Soth is then that could imply that I am
A: Not married
B: Married to a different woman.

There is a difference between
I am not married to the man Weib is
and
I am not married to the same man Weib is

Based on my understanding of the English Language I would need to assume that this FAQ, considering both the question and the answer boils down to.

The detachment count the parents ranks if,
A: The parent is within 3 inches
B: The parent is in combat
C: The parent is steadfast.

'not in the same combat', is the comment relating to not being in combat, or the following part of the same sentance is repeating itself.

The question does seem to repeat itself.   However it is no great surprise that the parent unit needs to be in combat, after all being in combat is one of the requirements of being steadfast in the first place.

Offline Calisson

  • Bar Brawlers
  • Members
  • Posts: 738
  • From Druchii.net
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2012, 12:32:15 PM »
Unfortunately the FAQ does not cover the regimental unit not being in combat. The question only asks about regimental units in the same combat or another combat but not in no combat at all. Likewise the examples given only have the regimental unit in a combat fighting an enemy unit. This unfortunately still leaves the questions " what if the regimental unit is not in combat at all?" "Does your answer cover that situation as well?"
Actually, a comprehensive reading tells you that "Not in combat at all" is included, with no doubt.
The FAQ tells about "either not in the same combat" or "involved in another combat".
See:
According to the FAQ there are two conditions when you "use the parent's ranks":
1) "parent is...not in the same combat";
2) "[parent is] involved in a different combat."

There are 3 situations that can arise:
A) Parent is not in combat;
B) Parent is in the same combat;
C) Parent is in a different combat.

(B) is the easy case - use the parent's ranks.
(C) is covered by condition (2).

By process of elimination, we see that (1) can only apply to situation (A), where the parent is not in combat.
See? FAQ says "either not in the same combat or involved in another combat".
If the unit is not involved in another combat, then the only way not to be in the same combat is to be out of combat at all.
Poor wording indeed, but not the slightest doubt is left.

A simple "not in combat" instead of "not in the same combat" would have done the trick. But I think they merged different questions here (e.g. Do Detachment and Regiment have to be in the same combat? What happens if they are in different combats?) with a very unfortunate result.
I have to agree with you on that one, regardless with who Darknight and commandant are married with! :eusa_clap:


Given that the likely reading of the FAQ actually contradicts both the Army Book (which it is supposed to clarify) and the BRB, it is not too much to ask that it should be unequivocal.
When the FAQ contradicts AB or BRB, then the FAQ supersedes the AB and the BRB. This solves the contradiction.
This is not a FAQ, let us be clear. This is not an FAQ, this is a wholesale rewritting of the way Steadfast works with Imperial detachments.


The question does seem to repeat itself.   However it is no great surprise that the parent unit needs to be in combat, after all being in combat is one of the requirements of being steadfast in the first place.
I beg to disagree.
There exist no requirement to be in combat in order to become steadfast.
In fact, there are several cases of units which are steadfast, even when they are not in combat:
- units whith "stubborn" special rule
- units in buildings
- skirmisher in woods
- units joined by crowned characters.
All these are permanently steadfast, as long as the condition lasts.
For those interested, the 23 page debated did not conclude about the temporality of steadfast.

@ commandant
Your belief that the parent unit needs to be in combat at all is not supported by the FAQ in any way.
If you want to argue for that, you need some arguments.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 12:44:45 PM by Calisson »

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2012, 12:43:09 PM »
Given that the likely reading of the FAQ actually contradicts both the Army Book (which it is supposed to clarify) and the BRB, it is not too much to ask that it should be unequivocal.
When the FAQ contradicts AB or BRB, then the FAQ supersedes the AB and the BRB. This solves the contradiction.

While the BRB itself makes clear that the Army Book trumps the BRB, no such preference is written anywhere concerning the FAQ.
The GW website says:
FAQs, or Frequently Asked Questions are grey areas, points of confusion or places where rules can and have been interpreted in conflicting ways. For each FAQ we provide the answer as determined by the Games Development team; while these are not hard and fast rules text in the same way as Errata, they should be considered the 'official' interpretation.

