Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: Calisson on January 17, 2013, 12:21:02 AM
-
Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions! :icon_biggrin:
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
I’ll try to summarize some of the previous discussions in this post.
1. Where to find steadfast information.
What can a unit do with steadfast status?
Steadfast status has 2 uses:
- Break tests, i.e. after losing a combat (BRB p.54),
- Providing steadfast status to detachment (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).
How to gain steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be investigated for any of the following 4 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met:
- ranks (BRB p.54/ & 60),
- stubborn (BRB p.76). This one is simple: {stubborn} => {steadfast}
- building (BRB p.129),
- parent unit (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).
Several interpretations exist about the additional conditions, which matter only when detachments are involved.
How to deny steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be denied by any of the following 4 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met, except when the unit is stubborn:
- Enemy’s ranks (BRB p.54/60 and Empire AB FAQ, exception for stubborn BRB p.76),
- Skirmisher (BRB p.77 – no rank).
- Forest (BRB p.119 – steadfast lost, but rank bonus kept),
- River (BRB p.120 – steadfast lost, rank bonus lost, but ranks themselves kept).
The conditions for denying steadfast are clear and consensual.
2. What’s the problem with passing steadfast to detachments at 3”?
Here, I list the problems, I don’t discuss them yet. I will later. (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779360#msg779360)
AB p.30 (not taking yet into account FAQ): {parent steadfast} => {detachment steadfast}.
First issue: what is exactly steadfast satus is not consensual.
Second issue: the FAQ introduced new conditions.
Let’s sum up what are the conditions for steadfast listed p.54.
There are three possible interpretations of steadfast status mentioned p.54:
A. {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
B. {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
C. {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Note that it changes absolutely nothing for break test, except for a detachment’s break tests.
For that case, we need to go through the AB rule and its FAQ.
See more in hyperlinks about defeated, (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779381#msg779381) with its variant, (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779404#msg779404) or in combat, (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779414#msg779414) or not in combat. (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779432#msg779432)
Let’s recall the issues with the FAQ.
There is a problem of interpretation in the second half of the question, about the parent’s position.
“either not in the same combat or in another combat” can be understood in two ways:
D. “either in another combat or in another combat”, i.e. {only in combat}
E. “either not in combat or in another combat”, i.e. {even not in combat}.
Furthermore, it has been argued that the FAQ may cancel the necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast at all, replacing the AB requirement by rank counting.
F. {AB + FAQ} the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
G. {AB + FAQ} The FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
It makes a difference when the parent unit is in a river or a wood.
There’s one more issue when the parent unit is in a building, where two opposite interpretation exist:
H. {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
I. {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
That’s quite independent from other issues.
Four interpretations for detachment steadfast.
When we combine the different interpretations of the BRB and the FAQ, we have seen the following interpretations proposed about what is necessary for the parent not in the same combat:
J. {even not in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated} (click here) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779432#msg779432)
K. {even not in combat}, {steadfast} {just use ranks} (click here) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779404#msg779404)
L. {only in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated} (click here) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779381#msg779381)
M. {only in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated} (click here) (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779414#msg779414)
The difference between J and K is that in J., steadfast status can be denied by a forest or a river; in K., steadfast status is not examined, only ranks.
3. Arguments about steadfast status, BRB p.54.
The BRB index tells us that steadfast is referred in BRB p.54 and 60.
The tenants of either steadfast definition listed above (A., B. or C.) can justify their position with a quote, however, they struggle to really prove the other positions to be wrong.
A. {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.”
Rationale: it is the first sentence; it is in bold; the whole page is about losing combat.
Weak point: the sentence does not contain the word “steadfast” it is supposed to define; it does not preclude a unit not in combat or not defeated to be steadfast, too, so it is necessary to argue that no other of the sentences p.54 can be considered as a definition of steadfast.
B. {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”
Rationale: the sentence {more ranks than enemy} => {steadfast} says that it defines what is steadfast; it is very consistent with the paragraph just before, which seems to specify the RAI for steadfast: “To represent this in our games, we have something called the Steadfast rule”.
Weak point: It does not mention anything about combat, just about enemy, so we’re left to suppose that a unit not in combat, having no enemy, is not steadfast. However, that is not obvious in the alleged RAI nor in the RAW.
C. {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating the extra ranks for the purpose of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. (…). Similarly, the enemy’s ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast.”
Rationale: The second sentence {ranks of 5} => {steadfast} indicates that having ranks is enough to be a steadfast candidate; the last sentence {enemy ranks of 5} => {steadfast denial} indicates the necessary condition for a steadfast candidate to be denied steadfast; when there is no enemy with five models, there is no steadfast denial, therefore the unit is steadfast.
Weak point: it takes many quotes to reach the result {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.
4. Arguments about FAQ “either in another combat”
The quote is: “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?”
Everyone agrees that the wording requires some interpretation. Not everyone agrees on the interpretation itself.
D. {only in combat}
Rationale: Not in the same combat does not remove the necessity for combat. The FAQ is a tautology: either not in same combat or not in same combat, i.e. not in same combat, i.e. only in combat.
Weak point: grammatically not convincing; it requires GW to have made a mistake, and to have maintained that mistake in the next edition of the FAQ.
E. {even not in combat}.
Rationale: If a unit is anywhere except in the same combat, it could be in two places: not in combat at all, or in another combat.
As the FAQ mentions “either/or”, which is grammatically exclusive, and the other combat is already mentioned after “or”, the only place “either” can be about is not in combat at all.
Furthermore, the French edition of the FAQ is not ambiguous.
Weak point: the grammar is not perfect either.
5. Arguments about FAQ replacing or complementing the AB.
F. {AB + FAQ} - the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
The FAQ is not an errata. See GW’s website about “Shrine of Knowledge - FAQ's and Errata”. It says “Errata provide corrections”, “Amendments are changes”, while FAQ “are not hard and fast rules”.
Therefore, the AB rule remains, the FAQ is just a comment, adding to the rule.
Weak point: obviously, the FAQ is not merely commenting the rule, it is at least amending it.
G. {AB + FAQ} - the FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
The FAQ mentions “Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks”. It does not mention conferring steadfast. It is obviously not an FAQ but must be an errata.
Weak point: Whatever it is, it is mentioned by GW to be an FAQ, and remains an FAQ.
6. Arguments about FAQ applying when parent is in a building.
H. {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
Rationale: The FAQ says in the question: to “claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks”. The parent’s steadfast rule does not come from the regiment’s ranks, therefore buildings are outside of the scope of the FAQ. Therefore detachments are auto-steadfast.
I. {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
Rationale: The FAQ applies, why wouldn't it? Furthermore, in a building, a unit has zero rank (per BRB FAQ) therefore the detachment would get to use the parent’s zero ranks when checking to be steadfast.
7. Where come the 3 interpretations for detachment steadfast.
J. If someone understands the FAQ sentence to allow {even not in combat}
and he does not believe that FAQ cancels AB,
then parent can be steadfast even when not in combat,
which proves the understanding of steadfast status exists even when not in combat.
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}
The only explanation can be that {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.
Weak point: it raises suspicion that one tries to get too much of the rules.
K. If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast but still understand the FAQ to allow {even not in combat}, he can only insist that the FAQ cancels the AB.
In that case, the FAQ mentioning a parent {even not in combat} does not imply that the parent was steadfast in the first place. {steadfast} {just use ranks}.
Weak point: the argument that an FAQ cancels a rule altogether is hardly convincing, all the more that the FAQ has not been changed with a later revision.
L. If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast and refuses the FAQ to cancel the AB, then he can only interpret the FAQ the most restrictive way, {only in combat}.
Then, he can consider steadfast to be restricted to defeated situations.
Weak point: the FAQ would be useless, except in the very restricted and rare situation when a parent has fought the combat first, has lost it, was steadfast and has passed the break test successively; then the detachment at 3” can only fight later to pretend to benefit from parent’s steadfast status.
Weak point: Who can believe GW create a new rule because such a case was “frequently asked”?
-
Previous discussions on same topic:
steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=41785.0) (10 pages thread, before FAQ)
Sharing steadfast (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42983.0) (23 pages thread, before FAQ) and a summary of many definitions here (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42983.msg726269#msg726269)
New faq & errata for empire comming up (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=43872.msg752988#msg752988) (mostly wishes, kept alive when FAQ arrived)
BRB FAQ up (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44074.0) (newer thread about FAQ)
New steadfast (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44084.0) (12 pages discussions)
The watch tower and detachments (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44712.0) (13 pages discussions after hijack)
Quoted 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.
-
All positions can be argued for. But all positions have some weak points.
One must chose a position which is not perfect, but seems better than the others.
So, what's my position?
As the FAQ has been examined by GW but not revised on this topic, I am confident that this FAQ was not a mistake, contrary to what some people have been arguing. So much for the argument that FAQ cancels AB altogether (paragraph 7K).
I cannot believe that an FAQ has been designed to modify a rule for a situation which hardly ever takes place. So much for argument that steadfast is restricted to losing situations (paragraph 7L).
In my eyes, after careful examination, Parent can be steadfast {even not in combat} and {AB + FAQ} apply both.
There remains the only possibility that steadfast status must exist even when not in combat (where it is useless, except for parent units).
This can be supported with arguments developed in paragraph 3C:
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
In addition, I am going back to {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}. Based on RAW reading, see paragraph 6H.
EDIT: Thanks to this discussion, I used to adopt the following signature:
I wish Noght's "minimalist" argument applied to bikinis...
-
Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions! :icon_biggrin:
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
Simple.
- Steadfast needed no clarification, it's very clear.
- Changing the FAQ to "separate" ends the "No Combat Regiment" passing of Steadfast.
- It was clear before, it's clearer now though.
Everything else you typed seems like an enormous waste of time my friend.... :icon_sad:
-
Did this really need, deserve, warrant et al a new thread when there is no new information?
-
Did this really need, deserve, warrant et al a new thread when there is no new information?
Of course not. However the "new" info is relevant. Totally shocked that Cali failed to quote the new FAQ, oh wait, it doesn't support his argument...
-
I must have missed the difference between the old and new FAQ; isn't it still unclear on whether the Parent needs to be in combat at all (if one interprets "always use parent's ranks . . ." as not necessarially applying regardless of the status of the Parent).
-
I must have missed the difference between the old and new FAQ; isn't it still unclear on whether the Parent needs to be in combat at all (if one interprets "always use parent's ranks . . ." as not necessarially applying regardless of the status of the Parent).
Parse away...
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.
It's clear when in the same combat regarding passage of steadfast. The change in the FAQ makes separate combat clear. No rational argument gets from "separate" to "no combat" for steadfast passing. Though I expect a valiant effort.
-
The faq simply doesn't address the question of units not in combat. It says nothing about them at all. As it is not an erratum to the rule and simply a clarification of the issues surrounding engaged units and the passing of steadfast an argumentum a silentio (an arguement from silence) could conceivably be made for the passing of steadfast outside of combat.
As I said, it seems that the faq no longer has anything to do with the passing of steadfast when the parent unit is not in combat. That point at least has been clarified. It does not, however, tell us whether steadfast is or is not transferred in the same way when the parent unit is not in combat.
-
The faq simply doesn't address the question of units not in combat. It says nothing about them at all. As it is not an erratum to the rule and simply a clarification of the issues surrounding engaged units and the passing of steadfast an argumentum a silentio (an arguement from silence) could conceivably be made for the passing of steadfast outside of combat.
As I said, it seems that the faq no longer has anything to do with the passing of steadfast when the parent unit is not in combat. That point at least has been clarified.
Seriously? The, "it doesn't say I can't so I can argument", yikes.
-
The faq simply doesn't address the question of units not in combat. It says nothing about them at all. As it is not an erratum to the rule and simply a clarification of the issues surrounding engaged units and the passing of steadfast an argumentum a silentio (an arguement from silence) could conceivably be made for the passing of steadfast outside of combat.
As I said, it seems that the faq no longer has anything to do with the passing of steadfast when the parent unit is not in combat. That point at least has been clarified.
Seriously? The, "it doesn't say I can't so I can argument", yikes.
Wow,way to massively oversimplify.
I'm not one to bother arguing here but:
We know that GW seems to want To redefine how steadfast works and is transferred.
We know that they had to try, dismally, to help us to understand how it works when both parent and detachment are in the same or in separate combats.
We don't know how/if it works If the parent is not in combat.
Let's be a little intelligent here, an argument can conceivably be made.
-
We know that GW seems to want To redefine how steadfast works and is transferred.
See, I don't think this is a true statement. Steadfast is clear, no reason to redefine it. The "transfer" of steadfast was murky regarding detachments due to poor AB writing and FAQ.
We know that they had to try, dismally, to help us to understand how it works when both parent and detachment are in the same or in separate combats.
Well it's clear now, though an honest reading of the previous FAQ got you to the same spot.
We don't know how/if it works If the parent is not in combat.
I think we do now. Unless we're going to argue the definition of "separate".
Let's be a little intelligent here, an argument can conceivably be made.
Dig aside. If you believe that Warhammer is a permissive rules set then there probably isn't an argument anymore.
-
I included phrases and words in my post to safeguard against such a hollow and hastily written response but you've missed them.
There is obviously enough doubt in the community to warrant an effort to talk about how such an event could play out.
Again I will state that I agree with you that the faq now does not talk about a situation in which steadfast is transferred if the parent is out of combat.
What I'm saying is that the faq should address that situation and tell us one way or another how it is to be resolved.
Good day.
-
Cannot stand this continued argument so I decided to make an account. Please stop ignoring the most important sentence.
"Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast..."
An answer to a question DOES NOT only come into play in the specific contexts of a question.
Ie: Q: Are green apples in a soup healthy? A: Yes. All apples are healthy.
Critic: "The answer was a direct response to green apples in soup! The statement all apples are healthy doesn't refer to all apples only green ones case closed, how can anyone try to bend the obvious statement the answer was to green apples."
In the rhetoric, obviously an answer to a question cannot go above and beyond the original question and is hence limited to the restrictive situation given... Apparently "Always use the regimental unit's ranks to determine whether or not its detachments are steadfast" somehow only applies to the context of the question even though it implicitly says it doesn't.
Detachments use the regimental unit's ranks to determine whether or not they are steadfast in a combat kthnxbye, the ensuing sentence in the FAQ demonstrates a specific condition under which this is not the case and that is only when the regimental unit has lost steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks.
