Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[malladin_ben]

Hi folks,

A friend of mine at GW has asked about the steadfast detachment queries for me. The unofficial answer is that the regimental unit has to be in combat but not necessarily the same combat.

Hope that helps.

Cheerio

Ben

[commandant]

Is there an FAQ because otherwise you could really be a dick and claim that because the parent unit is not in combat it has more ranks than its foe and therefore is steadfast

[Ratarsed]

I'm not sure that works. If you are in a combat and win are you steadfast? If you have not yet fought combat how do you know you will be steadfast by the end? Too many questions to play it any other way than being in the same combat.

[Nexus]

And it makes absolutely no sense if the parent would be steadfast against the enemy that the detachment is fighting, but not against the enemy it actually is fighting. Nope, I ain't buying it.

[Fandir Nightshade]

I would suggest you always count the ranks fo the main regiment to check if the units have steadfast even if the main unit is not in cc.

Issue solved.

[Nexus]

I would suggest you always count the ranks fo the main regiment to check if the units have steadfast even if the main unit is not in cc.

Issue solved.

So you're saying the detachments could gain steadfast from a parent that's not in any combat? I don't think that's the way it's meant to be.

[Fandir Nightshade]

Well until there is a FAQ things will be open for discussion.

Steadfast only states that as long as you have more ranks than your opponent than you are basically stubborn. Detachment rules say that as long as the detachment is within 3 " it gains for example steadfast of the main regiment. Being in close combat is not a condition mentioned on either rule. So as soon as my detachment is in close combat and within 3 inches of the main I think it is reasonable to count the ranks of the main unit.

[Nexus]

But being in combat is required to be steadfast in the first place. So if the parent is not in combat, it has no steadfast to pass to the detachment.

[rufus sparkfire]

But being in combat is required to be steadfast in the first place. So if the parent is not in combat, it has no steadfast to pass to the detachment.

Definitely.


You'd think the Empire book would explain this better though.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

[polybus11]

I guess then that they haven't fixed the problem of people charging the detatchment instead of the main regiment.  Crown of Command/Greatswords are going to be required to make use of detatchments.

[Spiney]

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

I can see this being a point of contention as it certainly makes the order in which combats resolve important. If the regimental unit is fighting unit x and the detachment in close support is fighting unit y, the detachment can only claim steadfast if the regimental unit has already fought (and lost, and probably held, as fleeing would likely take it out of close support range).

Basically I can see it being argued that when combat resolution is completed and a break test has been taken and a new combat has begun the regimental unit no-longer counts as being steadfast (because you are only steadfast while taking the break test following your combat) and it cannot therefore be passed on.

I guess we should try and stick to detachments fighting alongside their regimental units.

[Nexus]

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”

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.

Option 3 is the most RAW , but opens up a can of worms:

• It means that the order of playing out combats becomes important since the parent may lose its steadfast status if it loses ranks, breaks  or even WINS and chases off its enemy.
• A 2 ranks parent fighting a 1 rank enemy will pass steadfast to a 2 rank detachment fighting a 10 rank enemy. This. Is. Ugly.
• A parent in a building will pass steadfast to its detachments outside. An archer parent in a forest too.(edit: sorry, that's stubborn, not steadfast) Again, ugly.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”

to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.[/li][/list]

My emphasis.

I was quite aware of the errata. Which, however, say the same thing as the BRB (If a defeated unit), except that they specify that the break test is used without the difference in combat result scores, instead of unmodified Ld. This was to clarify that e.g. Skaven were not taking the break test on their unmodified Ld (ignoring the Strength in Numbers rule). So, yes, you still need to be defeated , before you can become steadfast.

[Raulmichile]

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”

to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.[/li][/list]

My emphasis.

I was quite aware of the errata. Which, however, say the same thing as the BRB (If a defeated unit), except that they specify that the break test is used without the difference in combat result scores, instead of unmodified Ld. This was to clarify that e.g. Skaven were not taking the break test on their unmodified Ld (ignoring the Strength in Numbers rule). So, yes, you still need to be defeated , before you can become steadfast.

So you need also to be defeated in order to be unbreakable?  Sure not.  You are always unbreakable and you apply the rule when defeated.  Same with steadfast.  You are always assumed steadfast in CC assuming you have more ranks than the enemy at the end of combat and you apply its effects if you lose such combat.

[Nexus]

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

This has actually been errata:d, so the argument that you'd have to lose before having any steadfast to pass to the detachment no longer stands.

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”

to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.[/li][/list]

My emphasis.

