Warhammer-Empire.com
The Empire at War ... The Gamers Guild => WHFB The Electors' Forum => Topic started by: malladin_ben on April 11, 2012, 11:58:50 AM
-
Hi folks,
A friend of mine at GW has asked about the steadfast detachment queries for me. The unofficial answer is that the regimental unit has to be in combat but not necessarily the same combat.
Hope that helps.
Cheerio
Ben
-
Is there an FAQ because otherwise you could really be a dick and claim that because the parent unit is not in combat it has more ranks than its foe and therefore is steadfast
-
I'm not sure that works. If you are in a combat and win are you steadfast? If you have not yet fought combat how do you know you will be steadfast by the end? Too many questions to play it any other way than being in the same combat.
-
And it makes absolutely no sense if the parent would be steadfast against the enemy that the detachment is fighting, but not against the enemy it actually is fighting. Nope, I ain't buying it.
-
I would suggest you always count the ranks fo the main regiment to check if the units have steadfast even if the main unit is not in cc.
Issue solved.
-
I would suggest you always count the ranks fo the main regiment to check if the units have steadfast even if the main unit is not in cc.
Issue solved.
So you're saying the detachments could gain steadfast from a parent that's not in any combat? I don't think that's the way it's meant to be.
-
Well until there is a FAQ things will be open for discussion.
Steadfast only states that as long as you have more ranks than your opponent than you are basically stubborn. Detachment rules say that as long as the detachment is within 3 " it gains for example steadfast of the main regiment. Being in close combat is not a condition mentioned on either rule. So as soon as my detachment is in close combat and within 3 inches of the main I think it is reasonable to count the ranks of the main unit.
-
But being in combat is required to be steadfast in the first place. So if the parent is not in combat, it has no steadfast to pass to the detachment.
-
But being in combat is required to be steadfast in the first place. So if the parent is not in combat, it has no steadfast to pass to the detachment.
Definitely.
You'd think the Empire book would explain this better though.
-
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
-
I guess then that they haven't fixed the problem of people charging the detatchment instead of the main regiment. Crown of Command/Greatswords are going to be required to make use of detatchments.
-
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
I can see this being a point of contention as it certainly makes the order in which combats resolve important. If the regimental unit is fighting unit x and the detachment in close support is fighting unit y, the detachment can only claim steadfast if the regimental unit has already fought (and lost, and probably held, as fleeing would likely take it out of close support range).
Basically I can see it being argued that when combat resolution is completed and a break test has been taken and a new combat has begun the regimental unit no-longer counts as being steadfast (because you are only steadfast while taking the break test following your combat) and it cannot therefore be passed on.
I guess we should try and stick to detachments fighting alongside their regimental units.
-
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”
So... there are three interpretations of the issue:
- Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
- Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments that are involved in the same combat.
- Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.
Option 3 is the most RAW , but opens up a can of worms:
- It means that the order of playing out combats becomes important since the parent may lose its steadfast status if it loses ranks, breaks or even WINS and chases off its enemy.
- A 2 ranks parent fighting a 1 rank enemy will pass steadfast to a 2 rank detachment fighting a 10 rank enemy. This. Is. Ugly.
- A parent in a building will pass steadfast to its detachments outside.
An archer parent in a forest too.(edit: sorry, that's stubborn, not steadfast) Again, ugly.
-
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”
to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.[/li][/list]
My emphasis.
I was quite aware of the errata. Which, however, say the same thing as the BRB (If a defeated unit), except that they specify that the break test is used without the difference in combat result scores, instead of unmodified Ld. This was to clarify that e.g. Skaven were not taking the break test on their unmodified Ld (ignoring the Strength in Numbers rule). So, yes, you still need to be defeated , before you can become steadfast.
-
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”
to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.[/li][/list]
My emphasis.
I was quite aware of the errata. Which, however, say the same thing as the BRB (If a defeated unit), except that they specify that the break test is used without the difference in combat result scores, instead of unmodified Ld. This was to clarify that e.g. Skaven were not taking the break test on their unmodified Ld (ignoring the Strength in Numbers rule). So, yes, you still need to be defeated , before you can become steadfast.
So you need also to be defeated in order to be unbreakable? Sure not. You are always unbreakable and you apply the rule when defeated. Same with steadfast. You are always assumed steadfast in CC assuming you have more ranks than the enemy at the end of combat and you apply its effects if you lose such combat.
-
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”
to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.[/li][/list]
My emphasis.
I was quite aware of the errata. Which, however, say the same thing as the BRB (If a defeated unit), except that they specify that the break test is used without the difference in combat result scores, instead of unmodified Ld. This was to clarify that e.g. Skaven were not taking the break test on their unmodified Ld (ignoring the Strength in Numbers rule). So, yes, you still need to be defeated , before you can become steadfast.
Darn, I read it way to quickly. Thanks for pointing that out...
However, there are different opinions on this. It can be argued either way. The BRB actually says "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" on the same page, after all.
But the thing is, IF you are correct, then "option 3" above becomes 100% Bozo the clown and should not be considered an option at all.
-
So you need also to be defeated in order to be unbreakable? Sure not. You are always unbreakable and you apply the rule when defeated. Same with steadfast. You are always assumed steadfast in CC assuming you have more ranks than the enemy at the end of combat and you apply its effects if you lose such combat.
You are always unbreakable, because you always already have that special rule beforehand, and because it is not limited by anything the rules says. The rule about Steadfast specifies: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.” How much clearer could it be?
-
The BRB doesn't say that losing while having more ranks makes you Steadfast. The only criterium mentioned is actually "having more ranks". The paragraph you are referring to only explains how it is used, not how you gain it.
-
I know the rules are not written "THIS" way, but I would suggest the following alteration to make up for a poorly worded rule.
"When a Detachment compares its ranks to the enemy's for purposes of determining Steadfast, the Detachment may count the Parent unit's ranks instead of its own."
(IE: Detachment of 10 Swordsmen in 5x2 formation lose combat to 15 Orcs in 5x3 formation; The Swordsmen's Parent unit has 5 ranks, so the Detachment counts its own ranks as being 5 and therefore is Steadfast for this round of lost combat)
........................
Now a curious thing is Skirmishers in Woods. Skirmishers with a majority of models in a forest gain Steadfast, so if the Parent unit is an Archer unit and they are in woods, would all detachments gain Steadfast too? This would be confusing when a ranked up Halberd Detachment is in Woods and so is the Parent Archers unit since the rules suggest that the Detachment would both be Steadfast AND lose Steadfast!
-
Let me try this again:
Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”
The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."
This makes "option 3" above easier to swallow IMO. I'd still prefer 1 or 2 though. But RAW, option 3 is probably the one to use.
-
I know the rules are not written "THIS" way, but I would suggest the following alteration to make up for a poorly worded rule.
"When a Detachment compares its ranks to the enemy's for purposes of determining Steadfast, the Detachment may count the Parent unit's ranks instead of its own."
(IE: Detachment of 10 Swordsmen in 5x2 formation lose combat to 15 Orcs in 5x3 formation; The Swordsmen's Parent unit has 5 ranks, so the Detachment counts its own ranks as being 5 and therefore is Steadfast for this round of lost combat)
This sounds like "option 1" above. It's the most powerful and the farthest away from RAW, but it's the most elegant rules design IMO.
Now a curious thing is Skirmishers in Woods. Skirmishers with a majority of models in a forest gain Steadfast, so if the Parent unit is an Archer unit and they are in woods, would all detachments gain Steadfast too? This would be confusing when a ranked up Halberd Detachment is in Woods and so is the Parent Archers unit since the rules suggest that the Detachment would both be Steadfast AND lose Steadfast!
This is actually a different matter, since archers in woods get Stubborn, not Steadfast. And Stubborn is easy to interpret and is not the issue here. But yes, the archers transfer Stubborn to the detachment, so the detachment IS Stubborn even in woods.
-
Let me try this again:
Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”
The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."
This makes "option 3" above easier to swallow IMO. I'd still prefer 1 or 2 though. But RAW, option 3 is probably the one to use.
This.
By definition steadfast is a rule or condition a unit gets in relation to which other enemy units it compares to at the moment you are making that comparition in any given game. Since the very beginning of the game you know that the unit with the most ranks in the tabletop is at that moment steadfast against any other unit in the tabletop. Now if by turn 3 such unit has had some casualties and now one enemy unit has more ranks, your unit is still steadfast against all other enemy units except that only one. You don't necessarily need to loose a round of combat to know if a unit is steadfast or not. You only need to know if at the moment of the break test the unit has more ranks and in many cases you know it even before blows begin to fly.
All units with two ranks at least are able to be steadfast no matter what. Now, based in the conditions of that specific game it can be applied or not.
-
Let me try this again:
Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”
The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."
I cannot agree. It is just the other way around. The first paragraph after the heading Steadfast explains what steadfast is. The third and fourth paragraph explain how it works.
As I already said above:
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
-
Let me try this again:
Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:
Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”
The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."
I cannot agree. It is just the other way around. The first paragraph after the heading Steadfast explains what steadfast is. The third and fourth paragraph explain how it works.
As I already said above:
Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.
Ok, so how long do you have Steadfast then? Are you only Steadfast while you make the Break test? That means you are no longer Steadfast when it is time for the Detachment to roll. Regardless if the detachment fights before or after the Parent, it won't be Steadfast since the Parent only has the rule at the exact moment it is making its break test.
Sense not made.
-
If you assume that it is only limited when Parent and Detachment are in the same combat, it makes perfect sense:
Multiple Combat and Break tests: When the winning side has been determined in multiple combat, you need to take a seperate break test for every unit on the losing side.
So first all combat; then determining winning side (defeat=steadfast), then break test.
-
If you assume that it is only limited when Parent and Detachment are in the same combat, it makes perfect sense:
Multiple Combat and Break tests: When the winning side has been determined in multiple combat, you need to take a seperate break test for every unit on the losing side.
So first all combat; then determining winning side (defeat=steadfast), then break test.
Yes, perfect sense. But then we are talking about another interpretation:
So... there are three interpretations of the issue:
- Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
- Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments that are involved in the same combat.
- Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.
Now you're talking about option 2, which never was an actual issue. The one I have been dissing is option 3.
-
According to the present wording of the rules, it is the ONLY acceptable interpretation, ruling out the other two, which, I thought, was the actual issue.
-
There is no consensus, but yes, option 2 is probably the best compromise between RAW and playability.
-
I will not argue with that. :icon_wink:
-
There is no consensus, but yes, option 2 is probably the best compromise between RAW and playability.
You can also say that option is not playable and not RAW. The only playable one is option 1, it is also easy and not too overpowered.
-
There is no consensus, but yes, option 2 is probably the best compromise between RAW and playability.
You can also say that option is not playable and not RAW. The only playable one is option 1, it is also easy and not too overpowered.
Of course you can. Do you have any arguments for it?
-
I second that request.
-
Now a curious thing is Skirmishers in Woods. Skirmishers with a majority of models in a forest gain Steadfast, so if the Parent unit is an Archer unit and they are in woods, would all detachments gain Steadfast too? This would be confusing when a ranked up Halberd Detachment is in Woods and so is the Parent Archers unit since the rules suggest that the Detachment would both be Steadfast AND lose Steadfast!
This is actually a different matter, since archers in woods get Stubborn, not Steadfast. And Stubborn is easy to interpret and is not the issue here. But yes, the archers transfer Stubborn to the detachment, so the detachment IS Stubborn even in woods.
You are correct, I misread the rule.
....
I would suggest that until this rule gets FAQ'd, you should ask the opponent for their interpritation and come to an agreement. If no agreemen is possible, then the only option remainign is to default to Steadfast only applies to Detachments who are in the same combat with their Parent. Any other interpritation will naturally result in conflicting rules questions that don't really need to happen.
As we all know, GW authors write rules while thinkign about specific situations and rarely describe that specific situation clearly in the rule. Then the ambiguously written rule, while obvious to the author, is now causing serious conflict outside the intended use.
***For instance the long-running Manbane + Throwing Stars Dark Elf Assassin debate in 7th edition! The author clearly stated his intent on his personal blog and never really thought it would be a questionable rule, but due to the wording not clarifying his intent, it became an extremely heated debate for about a year until GW just made a new FAQ. ***
I always suggest we look towards the likely view-point of the author; which in my opinion would be him thinking the Detachment has "Counter Charge" rules, so they will always be in combat with the same enemy unit as the parent! Of course real life experience gaming tells all of us that this is just silly and happens at best 1/3 the time.
-
There is no consensus, but yes, option 2 is probably the best compromise between RAW and playability.
You can also say that option is not playable and not RAW. The only playable one is option 1, it is also easy and not too overpowered.
Of course you can. Do you have any arguments for it?
I can try:
Option 2 and 3 still make it difficult if part / half of the regimental unit is in a forest, option 1 is easy to use in that situation.
Option 3 leads to detachments being steadfast while fighting units with far more ranks than the regimental unit, unless the regimental unit wins, because winning units are never steadfast.
So that's why I think option 1 is the easiest one to use in the game.
Option 3 is far too weak, it will almost never happen. Option 2 makes sense, but seems a little weak.
-
You need to explain the reference to the forest. Anyway, neither option 1, nor option 3 are in accordance with the rules of Steadfast and Break tests as they are currently written.
-
I think you are reading too much into the rules, and making it to be much more complex than it should be.
A unit is steadfast when it has more ranks than it's oppenent in combat. If the parent unit is in combat, and has more ranks than it's oppenent, then the detachment is also steadfast. The parent unit is steadfast unit it has less ranks than it's oppenent, and thusly the detachment is steadfast until the parent unit loses steadfast.
If the parent unit is not in combat, it has no oppenent to compare ranks against, and is thusly not steadfast, so the detchment is also not steadfast.
-
You need to explain the reference to the forest. Anyway, neither option 1, nor option 3 are in accordance with the rules of Steadfast and Break tests as they are currently written.
I did not say that either of the options is what the author meant or what is closest to the rules. I just think that option 1 is most justified given the price we pay for our state troops. I also think that if they want us to consider detachments without stubborn, they should rule it like that.
I can sketch a situation involving a forest:
Regimental unit A is inside a forest and has 3 ranks.
Detachment B is outside a forest, not in the flank of the enemy and has one rank.
They are fighting the same unit C with 2 ranks and this unit wins the combat.
Who is steadfast? What will be the answer if A & C are in the forest or B & C?
-
You need to explain the reference to the forest. Anyway, neither option 1, nor option 3 are in accordance with the rules of Steadfast and Break tests as they are currently written.
I did not say that either of the options is what the author meant or what is closest to the rules. I just think that option 1 is most justified given the price we pay for our state troops. I also think that if they want us to consider detachments without stubborn, they should rule it like that.
I can sketch a situation involving a forest:
Regimental unit A is inside a forest and has 3 ranks.
Detachment B is outside a forest, not in the flank of the enemy and has one rank.
They are fighting the same unit C with 2 ranks and this unit wins the combat.
Who is steadfast? What will be the answer if A & C are in the forest or B & C?
In your example, Neither A or B has steadfast. The parent unit cannot be steadfast in the forest, and detachment B has less ranks than the oppenent is is fighting.
-
You need to explain the reference to the forest. Anyway, neither option 1, nor option 3 are in accordance with the rules of Steadfast and Break tests as they are currently written.
I did not say that either of the options is what the author meant or what is closest to the rules. I just think that option 1 is most justified given the price we pay for our state troops. I also think that if they want us to consider detachments without stubborn, they should rule it like that.
I can sketch a situation involving a forest:
Regimental unit A is inside a forest and has 3 ranks.
Detachment B is outside a forest, not in the flank of the enemy and has one rank.
They are fighting the same unit C with 2 ranks and this unit wins the combat.
Who is steadfast? What will be the answer if A & C are in the forest or B & C?
In your example, Neither A or B has steadfast. The parent unit cannot be steadfast in the forest, and detachment B has less ranks than the oppenent is is fighting.
According to interpretation 1, though, you only count the ranks of the parent. There would need to be a clausul pointing out that detachments WON'T count the ranks of their parent IF the parent is in a forest, river or similar. But now we are moving further and further away from RAW. Interpretation 1 is itself pretty far off (even if it would be nice).
-
You need to explain the reference to the forest. Anyway, neither option 1, nor option 3 are in accordance with the rules of Steadfast and Break tests as they are currently written.
I did not say that either of the options is what the author meant or what is closest to the rules. I just think that option 1 is most justified given the price we pay for our state troops. I also think that if they want us to consider detachments without stubborn, they should rule it like that.
I can sketch a situation involving a forest:
Regimental unit A is inside a forest and has 3 ranks.
Detachment B is outside a forest, not in the flank of the enemy and has one rank.
They are fighting the same unit C with 2 ranks and this unit wins the combat.
Who is steadfast? What will be the answer if A & C are in the forest or B & C?
In your example, Neither A or B has steadfast. The parent unit cannot be steadfast in the forest, and detachment B has less ranks than the oppenent is is fighting.
According to interpretation 1, though, you only count the ranks of the parent. There would need to be a clausul pointing out that detachments WON'T count the ranks of their parent IF the parent is in a forest, river or similar. But now we are moving further and further away from RAW. Interpretation 1 is itself pretty far off (even if it would be nice).
I dont see why there needs to be clausal anything, tbh. Like i said, overly-complicating things. When the detachment is required to make a break test, decide if the parent unit os steadfast or not. Apply result. Simples
-
One can reasonably argue that Steadfast applies to Detachments even if the parent is not in close combat as long as the parent unit has more ranks than then your opponents units combating the detachment.
