Warhammer-Empire.com

Some people use them and like them.

50 pts for a mere MR(2) is not enough a reason to take them. Fortunately, they have additional roles, such as a small stand-alone unit useful as redirector, or - obviously - threatening opponent characters, but for that they need the 2nd gun.

The difficulty is that they compete with other heroes, such as BSB, war priests (near mandatory with any combat unit), engies (near mandatory with artillery), and the odd lvl2 scroll caddy. Furthermore, maxing heroes mean less bodies.
That's the real reason. They are nice and very fun, but other choices are more vital.

The Erratum Games

Rules.

1. Who can participate?
Any member of Warhammer Empire can participate. No need for an inscription, a reply to the thread is enough.

2. Starting a debate.
One participant makes a statement.
It may be anything, as long as other people may disagree, and as long as it involves The Empire's erratum.

3. Arguments.
This games plays like rock/paper/scissors, with the following precedence:
0. Attacks ad personam. These have no value, despite they could be fun, sometimes.
1. Opinions (statements with no specific support) have the lowest value.
2. Supported opinions (another participant approval): the more support, the higher the precedence. Of course, any refutation (negative support, no need for explanation) decreases the precedence. At any time, one member can only provide either a support or a refutation to one statement. In order to compare two diverging opinions, sum up the support. The opinion with twice as many supports takes precedence; with a smaller difference, they cancel out each other.
3. Authoritative opinions. When Noght or Fidelis von Sigmaringen take side with an opinion, it takes higher precedence over any number of opposite opinions. If they adopt different opinions, they cancel out each other.
4. Dismissed opinions. The opinion of anyone (including Noght and Fidelis von Sigmaringen) can be nullified with a former quote showing that they lack consistency: if they have been contradicted by either themselves or by a GW material. When a portion of a post is shown to be contradicted, it nullifies the whole post. Of course, dissmissed opinions can be dismissed, too, that's part of the fun.
5. GW Rules As Intended (RAI). Supported by GW quotes (which may include fluff), and explanations. This can trump all opinions, as long as it receives some support.
6. GW RAI counter-arguments. RAI arguments can be dismissed by other similar quotes with the opposite meaning, along with explanations; however, the thesis which receives the most support is assumed to be valid.
7. GW rules. They must come with the appropriate interpretation. If the exact quote is not provided, anyone can require it, and if it is not provided, the argument is dismissed.
8. GW rules dismissing. All rules can be dismissed if they are proven to be inaccurate (house rule!) or out of context of validity (rule abuse!). They can be downgraded to "mere fluff", with RAI value, if the argument is strong enough (i.e. gains more suport than the opposite argument). They can be dismissed if there is another rule which has higher precedence.
9. GW rules counterarguments. Any rule interpretation can be dismissed if proven to lead to absurdity.
10. Consensus. A consensus can supersede even a GW rule. In order to reach a consensus, a statement must get some support and no contradiction. It must have been issued at least twice, the last time with a sentence asking whether a consensus has been reached. Note that if there is only one member resisting the consensus, it is still considered a consensus. A minimum of two disagreements is required to prevent a consensus.
11. GW new FAQ/erratum. This can destroy even the best established consensus. One may object that GW is not a member of W-E.com, but that's the rule anyway. Attacks "ad personam" (sic) against GW are authorised. If sufficiently backed up, they can trump GW new FAQ/erratum.

4. Assumptions.
In order to shorten the posts, unless specified otherwise, units are supposed to be:
- not fleeing
- not stubborn (unless explicitely Great Swords),
- not skirmisher (unless explicitely Archers),
- in open terrain
- parent & detachment within 3"

In addition, if they are in combat, parent regiments are assumed to have more ranks than all their foes.

5. Who wins?
In order to win, a statement must reach a higher precedence (see §4) than the contradictions.
In addition, nobody can claim by himself to be the winner . It must be done by another member.

6. Prize.
The prevailing opinion can be mentioned in other threads as a reply to interrogations.
The winner receives the same status of authoritative opinion as Noght and Fidelis - but only for discussions about steadfast.
 

Good idea.
Let's prepare the rules for The Erratum Games.
And have everyone appr... er... forget it.

