Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Noght]

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?

Um....Steadfast =/= Stubborn.  Stubborn units are always Steadfast (Break Test on their unmodified Leadership).  There is a HUGE differance.   So yes I will maintain Fidelis' position because Steadfast is only Combat Step 3 and Stubborn is Forever! (Sounds like a Greeting Card). 

You realize the AB rule passes all favorable psychology states from Regiment to Detachment.  Stubborn Detachments (Regiment of GS) mean that when they lose they are Steadfast EVEN if they have less ranks.
Noght

[DonJulio]

Um....Steadfast =/= Stubborn.  Stubborn units are always Steadfast (Break Test on their unmodified Leadership).  There is a HUGE differance.   So yes I will maintain Fidelis' position because Steadfast is only Combat Step 3 and Stubborn is Forever! (Sounds like a Greeting Card). 

The fact is that the rule doesn't say that stubborn troops are steadfast each time they a break test. Nope, it doesn't.  It says they are always steadfast.

 Maybe they mean what you are saying  Noght, but that is not what they wrote. I'll play by  what they actually wrote.

[Syn Ace]

As far as they are always steadfast -- that just means that when they lose combat and have to take a break test the ranks requirement does not matter. You only check for Steadfast after the combat is over and your unit lost and you have to take a break test.

[Noght]

The fact is that the rule doesn't say that stubborn troops are steadfast each time they a break test. Nope, it doesn't.  It says they are always steadfast.

 Maybe they mean what you are saying  Noght, but that is not what they wrote. I'll play by  what they actually wrote.

I didn't say that either Einstein.  Are we going to argue about what Stubborn is or isn't now?

I love this game...riddle me this then:  What is Steadfast?  Any definition from the BRB is fine.  How do YOU think they mean it (assuming you have the correct definition)?  Hell, let me help with the definition of Stubborn:  (page 76 btw) "Stubborn units are always Steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy (see page 54 for details)."

See I know what Stubborn is and it's game effects (RAW and RAI).

Noght

[Skyros]

I love this game...riddle me this then:  What is Steadfast?  Any definition from the BRB is fine.

That's easy.

a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy

BRB p. 54

Now let's turn to BRB p76.

Stubborn units are always steadfast

Now...if fidelis interpretation is correct, stubborn simply means steadfast all the time, whether you have more ranks or not...BUT it ONLY kicks in if you LOSE.

So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat.

Does that make sense?

[Noght]

I love this game...riddle me this then:  What is Steadfast?  Any definition from the BRB is fine.

That's easy. Then we agree!

a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy

Nice Dodge, that is the one of the requirements but that's ok, here's the EFFECT of Steadfast per FAQ 1.5:  Steadfast units don't apply the differance in combat result scores to break test.

BRB p. 54

Now let's turn to BRB p76.

Stubborn units are always steadfast

Even I know what this means, just not DonJulio....

Now...if fidelis interpretation is correct, stubborn simply means steadfast all the time  (YES, a thousand times YES), whether you have more ranks or not...BUT it ONLY kicks in if you LOSE (Why else do you take a BREAK test?).

So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat. (Close, Drop the word ONLY.  Stubborn is Forever, Greatswords Detachments are ALWAYS Stubborn, it's the new AB rule don't ya know.  So guess what happens when a Detachment loses any Combat (insert effect of Steadfast here))

Does that make sense?

See comments in Red.  Stubborn is Forever.  Steadfast is a momentary effect that lets the unit roll it's Break Test without applying Combat Res.

Noght

[DonJulio]

I didn't say that either Einstein.  Are we going to argue about what Stubborn is or isn't now?

I love this game...riddle me this then:  What is Steadfast?  Any definition from the BRB is fine.  How do YOU think they mean it (assuming you have the correct definition)?  Hell, let me help with the definition of Stubborn:  (page 76 btw) "Stubborn units are always Steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy (see page 54 for details)."

See I know what Stubborn is and it's game effects (RAW and RAI).

Noght

Good! then we agree that there are troops such that they can have the steadfast property always. It doesn't come and go instantaneously. 
It is the consequence of having  steadfast what becomes relevant at specific instants of the game.   

