home

Author Topic: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ  (Read 6611 times)

Offline Calisson

  • Posts: 702
  • From Druchii.net
    • View Profile
Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:21:02 AM »
Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions!  :icon_biggrin:
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
I’ll try to summarize some of the previous discussions in this post.


1.   Where to find steadfast information.
What can a unit do with steadfast status?
Steadfast status has 2 uses:
-   Break tests, i.e. after losing a combat (BRB p.54),
-   Providing steadfast status to detachment (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).

How to gain steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be investigated for any of the following 4 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met:
-   ranks (BRB p.54/ & 60),
-   stubborn (BRB p.76). This one is simple: {stubborn} => {steadfast}
-   building (BRB p.129),
-   parent unit (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).
Several interpretations exist about the additional conditions, which matter only when detachments are involved.

How to deny steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be denied by any of the following 4 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met, except when the unit is stubborn:
-   Enemy’s ranks (BRB p.54/60 and Empire AB FAQ, exception for stubborn BRB p.76),
-   Skirmisher (BRB p.77 – no rank).
-   Forest (BRB p.119 – steadfast lost, but rank bonus kept),
-   River (BRB p.120 – steadfast lost, rank bonus lost, but ranks themselves kept).

The conditions for denying steadfast are clear and consensual.


2.   What’s the problem with passing steadfast to detachments at 3”?
Here, I list the problems, I don’t discuss them yet. I will later.

AB p.30 (not taking yet into account FAQ):  {parent steadfast} => {detachment steadfast}.
First issue: what is exactly steadfast satus is not consensual.
Second issue: the FAQ introduced new conditions.

Let’s sum up what are the conditions for steadfast listed p.54.
There are three possible interpretations of steadfast status mentioned p.54:
A.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
B.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
C.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Note that it changes absolutely nothing for break test, except for a detachment’s break tests.
For that case, we need to go through the AB rule and its FAQ.
See more in hyperlinks about defeated, with its variant, or in combat, or not in combat.

Let’s recall the issues with the FAQ.
There is a problem of interpretation in the second half of the question, about the parent’s position.
either not in the same combat or in another combat” can be understood in two ways:
D.    “either in another combat or in another combat”, i.e. {only in combat}
E.   “either not in combat or in another combat”, i.e. {even not in combat}.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the FAQ may cancel the necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast at all, replacing the AB requirement by rank counting.
F.   {AB + FAQ} the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
G.   {AB + FAQ} The FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
It makes a difference when the parent unit is in a river or a wood.

There’s one more issue when the parent unit is in a building, where two opposite interpretation exist:
H.   {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
I.   {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
That’s quite independent from other issues.


Four interpretations for detachment steadfast.
When we combine the different interpretations of the BRB and the FAQ, we have seen the following interpretations proposed about what is necessary for the parent not in the same combat:
J.   {even not in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated} (click here)
K.   {even not in combat}, {steadfast} {just use ranks} (click here)
L.   {only in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated} (click here)
M.   {only in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated} (click here)
The difference between J and K is that in J., steadfast status can be denied by a forest or a river; in K., steadfast status is not examined, only ranks.


3.   Arguments about steadfast status, BRB p.54.

The BRB index tells us that steadfast is referred in BRB p.54 and 60.
The tenants of either steadfast definition listed above (A., B. or C.) can justify their position with a quote, however, they struggle to really prove the other positions to be wrong.

A.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.”
Rationale: it is the first sentence; it is in bold; the whole page is about losing combat.
Weak point: the sentence does not contain the word “steadfast” it is supposed to define; it does not preclude a unit not in combat or not defeated to be steadfast, too, so it is necessary to argue that no other of the sentences p.54 can be considered as a definition of steadfast.

B.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”
Rationale: the sentence {more ranks than enemy} => {steadfast} says that it defines what is steadfast; it is very consistent with the paragraph just before, which seems to specify the RAI for steadfast: “To represent this in our games, we have something called the Steadfast rule”.
Weak point: It does not mention anything about combat, just about enemy, so we’re left to suppose that a unit not in combat, having no enemy, is not steadfast. However, that is not obvious in the alleged RAI nor in the RAW.

