If one understands that {no defeat} => {no steadfast} is not consistent with the FAQ, then one must move on and select another definition for what steadfast could be, according to GW.
The first possibility is to remove only the most difficult part: defeat.
Let's see how it goes when one considers the definition of steadfast status, p.54, to be:
{more ranks + combat
+ defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
Steadfast in combat only.First step, one has to make sure that it is not contradictory with anything in the BRB.
The first sentence can no longer be understood as "the" definition. It tells what a steadfast unit can do when the condition "defeated" is added.
This is where a sentence becomes very handy:
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”It is clearly a definition, it is simple.
However, one might object that the word "combat" is not there? Never mind, there's the word "enemy", which must mean that there is a combat.
With this reading, one can go though the whole BRB. There is no discrepancy.
For the AB, we are much more confortable. As soon as a unit is in combat, its steadfast status can be determined, just by comparing ranks.
Let's read the FAQ, with the necessity that the parent unit must be steadfast in combat, but not necessarily defeated.
Here comes one difficulty: "either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat"
One can only understand that to mean "either in another combat or in another combat", because "not in combat" was excluded in the first place.
If one accepts English grammar to allow "either/or" not to be mutually exclusive
, then there is no more problem and the rest of the FAQ is very clear.
We can also consider the situation in buildings. The parent unit is "always" steadfast, so FAQ applies. FAQ's answer says "always" use ranks. Ranks are zero (per FAQ about buildings). Therefore detachment must always use zero rank to determine steadfast.
In situations when parent is denied steadfast per terrain, the parent is not steadfast, the AB does not apply therefore its FAQ does not either.
-=-=-
Overall, if one selects this interpretation for being well balanced, and makes it clear with his opponent before the game, that's fine.
Just be aware that it necessitates the understanding that
"either not in the same combat or in another combat"
means "in another combat".
-=-=-
But if one believe that "either / or" is mutually exclusive, and considers in addition that the French version of the FAQ is clearer:
"si le régiment ne participe pas au combat du détachement, ou même s’il est engagé dans un autre corps à corps", which translates to:
" if the regiment does not participate to the detachment's combat, or EVEN IF it is involved in another combat?"it becomes certain that the situation when parent unit is not in combat is adressed by the FAQ.
Here, either one goes back one step (see my previous post), or move on further (my next post).