The Empire Rulebook says" If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below, they confer the same rule onto all of the Detachments whilst they have at least one mode within 3 inches"
Steadfast 2nd paragraph on page 54 states "Simply put a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"
Without Steadfast there is a real possibility that detachments end up being worthless due to them causing panic on the parent unit when your opponent charges them and breaks them in close combat and causes a panic test on all units within 6 inches.
-
There is no point in continuously quoting: "Simply put a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy", as evidence that a unit is ALWAYS steadfast. This reference is without any shred of a doubt in the context of taking break tests after a defeat.
In the definition of Steadfast, it is clearly said: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership (emphasis of the BRB!), or in the FAQ: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.
There is only one situation which complies with all the rules (Detachments, Steadfast, Break tests): when the parent and the detachment are involved in the same combat.
-
There is only one situation which complies with all the rules (Detachments, Steadfast, Break tests): when the parent and the detachment are involved in the same combat.
I don't see why it has to be the same combat ;)
-
Sigh.
Because of the rules of combat resolution and break tests. You resolve one combat, determine the winner, apply break tests, then resolve the next combat. If the parent unit is involved in another combat than the detachment, the combat result/break test of the detachment is determined before or after that of the parent unit, ergo when the parent unit is not yet/not anymore steadfast.
-
With all due respect you are not correct in your statement since as pg 30 of the Empire book clearly states " Regimental Units and Detachments fight so closely together that they are affected by the same battlefield psychology". Also you are incorrect in your statement that a FAQ states otherwise (as of 2:45PM on April 13,2012 there is no Empire FAQ)
There is no point in continuously quoting: "Simply put a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy", as evidence that a unit is ALWAYS steadfast. This reference is without any shred of a doubt in the context of taking break tests after a defeat.
In the definition of Steadfast, it is clearly said: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership (emphasis of the BRB!), or in the FAQ: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.
There is only one situation which complies with all the rules (Detachments, Steadfast, Break tests): when the parent and the detachment are involved in the same combat.
-
I think you are reading too much into the rules, and making it to be much more complex than it should be.
A unit is steadfast when it has more ranks than it's oppenent in combat. If the parent unit is in combat, and has more ranks than it's oppenent, then the detachment is also steadfast. The parent unit is steadfast unit it has less ranks than it's oppenent, and thusly the detachment is steadfast until the parent unit loses steadfast.
If the parent unit is not in combat, it has no oppenent to compare ranks against, and is thusly not steadfast, so the detchment is also not steadfast.
I would agree.
But as to all the arguments, I'm going to need to look at the books when I get home.
-
Heres the problem with your logic. As an Orc player what I would do is charge your detachment rather than the parent unit and break it in close combat (this happens to be my favorite tactic when playing against the Empire). Now without the Steadfast rule I will force the parent to make a Panic test (since the detachment is within 6 inches of the parent unit and unit strength does not affect panic checks). In effect unless you have great swords or the Crown of Command detachments have become effectively worthless.
I think you are reading too much into the rules, and making it to be much more complex than it should be.
A unit is steadfast when it has more ranks than it's oppenent in combat. If the parent unit is in combat, and has more ranks than it's oppenent, then the detachment is also steadfast. The parent unit is steadfast unit it has less ranks than it's oppenent, and thusly the detachment is steadfast until the parent unit loses steadfast.
If the parent unit is not in combat, it has no oppenent to compare ranks against, and is thusly not steadfast, so the detchment is also not steadfast.
I would agree.
-
I was referring to the FAQ of the BRB. As this FAQ had been cited before, I would have thought that that was rather obvious. There is no contradiction with the rule in the Empire rulebook. Parent unit and detachment are indeed affected by the same battlefield psychology. For the detachment to be steadfast, the parent unit must be steadfast. The parent unit is only steadfast after its defeat until the resolution of the break test. Only in that period, the detachment too is steadfast. Before or after, there is no steadfast to affect the units.
To me, this is not complex at all: it is simply following the rules, which really are not that complicated. It is definitely not as useful as being steadfast all the time, but, unfortunately, that has no basis in the rules.
-
Heres the problem with your logic. As an Orc player what I would do is charge your detachment rather than the parent unit and break it in close combat (this happens to be my favorite tactic when playing against the Empire). Now without the Steadfast rule I will force the parent to make a Panic test (since the detachment is within 6 inches of the parent unit and unit strength does not affect panic checks). In effect unless you have great swords or the Crown of Command detachments have become effectively worthless.
It is not my logic, but the rules as written. I will be quite happy, if somebody proves me wrong, or if the rules are changed. And yes, it may well be that the detachments could be worthless. Why would I not be surprised, if the new rules would not have been really been thought through by GW?
-
Ok, I’m going to throw a controversy-bomb into the argument. I believe the problem with GW rules is that they are written in a "fluffy" manner; that is to say that GW design rules for people to play in friendly situations for fun, where "spirit", "character" and "common sense" take precedent. Obviously, the world isn’t this happy rose place GW believe it to be, and that’s why we end up with these situations... Sloppy written rules that don't stand up to scrutiny when worked RAW.
Thats why i believe we'll never sort this out in this thread or on this forum. The RAW and RAI are subjective to everyone, and everyone will have their own opinion on how it should be played (case in point.. hold the line with a single character). Gw have proved with the ogre FAQ that "spirit" and "fluff" are considered when writing the rules.
-
Ok, I’m going to throw a controversy-bomb into the argument. I believe the problem with GW rules is that they are written in a "fluffy" manner; that is to say that GW design rules for people to play in friendly situations for fun, where "spirit", "character" and "common sense" take precedent. Obviously, the world isn’t this happy rose place GW believe it to be, and that’s why we end up with these situations... Sloppy written rules that don't stand up to scrutiny when worked RAW.
Thats why i believe we'll never sort this out in this thread or on this forum. The RAW and RAI are subjective to everyone, and everyone will have their own opinion on how it should be played (case in point.. hold the line with a single character). Gw have proved with the ogre FAQ that "spirit" and "fluff" are considered when writing the rules.
While I agree in general with what you say, in this case the rules as written are not sloppy and seem pretty clear. It is simply not what people want, as it throws doubt on the usefulness of detachments under the new rules.
Edit: Allow me to point out that on p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test), it is again specified: "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. " (My emphasis)
The latter frase being changed in the FAQ of the BRB to: "doesn’t apply the difference in combat result scores as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of all enemy units in the combat." GW is pretty persistent on this issue.
-
First of all your logic is not iron clad despite what you keep on saying. So lets assume that what matters in this situation is game play.
Lets assume we have a parent unit with 30 halberds (10x3 with full command )and a detachment of 10 halberds (5x2) Vs 10 Boar Boys (5x2 with full command)
.............BBBBB
.............BBBBB
.............PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP
To use your logic detachments is the obvious choice to charge since not only do they not have a standard and I do (+1 for me) but when they break they will not only panic my parent unit but all units within 6 inches.
BBBBB
BBBBB...PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP
When the detachment breaks what direction do you think the parent unit is going to flee if they fail a break test? Oh yes the will now flee to the right and break the entire empire line. So in order for you to be correct any person using a detachment risks loosing the entire game.
Given the fact that detachments cause panic now I say its less gamey to allow detachments to be Steadfast and more gamey to insist otherwise. After all a detachment is supposed to be an advantage to the Empire.
Heres the problem with your logic. As an Orc player what I would do is charge your detachment rather than the parent unit and break it in close combat (this happens to be my favorite tactic when playing against the Empire). Now without the Steadfast rule I will force the parent to make a Panic test (since the detachment is within 6 inches of the parent unit and unit strength does not affect panic checks). In effect unless you have great swords or the Crown of Command detachments have become effectively worthless.
It is not my logic, but the rules as written. I will be quite happy, if somebody proves me wrong, or if the rules are changed. And yes, it may well be that the detachments could be worthless. Why would I not be surprised, if the new rules would not have been really been thought through by GW?
-
Given the fact that detachments cause panic now I say its less gamey to allow detachments to be Steadfast and more gamey to insist otherwise. After all a detachment is supposed to be an advantage to the Empire.
Again, it is not my logic, but the rules as written (see also my edit above). Your example is neither here nor there. If the rules say X, then it is X, whatever you and I may prefer. Again, I will be happy if GW changes the rules or specifies that detachments are an exception. Do you want to use different rules in a friendly game, be my guest. As long as you do not get upset, if someone does want to play by the BRB rules.
-
So... there are three interpretations of the issue:
- Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
This is the interpretation I think makes the most sense. The regimental unit and the detachment are a team. If I'm a trooper in a detachment and we take a solid thrashing, I think we would dig deep (steadfast) knowing that the regiment is right there ready to enter the fray as reinforcements.
That's my two cents anyway :biggriin:
-
Ok, I’m going to throw a controversy-bomb into the argument. I believe the problem with GW rules is that they are written in a "fluffy" manner; that is to say that GW design rules for people to play in friendly situations for fun, where "spirit", "character" and "common sense" take precedent. Obviously, the world isn’t this happy rose place GW believe it to be, and that’s why we end up with these situations... Sloppy written rules that don't stand up to scrutiny when worked RAW.
Thats why i believe we'll never sort this out in this thread or on this forum. The RAW and RAI are subjective to everyone, and everyone will have their own opinion on how it should be played (case in point.. hold the line with a single character). Gw have proved with the ogre FAQ that "spirit" and "fluff" are considered when writing the rules.
While I agree in general with what you say, in this case the rules as written are not sloppy and seem pretty clear. It is simply not what people want, as it throws doubt on the usefulness of detachments under the new rules.
Edit: Allow me to point out that on p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test), it is again specified: "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. " (My emphasis)
The latter frase being changed in the FAQ of the BRB to: "doesn’t apply the difference in combat result scores as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of all enemy units in the combat." GW is pretty persistent on this issue.
Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.
-
So... there are three interpretations of the issue:
- Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
This is the interpretation I think makes the most sense. The regimental unit and the detachment are a team. If I'm a trooper in a detachment and we take a solid thrashing, I think we would dig deep (steadfast) knowing that the regiment is right there ready to enter the fray as reinforcements.
That's my two cents anyway :biggriin:
Whatever one may think makes sense: everything in the BRB contradicts this option.
Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.
And there is no real reason now, either (other than that it would suit us). If it was the intent to change that, GW failed to do so. Unless they change it, that is what the BRB dictates, and nothing in the Army Book I have seen so far overrules that. But if you want to play it differently in a friendly game, and your opponent agrees, why not?
-
So... there are three interpretations of the issue:
- Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
This is the interpretation I think makes the most sense. The regimental unit and the detachment are a team. If I'm a trooper in a detachment and we take a solid thrashing, I think we would dig deep (steadfast) knowing that the regiment is right there ready to enter the fray as reinforcements.
That's my two cents anyway :biggriin:
Whatever one may think makes sense: everything in the BRB contradicts this option.
Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.
And there is no real reason now, either (other than that it would suit us). If it was the intent to change that, GW failed to do so. Unless they change it, that is what the BRB dictates, and nothing in the Army Book I have seen so far overrules that. But if you want to play it differently in a friendly game, and your opponent agrees, why not?
But the BSB was written well before the Empire army book, so things in that are not going to back up the AB, unless you expect GW to errata the BRB everytime they change direction in an army book.
Your running in circles now, and this discussion is getting stale. You want to play it Raw, that detachments are only steadfast at the precise moment their parent unit takes a break test, fine. In my opinion, it's stoopid.
-
I would deny that I am the one running in circles. One would think that if the rules are clear enough, there should not be much discussion. As I pointed out: there is nothing in the Army Book that overrules or contradicts the steadfast rule as written in the BRB. If there was, the Army Book would trump the BRB, and I would be happily let my detachments always be steadfast. But "option 2" satisfies the rules on detachments, steadfast and combat resolution/break tests. So, why insist on other options that do not? Because we like them better?
One may not like the rules as they are, but that is no reason to uphold positions that have no support in written rules.
-
I think you are a rules lawyer. You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them. Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.
I would deny that I am the one running in circles. One would think that if the rules are clear enough, there should not be much discussion. As I pointed out: there is nothing in the Army Book that overrules or contradicts the steadfast rule as written in the BRB. If there was, the Army Book would trump the BRB, and I would be happily let my detachments always be steadfast. But "option 2" satisfies the rules on detachments, steadfast and combat resolution/break tests. So, why insist on other options that do not? Because we like them better?
One may not like the rules as they are, but that is no reason to uphold positions that have no support in written rules.
-
Ok, option 3 suffers badly from the poor definition of Steadfast in the BRB, so it can be interpreted in 2 different ways. Therefore, it really should be divided into 3a and 3b. Let’s try this again, with a summary of arguments for (+) and against (-) each interpretation. Did I miss something?
1. Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
2. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments that are involved in the same combat.
3a. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat. The parent gains Stubborn in the first place by outranking the enemy it is fighting, and it may then pass it on to its detachment. Whether the parent wins or loses its combat is irrelevant.
3b. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat. The parent gains Stubborn in the first place by fighting its enemy before the detachment does, losing the round of combat, outrank its enemy, pass its break test and it may then pass it on to its detachment.
Option 1
+Pretty elegant rules design.
+/-It is no doubt the most powerful interpretation, and may be considered overpowered. Or not.
-Wierd situation: A parent standing in a river or similar can’t be Steadfast themselves, but would still allow the detachment to be Steadfast on the parent’s merits. Option 1 would need a clausul saying that the Parent cannot pass on ranks if it is in a situation where it can’t be Steadfast itself.
-Wierd situation. 3 rank Parent fights 10 rank enemy, while 1 rank Detachment fights 2 rank enemy. The Parent is not steadfast itself, but still lets the Detachment count its ranks to obtain Steadfast. Similar to the situation above.
-This is simply not RAW. The new Detachment rules only states that parent units share Steadfast with their detachments. Having many ranks means nothing with regards to Steadfast if the parent is not in combat. This interpretation would need a serious errata, not a FAQ.
Option 2
+Elegant rules design. Doesn’t create any wierd situations. Both Parent and Detachment are in the same combat, and so win it or lose it (and take break tests) together, the same instant.
+/- Clearly the least powerful interpretation.
-Not quite RAW. The new Detachments rules don’t mention being in the same combat as a prerequisite for sharing Steadfast.
Option 3a
+Most RAW, as long as you accept the definition of Steadfast in the first place.
-Wierd situation: 3 rank Parent fights 2 rank enemy, while 1 rank Detachment fights a different 10 rank enemy. The Detachment is Steadfast although clearly it should not be.
-Wierd situation: A parent in a building is Steadfast (not Stubborn, oddly enough) and passes it on to its detachments outside. The issue lies more in the Building rules than in the Detachment rules, but it is still there.
-Suffers from the “sequencing” problem; the order in which you resolve combats becomes important, as the parent’s Steadfast status may change (due to loss of ranks, losing and breaking, winning and breaking the enemy(!) etc) before it is time for the Detachment to fight.
Option 3b
+Most RAW, as long as you accept the definition of Steadfast in the first place. However:
-This definition of Steadfast cannot be correct. If you “gain” Steadfast the moment you make your break test, it stands to reason that you “lose” Steadfast the moment you resolved the roll. If Steadfast status only exists at the moment you make your break test, the detachment cannot get Steadfast from it’s parent since they don’t fight at the same time (given that they are in different combats of course, but if they are not, we have reached option 2, above and it’s no longer a problem).
-
I think you are a rules lawyer. You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them. Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.
Show me where I am wrong, and I will happily change my point of view. If an army book has new rules, I prefer to look how they fit within the rules of the BRB. One cannot even claim that the rules are not clear. Choosing an option that is in accordance with both the army book and the BRB is not rules lawyering - it is just not indulging in wishful thinking.
The fact that the rules do not benefit detachments is no valid argument against the rules. Was it the intent of GW that it should be different? We do not know. If it is, they will hopefully soon say that the rules must be changed or that the detachments are an exception to the rule. Until then, there is no reason not to play by the rules as they are.
-
This is my last post on the subject
The Empire Rulebook says" If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below, they confer the same rule onto all of the Detachments whilst they have at least one mode within 3 inches"
Steadfast 2nd paragraph on page 54 states "Simply put a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"
I think you are a rules lawyer. You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them. Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.
Show me where I am wrong, and I will happily change my point of view. If an army book has new rules, I prefer to look how they fit within the rules of the BRB. One cannot even claim that the rules are not clear. Choosing an option that is in accordance with both the army book and the BRB is not rules lawyering - it is just not indulging in wishful thinking.
The fact that the rules do not benefit detachments is no valid argument against the rules. Was it the intent of GW that it should be different? We do not know. If it is, they will hopefully soon say that the rules must be changed or that the detachments are an exception to the rule. Until then, there is no reason not to play by the rules as they are.
-
This is my last post on the subject
The Empire Rulebook says" If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below, they confer the same rule onto all of the Detachments whilst they have at least one mode within 3 inches"
Steadfast 2nd paragraph on page 54 states "Simply put a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"
More ranks than what enemy? Can you pick and choose any enemy unit on the board? You can't argue the fact that you at least have to be in combat to be Steadfast, and you compare ranks to the unit(s) you are in combat with.
You are obviously advocating "option 1" above. Houserule it however you want, but RAW, you don't have a case. I'm not saying there isn't a chance the FAQ will prove you right though.
-
maybe you just use the rank bonus of the regimental unit to determine steadfast. That's what I've been doing.
-
maybe you just use the rank bonus of the regimental unit to determine steadfast. That's what I've been doing.
That's also "option 1", and it's neat and all. But it's clearly not how it is written.
