Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

  No quarrel with that: if you are stubborn = always steadfast. That is why it is a special rule. If you are not stubborn, you fall under the normal rules for steadfast in the BRB.


Edit:

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

This applies to stubborn, as commandant has made clear.

[Noght]

Greatswords have it because in 8th

strubbon = always steadfast.

Ha.  Greatswords are Stubborn.  Stubborn =/= Steadfast.  The effect on gameplay may be similar but they are NOT the same thing.
Fail.  Try again.

Noght

[Ratarsed]

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

Actualy the rulebook only states 1 condition. You have more ranks than your enemy. The bit about "in combat" is implied in the context of the rules and is blatently obvious even if not explicitly stated so that's a given. The bit about being defeated only ever talks about this in the context of applying steadfast, not in being steadfast. Nowhere is it stated that a unit must be defeated to be steadfast, it says only you need more ranks than your enemy to be steadfast.
RAW is 3a
RAI maybe 2, I don't know. Up until now there has never been reason to work out steadfast until the fighting is done and the scores are in. Beacuse I'm not certain and 3a is also a perfectly reasonable solution I'm going with RAW until told otherwise.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

It seems you must be reading a different rulebook.

[Noght]

Congrats Empire Generals.  We have our own "Ironblaster is a Chariot so it can Stand and Shoot" Thread.     Bravo.
I'm so proud.

Noght

[Nexus]

Since I don't have a life, I made a mindmap (or flowchart or whatever it's called) on this issue. The "A" box contains all the relevant sentences in the rules. The "B" boxes are the different ways I have seen people interpret the Steadfast rules according to the given rules. The "C" boxes are the conclusions people have been drawn from the interpretations in the "B" boxes, with regards to the new detachment rules.

IMO, C1 is just non-RAW wishthinking and C4 doesn't make much sense at all. Making C2 and C3 the best candidates for RAW.

Please let me know if it's some rule or interpretation I have missed.

EDIT: Added a link to a bigger version of the jpg below the picture. Or you can just click the pic itself...


Link

[Noght]

IMO, C1 is just non-RAW wishthinking and C4 doesn't make much sense at all. Making C2 and C3 the best candidates for RAW.

Nicely done.  The answer of course is C2 (unless they've changed the rules TODAY to make all Combat results and break test simultaneous).

Old Detachment rule:  Parent and Detachment in combat (w/same unit), lose (of course), parent makes steadfast and detachment applys full combat resolution and flees.
New Detachment rule:  Parent and Detachment in combat (w/same unit), lose (of course), parent and detachment (using Regimental's steadfast)make steadfast rolls ignoring combat resolution.

Here's my Flow Chart:

Close Combat (title of page 46) ----->  3.  Loser takes a Break Test (title of page 54) -----> Check for Steadfast (definition on page 54).

Noght

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I think, it is misleading if the diagram quotes "Simply put" etc. out of context (at least of the paragraph it is in), in particular when it says that it is the only sentence that actually describes how a unit gets steadfast. It is not just that one sentence, but the whole paragraph.

[Nexus]

You might be correct, it's hard to fit the whole context in one bubble. How would you word it, Fidelis?


Context is actually the core of the problem with the Steadfast rules, when I think about it. Essentially, you've got interpretation B1 basing their argument on implicit context. The only explicit part of the rules are the "simply put..." part, but that is wierdly worded out of the context.

I think we can all agree on this at least?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Not quite sure if one can have an implicit context  , but I understand what you are trying to say.
How about a preliminary remark, something like: "As meaning is dependent on the context, we urge all to read BRB page 54/55 and 60 in full, before making up their minds." I do not think, anyone can claim that this would be a prejudicial remark.

I would also recommend to delete in C1: "but it feels that detachment rules are intended this way. Since detachments now cause panic, detachments would be crap otherwise."
None of us know what the intention was. This statement also ignores the other and real benefits of the new rules (hatred etc.), and, in any case, the fact that applying the rules might mean detachments are nerfed should not play any role in our understanding of the rules. 

[Syn Ace]

Steadfast is determined after a combat.  It's pretty simple:

1. Were you defeated in the combat? If No, good for you. If Yes, do you have more ranks than all the other enemy units in that combat? If Yes, you are Steadfast. Congratulations! If not, too bad, enjoy your break test with modified leadership.

