Topic: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ

[Calisson]

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.

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.

[Calisson]

That's all, folks.
I tried to expose the four 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! 



@ 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!  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. 

@ 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}. 

@ 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".

[commandant]

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.

[Mathias]

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”.

[Calisson]

@ 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).

[Captain Alard Krusen]

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.

[Noght]

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.

[Mathias]

...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.

[Calisson]

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". 


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.

[Noght]

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.

[Cursain]

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

[Ambrose]

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.

[mrth0msen]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Captain Alard Krusen]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

You can go to sleep without any worries - it is towards Calisson.

[pistolpadds]

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

[Calisson]

@ 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?

[Calisson]

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]

@ 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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Ambrose]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[TheBelgianGuy]

I think they need a separate FAQ to understand their FAQ.

[Ambrose]

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?