On Warseer and other forums, options 3a (and 3b, even if it's clearly insane) are pretty popular. Not over here, it seems.
-
Let's just play it safe and wait for the FAQ that will surely come.
-
maybe you just use the rank bonus of the regimental unit to determine steadfast. That's what I've been doing.
That's also "option 1", and it's neat and all. But it's clearly not how it is written.
On Warseer and other forums, options 3a (and 3b, even if it's clearly insane) are pretty popular. Not over here, it seems.
My book is still in teh mail so I haven't looked at it closely.... lol.
-
The more I read this new army book, the worse it gets.
-
The more I read this new army book, the worse it gets.
this
Okay, I'm trying to follow this thread and instead of clarifying things for me, it has left me MORE confused. I have the following as my core:
Halberdiers x 50 w full command in hord formation (10x5). I have a detachment of swordsmen x 20 (5x4).
1. Halberdiers are in combat with a unit. Swordsmen in combat with the SAME unit. Rules: If either unit has more ranks than the enemy unit = steadfast. Make roll on unmodified LD. Right?
2. Halberdiers are NOT in combat. Swordsmen are in combat with enemy that has more ranks then them. Halberdiers are NOT steadfast (as they are not in combat) so they do NOT pass it to the detachment. Detachment must make MODIFIED ld test if they lose combat. This will trigger a panic test for all friendly units within 6". Right?
3. Halberdiers are in combat and have more ranks than enemy. Swordsmen are in combat and have LESS ranks than enemy. IF combat with halberdiers are worked out first and maintain the fact they have more ranks = steatfast = swordsmen are steadfast. If swordsmen complete combat first then swordsmen are NOT steadfast (they have fewer ranks than the enemy) = modified ld test if lose combat. Right?
Now, from what I gather, this is a complicated set of rules (mores so than the last edition IMO). Personally, I feel option one is the most simple that maintains the 'feel' of how detachments should work.
Boy oh boy, any idea on the FAQ release date?
-
If we only have to determine whether the parent is steadfast, I'm sure we'll cope, and that's what the rules look like to me. Not sure what all the fuss is about. Taking stuff can always turn out to be a liability, and since when have panic tests been an issue? Detachments still need a keen mind and are nothing for beer & pretzel games. Or perhaps they are if your opponent imbibes more beer than you do.
-
Not to mention there's always been tactical considerations when deciding which combat to perform first, this ups the ante a bit.
Though I must admit that having the parent unit winning a combat, and the detachment therefore breaking for lack of steadfast simply does not seem right.
-
Having carefuly read the steadfast rules again I am now of the opinion that so long as the regiment is in combat and has more ranks than the unit it is fighting then the detachment will be steadfast even if it is fighting a different opponent. There are several statements in the rules that change things depending on how much significance you put to them. I think the first sentance of the 3rd paragraph which summerises the rule is for me the most significant.
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
The condition of being defeated is met by the detachment. So as long as the regiment has an enemy unit to compare its ranks against I think the conditions of being defeated and having more ranks has been met. This is now my view on how steadfast will work with detachments.
-
I do not like it more than you do! But that can have no bearing on the rules.
Hetelic says:
Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.
This is true, and GW may simply have forgotten about that. But we don not know, until the point they change the rules.
It may just as well be, as Marcus_Octavius suggests:
I always suggest we look towards the likely view-point of the author; which in my opinion would be him thinking the Detachment has "Counter Charge" rules, so they will always be in combat with the same enemy unit as the parent! Of course real life experience gaming tells all of us that this is just silly and happens at best 1/3 the time.
The rules of the Army Book and the BRB can be used perfectly as they stand: there is no need even for an FAQ, other than our disappointment.
They are not even complex; or at least not more complex that the rules on Multiple Combat.
Since this is the case I can see no reason to change them, only because we feel that they do not benefit the detachments as much as we want them to.
Nice catch from Nexus about Steadfast in Buildings (BRB p. 129) :icon_wink:, where under the heading: Defender loses (BRB emphasis), it says: "If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.
And no, redflag: it does not mean they are ALWAYS steadfast, only that they are always considered steadfast, when, having lost the combat, they have to take a break test. Context, remember.
-
The rules of the Army Book and the BRB can be used perfectly as they stand: there is no need even for an FAQ, other than our disappointment.
They are not even complex; or at least not more complex that the rules on Multiple Combat.
I'm leaning towards your interpratation ("option 2") myself, but you can't say it is entirelly RAW. The Detachment rules don't say anything about Parent and Detachmet having to be in the same combat. That needs to be made up, but as long as you accept that, it's the interpretation that makes the most sense.
Nice catch from Nexus about Steadfast in Buildings (BRB p. 129) :icon_wink:, where under the heading: Defender loses (BRB emphasis), it says: "If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.
And no, redflag: it does not mean they are ALWAYS steadfast, only that they are always considered steadfast, when, having lost the combat, they have to take a break test. Context, remember.
That may be argued either way, but you're probably right. Either way, the buildingrules seems like a likely candidate for an errata on this subject. It's probably intended to make you Stubborn, not Steadfast. Not that it mattered until the Detachment rules messed everything up and made it clear not even the BRB were all that well thought through.
Fffuuu... FAQ now, bitte! How are we supposed to be defending our turf under these circumstances?
-
Halberdiers x 50 w full command in hord formation (10x5). I have a detachment of swordsmen x 20 (5x4).
1. Halberdiers are in combat with a unit. Swordsmen in combat with the SAME unit. Rules: If either unit has more ranks than the enemy unit = steadfast. Make roll on unmodified LD. Right?
This is the one situation that is pretty straightforward. If the parent unit is steadfast, so is the detachment. It's possible for the detachment to be steadfast on its own merits, without the parent being steadfast though.
2. Halberdiers are NOT in combat. Swordsmen are in combat with enemy that has more ranks then them. Halberdiers are NOT steadfast (as they are not in combat) so they do NOT pass it to the detachment. Detachment must make MODIFIED ld test if they lose combat. This will trigger a panic test for all friendly units within 6". Right?
Unless you're an "option 1" kind of guy (and unless teh parent is in a building or a similar odd situation), yes, the detachment won't get steadfast as the parent doesn't have it itself.
3. Halberdiers are in combat and have more ranks than enemy. Swordsmen are in combat and have LESS ranks than enemy. IF combat with halberdiers are worked out first and maintain the fact they have more ranks = steatfast = swordsmen are steadfast. If swordsmen complete combat first then swordsmen are NOT steadfast (they have fewer ranks than the enemy) = modified ld test if lose combat. Right?
This is "option 3", whic is slpit into two different interpretations. According to 3a, the parent is steadfast just by having more ranks than it's enemy, and so it doesn't have to fight first (but if it did, and lost ranks, it could lose it before it's time for the detachment to fight).
Option 3b really doesn't work IMO, but theoretically, the parent isn't Steadfast until it has fought AND LOST its combat. It is unclear how the "option 3b" guys argue how the detachment could ever be steadfast, since the parent is only steadfast at the moment it's making its break test. But you're welcome to try.
Option 2 says the detachment won't be steadfast either way, since they are not in the same combat. Option 1 would count the ranks of the parent at the time the detachment makes its break test.
Now, from what I gather, this is a complicated set of rules (mores so than the last edition IMO). Personally, I feel option one is the most simple that maintains the 'feel' of how detachments should work.
Yeah, I'm with you but it's the interpretation furthest from RAW at the moment and should really be considered a house rule rather than an interpretation.
-
The Detachment rules don't say anything about Parent and Detachmet having to be in the same combat. That needs to be made up, but as long as you accept that, it's the interpretation that makes the most sense.
You are quite right that the Detachment rules do not specify that unit and detachment have to be in the same combat. But the detachment rule does not really need to do that expressis verbis. According to the detachment, the detachment is steadfast, when the parent unit is steadfast. If one then applies the rules about steadfast, option 2 is the only one that satisfies every rule.
One should not forget that there is a good reason why GW always includes that steadfast has to be determined AFTER a defeat. The outcome of a battle will obviously influence the number of ranks remaining, in particular for the side that has lost. It may well be that BEFORE the combat, your unit has more or an equal number of ranks than the enemy, but AFTER the combat resolution less. So, the defeat in itself influences the possibility of being steadfast or not.
Note (edit): while under the current rules, it is necessary for parent and detachment to be in the same combat, it is not necessary that they are in combat with the same enemy unit.
-
The Detachment rules don't say anything about Parent and Detachmet having to be in the same combat. That needs to be made up, but as long as you accept that, it's the interpretation that makes the most sense.
You are quite right that the Detachment rules do not specify that unit and detachment have to be in the same combat. But the detachment rule does not really need to do that expressis verbis. According to the detachment, the detachment is steadfast, when the parent unit is steadfast. If one then applies the rules about steadfast, option 2 is the only one that satisfies every rule.
True, good thinking. As long as we recognise that the premise of option 3b (Steadfast only exists in the brief moment when you're making your break test), and at the same time realise that it is a logical mistake applying the detachment rules in that way (that is, the parent is no longer steadfast when it is time for the detachment to fight its combat), and as long as we don't revert to "inventing" option 1, option 2 is the only one left standing.
One should not forget that there is a good reason why GW always includes that steadfast has to be determined AFTER a defeat. The outcome of a battle will obviously influence the number of ranks remaining, in particular for the side that has lost. It may well be that BEFORE the combat, your unit has more or an equal number of ranks than the enemy, but AFTER the combat resolution less. So, the defeat in itself influences the possibility of being steadfast or not.
But agan, the Steadfast rules can be interpreted according to option 3a, which means you get steadfast the moment you enter base to base contact, and keep that status until one of you break.
Note (edit): while under the current rules, it is necessary for parent and detachment to be in the same combat, it is not necessary that they are in combat with the same enemy unit.
Of course.
-
3. Halberdiers are in combat and have more ranks than enemy. Swordsmen are in combat and have LESS ranks than enemy. IF combat with halberdiers are worked out first and maintain the fact they have more ranks = steatfast = swordsmen are steadfast. If swordsmen complete combat first then swordsmen are NOT steadfast (they have fewer ranks than the enemy) = modified ld test if lose combat. Right?
This is "option 3", whic is slpit into two different interpretations. According to 3a, the parent is steadfast just by having more ranks than it's enemy, and so it doesn't have to fight first (but if it did, and lost ranks, it could lose it before it's time for the detachment to fight).
Option 3b really doesn't work IMO, but theoretically, the parent isn't Steadfast until it has fought AND LOST its combat. It is unclear how the "option 3b" guys argue how the detachment could ever be steadfast, since the parent is only steadfast at the moment it's making its break test. But you're welcome to try.
Option 2 says the detachment won't be steadfast either way, since they are not in the same combat. Option 1 would count the ranks of the parent at the time the detachment makes its break test.
Now, from what I gather, this is a complicated set of rules (mores so than the last edition IMO). Personally, I feel option one is the most simple that maintains the 'feel' of how detachments should work.
Yeah, I'm with you but it's the interpretation furthest from RAW at the moment and should really be considered a house rule rather than an interpretation.
Depending on who's turn it is, will determin what order the combat goes in. If it is empires turn (mine) then I will want to work out the detachment's combat first, and allow for the steadfast. If it is my enemy's turn, he may want to do the halberdiers first and hope to break steadfast in both units. This makes the most sense to me, and leaves the tactical decision of who fights first up to the players involved, no?
Ambrose
-
Option 3b really doesn't work IMO, but theoretically, the parent isn't Steadfast until it has fought AND LOST its combat. It is unclear how the "option 3b" guys argue how the detachment could ever be steadfast, since the parent is only steadfast at the moment it's making its break test. But you're welcome to try.
That is what I originaly thought, but have since changed my mind after reading the steadfast rules alot more carefuly. You just move the emphasis of the rule from the first bold paragraph to the 3rd paragrah summary. Then all you need to be steadfast is to have more ranks than the enemy. There is nothing about being defeated in order to become steadfast, you are steadfast as soon as you are in a combat and have more ranks than the enemy. The only time you test is if you are defeated, but you don't have to be defeated to be steadfast.
-
That is what I originaly thought, but have since changed my mind after reading the steadfast rules alot more carefuly. You just move the emphasis of the rule from the first bold paragraph to the 3rd paragrah summary. Then all you need to be steadfast is to have more ranks than the enemy. There is nothing about being defeated in order to become steadfast, you are steadfast as soon as you are in a combat and have more ranks than the enemy. The only time you test is if you are defeated, but you don't have to be defeated to be steadfast.
Are you now saying we should just ignore those parts of the rule that do not suit us?
-
Are you now saying we should just ignore those parts of the rule that do not suit us?
No, I'm saying you should not read more into them than they say. They do not infact say a unit needs to be defeated to be steadfast. Read them again, carefuly. I did.
-
They do not infact say a unit needs to be defeated to be steadfast. Read them again, carefuly. I did.
Here are the various locations concerning steadfast:
BRB p 54. STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
FAQ V1 5, p.2 change to Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.
BRB p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test): "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. "
BRB p. 129: Defender loses: If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.
I really cannot see, how you can argue that the rules do not say a unit needs to be defeated to become steadfast. Steadfast is exclusively connected with taking a break test, i.e having been defeated.
-
Yes, Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. Hence the division into 3a and 3b.
Yes, many places in the BRB mentions losing the combat when it talks about steadfast. This is of course because it is when losing you USE stadfast. But check all those quotes: None of them actually says "This is how you GET steadfast", they only say "this is what happens when you ARE steadfast". The ONLY direct description of you you GET steadfast is the third paragraph under "Steadfast", BRB p54: "In short, a unit is considered steadfast if it outranks its enemy" (approximately quoted). This is not a very clear definition, but it's the only thing we have.
Now, some people think it's contextually implicit that the unit must first lose the combat, some don't. Both interpretations are RAW, and up until the arrival of the new detachment rules, it didn't matter who was right.
This means option 2 and 3a can both be valid.
-
But being in combat is required to be steadfast in the first place. So if the parent is not in combat, it has no steadfast to pass to the detachment.
Exactly. If the parent unit is not in combat it is not steadfast, and it therefore can't pass steadfast onto its detachment. It's badly explained, but that is the only actually logical conclusion with the rules as they are currently written (I also suspect it is the rules as intended).
-
But being in combat is required to be steadfast in the first place. So if the parent is not in combat, it has no steadfast to pass to the detachment.
Exactly. If the parent unit is not in combat it is not steadfast, and it therefore can't pass steadfast onto its detachment. It's badly explained, but that is the only actually logical conclusion with the rules as they are currently written (I also suspect it is the rules as intended).
Sure, but this conclusion only rules out option 1 above. Options 2 and 3a could still be valid, depending on how you define steadfast.
-
I really cannot see, how you can argue that the rules do not say a unit needs to be defeated to become steadfast. Steadfast is exclusively connected with taking a break test, i.e having been defeated.
It may be connected with taking a breaktest but nothing says you have to take a break test in order to be steadfast. All those quotes you made are about defeated units needing to take a test are not about being steadfast, they are about using it, just as Nexus has said.
What we do have is a clear summary of what steadfast is.
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
Nothing about loosing a combat, just about having more ranks. That is how you measure steadfast and that is why by RAW 3b is the correct answer IMO.
-
What we do have is a clear summary of what steadfast is.
Well, it's not all that clear. They don't explicitly define what this "enemy" is, for example. Can it be any enemy unit on the table? But sure, most sensible people realise that the "emeny" is a unit belonging to the opponent, in base contact with your unit.
Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
Nothing about loosing a combat, just about having more ranks. That is how you measure steadfast and that is why by RAW 3b is the correct answer IMO.
Don't wanna nitpick, but I assume you mean 3a, considering the rest of your post. :happy: Yes, it stands between 3a and 2 as far as I can tell. The problem, again, is the fuzzy wording in the BRB Steadfast rules.
Sorry if I seem manical about this issue, but it really tickles my brain in a very irritating way. It would be so awesome if we could come to some kind of consensus. But 2 vs 3a is probably the best we can do *sigh*.
That being said, further discussion is of course very welcome.
-
Haha! I've forgotton how each solution was numbered! It's the one that so long as the regiment is in combat with the enemy it can pass on steadfast, even if the detachment is in a different combat.
You are right about the assumption that the enemy is one you are in combat with, but it's also one I'm totaly comfortable to make :icon_mrgreen:
-
Yeah, it's a bit messy, isn't it? For readability's sake I'll repeat them again :icon_smile:
1. Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all. (Far from RAW)
2. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments that are involved in the same combat.
3a. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat. The parent gains Stubborn in the first place by outranking the enemy it is fighting, and it may then pass it on to its detachment. Whether the parent wins or loses its combat is irrelevant.
3b. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat. The parent gains Stubborn in the first place by fighting its enemy before the detachment does, losing the round of combat, outrank its enemy, pass its break test and it may then pass it on to its detachment. (basically proven false)
-
Sorry, but RAW means what? Rules as written? Please clarify.
After reading this thread, my brain hurts, but I think 3a is the one to go with. It makes the most sense for the rules until a FAQ is released.
-
Sorry, but RAW means what? Rules as written? Please clarify.
Yes. That is, a fundamentalistic interpretation of the rules.
After reading this thread, my brain hurts, but I think 3a is the one to go with. It makes the most sense for the rules until a FAQ is released.
Cool. 3a means that you define Steadfast thus: Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with. A Steadfast unit don't apply CR modifiers to its break tests. This means that you are ALWAYS Steadfast as long as you are in base to base with enemies with less ranks than you. This is where you end up if you focus more on the "Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast" than the "If a defeated unit outranks its enemy, it don't apply CR modifiers to its break test" parts of the BRB, page 54. Would you say this is correct?
