Topic: Sharing steadfast

[Noght]

Whilst risking my head being removed with a greatsword...  can we just agree to disagree to this until an FQA is released   Just a quick discussion with opponents should get an agreement on what they are willing to accept before the game starts.

NO! 

Do what you want with your opponents, totally fine.  (Except what happens if you win using "extraordinary" abilities not granted by a reasonable reading of the BRB?).  I'd let my opponent set the rule on that, no rules lawyering him.  Hand him the BRB and AB and ask how he want's it played.

What happens when a TO somewhere says no whilst looking at you as if you have 2 heads for playing Steadfast outside the BRB definition?

That is all, carry on!

Noght

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

Whilst risking my head being removed with a greatsword...  can we just agree to disagree to this until an FQA is released   Just a quick discussion with opponents should get an agreement on what they are willing to accept before the game starts.

No risk of that - at least, not from me:  I use an axe.
I myself have suggested a number of times before:  in friendly games, to each his own; in normal games to play it safe  i.e. in a way that is sure to include all possible requirements, instead of way that may not inlcude all possible requirements. 
Of course, we cannot be sure that the FAQ will in fact address this issue. 

[Calisson]

@ Fidelis:
How do you use
When a creature has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is often represented by a special rule. A special rule can boost a model's chances of causing damage, such as by granting poisoned weapons, or enhance its Strength. Alternatively, a special rule can improve a model's survivability, by granting it a better armour save or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. It is through the use of the special rules that Dragons breathe fire, Assassins strike with lightning speed and Giants cause bowel-loosening terror in their enemies.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its Warhammer Armies book. In addition, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the equipment it is using. Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of a spell that has been cast upon it or perhaps even as the result of it being in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the equipment, spell or terrain feature in question will make this clear. Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative.
to prove that steadfast is not a special rule? 


@ Noght
How stupid you think people are to believe that "There are multiple equally valid definitions of a Rule?" 
Please use real arguments.
The debate is about two interpretations, nobody but you ever implied that they could be valid simultaneously.

So far, the only argument you can bring is
"SF = more ranks + defeated" therefore anything different is wrong.
That's your opinion, but as evidenced several times, your word is not a proof, as you are not a GW representative.
You have to argue more if you mean to be convincing.

The logics you use would be fine, provided one accepts "steadfast = more ranks + defeated" as a definition of SF.
It is that very basis of your agrumentation which is contested, can't you understand?
Any of your argument uses  "steadfast = more ranks + defeated" as a basis as if it was THE definition.
Stating "this is THE definition and not alternative is possible" again and again does not prove anything except your mind narrowess.
Actually, it is flatly wrong, since there have been alternative offered as another possible definition (see below and pretty much every page of this thread).
Telling that this alternative is not consistent with YOUR definition is telling the obvious, but it is proving nothing.
When will you be able to argument decently on that?


Also, when I refute "ignore stubborn", and I provide a question, your answer is... "ignore stubborn".
What kind of debate is it when you just refuse to answer a question that the opposition declares highly relevant?
By the way, the question really is not whether stubborn is steadfast (it is not, nobody disputes it) but whether stubborn units are steadfast.
Could you make the effort to answer the questions that are asked, not the ones you understand?


According to the Light Troops rule on p. 77,  skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast.
And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods. Why? Because the rule that governs the terrain feature makes this clear (see status above).
Note also that units that normally could be steadfast, cannot be steadfast here – unless they are Stubborn.
BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
If you don't even accept to see the contradiction in your argument with GW printed material, I cannot help you.


@ Fidelis:
My definition of SF is not what you quote. Here it is:

Definition of SF status: A unit is steadfast if either one of the following conditions is met:
- more ranks than enemy (my interpretation: in order to have an enemy, a unit must be in combat)
- in a building
- stubborn (including non-permanent effects such as skirmishers in a wood, crown of command...)
- detachment within 3" of steadfast parent unit.

How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.

If you want to know what it becomes for stubborn units (Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy), you don't need to make up a crazy sentence as you did .
Here is the result:
Definition of SF status for stubborn units: A stubborn unit is always steadfast.
How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.
Thanks for making fool of the opposition rather than providing arguments.
Now, can we move to a real debate?