I was quite aware of the errata. Which, however, say the same thing as the BRB (If a defeated unit), except that they specify that the break test is used without the difference in combat result scores, instead of unmodified Ld. This was to clarify that e.g. Skaven were not taking the break test on their unmodified Ld (ignoring the Strength in Numbers rule). So, yes, you still need to be defeated , before you can become steadfast.

Darn, I read it way to quickly. Thanks for pointing that out...

However, there are different opinions on this. It can be argued either way. The BRB actually says "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" on the same page, after all.

But the thing is, IF you are correct, then "option 3" above becomes 100% Bozo the clown and should not be considered an option at all.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

So you need also to be defeated in order to be unbreakable?  Sure not.  You are always unbreakable and you apply the rule when defeated.  Same with steadfast.  You are always assumed steadfast in CC assuming you have more ranks than the enemy at the end of combat and you apply its effects if you lose such combat.

You are always unbreakable, because you always already have that special rule beforehand, and because it is not limited by anything the rules says. The rule about Steadfast specifies: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.” How much clearer could it be?

[Nexus]

The BRB doesn't say that losing while having more ranks makes you Steadfast. The only criterium mentioned is actually "having more ranks". The paragraph you are referring to only explains how it is used, not how you gain it.

[Marcus_Octavius]

I know the rules are not written "THIS" way, but I would suggest the following alteration to make up for a poorly worded rule.

"When a Detachment compares its ranks to the enemy's for purposes of determining Steadfast, the Detachment may count the Parent unit's ranks instead of its own." 

(IE: Detachment of 10 Swordsmen in 5x2 formation lose combat to 15 Orcs in 5x3 formation; The Swordsmen's Parent unit has 5 ranks, so the Detachment counts its own ranks as being 5 and therefore is Steadfast for this round of lost combat)

........................

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!

[Nexus]

Let me try this again:

Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”

The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:

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

I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."

This makes "option 3" above easier to swallow IMO. I'd still prefer 1 or 2 though. But RAW, option 3 is probably the one to use.

[Nexus]

I know the rules are not written "THIS" way, but I would suggest the following alteration to make up for a poorly worded rule.

"When a Detachment compares its ranks to the enemy's for purposes of determining Steadfast, the Detachment may count the Parent unit's ranks instead of its own." 

(IE: Detachment of 10 Swordsmen in 5x2 formation lose combat to 15 Orcs in 5x3 formation; The Swordsmen's Parent unit has 5 ranks, so the Detachment counts its own ranks as being 5 and therefore is Steadfast for this round of lost combat)

This sounds like "option 1" above. It's the most powerful and the farthest away from RAW, but it's the most elegant rules design IMO.

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.

[Raulmichile]

Let me try this again:

Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”

The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:

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

I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."

This makes "option 3" above easier to swallow IMO. I'd still prefer 1 or 2 though. But RAW, option 3 is probably the one to use.

This.


By definition steadfast is a rule or condition a unit gets in relation to which other enemy units it compares to at the moment you are making that comparition in any given game.  Since the very beginning of the game you know that the unit with the most ranks in the tabletop is at that moment steadfast against any other unit in the tabletop.  Now if by turn 3 such unit has had some casualties and now one enemy unit has more ranks, your unit is still steadfast against all other enemy units except that only one.  You don't necessarily need to loose a round of combat to know if a unit is steadfast or not.  You only need to know if at the moment of the break test the unit has more ranks and in many cases you know it even before blows begin to fly.

All units with two ranks at least are able to be steadfast no matter what.  Now, based in the conditions of that specific game it can be applied or not.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Let me try this again:

Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”

The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:

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

I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."

I cannot agree. It is just the other way around. The first paragraph after the heading Steadfast explains what steadfast is. The third and fourth paragraph explain how it works.

As I already said above:

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

[Nexus]

Let me try this again:

Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”

The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:

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

I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."

I cannot agree. It is just the other way around. The first paragraph after the heading Steadfast explains what steadfast is. The third and fourth paragraph explain how it works.

As I already said above:

Exactly: BRB p. 54 definition of Steadfast: if a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test on its unmodified Ld (my emphasis). Even if it says later: "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy" that is still within the context of determining combat resolution.

Ok, so how long do you have Steadfast then? Are you only Steadfast while you make the Break test? That means you are no longer Steadfast when it is time for the Detachment to roll. Regardless if the detachment fights before or after the Parent, it won't be Steadfast since the Parent only has the rule at the exact moment it is making its break test.

Sense not made.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.