-
You might notice that those who cite "Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast" like a mantra in their defence, take care to cite it without any context. This leads to interpretations like option 1, which I think virtually all will agree is simply ludicrous. The supporters of 3a, as Nexus indicates above, take this to mean "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with." But of course, that is also not what the statement actually says.
Obviously, this statement (like any, really) must be read in context.
So what is the context? Please take your BRB and go to page 54, where the rules concerning steadfast are explained.
First the general context: allow me to draw your attention on the heading of the chapter: 3. LOSER TAKES BREAK TEST. On page 54 and 55, the rules and regulations concerning break tests are explained. I think, we can safely conclude from this that Steadfast is a special rule, when taking a break test. One will find no reference to steadfast in the BRB except as part of taking a break test.
Let us go now to the subdivision: Steadfast
Immediately following Steadfast you will find:
If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
The bold lettering is from the BRB, and indicates that this is a summary of the rule, while the remaining paragraphs will explain the rule in more detail. Note that it says: a defeated unit, a reference that you will always find in connection with steadfast, as I have pointed out in previous posts.
The next paragraph is the "fluff" paragraph, which is sufficiently vague that it could be read either way.
Then we have the notorious:
"Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast".
Except that it does not stand on its own: the text further explains how the ranks are counted. This is done: "as with calculating ranks of combat resolution", which I think we will all agree happens AFTER combat. So, the number of ranks which actually determine whether a unit is steadfast or not are calculated AFTER combat, not before. Therefore, a unit cannot be steadfast before combat resolution.
The next 2 paragraphs do not add anything either way.
But the example that follows gives again the sequence: combat, combat resolution, then determining ranks to see whether the unit is steadfast or not.
So, you simply have to ask yourself: does the text that explains steadfast read as a whole support
1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
- which is actually found written in the BRB.
2. "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."
- which (or something similar) one cannot find written anywhere in the BRB.
-
So, you simply have to ask yourself: does the text that explains steadfast read as a whole support
1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
- which is actually found written in the BRB.
2. "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."
- which (or something similar) one cannot find written anywhere in the BRB.
It actually supports both. Both statements are valid.
In the case of the detechment, the detachment fulfils the requirement of being defeated and thus can apply steadfast if it has it. The detachment rules say the regiment can transfer it's steadfast onto the detachment, so if the regiment has more ranks than it's opponent it is steadfast. If it has no opponent then no steadfast. Simple. (you have to assume being in combat for the steadfast to work)
You are reading too much context into the being defeated nature of steadfast. That is the condition than steadfast requires to be applied and not part of how you determine if a unit is steadfast or not. Your claim of statement 2 not being written in the rule book is untrue. I have quoted where it says this, as have you. If you can't accept this then we shall just have to agree to disagree until such time as an FAQ answers the question.
-
Your claim of statement 2 not being written in the rule book is untrue. I have quoted where it says this, as have you.
This is statement 2:
"Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."
This is what you and I have quoted:
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
I think that, in all honesty, no one could claim that these are the same. Indeed, the supporters of "option 1" refer to this very phrase in their support; but again, they can only do this by taking it completely out of context.
For those that still would be supporting "option 1": if you claim that your unit is steadfast, because there is somewhere on the battlefield an enemy unit that has fewer ranks, your opponent can equally claim that your unit is not steadfast, because there is somewhere on the battlefield an enemy unit that has more ranks.
-
Fidelis has it right folks, as he said all the way back on page 1.
Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast: Combat, Defeated, More Ranks. If you are missing any than you're not Steadfast.
I suspect (and it should be cleared up with an FAQ) is that the Detachment gains Steadfast when it's in the SAME combat as it's Regimental.
Noght
-
Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast: Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.
Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?
-
Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast: Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.
Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?
No, nice try though. There isn't a single unit anywhere in the Warhammer Universe that has the Special Rule: Steadfast.
Read Fidelis' posts, he's spot on.
Noght
-
How can a unit always be steadfast, if the number of ranks that will determine, whether the unit is steadfast or not is calculated after combat?
-
I'm no rules lawyer/buff and definitely an advocate of playing the game in GW's famous 'spirit of the game', for me it's all about the background and fun. I do, however, wholly support Fidelis's view in this case. The arguments are more than compelling.
-
Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast: Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.
Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?
No, nice try though. There isn't a single unit anywhere in the Warhammer Universe that has the Special Rule: Steadfast.
Read Fidelis' posts, he's spot on.
Noght
Greatswords have it because in 8th
strubbon = always steadfast.
-
:-) No quarrel with that: if you are stubborn = always steadfast. That is why it is a special rule. If you are not stubborn, you fall under the normal rules for steadfast in the BRB.
Edit:
Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?
This applies to stubborn, as commandant has made clear.
-
Greatswords have it because in 8th
strubbon = always steadfast.
Ha. Greatswords are Stubborn. Stubborn =/= Steadfast. The effect on gameplay may be similar but they are NOT the same thing.
Fail. Try again.
Noght
-
Fidelis has it right folks, as he said all the way back on page 1.
Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast: Combat, Defeated, More Ranks. If you are missing any than you're not Steadfast.
I suspect (and it should be cleared up with an FAQ) is that the Detachment gains Steadfast when it's in the SAME combat as it's Regimental.
Noght
Actualy the rulebook only states 1 condition. You have more ranks than your enemy. The bit about "in combat" is implied in the context of the rules and is blatently obvious even if not explicitly stated so that's a given. The bit about being defeated only ever talks about this in the context of applying steadfast, not in being steadfast. Nowhere is it stated that a unit must be defeated to be steadfast, it says only you need more ranks than your enemy to be steadfast.
RAW is 3a
RAI maybe 2, I don't know. Up until now there has never been reason to work out steadfast until the fighting is done and the scores are in. Beacuse I'm not certain and 3a is also a perfectly reasonable solution I'm going with RAW until told otherwise.
-
It seems you must be reading a different rulebook.
-
Congrats Empire Generals. We have our own "Ironblaster is a Chariot so it can Stand and Shoot" Thread. :eusa_clap: Bravo. :eusa_clap:
I'm so proud.
Noght
-
Since I don't have a life, I made a mindmap (or flowchart or whatever it's called) on this issue. The "A" box contains all the relevant sentences in the rules. The "B" boxes are the different ways I have seen people interpret the Steadfast rules according to the given rules. The "C" boxes are the conclusions people have been drawn from the interpretations in the "B" boxes, with regards to the new detachment rules.
IMO, C1 is just non-RAW wishthinking and C4 doesn't make much sense at all. Making C2 and C3 the best candidates for RAW.
Please let me know if it's some rule or interpretation I have missed.
EDIT: Added a link to a bigger version of the jpg below the picture. Or you can just click the pic itself...
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuxfet.jpg) (http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuxfet.jpg)
Link (http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuxfet.jpg)
-
IMO, C1 is just non-RAW wishthinking and C4 doesn't make much sense at all. Making C2 and C3 the best candidates for RAW.
Nicely done. The answer of course is C2 (unless they've changed the rules TODAY to make all Combat results and break test simultaneous).
Old Detachment rule: Parent and Detachment in combat (w/same unit), lose (of course), parent makes steadfast and detachment applys full combat resolution and flees.
New Detachment rule: Parent and Detachment in combat (w/same unit), lose (of course), parent and detachment (using Regimental's steadfast)make steadfast rolls ignoring combat resolution.
Here's my Flow Chart:
Close Combat (title of page 46) -----> 3. Loser takes a Break Test (title of page 54) -----> Check for Steadfast (definition on page 54).
Noght
-
I think, it is misleading if the diagram quotes "Simply put" etc. out of context (at least of the paragraph it is in), in particular when it says that it is the only sentence that actually describes how a unit gets steadfast. It is not just that one sentence, but the whole paragraph.
-
You might be correct, it's hard to fit the whole context in one bubble. How would you word it, Fidelis?
Context is actually the core of the problem with the Steadfast rules, when I think about it. Essentially, you've got interpretation B1 basing their argument on implicit context. The only explicit part of the rules are the "simply put..." part, but that is wierdly worded out of the context.
I think we can all agree on this at least?
-
Not quite sure if one can have an implicit context :icon_wink:, but I understand what you are trying to say.
How about a preliminary remark, something like: "As meaning is dependent on the context, we urge all to read BRB page 54/55 and 60 in full, before making up their minds." I do not think, anyone can claim that this would be a prejudicial remark.
I would also recommend to delete in C1: "but it feels that detachment rules are intended this way. Since detachments now cause panic, detachments would be crap otherwise."
None of us know what the intention was. This statement also ignores the other and real benefits of the new rules (hatred etc.), and, in any case, the fact that applying the rules might mean detachments are nerfed should not play any role in our understanding of the rules.
-
Steadfast is determined after a combat. It's pretty simple:
1. Were you defeated in the combat? If No, good for you. If Yes, do you have more ranks than all the other enemy units in that combat? If Yes, you are Steadfast. Congratulations! If not, too bad, enjoy your break test with modified leadership.
You are not Steadfast until after the combat has been resolved.
Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.
So, as it stands right now:
a) if a detachment and it's Regiment are in 2 separate combats, and the detachment's fight is resolved first and it loses, it does not get Steadfast because it's parent is not yet Steadfast.
b) if a detachment and its Regiment are in 2 separate combats and the Regiment's fight is concluded first and it loses and has more ranks than all enemies in its combat, it is Steadfast and transfers this to the detachment.
c) If it is in the same multi-unit combat, it does not matter in which order they are resolved because break tests are concluded after all the fights are resolved, so if the Regiment is Steadfast the detachment will be too.
If GW decides that they want it to work a different way, they will have to go into Steadfast and add new wording; or more likely, they'll modify how detachments work and add in wording that says "at the end of a detachment's combat, if it's Regiment is in combat and has more ranks than all enemy units the Regiment is fighting, then the detachment takes its break test as if it were Steadfast .
-
Not quite sure if one can have an implicit context :icon_wink:, but I understand what you are trying to say.
Possible. I'm not very english :icon_smile:
How about a preliminary remark, something like: "As meaning is dependent on the context, we urge all to read BRB page 54/55 and 60 in full, before making up their minds." I do not think, anyone can claim that this would be a prejudicial remark.
That would have worked. I tried to keep it as minimalistic as possible, and all the page references are there so there is nothing stopping people from reading. But sure, it can be seen as tendentious towards B2. This was not really intentional as I myself am leaning towards B1 -> C2.
I would also recommend to delete in C1: "but it feels that detachment rules are intended this way. Since detachments now cause panic, detachments would be crap otherwise."
None of us know what the intention was. This statement also ignores the other and real benefits of the new rules (hatred etc.), and, in any case, the fact that applying the rules might mean detachments are nerfed should not play any role in our understanding of the rules.
Yeah, I felt I had to write some kind of argument for C1. Since the rules don't support it, I just added what I've seen people say on different forums.
-
Steadfast is determined after a combat. It's pretty simple:
1. Were you defeated in the combat? If No, good for you. If Yes, do you have more ranks than all the other enemy units in that combat? If Yes, you are Steadfast. Congratulations! If not, too bad, enjoy your break test with modified leadership.
You are not Steadfast until after the combat has been resolved.
Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.
So, as it stands right now:
a) if a detachment and it's Regiment are in 2 separate combats, and the detachment's fight is resolved first and it loses, it does not get Steadfast because it's parent is not yet Steadfast.
b) if a detachment and its Regiment are in 2 separate combats and the Regiment's fight is concluded first and it loses and has more ranks than all enemies in its combat, it is Steadfast and transfers this to the detachment.
c) If it is in the same multi-unit combat, it does not matter in which order they are resolved because break tests are concluded after all the fights are resolved, so if the Regiment is Steadfast the detachment will be too.
If GW decides that they want it to work a different way, they will have to go into Steadfast and add new wording; or more likely, they'll modify how detachments work and add in wording that says "at the end of a detachment's combat, if it's Regiment is in combat and has more ranks than all enemy units the Regiment is fighting, then the detachment takes its break test as if it were Steadfast .
Obviously, I agree with everything you say, except that I do not think b is correct. Steadfast only lasts until the individual combat is resolved. As the parent's combat is resolved, before the detachment's has even started, it can no longer pass on steadfast.
-
Yeah, that could be true. I hope they modify the detachment rules or at least make the wording clearer because it's obvious this is causing an issue.
-
Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.
Right. But for your version to work (seems like C4 by the way), you need to explain when Steadfast STOPS. You say it's situational. You say it starts when a combat has been resolved. But from where do you get that steadfast lasts longer than the "still frame" when the break test is taken?
-
Steadfast is determined after a combat. It's pretty simple:
1. Were you defeated in the combat? If No, good for you. If Yes, do you have more ranks than all the other enemy units in that combat? If Yes, you are Steadfast. Congratulations! If not, too bad, enjoy your break test with modified leadership.
You are not Steadfast until after the combat has been resolved.
Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.
b) if a detachment and its Regiment are in 2 separate combats and the Regiment's fight is concluded first and it loses and has more ranks than all enemies in its combat, it is Steadfast and transfers this to the detachment.
You are only Steadfast for your Break Test. Then you are no longer Steadfast as you say in your own post (I bolded/italicized it for you). Once you've resosolved a combat there is no more Steadfast. "B" can't be right, Steadfast ends with Break roll of the Parent, Combat is resolved.
Noght
-
As Fidelis points out, there is nothing to indicate that Steadfast lingers since it only applies to to taking the break test. But this goes round and round, so hopefully GW will FAQ it soon.
-
I must admit, I feel it only goes round and round, because of wishful thinking and/or people trying to find loopholes to offset the new panic rule. I doubt that there would be much discussion without the panic rule.
-
Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.
Right. But for your version to work (seems like C4 by the way), you need to explain when Steadfast STOPS. You say it's situational. You say it starts when a combat has been resolved. But from where do you get that steadfast lasts longer than the "still frame" when the break test is taken?
The rulebook says when you are Steadfast, Step 3 of Close Combat, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full Stop.
Page 46 Close Combat Phase Sequence: Complete each combat through Flee and Pursue before moving on to next combat.
Noght
-
The rulebook says when you are Steadfast, Step 3 of Close Combat, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full Stop.
My rulebook says no such thing. My rulebook says you are steadfast if you have more ranks than your enemy, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full stop. :icon_wink:
-
My rulebook says no such thing. My rulebook says you are steadfast if you have more ranks than your enemy, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full stop. :icon_wink:
And the rulebook also makes clear that those ranks are to be counted after combat resolution, when taking the break test.
-
It really should have simply been: Use the rank bonus of the regimental unit (if it has more ranks than the detachment taking the break test) when determining whether you are steadfast or not.
This seems like what he was trying to say.
Pity he totally failed.
-
Yeah, that's what I thought at first glance. Hope they FAQ it soon.
-
The rulebook says when you are Steadfast, Step 3 of Close Combat, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full Stop.
My rulebook says no such thing. My rulebook says you are steadfast if you have more ranks than your enemy, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full stop. :icon_wink:
Is that in the Special Rules section of your rulebook? Because page 54 is in the Close Combat/Loser takes a Break Test section of mine...hmmm.
I was joking when I said that we have our own "Ironblaster is a Chariot so it can stand and shoot even though it shoots like a Cannon" moment, but apparently not.
Noght
-
Here is how it was discussed over on our "local" board. A synopsis of everything Fidelis has been saying since the beginning.
Cut and Paste....
Let's start with the relevant rules:
"If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below, they confer the same special rule onto all of their Detachments whilst they have at least one model within 3": Frenzy, Hatred, Hold the Line!, Immune to Psychology, Stubborn, Steadfast, Stupidity." (WA:E, p.30)
"If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified Leadership." (BRB, p.54)
So, moving on to the scenarios:
1. Detachment in combat/Regiment unengaged.
-> The Regiment is unengaged, not in combat, etc. For starters, only defeated units gain Steadfast; victorious units are never Steadfast. According to the two rules above, a unit has to be in combat and has to have lost to be able to benefit from Steadfast. Since the Regiment is not in combat and hasn't lost, it's not Steadfast.
2. Detachment and Regiment involved in two seperate combats.
-> Steadfast is not a continuous effect. A regimental unit will never give its detachments Steadfast if they are in two different combats because it only ever is granted at a moment in time, and combats do not happen simultaneously.
The only scenario in which a Detachment will benefit from Steadfast from its Regimental unit is when they are both in the same combat. Say the Regiment has 5 ranks, the Detachment has 2 ranks, and the enemy has 3 ranks. In other armies, the unit with 5 ranks would be Steadfast and the unit with 2 ranks would not. However, the Regimental Units rules override this, allowing the Detachment to benefit from the Regiment's Steadfastness...provided they are within 3".
I'm sure it won't matter but I thought I'd give it one more whack.
Noght
-
For starters, only defeated units gain Steadfast; victorious units are never Steadfast.
This is where you are making assumptions that are not explicit in the rules as written. Only defeated units get to use steadfast, but nothing says you have to be defeated to get steadfast. This is the crux of most of the disagreement and only an FAQ answer is going to settle the matter. Until then the best you can do is discuss with your opponent if the situation should arise and come to an agreement.
-
The question is, is the detachment the unit - or is the regiment the unit, or is the unit both regiment AND detachment
-
Oh playtesting, where art thou?
-
Oh playtesting, where art thou?
Haha yes, I think this is one of those things that would have been picked up by external playtesting but easily missed by a small group of internal playtesters. To them, the answer could be obvious with no disagreements raised so never becomes an issue.
-
Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.
I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.
-
Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.
I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.
Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB. It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this
-
Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.
