Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

While I agree in general with what you say, in this case the rules as written are not sloppy and seem pretty clear. It is simply not what people want, as it throws doubt on the usefulness of detachments under the new rules.


Edit: Allow me to point out that on p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test), it is again specified: "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. " (My emphasis)
The latter frase being changed in the FAQ of the BRB to:  "doesn’t apply the difference in combat result scores as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of all enemy units in the combat." GW is pretty persistent on this issue.

[redflag]

First of all your logic is not iron clad despite what you keep on saying.  So lets assume that what matters in this situation is game play.

Lets assume we have a parent unit with 30 halberds  (10x3 with full command )and a detachment of 10 halberds (5x2) Vs 10 Boar Boys (5x2 with full command)

.............BBBBB
.............BBBBB



.............PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP

To use your logic detachments is the obvious choice to charge since not only do they not have a standard and I do (+1 for me) but when they break they will not only panic my parent unit but all units within 6 inches. 

BBBBB
BBBBB...PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP
DDDDD..PPPPPPPPPP


When the detachment breaks what direction do you think the parent unit is going to flee if they fail a break test?  Oh yes the will now  flee to the right and break the entire empire line.  So in order for you to be correct any person using a detachment risks loosing the entire game.   

Given the fact that detachments cause panic now I say its less gamey to allow detachments to be Steadfast and more gamey to insist otherwise.  After all a detachment is supposed to be an advantage to the Empire.

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?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Given the fact that detachments cause panic now I say its less gamey to allow detachments to be Steadfast and more gamey to insist otherwise.  After all a detachment is supposed to be an advantage to the Empire.

Again, it is not my logic, but the rules as written (see also my edit above). Your example is neither here nor there. If the rules say X, then it is X, whatever you and I may prefer. Again, I will be happy if GW changes the rules or specifies that detachments are an exception. Do you want to use different rules in a friendly game, be my guest. As long as you do not get upset, if someone does want to play by the BRB rules.

[Warwhore]

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.

This is the interpretation I think makes the most sense. The regimental unit and the detachment are a team. If I'm a trooper in a detachment and we take a solid thrashing, I think we would dig deep (steadfast) knowing that the regiment is right there ready to enter the fray as reinforcements.

That's my two cents anyway 

[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.

While I agree in general with what you say, in this case the rules as written are not sloppy and seem pretty clear. It is simply not what people want, as it throws doubt on the usefulness of detachments under the new rules.


Edit: Allow me to point out that on p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test), it is again specified: "Steadfast: any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified Ld for Break tests, as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any enemy units in the combat. " (My emphasis)
The latter frase being changed in the FAQ of the BRB to:  "doesn’t apply the difference in combat result scores as long as its number of ranks is higher than that of all enemy units in the combat." GW is pretty persistent on this issue.

Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

This is the interpretation I think makes the most sense. The regimental unit and the detachment are a team. If I'm a trooper in a detachment and we take a solid thrashing, I think we would dig deep (steadfast) knowing that the regiment is right there ready to enter the fray as reinforcements.

That's my two cents anyway 

Whatever one may think makes sense: everything in the BRB contradicts this option.

Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.

And there is no real reason now, either (other than that it would suit us). If it was the intent to change that, GW failed to do so. Unless they change it, that is what the BRB dictates, and nothing in the Army Book I have seen so far overrules that. But if you want to play it differently in a friendly game, and your opponent agrees, why not?

[Hetelic]

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.

This is the interpretation I think makes the most sense. The regimental unit and the detachment are a team. If I'm a trooper in a detachment and we take a solid thrashing, I think we would dig deep (steadfast) knowing that the regiment is right there ready to enter the fray as reinforcements.

That's my two cents anyway 

Whatever one may think makes sense: everything in the BRB contradicts this option.

Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.

And there is no real reason now, either (other than that it would suit us). If it was the intent to change that, GW failed to do so. Unless they change it, that is what the BRB dictates, and nothing in the Army Book I have seen so far overrules that. But if you want to play it differently in a friendly game, and your opponent agrees, why not?

But the BSB was written well before the Empire army book, so things in that are not going to back up the AB, unless you expect GW to errata the BRB everytime they change direction in an army book.

Your running in circles now, and this discussion is getting stale. You want to play it Raw, that detachments are only steadfast at the precise moment their parent unit takes a break test, fine. In my opinion, it's stoopid.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I would deny that I am the one running in circles. One would think that if the rules are clear enough, there should not be much discussion. As I pointed out: there is nothing in the Army Book that overrules or contradicts the steadfast rule as written in the BRB. If there was, the Army Book would trump the BRB, and I would be happily let my detachments always be steadfast. But "option 2" satisfies the rules on detachments, steadfast and combat resolution/break tests. So, why insist on other options that do not? Because we like them better?
One may not like the rules as they are, but that is no reason to uphold positions that have no support in written rules.

