Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

You are quite right that the Detachment rules do not specify that unit and detachment have to be in the same combat. But the detachment rule does not really need to do that expressis verbis. According to the detachment, the detachment is steadfast, when the parent unit is steadfast. If one then applies the rules about steadfast, option 2 is the only one that satisfies every rule.

One should not forget that there is a good reason why GW always includes that steadfast has to be determined AFTER a defeat. The outcome of a battle will obviously influence the number of ranks remaining, in particular for the side that has lost. It may well be that BEFORE the combat, your unit has more or an equal number of ranks than the enemy, but AFTER the combat resolution less. So, the defeat in itself influences the possibility of being steadfast or not.


Note (edit): while under the current rules, it is necessary for parent and detachment to be in the same combat, it is not necessary that they are in combat with the same enemy unit.

[Nexus]

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.

You are quite right that the Detachment rules do not specify that unit and detachment have to be in the same combat. But the detachment rule does not really need to do that expressis verbis. According to the detachment, the detachment is steadfast, when the parent unit is steadfast. If one then applies the rules about steadfast, option 2 is the only one that satisfies every rule.

True, good thinking. As long as we recognise that the premise of option 3b (Steadfast only exists in the brief moment when you're making your break test), and at the same time realise that it is a logical mistake applying the detachment rules in that way (that is, the parent is no longer steadfast when it is time for the detachment to fight its combat), and as long as we don't revert to "inventing" option 1, option 2 is the only one left standing.

One should not forget that there is a good reason why GW always includes that steadfast has to be determined AFTER a defeat. The outcome of a battle will obviously influence the number of ranks remaining, in particular for the side that has lost. It may well be that BEFORE the combat, your unit has more or an equal number of ranks than the enemy, but AFTER the combat resolution less. So, the defeat in itself influences the possibility of being steadfast or not.

But agan, the Steadfast rules can be interpreted according to option 3a, which means you get steadfast the moment you enter base to base contact, and keep that status until one of you break.

Note (edit): while under the current rules, it is necessary for parent and detachment to be in the same combat, it is not necessary that they are in combat with the same enemy unit.

Of course.

[Ambrose]

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.

Depending on who's turn it is, will determin what order the combat goes in.  If it is empires turn (mine) then I will want to work out the detachment's combat first, and allow for the steadfast.  If it is my enemy's turn, he may want to do the halberdiers first and hope to break steadfast in both units.  This makes the most sense to me, and leaves the tactical decision of who fights first up to the players involved, no?

Ambrose

[Ratarsed]

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.

That is what I originaly thought, but have since changed my mind after reading the steadfast rules alot more carefuly. You just move the emphasis of the rule from the first bold paragraph to the 3rd paragrah summary. Then all you need to be steadfast is to have more ranks than the enemy. There is nothing about being defeated in order to become steadfast, you are steadfast as soon as you are in a combat and have more ranks than the enemy. The only time you test is if you are defeated, but you don't have to be defeated to be steadfast.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

That is what I originaly thought, but have since changed my mind after reading the steadfast rules alot more carefuly. You just move the emphasis of the rule from the first bold paragraph to the 3rd paragrah summary. Then all you need to be steadfast is to have more ranks than the enemy. There is nothing about being defeated in order to become steadfast, you are steadfast as soon as you are in a combat and have more ranks than the enemy. The only time you test is if you are defeated, but you don't have to be defeated to be steadfast.

Are you now saying we should just ignore those parts of the rule that do not suit us?

[Ratarsed]

Are you now saying we should just ignore those parts of the rule that do not suit us?

No, I'm saying you should not read more into them than they say. They do not infact say a unit needs to be defeated to be steadfast. Read them again, carefuly. I did.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

They do not infact say a unit needs to be defeated to be steadfast. Read them again, carefuly. I did.

Here are the various locations concerning steadfast: 

BRB p 54. STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
 
FAQ V1 5, p.2 change to Steadfast: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.

BRB p. 60 (Multiple Combats and Break Test): "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. "

BRB p. 129: Defender loses: If the Attackers wins, the Defender must take a break test. Note that units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast.


I really cannot see, how you can argue that the rules do not say a unit needs to be defeated to become steadfast. Steadfast is exclusively connected with taking a break test, i.e having been defeated.

[Nexus]

Yes, Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. Hence the division into 3a and 3b.