I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.
Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB. It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this
That's where we disagree then. I think the problem lies in the Steadfast rules themselves in the BRB. That of course depends on how they FAQ the empire book. If they go by the "count the ranks of the regimental", then the BRB wording of Steadfast is no longer an issue, since it's no longer nenessary to know exactly when the regimetal is steadfast.
-
Indeed, the rule in the BRB is fine. Even the rule in the Army Book is fine.
"If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below, they confer the same special rule onto all of their Detachments whilst they have at least one model within 3": Frenzy, Hatred, Hold the Line!, Immune to Psychology, Stubborn, Steadfast, Stupidity."
So, now you only have to apply the BRB rules about steadfast in their entirety on p. 54/55 and (not too forget!) p. 60. If you read the rules with the intent of simply understanding and applying them, there is really only one possible solution.
If you are looking for loopholes from the outset, you will sift through the text and leach on anything that, taken out of context, could possibly obfuscate the issue.
GW simply underestimated the tenacity of some players to try and find loopholes in the rules.
-
Steadfast is a special rule conferred by having more ranks than your enemy.
You don't have to lose to gain steadfast, steadfast simply does nothing if you win.
So, if an empire regiment has more ranks than the enemy it is currently engaged with, it is steadfast.
Then the steadfast is passed along to the detachments.
-
It seems everyone is so sure about their interpretations. Can either of you really not see that you are both kind of right?
-
Well, if you read the rules as written, yeah, you do have to lose to get Steadfast.
Okay, so what we actually agree on is:
1) GW either sucks at writing clear-cut rules or has no interest in it
2) Having a couple of guys in their art department play a few games does not constitute adequate play testing
3) We need an FAQ to resolve this
-
1) GW either sucks at writing clear-cut rules or has no interest in it
2) Having a couple of guys in their art department play a few games does not constitute adequate play testing
2) We need an FAQ to resolve this
Big phat agreementz.
-
There is nothing in the rulebook that support the interpretation of Skyros. The supporters of that interpretation can only point to "a unit is considered to be steadfast, if it has more ranks than the enemy". They can only do this, by first taking the sentence out of its original context, and then actually add a new context of their own making, because on its own, the sentence will lead to the ludicrous option 1, that a unit is steadfast as long as there is somewhere on the battlefield an enemy unit that has fewer ranks.
-
Well, if you read the rules as written, yeah, you do have to lose to get Steadfast.
Okay, so what we actually agree on is:
1) GW either sucks at writing clear-cut rules or has no interest in it
2) Having a couple of guys in their art department play a few games does not constitute adequate play testing
2) We need an FAQ to resolve this
I completely agree with point 2. I agree with point 1 in general, but in this case, the rules are rather clear-cut; they are just not want people want them to be. Und was nicht sein darf, kann nicht sein. That is the only reason why we need FAQ on this issue.
-
The BRB clearly says "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"
I don't know how we are even discussing this. Losing doesn't make you steadfast. Having more ranks than your opponent makes you steadfast.
Nothing is being taken out of context. We are discussing combat resolution. It doesn't say "a DEFEATED unit is considered steadfast..." nor does it say "a unit is considered steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy AND LOST COMBAT THIS TURN". Either of which would support your position.
But it says, there right there, plain as day "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"
It really doesn't get much clearer than that. You can try to handwave away an explicit declaration all you like, but it's not going to help.
My interpretation goes by the clear text of the rulebook. Your interpretation relies on explaining why what the rulebook explicitly states doesn't apply. I think I'll stick with my interpretation.
So, let's look at our possible options here.
1)Detachments may count the ranks of their parent unit for the purpose of steadfast. This does not require the parent to be in combat at all.
Nope. The parents ranks are not conferred, the steadfast special rule is what is conferred. Detachments don't get the parent rank bonus in combat or anything like that.
2)Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments that are involved in the same combat.
Yes.
3)Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.
As long as the parent units are involved in a combat, then yes. Every other rule is passed along without specifying them to be in the same combat, so why would we suppose this one to be different?
The whole 'in the same combat' thing is a giant misdirection, really.
Is your parent unit steadfast? Great, then so is the detachment.
That much is plain as day.
The discussion is really about how steadfast is gained/lost.
If an empire parent block loses a combat and is steadfast, I think everyone here agrees the detachment unit is steadfast, whether or not it is in the same combat.
The question is: is the detachment steadfast only if the parent unit loses?
-
Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.
I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.
Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB. It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this
How can it possibly be a flaw in the army book?
The entire question revolves around how you gain steadfast.
Is that an army specific question? No. That is defined in the BRB.
It is thus the BRB that would need an FAQ.
The armybook is quite explicit that if the parent unit has steadfast, the detachment has steadfast as well if within 3". This applies if the detachment is in the same combat, a different combat, or not even in combat at all.
-
@ Skyros: you just proved my point.
-
Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.
I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.
Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB. It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this
How can it possibly be a flaw in the army book?
The entire question revolves around how you gain steadfast.
Is that an army specific question? No. That is defined in the BRB.
It is thus the BRB that would need an FAQ.
The armybook is quite explicit that if the parent unit has steadfast, the detachment has steadfast as well if within 3". This applies if the detachment is in the same combat, a different combat, or not even in combat at all.
The rule is fine in the BRB because there is only one way to achieve steadfast in the BRB. Therefore the rule is very clear for all armies except us because we have a second way to achieve steadfast. Therefore how the second way to achieve steadfast works is something that should have been made very clear in the army book.
-
Fidelis, you seem like the type of rules lawyer no one wants to play.
The very worst kind of rules lawyers are the ones who try to tell you what the book actually says somehow doesn't apply.
They're even below the rules lawyers who try to tell you something the book doesn't say is true. At least they aren't flat out ignoring what the rule book says (like you are).
You've been shown where you are wrong (repeatedly) but you refuse to accept it. Shrug. Your loss, not mine.
-
I will try one more time to illustrate why Fidelis tortured logic is completely unworkable.
He states that the steadfast special rule is this:
Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
Think about that for a second. EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME HAS THIS RULE.
So why would it be a 'special rule' that could be passed on by the parent? The detachment already has steadfast according to Fidelis interpretation, because steadfast is just a rule saying if you are defeated unit with more ranks you can take your break test on unmodified leadership.
So what is being 'passed on' by the parent unit in this case? Clearly not the parent rank bonus. There is no support for this in the rules. The state of being steadfast? But there is no state of being steadfast according to Fidelis: it's simply something that you take into account when rolling for your break test after losing a combat. It has no duration. It comes into existence the moment you roll for combat and winks out of existence as soon as you finish rolling for combat.
Even if a detachment were in the SAME combat as a losing parent unit, they wouldn't gain any benefit, because the parent unit would stop being steadfast the moment it finished its break roll. And you couldn't roll for the detachment first because the parent unit wouldn't even be steadfast until it started to make its break roll.
So, to accept Fidelis interpretation, we must ignore two separate statements that explicitly state how you gain stead fast (having more ranks, garrisoning a building) and also assume the rules writers decided to write a rule that does absolutely nothing.
This is all obviously a load of tripe.
So, we'll follow the keep it simple, stupid approach and go with the what the rulebook actually says.
Steadfast is gained by having more ranks than the opponent you are fighting.
If a parent unit has steadfast, a detachment within 3" also has steadfast.
Steadfast has the effect of making you use your unmodified leadership in break tests.
Simple and easy.
The ability of rules lawyers to sow uncertainty and doubt and waste time never ceases to amaze me.
-edit: And suppose that we tried to salvage something from Fidelis interpretation of steadfast and assumed that it was granted upon losing a combat and lasted until the end of the phase, so that a detachment could then also have a window to use steadfast in, there is absolutely no reason this wouldn't work on detachments involved in other combats but Fidelis insists it would only work if the detachment was involved in the same combat as the parent unit! His own interpretation isn't even consistent: which is a sure giveaway that rules lawyering is involved.
-
The rule is fine in the BRB because there is only one way to achieve steadfast in the BRB.
This is wrong on many levels. There are at least THREE Different ways to achieve steadfast listed in the BRB, depending on your interpretation.
-garrison a building
-lose a combat while having more ranks
-have more ranks
Therefore the rule is very clear for all armies except us because we have a second way to achieve steadfast.
We do not have a second way to achieve steadfast. Our parent blocks do not become steadfast any different than every other army.
Our parent block steadfast is passed along to the detachment. That's it. We become steadfast the same way everyone else does.
Therefore this is a BRB problem, not an army book problem.
Our army book is CRYSTAL CLEAR. If a parent unit is steadfast, the detachment is steadfast.
The entirety of the discussion is: how does a parent unit become steadfast? In which our army is no different from any other. So, BRB problem.
Our army book provides no additional way for the parent unit to be steadfast, so we must turn to the BRB to find out how to actually become steadfast. The entirety of the uncertainty is located in the BRB.
-
- The first mistake in the BRB is to not emphasize that steadfast is a relation between unit A and unit B. Therefore, the correct definition of steadfast would be something like:
"A unit is considered steadfast with respect to an enemy unit if..."
- The second writeup mistake is to have a pagraph that looks like this:
Steadfast.- "If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores."
and then somthing like "simly put, a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks thatn its enemy..."
See, in the place where you expect the definition they write the consequence of being steadfast instead. Later they write something that seems like an actual but not well written definition.
- A clear and solid definition can't be found anywhere. However, if we take the "simply put,..." statement to define steadfast between two units regardless of being in combat or not, then the contradictions are gone
-
I think those are good points, Don. It's actually surprisingly hard to write good rules, so it's no surprise to me that GW falls short.
I think in this specific instance, the rules are fairly clear, but I agree about the bizarre decision to put the consequence of having steadfast where one would expect the definition of gaining steadfast. Oh well.
I think though that it's already implicit that steadfast is gained by a comparison between two units: it says a unit gains steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy, not an enemy.
So you must be engaged with an enemy unit and have more ranks than this unit to have steadfast.
OR
You must be garrisoned inside a building to gain steadfast.
Then you gain steadfast.
The impact of steadfast is that if you lose, you don't apply the combat modifiers.
What does this mean for detachments?
-the parent unit must be involved in a combat
-the detachments DO NOT use the parent units rank bonus
-the parent unit must have more ranks than the unit the PARENT is fighting, NOT more ranks than the unit the detachment is fighting (assuming separate combats).
Obviously comparing the parents ranks to the detachment's opponents ranks would be more beneficial to empire players (because generally if they are in a separate combat the detachment will be fighting the smaller of the two enemies) but I find no support for this in the rules.
I will also point out that things have gone horribly wrong if you need steadfast in a situation where you have a detachment and parent unit in the same combat :D If you can't win with a perfect parent/detachment flank combo charge, when can you win?
-
Even if a detachment were in the SAME combat as a losing parent unit, they wouldn't gain any benefit, because the parent unit would stop being steadfast the moment it finished its break roll. And you couldn't roll for the detachment first because the parent unit wouldn't even be steadfast until it started to make its break roll.
Ah, but this is actually clearly covered in the BRB, p60. The detachment and the regimental bering in the same combat is NOT an issue, regardless of how you interpret p54.
-
- The first mistake in the BRB is to not emphasize that steadfast is a relation between unit A and unit B. Therefore, the correct definition of steadfast would be something like:
"A unit is considered steadfast with respect to an enemy unit if..."
- The second writeup mistake is to have a pagraph that looks like this:
Steadfast.- "If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores."
and then somthing like "simly put, a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks thatn its enemy..."
See, in the place where you expect the definition they write the consequence of being steadfast instead. Later they write something that seems like an actual but not well written definition.
Yes. Good. Wunderbar. Exactly. This. The problem lies in the BRB and the definition of Steadfast, or rather the lack of one. Or even rather-er, the dual nature of the one given.
A clear and solid definition can't be found anywhere. However, if we take the "simply put,..." statement to define steadfast between two units regardless of being in combat or not, then the contradictions are gone
You might as well define Steadfast by the "a defeated unit..." sentence, as that would also remove the contradiction. Many here have already decided what is "correct", and so they don't see the contradiction. That's why we get this heated debate. Open your minds, people!
-
I think though that it's already implicit that steadfast is gained by a comparison between two units: it says a unit gains steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy, not an enemy.
So you must be engaged with an enemy unit and have more ranks than this unit to have steadfast.
-Here you claim that a unit B can only be the enemy of unit A if they are engaged in combat. This is one possibility but another possibility is this one:
Unit B is the enemy of unit A (for steadfast purposes) if it is attacking one of its detachments.
There are two reasons why I'd go for the second one:
- Because it solves the contradictions
- Because some rules hint to a strong psychological relation between a unit and its detachment, panic for instance (fluff).
-
Crikey, is this argument still going?
-
Um yikes!! I think at this point I would simply like to see what people think the intention of the rule was. I think myself that the detatchemnt was supposed to be able to use the ranks of its parent unit at when testing to see if it is steadfast. However as written this does not seem to be the case. FAQ where are you??
-
People keep cherrypicking phrases out of the Steadfast section(s) instead of reading the sections in their totality and I think this leads to their misunderstanding of Steadfast.
-
Okay, instead of trying to convince each other, how about a list from each participant in the thread on how THEY will be running their detachments, and why. That way, we spend more time expressing how WE are going to play our game with our friends. Me, I think I will go with.....dang, forgot all the options. I'll have to read the options again. I think it is 2b.1.a.e Which option was that one?
-
Me, i am going to play it so that the detachment only get steadfast if the parent unit is in combat with the same enemy unit.
-
I think I will continue to not use detachments, actually.
Biggest problem I have shifting the enemy is maintaining/breaking steadfast. Detachments don't seem to help with that very much.
A possible exception is their killyness deployed as detachments on the flanks while boosted by a WP's prayers might make up for the lower body count in the parent unit.
If the detachments had a special rule like "Add the detachments ranks to the parents ranks when determining steadfast if both are in the same combat" I would change my mind.
-
Steadfast is a special rule conferred by having more ranks than your enemy.
You don't have to lose to gain steadfast, steadfast simply does nothing if you win.
So, if an empire regiment has more ranks than the enemy it is currently engaged with, it is steadfast.
Then the steadfast is passed along to the detachments.
Hopeless I know, but don't you think that the definition of Steadfast is in the the Section titled "Loser takes a Break Test" matters?
Every unit has the ability to gain Steadfast, provided a specific set of things happen i.e. lose a combat with more ranks than the unit that whipped you. No unit has Steadfast, but they all can get it. Unless there is a real Special Rule: Steadfast somewhere in the book (hint: there ain't) that I don't know about.
I believe the intent was to affect a Multiple Unit combat where both Regiment and Detachment were involved as described at the bottom of page 5, because that's the only time the Regiment has Steadfast at the time when the beaten Detachment needs to roll for a break test.
Noght
p.s. Only going to use Detachments for Greatswords for Stubborn (which is a REAL Special Rule), 7 points Swordsmen (in a 5x4 block) with Stubborn, yes please.
-
Fidelis, you seem like the type of rules lawyer no one wants to play.
The very worst kind of rules lawyers are the ones who try to tell you what the book actually says somehow doesn't apply.
They're even below the rules lawyers who try to tell you something the book doesn't say is true. At least they aren't flat out ignoring what the rule book says (like you are).
You've been shown where you are wrong (repeatedly) but you refuse to accept it. Shrug. Your loss, not mine.
On a general note: some would argue that if you indulge in personal attacks, you automatically lose combat.
Contrary to some, I only play Empire; I have no benefit in advocating adherence to the rules. On the contrary, I would prefer them to be otherwise. But I also prefer to play by the rules as they are.
1. "Nothing is taken out of context. We are discussing combat resolution.”
No, we are not, we are discussing Break tests. Look at the top of p. 54, you cannot miss it. Allow me to refer to an earlier post:
You might notice that those who cite "Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast" like a mantra in their defence, take care to cite it without any context. This leads to interpretations like option 1, which I think virtually all will agree is simply ludicrous. The supporters of 3a, as Nexus indicates above, take this to mean "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with." But of course, that is also not what the statement actually says.
Obviously, this statement (like any, really) must be read in context.
So what is the context? Please take your BRB and go to page 54, where the rules concerning steadfast are explained.
First the general context: allow me to draw your attention on the heading of the chapter: 3. LOSER TAKES BREAK TEST. On page 54 and 55, the rules and regulations concerning break tests are explained. I think, we can safely conclude from this that Steadfast is a special rule, when taking a break test. One will find no reference to steadfast in the BRB except as part of taking a break test.
Let us go now to the subdivision: Steadfast
Immediately following Steadfast you will find:
If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
The bold lettering is from the BRB, and indicates that this is a summary of the rule, while the remaining paragraphs will explain the rule in more detail. Note that it says: a defeated unit, a reference that you will always find in connection with steadfast, as I have pointed out in previous posts.
The next paragraph is the "fluff" paragraph, which is sufficiently vague that it could be read either way.
Then we have the notorious:
"Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast".
Except that it does not stand on its own: the text further explains how the ranks are counted. This is done: "as with calculating ranks of combat resolution", which I think we will all agree happens AFTER combat. So, the number of ranks which actually determine whether a unit is steadfast or not are calculated AFTER combat, not before. Therefore, a unit cannot be steadfast before combat resolution.
The next 2 paragraphs do not add anything either way.
But the example that follows gives again the sequence: combat, combat resolution, then determining ranks to see whether the unit is steadfast or not.
So, you simply have to ask yourself: does the text that explains steadfast read as a whole support
1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
- which is actually found written in the BRB.
2. "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."
- which (or something similar) one cannot find written anywhere in the BRB.