[Noght]

@ Fidelis:
How do you use
When a creature has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is often represented by a special rule. A special rule can boost a model's chances of causing damage, such as by granting poisoned weapons, or enhance its Strength. Alternatively, a special rule can improve a model's survivability, by granting it a better armour save or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. It is through the use of the special rules that Dragons breathe fire, Assassins strike with lightning speed and Giants cause bowel-loosening terror in their enemies.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its Warhammer Armies book. In addition, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the equipment it is using. Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of a spell that has been cast upon it or perhaps even as the result of it being in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the equipment, spell or terrain feature in question will make this clear. Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative.
to prove that steadfast is not a special rule? 
Duh, because it's not a Special Rule.  Special Rules for a unit are in the AB entry.  Find me the Steadfast Special Rule entry for any unit in any book, take your time, I'll wait over here with a can of beer.....


@ Noght
How stupid you think people are to believe that "There are multiple equally valid definitions of a Rule?" 
Please use real arguments.
The debate is about two interpretations, nobody but you ever implied that they could be valid simultaneously.
23 pages in and you ask that question NOW?  Now who said equally valid definitions...hmmmm?

So far, the only argument you can bring is
"SF = more ranks + defeated" therefore anything different is wrong.
That's your opinion, but as evidenced several times, your word is not a proof, as you are not a GW representative.
You have to argue more if you mean to be convincing.
Did someone erase the word Defeated from the BRB Steadfast definition again?  Dammit, it was there, I just saw it...

The logics you use would be fine, provided one accepts "steadfast = more ranks + defeated" as a definition of SF.
It is that very basis of your agrumentation which is contested, can't you understand?
Amazingly I can't understand it.  I see the word Defeated, I know what it means, yet unsurprisingly others don't, so clearly I'm the one who's wrong...got it.   Thanks for clearing that up.

Any of your argument uses  "steadfast = more ranks + defeated" as a basis as if it was THE definition.
Stating "this is THE definition and not alternative is possible" again and again does not prove anything except your mind narrowess.
Actually, it is flatly wrong, since there have been alternative offered as another possible definition (see below and pretty much every page of this thread).
How is there an alternative to the words written in the BRB?

Telling that this alternative is not consistent with YOUR definition is telling the obvious, but it is proving nothing.
When will you be able to argument decently on that?
Clearly I'm unable to argue decently, but I LOVE typing in Bolded Blue (the predominant color of my Empire Army!)

Also, when I refute "ignore stubborn", and I provide a question, your answer is... "ignore stubborn".
What kind of debate is it when you just refuse to answer a question that the opposition declares highly relevant?
By the way, the question really is not whether stubborn is steadfast (it is not, nobody disputes it) but whether stubborn units are steadfast.
Could you make the effort to answer the questions that are asked, not the ones you understand?
You should ignore Stubborn rules, they aren't relevant to Steadfast arguments.  At least that's what I read (like 50 times now)


According to the Light Troops rule on p. 77,  skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast.
And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods. Why? Because the rule that governs the terrain feature makes this clear (see status above).
Note also that units that normally could be steadfast, cannot be steadfast here – unless they are Stubborn.
BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
If you don't even accept to see the contradiction in your argument with GW printed material, I cannot help you.
You should ignore Stubborn rules, it seems confusing to you.  That's 51.


@ Fidelis:
My definition of SF is not what you quote. Here it is:

Definition of SF status: A unit is steadfast if either one of the following conditions is met:
- more ranks than enemy (my interpretation: in order to have an enemy, a unit must be in combat)
- in a building
- stubborn (including non-permanent effects such as skirmishers in a wood, crown of command...)
- detachment within 3" of steadfast parent unit.
You forgot Defeated.  Shocking!  And Skirmshers aren't stubborn in a Wood, Skirmishers in Combat are stubborn in a wood, significant don't you think?

How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.

If you want to know what it becomes for stubborn units (Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy), you don't need to make up a crazy sentence as you did .
Here is the result:
Definition of SF status for stubborn units: A stubborn unit is always steadfast.
How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.
Thanks for making fool of the opposition rather than providing arguments.
Now, can we move to a real debate?
You should forget about Stubborn, it's not relevant to Steadfast (52).  Stubborn and Steadfast function the same way during the course of the game, Break Test ignoring CR, however one (Steadfast) requires additional criteria to be in play, unlike Stubborn units who ignore the criteria (both in terms of Ranks or things that prevent Steadfast (rivers and woods for example).

But then again you will repeat the same thing again.  At least change something and quit with the CutnPaste.  Find something to support your Steadfast = Stubborn = Steadfast = More Ranks = Building = Steadfast = Stubborn = Archers in Woods = No Defeat Req'd Hamster Wheel.