[Noght]

Good! then we agree that there are troops such that they can have the steadfast property always. It doesn't come and go instantaneously. 
It is the consequence of having  steadfast what becomes relevant at specific instants of the game.    

Gobbledy Gook aside you are correct.  Stubborn units are Steadfast and amazingly it only matters during a specific instants of the game (when you lose combat and are taking a break test).  Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific instants of the game (guess when that is?).  Which of course is the whole point from page 1.  It's like life, it's all about TIMING or to paraphrase you "relevant at a specific instant".

Noght

[Syn Ace]

So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat.

Does that make sense?

No, because Stubborn is a persistent special rule. A unit always has Stubborn though it only gets to use it to take a break test. Therefore, it can pass Stubborn to it's detachment.

Steadfast is not a persistent special rule. Steadfast is a condition that any unit can achieve but only when it is required to take a break test and as long as it meets certain conditions, which are:

1. it has lost combat
2. it has more ranks than the enemy units in that combat

I hope that Cruddace intended for the Detachment rule to work differently and they FAQ it to improve it, but as it is now, the wording doesn't allow it. Maybe he meant that the detachment could use it's parent's ranks instead of its own to determine if it was Steadfast - even if they were in two separate combats.

Of maybe GW will FAQ and say that once a unit is Steadfast, it is considered Steadfast until the end of the Combat Phase.

[DonJulio]

Gobbledy Gook aside you are correct.  Stubborn units are Steadfast and amazingly it only matters during a specific instants of the game (when you lose combat and are taking a break test). Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific instants of the game (guess when that is?).

Change the last sentence to:

"Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast  during specific time intervals (including but not limited to the instant you roll a break test) of the game (guess when that is?)."

Put it that way and then we agree.

[Noght]

Gobbledy Gook aside you are correct.  Stubborn units are Steadfast and amazingly it only matters during a specific instants of the game (when you lose combat and are taking a break test). Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast during specific instants of the game (guess when that is?).

Change the last sentence to:

"Now non-stubborn units are also Steadfast  during specific time intervals (including but not limited to the instant you roll a break test) of the game (guess when that is?)."

Put it that way and then we agree.

You say "Po TAY toe" and I say "Pa TAH toe".   Instant vs Time Interval?  You used the words "specific instants" not I, I just repeated your quote.  Make up your mind.

I'm afraid to ask as to what other "specific instant or interval" that you think Steadfast occurs?  I know of NO other time that Steadfast matters.....
I think the answer is "sometime between losing the combat and actually rolling for your breaktest" but that's out of the rulebook so it's not your likely answer.

Though we have made progress as you are actually agreeing that Steadfast is time dependant so thats a start.

Noght

[DonJulio]

You used the words "specific instants" not I, I just repeated your quote.  Make up your mind.

Yes but I clearly used it for the consequence of the steadfast condition and not for the duration of the setadfast condition. Here, read again:

Good! then we agree that there are troops such that they can have the steadfast property always. It doesn't come and go instantaneously. It is the consequence of having  steadfast what becomes relevant at specific instants of the game.   

I know of NO other time that Steadfast matters...

Considering that a parent unit may be  steadfast when it is itself out of combat but its detachment is been attacked  matters
and it is the reason this thread has n pages.

Though we have made progress as you are actually agreeing that Steadfast is time dependant so thats a start.

Well, because steadfast is a relation between unit A  and unit B (or set of units for multiple combats) it depends on some conditions that may change in time. For example, the condition clearly ends if unit A takes so many casualties that it no longer has more ranks than unit B.

[Skyros]

So using fidelis intepretation, greatswords would ONLY pass along stubborn to their detachment IF they LOST a combat.

Does that make sense?

No, because Stubborn is a persistent special rule. A unit always has Stubborn though it only gets to use it to take a break test. Therefore, it can pass Stubborn to it's detachment.


Steadfast is not a persistent special rule.

Page 76 in the BRB directly contradicts this.

Stubborn units are always steadfast.

Tada! Persistent effect.

Steadfast is a persistent rule. Stubborn simply says you have it even if you don't outnumber the enemy in ranks.

IF your interpretation was correct, and steadfast ONLY happened when you lost, then stubborn would also only kick in when you lost - as it simply says 'this unit is steadfast even if it has fewer ranks than its opponent'

Stubborn will not make a unit steadfast when it hasn't lost combat, using your interpretation.

