Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Ratarsed]

For starters, only defeated units gain Steadfast; victorious units are never Steadfast.

This is where you are making assumptions that are not explicit in the rules as written. Only defeated units get to use steadfast, but nothing says you have to be defeated to get steadfast. This is the crux of most of the disagreement and only an FAQ answer is going to settle the matter. Until then the best you can do is discuss with your opponent if the situation should arise and come to an agreement.

[Uryens de Crux]

The question is, is the detachment the unit - or is the regiment the unit, or is the unit both regiment AND detachment

[rufus sparkfire]

Oh playtesting, where art thou?

[Ratarsed]

Oh playtesting, where art thou?

Haha yes, I think this is one of those things that would have been picked up by external playtesting but easily missed by a small group of internal playtesters. To them, the answer could be obvious with no disagreements raised so never becomes an issue.

[Nexus]

Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.

I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.

[commandant]

Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.

I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.

Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB.   It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this

[Nexus]

Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.

I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.

Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB.   It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this

That's where we disagree then. I think the problem lies in the Steadfast rules themselves in the BRB. That of course depends on how they FAQ the empire book. If they go by the "count the ranks of the regimental", then the BRB wording of Steadfast is no longer an issue, since it's no longer nenessary to know exactly when the regimetal is steadfast.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Indeed, the rule in the BRB is fine. Even the rule in the Army Book is fine.

"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."

So, now you only have to apply the BRB rules about steadfast in their entirety on p. 54/55 and (not too forget!) p. 60. If you read the rules with the intent of simply understanding and applying them, there is really only one possible solution.

If you are looking for loopholes from the outset, you will sift through the text and leach on anything that, taken out of context, could possibly  obfuscate the issue.

GW simply underestimated the tenacity of some players to try and find loopholes in the rules.

[Skyros]

Steadfast is a special rule conferred by having more ranks than your enemy.

You don't have to lose to gain steadfast, steadfast simply does nothing if you win.

So, if an empire regiment has more ranks than the enemy it is currently engaged with, it is steadfast.

Then the steadfast is passed along to the detachments.

[Nexus]

It seems everyone is so sure about their interpretations. Can either of you really not see that you are both kind of right?

[Syn Ace]

Well, if you read the rules as written, yeah, you do have to lose to get Steadfast.

Okay, so what we actually agree on is:

1) GW either sucks at writing clear-cut rules or has no interest in it
2) Having a couple of guys in their art department play a few games does not constitute adequate play testing
3) We need an FAQ to resolve this

[Nexus]

1) GW either sucks at writing clear-cut rules or has no interest in it
2) Having a couple of guys in their art department play a few games does not constitute adequate play testing
2) We need an FAQ to resolve this

Big phat agreementz.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

There is nothing in the rulebook that support the interpretation of Skyros. The supporters of that interpretation can only point to "a unit is considered to be steadfast, if it has more ranks than the enemy". They can only do this, by first taking the sentence out of its original context, and then actually add a new context of their own making, because on its own, the sentence will lead to the ludicrous option 1, that a unit is steadfast as long as there is somewhere on the battlefield an enemy unit that has fewer ranks.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Well, if you read the rules as written, yeah, you do have to lose to get Steadfast.

Okay, so what we actually agree on is:

1) GW either sucks at writing clear-cut rules or has no interest in it
2) Having a couple of guys in their art department play a few games does not constitute adequate play testing
2) We need an FAQ to resolve this

I completely agree with point 2. I agree with point 1 in general, but in this case, the rules are rather clear-cut; they are just not want people want them to be. Und was nicht sein darf, kann nicht sein. That is the only reason why we need FAQ on this issue.

[Skyros]

The BRB clearly says "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"

I don't know how we are even discussing this. Losing doesn't make you steadfast. Having more ranks than your opponent makes you steadfast.

Nothing is being taken out of context.  We are discussing combat resolution. It doesn't say "a DEFEATED unit is considered steadfast..." nor does it say "a unit is considered steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy AND LOST COMBAT THIS TURN". Either of which would support your position.

But it says, there right there, plain as day "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"

It really doesn't get much clearer than that. You can try to handwave away an explicit declaration all you like, but it's not going to help.

My interpretation goes by the clear text of the rulebook. Your interpretation relies on explaining why what the rulebook explicitly states doesn't apply. I think I'll stick with my interpretation.

So, let's look at our possible options here.

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.

Nope. The parents ranks are not conferred, the steadfast special rule is what is conferred. Detachments don't get the parent rank bonus in combat or anything like that.

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

Yes.