-
Nice. Oversimplify, less intelligent, hollow and hasty, followed by the pissy "good day". Way to follow the Cali school of passive aggressive debate. Regarding the topic...
What I'm saying is that the faq should address that situation and tell us one way or another how it is to be resolved.
Why would they address a situation that doesn't exist, steadfast without combat? But hey at least we agree.
-
Nice. Oversimplify, less intelligent, hollow and hasty, followed by the pissy "good day". Way to follow the Cali school of passive aggressive debate. Regarding the topic...
Nice. Attack the credibility of an argument by criticising the perceived tone without actually addressing the raised points. There is only 1 point people need to understand, the answer to a question is not restricted by the question.
-
I really didn't want to have to reply again and clarify. I was hoping your rudeness would stop and you would simply let it go.
You were oversimplifying and in doing so you were insinuating that my post was unintelligent.
You chose to make it seem irrelevant instead of answering it kindly (even if it is irrelevant).
Never did I say you were less intelligent, however, not engaging positively with my original post is certainly on that track.
Your reply was hasty and hollow. I said that it SEEMED, and that it was CONCEIVABLE. I was not talking in absolutes, merely thinking abstractly. I wanted a positive discussion not a slinging contest.
As I said, I don't want to argue it any further, I'm simply trying to work out if an argument could exist. I believe it could. Perhaps instead of being pissy you could just explain to me why my want for a clarification is unnecessary. How does the situation play out. Perhaps I have read it before in the hundreds of pages of previous argument, but, instead of acting like it's obvious to everyone, perhaps you could just say it.
-
instead of acting like it's obvious to everyone, perhaps you could just say it.
Ok. first, can we agree that Steadfast passing in the same combat is a given and supported by the rules?
Assuming the above statement is true, the FAQ now says "separate".
So a Regiment in a separate combat that is Steadfast (see pg 54 for the definition of Steadfast) passes steadfast to its Detachment in a separate combat.
A Regiment in a separate combat that isn't Steadfast (see page 54 for the definition of Steadfast) means that the Detachment, in a separate combat, isn't Steadfast.
AND you can't play the "Regiment has more ranks than the Detachment's Foe" card either per the FAQ.
How you get from the "same or separate combat passing steadfast" argument to "no combat required steadfast" argument gets more difficult now per the new FAQ wording.
There is only 1 point people need to understand, the answer to a question is not restricted by the question.
Clarify?
-
instead of acting like it's obvious to everyone, perhaps you could just say it.
Ok. first, can we agree that Steadfast passing in the same combat is a given and supported by the rules?
Assuming the above statement is true, the FAQ now says "separate".
So a Regiment in a separate combat that is Steadfast (see pg 54 for the definition of Steadfast) passes steadfast to its Detachment in a separate combat.
A Regiment in a separate combat that isn't Steadfast (see page 54 for the definition of Steadfast) means that the Detachment, in a separate combat, isn't Steadfast.
AND you can't play the "Regiment has more ranks than the Detachment's Foe" card either per the FAQ.
How you get from the "same or separate combat passing steadfast" argument to "no combat required steadfast" argument gets more difficult now per the new FAQ wording.
Ok we're not talking about the same thing. I don't know what you're talking about.
What I'm saying is that the new FAQ doesn't specify what happens if a situation occurs when the parent unit is not in combat and the detachment is and loses. I'm asking 'What happens if a situation occurs when the parent unit is not in combat and the detachment is and loses?" Since the FAQ doesn't apply here there is no point arguing from the basis of the FAQ. I'm not going from same or separate combat to no combat as I don't think that that particular ruling has anything to do with no combat.
As for Jezza, he is arguing (as far as I can tell) that the line Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast... applies at all times to the relationship between a parent and regimental unit, and that the rest of that particular FAQ goes on to explain in more detail how this works in two specific instances (Where the parent and detachment are in the same combat, and where the parent and detachment are in different combats), but that it assumes that you will use the above bolded line, in a similar way, for any other event that might occur.
Is that right Jezza?
-
(1)So you need the regimental unit to be in same or separate combat to transfer steadfast itself, (2)but you don't need the Regimetal unit to be in combat to use its(regimental) RANKS to determine if the detachment that is in combat gets to be steadfast in its own combat.
(2) is address by the "always" part of the FAQ,
(1) is the "however" part
This is what I believe GW intended . Although I am aware not everyone agrees
-
@athiuen yes that is the point that I'm conveying to deaf ears. @noght I've said all that needs to be said in my first post I am now leaving my points as I doubt any change will arise from repeating my previous statements.
-
I think it is crazy to assume that the parent unit has to be in the same or different combat to use its ranks to determine the steadfast of the detachment.
I never read it that way and no amount of arguing could make me see it that way.
I will do it my way until told otherwise.
-
Reading this, the AB and the BRB, I'm going to use this interpretation:
As far as I see it, a unit can't have steadfast out of combat. Nothing I've seen allows it.* The AB says the detachments will have steadfast if the Parent unit has steadfast. So, if the parent unit isn't in a combat, it has no steadfast to give.
The question in the FAQ doesn't explicitly ask if the detachment gets steadfast from a parent unit not in combat at all when and if the detachment makes a break test.
*page 129 of my lil' brb tells me a garrisoned unit is always considered steadfast, but is mentioned in the assaulting-a-building section for determining results of a losing defender.
-
Reading this, the AB and the BRB, I'm going to use this interpretation:
As far as I see it, a unit can't have steadfast out of combat. Nothing I've seen allows it.* The AB says the detachments will have steadfast if the Parent unit has steadfast. So, if the parent unit isn't in a combat, it has no steadfast to give.
The question in the FAQ doesn't explicitly ask if the detachment gets steadfast from a parent unit not in combat at all when and if the detachment makes a break test.
*page 129 of my lil' brb tells me a garrisoned unit is always considered steadfast, but is mentioned in the assaulting-a-building section for determining results of a losing defender.
Since the detachment uses the parent unit's RANKS for Steadfast your interpretation is invalid. The parent unit doesn't need to be currently steadfast, it just needs to outrank A) any unit it might itself be in combat with and B) any unit the detachment is in combat with. :)
Theo
-
Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions! :icon_biggrin:
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
Simple.
- Steadfast needed no clarification, it's very clear.
- Changing the FAQ to "separate" ends the "No Combat Regiment" passing of Steadfast.
- It was clear before, it's clearer now though.
Everything else you typed seems like an enormous waste of time my friend.... :icon_sad:
the part of the faq that says seperate does not mean not in combat. It says (not word for word) if the regement is in a seperate combat in which its self is not steadfast then it cannot pass. Nothing about not being able to use the parrents ranks if they are not in combat
-
Reading this, the AB and the BRB, I'm going to use this interpretation:
As far as I see it, a unit can't have steadfast out of combat. Nothing I've seen allows it.* The AB says the detachments will have steadfast if the Parent unit has steadfast. So, if the parent unit isn't in a combat, it has no steadfast to give.
The question in the FAQ doesn't explicitly ask if the detachment gets steadfast from a parent unit not in combat at all when and if the detachment makes a break test.
*page 129 of my lil' brb tells me a garrisoned unit is always considered steadfast, but is mentioned in the assaulting-a-building section for determining results of a losing defender.
Since the detachment uses the parent unit's RANKS for Steadfast your interpretation is invalid. The parent unit doesn't need to be currently steadfast, it just needs to outrank A) any unit it might itself be in combat with and B) any unit the detachment is in combat with. :)
Theo
Read carefully folks. This answer is as simple as it gets. Now just add the fact, that the detachment has to be able to claim steadfast it self. Eg. if it is in a river or a forest, it cannot claim steadfast.
I really don't get all the fuss. It seems like modt of the arguments are based on personal interpretations instead of reading what the rules say..?
-
What exactly do the rules say then mrth0msen?
What happens if a detachment and parent unit in the same combat lose but the parent outranks the enemy?
Now what if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy and is itself not denied steadfast?
What if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy but is denied steadfast?
What happens if the parent is not in combat but its detachment is and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the enemy and is not denied steadfast?
What happens if a parent unit is in a tower and its detachment is outside the tower and loses but the parent unit outranks the detachments enemy?
If you can answer all these questions, satisfying both the rules for Steadfast found in the BRB, the rules for steadfast transferral from the AB as well as the ruling in the FAQ then congratulations sir, you win the internets.
-
One can assume that in order to transfer something you must have it to start with. Therefore unless the parent it itself steadfast it can not transfer steadfast to its detachment.
So:
What exactly do the rules say then mrth0msen?
What happens if a detachment and parent unit in the same combat lose but the parent outranks the enemy? Both are steadfast
Now what if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy and is itself not denied steadfast? The detachment is steadfast
What if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy but is denied steadfast? The detachment is not steadfast as per FAQ that the detachment can never be steadfast if its parent is denied steadfast.
What happens if the parent is not in combat but its detachment is and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the enemy and is not denied steadfast? The parent is not steadfast and therefore can not transfer steadfast and therefore the detachment is not steadfast
What happens if a parent unit is in a tower and its detachment is outside the tower and loses but the parent unit outranks the detachments enemy? This one is quite complex, but the parent is steadfast because it is in a tower and therefore the detachment could be argued to be steadfast. Personally I owuld not play it this way but it is a reasonable way to play it. I tend to think that the requirement to be in combat is also important.
My statements are in red.
-
I was going to post a lengthy response conveying my confusion at why people are twisting the FAQ and rules wordings, but some people posted smarter things.
+1 to pistolpadds and mrth0mson for clarification of what I was saying earlier.
-
The actual point of the exercise was to show that multiple people could answer all the questions in different ways using the complexities of the rules. I think that would probably take a little too much time and would be a little too detailed. The point is that people can come to different answers or even the same one emphasising different parts of the rules, and that to say it was 'simple' was a little bit dumb.
-
I was just surprised people were taking the "always use the parent's ranks" phrase to heart and somehow turning that into "hey even though the AB clearly says the regimental unit rules only confer abilities if the parent currently has them, let's turn that into a parent unit giving steadfast handouts when it has none to give."
That phrasing was to amuse myself and my mental image, and not to exaggerate what anyone has actually said. If anything, most people have clearly stated their views. It's just sleepy time for me, too much caffeine ends up with me practicing piano for hours!
-
Reading this, the AB and the BRB, I'm going to use this interpretation:
As far as I see it, a unit can't have steadfast out of combat. Nothing I've seen allows it.* The AB says the detachments will have steadfast if the Parent unit has steadfast. So, if the parent unit isn't in a combat, it has no steadfast to give.
The question in the FAQ doesn't explicitly ask if the detachment gets steadfast from a parent unit not in combat at all when and if the detachment makes a break test.
*page 129 of my lil' brb tells me a garrisoned unit is always considered steadfast, but is mentioned in the assaulting-a-building section for determining results of a losing defender.
Since the detachment uses the parent unit's RANKS for Steadfast your interpretation is invalid. The parent unit doesn't need to be currently steadfast, it just needs to outrank A) any unit it might itself be in combat with and B) any unit the detachment is in combat with. :)
Theo
Read carefully folks. This answer is as simple as it gets. Now just add the fact, that the detachment has to be able to claim steadfast it self. Eg. if it is in a river or a forest, it cannot claim steadfast.
This argument only works if you ignore the last sentence of the FAQ, which everyone is doing. It expressly forbids comparing the Regiments ranks to the Detachments' foes ranks to determine if the Detachment is steadfast.
It's also clear that we disagree about the definition of Steadfast. Because if a Regiment isn't Steadfast then it has nothing to pass regardless of the situation, which ironically has been my argument from the beginning.
-
And yet another thread I have no desire to read because of the way Nought conducts himself.
Let me say this once and never come back to this thread again; grow up and start assuming the best-intentions of people, Nought.
-
Wow, I just leave the keyboard for some time and already so many answers!
The issue seems still sensitive.
As everybody noticed, THE EMPIRE Official Update Version 1.1, Last Updated January 2013, did not change anything in the wording of steadfast FAQ compared to THE EMPIRE Official Update Version 1.0. (Last Updated October 2012).
It did change something, though: the date.
It means that GW maintained their wording, despite the call from a few W-E members for an FAQ to the FAQ, which would have justified their own vision of steadfast.
I wish it would incite those who were convinced that GW would modify their FAQ according to their wish, that they have to start to think differently.
But I'm afraid that this will not suffice. And they will keep playing WishHammer rather than WarHammer, and curse GW whose wording don't coincide with their vision, and curse those like me who dare to challenge their unmovable understanding.
-=-=-
@ Athiuen
I may not agree with all of your conclusions, but I sure apreciate your spirit in your arguing. Thank you.
-=-=-
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.
It's clear when in the same combat regarding passage of steadfast. The change in the FAQ makes separate combat clear. No rational argument gets from "separate" to "no combat" for steadfast passing.
- "separate" is NOT a change in the FAQ, it was present in the previous FAQ (the FAQ did not change its wording).
- "separate" applies in the sentence "However...". How can you argue that it applies to the whole FAQ?
Ok. first, can we agree that Steadfast passing in the same combat is a given and supported by the rules?
Yes.
Assuming the above statement is true, the FAQ now says "separate".
It says it now, it said it previously, it did not change. Did your reading change?
So a Regiment in a separate combat that is Steadfast (see pg 54 for the definition of Steadfast) passes steadfast to its Detachment in a separate combat.
Agree on everything, except maybe the understanding of what steadfast status is.
A Regiment in a separate combat that isn't Steadfast (see page 54 for the definition of Steadfast) means that the Detachment, in a separate combat, isn't Steadfast.
Agree on everything, except maybe the understanding of what steadfast status is.
AND you can't play the "Regiment has more ranks than the Detachment's Foe" card either per the FAQ.
Agree.
How you get from the "same or separate combat passing steadfast" argument to "no combat required steadfast" argument gets more difficult now per the new FAQ wording.
New FAQ wording = old FAQ wording.
What gets more difficult?
-=-=-
@ Jezza
Welcome to the pit.
Your argument "Always" is arguable, and I did mention it in the OP.
On the light side, "All apples are healthy" was indeed an argument once made to Snowwhite...
More seriously, I'd like to amend your comment, which explains why it is an argument but not a proof:
"There is only 1 point people need to understand, the answer to a question is not always restricted by the question."
-=-=-
This is what I believe GW intended . Although I am aware not everyone agrees
I like this open minded aproach.
-=-=-
What exactly do the rules say then mrth0msen?
