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.