Noght

Note:  I'm so lame.  I'm actually responding to Cal quoting Cal.  Man I need a life.....

P.S.  I actually ran a block of 30 Swordsmen w/BSB and a lvl 2 Beast Wizard (custom w/Flagellant Body/Arms/Staff/Spear Tip state troops/Head and Cloak from General Box/Raven from General Box, looks sweet btw) in a 1600 point Blood and Glory.  When I unpacked my Army my opponent asked if I forgot stuff, welcome to the new Empire.

[Nexus]

Gee... is this still going on? Let me just repeat my statement that both interpretations can be seen as valid RAW, depending on how you read the SF rules. That's why:
1. This discussion is going nowhere (duh, really?)
2. My respect for Gee-Dub rules designers has plummeted.

There, let's just wait for that FAQing FAQ, aight?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

@ Fidelis:
 How do you use
When a creature has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is often represented by a special rule. A special rule can boost a model's chances of causing damage, such as by granting poisoned weapons, or enhance its Strength. Alternatively, a special rule can improve a model's survivability, by granting it a better armour save or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. It is through the use of the special rules that Dragons breathe fire, Assassins strike with lightning speed and Giants cause bowel-loosening terror in their enemies.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its Warhammer Armies book. In addition, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the equipment it is using. Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of a spell that has been cast upon it or perhaps even as the result of it being in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the equipment, spell or terrain feature in question will make this clear. Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative.
to prove that steadfast is not a special rule? 

Let us simply apply the criteria how a model can have a special rule in the sense above?

Could a model have steadfast
By entry? No.
By equipment? No.
By spell? No.
Particular type of terrain (in buildings) – well, not really: it is not the usual wording for such special rules, and there are additional requirements (being defeated;taking a Break test). But let us assume for a moment it could.

So, we seem to be left with three possibilities:

1. Steadfast is a special rule a unit only can have in buildings.
Drawback: obviously incorrect

2. Steadfast is not a special rule at all – as Maza “sujjested” some time ago:

I haven't read all of the two long threads pertaining to this but has it been considered that Steadfast is actually not a "special rule"? The AB says that "...any of the special rules listed below... (my italics)" is transferred to the detachment. Steadfast is "listed below" but it is not a "special rule", so it fulfills just one out of two conditions. Therefore, it shouldn't transfer in any circumstance. It is just a random basic rule that happens to be listed there.
 

Drawback: highly improbable; steadfast cannot be transferred

3. Steadfast is a special rule in the general sense I mentioned before, and different categories are not something I created, but found in the BRB.
Drawback: proves me correct.
 
Take your pick. I know which solution my money is on. Of course, being a special rule in a different sense has its consequences (v. infr).

@ Fidelis:
My definition of SF is not what you quote. Here it is:

Definition of SF status: A unit is steadfast if either one of the following conditions is met:
1. more ranks than enemy (my interpretation: in order to have an enemy, a unit must be in combat)
2.  in a building
3.  stubborn (including non-permanent effects such as skirmishers in a wood, crown of command...)
4. detachment within 3" of steadfast parent unit.

To all intents and purposes, having more ranks than the enemy is your definition of steadfast. But fine with me: let us extend the substitution experiment.

2. Stubborn units are units in a building whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy.
3. Stubborn units are Stubborn whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy.
4. Stubborn units are detachments within 3 “of its steadfast parent, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy.

Hmm, somehow, that does not really improve things. It is either tautological or blatantly incorrect.

According to the Light Troops rule on p. 77,  skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast.
And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods. Why? Because the rule that governs the terrain feature makes this clear (see status above).
Note also that units that normally could be steadfast, cannot be steadfast here – unless they are Stubborn.
BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
If you don't even accept to see the contradiction in your argument with GW printed material, I cannot help you.

......

How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.

If you want to know what it becomes for stubborn units (Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy), you don't need to make up a crazy sentence as you did .
Here is the result:
Definition of SF status for stubborn units: A stubborn unit is always steadfast.
How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.
Thanks for making fool of the opposition rather than providing arguments.
Now, can we move to a real debate?

I thought we had finally crossed that particular ontological bridge, but alas no. Perhaps it would help you to turn the conceptual switch, if you started using “having the Stubborn rule” and “having the steadfast rule” (as in fact the Army Book does) instead of “being Stubborn” and “being steadfast”.  You are mixing up two different issues: the requirements to have the rule and the requirements of the rule, which are not necessarily the same.