What happens if a detachment and parent unit in the same combat lose but the parent outranks the enemy?
Everybody says detachment steadfast.
Now what if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy and is itself not denied steadfast?
Most interpretations and me too say detachment is steadfast.
Some argue that if parent did not lose combat first, detachment cannot be steadfast.
What if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy but is denied steadfast?
Most interpretations and me too say detachment is not steadfast.
Some argue that "always" FAQ applies regardless of the initial AB rule, and detachment is steadfast.
What happens if the parent is not in combat but its detachment is and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the enemy and is not denied steadfast?
Most interpretations say detachment is not steadfast cause parent not in combat cannot be steadfast.
I argue that parent is steadfast vs. zero enemy, and detachement is steadfast.
What happens if a parent unit is in a tower and its detachment is outside the tower and loses but the parent unit outranks the detachments enemy?
Everyone agrees that in a tower, there is no rank.
Some say that parent's zero rank make detachment not steadfast.
Some and I say that parent's steadfast comes not from ranks, FAQ is out of scope, and detachment is steadfast.
If you can answer all these questions, satisfying both the rules for Steadfast found in the BRB, the rules for steadfast transferral from the AB as well as the ruling in the FAQ then congratulations sir, you win the internets.
My main point is that several interpretations are arguable.
-
Blimey - this is really confusing! I just read the FAQ noting the lack of change - not sure what the hope was for change, but regardless, I was wondering if I was misreading it:
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)
Is the keyword in the question, i.e. is the question posing just two separate scenarios?
By saying "or" following the "either", isn't the question postulating that either the regiment and detachment are in different combats or not in the same combat; I read that as if the regiment is in a different combat and steadfast then it passes steadfast on, or the regiment is not in the same combat, i.e. isn't in the same combat or another combat, then it passes on steadfast?
I totally see the point on steadfast - how can you be steadfast to pass the rule on if not in combat, but I wondered whether the intent was that the detachment were aware of the size of their regument and therefore would be steadfast? Seems a bit odd that they would only pay attention to the regiment if it were involved in another combat...I really don't want to abuse rules/mistake them as it just empties any victories I acheive!
-
My main point is that several interpretations are arguable.
As it was mine.
The actual point of the exercise was to show that multiple people could answer all the questions in different ways using the complexities of the rules.
-
And yet another thread I have no desire to read because of the way Nought conducts himself.
Let me say this once and never come back to this thread again; grow up and start assuming the best-intentions of people, Nought.
What are you talking about? Leave the BT preconceived BS over there. Talk about the rules and FAQ over here. Go back and read the thread again and note where all the "charged" words got dropped. I take full credit for "pissy".
And I've never questions the "intentions" of posters, though now that you bring it up. Anything you'd like to add?
-
One can assume that in order to transfer something you must have it to start with. Therefore unless the parent it itself steadfast it can not transfer steadfast to its detachment.
So:
What exactly do the rules say then mrth0msen?
What happens if a detachment and parent unit in the same combat lose but the parent outranks the enemy? Both are steadfast
Now what if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy and is itself not denied steadfast? The detachment is steadfast
What if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy but is denied steadfast? The detachment is not steadfast as per FAQ that the detachment can never be steadfast if its parent is denied steadfast.
What happens if the parent is not in combat but its detachment is and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the enemy and is not denied steadfast? The parent is not steadfast and therefore can not transfer steadfast and therefore the detachment is not steadfast
What happens if a parent unit is in a tower and its detachment is outside the tower and loses but the parent unit outranks the detachments enemy? This one is quite complex, but the parent is steadfast because it is in a tower and therefore the detachment could be argued to be steadfast. Personally I owuld not play it this way but it is a reasonable way to play it. I tend to think that the requirement to be in combat is also important.
My statements are in red.
I think Commandant has is it just about right. That's the way I would play it.
:::cheers:::
-
the faq now does not talk about a situation in which steadfast is transferred if the parent is out of combat.
the new FAQ doesn't specify what happens if a situation occurs when the parent unit is not in combat and the detachment is and loses.
Beg to disagree slightly.
The wording of the FAQ is not new.
And some people do understand the FAQ to involve parents not in combat at all.
“either not in the same combat or in another combat” can be understood that way, according to some interpretation and confirmed by the French translation.
Your understanding {only in combat} does not indicate anything about steadfast out of combat, so you can stick to whichever definition of steadfast you understand in the first place.
My understanding {even not in combat} indicates that the FAQ is relevant out of combat. I deduce that steadfast status exists out of combat. This rules out every understanding of steadfast limited to combat.
I disagree but respect your understanding, all the more that your methods of discussion show your respect for the dignity of the human person that you're arguing with.
-=-=-
@ The Ol Perfesser, Captain Alard Krusen, Commandant
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?
-=-=-
(1)So you need the regimental unit to be in same or separate combat to transfer steadfast itself,
(2)but you don't need the Regimetal unit to be in combat to use its(regimental) RANKS to determine if the detachment that is in combat gets to be steadfast in its own combat.
(2) is address by the "always" part of the FAQ,
(1) is the "however" part
This is what I believe GW intended . Although I am aware not everyone agrees
This interpretation has its merits. I believe that (1) is too restrictive but that has been argued before. I agree with (2) but I add the understanding that the parent unit must be steadfast with no enemy, i.e. not be denied steadfast per river or forest.
What happens if the parent is not in combat but its detachment is and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the enemy and is denied steadfast by a river?
Be aware that your interpretation would allow a parent unit not in combat and in a river to provide its ranks to its detachment.
-
"@ The Ol Perfesser, Captain Alard Krusen, Commandant
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?"
I understand this to mean that either the detachment and parent unit are in base contact with the same enemy unit, or the detachment is in base contact with an enemy unit and the parent is in base contact with a different enemy unit.
I could be wrong....it happens all the time! :mrgreen:
But GW sure isn't helping us reach any consensus! Let's hear it for endless debate!
(preferably accompanied by righteous indignation and tears of frustration) :::cheers:::
-
@calisson: how did you "deduce" a unit can be steadfast outside of combat? Could you comb over the BRB and show me where they mention any status of steadfast outside of combat? I was just daying a few posts ago that no matter how many times I looked, the BRB consistently supports that steadfast is a special rule that only exists for a unit either 1) in combat outranking the enemy, or 2) defending a building as an assaulted garrison.
I think the not-in-combat thing is just some people riding that "always" phrasing all the way home.
-
Personally I think it makes sense. The whole steadfast thing is that your morale will be higher knowing you have the numbers to back it up. The point of the regiment-detachment thing is that they are closely linked and derive status from the other, i.e. that knowing their supporting regiment has the numbers would improve their morale. I realise I am assuming intent
-
To regurgitate many a post:
- If you apply all the rules in the BRB concerning steadfast, then steadfast can only be conferred in Multiple Close Combat.
- The FAQ does not mention conferring steadfast at all. This is hardly surprising, as it is about the Regiment being "not in the same combat or even in a different combat", a situation in which the Regiment cannot confer steadfast in the first place.
- The FAQ is about conferring ranks. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine
whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. To this general principle, there is one stated exception and some not stated but obvious ones - i.e. when the Detachment can never be steadfast.
-
One can assume that in order to transfer something you must have it to start with. Therefore unless the parent it itself steadfast it can not transfer steadfast to its detachment.
So:
What exactly do the rules say then mrth0msen?
What happens if a detachment and parent unit in the same combat lose but the parent outranks the enemy? Both are steadfast
Now what if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy and is itself not denied steadfast? The detachment is steadfast
What if the detachment and parent are in different combats and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the detachments enemy but is denied steadfast? The detachment is not steadfast as per FAQ that the detachment can never be steadfast if its parent is denied steadfast.
What happens if the parent is not in combat but its detachment is and the detachment loses but the parent outranks the enemy and is not denied steadfast? The parent is not steadfast and therefore can not transfer steadfast and therefore the detachment is not steadfast this is the one I'm confused about. I feel there is more to this. Steadfast is itself not transferred, this I agree on. However, as per the FAQ, we count "always use the regimental ranks to determine whether or not its detachemnt are steadfast" as in, the detachments advantage here is that it has a parent unit to act as its ranks for it. This is GW intent of "always use..blah blah". Therefore, the detachment would be steadfast, not from transferring the rule of steadfast from the AB pg 30. But from the FAQ. The however part of the FAQ is a condition where it doesn't do this, not a precondition for the first part of the rule to work.
What happens if a parent unit is in a tower and its detachment is outside the tower and loses but the parent unit outranks the detachments enemy? This one is quite complex, but the parent is steadfast because it is in a tower and therefore the detachment could be argued to be steadfast. Personally I owuld not play it this way but it is a reasonable way to play it. I tend to think that the requirement to be in combat is also important.
My statements are in red.
My questions/statement is in blue.
-
"@ The Ol Perfesser, Captain Alard Krusen, Commandant
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?"
This has been debated at lenght but if you use the rules of the english language you get a choice between the parent being
a: In a different combat [not in the same combat requires the parent to be in combat, otherwise it would just read not in combat]
and
b: in another combat.
It has been pointed out before that both choices amount to the same thing but that is besides the point. It is what it is.
-
"@ The Ol Perfesser, Captain Alard Krusen, Commandant
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?"
I understand this to mean that either the detachment and parent unit are in base contact with the same enemy unit, or the detachment is in base contact with an enemy unit and the parent is in base contact with a different enemy unit.
I could be wrong....it happens all the time! :mrgreen:
But GW sure isn't helping us reach any consensus! Let's hear it for endless debate!
(preferably accompanied by righteous indignation and tears of frustration) :::cheers:::
I don't think you've understood what I was saying. I have had to clarify this a few times already: I don't think the faq talks at all about what happens if the parent unit is not in combat. For what I'm saying the faq has almost no value except to show how to apply the rules for odd circumstances which may be a guide as how to apply them if the parent unit is not in combat. I'm not saying that "not in the same combat" means "not in combat", however I do feel that "not in combat" was the intent.
-
Q: "Captain Alard Krusen,
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?"
A: I'm assuming GW doesn't ask themselves these questions. It's an FAQ, so that means someone asked them this question. It's not their fault it's poorly phrased. If GW paraphrased by drawing from multiple variations of the same question, then it is a writing error on their part. It's not in the spirit of the game to take that poor phrasing and exploit it.
If it absolutely must boil down to language:
If I tell someone I'm not at the same restaurant, they don't assume I could possibly mean "I'm not in any restaurant." Who amongst you, in your personal daily manner of speaking, attempts to use the words "not in/at the same X" and expect it to be understood as "not in/at any given x?"
I'm just waiting for examples on how a unit can be considered steadfast outside of combat. The AB only allows a parent to confer things to its detachments, so the parent can only give a hoot if it has any hoots to give. And if the parent is not in combat, it sadly doesn't give a hoot.
-
I'm just waiting for examples on how a unit can be considered steadfast outside of combat. The AB only allows a parent to confer things to its detachments, so the parent can only give a hoot if it has any hoots to give. And if the parent is not in combat, it sadly doesn't give a hoot.
Sounds reasonable to me. Everyone is worried about in combat/not in combat but seem to skip the critical first step. You must be Steadfast (per definition on page 54, any changes to those core rules don't exist in the AB or the FAQ*, wishful thinking aside) to "pass" the status.
*Edit: the stupid FAQ talks about transferring ranks creating some new weird confusing dynamic, it does forbid comparing Regiments ranks vs Detachments' Foe's ranks, which seems to keep popping up...
Hoot! Nice.
Of course I'm sure hooting will offend someone.....
-
(deleted post)
-
Q: "Captain Alard Krusen,
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?"
A: I'm assuming GW doesn't ask themselves these questions. It's an FAQ, so that means someone asked them this question. It's not their fault it's poorly phrased. If GW paraphrased by drawing from multiple variations of the same question, then it is a writing error on their part. It's not in the spirit of the game to take that poor phrasing and exploit it.
If it absolutely must boil down to language:
If I tell someone I'm not at the same restaurant, they don't assume I could possibly mean "I'm not in any restaurant." Who amongst you, in your personal daily manner of speaking, attempts to use the words "not in/at the same X" and expect it to be understood as "not in/at any given x?"
I'm just waiting for examples on how a unit can be considered steadfast outside of combat. The AB only allows a parent to confer things to its detachments, so the parent can only give a hoot if it has any hoots to give. And if the parent is not in combat, it sadly doesn't give a hoot.
Not again! Can people please stop misrepresenting me!
I don't think you've understood what I was saying. I have had to clarify this a few times already: I don't think the faq talks at all about what happens if the parent unit is not in combat. For what I'm saying the faq has almost no value except to show how to apply the rules for odd circumstances which may be a guide as how to apply them if the parent unit is not in combat. I'm not saying that "not in the same combat" means "not in combat", however I do feel that "not in combat" was the intent.
-
I'm missing something. How am I misrepresenting you? The question I answered (in the quotation marks) mentioned you, but my answer and stance on the issue wasn't intended to refer to you or use your statements in any way.
-
The FAQ clearly states the process under which you calculate steadfast for the detachment and I quote "Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast". I'm not suggesting that you ignore the other sentences but none of the subsequent sentences in any way affect this statement other than presenting a very specific case to which the regimental unit is not steadfast.
There is no need to return to steadfast rules and examine them etc. in the hope of finding an answer that is already clearly given. Need I restate: Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. The ONLY circumstance given where this is not the case is when the Regimental unit has LOST steadfast as a result of being in another combat in which it is outranked!
It really is that simple! I really don't want to criticise anyone's comprehension ability but really some of these statements are blatantly incorrect ie the sentence being only about conferring ranks. It clearly says ranks to determine steadfast not just ranks stop over examining each clause and read the answer sentence by sentence.
-
.
-
The FAQ clearly states the process under which you calculate steadfast for the detachment and I quote "Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast". I'm not suggesting that you ignore the other sentences but none of the subsequent sentences in any way affect this statement other than presenting a very specific case to which the regimental unit is not steadfast.
There is no need to return to steadfast rules and examine them etc. in the hope of finding an answer that is already clearly given. Need I restate: Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. The ONLY circumstance given where this is not the case is when the Regimental unit has LOST steadfast as a result of being in another combat in which it is outranked!
It really is that simple! I really don't want to criticise anyone's comprehension ability but really some of these statements are blatantly incorrect ie the sentence being only about conferring ranks. It clearly says ranks to determine steadfast not just ranks stop over examining each clause and read the answer sentence by sentence.