Yes, many places in the BRB mentions losing the combat when it talks about steadfast. This is of course because it is when losing you USE stadfast. But check all those quotes: None of them actually says "This is how you GET steadfast", they only say "this is what happens when you ARE steadfast". The ONLY direct description of you you GET steadfast is the third paragraph under "Steadfast", BRB p54: "In short, a unit is considered steadfast if it outranks its enemy" (approximately quoted). This is not a very clear definition, but it's the only thing we have.

Now, some people think it's contextually implicit that the unit must first lose the combat, some don't. Both interpretations are RAW, and up until the arrival of the new detachment rules, it didn't matter who was right.

This means option 2 and 3a can both be valid.

[Bernhardt Schwartz]

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.

Exactly.  If the parent unit is not in combat it is not steadfast, and it therefore can't pass steadfast onto its detachment.  It's badly explained, but that is the only actually logical conclusion with the rules as they are currently written (I also suspect it is the rules as intended).

[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.

Exactly.  If the parent unit is not in combat it is not steadfast, and it therefore can't pass steadfast onto its detachment.  It's badly explained, but that is the only actually logical conclusion with the rules as they are currently written (I also suspect it is the rules as intended).

Sure, but this conclusion only rules out option 1 above. Options 2 and 3a could still be valid, depending on how you define steadfast.

[Ratarsed]

I really cannot see, how you can argue that the rules do not say a unit needs to be defeated to become steadfast. Steadfast is exclusively connected with taking a break test, i.e having been defeated.

It may be connected with taking a breaktest but nothing says you have to take a break test in order to be steadfast. All those quotes you made are about defeated units needing to take a test are not about being steadfast, they are about using it, just as Nexus has said.
What we do have is a clear summary of what steadfast is.

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

Nothing about loosing a combat, just about having more ranks. That is how you measure steadfast and that is why by RAW 3b is the correct answer IMO.

[Nexus]

What we do have is a clear summary of what steadfast is.

Well, it's not all that clear. They don't explicitly define what this "enemy" is, for example. Can it be any enemy unit on the table? But sure, most sensible people realise that the "emeny" is a unit belonging to the opponent, in base contact with your unit.

Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.
Nothing about loosing a combat, just about having more ranks. That is how you measure steadfast and that is why by RAW 3b is the correct answer IMO.

Don't wanna nitpick, but I assume you mean 3a, considering the rest of your post.  Yes, it stands between 3a and 2 as far as I can tell. The problem, again, is the fuzzy wording in the BRB Steadfast rules.

Sorry if I seem manical about this issue, but it really tickles my brain in a very irritating way. It would be so awesome if we could come to some kind of consensus. But 2 vs 3a is probably the best we can do *sigh*.

That being said, further discussion is of course very welcome.

[Ratarsed]

Haha! I've forgotton how each solution was numbered! It's the one that so long as the regiment is in combat with the enemy it can pass on steadfast, even if the detachment is in a different combat.
You are right about the assumption that the enemy is one you are in combat with, but it's also one I'm totaly comfortable to make

[Nexus]

Yeah, it's a bit messy, isn't it? For readability's sake I'll repeat them again 

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. (Far from RAW)

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. (basically proven false)

[Ambrose]

Sorry, but RAW means what?  Rules as written?  Please clarify.

After reading this thread, my brain hurts, but I think 3a is the one to go with.  It makes the most sense for the rules until a FAQ is released.

[Nexus]

Sorry, but RAW means what?  Rules as written?  Please clarify.

Yes. That is, a fundamentalistic interpretation of the rules.

After reading this thread, my brain hurts, but I think 3a is the one to go with.  It makes the most sense for the rules until a FAQ is released.

Cool. 3a means that you define Steadfast thus: Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with. A Steadfast unit don't apply CR modifiers to its break tests. This means that you are ALWAYS Steadfast as long as you are in base to base with enemies with less ranks than you. This is where you end up if you focus more on the "Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast" than the "If a defeated unit outranks its enemy, it don't apply CR modifiers to its break test" parts of the BRB, page 54. Would you say this is correct?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

You might notice that those who cite "Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast" like a mantra in their defence, take care to cite it without any context. This leads to interpretations like option 1, which I think virtually all will agree is simply ludicrous. The supporters of 3a, as Nexus indicates above, take this to mean "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with." But of course, that is also not what the statement actually says.

Obviously, this statement (like any, really) must be read in context.

So what is the context? Please take your BRB and go to page 54, where the rules concerning steadfast are explained.