To have the Stubborn rule you need the requirement of a statement that you actually have it (by virtue of the entry, equipment, spell or terrain; v. supra). And as such, you have the rule all the time, as long as that statement is valid (i.e. as long as you have the entry etc.). Note that this has nothing to do with anything the Stubborn rule itself tells you. Having the Stubborn entry or the Crown of Command etc. are obviously not found in the Stubborn rule.
 
That is not the case for steadfast. You have the steadfast rule by fulfilling a specific set of requirements (even in your extended version), requirements which the steadfast rule itself tells you. Having more ranks than the enemy in combat is something required by the rule itself (I assume, we can agree on that). And as such, you have the rule only, if the requirements given by the rule are in fact fulfilled.

What the Stubborn rule tells you to do is indeed linked to the steadfast rule. How you get to have the rule (and the consequences thereof)  is completely different.
That is why the Stubborn rule =/= steadfast rule.

[Calisson]

Thanks once more, Noght & Fidelis, for taking the time to answer.

-=-=-

About special rules:
Special Rules for a unit are in the AB entry.
@ Noght: see Fidelis' quote, it says "Most" special rules are such, not "all".
@ Fidelis: what you quoted is a list (not necessarily exhaustive) of how to get a special rule. Steadfast can be granted by terrain indeed, +1 credit to your honesty.
To define a special rule to be an AB entry, or to be derived from a list, that's another of your interpretations.
It is not GW's definition (see p.66 if you're in doubt).
My definition of a special rule is just derived from p.66, top "...we have special rules - uncommun rules to govern uncommun circumstances". At least, this is a definition that GW has printed.
So of course, stubborn is a special rule, steadfast is a special rule too.

Anyway, even if SF would not be a special rule, so what?
How does it make stubborn so special that, despite stubborn being exactly steadfast in its effects, you urge me to ignore stubborn troops, which make clearly an exception to your theory?

According to the Light Troops rule on p. 77,  skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast.
And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods. Why? Because the rule that governs the terrain feature makes this clear (see status above).
Note also that units that normally could be steadfast, cannot be steadfast here – unless they are Stubborn.
BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
If you don't even accept to see the contradiction in your argument with GW printed material, I cannot help you.
You should ignore Stubborn rules, it seems confusing to you.  That's 51.

(make it 52 as I quoted it)

-=-=-

About the definition of SF,
there is one common ground on which everyone should be able to agree to be THE definition of SF:
That is to take p.54, everything starting from
"STEADFAST
If a defeated ..."
till the bottom of the page,
"... Leadership value."
Could you agree on that?

Moving from that,
retaining one sentence as THE definition, discarding all other sentences as fluff, subcases, particular cases or whatsoever is already making an interpretation (not telling yet whether it is valid or not).
Could you agree on that?

-=-=-

Anyway, besides the definition of SF, let's not forget that we're examining what happens in the following case:
Q: A detachment has to take a break test. The parent unit is at 3" but not in the same combat. Is there a possibility that the parent unit be steadfast?

Let's take the case through the whole subchapter steadfast.

"If a defeated unit..."
If <2 conditions> then <consequence>.
<2 conditions> = more ranks + defeated. The word defeated is there indeed.
When the two conditions are met, the sentence tells what to do.
Whenever either one of the two conditions is not met, the sentence tells you... nothing.
One side takes a portion of a rules that tells nothing as a proof that the whole sub-chapter cannot be used to answer our case.
The other side takes it as a proof that for the case we're discussing about, we need to pursue our investigations.

"When at war..." We probably can all agree that this paragraph is a little vague, so there is hardly any way to use it and tell whether a unit can be SF or not.
If you insist, we can review it carefully to check if it may apply or not to our case.

"Simply put..." Here is a sentence and a paragraph which describes precisely a situation. One side refuses to use this paragraph. The other side is eager to make good use of this paragraph and provide the answer, pending no contradiction is found anywhere else in the definition of SF.

"Steadfast units can always take brake test..." Here, the unit can take a break test, but doesn't have to. It brings no knowledge to understand our case.


Here is pinpointed the major difficulty in Noght's and Fidelis' thesis:
How could they use a sentence self-limiting to defeated situations, to tell what happens outside of a defeated situation?
How could they ignore the rest of the definition of SF, which very clearly deals with the very situation we are discussing about?

-=-=-

@ Fidelis,
Sorry, we were typing at the same time,
I did not have a chance to see your whole message.