3)Parents that are steadfast gives steadfast to their detachments, even if they are not involved in the same combat.

As long as the parent units are involved in a combat, then yes.  Every other rule is passed along without specifying them to be in the same combat, so why would we suppose this one to be different?

The whole 'in the same combat' thing is a giant misdirection, really.

Is your parent unit steadfast? Great, then so is the detachment.

That much is plain as day.

The discussion is really about how steadfast is gained/lost.

If an empire parent block loses a combat and is steadfast, I think everyone here agrees the detachment unit is steadfast, whether or not it is in the same combat.

The question is: is the detachment steadfast only if the parent unit loses? 

[Skyros]

Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.

I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.

Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB.   It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this

How can it possibly be a flaw in the army book?

The entire question revolves around how you gain steadfast.

Is that an army specific question? No. That is defined in the BRB.

It is thus the BRB that would need an FAQ.

The armybook is quite explicit that if the parent unit has steadfast, the detachment has steadfast as well if within 3". This applies if the detachment is in the same combat, a different combat, or not even in combat at all.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

@ Skyros: you just proved my point.

[commandant]

Indeed. Job's an awfully bad'un in the playtesting department.

I'm in the "There are two different and equally valid RAW on Steadfast" camp, btw. It's interesting how our new book revealed such a bad flaw in the BRB.

Its not a bad flaw in the BRB, the rule is fine in the BRB.   It should be cleared up in our Army book, though the FAQ should solve this

How can it possibly be a flaw in the army book?

The entire question revolves around how you gain steadfast.

Is that an army specific question? No. That is defined in the BRB.

It is thus the BRB that would need an FAQ.

The armybook is quite explicit that if the parent unit has steadfast, the detachment has steadfast as well if within 3". This applies if the detachment is in the same combat, a different combat, or not even in combat at all.

The rule is fine in the BRB because there is only one way to achieve steadfast in the BRB.   Therefore the rule is very clear for all armies except us because we have a second way to achieve steadfast.   Therefore how the second way to achieve steadfast works is something that should have been made very clear in the army book.

[Skyros]

Fidelis, you seem like the type of rules lawyer no one wants to play.

The very worst kind of rules lawyers are the ones who try to tell you what the book actually says somehow doesn't apply.

They're even below the rules lawyers who try to tell you something the book doesn't say is true. At least they aren't flat out ignoring what the rule book says (like you are).

You've been shown where you are wrong (repeatedly) but you refuse to accept it. Shrug. Your loss, not mine.

[Skyros]

I will try one more time to illustrate why Fidelis tortured logic is completely unworkable.

He states that the steadfast special rule is this:

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

Think about that for a second. EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME HAS THIS RULE.

So why would it be a 'special rule' that could be passed on by the parent? The detachment already has steadfast according to Fidelis interpretation, because steadfast is just a rule saying if you are defeated unit with more ranks you can take your break test on unmodified leadership.

So what is being 'passed on' by the parent unit in this case? Clearly not the parent rank bonus. There is no support for this in the rules. The state of being steadfast? But there is no state of being steadfast according to Fidelis: it's simply something that you take into account when rolling for your break test after losing a combat. It has no duration. It comes into existence the moment you roll for combat and winks out of existence as soon as you finish rolling for combat.

Even if a detachment were in the SAME combat as a losing parent unit, they wouldn't gain any benefit, because the parent unit would stop being steadfast the moment it finished its break roll. And you couldn't roll for the detachment first because the parent unit wouldn't even be steadfast until it started to make its break roll.

So, to accept Fidelis interpretation, we must ignore two separate statements that explicitly state how you gain stead fast (having more ranks, garrisoning a building) and also assume the rules writers decided to write a rule that does absolutely nothing.

This is all obviously a load of tripe.

So, we'll follow the keep it simple, stupid approach and go with the what the rulebook actually says.

Steadfast is gained by having more ranks than the opponent you are fighting.
If a parent unit has steadfast, a detachment within 3" also has steadfast.
Steadfast has the effect of making you use your unmodified leadership in break tests.

Simple and easy.

The ability of rules lawyers to sow uncertainty and doubt and waste time never ceases to amaze me.

-edit: And suppose that we tried to salvage something from Fidelis interpretation of steadfast and assumed that it was granted upon losing a combat and lasted until the end of the phase, so that a detachment could then also have a window to use steadfast in, there is absolutely no reason this wouldn't work on detachments involved in other combats but Fidelis insists it would only work if the detachment was involved in the same combat as the parent unit! His own interpretation isn't even consistent: which is a sure giveaway that rules lawyering is involved. 

