Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[DonJulio]

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.

-Here you claim that a  unit B can only be the enemy of unit A if they are engaged in combat.  This is one possibility but another possibility is this one:

 Unit B is the enemy of unit A (for steadfast purposes)  if it is attacking one of its detachments. 

There are two reasons why I'd go for the second one:

• Because it solves the contradictions
• Because some rules hint to a strong psychological relation  between a unit and its detachment, panic for instance (fluff).

[Uryens de Crux]

Crikey, is this argument still going?

[jhig]

Um yikes!! I think at this point I would simply like to see what people think the intention of the rule was. I think myself that the detatchemnt was supposed to be able to use the ranks of its parent unit at when testing to see if it is steadfast. However as written this does not seem to be the case. FAQ where are you??

[Syn Ace]

People keep cherrypicking phrases out of the Steadfast section(s) instead of reading the sections in their totality and I think this leads to their misunderstanding of Steadfast.

[Ambrose]

Okay, instead of trying to convince each other, how about a list from each participant in the thread on how THEY will be running their detachments, and why.  That way, we spend more time expressing how WE are going to play our game with our friends.  Me, I think I will go with.....dang, forgot all the options.  I'll have to read the options again.  I think it is 2b.1.a.e   Which option was that one?

[Uryens de Crux]

Me, i am going to play it so that the detachment only get steadfast if the parent unit is in combat with the same enemy unit.

[Skyros]

I think I will continue to not use detachments, actually.

Biggest problem I have shifting the enemy is maintaining/breaking steadfast. Detachments don't seem to help with that very much.

A possible exception is their killyness deployed as detachments on the flanks while boosted by a WP's prayers might make up for the lower body count in the parent unit.

If the detachments had a special rule like "Add the detachments ranks to the parents ranks when determining steadfast if both are in the same combat" I would change my mind.

[Noght]

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.

Hopeless I know, but don't you think that the definition of Steadfast is in the the Section titled "Loser takes a Break Test" matters?

Every unit has the ability to gain Steadfast, provided a specific set of things happen i.e. lose a combat with more ranks than the unit that whipped you.   No unit has Steadfast, but they all can get it.  Unless there is a real Special Rule: Steadfast somewhere in the book (hint: there ain't) that I don't know about.

I believe the intent was to affect a Multiple Unit combat where both Regiment and Detachment were involved as described at the bottom of page 5, because that's the only time the Regiment has Steadfast at the time when the beaten Detachment needs to roll for a break test.

Noght

p.s.  Only going to use Detachments for Greatswords for Stubborn (which is a REAL Special Rule), 7 points Swordsmen (in a 5x4 block) with Stubborn, yes please.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

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.

On a general note: some would argue that if you indulge in personal attacks, you automatically lose combat.
Contrary to some, I only play Empire; I have no benefit in advocating adherence to the rules. On the contrary, I would prefer them to be otherwise. But I also prefer to play by the rules as they are.



1. "Nothing is taken out of context. We are discussing combat resolution.”

No, we are not, we are discussing Break tests. Look at the top of p. 54, you cannot miss it. Allow me to refer to an earlier post:

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.

2. Concerning special rules: If steadfast is a Special Rule as “Hatred” it would have been incorporated in the list of special rules. Steadfast is simply a special rule of the rules concerning Break tests.

The same applies to units in buildings; in fact, this applies to every time steadfast is mentioned. Again, I refer to an earlier post:

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.

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. 

Contrary to what you claim, applying the rules is entirely consistent and without problem. We are dealing here with Multiple Combat and Break Tests, the rules of which (as said before) one will find on p.60.
The parent unit is steadfast from the moment it has been defeated but  still more ranks after combat resolution than all (any) enemy it is in combat with, and until it has taken its break test.
During that time, the detachment is steadfast too. You can resolve the Break tests of Multiple Combat in any order you chose. For the detachment to enjoy steadfast, you should, strictly speaking, resolve the Break test of the detachment first, before the Break test of the Parent unit.
However, I, for one (being not a rules lawyer) would not make an issue out of the fact that the detachment Break test would be taken after the parent unit, as it is all part of the same combat.
Given that the parent unit is only steadfast from Combat Resolution until Break test resolution, it is also clear and consistent that a detachment which is not involved in the same combat cannot benefit from steadfast.

[tcklein]

I agree with Noght about what I think the rules intended, but I can very easily see how others could read it otherwise.  Surely 1 measly paragraph of examples wouldn't have been too much to ask for.

[Nexus]

Here he goes with that dumb flowchart again... stoopid swede... 