EDIT:
- your tautological conclusion comes from missing (or ignoring) the word "either" (see below where it appears).
- If you wish to mention "having the steadfast status" or "benefitting from SF rule" instead of "being SF", why not?
However, telling that a unit would "have SF rule" seems to imply that the rule is written in its AB entry. I would not recomment such wording.
A unit can "have stubborn rule" by AB entry, or "benefit from stubborn rule" by circumstances (crown, skirmisher in woods, night goblin in mushroom wood, detachment within 3" of greatswords parent...); a unit can "benefit from SF rule". As we know that SF is a status (see top p.55), "benefitting from SF rule" is strictly equivalent to "having SF status".
If you really wish so, my definition of SF could become:
Definition of having SF status: A unit has the steadfast status if either one of the following conditions is met:
1. more ranks 2.  in a building 3.  stubborn 4. detachment within 3" of steadfast parent unit.
How to use SF status: When losing combat, a unit having SF status passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.

[MrAbyssal]

Thanks to some BS in another thread, may I please respectfully ask that until we either have global consensus or an official ruling from GW, that when referencing how we believe Steadfast works in other threads, especially those pertaining to tactics and strategy, that we use the caveat "If you gaming group plays Steadfast like this...". We should also be directing people to this thread.

I think this way we can avoid confusion, especially with new players, until GW informs us without a doubt how sharing Steadfast should be played.

[Calisson]

Thanks to some BS in another thread, may I please respectfully ask that until we either have global consensus or an official ruling from GW, that when referencing how we believe Steadfast works in other threads, especially those pertaining to tactics and strategy, that we use the caveat "If you gaming group plays Steadfast like this...". We should also be directing people to this thread.

I think this way we can avoid confusion, especially with new players, until GW informs us without a doubt how sharing Steadfast should be played.

Agreed, gladfully!

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

About special rules:
Special Rules for a unit are in the AB entry.
@ Noght: see Fidelis' quote, it says "Most" special rules are such, not "all".
@ Fidelis: what you quoted is a list (not necessarily exhaustive) of how to get a special rule. Steadfast can be granted by terrain indeed, +1 credit to your honesty.
To define a special rule to be an AB entry, or to be derived from a list, that's another of your interpretations.
It is not GW's definition (see p.66 if you're in doubt).
My definition of a special rule is just derived from p.66, top "...we have special rules - uncommun rules to govern uncommun circumstances". At least, this is a definition that GW has printed.
So of course, stubborn is a special rule, steadfast is a special rule too.

Again you blank out what does not suit you. Or is this not written by the BRB?

When a creature has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is often represented by a special rule. A special rule can boost a model's chances of causing damage, such as by granting poisoned weapons, or enhance its Strength. Alternatively, a special rule can improve a model's survivability, by granting it a better armour save or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. It is through the use of the special rules that Dragons breathe fire, Assassins strike with lightning speed and Giants cause bowel-loosening terror in their enemies.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its Warhammer Armies book. In addition, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the equipment it is using. Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of a spell that has been cast upon it or perhaps even as the result of it being in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the equipment, spell or terrain feature in question will make this clear. Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative.

Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Many troop types have their own unique abilities laid out in their Warhammer Armies book. Remember, that if there is a conflict between the rules presented here and in a Warhammer Armies book, the latter takes precedence.

What is obvious to the BRB and anyone else, is apparently not obvious to you.


Edit:

- your tautological conclusion comes from missing (or ignoring) the word "either" (see below where it appears).

Fine. We aim to please. This better? 

Stubborn units always are either units that have more ranks than their enemy or units in a building or Stubborn or detachments within 3 “of its steadfast parent, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy.

Hmmm, somehow that still does not work for me. 

[Calisson]

@ Fidelis, what's your point?
- Are you trying to tell that special rules are ONLY rules that can be used as an entry in army books? 
- Even if admitting that SF would not be a special rule, so what?

-=-=-

About how stubborn units are SF, what fool are you playing?
Anyway, at least, a "demonstration" ending with "stubborn is stubborn" does not invalidate anything.
Contrary to your side's "skirmishers cannot be steadfast. Yet, they are always Stubborn in woods."
which contradicts with BRB's "Stubborn units are always steadfast".
Doesn't this syllogism bother you?

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

What special rules in the limited sense are and the consequences thereof has been clearly stated above. There is no need to repeat it again.

As to the skirmishers: the point there is exactly the contradiction that is created if one assumes Stubborn rule=steadfast rule. But as that is not the case, there is no contradiction.

[Calisson]

Apreciate how polite the discussion remains, despite no hint of any agreement being reached.