[Skyros]

The rule is fine in the BRB because there is only one way to achieve steadfast in the BRB.

This is wrong on many levels. There are at least THREE Different ways to achieve steadfast listed in the BRB, depending on your interpretation.

-garrison a building
-lose a combat while having more ranks
-have more ranks

 

Therefore the rule is very clear for all armies except us because we have a second way to achieve steadfast.

We do not have a second way to achieve steadfast. Our parent  blocks do not become steadfast any different than every other army.

Our parent block steadfast is passed along to the detachment. That's it.  We become steadfast the same way everyone else does.

Therefore this is a BRB problem, not an army book problem.

Our army book is CRYSTAL CLEAR. If a parent unit is steadfast, the detachment is steadfast. 

The entirety of the discussion is: how does a parent unit become steadfast? In which our army is no different from any other. So, BRB problem.

Our army book provides no additional way for the parent unit to be steadfast, so we must turn to the BRB to find out how to actually become steadfast. The entirety of the uncertainty is located in the BRB.

[DonJulio]

• The first mistake in the BRB is to not emphasize that steadfast is a relation between unit A and unit B. Therefore, the correct definition of steadfast would be something like:
  
  "A unit is considered steadfast with respect to an enemy unit if..."
  
  
• The second writeup mistake is to have a pagraph that looks like this:
  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."
  
  and then somthing like "simly put, a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks thatn its enemy..."   
  
  See, in the place where you expect the definition they write the consequence of being steadfast instead. Later they write something that seems like an actual but not well written definition. 
   
• A clear and solid definition can't be found anywhere. However,  if  we take the "simply put,..." statement  to define steadfast between two units regardless of being in combat or not, then the contradictions are gone

[Skyros]

I think those are good points, Don. It's actually surprisingly hard to write good rules, so it's no surprise to me that GW falls short.

I think in this specific instance, the rules are fairly clear, but I agree about the bizarre decision to put the consequence of having steadfast where one would expect the definition of gaining steadfast. Oh well.

I think though that it's already implicit that steadfast is gained by a comparison between two units: it says a unit gains steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy, not an enemy.

So you must be engaged with an enemy unit and have more ranks than this unit to have steadfast.
OR
You must be garrisoned inside a building to gain steadfast.

Then you gain steadfast.

The impact of steadfast is that if you lose, you don't apply the combat modifiers.

What does this mean for detachments?

-the parent unit must be involved in a combat
-the detachments DO NOT use the parent units rank bonus
-the parent unit must have more ranks than the unit the PARENT is fighting, NOT more ranks than the unit the detachment is fighting (assuming separate combats).

Obviously comparing the parents ranks to the detachment's opponents ranks would be more beneficial to empire players (because generally if they are in a separate combat the detachment will be fighting the smaller of the two enemies) but I find no support for this in the rules.

I will also point out that things have gone horribly wrong if you need steadfast in a situation where you have a detachment and parent unit in the same combat If you can't win with a perfect parent/detachment flank combo charge, when can you win?

[Nexus]

Even if a detachment were in the SAME combat as a losing parent unit, they wouldn't gain any benefit, because the parent unit would stop being steadfast the moment it finished its break roll. And you couldn't roll for the detachment first because the parent unit wouldn't even be steadfast until it started to make its break roll.

Ah, but this is actually clearly covered in the BRB, p60. The detachment and the regimental bering in the same combat is NOT an issue, regardless of how you interpret p54.

[Nexus]

• The first mistake in the BRB is to not emphasize that steadfast is a relation between unit A and unit B. Therefore, the correct definition of steadfast would be something like:
  
  "A unit is considered steadfast with respect to an enemy unit if..."
  
  
• The second writeup mistake is to have a pagraph that looks like this:
  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."
  
  and then somthing like "simly put, a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks thatn its enemy..."   
  
  See, in the place where you expect the definition they write the consequence of being steadfast instead. Later they write something that seems like an actual but not well written definition. 
   

Yes. Good. Wunderbar. Exactly. This. The problem lies in the BRB and the definition of Steadfast, or rather the lack of one. Or even rather-er, the dual nature of the one given.

A clear and solid definition can't be found anywhere. However,  if  we take the "simply put,..." statement  to define steadfast between two units regardless of being in combat or not, then the contradictions are gone

You might as well define Steadfast by the "a defeated unit..." sentence, as that would also remove the contradiction. Many here have already decided what is "correct", and so they don't see the contradiction. That's why we get this heated debate. Open your minds, people!