Topic: steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation

[Nexus]

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.

Yup, I'm in there, wearing faboulously green goggles, waving my flowchart around. There were a couple of very wierd interpretations in that thread...

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...

It really wasn't any consensus. The thread just died for some reason. But yes, the Fidelis interpretation was rather popular. That doesn't mean it's the one truth though. 

[Souppilgrim]

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.

So you are saying that a detachment can be in a combat with a unit that has more ranks than it, but the parent is out of combat (but with the most ranks), and therefore the detachment is steadfast?  The enemy is the unit in the combat, the parent is steadfast against this unit, passing this property to it's detachment.  I agree with this assessment, I also think it's the intended way for it to work.  I also think you will have some opponents that will argue until the cows come home about it because it could be worded a little more direct and less implicit.

I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can't be steadfast besides the very specific instance of when you are beaten.  All you have to do is have more ranks than the enemy.  So you can be steadfast BEFORE combat, AFTER combat, etc.  Of course being steadfast is only useful WHEN beaten in combat, but that is irrelevant.

[Syn Ace]

I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can't be steadfast besides the very specific instance of when you are beaten.  All you have to do is have more ranks than the enemy.  So you can be steadfast BEFORE combat, AFTER combat, etc. 

I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can be steadfast besides the very specific instances when you are beaten and have to take a break test. 

Actually, I would amend that to say a convincing argument --- I've seen plenty of others.

[Souppilgrim]

I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can't be steadfast besides the very specific instance of when you are beaten.  All you have to do is have more ranks than the enemy.  So you can be steadfast BEFORE combat, AFTER combat, etc. 

I have yet to see a RAW argument that states you can be steadfast besides the very specific instances when you are beaten and have to take a break test. 

Actually, I would amend that to say a convincing argument --- I've seen plenty of others.

BRB p54 you only need more ranks than the enemy.

The rulebook does go on to specify how steadfast is useful during a combat that you lose.  That doesn't have anything to do with with steadfast having some weird timing restriction ala magic the gathering.

[Syn Ace]

You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.

[Souppilgrim]

You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.

Wouldn't the burden be on you to prove that it doesn't?  The rulebook says you simply need more ranks than your opponent.  That's it.  If it were the way you present it, then the detachment sharing steadfast rule wouldn't make any sense, because it would never be shared.  The parent unit is done (or hasn't taken it yet) it's own break test by the time that any other unit takes its break test, therefore the rule doesn't work, and that doesn't make sense.

[Skyros]

So you are saying that a detachment can be in a combat with a unit that has more ranks than it, but the parent is out of combat (but with the most ranks), and therefore the detachment is steadfast?

Almost! Steadfast means having more ranks than the enemy you are engaged with. Not engaged  = no steadfast.

With one exception: units in buildings are always steadfast.

And well, stubborn units are always steadfast.

They could easily have written the rule as 'a parent passes along its rank bonus to the detachment for terms of determining steadfast' which wouldn't require the parent unit to be in combat at all.

[DonJulio]

They could easily have written the rule as 'a parent passes along its rank bonus to the detachment for terms of determining steadfast' which wouldn't require the parent unit to be in combat at all.

They could easily have written the rule as 'a parent passes along its rank bonus to the detachment for terms of determining steadfast' which wouldn't require the parent unit to be in combat at all.
Or... they could have written "A unit needs to be engaged in combat in order to be considered steadfast" but they didn't, They could have written "A stubborn unit is steadfast whenever it is engaged in combat and only whenever it is engaged in combat"  they didn't either. 

What they actually wrote "simply put, a unit is considered steadfast if it has more ranks than it's enemy"   

Hence, the interpretation that the parent unit may be out of combat and still pass its rank bonus to the detachment its not only reasonable but  also more consistent with everything written in both books.

[Syn Ace]

You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.

If it were the way you present it, then the detachment sharing steadfast rule wouldn't make any sense, because it would never be shared.  The parent unit is done (or hasn't taken it yet) it's own break test by the time that any other unit takes its break test, therefore the rule doesn't work, and that doesn't make sense.

In correct. In a Multiple Combat, all losing units would take a break test and if the Regiment had more ranks than the largest enemy unit in the fight, if would be Steadfast and pass the Steadfast to its Detachment.

[Souppilgrim]

You have not presented any convincing evidence that it is persists beyond the losing unit's break test.

If it were the way you present it, then the detachment sharing steadfast rule wouldn't make any sense, because it would never be shared.  The parent unit is done (or hasn't taken it yet) it's own break test by the time that any other unit takes its break test, therefore the rule doesn't work, and that doesn't make sense.

In correct. In a Multiple Combat, all losing units would take a break test and if the Regiment had more ranks than the largest enemy unit in the fight, if would be Steadfast and pass the Steadfast to its Detachment.

Now you are confusing me.  You said that a unit only has steadfast for the duration of it's break test, not before, and not after.  How can the parent give steadfast to its detachment when the detachment takes it's break test either before or after the parent?

[Ambrose]

How I'm going to run it;

If parent unit is IN combat, same as detachment or NOT, and has more ranks = steadfast.
If parent unit is NOT in combat = not steadfast as there is no enemy to compare to.

That means, if my detachments are in combat with a different enemy, and it is in a combat with a horde 10 files deep while it is only two ranks deep, but the parent unit is steadfast at THE MOMENT OF COMBAT for the detachment = steadfast.

If at anypoint my parent unit is in combat and no longer has more ranks and files compared to its enemy, then the detachment will rely on its own ranks to determin steadfast.

Anyone else running it different?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Anyone else running it different?

Apparently. 

[Athiuen]

Anyone else running it different?

Apparently. 

