I see no way to harmonize the steadfast rules in the BRB, the detachment rules in the army book and the FAQ
I suggest the following understanding:1. How I understand steadfast.
- steadfast is the status of the unit with "more ranks"
- a unit not in combat faces nothing, and has "more ranks" than nothing.
- a unit in combat, be it on the winning or losing side, may have "more ranks" than its foe.
- to have "more ranks" than the foe remains true during all phases (movement, magic, shooting, other combats...).2. How I understand how steadfast transfers from parent to detachment.
- never ever use detachment's ranks, always use parent's ranks instead.
- if the parent has not actually "more ranks" (after comparing ranks), then the detachment is supposed to have less ranks too.
- if the parent has the status of "more ranks", either because of actual ranks or because of another special rule, then it transfers to detachment.
- if the detachment has the status of "more ranks" provided by any special rule else than actual ranks, then it keeps its status.
I do not pretend that my understanding can be "proven" to be right.
I do claim that with such understanding, ALL rules become clear and there is no discrepancy.
For those who have a problem with the rules because of their interpretation, I humbly suggest that their interpretation might not be compatible with GW's, and I recommand them to change their interpretation.
the question is rather: do you want to play according to the (present) wording of the FAQ or not?
As long as you don't claim to hold GW's thruth, play with the house rules you wish.
So just to confirm: there appears to be a few folks who believe that a regiment can be Steadfast without being in combat? Correct? Because I'm having a hard time throwing out everything except "more ranks". I guess I need to re-read the AB and FAQ.
What I read:
- the FAQ is about "claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks".
This works not only in same combat, but also in two mutually exclusive (either/or) circumstances:
- "if that unit is either not in the same combat"
- "or is involved in another combat"
My logics tells that when you exclude "in another combat" from "not in same combat", the only thing that remains is "out of combat".
So with the FAQ, we have a proof that a parent which is not in combat at all effectively transfers the "steadfast" rule.
I understand that some people don't like it.
But how can people refuse to face reality they don't like? That puzzles me.
Face it, in accordance to GW, steadfast is not restricted to combat. The proof: it does transfer from a parent not in combat at all.