C.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating the extra ranks for the purpose of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. (…). Similarly, the enemy’s ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast.”
Rationale: The second sentence {ranks of 5} => {steadfast} indicates that having ranks is enough to be a steadfast candidate; the last sentence {enemy ranks of 5} => {steadfast denial} indicates the necessary condition for a steadfast candidate to be denied steadfast; when there is no enemy with five models, there is no steadfast denial, therefore the unit is steadfast.
Weak point: it takes many quotes to reach the result {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.


4.   Arguments about FAQ “either in another combat”
The quote is: “Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat?”
Everyone agrees that the wording requires some interpretation. Not everyone agrees on the interpretation itself.

D.   {only in combat}
Rationale: Not in the same combat does not remove the necessity for combat. The FAQ is a tautology: either not in same combat or not in same combat, i.e. not in same combat, i.e. only in combat.
Weak point: grammatically not convincing; it requires GW to have made a mistake, and to have maintained that mistake in the next edition of the FAQ.

E.   {even not in combat}.
Rationale: If a unit is anywhere except in the same combat, it could be in two places: not in combat at all, or in another combat.
As the FAQ mentions “either/or”, which is grammatically exclusive, and the other combat is already mentioned after “or”, the only place “either” can be about is not in combat at all.
Furthermore, the French edition of the FAQ is not ambiguous.
Weak point: the grammar is not perfect either.


5.   Arguments about FAQ replacing or complementing the AB.

F.   {AB + FAQ} - the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
The FAQ is not an errata. See GW’s website about “Shrine of Knowledge - FAQ's and Errata”. It says “Errata provide corrections”, “Amendments are changes”, while FAQ “are not hard and fast rules”.
Therefore, the AB rule remains, the FAQ is just a comment, adding to the rule.
Weak point: obviously, the FAQ is not merely commenting the rule, it is at least amending it.

G.   {AB + FAQ} - the FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
The FAQ mentions “Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks”. It does not mention conferring steadfast. It is obviously not an FAQ but must be an errata.
Weak point: Whatever it is, it is mentioned by GW to be an FAQ, and remains an FAQ.


6.   Arguments about FAQ applying when parent is in a building.

H.   {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
Rationale: The FAQ says in the question: to “claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks”. The parent’s steadfast rule does not come from the regiment’s ranks, therefore buildings are outside of the scope of the FAQ. Therefore detachments are auto-steadfast.

I.   {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
Rationale: The FAQ applies, why wouldn't it? Furthermore, in a building, a unit has zero rank (per BRB FAQ) therefore the detachment would get to use the parent’s zero ranks when checking to be steadfast.


7.   Where come the 3 interpretations for detachment steadfast.

J.   If someone understands the FAQ sentence to allow {even not in combat}
and he does not believe that FAQ cancels AB,
then parent can be steadfast even when not in combat,
which proves the understanding of steadfast status exists even when not in combat.
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}
The only explanation can be that {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.
Weak point: it raises suspicion that one tries to get too much of the rules.

K.   If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast but still understand the FAQ to allow {even not in combat}, he can only insist that the FAQ cancels the AB.
In that case, the FAQ mentioning a parent {even not in combat} does not imply that the parent was steadfast in the first place. {steadfast} {just use ranks}.
Weak point: the argument that an FAQ cancels a rule altogether is hardly convincing, all the more that the FAQ has not been changed with a later revision.

L.    If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast and refuses the FAQ to cancel the AB, then he can only interpret the FAQ the most restrictive way, {only in combat}. 
Then, he can consider steadfast to be restricted to defeated situations.
Weak point: the FAQ would be useless, except in the very restricted and rare situation when a parent has fought the combat first, has lost it, was steadfast and has passed the break test successively; then the detachment at 3” can only fight later to pretend to benefit from parent’s steadfast status.
Weak point: Who can believe GW create a new rule because such a case was “frequently asked”?
« Last Edit: May 03, 2013, 06:20:21 PM by Calisson »

Offline Calisson

  • Posts: 702
  • From Druchii.net
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2013, 12:31:47 AM »
Previous discussions on same topic:
steadfast detachments unofficial confirmation (10 pages thread, before FAQ)
Sharing steadfast (23 pages thread, before FAQ) and a summary of many definitions here
New faq & errata for empire comming up (mostly wishes, kept alive when FAQ arrived)
BRB FAQ up (newer thread about FAQ)
New steadfast (12 pages discussions)
The watch tower and detachments (13 pages discussions after hijack)


Quoted FAQ:
Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes.
Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast.
However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 09:23:32 PM by Calisson »

Offline Calisson

  • Posts: 702
  • From Druchii.net
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2013, 12:50:39 AM »
All positions can be argued for. But all positions have some weak points.
One must chose a position which is not perfect, but seems better than the others.