I'm just using the ranks of the regimental unit to determine steadfast for the detachment while I wait for a FAQ.
If anyone I'm playing against argues about it then I'll just point out that it doesn't yet make any sense.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I'm just using the ranks of the regimental unit to determine steadfast for the detachment while I wait for a FAQ.
If anyone I'm playing against argues about it then I'll just point out that it doesn't yet make any sense.

That is the maximalist position. Personally, if there is any contention on a rules issue, I opt for the minimalist position. No opponent could possibly have a problem with that.
Apart from that, the rules as they are actually do make perfect sense.

[Ambrose]

I'm just using the ranks of the regimental unit to determine steadfast for the detachment while I wait for a FAQ.
If anyone I'm playing against argues about it then I'll just point out that it doesn't yet make any sense.

I thought of this too, but thought it would illicit too many arguments, although it seems to be the most straight forward until a FAQ is published.  Perhaps I'll try this for the first while until the argument arises, and then use my first plan as a back up plan!  EXCELLENT!

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Excellent? Hardly. Granted, this "solution" is very easy to apply, but it has no backing by RAW.

[Syn Ace]

Now you are confusing me.  You said that a unit only has steadfast for the duration of it's break test, not before, and not after.  How can the parent give steadfast to its detachment when the detachment takes it's break test either before or after the parent?

In my area, players handle Multiple Combat break tests simultaneously since the rules say nothing about any order to take them in and because you don't actually move any fleeing units until after all the tests are resolved. In fact, once deciding the numbers needed, I roll Multiple Combat Break Tests at the same time and use different pairs of colored dice for each unit. See, it's not that confusing.

Of course, some of my friends do consider me peculiar...

[DonJulio]

In my area, players handle Multiple Combat break tests simultaneously since the rules say nothing about any order to take them in and because you don't actually move any fleeing units until after all the tests are resolved. In fact, once deciding the numbers needed, I roll Multiple Combat Break Tests at the same time and use different pairs of colored dice for each unit. See, it's not that confusing.

Of course, some of my friends do consider me peculiar...

"Alright guys focus.. 1...2...3...go!... ah wait the red dice has hit the table first...ok lets do it again..."   

[Noght]

Well not that it matters to the True Believers of MOAR Ranks Steadfast Club but I posed the question to 3 sets of judges at Adepticon this weekend.  They all agreed that the Regiment and Detachment needed to be in the same combat.

Argument: (OPEN to page 54 in BRB please).  The first sentence (bolded) under the heading of Steadfast gives the definition.  Using ONLY the first sentence of the 2nd Paragraph under Steadfast as THE definition is cherry picking (Rules Lawyering some might say).  Amazingly the "cherry picked" definition is in fact part of the bolded definition meaning both sentences are correct however the the bolded sentence adds additional limitations to the definition. (See Fidelis' posts for clarification).

Here in Illinois we're playing "only same combat" (single Combat Resolution applied to both Regiment and Detachment at the same time) because that satisfies both the new AB and the rules on page 54.   

Peace,
Noght

p.s.  Battle Reps to follow, a couple a day methinks....

[Souppilgrim]

Well not that it matters to the True Believers of MOAR Ranks Steadfast Club but I posed the question to 3 sets of judges at Adepticon this weekend.  They all agreed that the Regiment and Detachment needed to be in the same combat.

Argument: (OPEN to page 54 in BRB please).  The first sentence (bolded) under the heading of Steadfast gives the definition.  Using ONLY the first sentence of the 2nd Paragraph under Steadfast as THE definition is cherry picking (Rules Lawyering some might say).  Amazingly the "cherry picked" definition is in fact part of the bolded definition meaning both sentences are correct however the the bolded sentence adds additional limitations to the definition. (See Fidelis' posts for clarification).

Here in Illinois we're playing "only same combat" (single Combat Resolution applied to both Regiment and Detachment at the same time) because that satisfies both the new AB and the rules on page 54.   

Peace,
Noght

p.s.  Battle Reps to follow, a couple a day methinks....

If that ever becomes official...well the detachment rules aren't looking so hot.  If there is nothing to prevent people from simply charging the smaller detachment and winning in one round what use are they going to be?

Yeah, you can get stubborn from greatswords, which are only an ok choice to begin with, and there goes all your special points.  and yeah you can give them hatred but what difference will it make for 15-35 state troops?  They aren't going to hold

[Noght]

If that ever becomes official...well the detachment rules aren't looking so hot.  If there is nothing to prevent people from simply charging the smaller detachment and winning in one round what use are they going to be?

Yeah, you can get stubborn from greatswords, which are only an ok choice to begin with, and there goes all your special points.  and yeah you can give them hatred but what difference will it make for 15-35 state troops?  They aren't going to hold

That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up.  And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.

Noght

[DonJulio]

That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up.  And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.

Noght

But now they are better as they get steadfast from the parent unit's ranks whether it is in combat or not. 

[Noght]

That's always been the problem, tactically you always charge the detachment and blow it up.  And honestly Detachments were always MEH but at least you can now make them Stubborn w/GS or CoC character in Regiment.

Noght

But now they are better as they get steadfast from the parent unit's ranks whether it is in combat or not. 

I see what you did there     We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway.   

Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."

Noght

[DonJulio]

I see what you did there     We'll play it by the rulebook definition of steadfast (the whole definition, not a cherry picked sentence), thanks anyway.   

Almost 100% certainty that any FAQ will confirm Fidelis' and my position or they will reword it completely to say something like "count Regiment or Detachment's ranks (whichever is greater) to determine steadfast."

Noght

It better be! cause its now written in stone that Noght will "EatCow" if the FAQ confirms the other interpretation.

[Syn Ace]

Personally, I'm hoping they reword it.