Topic: Sharing steadfast

[Eisen]

Just wanted to get other peoples take on this. For a parent unit to pass along steadfast to its detachments it does need to be in combat, right?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

The only situation that satisfies all requirements is when both Regimental Unit and Detachment are in the same close combat.
For a whole discussion on this issue, with differing points of view: http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=41785.0

[Noght]

Just wanted to get other peoples take on this. For a parent unit to pass along steadfast to its detachments it does need to be in combat, right?

Rather than us tell you or direct you to other threads where we argued about it at length, I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are regarding Steadfast and Detachments as a new player/poster.

Noght

p.s.  You may already be tainted by Fidelis but still interested to hear....

[matt217th]

I've still not had many games of 8th edition since I've been back into the game...

The empire army book states 'Regimental Units and Detachments fight so closely together that they are affected by the same battlefield psychology'.  So I have been using a detachments ranks to determine if the detachment is stubburn and the regiment ranks to determine for the regiment.  I do not see how the regimental unit ranks could be used to test for a detachments stubburnability.

[Daymz]

The empire army book states 'Regimental Units and Detachments fight so closely together that they are affected by the same battlefield psychology'.  So I have been using a detachments ranks to determine if the detachment is stubburn and the regiment ranks to determine for the regiment.  I do not see how the regimental unit ranks could be used to test for a detachments stubburnability.

Okay... Just wondering. How do you back your idea up? Taking the very same quote, I am one of the few that argue that my detachment within 3" of it's parent uses the parent's number of ranks - at all times - for steadfast purposes. So if my detachment has 2 and my opponent has 3 but my parent has 4, I tend to consider myself steadfast. Without necessarily having my parent be in any CC at that time.

(Before I get murdered with posts: Yup, I know, steadfast is widely considered to only be taking place in CC and cannot be attributed out of it, which is why it can't be given from a unit that is not steadfast for not being in a CC itself. I am aware of that argument)

[Ratarsed]

Whilst I agree both parent and detachment need to be in combat for the parent unit to pass on its steadfast I'm not of the view that steadfast is only at the instance break tests are made (although that is the only time up until now it has ever been used.) I think it is fair to use the parents steadfastness at the time the detachment breaks as if the parent were taking it's break test at that moment.

[matt217th]

Okay... Just wondering. How do you back your idea up? Taking the very same quote, I am one of the few that argue that my detachment within 3" of it's parent uses the parent's number of ranks - at all times - for steadfast purposes. So if my detachment has 2 and my opponent has 3 but my parent has 4, I tend to consider myself steadfast. Without necessarily having my parent be in any CC at that time.

(Before I get murdered with posts: Yup, I know, steadfast is widely considered to only be taking place in CC and cannot be attributed out of it, which is why it can't be given from a unit that is not steadfast for not being in a CC itself. I am aware of that argument)

The way I see it is that the detachment would have trained for months on end with a parent unit and such any ability like 'stubborn' would have rubbed off on them.  Whilst I understand being able to have a quick look to see if the parent unit had not run away (using their leadership for a break test), I can't imagine the detachment in a whirling melee having time to be looking how many ranks the parent unit had left.  So I have been using the ranks of the detachment to check if the detachment becomes steadfast.

As I've said I have not been back into warhammer for too long, if I have been doing it wrong then I will obviously change.

[kwest]

The way the rule is written it seems you could have a parent unit fighting a monster and be steadfast with even a single rank. You could then have a detachment of 4 men in another combat be steadfast against a ten deep horde.

Seems silly!

[DonJulio]

We wantz the FAQz...

[Noght]

(Before I get murdered with posts: Yup, I know, steadfast is widely considered to only be taking place in CC and cannot be attributed out of it, which is why it can't be given from a unit that is not steadfast for not being in a CC itself. I am aware of that argument)

So you quote the rule for steadfast exactly on one hand and then completely ignore it on the other hand?  Hehe....you can't make this stuff up.  Three conditions for Steadfast = In Combat + Lost + More Ranks than the Winner.   A momentary state of psychology for the single break test.

