Glad that you claim to understand my position.
I expected no less from you, even if I have doubts when I read what follows.
It is not a problem of reading, I'd like you to stop insulting people, because it gives a poor idea of yourself and you deserve better.
It is just a problem of interpretation.
Back again to BRB:
STEADFAST (1): If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its break test on its unmodified leadership.
STEADFAST (2): A unit has more ranks than it enemy.
Both sentences are written in the BRB.
Your side side considers SF(1) to be the rule and SF(2) to be a supporting version, that you keep discarding.
My side understands SF(2) to be the rule and SF(1) to be a description of how to use it. Nobody deletes the word defeated, we just understand that it describes the time when SF has an effective use.
We know that you disagree, that's your right.
I wish you just agreed to disagree, no need to tell lies and insults on the opposite camp.
About Stubborn, BRB p.76
"Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy (see page 54 for details)."
With this definition, I understand stubborn to be steadfast regardless of ranks.
I understand stubborn to be permanent, because I understand steadfast to be permanent, too, provided conditions are met. The difference being that stubborn is a special rule that is given to a unit in the army book, when steadfast is a conditional rule gained by having more ranks, or being stubborn, or being in a building.
According to my understanding, you use steadfast or stubborn status only when you lose combat. The rest of the time, the status is still there, but you don't have much use for it (with the exception of parent units).
I don't need to delete any word or to make up sentences.
Now, when I try to understand stubborn with your version of steadfast, as a short-live state, it becomes hard to understand what stubborn means at all.
Are stubborn unit a proof that steadfast can be permanent, not short lived?
Is stubborn a short lived status?
That's much more confusing than my understanding.
Believe it or not, I never pretended that "defeated" did not exist in SF(1).
I just understand this word as descriptive of the timing when steadfast is useful.
I now that you don't agree, but it is how I do it. You can tell me that I can't, I still will do it.
And sure, I admit I wish that the rule would allow to use the Regimental Ranks no matter where, when, and how the Detachment is fighting in relation to it's Regiment.
I forgive you for forgetting it but I also admitted that this is not RAW.
By the way, this is not the case that I am defending.
Oh and is to have a wish wrong?
As I typed, 4 more answers...