So, what's my position?

As the FAQ has been examined by GW but not revised on this topic, I am confident that this FAQ was not a mistake, contrary to what some people have been arguing. So much for the argument that FAQ cancels AB altogether (paragraph 7K).

I cannot believe that an FAQ has been designed to modify a rule for a situation which hardly ever takes place. So much for argument that steadfast is restricted to losing situations (paragraph 7L).

In my eyes, after careful examination, Parent can be steadfast {even not in combat} and {AB + FAQ} apply both.
There remains the only possibility that steadfast status must exist even when not in combat (where it is useless, except for parent units).
This can be supported with arguments developed in paragraph 3C:
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}

In addition, I am going back to {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}. Based on RAW reading, see paragraph 6H.


EDIT: Thanks to this discussion, I used to adopt the following signature:
I wish Noght's "minimalist" argument applied to bikinis...
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 03:32:49 PM by Calisson »

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2013, 02:15:42 AM »
Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions!  :icon_biggrin:
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
Simple.
  • Steadfast needed no clarification, it's very clear.
  • Changing the FAQ to "separate" ends the "No Combat Regiment" passing of Steadfast.
  • It was clear before, it's clearer now though.

Everything else you typed seems like an enormous waste of time my friend.... :icon_sad:
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Darknight

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 7473
  • Dipped in Magic, Clothed in Science
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2013, 02:19:22 AM »
Did this really need, deserve, warrant et al a new thread when there is no new information?
Completed Projects | History of Ophelia VII

Quote from: PhillyT
Everyone finds their balance between satisfaction and obsession.

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2013, 02:24:21 AM »
Did this really need, deserve, warrant et al a new thread when there is no new information?

Of course not.  However the "new" info is relevant.  Totally shocked that Cali failed to quote the new FAQ, oh wait, it doesn't support his argument...
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Darknight

  • Pure of Heart
  • Posts: 7473
  • Dipped in Magic, Clothed in Science
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2013, 02:37:29 AM »
I must have missed the difference between the old and new FAQ; isn't it still unclear on whether the Parent needs to be in combat at all (if one interprets "always use parent's ranks . . ." as not necessarially applying regardless of the status of the Parent).
Completed Projects | History of Ophelia VII

Quote from: PhillyT
Everyone finds their balance between satisfaction and obsession.

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2013, 02:52:18 AM »
I must have missed the difference between the old and new FAQ; isn't it still unclear on whether the Parent needs to be in combat at all (if one interprets "always use parent's ranks . . ." as not necessarially applying regardless of the status of the Parent).

Parse away...

Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)
A: Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast. However, if a Regimental Unit is involved in a separate combat in which it is not Steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks, then its Detachments are not Steadfast either, even if the Regimental unit has more ranks than the enemy unit actually attacking its Detachment.


It's clear when in the same combat regarding passage of steadfast.  The change in the FAQ makes separate combat clear.  No rational argument gets from "separate" to "no combat" for steadfast passing.  Though I expect a valiant effort.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 02:55:21 AM by Noght »
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Athiuen

  • Posts: 1372
  • Warhammerless since 2015. FeelsBadMan
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2013, 03:07:22 AM »
The faq simply doesn't address the question of units not in combat.  It says nothing about them at all.  As it is not an erratum to the rule and simply a clarification of the issues surrounding engaged units and the passing of steadfast an argumentum a silentio (an arguement from silence) could conceivably be made for the passing of steadfast outside of combat.

As I said, it seems that the faq no longer has anything to do with the passing of steadfast when the parent unit is not in combat. That point at least has been clarified. It does not, however, tell us whether steadfast is or is not transferred in the same way when the parent unit is not in combat.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 03:14:08 AM by Athiuen »
Quote from: warhammerlord_soth
No beer was wasted.
They fired at a can of Heineken.
The end is Neigh! [sic]
Quote from: Swan-of-War
Curse you clearly-written rules!