Yes. Yes. A hundred times yes!!
-
The FAQ clearly states the process under which you calculate steadfast for the detachment and I quote "Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast". I'm not suggesting that you ignore the other sentences but none of the subsequent sentences in any way affect this statement other than presenting a very specific case to which the regimental unit is not steadfast.
There is no need to return to steadfast rules and examine them etc. in the hope of finding an answer that is already clearly given. Need I restate: Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. The ONLY circumstance given where this is not the case is when the Regimental unit has LOST steadfast as a result of being in another combat in which it is outranked!
It really is that simple! I really don't want to criticise anyone's comprehension ability but really some of these statements are blatantly incorrect ie the sentence being only about conferring ranks. It clearly says ranks to determine steadfast not just ranks stop over examining each clause and read the answer sentence by sentence.
Does this put you in the camp of those who conclude from the underlined sentence that parents not in combat (therefore not steadfast) confer steadfast to their detachments in combat?
-
I'm missing something. How am I misrepresenting you? The question I answered (in the quotation marks) mentioned you, but my answer and stance on the issue wasn't intended to refer to you or use your statements in any way.
Fair enough, you simply used a question that misrepresented me.
Q: "Captain Alard Krusen,
I see only one problem with your interpretation, the same as for Athiuen:
How do you understand why GW wrote “either not in the same combat or in another combat”?"
Not again! Can people please stop misrepresenting me!
I don't think you've understood what I was saying. I have had to clarify this a few times already:
I'm not saying that "not in the same combat" means "not in combat"
I've never said that "not in the same combat" means, equates to, or is a synonym for "not in combat".
As Fidelis has pointed out "not in the same combat" means exactly the same thing as "in a different combat". It's a logical tautology. Redundant. So while I FEEL like "not in the same combat" was INTENDED to be "not in combat" it clearly isn't.
-
I understand that is what you mean. The question in quotes is from Calisson. You and I are on the same boat, though you're more likely captain than I. I'll be mopping the deck if you need me.
-
The FAQ clearly states the process under which you calculate steadfast for the detachment and I quote "Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast". I'm not suggesting that you ignore the other sentences but none of the subsequent sentences in any way affect this statement other than presenting a very specific case to which the regimental unit is not steadfast.
There is no need to return to steadfast rules and examine them etc. in the hope of finding an answer that is already clearly given. Need I restate: Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. The ONLY circumstance given where this is not the case is when the Regimental unit has LOST steadfast as a result of being in another combat in which it is outranked!
It really is that simple! I really don't want to criticise anyone's comprehension ability but really some of these statements are blatantly incorrect ie the sentence being only about conferring ranks. It clearly says ranks to determine steadfast not just ranks stop over examining each clause and read the answer sentence by sentence.
Does this put you in the camp of those who conclude from the underlined sentence that parents not in combat (therefore not steadfast) confer steadfast to their detachments in combat?
It is the detachment that is in combat and needs to see if they are steadfast. They do that by using their parents ranks to determine whether they are steadfast or not. So the answer is yes, because the detachment always used the parents ranks to determine whether they are steadfast, and only if they parental unit is in another combr, where they are not steadfast, will the detachment not be able to use the ranks. Makes perfect sense imo. English is not my first language so sorry for any confusion.
-
So you're saying the original underlined sentence in question nullifies, overrides and negates a page worth of rules in the BRB and a page worth of rules in the AB?
I won't even argue this. Don't get me wrong, if this FAQ answer was in errata and not an FAQ answer (which means it's a clarification and didn't actually change a rule(s)), I will simply wait until a trusted GW rep makes a comment regarding the issue, or when the FAQ gets amended/clarified.
-
Am I looking in the wrong place? I read page 54(?) on steadfast yesterday and it said something along the line of it being simply that if a unit has more ranks than the enemy it is steadfast. And the FAQ says use the parent's ranks to determine this.
-
It takes a bit more to be steadfast than that. But that aside, the FAQ does indeed say to use the parent's ranks to determine this.
However, to regurgitate more posts from previous threads, this is a completely different mechanism than the actual rule in the AB.
AB p. 30: If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below (in casu steadfast), they confer the same rule onto all of the Detachments whilst they have at least one mode within 3 inches.
Army Book:
1. Check whether Regiment is steadfast – if yes:
2. Confer steadfast: Detachment is steadfast.
FAQ:
1. Check whether Regiment is not actively denied steadfast – if no:
2. Confer ranks: Detachment now uses ranks of Regiment
3. Check whether the Detachment (using the ranks of the Regiment) is steadfast
a. Has it lost combat? Yes (obviously)
b. Has it now more ranks than its enemy? Yes or NO.
i. If yes: steadfast
ii. If no: not steadfast.
And that is the crux: an FAQ is supposed to clarify the AB/BRB, not to introduce a new rule. It should have been an Erratum, but that is not really a problem, as long as one makes a clear choice to play either according to the FAQ or the AB.
Of course, those that adhere to the String Theory of Steadfast claim that there is no difference between AB and FAQ, but need to resort to quantum-mechanical definitions of steadfast, and still cannot explain why as a result of conferring steadfast a Detachment may in the end not be steadfast.
-
Thank you all for the reasonable tone of the discussion. Here, I'd like to tell about methods, rather than results.
Determine YOUR OWN steadfast - step by step.
1. Pick up a definition of steadfast, based on p.54.
2. See how it fits with BRB, AB and FAQ. Find problems.
(usually, this step benefits from the help provided, against your wish, by other W-E members).
3. Problem solving.
- avoidance: Can you tell it's just fluff not rules, and ignore? Can you blame GW for poor wording and explain what GW really meant but failed to write?
Yes => problem solved. Resume problem solving with next problem.
- refusal: Can you shut up the troublemaker who rose the issue? Can you oversimplify his explanations and make fool of him?
Yes => problem solved. Resume problem solving with next problem.
- complexification: can you elaborate a very complex theory that nobody can understand, so they dare not to object?
Yes => problem solved. Resume problem solving with next problem.
- grammar: can you use the finesses of English language to explain how the sentence can be understood differently thanks to grammar?
Yes => problem solved. Resume problem solving with next problem.
4. Were all problems solved?
Yes: END OF PROCESS. Stick staunchly to your definition. Tell other W-E members how simple it is.
5. When everything else has failed.
Maybe it is time to consider another definition?
- If your ego is not compatible with admitting you're changing your mind, then try again the whole process, with greater effort on "avoidance" or "refusal".
- If you accept to change your mind, go back to step 1.
But don't go to step 2, who knows, you might be right on spot this time?
Only when someone else tells you that new problems arose with your new interpretation (step 2), then solve them (step 3).
6. Still far from a consensus?
You can resume step 5 again and again.
Don't worry, there is no shortage of possible interpretations.
Before you went through all of them, GW will come with a new BRB/AB/FAQ/errata/all combined.
-
Hilarious Calisson. Keep it up.
-
Thank you Fidelis for summing things up succinctly for me. I was beginning to wonder whether I really had missed something. So the question is whether the FAQ is seen as the overarching authority, clarifying the rules in the AB/BRB? And the issue people have is over the status of the classification of FAQ/Errata/Amendment in determining whether or not an FAQ can introduce a rule that wasn't their before?
In the end, I only one opponent so I guess I will just ask him how he woudl like to play it!
-
I think all sides can answer "yes" to both questions.
-
All right.
Now that the methodology has been explained above, I'll try to sum up one theory at one time.
Steadfast troops must be defeated.
This is based on a reading p.54, of the sentence which happens to be the first one, and bolded:
“If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.”
Said otherwise:
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}
Everybody was happy until the AB came, and provided a new use for steafast status: to make detachment steadfast.
This is when people started to wonder what happened when a parent unit was not in the same combat as its detachment.
Some people interpreted "=>" to be "<=>", and the sentence was understood to mean:
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
The whole BRB could be read accordingly with no difficulty. {only defeated} would be included for units in building, too.
Note that this interpretation limited the AB steadfast transfer to "same combat" situations.
However, the weak point was that {no defeat} => {no steadfast} was written nowhere.
Worse, the opposite, that steadfast status was not limited to defeated situations, had been argued with some BRB quotes p.54, 60, 76, 129 and the AB itself p.30. It forced to refute the opposition by claiming these quotes to be "fluff" or "out of context", or similar methods.
Then came the AB's FAQ.
Here, there is no way to deny that parent and detachment may not be in same combat, for the FAQ to apply.
That caused a very difficult problem.
Two solutions have been pursued:
"Extremely minimalist FAQ" theory. We will examine it just below.
"FAQ not about steadfast" theory. It will be my next post.
Extremely minimalist FAQ
Let's read the FAQ with the understanding that the parent unit must be steadfast, and therefore defeated.
The detachment must be defeated, too. But it is not in the same combat, therefore the dice rolls are not simultaneous.
Before a combat is actually fought, we cannot determine who will be defeated.
So the only case for the FAQ to apply is if ALL the following conditions are met:
- parent in combat, detachment in combat at 3"
- parent's combat fought before detachment's combat
- parent loses, but passes its break test.
Note that if the parent unit wins, or flees, or has not fought yet, it cannot possibly be steadfast with this definition.
Note that one cannot consider the FAQ to apply ever where a parent is not in combat at all. Therefore, the famous "either/or" part of the FAQ can only be interpreted as a tautology, a rule written in a very bad way - but blaming GW is sure to please many.
Sticking with this extremely minimalist theory, one has to explain why in the world GW came up with an FAQ designed only for this very rare situation and not for the most commonly encoutered situations; and why did GW change the whole rule with rank counting just for this situation.
This is where I am personally at odds to keep understanding this reasoning.
-
Hilarious Calisson. Keep it up.
Yes, it is a neat overview of his method. Although his use of mathematical symbols and the need to be "proficient in scientific reasoning" seem to be lacking.
-
The other way to solve the problem mentionaed above, and keep the initial understanding
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
was to deny that the FAQ was about steadfast at all.
In that case, there was no problem to have a situation where units would be in different combat.
The FAQ is not about steadfast
If the necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast is removed, then the problem is solved.
The FAQ is summarized as "Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks", the regiment needs not to be steadfast.
This interpretation solves everything indeed in a very clear way. :icon_smile:
Steadfast is useful only in defeated situations, which matches the chosen definition.
For determination of steadfast detachment, parent's steadfast is not relevant (and is hardly ever encountered).
Furthermore, this interpretation allows to understand the famous "either/or" sentence to mean "even not in combat."
When parent is in a building, that's easy, steadfast is irrelevant, count ranks, there are zero.
So, is it the best of all worlds?
- There is a very difficult problem: one has to explain how come an FAQ about steadfast transfer is not commenting, but replacing the rule, to the point that the parent unit needs no longer to be steadfast.
Remember, the AB rule was that {steadfast parent} => {steadfast detachment}. How one could argue the FAQ to allow the parent not to be steadfast at all?
It has been argued that GW meant it to be an errata, not an FAQ. But FAQ 1.1. is still an FAQ, like FAQ 1.0.
This problem has not been solved. :icon_cry:
- One must note that there are cases when the parent unit is not steadfast due to being in a river, or in a forest, but it has still its ranks.
With this interpretation, one should have a steadfast detachment even with a parent denied steadfast because of terrain.
This is likely to raise suspicions of bad rule lawyering. :icon_evil:
These suspicions are all the more painful since the origins of this interpretation is so badly established.
-=-=-
Overall, if one selects this interpretation for its simplicity, and makes it clear with his opponent before the game, that's fine.
Just be aware that it cannot be argued to be GW ruling, but only house rule.
-=-=-
Because of the difficulty to argue that the FAQ is not an FAQ but an errata, some people have moved ahead and accepted that the initial understanding of {no defeat} => {no steadfast} might be wrong.
I'll examine that in a next post.
-
Hilarious Calisson. Keep it up.
Yes, it is a neat overview of his method. Although his use of mathematical symbols and the need to be "proficient in scientific reasoning" seem to be lacking.
Another often used method is to ignore steps 2-3 and 5-6.
-
As well as to ignore step 1 to begin with.
-
Army Book:
1. Check whether Regiment is steadfast – if yes:
2. Confer steadfast: Detachment is steadfast.
I intend to play as
1: Is the parent steadfast?* If the answer is yes then go to 2. If no then go to 4.
2: Is the detachment within 3 inches of the parent? If yes then go to 3. If no then go to 4
3: The detachment is steadfast.
4: The detachment is not steadfast.
I am aware that this kind of ignores te FAQ but I am okay with because
a: The FAQ was not needed
b: The FAQ doesn't answer the question correctly or fully
c: This makes a lot more sense.
*defined as
1: Is the parent in combat and has it more ranks than its foe?
and
2: Are there any other factors that would deny the parent steadfast?. [not here that I am talking about rivers, forests, etc. I do not consider winning combat or drawing combat as a factor which would deny the parent steadfast as I feel that the parent is still steadfast when they win combat. They just choose not to use it.]
In order for the parent to be steadfast the answers must be yes and no.
-
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 :icon_confused:, 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).
-
-=-=-
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 that unit is not in the same combat as detachment, 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).
There is nothing in your translation of the french FAQ which supports the idea that the detachment is not in combat. The French Translation just requires the parent to be not in the same combat [ie. in a different one] or in a different combat, which has been pointed out before just means you are As Sir Humphary would say / Been given two choices which on further examination prove to be the same thing.
-
The French text does not actually mention " the same combat". A more correct translation is the one I gave when I first drew attention to the French version.
@ Commandant e.a
While the language used in the question is indeed ambiguous, I think the question in the French version makes it clear what they meant:
Q. Un détachement qui a perdu un combat peut-il bénéficier des rangs de son régiment, et donc de la règle indomptable, si le régiment ne participe pas au combat du détachement, ou même s’il est engagé dans un autre corps à corps ? (p28)
Which translates into:
Can a Detachment which lost combat benefit from the ranks of its regiment, and therefore the steadfast rule, if the regiment does not participate in the combat of the detachment, or even if it is involved in another close combat?
-
I'm just waiting for examples on how a unit can be considered steadfast outside of combat. The AB only allows a parent to confer things to its detachments, so the parent can only give a hoot if it has any hoots to give. And if the parent is not in combat, it sadly doesn't give a hoot.
Sounds reasonable to me. Everyone is worried about in combat/not in combat but seem to skip the critical first step. You must be Steadfast (per definition on page 54, any changes to those core rules don't exist in the AB or the FAQ*, wishful thinking aside) to "pass" the status.