But as Darknight, I myself and indeed others have remarked: this is not just an "interpretation", this is in fact a completely new rule. I would feel much more comfortable if either the FAQ had been not equivocal or involved in an erratum.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline MrAbyssal

  • Members
  • Posts: 1058
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2012, 12:53:08 PM »
Just wondering if anyone has actually noticed the words 'even if' before the two illustrated situations in the questions. To me, this would allude to the normal state of things being if the parent was not in combat and therefore, stupid as it may sound when compared to the rules for steadfast as far s we can determine, the parent regiment does not have to be in combat to allow the detachment to use the parent regiments ranks to determine its own steadfast.

FAQ:
Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes.
Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast.
However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.
There are three things each man judges another man by;

1. The size of his codpiece
2. The amount of skulls he carries
3. The length of his feather

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2012, 12:56:26 PM »
Why yes. The question is how to interpret "not in the same combat". If you say: "I am not wearing the same clothes as my parents", it does not imply (in normal usage) that you do not wear any clothes whatsoever. Again: they could have avoided all ambiguity by writing "not in combat".
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 01:01:45 PM by Fidelis von Sigmaringen »
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Calisson

  • Bar Brawlers
  • Members
  • Posts: 738
  • From Druchii.net
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2012, 01:02:56 PM »
@ Fidelis von Sigmaringen
Errata > BRB and AB indeed.
FAQ is not an errata indeed.

But still,
FAQ = official interpretation.
Official interpretation > whoever else's interpretation.

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2012, 01:14:03 PM »
If I may repeat myself: this is not just an interpretation (as it contradicts both the Army Book and BRB); it is a new rule.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline MrAbyssal

  • Members
  • Posts: 1058
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2012, 01:32:51 PM »
Why yes. The question is how to interpret "not in the same combat". If you say: "I am not wearing the same clothes as my parents", it does not imply (in normal usage) that you do not wear any clothes whatsoever. Again: they could have avoided all ambiguity by writing "not in combat".

Agreed wholeheartedly with the last bit. Though as the states mentioned after 'even if' are 'in the same combat' and 'in a different combat', what other states could they be starting their position from to form context other than 'not in combat'. It's still not a 100% clear interpretation but it does seem to most likely interpretation to me at this point. That's not to say I like it. It seems altogether silly to me.
There are three things each man judges another man by;

1. The size of his codpiece
2. The amount of skulls he carries
3. The length of his feather

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2012, 01:57:42 PM »
No argument there.
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Calisson

  • Bar Brawlers
  • Members
  • Posts: 738
  • From Druchii.net
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2012, 02:15:30 PM »
If I may repeat myself: this is not just an interpretation (as it contradicts both the Army Book and BRB); it is a new rule.
FAQs [...] should be considered the 'official' interpretation.
There is a way to understand why that de facto errata is called an FAQ rather than an errata:

The initial steadfast rule was poorly written (cf. 23 pages thread).
However, many people did guess that RAI might be "use parent's ranks". They just had to admit that RAI as it might be, it was not RAW.
Now, GW pretends that their new rule is only a FAQ, not an errata. That means that the rule is not new in their minds.
My understanding is that the FAQ just made the RAI official.
For us, it is a new rule. For the writer, it is just the correct interpretation of whatever he wrote in the first place.

Anyway, what was written in the first place has become irrelevant.
De facto, that FAQ is indeed an errata.
And even with only the satus of an FAQ,
Official interpretation > whoever else's interpretation.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2012, 02:19:42 PM by Calisson »

Offline Fidelis von Sigmaringen

  • Members
  • Posts: 9682
  • Attorney-at-RAW
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2012, 02:28:34 PM »
We have no way of knowing what the intention of Cruddace was (other than that if the parent was steadfast, then that was conferred to its detachments). Neither do we know whether Cruddace was in any way involved in the FAQ. The FAQ are FAQ and not de facto errata.
They are obviously the official interpretation, but in this case the official interpretation contradicts the Army Book it wants to interpret and it is still far from crystal clear as to what it actually means. In short: typical GW rules-writing. 
It is not enough to have no ideas of your own; you must also be incapable of expressing them.
Sex, lies and manuscripts: The History of the Empire as Depicted in the Art of the Time (10/07/16)