2. Concerning special rules: If steadfast is a Special Rule as “Hatred” it would have been incorporated in the list of special rules. Steadfast is simply a special rule of the rules concerning Break tests.
The same applies to units in buildings; in fact, this applies to every time steadfast is mentioned. Again, I refer to an earlier post:
They do not infact say a unit needs to be defeated to be steadfast. Read them again, carefuly. I did.
Here are the various locations concerning steadfast:
BRB p 54. STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
FAQ V1 5, p.2 change to Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.
BRB p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test): "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. "
BRB p. 129: Defender loses: If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.
I really cannot see, how you can argue that the rules do not say a unit needs to be defeated to become steadfast. Steadfast is exclusively connected with taking a break test, i.e having been defeated.
I will try one more time to illustrate why Fidelis tortured logic is completely unworkable.
He states that the steadfast special rule is this:
Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
Think about that for a second. EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME HAS THIS RULE.
So why would it be a 'special rule' that could be passed on by the parent? The detachment already has steadfast according to Fidelis interpretation, because steadfast is just a rule saying if you are defeated unit with more ranks you can take your break test on unmodified leadership.
So what is being 'passed on' by the parent unit in this case? Clearly not the parent rank bonus. There is no support for this in the rules. The state of being steadfast? But there is no state of being steadfast according to Fidelis: it's simply something that you take into account when rolling for your break test after losing a combat. It has no duration. It comes into existence the moment you roll for combat and winks out of existence as soon as you finish rolling for combat.
Even if a detachment were in the SAME combat as a losing parent unit, they wouldn't gain any benefit, because the parent unit would stop being steadfast the moment it finished its break roll. And you couldn't roll for the detachment first because the parent unit wouldn't even be steadfast until it started to make its break roll.
So, to accept Fidelis interpretation, we must ignore two separate statements that explicitly state how you gain stead fast (having more ranks, garrisoning a building) and also assume the rules writers decided to write a rule that does absolutely nothing.
This is all obviously a load of tripe.
So, we'll follow the keep it simple, stupid approach and go with the what the rulebook actually says.
Steadfast is gained by having more ranks than the opponent you are fighting.
If a parent unit has steadfast, a detachment within 3" also has steadfast.
Steadfast has the effect of making you use your unmodified leadership in break tests.
Simple and easy.
The ability of rules lawyers to sow uncertainty and doubt and waste time never ceases to amaze me.
-edit: And suppose that we tried to salvage something from Fidelis interpretation of steadfast and assumed that it was granted upon losing a combat and lasted until the end of the phase, so that a detachment could then also have a window to use steadfast in, there is absolutely no reason this wouldn't work on detachments involved in other combats but Fidelis insists it would only work if the detachment was involved in the same combat as the parent unit! His own interpretation isn't even consistent: which is a sure giveaway that rules lawyering is involved.
Contrary to what you claim, applying the rules is entirely consistent and without problem. We are dealing here with Multiple Combat and Break Tests, the rules of which (as said before) one will find on p.60.
The parent unit is steadfast from the moment it has been defeated but still more ranks after combat resolution than all (any) enemy it is in combat with, and until it has taken its break test.
During that time, the detachment is steadfast too. You can resolve the Break tests of Multiple Combat in any order you chose. For the detachment to enjoy steadfast, you should, strictly speaking, resolve the Break test of the detachment first, before the Break test of the Parent unit.
However, I, for one (being not a rules lawyer) would not make an issue out of the fact that the detachment Break test would be taken after the parent unit, as it is all part of the same combat.
Given that the parent unit is only steadfast from Combat Resolution until Break test resolution, it is also clear and consistent that a detachment which is not involved in the same combat cannot benefit from steadfast.
-
I agree with Noght about what I think the rules intended, but I can very easily see how others could read it otherwise. Surely 1 measly paragraph of examples wouldn't have been too much to ask for.
-
Here he goes with that dumb flowchart again... stoopid swede... :icon_smile:
Personally, I think it's plausible that C1 is how the rule is intended to be. But that's not what the rules say as they are now. RAW, both C2 and C3 are valid (since IMO both B1 and B2 could be right, depending on your religion). However, C3 leads to a lot of ugly situations that reek of awful rules design. C2 is slicker. Plus, C2 is the least powerful option so my opponents won't likely mind if I suggest we use that.
Until the FAQ comes out, that is.
(http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuxfet.jpg) (http://i41.tinypic.com/2yuxfet.jpg)
-
Contrary to what you claim, applying the rules is entirely consistent and without problem. We are dealing here with Multiple Combat and Break Tests, the rules of which (as said before) one will find on p.60.
The parent unit is steadfast from the moment it has been defeated but still more ranks after combat resolution than all (any) enemy it is in combat with, and until it has taken its break test.
No. Your argument is inherently contradictory and therefore cannot be the correct interpretation.
You are hanging your hat on the phrase "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. "
(while completely ignoring other phrases such as "a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast")
If that is what steadfast is, then steadfast exists ONLY during the INSTANT you roll for your break test. Because steadfast is the state of being a losing unit with more ranks making a break test and ignoring the combat modifier. It does not come into effect when you lose combat: it only comes into effect during the break test.
Therefore it cannot be passed along to detachments. And if it was passed along to detachments, what would you be passing along? Are you passing along the text "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. " ? Because that does nothing for a detachment. A detachment already has those rules.
Are you passing along the special rule 'Steadfast'? But according to you that doesn't exist.
What text, precisely, do you think is passed along from the parent to the detachment?
And where in the rules, precisely, do you pull support for a unit getting steadfast immediately and only at the conclusion of combat? There are only two possible times you can gain steadfast, depending on interpretation
1) By being engaged with an enemy unit with fewer ranks (always in a building) which happens at the moment combat begins and lasts until you no longer have more ranks or combat ends.
2) At the instant of making a break test if you have more ranks, which ceases at the instant the break test is done. There is no window in between combat ending and break tests starting when steadfast could be applied and passed down, because it exists only when you start the break test, and disappears as soon as the break test is done. According to your interpretation.
You are trying to imagine some 3rd option that appears nowhere, because if we use your interpretation and the rules as written, the whole thing simply doesn't work. At all.
The way it works, in your model is:
Combat
Combat Resolution
Determine Losing Side
Choose order of break tests
Parent Unit
Determine if steadfast
Apply break test. (steadfast goes away at conclusion of break test)
Next unit
Detachment. Parent not steadfast, rule does nothing.
Etc
All this complicated song and dance and having to ignore some rules and invent others in order to bodge together a halfway working scenario is a clue that your interpretation is not accurate.
If we go with what the rulebook actually says "a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks thatn its enemy..." then the whole thing becomes much, much, much simpler and more consistent.
For your interpretation to work, there would have to be a phrase saying 'A defeated unit with more ranks than its opponent gains steadfast immediately after combat resolution, which lasts until the end of the combat phase'. Do we see such a rule? Nope.
For my interpretation to work, we'd need to see a rule saying " If a unit has more ranks than its enemy, then it is steadfast". Do we see such a rule? Why, yes! Yes we do.
In the end, it's very simple:
If steadfast is the state of having more ranks than your enemy, a parent unit that has more ranks than its engaged enemy passes along steadfast to detachments within 3". Neither the parent nor the detachments will need to add negative combat modifiers when making break tests.
If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast
These are the only two real options afforded by the rules. Separate or same combats don't enter into it and are red herrings.
-
If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast [/b]
These are the only two real options afforded by the rules. Separate or same combats don't enter into it and are red herrings.
Again, page 60. That's six-ty.
-
If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast [/b]
These are the only two real options afforded by the rules. Separate or same combats don't enter into it and are red herrings.
Again, page 60. That's six-ty.
So you think the text transferred from the parent to the detachment is "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. "
??
And that does... what exactly? Detachments already had this rule.
Are you saying the parent unit transfers its number of ranks to the detachment? There is no support in the rules for that whatsoever.
If steadfast is "a unit that outranks its enemy" than transferring steadfast does something.
If steadfast is "any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. " then transferring steadfast does nothing as every unit already had this rule anyway.
If steadfast is "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership." then transferring steadfast does nothing as every unit already has this rule anyway.
So...what text, specifically, is being granted to the detachment by the parent with the transferal of the steadfast special rule?
Those are the only three definitions of steadfast that we have.
-
Um yikes!! I think at this point I would simply like to see what people think the intention of the rule was. I think myself that the detatchemnt was supposed to be able to use the ranks of its parent unit at when testing to see if it is steadfast. However as written this does not seem to be the case. FAQ where are you??
If I'm honest I think the intention of the rule was that when a detachment is in the same combat as its regimental unit and the regimental unit is steadfast, the detachment gets the benefit of steadfast too. The way the detachment rules were written I'm pretty sure they were intended to be used in the same combat as its regimental, supporting it.
If it were up to me, that is how I would FAQ it
-
@ Skyros: name one single instance in the BRB, where steadfast does not occur in the specific context of taking a break test.
-
What text, specifically, is conveyed from the parent to the detachment when the special rule 'steadfast' is transferred?
I have my answer, pulled directly from the rule book.
Steadfast: a unit that outranks its enemy.
What is your answer?
Is it transferring
1) Steadfast: a unit that outranks its enemy
2) Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat
3) Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
Very simple question, and I asked first :)
-
Of course, you pulled that out of the BRB - and out of context.
Because if you put it in context, it is clear that a unit becomes steadfast
1. after a defeat
2. if it has more ranks than the enemy it is in combat with,
3. ranks which are determined AFTER combat resolution
4. for the purpose of resolving a break test.
There is no real difference between the various statements.
-
So what text is the detachment gaining from the parent ? The fact you keep dodging my question tells me you know your argument is ill-founded.
I've already spelled out all three possible definitions of the Steadfast special rule.
Which one is the parent giving to the detachment?
-
Far from dodging your argument, I was pointing out that all the statements are basically the same. So, it is 1-3. But if you insist on pulling the first statement you have listed out of context, then it does not qualify anymore. In that case, it is only 2 & 3.
So, even simpler question: name one single instance in the BRB, where "steadfast" does not occur in the specific context of taking a break test.
-
Would it make things easier if you simply fought all combats involving a unit and its detachments, then did the calculations and made your leadership tests determining if the units are steadfast at that point?
-
@Fidelis: I don't understand or maybe I just don't find convincing the "out of context" argument that disqualifies the "simply put,..." statement as a definition but maybe if you explain it better?
-
If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast [/b]
CONGRATS! This is the first thing you've got right! Now before you do anything else go read page 30 in the New Empire Book (because AB overrides BRB right this very second only) and page 60 of the BRB regarding Multiple Combats (only one CR number being generated affecting both Regiment and Detachment). That's why way back Fidelis mentioned that to be TECHNICALLY correct you should roll the Detachment Break test while the Regiment TEMPORARILY has Steadfast (which is a state that only exists after losing during your Break Test).
Whee!
Noght
-
In that case, it is only 2 & 3.
So in that case, a detachment gains the text:
2) Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat
3) Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
Which obviously does absolutely nothing, since the detachment already had this text anyway. .
This is one of many reasons your interpretation makes no sense: It is contradictory, ignores parts of the rulebook, and winds up having no meaning. In rules discussions, the simplest, most consistent answer is usually the best. Especially if it's flat out stated in the book!
So, even simpler question: name one single instance in the BRB, where "steadfast" does not occur in the specific context of taking a break test.
I have no idea why on earth you think this is a compelling argument. Stubborn only occurs in the specific context of taking a break test. Do you have to lose to convey stubborn as well?
Page 76
Stubborn units are always steadfast
So therefore.. stubborn greatswords... are steadfast. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore if they have NOT lost their combat they do NOT pass on stubborn to their detachments - according to your interpretation.
Do you SERIOUSLY want to maintain your position in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?
Or are you going to tell me that greatswords are always steadfast so it means they are ALWAYS losing a fight?
-
If I'm honest I think the intention of the rule was that when a detachment is in the same combat as its regimental unit and the regimental unit is steadfast, the detachment gets the benefit of steadfast too. The way the detachment rules were written I'm pretty sure they were intended to be used in the same combat as its regimental, supporting it.
If it were up to me, that is how I would FAQ it
If I'm honest I don't know what the intention of the rule is. However having read the rules in their entirety more than once I eventualy came to the same conclusion as Skyros. It does not break the game, does not "feel" wrong, and follows the rules exactly as written, without extending intent into phrases that may or may not have that intent. If it were up to me I would FAQ it KISS. Simply put, have more ranks than your enemy and you are steadfast. However as the situation is likley to be a rare occurance at best and I'm not normaly playing in an argumentative group, I'll not lose any sleep over it.
-
Stubborn units are always steadfast
So therefore.. stubborn greatswords... are steadfast. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore if they have NOT lost their combat they do NOT pass on stubborn to their detachments - according to your interpretation.
Do you SERIOUSLY want to maintain your position in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?
Or are you going to tell me that greatswords are always steadfast so it means they are ALWAYS losing a fight?
Um....Steadfast =/= Stubborn. Stubborn units are always Steadfast (Break Test on their unmodified Leadership). There is a HUGE differance. So yes I will maintain Fidelis' position because Steadfast is only Combat Step 3 and Stubborn is Forever! (Sounds like a Greeting Card). :-)
You realize the AB rule passes all favorable psychology states from Regiment to Detachment. Stubborn Detachments (Regiment of GS) mean that when they lose they are Steadfast EVEN if they have less ranks.
Noght
-
Um....Steadfast =/= Stubborn. Stubborn units are always Steadfast (Break Test on their unmodified Leadership). There is a HUGE differance. So yes I will maintain Fidelis' position because Steadfast is only Combat Step 3 and Stubborn is Forever! (Sounds like a Greeting Card). :-)
The fact is that the rule doesn't say that stubborn troops are steadfast each time they a break test. Nope, it doesn't. It says they are always steadfast.
Maybe they mean what you are saying Noght, but that is not what they wrote. I'll play by what they actually wrote.
-
As far as they are always steadfast -- that just means that when they lose combat and have to take a break test the ranks requirement does not matter. You only check for Steadfast after the combat is over and your unit lost and you have to take a break test.
-
The fact is that the rule doesn't say that stubborn troops are steadfast each time they a break test. Nope, it doesn't. It says they are always steadfast.
Maybe they mean what you are saying Noght, but that is not what they wrote. I'll play by what they actually wrote.
I didn't say that either Einstein. Are we going to argue about what Stubborn is or isn't now?
I love this game...riddle me this then: What is Steadfast? Any definition from the BRB is fine. How do YOU think they mean it (assuming you have the correct definition)? Hell, let me help with the definition of Stubborn: (page 76 btw) "Stubborn units are always Steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy (see page 54 for details)."
See I know what Stubborn is and it's game effects (RAW and RAI).
Noght
-
I love this game...riddle me this then: What is Steadfast? Any definition from the BRB is fine.
That's easy.
a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy
BRB p. 54
Now let's turn to BRB p76.
Stubborn units are always steadfast
Now...if fidelis interpretation is correct, stubborn simply means steadfast all the time, whether you have more ranks or not...BUT it ONLY kicks in if you LOSE.
So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat.
Does that make sense?
-
I love this game...riddle me this then: What is Steadfast? Any definition from the BRB is fine.
That's easy. Then we agree!
a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy
Nice Dodge, that is the one of the requirements but that's ok, here's the EFFECT of Steadfast per FAQ 1.5: Steadfast units don't apply the differance in combat result scores to break test.
BRB p. 54
Now let's turn to BRB p76.
Stubborn units are always steadfast
Even I know what this means, just not DonJulio....
Now...if fidelis interpretation is correct, stubborn simply means steadfast all the time (YES, a thousand times YES), whether you have more ranks or not...BUT it ONLY kicks in if you LOSE (Why else do you take a BREAK test?).
So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat. (Close, Drop the word ONLY. Stubborn is Forever, Greatswords Detachments are ALWAYS Stubborn, it's the new AB rule don't ya know. So guess what happens when a Detachment loses any Combat (insert effect of Steadfast here))
Does that make sense?
See comments in Red. Stubborn is Forever. Steadfast is a momentary effect that lets the unit roll it's Break Test without applying Combat Res.
Noght
-
I didn't say that either Einstein. Are we going to argue about what Stubborn is or isn't now?
I love this game...riddle me this then: What is Steadfast? Any definition from the BRB is fine. How do YOU think they mean it (assuming you have the correct definition)? Hell, let me help with the definition of Stubborn: (page 76 btw) "Stubborn units are always Steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy (see page 54 for details)."
See I know what Stubborn is and it's game effects (RAW and RAI).
Noght
Good! then we agree that there are troops such that they can have the steadfast property always. It doesn't come and go instantaneously.
It is the consequence of having steadfast what becomes relevant at specific instants of the game. :happy:
-
Good! then we agree that there are troops such that they can have the steadfast property always. It doesn't come and go instantaneously.
It is the consequence of having steadfast what becomes relevant at specific instants of the game. :happy:
Gobbledy Gook aside you are correct. Stubborn units are Steadfast and amazingly it only matters during a specific instants of the game (when you lose combat and are taking a break test). Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific instants of the game (guess when that is?). Which of course is the whole point from page 1. It's like life, it's all about TIMING or to paraphrase you "relevant at a specific instant".
Noght
-
So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat.
Does that make sense?
No, because Stubborn is a persistent special rule. A unit always has Stubborn though it only gets to use it to take a break test. Therefore, it can pass Stubborn to it's detachment.