*Edit: the stupid FAQ talks about transferring ranks creating some new weird confusing dynamic, it does forbid comparing Regiments ranks vs Detachments' Foe's ranks, which seems to keep popping up... just a quick question regarding this where does it forbid it? The only thing it says you cannot do is pass ranks tothe detachment if the parent is in a different/same combat and is out numbered
Hoot! Nice.
Of course I'm sure hooting will offend someone.....
-
So, here we are, after understanding that requiring to be defeated was not sustainable, and requiring combat was not compatible with the question in the FAQ, here remains only one possibility:
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}
Steadfast not in combat
Like in the previous attempts, we need first to check if this is allowed by the BRB.
Let's see p.54.
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. "
GW does not mention combat, which goes well, but they do mention enemy.
What happens when there is no enemy? Could one consider that the unit has more ranks than zero?
{no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
This can be argued with the help of the sentences immediately after "simply put":
"As with calculating the extra ranks for the purpose of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. (…).
Similarly, the enemy’s ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast.”
Here, the mechanism for determining whether a unit has steadfast status can be clearly understood:
1. Check if your unit has eligible ranks.
2. Check if there is an enemy with eligible ranks.
3. You're steadfast, unless the enemy has at least as many ranks.
I detail it more => here. (http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44915.msg779549#msg779549)
What happens with the other sentences in the BRB?
There are all compatible with this understanding.
Even better, the steadfast status of stubborn troops and of troops in building is permanent, too. Very consistent.
Let's read the AB and its FAQ.
The reading "either not in the same combat or in another combat" is understood as "either not in combat or in another combat", i.e. anywhere.
"Always use..." remains under the condition that the FAQ is valid, which necessitates that the AB is valid, i.e. that the parent is steadfast.
With our understanding of steadfast, it creates no difficulty to have parent steadfast when examining detachment combat result.
We see that the only exception mentioned in the FAQ happens when the parent is denied steadfast by ranks (no surprise), in that case it adds one more possibility for steadfast denial against the detachment.
The whole FAQ goes well with our understanding:
{more ranks, even not in combat} => {steadfast} (BRB)
{steadfast parent} => {use parent's ranks for detachment's steadfast} (AB + FAQ, part 1)
{parent denied steadfast per ranks} => {detachment denied steadfast} (FAQ, part 2).
With this understanding of what steadfast is, there remains no difficulty to be solved with the BRB, the AB and the FAQ.
-=-=-
Overall, if one selects this interpretation for being the most compatible with all rules, one should make it clear with his opponent before the game, in case the opponent has a different understanding (this happens).
Just remind him that "either not in the same combat or in another combat"
confirms that a parent unit not in combat can be steadfast.
-=-=-
What remains to be argued is whether parents in building transfer steadfast to their detachment.
They are steadfast, sure, so the AB is relevant. They have zero rank, sure, but is the FAQ relevant?
Here, the argument can be made that the FAQ limits itself to cases when the parent has gained steadfast rules for its ranks, which is not the case in buildings.
But that's a minor argument, independent of the rest of the armumentation.
-
That's all, folks.
I tried to expose the four :icon_eek: theories of steadfast passed to detachments, as they are endlessly debated in this thread and the previous ones.
I tried to make it as clear as possible. Please let me know where it can be improved.
I tried not to make it personnel. This does not mean that the merits of the defendants must be diminished or that they must remain anonymus.
Noght is remarkably consistent with himself and the "Extremely minimalist FAQ" theory,
Fidelis von Sigmaringen is brilliantly defending "The FAQ is not about steadfast" theory,
I suspect many of you to lean towards the "Steadfast in combat only" theory, but I admit I haven't clearly identified a name,
and myself, I openly defend the "Steadfast not in combat" theory.
With a little bit of scientific humility, I cannot ascertain that there will not be another element brought up, which will lead to another theory about steadfast.
What a fascinating topic! :icon_razz:
@ The Ol Perfesser, @ Captain Alard Krusen, @ Jabbercrow
Hopefully, I adressed your question while developing the four points of view.
If not, could you be so kind as to ask it again?
@ Captain Alard Krusen ("I'm not at the same restaurant", they don't assume I could possibly mean "I'm not in any restaurant.")
One could say: "If you're drunk, I'm not going home in the same car as you, even if I have to walk."
That way, "Not in the same" can mean "not at all".
@ Captain Alard Krusen (I'm just waiting for examples on how a unit can be considered steadfast outside of combat.)
What about a Stubborn unit? It is always steadfast, even outside of combat.
@ Fidelis von Sigmaringen
We were missing you, old pal! :icon_biggrin: Nice to see you joining the discussion which would otherwise lack an important contradictor.
Yesterday, I was in Brussels, I had a Chimay bleue, especially thinking about you. :::cheers:::
@ Fidelis von Sigmaringen (Yes, it is a neat overview of his method.)
Thanks for your appreciation. I did use indeed this method, 1 to 6 included. I wish you could go past 4 and make the whole method yours.
@ Fidelis von Sigmaringen (Although his use of mathematical symbols and the need to be "proficient in scientific reasoning" seem to be lacking.)
I tried to use a few maths signs in the OP. It is so concise and precise!
Please note that I am using "=>", which can be translated as "implies", rather than "=" which would be translated as "is". Example: {stubborn} => {steadfast}. :icon_wink:
@ commandant (There is nothing in your translation of the french FAQ which supports the idea that the detachment is not in combat.)
- special thanks to Fidelis for his better translation.
Compare:
if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat
if the regiment does not participate in the combat of the detachment, or even if it is involved in another close combat?
What is in blue is clearly anywhere except in the same combat. It could be in another combat, it could be not in combat.
"or even if" makes what follows in red a restricted part of what is before in blue. Clearly it cannot be a repetition. That means that what is in blue must be larger than what is in red, i.e. to involve "not in combat".
-
What is in blue is clearly anywhere except in the same combat. It could be in another combat, it could be not in combat.
"or even if" makes what follows in red a restricted part of what is before in blue. Clearly it cannot be a repetition. That means that what is in blue must be larger than what is in red, i.e. to involve "not in combat".
There is currently nothing there that rules out a tepetition. "Even if" does not in itself rule out a repetition, if anything it re-inforces the repetition.
It can't be done if he wants to do it, even if you want to do it. In this case the the "even if" is just re inforcing the repetition of the fact it can't be done.
-
the stupid FAQ talks about transferring ranks creating some new weird confusing dynamic, it does forbid comparing Regiments ranks vs Detachments' Foe's ranks, which seems to keep popping up...
Been a while since I read these forums and commented (hoping to come back after the AB is de-cruddified). However I love to argue and point out when people have drawn incorrect conclusions. So here goes!
Noght, your conclusion (quote above) seems incorrect.
The FAQ does not forbid comparing Regiments ranks vs Detachments' Foe's ranks. You keep saying that it does, but that doesn't make it true.
The last sentence of the FAQ presents a very specific scenario which is an exception to the first two sentences.
The clarification per the FAQ is that if the detachment has lost, then you always use the regimental ranks to determine Steadfast (interestingly enough, this is exactly opposite of what you are saying). However, in the special case where the Parent is in a separate combat and not steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then the detachment isn't Steadfast.
The bolded portions make up the conditions and the italicized portion is the conclusion. Just because in one specific situation is detailed, that doesn’t mean you can use that result to create a general “rule of thumb”.
-
@ commandant,
Don't forget "or", which does indicate something different.
Let's consider combat 1 where is detachment, combat 2 elsewhere, and no combat anywhere else on the board.
Any unit on the field is either in combat 1, or in combat 2, or in no combat.
if the regiment does not participate in the combat of the detachment, or even if it is involved in another close combat
<=> if {anything except combat 1}, or even if {combat 2}
<=> if {combat 2 or no combat}, or even if {combat 2}.
=> if {no combat}, or {combat 2}.
The wording only stresses out that {combat 2}, which is part of {anything except combat 1}, is not an exception.
How could one argue that a unit which is not in combat at all cannot meet the condition highlighted in blue?
Note, it could be done with the direct English wording:
if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat
<=> if that unit is either in {anything except combat 1}, or {combat 2}
<=> if that unit is either in {combat 2 or no combat}, or {combat 2} (except for those who rule out "no combat")
<=> if that unit is either in {no combat}, or {combat 2}
For those who rule out "no combat" because of an alleged English grammar rule (against which I already provided an example), that becomes
<=> if that unit is either in {combat 2} or {combat 2}
which is not compatible with "either/or" being exclusive.
-=-=-
Anyway, you seem to want absolutely that the "either/or" sentence tells twice the same thing.
You seem not willing to hear people saying anything different. That's your choice, if so you are convinced.
Just don't be surprised that other people read it differently and don't agree with you (especially, but not only, if they read French fluently).
-
Heeeeey Callison!
Page 54.
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
Now read that and tell me how the parent can be steadfast if it has no enemy to compare ranks with. Other than relying on divining unintended misinterpretations from an FAQ question/answer, justify how you can be steadfast outside of combat. I wanna hear this one.
-
Heeeeey Callison!
Page 54.
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
Now read that and tell me how the parent can be steadfast if it has no enemy to compare ranks with. Other than relying on divining unintended misinterpretations from an FAQ question/answer, justify how you can be steadfast outside of combat. I wanna hear this one.
Clearly you're not aware of that No Enemies means No Ranks (zero) and everyone knows that some ranks is more than Zero.
the stupid FAQ talks about transferring ranks creating some new weird confusing dynamic, it does forbid comparing Regiments ranks vs Detachments' Foe's ranks, which seems to keep popping up...
Been a while since I read these forums and commented (hoping to come back after the AB is de-cruddified). However I love to argue and point out when people have drawn incorrect conclusions. So here goes!
Noght, your conclusion (quote above) seems incorrect.
The FAQ does not forbid comparing Regiments ranks vs Detachments' Foe's ranks. You keep saying that it does, but that doesn't make it true.
The last sentence of the FAQ presents a very specific scenario which is an exception to the first two sentences.
The clarification per the FAQ is that if the detachment has lost, then you always use the regimental ranks to determine Steadfast (interestingly enough, this is exactly opposite of what you are saying). However, in the special case where the Parent is in a separate combat and not steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then the detachment isn't Steadfast.
The bolded portions make up the conditions and the italicized portion is the conclusion. Just because in one specific situation is detailed, that doesn’t mean you can use that result to create a general “rule of thumb”.
So the exception says you can't compare regiment ranks vs detachment foes ranks, therefore you're allowed to do so otherwise? So you think the FAQ essentially says Regiment Ranks > Detachment Foe Ranks = Steadfast?
For me the FAQ allowed different combats, not out of combat steadfast or just use Regiments ranks (though that may be what Cruddace wanted). And it's potentially a nerf if the Detachment would normally get Steadfast and is now actively denied.
-
...snip...
So the exception says you can't compare regiment ranks vs detachment foes ranks, therefore you're allowed to do so otherwise?
Not quite.
The exception says the detachment is not Steadfast.
That is the only conclusion you can draw from it. It doesn't allow to compare or to not compare parent ranks vs detachments enemy ranks. It just says that under a set of circumstances listed, the detachment isn't Steadfast.
However, the 1st and 2nd sentence of the FAQ answer does address comparing ranks. Which obviously is a hotly debated issue on what it really means and when you can do it.
-
Heeeeey Callison!
Page 54.
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
Now read that and tell me how the parent can be steadfast if it has no enemy to compare ranks with. Other than relying on divining unintended misinterpretations from an FAQ question/answer, justify how you can be steadfast outside of combat. I wanna hear this one.
Clearly you're not aware of that No Enemies means No Ranks (zero) and everyone knows that some ranks is more than Zero.
I know that Noght disagree with what he mentions (I know, because he has changed his signature), but I give him credit to mention accurately what I have argued.
More in detail, I use "Simply put" and following sentences in same paragraph p.54:
"As with calculating the extra ranks for the purpose of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."
{ranks} => {steadfast possibility}
"Similarly, the enemy’s ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast.”
{enemy ranks} => {steadfast denial possibility}
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
{ranks > enemy ranks} => {steadfast}.
Here, I make a daring assumption: where there is no steadfast denial, a candidate for steadfast is... steadfast!
Stunning, I know.
{no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank} => {no steadfast denial} => {steadfast possibility not denied} => {steadfast, if rank}
At this stage, I hope you will not ask me to quote where the rulebook allows "1>0". :icon_wink:
So, you see, that's the very demanding effort I'm requiring: to understand that "zero enemy have zero rank".
The alternative is to consider that "either/or" is not exclusive in English grammar.
Or that an FAQ is not an FAQ but an errata.
Chose which one is the least difficult to believe. I made my choice.
Note that the result it implies seems not exagerated:
EXAMPLE.
Parent at 3" from detachment. Parent has 10 ranks, detachment has 3 ranks.
Detachment combats a foe with 5 ranks.
Parent is engaged against a single model, in a different combat.
With "steadfast in combat" understanding as well as with my "steadfast without combat" understanding, parent and detachment are steadfast.
Now suppose that the parent kills the single model. Now they are winning and free to come to rescue the detachment.
With "steadfast in combat" understanding, the detachment is no longer steadfast! Parent is winning, it is stronger, it is free to rescue the detachment, but that's when the detachment's spirit must go down? What sense does it make?
With my understanding, the parent remains steadfast, and so remains the detachment.
It definitively makes sense.
-
Heeeeey Callison!
Page 54.
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
Now read that and tell me how the parent can be steadfast if it has no enemy to compare ranks with. Other than relying on divining unintended misinterpretations from an FAQ question/answer, justify how you can be steadfast outside of combat. I wanna hear this one.
Clearly you're not aware of that No Enemies means No Ranks (zero) and everyone knows that some ranks is more than Zero.
I know that Noght disagree with what he mentions (I know, because he has changed his signature), but I give him credit to mention accurately what I have argued.
The fact that you think it's a accurate valid argument is still slightly disturbing. If you don't know what Steadfast is or isn't then everything that follows is flawed.
Once again, theory aside, enter a tourney and drop this knowledge bomb on your opponent and TO and get back to us.
-
I agree with Noght; I'd love to see you try to argue this point at a GW store in front of everybody. I guarantee it'd ruin your reputation. If it wasn't for this forum hiding your true identity (sad thing is that the admins could look up your home address easily), then you would never try this at a public store.
Cursain
-
Here's how I'm playing it;
Does my detachment need to take a break test (thus it was IN combat and LOST combat).