 

I have a different feeling (no wonder), that GW intended to make detachments kind of stubborn in vicinity of their parent unit, whether the parent was in combat or not.
"Cuius regio, eius religio": detachment should always have the same status (steadfast / not steadfast) as its parent unit, no matter anything else.
I am convinced that they meant it to happen with parent unit at 3" and not fleeing.
I believe that they meant all steadfast criteria (ranks, terrain, stubborn, skirmisher) to apply always to parent, never to detachment.
When parent not in combat, remove any combat requirement for being steadfast (duh!), keep everything else (1 rank, terrain, stubborn, skirmisher). When parent in combat, no need to be defeated.

@ Fidelis,
if you don't like necroing old beaten stuff, don't do it yourself. If you don't like esoteric debates about the profund nature of stuff, don't fuel those debates.
Example: don't necro the debate about the nature of steadfast as a special rule, when you know it leads nowhere.
By the way, you guessed wrong, I had no desire to speculate about the profund nature of steadfast as a special rule, why in the world would I?

-=-=-

@ Fidelis,
Back to topic.
You say:
"You have the steadfast rule by virtue of meeting certain conditions: being defeated in combat and having more ranks than your enemy. "
However, in the following sentences where units are steadfast (or stubborn, therefore steadfast),
you still feel the necessity to add "if defeated".
“If a defeated unit is steadfast, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores."
“If defeated, a stubborn unit takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."

If steadfast units were already supposed to be defeated, why would you have to add "if defeated"?

-=-=-

@ Fidelis & DonJulio

3. When parent in combat.
Next time, I'll change for:
The rule is easy. What is less obvious is to determine exactly when a parent is steadfast.
Some say that, for parent in combat, steadfast means "more ranks than the enemy".
Some say that, for parent in combat, steadfast means "defeated in combat & more ranks than the enemy".
When parents are in combat with more ranks, the first interpretation says detachment is steadfast, the last interpretation say that detachment is not steadfast until parent has fought and lost, in that case it becomes steadfast.
Consensus: not yet.

4. When parent not in combat.
Agreed, ranks are not required either. Will be mentioned next time.

5. Effects of terrain on detachments' steadfast.
Next time, I'll take DonJulio's words, with one minor change: "However, some players say that there is no conflict.  They claim that..."

I'd vote O&G, cause that's my favorite opponent.

Do you guys have some kind of challenge going to see how long you can prolong this thread?   

Sharing steadfast= 23 pages
steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation= 10 pages
BRB FAQ up= 7 pages, most about steadfast.
New steadfast= 12 pages
The watch tower and detachments= 13 pages
Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ= 5 pages
TOTAL = 70 pages + present thread.
We have now 85 pages... still ongoing...

But the real challenge is not to have a long thread.
It is to have Noght admit that, contrary to what he has believed for so long, for units in combat, steadfast requires just more ranks than enemy, not to be defeated.
But we are making progresses.
He already admitted that some units not in combat at all might be steadfast.

Do I really need to reply to your fool's test? You seem to insist.

Let's provide the correction for my definition.
"Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
+ "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”
= "Simply put, a Stubborn unit is always considered to be steadfast whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy.”
The fake sentence (1) you produced has no sense, but you are the author, not me.

Now, let's correct your version. The sentence (2) does not respect your own definition. If it did, you would read:
"2. Stubborn units always are defeated and have more ranks than their enemy take a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."


With my definition, to be defeated is an additional condition, distinct of being steadfast.
With your definition, to be steadfast requires to be defeated.
Your logics leads to conclude that stubborn units and units in buildings are always defeated. 

-=-=-

Now that we have twisted each other's definition for the fun, could we resume serious discussions?


Take a parent unit, in combat with more ranks than the enemy, but not losing,
how do you define whether it is steadfast or not?

Hint: such unit is not defeated.
However, if in addition, it was defeated, then it would take a break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.

Sorry for your nauseam, but where do you read that:

A unit has the steadfast rule, if it is defeated in combat and has more ranks than its enemy.

Note, your sentence is true and I agree with it, as long as you don't replace "if" by "only if".

There is a larger truth, "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”
It is fully compatible with the sentence you quoted.
If you disagree with it, please mention why.

@ Fidelis
You're playing the fool. I added "More useful than the definition of hatred is the definition of a unit which has hatred."

Sarcasm aside, and if we can keep the discussion about real arguments,
there are two uses for being steadfast:
1- break tests;
2- Empire's parent unit conferring steadfast to detachments.

1- For break tests, the rule (you see, even I know it is a rule) “If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.” provides you with all the instructions you need. In case steadfast was conferred by a special rule (stubborn, building, detachment), just replace “has more ranks than its enemy" by "is steadfast"; this is not explained in detail like that, but I am sure that it is what you do. If not, please let me know.