With the "limited sense" understanding of what a special rule is, how do you understand p.66, bottom left column:
"Rather than have the special rules scattered around the book, (...), I've accumulated the majority here for easy reference".
Don't you realize that there must be other "special rules" which are NOT listed p.66 and following?

Anyway, whatever any status of "special rule" may be, and even if stubborn would be granted such specific status and not steadfast, still it would not explain why stubborn could be long lasting, when steadfast could not.

-=-=-

As to the skirmishers: the point there is exactly the contradiction that is created if one assumes Stubborn rule=steadfast rule. But as that is not the case, there is no contradiction.

I don't understand fully your sentence, I only know that nobody assumes Stubborn rule=steadfast rule.
One side reads BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
With this sentence, nothing else assumed, there is a blatant contradiction with what you have stated to refute my example of long lasting SF:

skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast. And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods.

[Noght]

Apreciate how polite the discussion remains, despite no hint of any agreement being reached.

Well sure if you think Condescending = Polite then you of course are being Polite.

Whenever you use Stubborn in your argument for Steadfast, everything that follows is irrelevant.  It has NO place in the definition or discussion of Steadfast.  It's as simple as that.

Noght

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

With the "limited sense" understanding of what a special rule is, how do you understand p.66, bottom left column:
"Rather than have the special rules scattered around the book, (...), I've accumulated the majority here for easy reference".
Don't you realize that there must be other "special rules" which are NOT listed p.66 and following?

Of course, there are some that are not listed. Like the Inspiring Presence or the Hold Your Ground special rules, which, however, satisfy the requirements on p. 66. Which steadfast does not.

Anyway, whatever any status of "special rule" may be, and even if stubborn would be granted such specific status and not steadfast, still it would not explain why stubborn could be long lasting, when steadfast could not.

It explains why Stubborn is long lasting. It does not explain that theoretically steadfast could not be long lasting, but it does explain that you cannot use Stubborn to claim that steadfast is long lasting. "Simply put", Stubborn is irrelevant in the discussion about how long steadfast lasts. In fact, and as Noght quite rightly says, Stubborn is irrelevant in the whole discussion about steadfast.

As to the skirmishers: the point there is exactly the contradiction that is created if one assumes Stubborn rule=steadfast rule. But as that is not the case, there is no contradiction.

I don't understand fully your sentence, I only know that nobody assumes Stubborn rule=steadfast rule.
One side reads BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
With this sentence, nothing else assumed, there is a blatant contradiction with what you have stated to refute my example of long lasting SF:

skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast. And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods.

There is no contradiction, precisely because

... a model might get special rules as the result of a spell that has been cast upon it or perhaps even as the result of it being in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the equipment, spell or terrain feature in question will make this clear.

[Calisson]

OK, guys, maybe it's high time (or probably even long due time) we came to an end.

Thank you Noght and Fidelis for your hard work to have your case made clear.
It did not succeed completely for me. I believe I understand much better now where we start to disagree, but even with your last explanations, I still cannot get why Steadfast could not possibly be long lasting because of its mere essence, nor why stubborn is so different from steadfast that we cannot even talk about it.
Never mind, no need to reiterate the same questions and get the same answers again. Let's take example in chess: when the very same position is reached for the third time, they stop the game.

We did not find any agreement. That's it.
Anyway, chances that we played against each other and had this issue are very remote, to tell the least.

Thanks to some BS in another thread, may I please respectfully ask that until we either have global consensus or an official ruling from GW, that when referencing how we believe Steadfast works in other threads, especially those pertaining to tactics and strategy, that we use the caveat "If you gaming group plays Steadfast like this...". We should also be directing people to this thread.

I think this way we can avoid confusion, especially with new players, until GW informs us without a doubt how sharing Steadfast should be played.

This is by far the wisest thing I have seen written in this whole thread.



I would like to express my deepest thanks to all the readers, especially to those who are still with us (I like to believe that there are some  ).
Time to move forwards. There will sure be more arguing on other topics.

Now I leave the floor to Noght and Fidelis, who I believe cannot resist the urge to have the last word.
Gentlemen, my pleasure...

[Noght]

Word.

[scarletsquig]

@ Fidelis:
How do you use
When a creature has an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules, it is often represented by a special rule. A special rule can boost a model's chances of causing damage, such as by granting poisoned weapons, or enhance its Strength. Alternatively, a special rule can improve a model's survivability, by granting it a better armour save or the ability to regrow damaged flesh. It is through the use of the special rules that Dragons breathe fire, Assassins strike with lightning speed and Giants cause bowel-loosening terror in their enemies.

