Warhammer-Empire.com

I'd like not to spoil the couple of threads about the new FAQ generally speaking.
So here's the space to talk about steadfast, for you (and me) hard core rule lawyers! 

References:
steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation (10 pages thread, before FAQ)
Sharing steadfast (23 pages thread, before FAQ) and a summary of all definitions here
New faq & errata for empire comming up (mostly wishes, kept alive when FAQ arrived)
BRB FAQ up (newest thread about FAQ)

EDIT: jump directly to the summary => here

FAQ:
Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes.
Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast.
However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.


Here are some understanding which I can make mine (with my changes in red):

So, the logical progression to determine who has steadfast goes like this;

Count parent ranks (call P)
Count ranks of enemy fighting parent (call E) (if any)
If E is greater than P, detachment does NOT have steadfast. End.
Count ranks of enemy fighting detachment (call e)
If P is greater than e, detachment has steadfast. End.
Else, detachment does not have steadfast. End.

If the Detachment is within 3" of Parent you have to count the ranks of the parent to determine if the detachment is steadfast.  The Parent does not have to be in the same combat or in combat at all.  The exception is if the Parent is in combat with an enemy with more ranks than the Parent (so denying the Parent unit steadfast) then you cannot use the Parents ranks, even though it may still be more than what the detachment is fighting.

The debate seems pretty closed on those cases.
I see no need for parent to be in melee at all indeed.


There are some situations not covered by the FAQ, where the AB/BRB ruling still apply and the FAQ is irrelevant:

When the parent is stubborn, then the detachment is stubborn regardless anything else:
- parent has "stubborn" special rule => detachment is stubborn
- parent is joined by "crowned" character => parent is stubborn => detachment is stubborn
- parent is in a building => parent is always stubborn, despite not having ranks => detachment is stubborn
- skirmisher parent is in a wood  => parent is always stubborn => detachment is stubborn

On that part, we could resume the heated debate about whether steadfast lasts permanently or not.
However, as nothing has changed with the last FAQ, it is not useful to rephrase the arguments.
I'd suggest just to refer to the links above and not to argue about that very specific issue.


When detachments are steadfast on their own merit, I believe that the BRB is clear enough, regardless about what happens with parent regiment.
Of course, this could be debated.
- detachment is joined by "crowned" character => detachment is stubborn
- detachment is in a building => detachment is stubborn
- skirmisher detachment is in a wood  => detachment is stubborn


On the other hand, there are cases which seem to be covered by the FAQ, but which could be debated.
This is when the parent unit has more ranks indeed, but has lost stubborness for other reasons than being in combat against an enemy with even more ranks.
What happens when the parent is in a river => never stubborn, regardless of ranks =>
1- use parent's rank anyway, as per FAQ RAW.
2- FAQ shouldn't be used, detachment could be stubborn on its own merit, i.e. using its own ranks
3- detachment can't be stubborn because parent has lost its stubborn ability, per FAQ RAI.
Personally, I'd be tempted to say that 1 is RAW but 2 is more reasonable. That's just an opinion.



Soooo?
What is your opinion?

Are we restarting the monster thread on a new base? 
As a starter, FAQ > rulebook in case of discrepancy.
FAQ: "Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast."
With a single exception mentioned: "However... "

And it applies even when the Regiment is not in combat at all!

Glad to see GW go with the most general wish rather than selecting either one of the interpretations, though.

Thanks everyone for a very moderate and balanced presentation of the results of a stiffed debate.
I can only +1 everyone.

Combat Versus Team BlueShades attack Archers.  5 hits, 3 wounds.  No hits back.  They run 4.  Get chased down  at 11.”  The Cannon crew and the Archers both make their Panic tests.

Why in the world did the Shades pursue, rather than reform and face the cannon?

Hi HHG, how are the characters placed in the big spear unit? and likewise for our two knight units? thx 

The two teams have never really ironed out where their characters are.  Probably something that needs to be identified as we move forward.