2- For a parent conferring steadfast to its detachment, we do not need to know how the parent makes a break test, do we?
What we need is to know whether the parent is steadfast. Note that at this stage, I don't care what "steadfast" is, only what "a steadfast unit" is.
When steadfast is conferred by a special rule (stubborn, building), that's easy.
When no special rule is interferring, we look after the definition of what makes a unit steadfast in p.54.
Is there a sentence which tells that a unit is steadfast under certain conditions?
Yes.
“Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy."
This rule (yes, that is a rule, too) defines how you can tell that a unit is steadfast: it has more ranks than its enemy. This is a definition.
Oh, and please, don't play dumber than you are. I never said that this sentence was enough to play WH. I only said it was enough to tell whether a unit was steadfast. I always said that the bolded instructions were necessary, and you even quoted me rightfully doing so.

Please note that with the new erratum, we just need to know what a steadfast unit is in combat, so past discussions about "zero opponent" are not necessary for discussing the erratum.
Out of combat, the erratum strictly speaking does not require the parent unit to be steadfast at all.



Could we agree that a unit in combat is steadfast as long as it has more ranks than its (actual) enemies?

Oh, by the way, please, note also that a few lines above, I mentioned you could just replace “has more ranks than its enemy" by "is steadfast".
If this replacement did not shock you, that could mean that defining a steadfast unit as a unit which has more ranks than its enemies is not that silly.
If it did shock you, then please explain me in detail how you apply the instructions p.54 for a unit which is stubborn or in a building, because myself, I don't know how to do it except by replacing 'has more ranks" with "is steadfast".

-=-=-

I'd love to read an overwhelming majority of participants to this debate agree that 3" is necessary, and not fleeing is necessary too.
That would be a nice two steps towards a reasonable compromise.

I am getting more confused by the minute... Just for my own understanding what happens in these cases?

1. Regimental unit wins combat and has more ranks than enemy. Detachment within 3 inch loses combat and has more ranks than enemy. Is the detachment now NOT steadfast because the regimental unit is not steadfast (it did not lose combat)?

2. Regimental unit loses combat, has less ranks than enemy, and flees (not caught). Detachment that is still within 3 inch loses combat and has less ranks then enemy. Is the detachment now steadfast because the regimental unit is not in combat?

@ dapper:

Case 1, as regiment is in combat, if it is steadfast, the detachment is steadfast. If it is not steadfast, the detachment is not steadfast.
The ultimate answer depends on what people believe steadfast definition to be.
For those who believe (with no real argument) that being steadfast requires to be losing combat, the result is completely silly (Parent wins, detachment is desperate and is not steadfast. Parent loses, detachment takes confort and is steadfast - but these people rather say that GW is mistaken than admit that they might be mistaken themselves).
For those who understand, based on reading of definition as written p.54, that there is no such requirement as losing combat for a unit to be steadfast, then the result is completely consistent (parent with sufficient ranks and detachment are both steadfast, no matter whether parent wins or loses).

Case 2, as regiment is not in combat, detachment should be steadfast per erratum. But it is fleeing. Where does it matter?

To be fair: while the AB specifies that a Detachment cannot use the Leadership of its Regimental Unit, if the latter is fleeing, there is no such restriction for the listed special rules.

This might not be that straightforward. With a quick reading, the restriction about non-fleeing parent seems indeed to apply to Ld only. However, in the example bottom of page, they say that "because handgunners are not fleeing, hangunners become stubborn and use Ld8".
Here, we have an indication that both paragraph (Ld and special rules) are bound together, and moreover that the special rule was granted on the condition that the regiment was not fleeing, although grammatically it remains debatable, to tell the least.
But for this reason, I'd advise to restrict special rules transfer (including new erratum) to non-fleeing regiments.


@ Fidelis, Noght...
Do you understand the difference between a rule, a definition and an instruction? I may wonder looking at your answers.
Please try to put a little more thought in your future answers, that would help to keep the debate constructive.

@ The Ol Perfesser
If you want a better treatment, that's easy: you just need to understand that, in accordance to p.54 definition (Simply put...), having more ranks is enough for a unit to be steadfast (they still need to lose combat to pass a morale test).

@ all
Note that with the erratum as it is written, "zero unit have zero rank" is no longer useful as an explanation for GW's consistency.
Now, it is enough to understand that "1/5 of a rank is enough to be steadfast when there is no enemy". 