You are not Steadfast until after the combat has been resolved.

Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.

So, as it stands right now:

a) if a detachment and it's Regiment are in 2 separate combats, and the detachment's fight is resolved first and it loses, it does not get Steadfast because it's parent is not yet Steadfast.

b) if a detachment and its Regiment are in 2 separate combats and the Regiment's fight is concluded first and it loses and has more ranks than all enemies in its combat, it is Steadfast and transfers this to the detachment.

c) If it is in the same multi-unit combat, it does not matter in which order they are resolved because break tests are concluded after all the fights are resolved, so if the Regiment is Steadfast the detachment will be too.

If GW decides that they want it to work a different way, they will have to go into Steadfast and add new wording; or more likely, they'll modify how detachments work and add in wording that says "at the end of a detachment's combat, if it's Regiment is in combat and has more ranks than all enemy units the Regiment is fighting, then the detachment takes its break test as if it were Steadfast .

[Nexus]

Not quite sure if one can have an implicit context  , but I understand what you are trying to say.

Possible. I'm not very english 

How about a preliminary remark, something like: "As meaning is dependent on the context, we urge all to read BRB page 54/55 and 60 in full, before making up their minds." I do not think, anyone can claim that this would be a prejudicial remark.

That would have worked. I tried to keep it as minimalistic as possible, and all the page references are there so there is nothing stopping people from reading. But sure, it can be seen as tendentious towards B2. This was not really intentional as I myself am leaning towards B1 -> C2.

I would also recommend to delete in C1: "but it feels that detachment rules are intended this way. Since detachments now cause panic, detachments would be crap otherwise."
None of us know what the intention was. This statement also ignores the other and real benefits of the new rules (hatred etc.), and, in any case, the fact that applying the rules might mean detachments are nerfed should not play any role in our understanding of the rules.

Yeah, I felt I had to write some kind of argument for C1. Since the rules don't support it, I just added what I've seen people say on different forums.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Steadfast is determined after a combat.  It's pretty simple:

1. Were you defeated in the combat? If No, good for you. If Yes, do you have more ranks than all the other enemy units in that combat? If Yes, you are Steadfast. Congratulations! If not, too bad, enjoy your break test with modified leadership.

You are not Steadfast until after the combat has been resolved.

Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.

So, as it stands right now:

a) if a detachment and it's Regiment are in 2 separate combats, and the detachment's fight is resolved first and it loses, it does not get Steadfast because it's parent is not yet Steadfast.

b) if a detachment and its Regiment are in 2 separate combats and the Regiment's fight is concluded first and it loses and has more ranks than all enemies in its combat, it is Steadfast and transfers this to the detachment.

c) If it is in the same multi-unit combat, it does not matter in which order they are resolved because break tests are concluded after all the fights are resolved, so if the Regiment is Steadfast the detachment will be too.

If GW decides that they want it to work a different way, they will have to go into Steadfast and add new wording; or more likely, they'll modify how detachments work and add in wording that says "at the end of a detachment's combat, if it's Regiment is in combat and has more ranks than all enemy units the Regiment is fighting, then the detachment takes its break test as if it were Steadfast .

Obviously, I agree with everything you say, except that I do not think b is correct. Steadfast only lasts until the individual combat is resolved. As the parent's combat is resolved, before the detachment's has even started, it can no longer pass on steadfast.

[Syn Ace]

Yeah, that could be true. I hope they modify the detachment rules or at least make the wording clearer because it's obvious this is causing an issue.

[Nexus]

Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.

Right. But for your version to work (seems like C4 by the way), you need to explain when Steadfast STOPS. You say it's situational. You say it starts when a combat has been resolved. But from where do you get that steadfast lasts longer than the "still frame" when the break test is taken?

[Noght]

Steadfast is determined after a combat.  It's pretty simple:

1. Were you defeated in the combat? If No, good for you. If Yes, do you have more ranks than all the other enemy units in that combat? If Yes, you are Steadfast. Congratulations! If not, too bad, enjoy your break test with modified leadership.

You are not Steadfast until after the combat has been resolved.

Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.

b) if a detachment and its Regiment are in 2 separate combats and the Regiment's fight is concluded first and it loses and has more ranks than all enemies in its combat, it is Steadfast and transfers this to the detachment.

You are only Steadfast for your Break Test.  Then you are no longer Steadfast as you say in your own post (I bolded/italicized it for you).  Once you've resosolved a combat there is no more Steadfast.  "B" can't be right, Steadfast ends with Break roll of the Parent, Combat is resolved.

Noght

[Syn Ace]

As Fidelis points out, there is nothing to indicate that Steadfast lingers since it only applies to to taking the break test.  But this goes round and round, so hopefully GW will FAQ it soon.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I must admit, I feel it only goes round and round, because of wishful thinking and/or people trying to find loopholes to offset the new panic rule. I doubt that there would be much discussion without the panic rule.

[Noght]

Stubborn is eternal, Steadfast is situational.

Right. But for your version to work (seems like C4 by the way), you need to explain when Steadfast STOPS. You say it's situational. You say it starts when a combat has been resolved. But from where do you get that steadfast lasts longer than the "still frame" when the break test is taken?

The rulebook says when you are Steadfast, Step 3 of Close Combat, page 54.  That's it!  No lingering.  Full Stop.
Page 46 Close Combat Phase Sequence:  Complete each combat through Flee and Pursue before moving on to next combat.

Noght

[Ratarsed]

The rulebook says when you are Steadfast, Step 3 of Close Combat, page 54.  That's it!  No lingering.  Full Stop.

My rulebook says no such thing. My rulebook says you are steadfast if you have more ranks than your enemy, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full stop.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

My rulebook says no such thing. My rulebook says you are steadfast if you have more ranks than your enemy, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full stop.

And the rulebook also makes clear that those ranks are to be counted after combat resolution, when taking the break test.

[Athiuen]

It really should have simply been: Use the rank bonus of the regimental unit (if it has more ranks than the detachment taking the break test) when determining whether you are steadfast or not.

This seems like what he was trying to say.
Pity he totally failed.

[Syn Ace]

Yeah, that's what I thought at first glance. Hope they FAQ it soon.

[Noght]

The rulebook says when you are Steadfast, Step 3 of Close Combat, page 54.  That's it!  No lingering.  Full Stop.

My rulebook says no such thing. My rulebook says you are steadfast if you have more ranks than your enemy, page 54. That's it! No lingering. Full stop.

Is that in the Special Rules section of your rulebook?  Because page 54 is in the Close Combat/Loser takes a Break Test section of mine...hmmm. 
I was joking when I said that we have our own "Ironblaster is a Chariot so it can stand and shoot even though it shoots like a Cannon" moment, but apparently not.

Noght

[Noght]

Here is how it was discussed over on our "local" board.  A synopsis of everything Fidelis has been saying since the beginning.

Cut and Paste....

Let's start with the relevant rules:

"If a Regimental Unit has any of the special rules listed below, they confer the same special rule onto all of their Detachments whilst they have at least one model within 3": Frenzy, Hatred, Hold the Line!, Immune to Psychology, Stubborn, Steadfast, Stupidity." (WA:E, p.30)

"If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified Leadership." (BRB, p.54)

So, moving on to the scenarios:

1. Detachment in combat/Regiment unengaged.
-> The Regiment is unengaged, not in combat, etc. For starters, only defeated units gain Steadfast; victorious units are never Steadfast. According to the two rules above, a unit has to be in combat and has to have lost to be able to benefit from Steadfast. Since the Regiment is not in combat and hasn't lost, it's not Steadfast.

2. Detachment and Regiment involved in two seperate combats.
-> Steadfast is not a continuous effect. A regimental unit will never give its detachments Steadfast if they are in two different combats because it only ever is granted at a moment in time, and combats do not happen simultaneously.


The only scenario in which a Detachment will benefit from Steadfast from its Regimental unit is when they are both in the same combat. Say the Regiment has 5 ranks, the Detachment has 2 ranks, and the enemy has 3 ranks. In other armies, the unit with 5 ranks would be Steadfast and the unit with 2 ranks would not. However, the Regimental Units rules override this, allowing the Detachment to benefit from the Regiment's Steadfastness...provided they are within 3".

I'm sure it won't matter but I thought I'd give it one more whack.

Noght