Steadfast is not a persistent special rule. Steadfast is a condition that any unit can achieve but only when it is required to take a break test and as long as it meets certain conditions, which are:
1. it has lost combat
2. it has more ranks than the enemy units in that combat
I hope that Cruddace intended for the Detachment rule to work differently and they FAQ it to improve it, but as it is now, the wording doesn't allow it. Maybe he meant that the detachment could use it's parent's ranks instead of its own to determine if it was Steadfast - even if they were in two separate combats.
Of maybe GW will FAQ and say that once a unit is Steadfast, it is considered Steadfast until the end of the Combat Phase.
-
Gobbledy Gook aside you are correct. Stubborn units are Steadfast and amazingly it only matters during a specific instants of the game (when you lose combat and are taking a break test). Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific instants of the game (guess when that is?).
Change the last sentence to:
"Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific time intervals (including but not limited to the instant you roll a break test) of the game (guess when that is?)."
Put it that way and then we agree.
-
Gobbledy Gook aside you are correct. Stubborn units are Steadfast and amazingly it only matters during a specific instants of the game (when you lose combat and are taking a break test). Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific instants of the game (guess when that is?).
Change the last sentence to:
"Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific time intervals (including but not limited to the instant you roll a break test) of the game (guess when that is?)."
Put it that way and then we agree.
You say "Po TAY toe" and I say "Pa TAH toe". Instant vs Time Interval? You used the words "specific instants" not I, I just repeated your quote. Make up your mind.
I'm afraid to ask as to what other "specific instant or interval" that you think Steadfast occurs? I know of NO other time that Steadfast matters.....
I think the answer is "sometime between losing the combat and actually rolling for your breaktest" but that's out of the rulebook so it's not your likely answer.
Though we have made progress as you are actually agreeing that Steadfast is time dependant so thats a start.
Noght
-
You used the words "specific instants" not I, I just repeated your quote. Make up your mind.
Yes but I clearly used it for the consequence of the steadfast condition and not for the duration of the setadfast condition. Here, read again:
Good! then we agree that there are troops such that they can have the steadfast property always. It doesn't come and go instantaneously. It is the consequence of having steadfast what becomes relevant at specific instants of the game. :happy:
I know of NO other time that Steadfast matters...
Considering that a parent unit may be steadfast when it is itself out of combat but its detachment is been attacked matters
and it is the reason this thread has n pages.
Though we have made progress as you are actually agreeing that Steadfast is time dependant so thats a start.
Well, because steadfast is a relation between unit A and unit B (or set of units for multiple combats) it depends on some conditions that may change in time. For example, the condition clearly ends if unit A takes so many casualties that it no longer has more ranks than unit B.
-
So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat.
Does that make sense?
No, because Stubborn is a persistent special rule. A unit always has Stubborn though it only gets to use it to take a break test. Therefore, it can pass Stubborn to it's detachment.
Steadfast is not a persistent special rule.
Page 76 in the BRB directly contradicts this.
Stubborn units are always steadfast.
Tada! Persistent effect.
Steadfast is a persistent rule. Stubborn simply says you have it even if you don't outnumber the enemy in ranks.
IF your interpretation was correct, and steadfast ONLY happened when you lost, then stubborn would also only kick in when you lost - as it simply says 'this unit is steadfast even if it has fewer ranks than its opponent'
Stubborn will not make a unit steadfast when it hasn't lost combat, using your interpretation.
Therefore you would still have to lose for the stubborn boosted steadfast to occur: and couldn't pass it on to a detachment if you hadn't lost a combat.
So, using your interpretation, greatswords are not stubborn unless they have lost a combat, and thus cannot pass along stubborn to a detachment unless they have lost a combat. Which is obviously nonsense.
You guys are getting confused with what steadfast DOES with how it is GRANTED.
BRB is quite clear that it is granted by having more ranks than the enemy.
BRB is also quite clear that what it is, is it allows you to roll break tests without applying the combat modifiers.
Honestly, arguing against the plain text of the rules would get you mocked and derided and you'd find yourself without opponents in my game store :D
I hope that Cruddace intended for the Detachment rule to work differently and they FAQ it to improve it, but as it is now, the wording doesn't allow it.
When you come up with an interpretation that literally does nothing, it's probably best to step back and re-evaluate your interpretation.
Maybe he meant that the detachment could use it's parent's ranks instead of its own to determine if it was Steadfast
Maybe, but that's not at all what it says right now. There's no support for the parent passing along its rank bonus to its detachment.
It's so utterly simple.
You gain steadfast by having more ranks than the opponent. BRB p 54.
A steadfast parent unit passes along steadfast to its detachments within 3". Army book p30.
Short, sweet, simple, and consistent.
And we have 7 pages of people turning themselves into knots and handwaving away explicit rules wording in an effort to make up something different...and all you've come up with is that, currently, the parent unit passing along its steadfast rule to detachments literally does nothing. That's...not very impressive.
Use Occam's razor, folks. It will make your life simpler :) Let's use what the rules say instead of hunting and searching high and low for inventions that will allow us to say it means something different.
-
It seems pretty clear, both sides are steadfast in their opinion :icon_mrgreen:
I can't see constantly quoting the same rules at each other is now going to make any difference, neither side is going to budge. The FAQ will sort it out for sure (probably with an answer no one expects :eusa_wall: ) Until then as each camp is almost certainly never going to play against each other it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
-
Page 76 in the BRB directly contradicts this.
Stubborn units are always steadfast.
Tada! Persistent effect.
Steadfast is a persistent rule. Stubborn simply says you have it even if you don't outnumber the enemy in ranks.
Skyros, you're totally reaching there with wishful thinking. When GW says that Stubborn units are always Steadfast, this does not indicate that Steadfast is in and of itself a persistent effect. The unit is always Stubborn, but the only thing Stubborn means is that the unit can always claim Steadfast after combat without worrying about number of ranks. So for a non-Stubborn unit, Steadfast comes into effect when a break test is required because you lost a combat, but outnumber the enemy. So a Stubborn unit passing Stubborn to a detachment is great. But if a non-Stubborn parent unit has not fought its enemy yet that round, and its detachment has just fought a separate combat and lost, it doesn't get Steadfast from it's parent (as currently written) because the parent itself is not yet Steadfast because it hasn't fought its combat (though it would pass on Stubborn if it were Stubborn).
Anyway, this is pointless to continue anymore. An FAQ is needed and I hope GW rules that our detachments get to use their Regiment's ranks to determine their own Steadfast.
-
And we have 7 pages of people turning themselves into knots and handwaving away explicit rules wording in an effort to make up something different...and all you've come up with is that, currently, the parent unit passing along its steadfast rule to detachments literally does nothing. That's...not very impressive.
Again proving the point I made earlier.
Use Occam's razor, folks. It will make your life simpler :) Let's use what the rules say instead of hunting and searching high and low for inventions that will allow us to say it means something different.
Occam's razor does not mean one cuts out the bits one doesn't like, only because they do not suit one's purpose.
Edit: I am glad, we are apparently all agreed now that steadfast always occurs in the context of taking a break test. Now, we simply have to agree with the BRB that the ranks which determine whether a unit is steadfast are counted AFTER combat. Given that is the case, I cannot see how a unit can be steadfast before combat.
-
@Fidelis: I don't understand or maybe I just don't find convincing the "out of context" argument that disqualifies the "simply put,..." statement as a definition but maybe if you explain it better?
Context does matter. To give an example from another hotly discussed issue:
NBC Today show:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
Unabridged version:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
I think everyone agrees that by cutting out (I guess, NBC was using Occam's razor :icon_wink:) part of the conversation, the whole picture changed. That is why one should take the whole text on the steadfast rule into account, starting from:
STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. (BRB emphasis)
until the example for steadfast given on page 55.
-
Like a basic Logic Class If/Then argument. (Been a while since college so I'm not sure I'm typing it in the right form).
IF Stubborn units are always Steadfast. (T) pg 76
AND Steadfast units always takes it's Break Test on it's unmodified leadership. (T) pg 54
THEN Stubborn units always take it's Break Test on it's unmodified leadership. (T)
Skyros, you are absolutely correct except for this statement:
Steadfast is a persistent rule. Stubborn simply says you have it even if you don't outnumber the enemy in ranks.
STUBBORN is the persistant rule. Stubborn is Steadfast not the other way around, this is not a GW mistake, it is intentional and works.
Non-Stubborn units (the point of the thread) only gain Steadfast this way: Combat ---> Lose ---> Check to see if more Ranks, if YES, then Steadfast. For a single moment in time: after combat resolution and before you dice for Break Test than you MAY be steadfast if you have more ranks than your opponent.
Rest assured GW will FAQ it to clarity (mine and Fidelis' point per rulebook) or they will change the wording to allow the Detachment to count the Regimental's rank to determine if it's Steadfast, until then we'll agree to disagree. AND I promise you this if it turns out you are right I will happily "EAT Crow (or Pidgeon Bombs)".
Peace Brother...
Noght
-
I know of NO other time that Steadfast matters...
Considering that a parent unit may be steadfast when it is itself out of combat but its detachment is been attacked matters
and it is the reason this thread has n pages.
This statement is patently FALSE. You are never steadfast while out of combat because you MUST have an opponent to compare Ranks against. And that's the reason this is raging, you guys aren't applying the "must lose combat condition" to your argument. If it's just about "MOAR RANKS", whom are you comparing it to?
Noght
p.s. Off to Adepticon with my 3K and 2200 MSU Empire for 7 Games. Camera and Recorder on hand for Battle Reps....wish me luck.
-
Luck. And stay steadfast. :smile2:
-
Occam's razor does not mean one cuts out the bits one doesn't like, only because they do not suit one's purpose.
You are the only one cutting out bits. Namely, the definition of steadfast.
a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy
...and the reference to units garrisoning a building ALWAYS being steadfast.
..and the reference to stubborn units ALWAYS being steadfast.
Indeed, the number of rules you are outright ignoring in order to arrive at your interpretation that (which literally grants detachments no benefits, whether they are in the same combat or not) is quickly piling up.
Me - I just read the rules as they are and apply them. You - ignore a fistful of rules and invent new ones.
It is impossible for steadfast to be the state of taking a break check while losing and having more ranks than the enemy and the other references to steadfast in the rules to make sense.
Now, if you actually pay attention to the rules as they are written, and admit that steadfast is having more ranks than the enemy, everything works beautifully!
For a single moment in time: after combat resolution and before you dice for Break Test than you MAY be steadfast if you have more ranks than your opponent.
You are actually only steadfast while making the break test, using this interpretation. Not before, and not after.
Also, using Fidelis interpretation that Steadfast is the special rule:
Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
then a parent transferring steadfast to its detachment does LITERALLY NOTHING because detachments already had this rule!
However if Steadfast is
Steadfast: this unit has more ranks than its enemy
Then transferring steadfast actually accomplishes something.
I care less about the issue at hand (as I'd simply refuse to play any dodgy rules lawyers who tried to pull this stunt in person - except that I rarely run melee detachments so the issue is unlikely to arise) and more about the principles ones should use when evaluating rules with more than one interpretation.
You should strive for the interpretation that is
-consistent with the rest of the rules
-does not rely on ignoring existing rules
-is simple
-does not invent new rules
-is logically consistent
All of which Fidelis interpretation lack.
-
Considering that a parent unit may be steadfast when it is itself out of combat but its detachment is been attacked matters
and it is the reason this thread has n pages.
This statement is patently FALSE. You are never steadfast while out of combat because you MUST have an opponent to compare Ranks against. And that's the reason this is raging, you guys aren't applying the "must lose combat condition" to your argument. If it's just about "MOAR RANKS", whom are you comparing it to?
You can coun't ranks
- mmhh? You don't require units to be in combat to compare the number of ranks. What you need for that simple operation is to have at least two units whith ranks and the natural numbers :happy:.
- The must loose combat condition isn't anywhere in the book. It is not clearly implicit either. Thats where we differ. Although the BRB pg.54 is explaining a combat situation, it doesn't follows as a "must" that steadfast is only present when in combat. It doesn't. If you can find a statement such as: "A unit is steadfast if and only if : (a) It is in combat with one or more enemy units (b) it has lost...
Then, sure, your point would be demonstrated.
Until then, it isn't a fact it is just opinion, as it is mine btw. - Consider for instance that you roll an armor save under specific circumstances, does it mean that there is no armor when out of combat? It doesn't. Armor may not be relevant in the movement phase but it is still there if some rule calls for it for whatever reason. Of course the rules for armor are nicely written and don't create confusing scenarios. In the end I hold to what I stated on my very first post in this thread. Only FAQ will tell for sure (I hope it will ::heretic::).
Noght
p.s. Off to Adepticon with my 3K and 2200 MSU Empire for 7 Games. Camera and Recorder on hand for Battle Reps....wish me luck.
Good luck, but don't abuse your luck, hail the empire :::cheers:::
-
@Fidelis:
I will not argue that context matters in the TV example you gave. It does. Yet it doesn't help your argument because:
There are no convincing reasons to believe that the "simply put..." statement is only valid in the context of combat.
Some statements may be valid only in context, but that doesn't mean that ALL statements made in a specific context it will only be
valid within that context. Therefore, explaining the effect of the rule within the context of combat doesn't exclude the possibility that the rule may happen also in other context (eg. detachments been a attacked while parent unit is out of combat).
Anyway, I think we have no further arguments to offer to each other so cheers and lets wait for FAQ. :::cheers:::
-
Occam's razor does not mean one cuts out the bits one doesn't like, only because they do not suit one's purpose.
You are the only one cutting out bits. Namely, the definition of steadfast.
a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy
...and the reference to units garrisoning a building ALWAYS being steadfast.
..and the reference to stubborn units ALWAYS being steadfast.
Indeed, the number of rules you are outright ignoring in order to arrive at your interpretation that (which literally grants detachments no benefits, whether they are in the same combat or not) is quickly piling up.
Me - I just read the rules as they are and apply them. You - ignore a fistful of rules and invent new ones.
That is a bit rich, as I am the one who has consistently argued that the section on steadfast should be read in its entirety (which obviously includes "simply put ..."etc.). To give just the last example:
I think everyone agrees that by cutting out (I guess, NBC was using Occam's razor :icon_wink:) part of the conversation, the whole picture changed. That is why one should take the whole text on the steadfast rule into account, starting from:
STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. (BRB emphasis)
until the example for steadfast given on page 55.
I also referred in detail on several occasions to all other passages in the BRB concerning steadfast.
But I guess, this is another example of Occam's razor.
You should strive for the interpretation that is
-consistent with the rest of the rules
-does not rely on ignoring existing rules
-is simple
-does not invent new rules
-is logically consistent
We certainly are agreed on that. We clearly differ on the outcome.
All of which Fidelis interpretation lack.
Funnily enough, I just came across this: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?338500-Detachment-Steadfast/page4
Note: I had no involvement in this, but perhaps Nexus might have.
After a very heated discussion, this seems to be the apparent outcome all could more or less agree on (or at least, no one objected to):
Re: Detachment Steadfast
Originally Posted by T10
The one situation where this is all entirely clear is if both units are involved in the same combat...
Yeah perhaps it's best to narrow this issue down to what we can resolve without creating further conflicts [of rules].
If Regimental and Detachment must be in the same combat we do away with almost every contradiction people have been able to think of it.
It might really be the best solution we'll ever reach without an Errata.
... Catastrophy ... :-P
I can only surmise that they all must be dodgy rules lawyers whom you would simply refuse to play when trying to pull this stunt in person.
-
By the way, did anyone here find out how steadfast works with detachments?
What? The initial question? No idea.
-
Funnily enough, I just came across this: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?338500-Detachment-Steadfast/page4
Note: I had no involvement in this, but perhaps Nexus might have.
Yup, I'm in there, wearing faboulously green goggles, waving my flowchart around. There were a couple of very wierd interpretations in that thread...
After a very heated discussion, this seems to be the apparent outcome all could more or less agree on (or at least, no one objected to):
Re: Detachment Steadfast
Originally Posted by T10
The one situation where this is all entirely clear is if both units are involved in the same combat...
It really wasn't any consensus. The thread just died for some reason. But yes, the Fidelis interpretation was rather popular. That doesn't mean it's the one truth though. :icon_wink:
-
It's so utterly simple.
You gain steadfast by having more ranks than the opponent. BRB p 54.
A steadfast parent unit passes along steadfast to its detachments within 3". Army book p30.
Short, sweet, simple, and consistent.
And we have 7 pages of people turning themselves into knots and handwaving away explicit rules wording in an effort to make up something different...and all you've come up with is that, currently, the parent unit passing along its steadfast rule to detachments literally does nothing. That's...not very impressive.
Use Occam's razor, folks. It will make your life simpler :) Let's use what the rules say instead of hunting and searching high and low for inventions that will allow us to say it means something different.
So you are saying that a detachment can be in a combat with a unit that has more ranks than it, but the parent is out of combat (but with the most ranks), and therefore the detachment is steadfast? The enemy is the unit in the combat, the parent is steadfast against this unit, passing this property to it's detachment. I agree with this assessment, I also think it's the intended way for it to work. I also think you will have some opponents that will argue until the cows come home about it because it could be worded a little more direct and less implicit.
I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can't be steadfast besides the very specific instance of when you are beaten. All you have to do is have more ranks than the enemy. So you can be steadfast BEFORE combat, AFTER combat, etc. Of course being steadfast is only useful WHEN beaten in combat, but that is irrelevant.
-
I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can't be steadfast besides the very specific instance of when you are beaten. All you have to do is have more ranks than the enemy. So you can be steadfast BEFORE combat, AFTER combat, etc.
I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can be steadfast besides the very specific instances when you are beaten and have to take a break test.