No - No need to check if steadfast. END
Yes - See if Detachment is steadfast on its own.
If Yes - make unmodified leadership roll. END
If No - see if detachment is within 3" of Parent unit.
If No - Make leadership test with combat modifiers. END
If Yes - Check to see if the Parent unit has more ranks than Enemy unit fighting detachment.
If No - Detachment makes leadership test with combat modifiers. END
If Yes - Detachment is steadfast and makes Unmodified ld test. END
I have yet to have an opponent challenge this way of playing. I don't do tournaments, but it seems the most logical to me and my group.
-
Here's how I'm playing it;
Does my detachment need to take a break test (thus it was IN combat and LOST combat).
No - No need to check if steadfast. END
Yes - See if Detachment is steadfast on its own.
If Yes - make unmodified leadership roll. END
If No - see if detachment is within 3" of Parent unit.
If No - Make leadership test with combat modifiers. END
If Yes - Check to see if the Parent unit has more ranks than Enemy unit fighting detachment.
If No - Detachment makes leadership test with combat modifiers. END
If Yes - Detachment is steadfast and makes Unmodified ld test. END
+++++ this!
I have yet to have an opponent challenge this way of playing. I don't do tournaments, but it seems the most logical to me and my group.
-
Well, it may seem logical, and if you and your friends feel comfortable with it, go ahead.
However, is not quite what the FAQ says (and not at all what the AB says):
FAQ:
Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast.
This clearly applies also to those cases where the Detachment would be steadfast by virtue of its own ranks. Admittedly, this will not make a difference that often (in general, Regiments should have more ranks than Detachments), but it certainly could. One Purple Sun could do the trick.
In addition, you do not mention the clearly stated exception (which is in fact likely to happen regularly):
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.
-
The fact that you think it's a accurate valid argument is still slightly disturbing. If you don't know what Steadfast is or isn't then everything that follows is flawed.
Once again, theory aside, enter a tourney and drop this knowledge bomb on your opponent and TO and get back to us.
I agree with Noght; I'd love to see you try to argue this point at a GW store in front of everybody. I guarantee it'd ruin your reputation. If it wasn't for this forum hiding your true identity (sad thing is that the admins could look up your home address easily), then you would never try this at a public store.
Cursain
Are these comments towards me or towards Calisson? I'm not sure just because it's almost 4am here and I stayed up way too late.
-
You can go to sleep without any worries - it is towards Calisson.
-
Here's how I'm playing it;
Does my detachment need to take a break test (thus it was IN combat and LOST combat).
No - No need to check if steadfast. END
Yes - See if Detachment is steadfast on its own.
If Yes - make unmodified leadership roll. END
If No - see if detachment is within 3" of Parent unit.
If No - Make leadership test with combat modifiers. END
If Yes - Check to see if the Parent unit has more ranks than Enemy unit fighting detachment.
If No - Detachment makes leadership test with combat modifiers. END
If Yes - Detachment is steadfast and makes Unmodified ld test. END
I have yet to have an opponent challenge this way of playing. I don't do tournaments, but it seems the most logical to me and my group.
This apart from you always you the parents ranks (if within 3 inches) and if the parent is in a combat where it cannot be steadfast then the etachment cannot use its ranks
-
@ Captain Alard Krusen & Fidelis von Sigmaringen
I take the comments for myself indeed.
@ Noght (If you don't know what Steadfast is or isn't then everything that follows is flawed.)
That's the whole question.
There are at least 4 understandings of steadfast and how it transfers to detachment (see previous posts).
Every understanding of steadfast has flaws.
What you propose is sure to win all sportsmanship appreciation, but that's because it is sure to EXCEED GW's rules.
What I am trying is to get as close as GW's rules.
@ Cursain (I'd love to see you try to argue this point at a GW store in front of everybody. I guarantee it'd ruin your reputation.)
So, what do YOU argue as definition of steadfast and how it fits with AB and FAQ?
@ Cursain (If it wasn't for this forum hiding your true identity (sad thing is that the admins could look up your home address easily), then you would never try this at a public store.)
If trying to understand the rules, taking the effort to explain the opposite's points of view and explaining them clearly is making worse a reputation than sticking to one's hastly made understanding and making personal attacks, then I'm willing to get an awful reputation.
But it is probably not that what you mean. Could you please explain me what I'm doing that deserves such a comment?
-
To be clear, here is how I would play detachment's steadfast with parent regiment at 3" of its detachment.
1. Is parent ALWAYS steadfast (stubborn, building)?
Yes => detachment always steadfast.
2. Is parent NEVER steadfast (river, woods)?
Yes => detachment could be steadfast or not, based on its own merits exclusively.
3. Compare ranks.
Your side: always parent's ranks, never detachment's.
Opposite side: the maximum in detachment's combat and (if available) parent's combat.
If parent's ranks > maximum opponent's ranks, the detachment is steadfast (regardless of river, woods, skirmisher...).
Otherwise, detachment is not steadfast (even if it would have been steadfast on own merits, even if it was "always" steadfast).
This is simple. This covers every possible case.
This is all covered by rules. References are:
1. parent stubborn => detachment stubborn => detachment steadfast.
parent in building => parent steadfast => per AB, detachment steadfast, and the FAQ is out of scope (parent is not steadfast per ranks).
2. parent NEVER steadfast (river, woods) => AB is out of scope, therefore FAQ too. => detachment plays by himself.
3. If parent neither "always" nor "never" steadfast, parent and detachment may (or not) gain steadfast per ranks.
AB applies, FAQ applies.
If parent denied steadfast per opponent's ranks, detachment always denied steadfast even on own merit (last sentence of FAQ).
If parent not denied steadfast per opponent's ranks, then nothing denies its steadfast status, and it is necessarily steadfast.
=> detachment have to gain steadfast per AB, FAQed.
As the detachment's status is not coming from its ranks but from an external reason (parent's steadfast), there is no reason for woods, rivers or being skirmisher to be able to deny detachment's status.
Reversely, FAQ specifically states that detachment loses steadfast in that case.
I know that some people view that as a search for the most power. It is not. If this was my quest, I would rather use the "FAQ supersede AB" argument, which is even more powerful. I like to use rules, not to make them up.
What I post above is my reading of the rules.
If someone has a different reading, fine, please take the time to explain, as I did.
-
@ Noght (If you don't know what Steadfast is or isn't then everything that follows is flawed.)
That's the whole question.
There are at least 4 understandings of steadfast and how it transfers to detachment (see previous posts).
Every understanding of steadfast has flaws.
What you propose is sure to win all sportsmanship appreciation, but that's because it is sure to EXCEED GW's rules.
What I am trying is to get as close as GW's rules.
In order:
It's the ONLY question.
There is ONLY one definition of Steadfast, a limited AB transfer, and a dumb question FAQ answered with an unsupported new "mechanic".
False.
False.
Hilarious.
You can't get to Eternal Steadfast following the basic rules of Steadfast (BRB), just like I can't get there because ill never accept that ANY unit is Steadfast out of combat (short of an Errata or a precise FAQ).
No worries, if you can sell it to your Group. If so, 20 man Conga line Detachments will make you beloved.
-
There are at least 4 understandings of steadfast and how it transfers to detachment (see previous posts).
Every understanding of steadfast has flaws.
Uh - no. That is only the case, if one assumes that the FAQ is about conferring steadfast - which it is not. It does not even mention conferring steadfast. There is no reason to change the BRB definition of steadfast in the light of this FAQ, in particular if
1. one has to resort to syllogistic fallacies
2. as a consequence "conferring steadfast" could result in not being steadfast.
-
Does my detachment need to take a break test (thus it was IN combat and LOST combat).
Is detachment within 3" of Parent Unit?
No - Determine if Detachment is steadfast on its own (more ranks than enemy = steadfast).
Yes - Is Parent Unit in Combat (any combat?)
No - Us Parent ranks when counting ranks for detachment's combat. If Parent Unit has more ranks than enemy fighting Detachment, Detachment is Steadfast. END.
Yes - Is Parent unit Steafast (has more ranks than the enemy it is in combat with. Same/different combat, doesn't matter)?
No - Detachment is not steadfast. End
Yes - Detachment is steadfast. End.
Now, some may argue that the Parent Unit has not resolved combat yet, thus it is not steadfast, thus the detachment cannot be steadfast. The rules simply state, use parent unit's ranks. So, the only questions when a detachment is within 3" of its Parent unit are these;
How many ranks does my Parent unit have? (always use Parent Unit's Ranks).
If the Parent unit is in combat, does it have more ranks than it's opponent? If Yes = Detachment is steadfast. If No = Detachment is NOT steadfast.
This simple approach avoids which combat goes first, etc. The rules clearly state the person who's turn it is decides what order combat is resolved and thus, the Empire General has a good say on when detachments get to fight their combat, thus using the turn to decide when to fight with which units.
Works for me.
-
Now you seem to be mixing the mechanisms of AB and FAQ. Again, in friendly games, play as agreed with your opponent.
However, as I pointed out before, what you propose is neither according to the AB, nor the FAQ.
- If you use the AB, you confer steadfast, not ranks.
- If you use the FAQ, you confer ranks, not steadfast. But: you always use the ranks of the Regiment. It is mandatory, not optional, with the one clearly stated exception: 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.
-
I think they need a separate FAQ to understand their FAQ.
-
Now you seem to be mixing the mechanisms of AB and FAQ. Again, in friendly games, play as agreed with your opponent.
However, as I pointed out before, what you propose is neither according to the AB, nor the FAQ.
- If you use the AB, you confer steadfast, not ranks.
- If you use the FAQ, you confer ranks, not steadfast. But: you always use the ranks of the Regiment. It is mandatory, not optional, with the one clearly stated exception: 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.
I'm getting confused and I'm really trying hard to understand where I'm missing the mechanisms. Are you saying that if a Detachment is further than 3" away it still uses it's Parent Unit's Ranks? Throughout the whole game? With the list of events I've listed, what would you change in a game?
-
I'm getting confused and I'm really trying hard to understand where I'm missing the mechanisms. Are you saying that if a Detachment is further than 3" away it still uses it's Parent Unit's Ranks? Throughout the whole game? With the list of events I've listed, what would you change in a game?
I think everyone agrees that the 3" are a given. :icon_wink:
What changes is:
- Detachments cannot be steadfast by virtue of their own ranks: you always use the Regiment's ranks. So, it is possible that a Detachment may have more ranks than its enemy, but because the Regiment has fewer ranks, the Detachment is not steadfast.
- If the Regiment is in combat and cannot be steadfast, the Detachment cannot be steadfast either, even if the Regiment or the Detachment would have more ranks than the enemy of the Detachment.
- Even if the Regiment has more ranks than its own enemy (and thus is steadfast itelf), that does not mean the Detachment is automatically steadfast - for that, you still have to compare the ranks of the Regiment with the ranks of the enemy of the Detachment. That does not make a difference in MCC (where the Regiment, if steadfast, would have more ranks than all the enemy units involved), but it can make a difference when Regiment and Detachment are in different combats.
-
So you wouldn't change what I wrote, just add what you had here?
What changes is:
- Detachments cannot be steadfast by virtue of their own ranks: you always use the Regiment's ranks. So, it is possible that a Detachment may have more ranks than its enemy, but because the Regiment has fewer ranks, the Detachment is not steadfast.
If within 3" of Parent Unit correct? If Detachment is further than 3" then it goes by it's own merrit?
- If the Regiment is in combat and cannot be steadfast, the Detachment cannot be steadfast either, even if the Regiment or the Detachment would have more ranks than the enemy of the Detachment.
If a Regiment is in a river, and a Detachment is not. Regiment is in combat and can never be steatfast (agreed). Detachment is 3" away but is in a different combat, you are saying detachment cannot be steadfast because Regiment cannot be steadfast, because you don't count ranks when in a river. Correct? I agree with this, it makes sense because a Regimental unit cannot support a Detachment unit with its ranks because it cannot count ranks due to river. So in the combat with the detachment, you would count 0 as ranks?
- Even if the Regiment has more ranks than its own enemy (and thus is steadfast itelf), that does not mean the Detachment is automatically steadfast - for that, you still have to compare the ranks of the Regiment with the ranks of the enemy of the Detachment. That does not make a difference in MCC (where the Regiment, if steadfast, would have more ranks than all the enemy units involved), but it can make a difference when Regiment and Detachment are in different combats.
I don't get this. If the Regimental unit is steadfast, then steadfast is transfered to the detachment. Done. Why would you compare the Detachment's ranks with its opponents ranks when the Regimental unit is already steadfast (because of its own combat)?
The FAQ states: "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."
IThe fact that the rules states "....in which it is not steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks...." Does not mean "The Regimental Unit must have more ranks than the Detachment's opponent.
If the Parent Unit is steadfast, then any detachment within 3" is steadfast. Same combat/different combat, doesnt matter.
If the Parent Unit is denied steadfast (enemy has more ranks, in river, etc.) Detachment within 3" is NOT steadfast (even if they outnumber their enemy with ranks).
If the Parent Unit is NOT in combat and the Detachment is (and is within 3") use Parent Unit's Ranks to calculate whether Detachment is Steadfast.
If Parent Unit has more ranks than the Detachment's enemy = Steadfast.
If the Parent Unit has less ranks than the Detachment's enemy = not steadfast.
If Parent Unit is in same combat as detachment = use Parent unit's rank to calculate steadfast.
If Parent Unit is in different combat = use Parent unit's ranks to calculate steadfast for detachment within 3".
Sorry to drag this on, but I am the Empire player for my group, and although no one has disagreed with my interpretation of the rules, if I am wrong, I want to know. Although some may be frazled by all this talk, I am truly seeking some insight here so open to it. I will reread the other threads too.
-
@ commandant,
Don't forget "or", which does indicate something different.
"Or" does not require difference, it just requires there is another option, the second option can be the same as the first option.
-
@ commandant,
Don't forget "or", which does indicate something different.
"Or" does not require difference, it just requires there is another option, the second option can be the same as the first option.
Where does the "or" go? You mean between each points?
-
@ commandant,
Don't forget "or", which does indicate something different.
"Or" does not require difference, it just requires there is another option, the second option can be the same as the first option.
Where does the "or" go? You mean between each points?
"Heads I win or Heads you lose" is a valid option, it just so happens that both of your choices amount to the same thing. It is not great writing but is it what GW has done.
-
If within 3" of Parent Unit correct? If Detachment is further than 3" then it goes by it's own merrit?
