The new rule does allow some discussion!
After all, we are the Empire in its diversity.
Let's read carefully the new rule, part after part.
"Whether or not a Detachment is Steadfast is determined by their Regimental unit."Question:
- is it
in addition to other merits, such as detachment being always or never steadfast for some reason?
- Or is it
in replacement of any other merits?
My argument:
AB>BRB.The new rule replaces any other merit the detachment could have, even "always" or "never" steadfast.
If the detach is at 3", you don't care whether they are in a building, a wood or a river: they obey the regiment, that's all.
"- Stay in line, Regiment!
- But Sir, we can't...
- Remember, Rule #1.
- Aye aye, Sir."This means that if a Regimental Unit is either not engaged in combat itself, ...RAW: 5 models are
not required in this sentence. A single model remaining, even feet wet in a river, does verify this condition as long as it is not in combat.
Question:
- do we have to understand that the regiment must be steadfast in the first place, i.e. that this new rule is intrinsically linked with "steadfast passing to detachments" printed rule, and therefore the regiment needs a full rank?
- or do we have to understand that this rule is stand-alone, i.e. a new fancy rule about detachments, to be read RAW, and 1 model suffices?
Debate: see below.
...or is engaged in combat and is Steadfast, then all of its detachments are Steadfast, even if fighting an enemy with more ranks.Question:
- do we have to understand that even in a river/wood, the detachments would be steadfast?
- or do we need to consider that when the detachment is denied steadfast because of terrain, even the parent cannot help them?
My answer is AB>BRB, so disregard the detachment's terrain.
If the Regimental Unit is engaged in combat and is not Steadfast, then none of its detachments can be Steadfast, even if fighting an enemy with
less ranks.Question:
- can the detachments remain steadfast due to "always" reason (building, skirmisher in wood)?
- or does it deny even the "always" steadfast?
Here again, I answered AB>BRB.
Let's come back to THE new debate: 1 model? or 1 rank?
Does the regiment
not in combat need to meet steadfast conditions in the first place, before they can make the detachment steadfast?
Well, here, I need some interpretation.
If the new rule is part of the general idea that regiments pass over to detachments their psychological special rules including Steadfast, then obviously when a regiment is not steadfast on his own, his detachments cannot be steadfast either.
However, the link between the new rule and the general idea above is not well established.
For those unwilling to see that link,
One-model-conferring-steadfast is clear, there's no dispute.
However, I would have a question for those tenants of "1 model":
Do you limit to 3"? If yes, why? Because it is not written either in the new rule. Please argue.
The 3" rule could be the link I was looking for, proving that the new erratum is a part of the broader rule about passing special rules to detachments within 3".
I.e. that steadfast passed to detachments does not spring from nowhere, but derives from parent's own steadfast (see below in this post the definition(s) of steadfast).
But as I don't have my AB with me, I cannot be sure.
If I am right, that closes the debate and steadfast has been made cristal clear.
So the replies would be:
1: How many models?
It depends on whether or not you link the new rule with the general AB rule about passing special rules to detachments within 3".
(1 model) => Some say that 1 model is enough and could even be denied steadfast per terrain. Not in combat is all that matters.
(1 rank) => Some and me say that 1 rank (or a building) is necessary and the unit must not be denied steadfast.
2. Parent in a building?
All: Detachment steadfast, whatever the situation of the detachment.
3. Parent denied steadfast per terrain?
(1 model) => don't care, detachment steadfast nevertheless.
(1 rank) => detachment denied steadfast even if it was always steadfast for any reason.
4. Detachment own merits?
All: irrelevant, only parent counts.
@ Noght, playing more minimalist than RAW, I see.
Where the definition of Steadfast changed is quoted in my first post above, i.e. not much changed except the removal of previous FAQ.
We are still in the same situation as debated previously in
Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ:
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}
Even with the new erratum, you can still interpret steadfast as you did, to be restricted to losing combat situations.
It is just that interpretation C seems much more coherent with the new Empire erratum than the two other ones, for which the rationale for the new erratum would be quite troublesome to explain.