Personally, I think it's plausible that C1 is how the rule is intended to be. But that's not what the rules say as they are now. RAW, both C2 and C3 are valid (since IMO both B1 and B2 could be right, depending on your religion). However, C3 leads to a lot of ugly situations that reek of awful rules design. C2 is slicker. Plus, C2 is the least powerful option so my opponents won't likely mind if I suggest we use that.

Until the FAQ comes out, that is.

[Skyros]

Contrary to what you claim, applying the rules is entirely consistent and without problem. We are dealing here with Multiple Combat and Break Tests, the rules of which (as said before) one will find on p.60.
The parent unit is steadfast from the moment it has been defeated but  still more ranks after combat resolution than all (any) enemy it is in combat with, and until it has taken its break test.

No. Your argument is inherently contradictory and therefore cannot be the correct interpretation.

You are hanging your hat on the phrase "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. "

(while completely ignoring other phrases such as "a unit that outranks its enemy is considered steadfast")

If that is what steadfast is, then steadfast exists ONLY during the INSTANT you roll for your break test. Because steadfast is the state of being a losing unit with more ranks making a break test and ignoring the combat modifier. It does not come into effect when you lose combat: it only comes into effect during the break test.

Therefore it cannot be passed along to detachments. And if it was passed along to detachments, what would you be passing along? Are you passing along the text "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. " ? Because that does nothing for a detachment. A detachment already has those rules.

Are you passing along the special rule 'Steadfast'? But according to you that doesn't exist.

What text, precisely, do you think is passed along from the parent to the detachment?

And where in the rules, precisely, do you pull support for a unit getting steadfast immediately and only at the conclusion of combat? There are only two possible times you can gain steadfast, depending on interpretation

1) By being engaged with an enemy unit with fewer ranks (always in a building) which happens at the moment combat begins and lasts until you no longer have more ranks or combat ends.
2) At the instant of making a break test if you have more ranks, which ceases at the instant the break test is done. There is no window in between combat ending and break tests starting when steadfast could be applied and passed down, because it exists only when you start the break test, and disappears as soon as the break test is done. According to your interpretation.

You are trying to imagine some 3rd option that appears nowhere, because if we use your interpretation and the rules as written, the whole thing simply doesn't work. At all.

The way it works, in your model is:

Combat
Combat Resolution
Determine Losing Side
Choose order of break tests
Parent Unit
Determine if steadfast
Apply break test. (steadfast goes away at conclusion of break test)
Next unit
Detachment. Parent not steadfast, rule does nothing.
Etc

All this complicated song and dance and having to ignore some rules and invent others in order to bodge together a halfway working scenario is a clue that your interpretation is not accurate.

If we go with what the rulebook actually says "a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks thatn its enemy..." then the whole thing becomes much, much, much simpler and more consistent.

For your interpretation to work, there would have to be a phrase saying 'A defeated unit with more ranks than its opponent gains steadfast immediately after combat resolution, which lasts until the end of the combat phase'. Do we see such a rule? Nope.

For my interpretation to work, we'd need to see a rule saying " If a unit has more ranks than its enemy, then it is steadfast". Do we see such a rule? Why, yes! Yes we do.

In the end, it's very simple:

If steadfast is the state of having more ranks than your enemy, a parent unit that has more ranks than its engaged enemy passes along steadfast to detachments within 3". Neither the parent nor the detachments will need to add negative combat modifiers when making break tests.

If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast

These are the only two real options afforded by the rules. Separate or same combats don't enter into it and are red herrings.

[Nexus]

If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast [/b]

These are the only two real options afforded by the rules. Separate or same combats don't enter into it and are red herrings.

Again, page 60. That's six-ty.

[Skyros]

If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast [/b]

These are the only two real options afforded by the rules. Separate or same combats don't enter into it and are red herrings.

Again, page 60. That's six-ty.

So you think the text transferred from the parent to the detachment is "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. "

??

And that does... what exactly? Detachments already had this rule.

Are you saying the parent unit transfers its number of ranks to the detachment? There is no support in the rules for that whatsoever.

If steadfast is "a unit that outranks its enemy" than transferring steadfast does something.

If steadfast is "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. " then transferring steadfast does nothing as every unit already had this rule anyway.

If steadfast is "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership." then transferring steadfast does nothing as every unit already has this rule anyway.

So...what text, specifically, is being granted to the detachment by the parent with the transferal of the steadfast special rule?

Those are the only three definitions of steadfast that we have.

[Spiney]

Um yikes!! I think at this point I would simply like to see what people think the intention of the rule was. I think myself that the detatchemnt was supposed to be able to use the ranks of its parent unit at when testing to see if it is steadfast. However as written this does not seem to be the case. FAQ where are you??