Therefore you would still have to lose for the stubborn boosted steadfast to occur: and couldn't pass it on to a detachment if you hadn't lost a combat.

So, using your interpretation, greatswords are not stubborn unless they have lost a combat, and thus cannot pass along stubborn to a detachment unless they have lost a combat. Which is obviously nonsense.

You guys are getting confused with what steadfast DOES with how it is GRANTED.

BRB is quite clear that it is granted by having more ranks than the enemy.

BRB is also quite clear that what it is, is it allows you to roll break tests without applying the combat modifiers.

Honestly, arguing against the plain text of the rules would get you mocked and derided and you'd find yourself without opponents in my game store

I hope that Cruddace intended for the Detachment rule to work differently and they FAQ it to improve it, but as it is now, the wording doesn't allow it.

When you come up with an interpretation that literally does nothing, it's probably best to step back and re-evaluate your interpretation.

Maybe he meant that the detachment could use it's parent's ranks instead of its own to determine if it was Steadfast

Maybe, but that's not at all what it says right now. There's no support for the parent passing along its rank bonus to its detachment.

It's so utterly simple.

You gain steadfast by having more ranks than the opponent. BRB p 54.
A steadfast parent unit passes along steadfast to its detachments within 3". Army book p30.

Short, sweet, simple, and consistent.

And we have 7 pages of people turning themselves into knots and handwaving away explicit rules wording in an effort to make up something different...and all you've come up with is that, currently, the parent unit passing along its steadfast rule to detachments literally does nothing. That's...not very impressive.

Use Occam's razor, folks. It will make your life simpler   Let's use what the rules say instead of hunting and searching high and low for inventions that will allow us to say it means something different.

[Ratarsed]

It seems pretty clear, both sides are steadfast in their opinion
I can't see constantly quoting the same rules at each other is now going to make any difference, neither side is going to budge. The FAQ will sort it out for sure (probably with an answer no one expects  ) Until then as each camp is almost certainly never going to play against each other it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

[Syn Ace]

Page 76 in the BRB directly contradicts this.

Stubborn units are always steadfast.

Tada! Persistent effect.

Steadfast is a persistent rule. Stubborn simply says you have it even if you don't outnumber the enemy in ranks.

Skyros, you're totally reaching there with wishful thinking. When GW says that Stubborn units are always Steadfast, this does not indicate that Steadfast is in and of itself a persistent effect. The unit is always Stubborn, but the only thing Stubborn means is that the unit can always claim Steadfast after combat without worrying about number of ranks. So for a non-Stubborn unit, Steadfast comes into effect when a break test is required because you lost a combat, but outnumber the enemy.  So a Stubborn unit passing Stubborn to a detachment is great. But if a non-Stubborn parent unit has not fought its enemy yet that round, and its detachment has just fought a separate combat and lost, it doesn't get Steadfast from it's parent (as currently written) because the parent itself is not yet Steadfast because it hasn't fought its combat (though it would pass on Stubborn if it were Stubborn).

Anyway, this is pointless to continue anymore. An FAQ is needed and I hope GW rules that our detachments get to use their Regiment's ranks to determine their own Steadfast.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

And we have 7 pages of people turning themselves into knots and handwaving away explicit rules wording in an effort to make up something different...and all you've come up with is that, currently, the parent unit passing along its steadfast rule to detachments literally does nothing. That's...not very impressive.

Again proving the point I made earlier.

Use Occam's razor, folks. It will make your life simpler   Let's use what the rules say instead of hunting and searching high and low for inventions that will allow us to say it means something different.

Occam's razor does not mean one cuts out the bits one doesn't like, only because they do not suit one's purpose.

Edit: I am glad, we are apparently all agreed now that steadfast always occurs in the context of taking a break test. Now, we simply have to agree with the BRB that the ranks which determine whether a unit is steadfast are counted AFTER combat. Given that is the case, I cannot see how a unit can be steadfast before combat.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

@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?

Context does matter. To give an example from another hotly discussed issue:

NBC Today show:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Unabridged version:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.