That is correct. Nobody has questioned that, thank God. We all assume, the FAQ is part of the Detachment rules, requiring them to be within 3" of the Regiment.
If a Regiment is in a river, and a Detachment is not. Regiment is in combat and can never be steatfast (agreed). Detachment is 3" away but is in a different combat, you are saying detachment cannot be steadfast because Regiment cannot be steadfast, because you don't count ranks when in a river. Correct? I agree with this, it makes sense because a Regimental unit cannot support a Detachment unit with its ranks because it cannot count ranks due to river. So in the combat with the detachment, you would count 0 as ranks?
Unfortunately, the BRB is not quite clear (for the simple and obvious reason it could not foresee the FAQ).
BRB p. 120:
Rivers make for very treacherous footing and, as such, are about the last place a ranked-up unit wants to conduct its battles. A unit at least partially in a river can never be steadfast (unless they are Stubborn). Additionally, units even partially in a river cannot claim rank bonus
To me, this indicates that units in rivers do not have ranks, but, contrary to the situation for buildings, there is no FAQ expressis verbis confirming that a unit in a river does not count as having ranks at any point. So, it could be argued that units in rivers do have ranks, which, under the FAQ, can be conferred, even if the Regiment itself cannot be steadfast.
I don't get this. If the Regimental unit is steadfast, then steadfast is transfered to the detachment. Done. Why would you compare the Detachment's ranks with its opponents ranks when the Regimental unit is already steadfast (because of its own combat)?
The fact that the rules states "....in which it is not steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks...." Does not mean "The Regimental Unit must have more ranks than the Detachment's opponent.
If the Parent Unit is steadfast, then any detachment within 3" is steadfast. Same combat/different combat, doesnt matter.
If the Parent Unit is denied steadfast (enemy has more ranks, in river, etc.) Detachment within 3" is NOT steadfast (even if they outnumber their enemy with ranks).
If the Parent Unit is NOT in combat and the Detachment is (and is within 3") use Parent Unit's Ranks to calculate whether Detachment is Steadfast.
If Parent Unit has more ranks than the Detachment's enemy = Steadfast.
If the Parent Unit has less ranks than the Detachment's enemy = not steadfast.
If Parent Unit is in same combat as detachment = use Parent unit's rank to calculate steadfast.
If Parent Unit is in different combat = use Parent unit's ranks to calculate steadfast for detachment within 3".
Sorry to drag this on, but I am the Empire player for my group, and although no one has disagreed with my interpretation of the rules, if I am wrong, I want to know. Although some may be frazled by all this talk, I am truly seeking some insight here so open to it. I will reread the other threads too.
If you apply all the rules concerning steadfast of the BRB, then the Regiment can only confer steadfast to the Detachment, if and when they are in the same combat (i.e. in MCC). And where, of course, there is no need for the Detachment to use the Parent’s ranks at all.
However, if the Regiment is not combat, it cannot be steadfast at all; and if it is not in the same combat, the Regiment cannot be steadfast at the same time when the Detachment is taking its Break test. In either case, the Regiment cannot confer steadfast for the Detachment's Break test.
It is precisely for that reason that the FAQ introduced a new rule to allow the Detachment to benefit from the (normally) greater ranks of the Regiment when the latter is not in combat or in a different combat.
Edit: @ commandant: while it is true that the English version is ambiguous, the French version is clear enough. If the Regiment does not participate in the combat of the Detachment, it could but does not need to be in combat itself.
-
Edit: @ commandant: while it is true that the English version is ambiguous, the French version is clear enough. If the Regiment does not participate in the combat of the Detachment, it could but does not need to be in combat itself.
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.
If this translation of the French FAQ is correct, and I assume that it is, then we are left with the fact that there is nothing in it to support the idea that the parent can be out of combat. Only that the parent can pass on its steadfast even if it is not in the detachment's combat but in a different combat.
Mind you it is all fairly silly because the parent needs to be steadfast itself in order to pass on steadfast. After all if you don't have something you can't give it to somebody else.
Likewise the ranks of a parent unit in a river don't matter because a parent unit in a river is not steadfast and therefore the detachment can not gain steadfast from it, regardless of ranks.
-
Sigh.
I wish people would stop mixing the AB and the FAQ. The AB is about conferring steadfast, not ranks. The FAQ is about conferring ranks, not steadfast. And yes, to overrule the AB, it should have been an erratum. It is not and thus leaves you the choice to play either according to the AB or the FAQ - but not both at the same time.
That said: there is an obvious difference between being "not in the same combat" (which in normal usage would imply to be in some kind of combat) and "does not participate in the combat" (which clearly leaves open the possibility that the unit is not in combat at all).
-
why one or the other though? could the faq thing with the ranks be for when the parent cannot past steadfast(combat not fought yet or out of combat. )
until there is true way to play i will just use the parents ranks to determine steadfast.
-
There is ONLY one definition of Steadfast, a limited AB transfer, and a dumb question FAQ answered with an unsupported new "mechanic".
Agree in the principle that there is only one definition. The problem is that we don't know for sure which one it is (yes, I know, you do, but you are not the only one entitled to have an opinion here).
This is where one must make a choice - and respect the ability of other people to make different choices.
(Every understanding of steadfast has flaws. ) False.
Could you be so kind as to make clear which understanding has no flaw?
...
You can't get to Eternal Steadfast following the basic rules of Steadfast (BRB), just like I can't get there because ill never accept that ANY unit is Steadfast out of combat (short of an Errata or a precise FAQ).
:icon_eek: Are you preparing to change your mind?
Would it be possible that you accepted that "defeated" is not a requirement for steadfast?
Even if "There is ONLY one definition of Steadfast", which used to involve defeated?
Please confirm, because that's would be a revolution.
If so, I would be delighted to learn what would be your arguments for combat-even-non-defeated-steadfast.
If so, 20 man Conga line Detachments will make you beloved.
What's not to love with conga lines? :icon_razz:
-=-=-
@ AmbroseHowever, if the Regiment is not combat, it cannot be steadfast at all;
That's one point where I disagree with Fidelis (at least, he could mention that there is a doubt).
I do acknowledge that most W-E players seem to understand that, though. But I'm waiting for their arguments.
-=-=-
If this translation of the French FAQ is correct, and I assume that it is, then we are left with the fact that there is nothing in it to support the idea that the parent can be out of combat. Only that the parent can pass on its steadfast even if it is not in the detachment's combat but in a different combat.
Mind you it is all fairly silly because the parent needs to be steadfast itself in order to pass on steadfast. After all if you don't have something you can't give it to somebody else.
Likewise the ranks of a parent unit in a river don't matter because a parent unit in a river is not steadfast and therefore the detachment can not gain steadfast from it, regardless of ranks.
@ commandant
French being my mother tongue, I can confirm Fidelis' word that a parent unit not in combat is covered by the FAQ.
[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]Edit: @ commandant: while it is true that the English version is ambiguous, the French version is clear enough. If the Regiment does not participate in the combat of the Detachment, it could but does not need to be in combat itself.
-=-=-
[Calisson: There are at least 4 understandings of steadfast and how it transfers to detachment (see previous posts).]
Uh - no. That is only the case, if one assumes that the FAQ is about conferring steadfast - which it is not.
You provide one of the 4 understandings. To disagree with the other 3 will not make them vanish. You have to prove them wrong first.
It does not even mention conferring steadfast. There is no reason to change the BRB definition of steadfast in the light of this FAQ,
Argument already mentioned. If not about conferring steadfast, what is the FAQ dealing with which would be in the AB p.30?
If the FAQ is not about anything p.30 of the AB, then it is not an FAQ, it's a new rule.
If you like to play it so, fine with me. Just don't pretend it is THE GW official rule.
in particular if
1. one has to resort to syllogistic fallacies
I'm sure you can make a difference between common sense and syllogism. But are you willing?
2. as a consequence "conferring steadfast" could result in not being steadfast.
No new argument here. The FAQ does add a new condition indeed, that's why.
leaves you the choice to play either according to the AB or the FAQ - but not both at the same time.
Well, one can use both:
The AB gives the general rule,
The FAQ changes the rule in the specific cases listed in the question, but not in other cases.
Cases which are not covered by the FAQ are parents in woods or in rivers, where they have ranks but not steadfast. For those cases, it remains significant to require the parent to be steadfast in the first place.
That said: there is an obvious difference between being "not in the same combat" (which in normal usage would imply to be in some kind of combat) and "does not participate in the combat" (which clearly leaves open the possibility that the unit is not in combat at all).
-
why one or the other though? could the faq thing with the ranks be for when the parent cannot past steadfast(combat not fought yet or out of combat. )
until there is true way to play i will just use the parents ranks to determine steadfast.
People forget so easily - I have been pointing out the following already since October:
Sigh.
The FAQ says: Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast.
Always. It does not say: "you can use", it says "always use".
How to interpret "always"? There are two possibilities.
1. "Always" means that it is a general rule - which to me seems the most likely interpretation, because of the formulaic phrase and consistency.
2. "Always" refers to "If that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat". This leaves out Regiments that are in the same combat as the Detachment.
In the first case (unit not in the same combat etc), you always use the ranks of the Regiment.
In the latter (unit in the same combat), you still use the AB rule as written: if the Regiment has the steadfast rule, then that is conferred to its Detachments.
In either case, you do not get to pick and choose between conferring ranks and conferring steadfast: it is either one or the other.
And as I already pointed out: in MCC, it actually does not matter whether the Regiment confers steadfast or ranks, because to be steadfast it needs to have more ranks than all the enemy units involved in the MCC. Therefore, to avoid any possible confusion, simply always use the ranks of the Regiment (as you intend to do).
-
The FAQ says:
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.
The FAQ starts with what is the normal way to proceed for conferring steadfast, per AB p.30: a detachment can "claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks".
I fully concur with Fidelis, that in MCC, {conferring steadfast} <=> {conferring ranks}.
The FAQ makes sure that this understanding is valid in situations which have been questioned frequently:
"either not in the same combat or in another combat",
If one understands "either not in the same combat or in another combat", then the FAQ covers all possible locations of the parent unit: in same combat, in different combat, not in combat.
"Always" makes sense.
Of one understands "either not in the same combat or in another combat", it does not cover the situation when the parent is not in combat (some argue even that the parent needs to be defeated).
"Always" would not cover all situations. :icon_eek:
-=-=-
I have one more question for Fidelis von Sigmaringen:
how do you understand "for its Regimental Unit’s ranks"?
Could it be that in the mind of the writer, ranks were enough, without the necessity for being defeated? (and why not, in combat at all?)
Or was it that "for its Regimental Unit’s ranks" is a restriction to the scope of the FAQ?
Indeed, the BRB says that steadfast is obtained in the first place by {ranks or whatever p54}, or stubborn, or building.
The FAQ would cover, according to the question, situations where parents had the steadfast rule per their ranks (i.e. not "always" per another rule like stubborn or building).
-
Quick TEST: what kind of type are you?
Q1. Reading and understanding.
Read the sentence:
Luthor Huss is "either not in the same combat or in another combat" as the Archlector.
What do you understand?
A11. Luthor Huss and the Archlector should make peace and fight together.
=> Leave this rules discussion and start a fluff discussion.
A12. Luthor Huss is "either not in the same combat or in another combat" as the Archlector.
=> Go to Q2.
A13. Luthor Huss is "either not in the same combat or in another combat" as the Archlector.
=> Go directly to Q3.
-=-=-
Q2. Differences.
What is the difference between an FAQ and an errata?
A21. Errata provide corrections, while FAQ are not hard and fast rules.
=> You are a "C" type.
A22. Although FAQ should only comment, sometimes they become effectively an errata.
=> You are a "F" type.
A23. None, that's just two names for amendments.
=> Go to GW's Shrine of Knowledge (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440134a&categoryId=1000018§ion=&aId=3000006)
-=-=-
Q3. Lost word.
Find the word "steadfast" defined in one of the following sentence:
A31. We have something called the Steadfast rule.
=> You are not within this test limits. Please write your own clarification.
A32. The ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast.
=> PM me, I like your reasoning.
A33. A defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy.
=> You are a "N" type.
A34. Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
=> You are a "O" type.
-=-=-
Compliments! :icon_biggrin:
You have participated in one of the most debated cruzade within the Empire.
Empire would not be Empire if everyone followed the same chapel, would it?
Now that you know who you are, quick, call the Witch Hunter! ::heretic::
-
There is ONLY one definition of Steadfast, a limited AB transfer, and a dumb question FAQ answered with an unsupported new "mechanic".
Agree in the principle that there is only one definition. The problem is that we don't know for sure which one it is (yes, I know, you do, but you are not the only one entitled to have an opinion here).
This is where one must make a choice - and respect the ability of other people to make different choices.
See here's the thing about playing games that have rules. All of the should be followed. So if we don't agree on the "to hit" rules do I get to change them? Probably not. Steadfast is a simple basic rule that is new to 8 th edition. It's available to every unit in every Army given specific circumstances. However you don't like it so you seek or fundamentally change it.
(Every understanding of steadfast has flaws. ) False.
Could you be so kind as to make clear which understanding has no flaw?
Steadfast is just fine, you just don't like it as is.
You can't get to Eternal Steadfast following the basic rules of Steadfast (BRB), just like I can't get there because ill never accept that ANY unit is Steadfast out of combat (short of an Errata or a precise FAQ).
:icon_eek: Are you preparing to change your mind?
Would it be possible that you accepted that "defeated" is not a requirement for steadfast?
Even if "There is ONLY one definition of Steadfast", which used to involve defeated?
Please confirm, because that's would be a revolution.
If so, I would be delighted to learn what would be your arguments for combat-even-non-defeated-steadfast.
Nice try. I'll follow the rules. If there is a BRB change to Steadfast (highly unlikely) then that is the rule. Until then I'll follow the rules on page 54 for Steadfast. I also don't expect a "new" errata in the AB allowing rank passing. The FAQ is still some hybrid nebulous penumbra of a quasi new mechanic.
If so, 20 man Conga line Detachments will make you beloved.
What's not to love with conga lines? :icon_razz:
This of course has been your intent from the start. Conga lines are crutches for poor Generals. Out of Combat Steadfast passing is a wet dream for those guys.
-
Steadfast is a simple basic rule.
However you don't like it so you seek or fundamentally change it.
Steadfast is just fine, you just don't like it as is.
The FAQ is still some hybrid nebulous penumbra of a quasi new mechanic.