Actually, I would amend that to say a convincing argument --- I've seen plenty of others.
-
I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can't be steadfast besides the very specific instance of when you are beaten. All you have to do is have more ranks than the enemy. So you can be steadfast BEFORE combat, AFTER combat, etc.
I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can be steadfast besides the very specific instances when you are beaten and have to take a break test.
Actually, I would amend that to say a convincing argument --- I've seen plenty of others.
BRB p54 you only need more ranks than the enemy.
The rulebook does go on to specify how steadfast is useful during a combat that you lose. That doesn't have anything to do with with steadfast having some weird timing restriction ala magic the gathering.
-
You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.
-
You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.
Wouldn't the burden be on you to prove that it doesn't? The rulebook says you simply need more ranks than your opponent. That's it. If it were the way you present it, then the detachment sharing steadfast rule wouldn't make any sense, because it would never be shared. The parent unit is done (or hasn't taken it yet) it's own break test by the time that any other unit takes its break test, therefore the rule doesn't work, and that doesn't make sense.
-
So you are saying that a detachment can be in a combat with a unit that has more ranks than it, but the parent is out of combat (but with the most ranks), and therefore the detachment is steadfast?
Almost! Steadfast means having more ranks than the enemy you are engaged with. Not engaged = no steadfast.
With one exception: units in buildings are always steadfast.
And well, stubborn units are always steadfast.
They could easily have written the rule as 'a parent passes along its rank bonus to the detachment for terms of determining steadfast' which wouldn't require the parent unit to be in combat at all.
-
They could easily have written the rule as 'a parent passes along its rank bonus to the detachment for terms of determining steadfast' which wouldn't require the parent unit to be in combat at all.
They could easily have written the rule as 'a parent passes along its rank bonus to the detachment for terms of determining steadfast' which wouldn't require the parent unit to be in combat at all.
Or... they could have written "A unit needs to be engaged in combat in order to be considered steadfast" but they didn't, They could have written "A stubborn unit is steadfast whenever it is engaged in combat and only whenever it is engaged in combat" they didn't either.
What they actually wrote "simply put, a unit is considered steadfast if it has more ranks than it's enemy"
Hence, the interpretation that the parent unit may be out of combat and still pass its rank bonus to the detachment its not only reasonable but also more consistent with everything written in both books.
-
You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.
If it were the way you present it, then the detachment sharing steadfast rule wouldn't make any sense, because it would never be shared. The parent unit is done (or hasn't taken it yet) it's own break test by the time that any other unit takes its break test, therefore the rule doesn't work, and that doesn't make sense.
In correct. In a Multiple Combat, all losing units would take a break test and if the Regiment had more ranks than the largest enemy unit in the fight, if would be Steadfast and pass the Steadfast to its Detachment.
-
You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.
If it were the way you present it, then the detachment sharing steadfast rule wouldn't make any sense, because it would never be shared. The parent unit is done (or hasn't taken it yet) it's own break test by the time that any other unit takes its break test, therefore the rule doesn't work, and that doesn't make sense.
In correct. In a Multiple Combat, all losing units would take a break test and if the Regiment had more ranks than the largest enemy unit in the fight, if would be Steadfast and pass the Steadfast to its Detachment.
Now you are confusing me. You said that a unit only has steadfast for the duration of it's break test, not before, and not after. How can the parent give steadfast to its detachment when the detachment takes it's break test either before or after the parent?
-
How I'm going to run it;
If parent unit is IN combat, same as detachment or NOT, and has more ranks = steadfast.
If parent unit is NOT in combat = not steadfast as there is no enemy to compare to.
That means, if my detachments are in combat with a different enemy, and it is in a combat with a horde 10 files deep while it is only two ranks deep, but the parent unit is steadfast at THE MOMENT OF COMBAT for the detachment = steadfast.
If at anypoint my parent unit is in combat and no longer has more ranks and files compared to its enemy, then the detachment will rely on its own ranks to determin steadfast.
Anyone else running it different?
-
Anyone else running it different?
Apparently. :dry:
-
Anyone else running it different?
Apparently. :dry:
I'm just using the ranks of the regimental unit to determine steadfast for the detachment while I wait for a FAQ.
If anyone I'm playing against argues about it then I'll just point out that it doesn't yet make any sense.
-
I'm just using the ranks of the regimental unit to determine steadfast for the detachment while I wait for a FAQ.
If anyone I'm playing against argues about it then I'll just point out that it doesn't yet make any sense.
That is the maximalist position. Personally, if there is any contention on a rules issue, I opt for the minimalist position. No opponent could possibly have a problem with that.
Apart from that, the rules as they are actually do make perfect sense. :icon_wink:
-
I'm just using the ranks of the regimental unit to determine steadfast for the detachment while I wait for a FAQ.
If anyone I'm playing against argues about it then I'll just point out that it doesn't yet make any sense.
I thought of this too, but thought it would illicit too many arguments, although it seems to be the most straight forward until a FAQ is published. Perhaps I'll try this for the first while until the argument arises, and then use my first plan as a back up plan! EXCELLENT!
-
Excellent? Hardly. Granted, this "solution" is very easy to apply, but it has no backing by RAW.
-
Now you are confusing me. You said that a unit only has steadfast for the duration of it's break test, not before, and not after. How can the parent give steadfast to its detachment when the detachment takes it's break test either before or after the parent?
In my area, players handle Multiple Combat break tests simultaneously since the rules say nothing about any order to take them in and because you don't actually move any fleeing units until after all the tests are resolved. In fact, once deciding the numbers needed, I roll Multiple Combat Break Tests at the same time and use different pairs of colored dice for each unit. See, it's not that confusing.
Of course, some of my friends do consider me peculiar...
-
In my area, players handle Multiple Combat break tests simultaneously since the rules say nothing about any order to take them in and because you don't actually move any fleeing units until after all the tests are resolved. In fact, once deciding the numbers needed, I roll Multiple Combat Break Tests at the same time and use different pairs of colored dice for each unit. See, it's not that confusing.
Of course, some of my friends do consider me peculiar...
"Alright guys focus.. 1...2...3...go!... ah wait the red dice has hit the table first...ok lets do it again..." :laugh:
-
Well not that it matters to the True Believers of MOAR Ranks Steadfast Club but I posed the question to 3 sets of judges at Adepticon this weekend. They all agreed that the Regiment and Detachment needed to be in the same combat.
Argument: (OPEN to page 54 in BRB please). The first sentence (bolded) under the heading of Steadfast gives the definition. Using ONLY the first sentence of the 2nd Paragraph under Steadfast as THE definition is cherry picking (Rules Lawyering some might say). Amazingly the "cherry picked" definition is in fact part of the bolded definition meaning both sentences are correct however the the bolded sentence adds additional limitations to the definition. (See Fidelis' posts for clarification).
Here in Illinois we're playing "only same combat" (single Combat Resolution applied to both Regiment and Detachment at the same time) because that satisfies both the new AB and the rules on page 54.
Peace,
Noght
p.s. Battle Reps to follow, a couple a day methinks....
-
Well not that it matters to the True Believers of MOAR Ranks Steadfast Club but I posed the question to 3 sets of judges at Adepticon this weekend. They all agreed that the Regiment and Detachment needed to be in the same combat.
Argument: (OPEN to page 54 in BRB please). The first sentence (bolded) under the heading of Steadfast gives the definition. Using ONLY the first sentence of the 2nd Paragraph under Steadfast as THE definition is cherry picking (Rules Lawyering some might say). Amazingly the "cherry picked" definition is in fact part of the bolded definition meaning both sentences are correct however the the bolded sentence adds additional limitations to the definition. (See Fidelis' posts for clarification).
Here in Illinois we're playing "only same combat" (single Combat Resolution applied to both Regiment and Detachment at the same time) because that satisfies both the new AB and the rules on page 54.
Peace,
Noght
p.s. Battle Reps to follow, a couple a day methinks....
If that ever becomes official...well the detachment rules aren't looking so hot. If there is nothing to prevent people from simply charging the smaller detachment and winning in one round what use are they going to be?
Yeah, you can get stubborn from greatswords, which are only an ok choice to begin with, and there goes all your special points. and yeah you can give them hatred but what difference will it make for 15-35 state troops? They aren't going to hold
-
If that ever becomes official...well the detachment rules aren't looking so hot. If there is nothing to prevent people from simply charging the smaller detachment and winning in one round what use are they going to be?
Yeah, you can get stubborn from greatswords, which are only an ok choice to begin with, and there goes all your special points. and yeah you can give them hatred but what difference will it make for 15-35 state troops? They aren't going to hold
That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up. And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.
Noght
-
That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up. And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.
Noght
But now they are better as they get steadfast from the parent unit's ranks whether it is in combat or not. ::heretic::
-
That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up. And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.
Noght
But now they are better as they get steadfast from the parent unit's ranks whether it is in combat or not. ::heretic::
I see what you did there :lol: We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway. :wink:
Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."
Noght
-
I see what you did there :lol: We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway. :wink:
Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."
Noght
It better be! cause its now written in stone that Noght will "EatCow" if the FAQ confirms the other interpretation.
-
Personally, I'm hoping they reword it.
-
I see what you did there :lol: We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway. :wink:
Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."
Noght
It better be! cause its now written in stone that Noght will "EatCow" if the FAQ confirms the other interpretation.
I'd be happy to as long as they clear it up! Eating Pigeon Bomb instead of Crow.... :blush:
Noght
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710127a_Empire_v1.0.pdf
I think you are a rules lawyer. You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them. Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.
Show me where I am wrong, and I will happily change my point of view. If an army book has new rules, I prefer to look how they fit within the rules of the BRB. One cannot even claim that the rules are not clear. Choosing an option that is in accordance with both the army book and the BRB is not rules lawyering - it is just not indulging in wishful thinking.
The fact that the rules do not benefit detachments is no valid argument against the rules. Was it the intent of GW that it should be different? We do not know. If it is, they will hopefully soon say that the rules must be changed or that the detachments are an exception to the rule. Until then, there is no reason not to play by the rules as they are.
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710127a_Empire_v1.0.pdf
That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up. And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.
Noght
But now they are better as they get steadfast from the parent unit's ranks whether it is in combat or not. ::heretic::
I see what you did there :lol: We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway. :wink:
Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."
Noght
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710127a_Empire_v1.0.pdf
I think you are a rules lawyer. You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them. Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.
Show me where I am wrong, and I will happily change my point of view. If an army book has new rules, I prefer to look how they fit within the rules of the BRB. One cannot even claim that the rules are not clear. Choosing an option that is in accordance with both the army book and the BRB is not rules lawyering - it is just not indulging in wishful thinking.
The fact that the rules do not benefit detachments is no valid argument against the rules. Was it the intent of GW that it should be different? We do not know. If it is, they will hopefully soon say that the rules must be changed or that the detachments are an exception to the rule. Until then, there is no reason not to play by the rules as they are.
I put the relevant part in bold here.
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2710127a_Empire_v1.0.pdf
That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up. And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.
Noght
But now they are better as they get steadfast from the parent unit's ranks whether it is in combat or not. ::heretic::
I see what you did there :lol: We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway. :wink:
Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."
Noght
Check out the last last sentence. It's almost like ESP....
At least it wasn't a silly thread like a detachment counter charging a chariot to prevent impact hits. Who thinks that way? :icon_wink:
Good times...
http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=42228.0
-
At least it wasn't a silly thread like a detachment counter charging a chariot to prevent impact hits. Who thinks that way? :icon_wink:
Good times...
People who are more interested in winning then playing the game
-
At least it wasn't a silly thread like a detachment counter charging a chariot to prevent impact hits. Who thinks that way? :icon_wink:
Good times...
People who are more interested in winning then playing the game
Just pointing out a hint of hypocrisy is all. The Flag was doing quite a few victory laps so a little reminder of what FAQ based on the actual rule book looked liked, as compared to the Steadfast "out of the blue" ruling. Just saying.
-
You know I actually pity you rather than admit your interpretation of the rules was wrong you attack other people.
At least it wasn't a silly thread like a detachment counter charging a chariot to prevent impact hits. Who thinks that way? :icon_wink:
Good times...
People who are more interested in winning then playing the game
Just pointing out a hint of hypocrisy is all. The Flag was doing quite a few victory laps so a little reminder of what FAQ based on the actual rule book looked liked, as compared to the Steadfast "out of the blue" ruling. Just saying.
-
You know I actually pity you rather than admit your interpretation of the rules was wrong you attack other people.
At least it wasn't a silly thread like a detachment counter charging a chariot to prevent impact hits. Who thinks that way? :icon_wink:
Good times...
People who are more interested in winning then playing the game
Just pointing out a hint of hypocrisy is all. The Flag was doing quite a few victory laps so a little reminder of what FAQ based on the actual rule book looked liked, as compared to the Steadfast "out of the blue" ruling. Just saying.
:icon_lol:
This from the guy who calls people "border-line" autistic for not agreeing with him. Rich.
My "rules interpretation" of Steadfast and Detachments is just fine, the FAQ on the other hand is a completely differant rule (that they still left it lame and murky, apparently like you GW doesn't read their own Rulebook). :icon_wink:
No pity needed from the WAACy, Conga-liney, Cherry-picking redflag.
-
Of course your rules interpretation is "just fine". Couple months back you and your fellow "buddies" were attacking anyone one who interpreted the rules to be what the FAQ stated just recently. Now of course rather than admit you are "wrong" now its GW that is making up a new rule.
You know I actually pity you rather than admit your interpretation of the rules was wrong you attack other people.
At least it wasn't a silly thread like a detachment counter charging a chariot to prevent impact hits. Who thinks that way? :icon_wink:
Good times...
People who are more interested in winning then playing the game
Just pointing out a hint of hypocrisy is all. The Flag was doing quite a few victory laps so a little reminder of what FAQ based on the actual rule book looked liked, as compared to the Steadfast "out of the blue" ruling. Just saying.
:icon_lol:
This from the guy who calls people "border-line" autistic for not agreeing with him. Rich.
My "rules interpretation" of Steadfast and Detachments is just fine, the FAQ on the other hand is a completely differant rule (that they still left it lame and murky, apparently like you GW doesn't read their own Rulebook). :icon_wink:
No pity needed from the WAACy, Conga-liney, Cherry-picking redflag.
-
Actually, the FAQ as they currently are have not been argued by anyone. Regarding the arguments you put forward, you might just as well have argued that the solution to a mathematical equation is 6, because 3 + green + a scratchy nose adds up in your opinion to 6. In the end, the correct solution turns out to be 6.5. At least in my school, you still would have failed the exam. :dry:
-
Of course your rules interpretation is "just fine". Couple months back you and your fellow "buddies" were attacking anyone one who interpreted the rules to be what the FAQ stated just recently. Now of course rather than admit you are "wrong" now its GW that is making up a new rule.
I think if you look at the new thread everyone except you thinks GW is making up a new rule. Please continue with the Victory Lap. :icon_smile:
Now we're trying to figure out what the heck they want us to do.....
-
Back in the real world we play warhammer using the FAQ that GW makes as the final word since its "official". Please cut the nonsense about people not agreeing about the meaning of the FAQ . Its crystal clear and no amount of posting in this forum to the contrary will change it. Stop the whining about a magical new rule/ GW not reading their own rules etc and get used to the concept of detachments using the ranks of the parent unit to determine if they are stubborn (despite the parent unit not being in combat).
Actually, the FAQ as they currently are have not been argued by anyone. Regarding the arguments you put forward, you might just as well have argued that the solution to a mathematical equation is 6, because 3 + green + a scratchy nose adds up in your opinion to 6. In the end, the correct solution turns out to be 6.5. At least in my school, you still would have failed the exam. :dry:
-
Back in the real world we play warhammer using the FAQ that GW makes as the final word since its "official". Please cut the nonsense about people not agreeing about the meaning of the FAQ . Its crystal clear and no amount of posting in this forum to the contrary will change it. Stop the whining about a magical new rule/ GW not reading their own rules etc and get used to the concept of detachments using the ranks of the parent unit to determine if they are stubborn (despite the parent unit not being in combat).
First it's Steadfast not stubborn. :icon_wink: We all know how to handle Stubborn Regiments and Detachments.
You should come over here and read some stuff and bloviate some more.
http://warhammer-empire.com/theforum/index.php?topic=44074.0
-
Back in the real world we play warhammer using the FAQ that GW makes as the final word since its "official". Please cut the nonsense about people not agreeing about the meaning of the FAQ . Its crystal clear and no amount of posting in this forum to the contrary will change it. Stop the whining about a magical new rule/ GW not reading their own rules etc and get used to the concept of detachments using the ranks of the parent unit to determine if they are stubborn (despite the parent unit not being in combat).
Strange, I cannot see anything in my post about what you claim here. It seems you read posts as you read the BRB (your continuous confusion of stubborn being another example, as Noght points out). But, of course, you simply want to dodge the observations I made.
1. In this or any other thread about steadfast, I have not seen anyone arguing in support of this part of the FAQ:
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.
As it is written, this also means that in this case the Detachment cannot be steadfast, even if it itself would have more ranks than its enemy.
2. The arguments that in previous threads were put forward in support of the first part of the FAQ:
- It is simple
- We play it like that
Of course, the arguments you yourself added really clinched it:
- Otherwise the Detachment rule is worthless
- "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" does not mean it needs to be in combat.
Or in other words: 3 + green + a scratchy nose = 6.
That said, both Noght and I envisaged the possibility that the (first part of) FAQ could turn out that way - even though it did not (and still does not) have any support whatsoever in anything written in either the BRB and Army Book.