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!
References:
steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation (10 pages thread, before FAQ)
Sharing steadfast (23 pages thread, before FAQ) and a summary of all definitions
hereNew 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 =>
hereFAQ:
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?