That's a part of the deployment where I'd be glad to receive some insight from seasoned players.
Definitively it has some tactical consequences.

Sorceress may use Fire, Shadow, Metal, Death or the specific DE Dark Lore. Whatever the Lore, they all have Power of Darkness, i.e. cast a spell to get more PD.

"Dark Elves" are spearmen.

Corsairs: Either Additional Handweapon or RHB. The pair of RHB is only for the champion.
Dark Riders may get a Crossbow (so they can double-move 18" and fire 24"). In that case, they cost more than 20 each IIRC.
Harpies are core but don't count for the 25%. They are skirmishers.
BG are limited to 20 per unit.
Cauldron: it is a warmachine. Its crew cannot challenge.
Beastmasters: they have no effect on movement phase. They cannot be targeted or killed, and they vanish when the hydra is killed (so no, there is never a monster reaction).

Also there is a DE magic item that allows the bearers unit to re-roll all missed hits ( unsure if in cc or not) once per game. I was on the receiving end  of 20 xbows with Ench blades and this Magic item once.  Needless to say my horde of halberd pretty much disintegrated.

Only for shooting. Usually given to BSB.

Scouts can't charge indeed.
They can show up, position in front and shoot their axes, ready to received your charge (depleted by the axes).

What I tend to forget is that the dwarf armor isn't that good, they're footsloggers, and when taking GW they can't use shields in combat.
So Metal is not the best Lore.

Their Lords can be very, very nasty indeed, selecting three runes to fit their needs.
It's nice when magic kills them before reaching combat.

If there is an anvil, read carefully the Dwarf army book. IIRC, they can blast a unit at any distance with no LOS required, but not lone characters. Bad for very small units, but Captasus don't care.

Beware of their multishot gun. Thanks to a probable typo, they don't need to roll "to hit". That means that if you play the scenario with the tower, he will autohit despite the building cover.

FC+ TGM + BSB = 5 in front
Pushing the priest in the 2nd row. Funniest is that he can use the magic hammer: anyway he will get only a single attack.
After the 1st round, though, the BSB and the champ are killed, next target is the WP.

I have my army of Averland ready to support the bastard son of Marius. Who was recognized by his uncle, and is supported by his grandfather, the warden of the city of Grenzstadt. 

Curse that bastard and his followers. 

Erich Leitdorf is alive and well.....his bid for the power in Averland needs your support.....

Any claim he would raise would have no legitimacy.   

My army is devouted to Olive Leitdorf, who, as Marius brother, happens to be the only legitimate heir. 
Of course, he will accept allegiance. But if not, let the powder speak.

It has been argued convincingly that a WH with brace is a better use of pts than any other WH setting.
This said, everyone can argue that a WH with brace is not an optimized use of 50 pts compared to other units.

However...
let's twist side.

Imagine you're playing a competitive game, and your opponent has a WH.
What will you think?
A. "Cool, this idiot has wasted 50pts"
B. "Arrgh, I cannot make the gamble to leave that WH in range of my precious <General/BSB/Lvl4>"

The genuine answer tells whether a WH is only good for the fluff, or has a real use.

Nah.   The FAQ that needs to be asked is,
Does a unit only have steadfast after it is defeated in combat?
(...) Once that question is cleared up there is no problem because the Empire book is perfectly clear.

In addition to your post, you must take into account one important point:
The SF question was never a Frequently Asked Question until the new Empire army book arrived, and that SF question has become a FAQ only for Empire players (or their opponents).
For this reason, this question is really specific to the Empire, and deserve a FAQ in the Empire's AB, to clarify how the BRB is to be understood for SF to be transferred to detachments.
This said, let GW decide if they need to clarify how SF works or how the tranfert works. Either will be fine.

The debate merely totalled 23 pages,
 
 
 
+ 10 pages from an earlier debate on same topic.
 

+1  for this thread? Please not.