It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant entry in its Warhammer Armies book. In addition, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the equipment it is using. Similarly a model might get special rules as the result of a spell that has been cast upon it or perhaps even as the result of it being in a particular type of terrain. Where this is the case, the rule that governs the equipment, spell or terrain feature in question will make this clear. Unless otherwise noted, the effects of multiple special rules are cumulative.
to prove that steadfast is not a special rule? 
Duh, because it's not a Special Rule.  Special Rules for a unit are in the AB entry.  Find me the Steadfast Special Rule entry for any unit in any book, take your time, I'll wait over here with a can of beer.....


@ Noght
How stupid you think people are to believe that "There are multiple equally valid definitions of a Rule?" 
Please use real arguments.
The debate is about two interpretations, nobody but you ever implied that they could be valid simultaneously.
23 pages in and you ask that question NOW?  Now who said equally valid definitions...hmmmm?

So far, the only argument you can bring is
"SF = more ranks + defeated" therefore anything different is wrong.
That's your opinion, but as evidenced several times, your word is not a proof, as you are not a GW representative.
You have to argue more if you mean to be convincing.
Did someone erase the word Defeated from the BRB Steadfast definition again?  Dammit, it was there, I just saw it...

The logics you use would be fine, provided one accepts "steadfast = more ranks + defeated" as a definition of SF.
It is that very basis of your agrumentation which is contested, can't you understand?
Amazingly I can't understand it.  I see the word Defeated, I know what it means, yet unsurprisingly others don't, so clearly I'm the one who's wrong...got it.   Thanks for clearing that up.

Any of your argument uses  "steadfast = more ranks + defeated" as a basis as if it was THE definition.
Stating "this is THE definition and not alternative is possible" again and again does not prove anything except your mind narrowess.
Actually, it is flatly wrong, since there have been alternative offered as another possible definition (see below and pretty much every page of this thread).
How is there an alternative to the words written in the BRB?

Telling that this alternative is not consistent with YOUR definition is telling the obvious, but it is proving nothing.
When will you be able to argument decently on that?
Clearly I'm unable to argue decently, but I LOVE typing in Bolded Blue (the predominant color of my Empire Army!)

Also, when I refute "ignore stubborn", and I provide a question, your answer is... "ignore stubborn".
What kind of debate is it when you just refuse to answer a question that the opposition declares highly relevant?
By the way, the question really is not whether stubborn is steadfast (it is not, nobody disputes it) but whether stubborn units are steadfast.
Could you make the effort to answer the questions that are asked, not the ones you understand?
You should ignore Stubborn rules, they aren't relevant to Steadfast arguments.  At least that's what I read (like 50 times now)


According to the Light Troops rule on p. 77,  skirmishers always count as having zero ranks, and therefore cannot be steadfast.
And yet, they are always Stubborn in woods. Why? Because the rule that governs the terrain feature makes this clear (see status above).
Note also that units that normally could be steadfast, cannot be steadfast here – unless they are Stubborn.
BRB p.76: "Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy."
If you don't even accept to see the contradiction in your argument with GW printed material, I cannot help you.
You should ignore Stubborn rules, it seems confusing to you.  That's 51.


@ Fidelis:
My definition of SF is not what you quote. Here it is:

Definition of SF status: A unit is steadfast if either one of the following conditions is met:
- more ranks than enemy (my interpretation: in order to have an enemy, a unit must be in combat)
- in a building
- stubborn (including non-permanent effects such as skirmishers in a wood, crown of command...)
- detachment within 3" of steadfast parent unit.
You forgot Defeated.  Shocking!  And Skirmshers aren't stubborn in a Wood, Skirmishers in Combat are stubborn in a wood, significant don't you think?

How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.

If you want to know what it becomes for stubborn units (Stubborn units are always steadfast, whether or not they have more ranks than their enemy), you don't need to make up a crazy sentence as you did .
Here is the result:
Definition of SF status for stubborn units: A stubborn unit is always steadfast.
How to use SF status: When losing combat, a SF unit passes break test on Ld, ignoring combat modifiers.
Thanks for making fool of the opposition rather than providing arguments.
Now, can we move to a real debate?
You should forget about Stubborn, it's not relevant to Steadfast (52).  Stubborn and Steadfast function the same way during the course of the game, Break Test ignoring CR, however one (Steadfast) requires additional criteria to be in play, unlike Stubborn units who ignore the criteria (both in terms of Ranks or things that prevent Steadfast (rivers and woods for example).