Noght

[matt217th]

So you quote the rule for steadfast exactly on one hand and then completely ignore it on the other hand?  Hehe....you can't make this stuff up.  Three conditions for Steadfast = In Combat + Lost + More Ranks than the Winner.   A momentary state of psychology for the single break test.

Noght

Thanks for clearing that up for me, makes sense and I will use this from now on.

[Dosiere]

(Before I get murdered with posts: Yup, I know, steadfast is widely considered to only be taking place in CC and cannot be attributed out of it, which is why it can't be given from a unit that is not steadfast for not being in a CC itself. I am aware of that argument)

So you quote the rule for steadfast exactly on one hand and then completely ignore it on the other hand?  Hehe....you can't make this stuff up.  Three conditions for Steadfast = In Combat + Lost + More Ranks than the Winner.   A momentary state of psychology for the single break test.

Noght

Thankfully this issue has not come up in one of my games yet, but Noght if that is true then there would be no point in the rule, right?  If the parent unit is only steadfast when they take a break test, then there would be no time that a detachment could take a break test and be steadfast because of the parent unit, since the parent unit would not be steadfast at the moment the detachment takes its break test.  So in your explanation under what conditions could a detachment gain steadfast from a parent unit?

[Hoffa]

This is on the list of the worst written rules ever. No one can know how it meant to be played. As written the rule makes no sense, as pointed out, steadfast is a state only existing when the parent is about to take a break test. This is a clear case of GW not meaning what they wrote.

So what did they mean ? The only thing that makes sense is that a detachment in close support is allowed to use the parents ranks for determining steadfast. However. The requirements for this are however unclear and no one can really know how to play this until the faq arrives. 

[Noght]

Thankfully this issue has not come up in one of my games yet, but Noght if that is true then there would be no point in the rule, right?  If the parent unit is only steadfast when they take a break test, then there would be no time that a detachment could take a break test and be steadfast because of the parent unit, since the parent unit would not be steadfast at the moment the detachment takes its break test.  So in your explanation under what conditions could a detachment gain steadfast from a parent unit?

Only when you are in the same combat, when you figure the winner/loser of the combat.  You apply the total CR to multiple losing units at the same time.  That's the only way the timing works.  Old Detachment rule the Detachment would break and run and the Regiment would be steadfast, now you can both be steadfast.  I'd recommend rolling the Detachment's Break test first just to be on the safe side. 

This is on the list of the worst written rules ever. No one can know how it meant to be played. As written the rule makes no sense, as pointed out, steadfast is a state only existing when the parent is about to take a break test. This is a clear case of GW not meaning what they wrote.

So what did they mean ? The only thing that makes sense is that a detachment in close support is allowed to use the parents ranks for determining steadfast. However. The requirements for this are however unclear and no one can really know how to play this until the faq arrives. 

I suspect this was the intent.  Count the Regimental Ranks for purpose of determining Steadfast but that's not what they did.  The writer just listed all the possible psychology states even if the Regiment can never get Frenzy for example.

Noght

[kwest]

Regimental units can get frenzy.

[Dosiere]

Well, just read the original thread about this as well as this one again.  When I first read the rules for detachments I figured it was along the lines of what Hoffa is saying in this thread, and you just count the ranks of the parent unit if they are within 3", irrespective of what is or isn't in combat. 

All I can say is that I am going to play it conservative for now, and if an FAQ makes it more powerful then great.

[satch]

Make sure you discuss this with your opponents before your games though so you both know which side of the fence your sitting

[Noght]

Regimental units can get frenzy.

How?  Didn't think it was possible.

Noght

[satch]

Only way i know Nought is from special terrain that gives frenzy to nearby units.

[Noght]

Only way i know Nought is from special terrain that gives frenzy to nearby units.

Ah, I think there is something....Altar of Khaine....not sure it's ever made it to a battle of ours yet.