First the general context: allow me to draw your attention on the heading of the chapter: 3. LOSER TAKES BREAK TEST. On page 54 and 55, the rules and regulations concerning break tests are explained. I think, we can safely conclude from this that Steadfast is a special rule, when taking a break test. One will find no reference to steadfast in the BRB except as part of taking a break test.

Let us go now to the subdivision: Steadfast

Immediately following Steadfast you will find:
 
If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.

The bold lettering is from the BRB, and indicates that this is a summary of the rule, while the remaining paragraphs will explain the rule in more detail. Note that it says: a defeated unit, a reference that you will always find in connection with steadfast, as I have pointed out in previous posts.

The next paragraph is the "fluff" paragraph, which is sufficiently vague that it could be read either way.

Then we have the notorious:

"Simply put, a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast".

Except that it does not stand on its own: the text further explains how the ranks are counted. This is done: "as with calculating ranks of combat resolution", which I think we will all agree happens AFTER combat. So, the number of ranks which actually determine whether a unit is steadfast or not are calculated AFTER combat, not before. Therefore, a unit cannot be steadfast before combat resolution.

The next 2 paragraphs do not add anything either way.

But the example that follows gives again the sequence: combat, combat resolution, then determining ranks to see whether the unit is steadfast or not.

So, you simply have to ask yourself: does the text that explains steadfast read as a whole support

1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
- which is actually found written in the BRB.

2. "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."
- which (or something similar) one cannot find written anywhere in the BRB.

[Ratarsed]

So, you simply have to ask yourself: does the text that explains steadfast read as a whole support

1. If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership
- which is actually found written in the BRB.

2. "Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."
- which (or something similar) one cannot find written anywhere in the BRB.

It actually supports both. Both statements are valid.
In the case of the detechment, the detachment fulfils the requirement of being defeated and thus can apply steadfast if it has it. The detachment rules say the regiment can transfer it's steadfast onto the detachment, so if the regiment has more ranks than it's opponent it is steadfast. If it has no opponent then no steadfast. Simple. (you have to assume being in combat for the steadfast to work)

You are reading too much context into the being defeated nature of steadfast. That is the condition than steadfast requires to be applied and not part of how you determine if a unit is steadfast or not. Your claim of statement 2 not being written in the rule book is untrue. I have quoted where it says this, as have you. If you can't accept this then we shall just have to agree to disagree until such time as an FAQ answers the question.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Your claim of statement 2 not being written in the rule book is untrue. I have quoted where it says this, as have you.

This is statement 2:

"Steadfast is a temporary status that applies to a unit that outranks all the enemy units it is in combat with."

This is what you and I have quoted:

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

I think that, in all honesty, no one could claim that these are the same. Indeed, the supporters of "option 1" refer to this very phrase in their support; but again, they can only do this by taking it completely out of context.

For those that still would be supporting "option 1": if you claim that your unit is steadfast, because there is somewhere on the battlefield an enemy unit that has fewer ranks, your opponent can equally claim that your unit is not steadfast, because there is somewhere on the battlefield an enemy unit that has more ranks.

[Noght]

Fidelis has it right folks, as he said all the way back on page 1.
Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast:  Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.  If you are missing any than you're not Steadfast.
I suspect (and it should be cleared up with an FAQ) is that the Detachment gains Steadfast when it's in the SAME combat as it's Regimental.

Noght

[Darknight]

Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast:  Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.

Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?

[Noght]

Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast:  Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.

Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?

No, nice try though.  There isn't a single unit anywhere in the Warhammer Universe that has the Special Rule:  Steadfast.
Read Fidelis' posts, he's spot on.

Noght

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

How can a unit always be steadfast, if the number of ranks that will determine, whether the unit is steadfast or not is calculated after combat?

[stareso]

I'm no rules lawyer/buff and definitely an advocate of playing the game in GW's famous 'spirit of the game', for me it's all about the background and fun. I do, however, wholly support Fidelis's view in this case. The arguments are more than compelling.

[commandant]

Three conditions have to be met for Steadfast:  Combat, Defeated, More Ranks.

Surely the unit, technically speaking, always has Steadfast but only uses it when defeated?

No, nice try though.  There isn't a single unit anywhere in the Warhammer Universe that has the Special Rule:  Steadfast.
Read Fidelis' posts, he's spot on.

Noght

Greatswords have it because in 8th

strubbon = always steadfast.