I think everyone agrees that by cutting out (I guess, NBC was using Occam's razor  ) part of the conversation, the whole picture changed. That is why one should take the whole text on the steadfast rule into account, starting from:

STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. (BRB emphasis)

until the example for steadfast given on page 55.

[Noght]

Like a basic Logic Class If/Then argument.  (Been a while since college so I'm not sure I'm typing it in the right form).

IF Stubborn units are always Steadfast.  (T) pg 76
AND Steadfast units always takes it's Break Test on it's unmodified leadership. (T) pg 54
THEN Stubborn units always take it's Break Test on it's unmodified leadership. (T)

Skyros, you are absolutely correct except for this statement:

Steadfast is a persistent rule. Stubborn simply says you have it even if you don't outnumber the enemy in ranks.

STUBBORN is the persistant rule.  Stubborn is Steadfast not the other way around, this is not a GW mistake, it is intentional and works.

Non-Stubborn units (the point of the thread) only gain Steadfast this way:  Combat --->  Lose ---> Check to see if more Ranks, if YES, then Steadfast.  For a single moment in time:  after combat resolution and before you dice for Break Test than you MAY be steadfast if you have more ranks than your opponent.

Rest assured GW will FAQ it to clarity (mine and Fidelis' point per rulebook) or they will change the wording to allow the Detachment to count the Regimental's rank to determine if it's Steadfast, until then we'll agree to disagree.  AND I promise you this if it turns out you are right I will happily "EAT Crow (or Pidgeon Bombs)".

Peace Brother...
Noght

[Noght]

I know of NO other time that Steadfast matters...

Considering that a parent unit may be  steadfast when it is itself out of combat but its detachment is been attacked  matters
and it is the reason this thread has n pages.

This statement is patently FALSE.  You are never steadfast while out of combat because you MUST have an opponent to compare Ranks against.  And that's the reason this is raging, you guys aren't applying the "must lose combat condition" to your argument.  If it's just about "MOAR RANKS", whom are you comparing it to?

Noght

p.s.  Off to Adepticon with my 3K and 2200 MSU Empire for 7 Games.  Camera and Recorder on hand for Battle Reps....wish me luck.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Luck. And stay steadfast. 

[Skyros]

Occam's razor does not mean one cuts out the bits one doesn't like, only because they do not suit one's purpose.

You are the only one cutting out bits. Namely, the definition of steadfast.

a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy

...and the reference to units garrisoning a building ALWAYS being steadfast.

..and the reference to stubborn units ALWAYS being steadfast.

Indeed, the number of rules you are outright ignoring in  order to arrive at your interpretation that (which literally grants detachments no benefits, whether they are in the same combat or not) is quickly piling up.

Me - I just read the rules as they are and apply them. You - ignore a fistful of rules and invent new ones.

It is impossible for steadfast to be the state of taking a break check while losing and having more ranks than the enemy and the other references to steadfast in the rules to make sense.

Now, if you actually pay attention to the rules as they are written, and admit that steadfast is having more ranks than the enemy, everything works beautifully!

For a single moment in time:  after combat resolution and before you dice for Break Test than you MAY be steadfast if you have more ranks than your opponent.

You are actually only steadfast while making the break test, using this interpretation. Not before, and not after.

Also, using Fidelis interpretation that Steadfast is the special rule:

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

then a parent transferring steadfast to its detachment does LITERALLY NOTHING because detachments already had this rule!

However if Steadfast is

Steadfast: this unit has more ranks than its enemy

Then transferring steadfast actually accomplishes something.

I care less about the issue at hand (as I'd simply refuse to play any dodgy rules lawyers who tried to pull this stunt in person - except that I rarely run melee detachments so the issue is unlikely to arise) and more about the principles ones should use when evaluating rules with more than one interpretation.

You should strive for the interpretation that is

-consistent with the rest of the rules
-does not rely on ignoring existing rules
-is simple
-does not invent new rules
-is logically consistent

All of which Fidelis interpretation lack.

[DonJulio]

Considering that a parent unit may be  steadfast when it is itself out of combat but its detachment is been attacked  matters
and it is the reason this thread has n pages.

This statement is patently FALSE.  You are never steadfast while out of combat because you MUST have an opponent to compare Ranks against.  And that's the reason this is raging, you guys aren't applying the "must lose combat condition" to your argument.  If it's just about "MOAR RANKS", whom are you comparing it to?