But then again you will repeat the same thing again.  At least change something and quit with the CutnPaste.  Find something to support your Steadfast = Stubborn = Steadfast = More Ranks = Building = Steadfast = Stubborn = Archers in Woods = No Defeat Req'd Hamster Wheel.

Noght

Note:  I'm so lame.  I'm actually responding to Cal quoting Cal.  Man I need a life.....

P.S.  I actually ran a block of 30 Swordsmen w/BSB and a lvl 2 Beast Wizard (custom w/Flagellant Body/Arms/Staff/Spear Tip state troops/Head and Cloak from General Box/Raven from General Box, looks sweet btw) in a 1600 point Blood and Glory.  When I unpacked my Army my opponent asked if I forgot stuff, welcome to the new Empire.

Whenever I say on this forum, that Kings of War is a better set of rules than Warhammer. THIS is what I'm talking about.

This post. Hell, the whole thread. Life's too short for me to deal with this sort of stuff anymore, my brain can't process it. I just want to put some minis on the table and have a game without having to memorize the minutiae of a poorly-written 250-page housebrick and all its poorly-written 100-page supplements.

6th edition was great, dead simple except for that lapping round malarky I never bothered with. Where did it all go wrong?

Plus, I get to use my reiksguard foot knights and pikemen. 

[Ratarsed]

Whenever I say on this forum, that Kings of War is a better set of rules than Warhammer. THIS is what I'm talking about.

This post. Hell, the whole thread. Life's too short for me to deal with this sort of stuff anymore, my brain can't process it. I just want to put some minis on the table and have a game without having to memorize the minutiae of a poorly-written 250-page housebrick and all its poorly-written 100-page supplements.

6th edition was great, dead simple except for that lapping round malarky I never bothered with. Where did it all go wrong?

Plus, I get to use my reiksguard foot knights and pikemen. 

Don't confuse internet debates with real life gameplay. We have each been happily playing the game as we see fit and will continue to do so with or without an FAQ answer to this question.
It's not gone wrong. 6th was a great edition, but 8th is better IMO.

[Noght]

Whenever I say on this forum, that Kings of War is a better set of rules than Warhammer. THIS is what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the deep insight.  Anything relevent to add?  What is your take on Sharing Steadfast?  How will you play tomorrow?
I for one respect the folks who at least posted, I may not agree but at least they picked a lane.

Noght

[Padre]

Whenever I say on this forum, that Kings of War is a better set of rules than Warhammer. THIS is what I'm talking about.

Thanks for the deep insight.  Anything relevent to add?  What is your take on Sharing Steadfast?  How will you play tomorrow?
I for one respect the folks who at least posted, I may not agree but at least they picked a lane.

Noght

I think what scarletsquig wrote is very pertinent. He is making a very relevant point, along the lines of the point I have tried to make several times.

Asking him to join in doing exactly what he says he dislikes, i.e. join in the arguing over a badly written rule, is madness! Are you really trying to force him into  a 'discussion' he would much rather avoid? So much so, he would rather play other rules' systems!

[Noght]

Asking him to join in doing exactly what he says he dislikes, i.e. join in the arguing over a badly written rule, is madness! Are you really trying to force him into  a 'discussion' he would much rather avoid? So much so, he would rather play other rules' systems!

Nope just taking a totally unscientific poll.

Noght

[Daymz]

6th edition was great, dead simple except for that lapping round malarky I never bothered with. Where did it all go wrong?

Plus, I get to use my reiksguard foot knights and pikemen. 

You do? I started playing Warhammer, and hence the Empire, pretty soon after 6th came out, and I never got to field either foot knights or pikemen. Weren't those remnants of 4th / 5th ed resp.? They are no longer available in the 6th army book.

Apart from that, I also really liked 6th. However, I only came to appreciate it when 7th was upon us (not having had any former rulebook to compare it with). But I really came to miss the small lovely details (like packing up your shields when marching - I loved that!) that were completely obliterated in 7th. Also, the lapping around was horrible to do, but nice if you did it - a friend of mine, dark elf player, knew how to do it and consequently did it with great success.

And now, I am very happy with 8th, I must say. Very happy.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

I think Scarletsquig may be referring to Kings of War. That said: in the 6th edition, you could use pikemen, but only as DoW.  I prefer the 6ed BRB as well. There are things in the 8th edition, I like (e.g. adding wizard level to spells/dispelling), but there are things I hate (e.g. TLOS).