I'd like to elaborate about DonJulio's remarks on precedence (or whatever he calls it).

Precedence of erratum compared to other steadfast rules.
In the BRB, there are
- several rules which make steadfast (ranks p.54/60; stubborn p.76; buildings p. 129); and now, erratum;
- several rules which prevent steadfast (not enough ranks p.54/60; skirmishers p.77; forests p.119; rivers p.120); and now, erratum.

Whenever conditions for steadfast coexist with conditions for steadfast denial, a precedence is specified to tell us which one to apply.
ranks vs ranks: p.54 & 60.
ranks vs stubborn: in stubborn rule.
ranks vs buildings: in building rule.
skirmishers are not steadfast because of lack of ranks, so the precedence should be linked to the rank precedence.
forests vs ranks: in forest rule.
forests vs stubborn: in forest rule.
rivers vs ranks: in river rule.
river vs stubborn: in river rule.

This allows to set up a precedence among these rules:
ranks < skirmisher < terrain < stubborn.

The erratum is a new way to become steadfast or to be denied steadfast.
There is one indication about the precedence it has over the other rules: parent's steadfast (or its denial) takes precedence over ranks.

What about erratum's steadfast vs skirmishers?
BRB p.77: "Skirmishers aways count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot () be steadfast"
Clearly, the skirmishers' unability to be steadfast is linked with ranks, nothing else.
Erratum specifies that ranks are irrelevant. Therefore skirmishers < erratum, with the additional support that AB > BRB.

For forests, again, the reason why forests prevent stubborness is indicated in BRB p.119:
"It is difficult to form tight ranks when fighting in a forest. A unit with the majority of its models fighting in a forest can therefore never be steadfast (unless it is Stubborn)."
Here again, we see that the forest property is linked with ranks, nothing else.
For this reason, with the additional support that AB > BRB, I maintain that forests < erratum.

For rivers, BRB p.120 specifies "Rivers () are about the last place a ranked-up unit wants to conduct its battles. A unit at least partially in a river can never be steadfast (unless they are stubborn)."
The river's rule is clear that it is the ranks which become useless.
For this reason, with the additional support that AB > BRB, I maintain that rivers < erratum.

For buildings, FAQ specifies that units count as having no rank so we have no indication in the erratum.
The precedence between the new erratum and having a detachment in a building is not specified.
Still, the argument that AB>BRB remains, which would make the detachment of a non-steadfast parent in combat the only unit not to be steadfast in a building.

For stubborn, there is no indication.
Still, the argument that AB>BRB remains, which would make the stubborn detachment of a non-steadfast parent in combat the only unit to be stubborn but not steadfast.

Overall, because AB>BRB, we can set the precedence as
ranks < skirmisher < terrain < stubborn < parent.

DonJulio's alternative is that the erratum only influences on ranks, leaving any other effect undisturbed (skirmisher, terrain, stubborn).
Having seen that skirmishers' and terrains' lack of steadfast is so clearly linked with ranks, I find it hard to accept.
@ DonJulio: Could you explain better what rules support your point?




@ Noght.
Your argument "As a reference point, every single Basic Rule, page 5 to 64, has the bolded definition of the rule, followed by additional information" happens to be false roughly in half of the pages, as anyone can check.
True p.5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62,
False p.6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63.
A good example is charge reaction. Bolded p.16 is how to do it. The actual, not bolded, definition is p.17 ("the response is referred to as a charge reaction").
Please keep your arguments documented. Bold =/= definition.


@ Syn Ace
1. A unit is Steadfast if it loses combat and has more ranks than the enemy. Says so in the main rulebook true, but not the only possibility.
- nothing else in there about Steadfast existing before these conditions come into effect. false. Other conditions defining steadfast exist. See p.76, 129 and, of course, p.54 itself "Simply put...". If you need exact quotes, I can provide again.
2., 3. Agree.
4. Agree, except with the extra condition you added for being steadfast (it's lost combat).
5. Agree, except for comments in brackets.
Indeed, I cannot find any sentence in the BRB that supports your idea that:
A Unit in combat is not Steadfast if the combat was a draw. You might also tell about whether a winning unit can be steadfast (hint: there is absolutely nothing in the BRB that says otherwise, when there are sentences that say so).
6. Disagree, as AB > BRB.

@ Fidelis
Don't distort what DonJulio said.
He said the bolded sentence p.54 were instructions, he never said definition, he even specifically denied it was a definition.