[redflag]

I think you are a rules lawyer.  You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them  (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them.  Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.

I would deny that I am the one running in circles. One would think that if the rules are clear enough, there should not be much discussion. As I pointed out: there is nothing in the Army Book that overrules or contradicts the steadfast rule as written in the BRB. If there was, the Army Book would trump the BRB, and I would be happily let my detachments always be steadfast. But "option 2" satisfies the rules on detachments, steadfast and combat resolution/break tests. So, why insist on other options that do not? Because we like them better?
One may not like the rules as they are, but that is no reason to uphold positions that have no support in written rules.

[Nexus]

Ok, option 3 suffers badly from the poor definition of Steadfast in the BRB, so it can be interpreted in 2 different ways. Therefore, it really should be divided into 3a and 3b. Let’s try this again, with a summary of arguments for (+) and against (-) each interpretation. Did I miss something?

1. 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.

2. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments that are involved in the same combat.

3a. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat. The parent gains Stubborn in the first place by outranking the enemy it is fighting, and it may then pass it on to its detachment. Whether the parent wins or loses its combat is irrelevant.

3b. Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat. The parent gains Stubborn in the first place by fighting its enemy before the detachment does, losing the round of combat, outrank its enemy, pass its break test and it may then pass it on to its detachment.

Option 1
+Pretty elegant rules design.
+/-It is no doubt the most powerful interpretation, and may be considered overpowered. Or not.
-Wierd situation: A parent standing in a river or similar can’t be Steadfast themselves, but would still allow the detachment to be Steadfast on the parent’s merits. Option 1 would need a clausul saying that the Parent cannot pass on ranks if it is in a situation where it can’t be Steadfast itself.
-Wierd situation. 3 rank Parent fights 10 rank enemy, while 1 rank Detachment fights 2 rank enemy. The Parent is not steadfast itself, but still lets the Detachment count its ranks to obtain Steadfast. Similar to the situation above.
-This is simply not RAW. The new Detachment rules only states that parent units share Steadfast with their detachments. Having many ranks means nothing with regards to Steadfast if the parent is not in combat. This interpretation would need a serious errata, not a FAQ.

Option 2
+Elegant rules design. Doesn’t create any wierd situations. Both Parent and Detachment are in the same combat, and so win it or lose it (and take break tests) together, the same instant.
+/- Clearly the least powerful interpretation.
-Not quite RAW. The new Detachments rules don’t mention being in the same combat as a prerequisite for sharing Steadfast.

Option 3a
+Most RAW, as long as you accept the definition of Steadfast in the first place.
-Wierd situation: 3 rank Parent fights 2 rank enemy, while 1 rank Detachment fights a different 10 rank enemy. The Detachment is Steadfast although clearly it should not be.
-Wierd situation: A parent in a building is Steadfast (not Stubborn, oddly enough) and passes it on to its detachments outside. The issue lies more in the Building rules than in the Detachment rules, but it is still there.
-Suffers from the “sequencing” problem; the order in which you resolve combats becomes important, as the parent’s Steadfast status may change (due to loss of ranks, losing and breaking, winning and breaking the enemy(!) etc) before it is time for the Detachment to fight.

Option 3b
+Most RAW, as long as you accept the definition of Steadfast in the first place. However:
-This definition of Steadfast cannot be correct. If you “gain” Steadfast the moment you make your break test, it stands to reason that you “lose” Steadfast the moment you resolved the roll. If Steadfast status only exists at the moment you make your break test, the detachment cannot get Steadfast from it’s parent since they don’t fight at the same time (given that they are in different combats of course, but if they are not, we have reached option 2, above and it’s no longer a problem).

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I think you are a rules lawyer.  You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them  (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them.  Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.

Show me where I am wrong, and I will happily change my point of view. If an army book has new rules, I prefer to look how they fit within the rules of the BRB. One cannot even claim that the rules are not clear. Choosing an option that is in accordance with both the army book and the BRB is not rules lawyering - it is just not indulging in wishful thinking.
The fact that the rules do not benefit detachments is no valid argument against the rules. Was it the intent of GW that it should be different? We do not know. If it is, they will hopefully soon say that the rules must be changed or that the detachments are an exception to the rule. Until then, there is no reason not to play by the rules as they are. 