Noght

[Eisen]

Just wanted to get other peoples take on this. For a parent unit to pass along steadfast to its detachments it does need to be in combat, right?

Rather than us tell you or direct you to other threads where we argued about it at length, I'd be curious to know what your thoughts are regarding Steadfast and Detachments as a new player/poster.

Noght

p.s.  You may already be tainted by Fidelis but still interested to hear....

As requested, here's my take on this...(please read the whole thing before firing off a rebuttal though)

To share steadfast the regimental unit needs to be in combat, because if you have no opponent to compare them to how can you say that you have more or less ranks.

However, I am of the camp saying that it doesn't need to be the same combat as the detachment.  Can this lead to odd scenarios where the regimental unit is fighting something small and handing off steadfast to the detachment fighting a horde...yes, of course.  Is this unrealistic though?...no, not really.  The reason it's not unrealistic stems from how the regimental unit is "actually" passing on special rules to the detachment, namely the musician.  Now I know not everyone pays for full command but "realistically" there would always be one.

The detachments need to be within close support (3") because they would need to be able to hear the musician relaying commands (special rules).  The detachment doesn't behave the way it does because it can see what's happening but because it can hear it.  Because of their training, when they hear rat-a-tat-tat (hold the line, we out number them) they don't look around going "Are you sure?" they trust in the message and do what they've trained to do.

As for the "timing issues" that people seem to have...I really don't think they matter.  On my turn I pick the order of combat resolutions, and on my opponent's turn it's theirs.  Maybe they'll want to resolve the detachment's combat first, hoping to get into the regimental unit's flank, or maybe they'll try to break the regiment first negating any support for the detachment. Neither is "more powerful" they're just different tactical options.

Warhammer is more about tactical positioning and playing to your stengths.  If I can maintain my battleline and somehow force my opponent to meet me on my terms, then I should have an advantage and vice versa.  If my opponent can out manuever me so that I can't utilize my strengths, then they get the advantage simple as that.

So there you go, my opinion.  Was it hardcore RAW...of course not, did I make up new rules...no, just explained my interpretaion of the current ones using "real world" examples. Enjoy. 

[Noght]

As for the "timing issues" that people seem to have...I really don't think they matter.  On my turn I pick the order of combat resolutions, and on my opponent's turn it's theirs.  Maybe they'll want to resolve the detachment's combat first, hoping to get into the regimental unit's flank, or maybe they'll try to break the regiment first negating any support for the detachment. Neither is "more powerful" they're just different tactical options.

Thanks for the input.  Question:  How do you resolve the timing issue when you "complete" each seperate combat before moving on to the next one?  In your example, the Detachment fights and loses.   But the Regiment hasn't fought yet so we don't know if it's Steadfast or not, right?
The only way the timing works (both losing Regiment and Detachment) is if you have a single Resolution in the same combat (at least that's my reading of the steadfast rule).

Hoping for an FAQ or a change to just count the Regiments ranks for purpose of CR and Steadfast which seems cleaner and more elegant.

Noght

[Eisen]

My gaming group is of the opinion that you are steadfast so long as you have more ranks than the enemy, not only when you lose.

[MrAbyssal]

The only situation that satisfies all requirements is when both Regimental Unit and Detachment are in the same close combat.
For a whole discussion on this issue, with differing points of view: http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=41785.0

Having read the entire other thread and seen everyone's views, I have to agree with this. It's the only one that makes sense as far as the Steadfast rule goes.

In fact it very much makes sense as far as rules design goes for it to be there to stop the detachment fleeing and abandoning the parent in a combat they are both involved in as opposed to "We are brave as we are nearby our huge parent regiment that is standing there and watching us get our heads kicked in...", which, when put like that, seems the silliest of the proposed options.

[Ambrose]

Man, my head still hurts from the last thread regarding steadfast and our detachment rules.  Why in all that is good and green would someone restart this issue?  ugg.