Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Nexus]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Nexus]

There is no consensus, but yes, option 2 is probably the best compromise between RAW and playability.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I will not argue with that. 

[pippin_nl]

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.

[Nexus]

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?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I second that request.

[Marcus_Octavius]

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.

[pippin_nl]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Hetelic]

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.

[pippin_nl]

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?

[Hetelic]

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.

[Nexus]

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).

[Hetelic]

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

[redflag]

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.
 

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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. 

[Hetelic]

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

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[Syn Ace]

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.

[redflag]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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?

[Hetelic]

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.