You can coun't ranks

• mmhh? You don't require units to be in combat to compare the number of ranks. What you need for that simple operation is to have at least two units whith ranks  and the natural numbers  .
• The must loose combat condition isn't anywhere in the book.   It is not clearly implicit either.  Thats where we differ. Although the BRB pg.54  is explaining  a combat situation, it doesn't  follows  as a "must"  that steadfast is only present when in combat. It doesn't. If you can find a statement such as: "A unit is steadfast if and only if : (a) It is in combat with one or more enemy units (b) it has lost...
  Then, sure, your point would be demonstrated.
  Until then, it isn't a fact it is just opinion, as it is mine btw.
• Consider for instance that you roll an armor save under specific circumstances, does it mean that  there is no armor when out of combat? It doesn't. Armor may not be relevant in the movement phase but it is still there if some rule calls for it for whatever reason. Of course the rules for armor are nicely written and don't create confusing scenarios. In the end I hold to what I stated on my very first post in this thread. Only FAQ will tell for sure (I hope it will  ).
  

Noght

p.s.  Off to Adepticon with my 3K and 2200 MSU Empire for 7 Games.  Camera and Recorder on hand for Battle Reps....wish me luck.

Good luck, but don't abuse your luck, hail the empire 

[DonJulio]

@Fidelis:

I will not argue that context matters in the TV example you gave. It does. Yet it doesn't help your argument because:

There are no convincing reasons to believe that the "simply put..." statement is only valid in the context of combat.

Some statements may be valid only in context, but that doesn't mean that ALL statements made in a specific context it will only be 
valid within that context.  Therefore, explaining the effect of the rule within the context of combat doesn't exclude the possibility that the rule may  happen also  in other context (eg. detachments been a attacked while parent unit is out of combat).


Anyway, I think we have no further arguments to offer to each other  so cheers and lets wait for FAQ. 

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Occam's razor does not mean one cuts out the bits one doesn't like, only because they do not suit one's purpose.

You are the only one cutting out bits. Namely, the definition of steadfast.

a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy

...and the reference to units garrisoning a building ALWAYS being steadfast.

..and the reference to stubborn units ALWAYS being steadfast.

Indeed, the number of rules you are outright ignoring in  order to arrive at your interpretation that (which literally grants detachments no benefits, whether they are in the same combat or not) is quickly piling up.

Me - I just read the rules as they are and apply them. You - ignore a fistful of rules and invent new ones.

That is a bit rich, as I am the one who has consistently argued that the section on steadfast should be read in its entirety (which obviously includes "simply put ..."etc.). To give just the last example:

I think everyone agrees that by cutting out (I guess, NBC was using Occam's razor  ) part of the conversation, the whole picture changed. That is why one should take the whole text on the steadfast rule into account, starting from:

STEADFAST: If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership. (BRB emphasis)

until the example for steadfast given on page 55.

I also referred in detail on several occasions to all other passages in the BRB concerning steadfast.
But I guess, this is another example of Occam's razor.

You should strive for the interpretation that is

-consistent with the rest of the rules
-does not rely on ignoring existing rules
-is simple
-does not invent new rules
-is logically consistent

We certainly are agreed on that.  We clearly differ on the outcome.

All of which Fidelis interpretation lack.

Funnily enough, I just came across this: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?338500-Detachment-Steadfast/page4
Note: I had no involvement in this, but perhaps Nexus might have.

After a very heated discussion, this seems to be the apparent outcome all could more or less agree on (or at least, no one objected to):

Re: Detachment Steadfast

Originally Posted by T10
The one situation where this is all entirely clear is if both units are involved in the same combat...


 Yeah perhaps it's best to narrow this issue down to what we can resolve without creating further conflicts [of rules].
 If Regimental and Detachment must be in the same combat we do away with almost every contradiction people have been able to think of it.
 It might really be the best solution we'll ever reach without an Errata.
 ... Catastrophy ... 

I can only surmise that they all must be dodgy rules lawyers whom you would simply refuse to play when trying to pull this stunt in person.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

By the way, did anyone here find out how steadfast works with detachments?

What? The initial question? No idea.