Offline Ratarsed

  • Members
  • Posts: 1064
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2012, 03:04:48 PM »
The initial steadfast rule was poorly written (cf. 23 pages thread).
However, many people did guess that RAI might be "use parent's ranks". They just had to admit that RAI as it might be, it was not RAW.
Most of those many pages was argument between 2 sides both of which accepted just use the ranks of the regimental unit was not the correct answer. As poorly written as it may be, just using the regiments ranks was not what was being debated.

"Not in the same combat" can be inferred to mean not in a combat at all, but it falls short of saying it outright. And as it is not what is written in the BRB or army books is in effect a new rule as FvS rightly says. Creating a new rule without being absolutely clear about it leads to doubt and confusion and uncertainty.

"Can they really mean that because that is not what the Rules in the BRB or AB say? Well I guess so, maybe? Sort of sounds like it doesn't it?"
This is where the FAQ has put me on the rule.

So long as there is a general concensus amongst my gaming group and the events in which I play that you just count the parents ranks, then I'm sure I will get along in my games no problems at all. However I fear that I will be facing future arguments and upsetting opponents when I make full use of this unclear FAQ because it leaves wiggle room with a phrase that can mean two seperate things with very different consequences.

Offline Calisson

  • Bar Brawlers
  • Members
  • Posts: 738
  • From Druchii.net
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #21 on: October 21, 2012, 04:09:10 PM »
Man, we are blessed with an FAQ which solves a harsh debated issue, in a way that most people like,
and we are still bickering?
It is not by random chance that we play Empire, do we?  :biggriin:

Offline commandant

  • Members
  • Posts: 7941
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #22 on: October 21, 2012, 05:40:05 PM »
[

A simple "not in combat" instead of "not in the same combat" would have done the trick. But I think they merged different questions here (e.g. Do Detachment and Regiment have to be in the same combat? What happens if they are in different combats?) with a very unfortunate result.
I have to agree with you on that one, regardless with who Darknight and commandant are married with! :eusa_clap:



But if it was "Not in combat" it would mean something different to "Not in the same combat".   There is an important difference that people seem to desire to ignore.


Somehow though I feel that most of this is a problem between chair and keyboard.

Offline Darknight

  • Pure of Heart
  • Members
  • Posts: 7547
  • Dipped in Magic, Clothed in Science
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #23 on: October 21, 2012, 06:45:07 PM »
If Commandant and Callaison decide to have a fight over cheez-wiz, I can safely state that "I am not in the same combat as Commandant". It is entirely true for me to say this, even if Fidelis and I are not having a fight over anything at all.

It is shockingly bad construction, and not what I would either recommend in common parlance or think could mean not in combat at all in normal circumstances but these are not normal circumstances. The FAQ has two scenarios listed - not in same combat, and in a different one. Those are repetitious if we are to assume that the parent needs to be in combat.

Therefore, in order to preserve a difference between these two scenarios, and in order to not make the sentence "always use ..." which does NOT have an "... except when parent is not in combat" clause a pack of lies, I assume "not in the same combat" means "not in combat (including the same one)" and "in a different combat" means "in combat, but in a different combat".

By a strict interpretation, a unit not in combat is not in the same combat as the detachment. It is like a politician saying "I do not donate to the same charities as my opponent" when he means he never donates at all. Technically true . . .
Completed Projects | History of Ophelia VII

Quote from: PhillyT
Everyone finds their balance between satisfaction and obsession.

Offline Gorgash Redfang

  • Bar Brawlers
  • Members
  • Posts: 495
  • Ostermark "Themed" Army
Re: New steadfast
« Reply #24 on: October 21, 2012, 10:35:08 PM »
:eusa_wall:
Then make three times that. It should be enough for half the roof Glue
You could certainly amass quite a collection of testicles