If I'm honest I think the intention of the rule was that when a detachment is in the same combat as its regimental unit and the regimental unit is steadfast, the detachment gets the benefit of steadfast too. The way the detachment rules were written I'm pretty sure they were intended to be used in the same combat as its regimental, supporting it.

If it were up to me, that is how I would FAQ it

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

@ Skyros: name one single instance in the BRB, where steadfast does not occur in the specific context of taking a break test.

[Skyros]

What text, specifically, is conveyed from the parent to the detachment when the special rule 'steadfast' is transferred?

I have my answer, pulled directly from the rule book.

Steadfast: a unit that outranks its enemy.

What is your answer?

Is it transferring

1) Steadfast: a unit that outranks its enemy

2) 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

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

Very simple question, and I asked first

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Of course, you pulled that out of the BRB - and out of context.

Because if you put it in context, it is clear that a unit becomes steadfast
1. after a defeat
2. if it has more ranks than the enemy it is in combat with,
3. ranks which are determined AFTER combat resolution
4. for the purpose of resolving a break test.

There is no real difference between the various statements.

[Skyros]

So what text is the detachment gaining from the parent ? The fact you keep dodging my question tells me you know your argument is ill-founded.

I've already spelled out all three possible definitions of the Steadfast special rule.

Which one is the parent giving to the detachment?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Far from dodging your argument, I was pointing out that all the statements are basically the same. So, it is 1-3. But if you insist on pulling the first statement you have listed out of context, then it does not qualify anymore. In that case, it is only 2 & 3.

So, even simpler question: name one single instance in the BRB, where "steadfast" does not occur in the specific context of taking a break test.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Would it make things easier if you simply fought all combats involving a unit and its detachments, then did the calculations and made your leadership tests determining if the units are steadfast at that point?

[DonJulio]

@Fidelis: I don't understand or maybe I just don't find convincing the "out of context" argument that disqualifies the "simply put,..." statement as a definition but maybe if you explain it better?

[Noght]

If steadfast is the state of a losing unit having more ranks making a break test, a parent unit can never meaningfully pass along steadfast to a detachment in any situation, because steadfast comes into being immediately before the roll and is immediately destroyed after the roll. Once your detachment is making a break test, the parent unit is no longer making a break test and is thus no longer steadfast [/b]

CONGRATS!  This is the first thing you've got right!  Now before you do anything else go read page 30 in the New Empire Book (because AB overrides BRB right this very second only) and page 60 of the BRB regarding Multiple Combats (only one CR number being generated affecting both Regiment and Detachment).  That's why way back Fidelis mentioned that to be TECHNICALLY correct you should roll the Detachment Break test while the Regiment TEMPORARILY has Steadfast (which is a state that only exists after losing during your Break Test). 

Whee!
Noght

[Skyros]

In that case, it is only 2 & 3.

So in that case, a detachment gains the text:

2) 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

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

Which obviously does absolutely nothing, since the detachment already had this text anyway. .

This is one of many reasons your interpretation makes no sense: It is contradictory, ignores parts of the rulebook, and winds up having no meaning. In rules discussions, the simplest, most consistent answer is usually the best. Especially if it's flat out stated in the book!

So, even simpler question: name one single instance in the BRB, where "steadfast" does not occur in the specific context of taking a break test.

I have no idea why on earth you think this is a compelling argument. Stubborn only occurs in the specific context of taking a break test. Do you have to lose to convey stubborn as well?


Page 76

Stubborn units are always steadfast

So therefore.. stubborn greatswords... are steadfast. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore if they have NOT lost their combat they do NOT pass on stubborn to their detachments - according to your interpretation.

Do you SERIOUSLY want to maintain your position in the face of so much evidence to the contrary?

Or are you going to tell me that greatswords are always steadfast so it means they are ALWAYS losing a fight?

[Ratarsed]

If I'm honest I think the intention of the rule was that when a detachment is in the same combat as its regimental unit and the regimental unit is steadfast, the detachment gets the benefit of steadfast too. The way the detachment rules were written I'm pretty sure they were intended to be used in the same combat as its regimental, supporting it.

If it were up to me, that is how I would FAQ it

If I'm honest I don't know what the intention of the rule is. However having read the rules in their entirety more than once I eventualy came to the same conclusion as Skyros. It does not break the game, does not "feel" wrong, and follows the rules exactly as written, without extending intent into phrases that may or may not have that intent. If it were up to me I would FAQ it KISS. Simply put, have more ranks than your enemy and you are steadfast. However as the situation is likley to be a rare occurance at best and I'm not normaly playing in an argumentative group, I'll not lose any sleep over it.