[redflag]

This is my last post on the subject
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"

I think you are a rules lawyer.  You are focusing on one part of the Steadfast rules without looking at its context in order to defeat the whole point of detachments being an asset and not a liability to the Empire. Its not like its clearly stated that you are correct yet you insist of an interpretation of the rules which make detachments pointless due to the fact that they can panic units within 6 inches of them  (due to breaking in combat/taking 25% casualties/ being annihilated) yet apparently they are not aware that their parent unit that is within 3 inches is larger than the unit that is attacking them.  Its not like you are giving a good reason behind your interpretation of the rules in order to improve game play, instead you are using a loophole at worst/taking advantage of sloppy written rules at best to gut detachments. Remember if the detachment fails its Steadfast break test it causes a panic test on the parent unit.

Show me where I am wrong, and I will happily change my point of view. If an army book has new rules, I prefer to look how they fit within the rules of the BRB. One cannot even claim that the rules are not clear. Choosing an option that is in accordance with both the army book and the BRB is not rules lawyering - it is just not indulging in wishful thinking.
The fact that the rules do not benefit detachments is no valid argument against the rules. Was it the intent of GW that it should be different? We do not know. If it is, they will hopefully soon say that the rules must be changed or that the detachments are an exception to the rule. Until then, there is no reason not to play by the rules as they are.

[Nexus]

This is my last post on the subject
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"

More ranks than what enemy? Can you pick and choose any enemy unit on the board? You can't argue the fact that you at least have to be in combat to be Steadfast, and you compare ranks to the unit(s) you are in combat with.

You are obviously advocating "option 1" above. Houserule it however you want, but RAW, you don't have a case. I'm not saying there isn't a chance the FAQ will prove you right though.

[Athiuen]

maybe you just use the rank bonus of the regimental unit to determine steadfast.  That's what I've been doing.

[Nexus]

maybe you just use the rank bonus of the regimental unit to determine steadfast.  That's what I've been doing.

That's also "option 1", and it's neat and all. But it's clearly not how it is written.

On Warseer and other forums, options 3a (and 3b, even if it's clearly insane) are pretty popular. Not over here, it seems.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

Let's just play it safe and wait for the FAQ that will surely come.

[Athiuen]

maybe you just use the rank bonus of the regimental unit to determine steadfast.  That's what I've been doing.

That's also "option 1", and it's neat and all. But it's clearly not how it is written.

On Warseer and other forums, options 3a (and 3b, even if it's clearly insane) are pretty popular. Not over here, it seems.

My book is still in teh mail so I haven't looked at it closely.... lol.

[unheilig]

The more I read this new army book, the worse it gets.

[Ambrose]

The more I read this new army book, the worse it gets.

this


Okay, I'm trying to follow this thread and instead of clarifying things for me, it has left me MORE confused.  I have the following as my core:

Halberdiers x 50 w full command in hord formation (10x5).  I have a detachment of swordsmen x 20 (5x4).

1. Halberdiers are in combat with a unit.  Swordsmen in combat with the SAME unit.  Rules:  If either unit has more ranks than the enemy unit = steadfast.  Make roll on unmodified LD.  Right?

2. Halberdiers are NOT in combat.  Swordsmen are in combat with enemy that has more ranks then them.  Halberdiers are NOT steadfast (as they are not in combat) so they do NOT pass it to the detachment.  Detachment must make MODIFIED ld test if they lose combat.  This will trigger a panic test for all friendly units within 6".  Right?

3.  Halberdiers are in combat and have more ranks than enemy.  Swordsmen are in combat and have LESS ranks than enemy.  IF combat with halberdiers are worked out first and maintain the fact they have more ranks = steatfast = swordsmen are steadfast.  If swordsmen complete combat first then swordsmen are NOT steadfast (they have fewer ranks than the enemy) = modified ld test if lose combat.  Right?

Now, from what I gather, this is a complicated set of rules (mores so than the last edition IMO).  Personally, I feel option one is the most simple that maintains the 'feel' of how detachments should work.

Boy oh boy, any idea on the FAQ release date?

[Lord Solar Plexus]

If we only have to determine whether the parent is steadfast, I'm sure we'll cope, and that's what the rules look like to me. Not sure what all the fuss is about. Taking stuff can always turn out to be a liability, and since when have panic tests been an issue? Detachments still need a keen mind and are nothing for beer & pretzel games. Or perhaps they are if your opponent imbibes more beer than you do.

[Archon]

Not to mention there's always been tactical considerations when deciding which combat to perform first, this ups the ante a bit.

Though I must admit that having the parent unit winning a combat, and the detachment therefore breaking for lack of steadfast simply does not seem right.

[Ratarsed]

Having carefuly read the steadfast rules again I am now of the opinion that so long as the regiment is in combat and has more ranks than the unit it is fighting then the detachment will be steadfast even if it is fighting a different opponent. There are several statements in the rules that change things depending on how much significance you put to them. I think the first sentance of the 3rd paragraph which summerises the rule is for me the most significant.

Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.

The condition of being defeated is met by the detachment. So as long as the regiment has an enemy unit to compare its ranks against I think the conditions of being defeated and having more ranks has been met. This is now my view on how steadfast will work with detachments.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I do not like it more than you do! But that can have no bearing on the rules.

Hetelic says:

Obviously, the rules are persistent on steadfast and losing, as up until now, there has been no reason to apply steadfast to a victorious unit.

This is true, and GW may simply have forgotten about that. But we don not know, until the point they change the rules.

It may just as well be, as Marcus_Octavius suggests:

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.

The rules of the Army Book and the BRB can be used perfectly as they stand: there is no need even for an FAQ, other than our disappointment.
They are not even complex; or at least not more complex that the rules on Multiple Combat.
Since this is the case I can see no reason to change them, only because we feel that they do not benefit the detachments as much as we want them to.

Nice catch from Nexus about Steadfast in Buildings (BRB p. 129)  ,  where under the heading: Defender loses (BRB emphasis), it says: "If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.

And no, redflag: it does not mean they are ALWAYS steadfast, only that they are always considered steadfast, when, having lost the combat, they have to take a break test. Context, remember.

[Nexus]

The rules of the Army Book and the BRB can be used perfectly as they stand: there is no need even for an FAQ, other than our disappointment.
They are not even complex; or at least not more complex that the rules on Multiple Combat.

I'm leaning towards your interpratation ("option 2") myself, but you can't say it is entirelly RAW. The Detachment rules don't say anything about Parent and Detachmet having to be in the same combat. That needs to be made up, but as long as you accept that, it's the interpretation that makes the most sense.

Nice catch from Nexus about Steadfast in Buildings (BRB p. 129)  ,  where under the heading: Defender loses (BRB emphasis), it says: "If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.

And no, redflag: it does not mean they are ALWAYS steadfast, only that they are always considered steadfast, when, having lost the combat, they have to take a break test. Context, remember.

That may be argued either way, but you're probably right. Either way, the buildingrules seems like a likely candidate for an errata on this subject. It's probably intended to make you Stubborn, not Steadfast. Not that it mattered until the Detachment rules messed everything up and made it clear not even the BRB were all that well thought through.


Fffuuu... FAQ now, bitte! How are we supposed to be defending our turf under these circumstances?

[Nexus]

Halberdiers x 50 w full command in hord formation (10x5).  I have a detachment of swordsmen x 20 (5x4).

1. Halberdiers are in combat with a unit.  Swordsmen in combat with the SAME unit.  Rules:  If either unit has more ranks than the enemy unit = steadfast.  Make roll on unmodified LD.  Right?

This is the one situation that is pretty straightforward. If the parent unit is steadfast, so is the detachment. It's possible for the detachment to be steadfast on its own merits, without the parent being steadfast though.

2. Halberdiers are NOT in combat.  Swordsmen are in combat with enemy that has more ranks then them.  Halberdiers are NOT steadfast (as they are not in combat) so they do NOT pass it to the detachment.  Detachment must make MODIFIED ld test if they lose combat.  This will trigger a panic test for all friendly units within 6".  Right?

Unless you're an "option 1" kind of guy (and unless teh parent is in a building or a similar odd situation), yes, the detachment won't get steadfast as the parent doesn't have it itself.

3.  Halberdiers are in combat and have more ranks than enemy.  Swordsmen are in combat and have LESS ranks than enemy.  IF combat with halberdiers are worked out first and maintain the fact they have more ranks = steatfast = swordsmen are steadfast.  If swordsmen complete combat first then swordsmen are NOT steadfast (they have fewer ranks than the enemy) = modified ld test if lose combat.  Right?

This is "option 3", whic is slpit into two different interpretations. According to 3a, the parent is steadfast just by having more ranks than it's enemy, and so it doesn't have to fight first (but if it did, and lost ranks, it could lose it before it's time for the detachment to fight).

Option 3b really doesn't work IMO, but theoretically, the parent isn't Steadfast until it has fought AND LOST its combat. It is unclear how the "option 3b" guys argue how the detachment could ever be steadfast, since the parent is only steadfast at the moment it's making its break test. But you're welcome to try.

Option 2 says the detachment won't be steadfast either way, since they are not in the same combat. Option 1 would count the ranks of the parent at the time the detachment makes its break test.

Now, from what I gather, this is a complicated set of rules (mores so than the last edition IMO).  Personally, I feel option one is the most simple that maintains the 'feel' of how detachments should work.

Yeah, I'm with you but it's the interpretation furthest from RAW at the moment and should really be considered a house rule rather than an interpretation.