Sadly, you don't realize your misperception of my intention.
- What steadfast is, that's not up to you or me to define, that's up to GW. Only GW can change what steadfast is. You and me can only have understandings of GW rules.
- When confronted to a "hybrid nebulous penumbra of a quasi new mechanic", i.e. when GW clarifications do not match our understanding,
you just blame GW and tell everyone to stick to your understanding,
while I am ready to change my mind, if doing so can match better rules and FAQ.
-=-=-
Conga lines are crutches for poor Generals. Out of Combat Steadfast passing is a wet dream for those guys.
Contrary to brilliant generals like you who can win even with self-restrictions, poor Generals like me cannot afford to disregard the help provided by valid rules. :icon_frown:
-
Could we elaborate on Athiuen's test and see the differences it brings, according to either interpretation?
1. Can an outranked detachment become steadfast thanks to its parent at 3"?
11. parent stubborn, not in combat
12. parent in building, not in combat
13. parent in river or wood (denied steadfast), with more ranks than anyone
14. parent in same combat, with more ranks than anyone
15. parent in different combat (winning that combat), with more ranks than anyone
16. parent not in combat, with more ranks than anyone
17. parent in same combat, with more ranks than anyone, but detachment skirmisher or in a river
2. Would a detachment, normally steadfast on its own merit, remain so despite of the parent at 3"?
21. parent in river or wood, not in combat, with more ranks than anyone
22. parent in river or wood, in combat, with more ranks than anyone
23. parent in river, in another combat, outranked
24. parent in another combat, outranked
25. parent not in combat, has less ranks than detachment's foe
I expect unanimity for 11, 14, 24.
-
Steadfast is a simple basic rule.
However you don't like it so you seek or fundamentally change it.
Steadfast is just fine, you just don't like it as is.
The FAQ is still some hybrid nebulous penumbra of a quasi new mechanic.
Sadly, you don't realize your misperception of my intention.
- What steadfast is, that's not up to you or me to define, that's up to GW. Only GW can change what steadfast is. You and me can only have understandings of GW rules.
- When confronted to a "hybrid nebulous penumbra of a quasi new mechanic", i.e. when GW clarifications do not match our understanding,
you just blame GW and tell everyone to stick to your understanding,
while I am ready to change my mind, if doing so can match better rules and FAQ.
The rulebook isn't a multiple choice option or a Chinese menu (one for column A, one from column B). Play it anyway you want, just don't be surprised if a TO says no or your opponent gives you low ranks in Sports for doing what you're doing. Once again we're arguing about what Steadfast is.
Personal note, I have a friend, top player and painter quip with regards to this subject, "if I ignored the bolded definitions of rules and terms in the BRB, I'd run you off the board by turn 4 every game."
Conga lines are crutches for poor Generals. Out of Combat Steadfast passing is a wet dream for those guys.
Contrary to brilliant generals like you who can win even with self-restrictions, poor Generals like me cannot afford to disregard the help provided by valid rules. :icon_frown:
And yet it's your preferred choice. Following the rules of the game, even if I don't like them (most remaining old power Army Books for example) is not self-limiting, it's the rules. But I don't pay $500 for landing on Free Parking in Monopoly either.
With regards to your wacky "polls" (as if rules discussions are solved by votes, polls, or popularity contests). What's the point? (I skimmed them so they may be relevant, ymmv). You'd be better served starting a Cali Deep Thoughts thread methinks.
-
@ Noght,
I wish there was only one way to read the BRB with the AB and the FAQ.
After so many pages, I assume you have realized that some people read BRB/AB/FAQ differently than you.
Amongst the wacky questions, there is expressed the line of division, which takes only three questions to determine.
If you pardon me for a self-quote, I did remove all the wacky part and left only the serious part.
Q1. "either not in the same combat or in another combat"
What do you understand?
A12. "either not in the same combat or in another combat" => Go to Q2.
A13. "either not in the same combat or in another combat" => Go directly to Q3.
-=-=-
Q2.
A21. Errata provide corrections, while FAQ are not hard and fast rules. => You are a "C" type.
A22. Although FAQ should only comment, sometimes they become effectively an errata. => You are a "F" type.
-=-=-
Q3. the word "steadfast" is defined in:
A33. A defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy. => You are a "N" type.
A34. A unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. => You are a "O" type.
"O" stands for "Other", as there is no self-declared leader for this thesis, which I suspect is becomeing the most common, but I agree with you, we are not polling or voting.
These four understandings exist. They are all understood and argued for by people who are intelligent.
What I try to find out is whether one of those four understandings allows to understand the FAQ as a reasonable rule, rather than a "hybrid nebulous penumbra", because I believe that GW employs intelligent people.
The last test with the questions 11 to 17 and 21 to 25 is a serious one. I elaborated on Athiuen's test to make it systematic.
It is supposed to highlight what is the practical result, in all situations, of the differences or understanding (determined by the test above).
With this test, I believe that everyone could find out what are the real consequences of him believing what he thinks to be the truth.
-
@ Noght,
I wish there was only one way to read the BRB with the AB and the FAQ.
After so many pages, I assume you have realized that some people read BRB/AB/FAQ differently than you.
There is one set of rules. Apparently there are several interpretations of rules.
Question, have you actually played with Eternal Steadfast or are you just arguing a theoretical position? I suspect the latter, if not you really need to do a battle report so we can see how it looks.
I'm going to mess around over on the TDG now, hopefully this comes up so we can see how actual Empire players decide how to resolve it.
-
Question, have you actually played with Eternal Steadfast or are you just arguing a theoretical position? I suspect the latter, if not you really need to do a battle report so we can see how it looks.
I'm going to mess around over on the TDG now, hopefully this comes up so we can see how actual Empire players decide how to resolve it.
Theroetical only. Unfortunately, in the country where I work, there's no GW, no WH, no model. :icon_frown: Only the Internet.
Wish you the best with TDG. That's something I can follow. :icon_biggrin:
-
The FAQ says:
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.
The FAQ starts with what is the normal way to proceed for conferring steadfast, per AB p.30: a detachment can "claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks".
You are again confusing “claiming the steadfast special rule” with “conferring the steadfast special rule”. Any unit (that can have ranks) of any Army can claim the steadfast special rule – conferring that rule is limited to the Empire Regiments.
What does the AB p. 30 actually have to say:
If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below (in casu steadfast), they confer the same rule onto all of the Detachments whilst they have at least one mode within 3 inches."
I fail to see the "normal way to proceed for conferring steadfast per AB p. 30". And let us not forget the fact that the FAQ does not mention "conferring steadfast" at all.
Note that according to the AB special rules are conferred. What is a (gaming) rule? A rule tells you how to play a game. It tells you what and when to do something.
Let us make the comparison with the Hatred special rule (or any other rule):
HATRED
Enmity is rife in the Warhammer world, where many races have nurtured grudges and animosities against others for thousands of years, and overwhelming hatred is a potent force in battle.
A model striking a hated foe in close combat re-rolls all misses during the first round of combat – this represents the unit venting its pent up hatred upon the foe. After this initial blood-mad hacking, the impetus is considered to be spent – the rest of the combat is fought normally. Sometimes a model will only Hate a specific foe (rather than everyone). Where this is the case, the type of foe will be expressed in the special rule, for example Hatred (Dwarfs).
There is only one “understanding” of the steadfast rule that tell us what when to do – the first thing the BRB has really to say about steadfast and which it even gives in bold (BRB p. 54, upgraded to 1.7):
If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.
Even you yourself had to admit that it is essential to tell what a unit can do. Essential for the steadfast rule but not part of that rule? Go pull the other one.
I have one more question for Fidelis von Sigmaringen:
how do you understand "for its Regimental Unit’s ranks"?
Could it be that in the mind of the writer, ranks were enough, without the necessity for being defeated? (and why not, in combat at all?)
Or was it that "for its Regimental Unit’s ranks" is a restriction to the scope of the FAQ?
Indeed, the BRB says that steadfast is obtained in the first place by {ranks or whatever p54}, or stubborn, or building.
The FAQ would cover, according to the question, situations where parents had the steadfast rule per their ranks (i.e. not "always" per another rule like stubborn or building).
To explain your understanding of the FAQ and its relation to the AB/BRB you needed more than two full pages in this thread, using
1. syllogistic fallacies - no, it is not common sense.
2. and still failing to explain why the consequence of "conferring steadfast" can be not being steadfast. Your answers so far: "it has been amended" or "the FAQ does add a new condition indeed, that's why." certainly do not explain it. Where exactly does the FAQ add the condition steadfast = not steadfast?
I can explain my understanding in a single line:
The FAQ is in reality an erratum, replacing the steadfast entry in the list of special rules that can be conferred.
I wonder what Ockham would have to say?
-
To explain your understanding of the FAQ and its relation to the AB/BRB you needed more than two full pages in this thread, using
I can explain my understanding in a single line:
The FAQ is in reality an erratum, replacing the steadfast entry in the list of special rules that can be conferred.
So, how do you play it. If a Detachment is within 3" of its Regimental unit, would a detachment count the Regimental Unit's rank when the parent is NOT in combat but has more ranks than the detachment unit's enemy?
-
Yes - and no. :icon_wink: The Detachment would also need to use the Regiment's ranks, when the Parent is NOT in combat and has LESS ranks Detachment unit's enemy.
That is the quid pro quo for using ranks instead of steadfast. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, using the ranks of the Regiment will be a bonus, not a malus.
Concerning NOT in combat (I hope you'll excuse the repetition): while the English version is ambiguous, the French version is not. It is not the first time a non-English language version is better than the English.
-
I'm thinking that maybe Fidelis has it right :icon_eek: when he says just to ignore the AB and apply the FAQ instead.
I tried to check what would happen in a comprehensive series of scenarios.
1. When the ranks are: parent > all foes > detachment. Detachment at 3".
Would parent make detachment steadfast?
11. parent stubborn, not in combat
Yes, because detachment stubborn.
12. parent in building, not in combat
Parent cannot be in same combat at the same time anyway. Note that parent's ranks are now reduced to zero, because of the building.
Yes or no? No is more likely to win a poll.
Those who say "always ranks" say no, zero rank.
Those who say "steadfast only in combat" say no, on own merit.
Otherwise, this depends on whether one understand the FAQ: "the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks". Here, ranks = 0, but the FAQ may not be within scope of application, as parent did not get steadfast for its ranks, but for building.
What is striking is to see the difference of being always steadfast per stubborn => detachment always steadfast, and being always steadfast per building => detachment never steadfast, according to many.
13. parent in same combat
Yes, per AB rule p.30. The FAQ is not changing the result.
14. parent in same combat, but detachment skirmisher or in a river
No.
Detachment get steadfast per AB. But the FAQ changed it in getting ranks.
In a river, detachment is not steadfast unless stubborn, which is not.
15. parent in different combat (defeated during this phase, but passed break test)
Yes.
Everyone agrees that parent is steadfast, AB applies, FAQ is clear.
16. parent in different combat (winning that combat)
Yes for most.
Only those who believe steadfast to be limited to defeated situations, and the FAQ to apply only when the unit was steadfast in the first place, say no.
17. parent not in combat
Yes, or no. :icon_confused:
It depends only on whether you read "either not in combat or in another combat" to include "not in combat".
It depends not on how you understand steadfast to be.
18. parent in river or wood (never steadfast)
No for most.
Those who say that parent not steadfast does not allow AB to apply say no.
Those who say "always ranks" have to admit that the parent has still all its ranks, so yes, the detachment would strangely be steadfast.
2. When the ranks are: parent < all foes < detachment. Detachment at 3".
The detachment would be steadfast on its own merit; however, there is the FAQ last sentence.
For all those (me included) who believe that the FAQ can apply only if the FAQed rule is in force, there's a problem:
The parent is obviously not steadfast, therefore the AB is not applicable, therefore the FAQ is not applicable either.
However, the FAQ last sentence exists only for a case when the AB is not applicable. :icon_eek:
Only Fidelis and his followers have no problem with that last sentence.
Overall, would the detachment remain steafast?
21. parent in same combat.
No, because the FAQ is obviously applicable, despite the parent not being steadfast.
22. parent in other combat, not defeated, and in a river.
Yes or no? :icon_confused:
Here, most players would just not consider the AB: the parent can't possibly be steadfast. They would be likely not to use the FAQ either.
However, the tenant of "always use" would read the FAQ and say no.
23. parent not in combat, in a river.
Yes or no? :icon_confused:
Here, the parent is not steadfast.
But furthermore, for those who read "either/or" to mean "only in combat", the FAQ is out of scope. How could they use it? So definitively yes.
Only the tenant of "always use" would read the FAQ and say no.
24. parent not in combat.
Yes or no? :icon_confused:
Here, only the reading of "either/or" provide the answer:
Those who believe the FAQ to deal only with combat say yes.
Those who believe the FAQ to deal also with non-combat issues say no.
25. parent defeated, and detachment in a building.
Yes or no? :icon_confused:
Note that detachment loses all its ranks and has now zero, so all enemies outrank all friendly units.
The FAQ last sentence is obviously applicable " its Detachments are not Steadfast". Even "always use..." would provide same result.
However, the detachment is "always" steadfast, no restriction, for being in a building.
Probably "always" of the building is strong enough a word to supersede "not" in the FAQ.
What is strange is how the building rules would supersede the FAQ this time, while it would seem to be the opposite when the parent is in a building (see 12).
3. Discussion.
Case 21 is a proof that the FAQ is applicable even when the AB is not. This is where Fidelis has it right.
Now, is it arguable to apply always the FAQ's last sentence, and to limit the rest of the FAQ to when the parent is in combat? or steadfast?
I admit, I don't have a ready answer.
Would it be a case to understand what rules as intended could be?
I have a feeling that the FAQ reveals the RAI to be something like what follows.
AB: Parent confers its status regarding steadfast to detachment:
Parent always steadfast => detachment always steadfast.
Parent never steadfast => detachment never steadfast.
Parent denied steadfast => detachment denied steadfast.
Parent may be steadfast, rank depending => detachment use parent's ranks, even if parent is not in combat.
But that's just a feeling.
That matches quite well: "always" works for stubborn, arguably for buildings.
"Never" is harsher than a litteral application of "FAQ always supersedes AB".
"Denied" is what last sentence of the FAQ says.
"Rank depending" is what the FAQ says to do "always".
And it matches rather well what Fidelis is defending, even if it is not for the same reason.