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2013, 03:18:20 AM »
The faq simply doesn't address the question of units not in combat.  It says nothing about them at all.  As it is not an erratum to the rule and simply a clarification of the issues surrounding engaged units and the passing of steadfast an argumentum a silentio (an arguement from silence) could conceivably be made for the passing of steadfast outside of combat.

As I said, it seems that the faq no longer has anything to do with the passing of steadfast when the parent unit is not in combat. That point at least has been clarified.

Seriously?  The, "it doesn't say I can't so I can argument", yikes.
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Athiuen

  • Posts: 1372
  • Warhammerless since 2015. FeelsBadMan
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2013, 03:23:45 AM »
The faq simply doesn't address the question of units not in combat.  It says nothing about them at all.  As it is not an erratum to the rule and simply a clarification of the issues surrounding engaged units and the passing of steadfast an argumentum a silentio (an arguement from silence) could conceivably be made for the passing of steadfast outside of combat.

As I said, it seems that the faq no longer has anything to do with the passing of steadfast when the parent unit is not in combat. That point at least has been clarified.

Seriously?  The, "it doesn't say I can't so I can argument", yikes.

Wow,way to massively oversimplify.
I'm not one to bother arguing here but:
We know that GW seems to want To redefine how steadfast works and is transferred.
We know that they had to try, dismally, to help us to understand how it works when both parent and detachment are in the same or in separate combats.
We don't know how/if it works If the parent is not in combat.

Let's be a little intelligent here, an argument can conceivably be made.
Quote from: warhammerlord_soth
No beer was wasted.
They fired at a can of Heineken.
The end is Neigh! [sic]
Quote from: Swan-of-War
Curse you clearly-written rules!

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2013, 03:33:31 AM »
We know that GW seems to want To redefine how steadfast works and is transferred.
See, I don't think this is a true statement.  Steadfast is clear, no reason to redefine it.  The "transfer" of steadfast was murky regarding detachments due to poor AB writing and FAQ.

We know that they had to try, dismally, to help us to understand how it works when both parent and detachment are in the same or in separate combats.
Well it's clear now, though an honest reading of the previous FAQ got you to the same spot.

We don't know how/if it works If the parent is not in combat.
I think we do now.  Unless we're going to argue the definition of "separate".

Let's be a little intelligent here, an argument can conceivably be made.
Dig aside.  If you believe that Warhammer is a permissive rules set then there probably isn't an argument anymore.
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Athiuen

  • Posts: 1372
  • Warhammerless since 2015. FeelsBadMan
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2013, 03:45:03 AM »

I included phrases and words in my post to safeguard against such a hollow and hastily written response but you've missed them.
There is obviously enough doubt in the community to warrant an effort to talk about how such an event could play out.

Again I will state that I agree with you that the faq now does not talk about a situation in which steadfast is transferred if the parent is out of combat.
What I'm saying is that the faq should address that situation and tell us one way or another how it is to be resolved.

Good day.
Quote from: warhammerlord_soth
No beer was wasted.
They fired at a can of Heineken.
The end is Neigh! [sic]
Quote from: Swan-of-War
Curse you clearly-written rules!

Offline Jezza

  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2013, 03:53:05 AM »
Cannot stand this continued argument so I decided to make an account. Please stop ignoring the most important sentence.
"Yes. Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast..."
An answer to a question DOES NOT only come into play in the specific contexts of a question.
Ie: Q: Are green apples in a soup healthy? A: Yes. All apples are healthy.
Critic: "The answer was a direct response to green apples in soup! The statement all apples are healthy doesn't refer to all apples only green ones case closed, how can anyone try to bend the obvious statement the answer was to green apples."

In the rhetoric, obviously an answer to a question cannot go above and beyond the original question and is hence limited to the restrictive situation given... Apparently "Always use the regimental unit's ranks to determine whether or not its detachments are steadfast" somehow only applies to the context of the question even though it implicitly says it doesn't.

Detachments use the regimental unit's ranks to determine whether or not they are steadfast in a combat kthnxbye, the ensuing sentence in the FAQ demonstrates a specific condition under which this is not the case and that is only when the regimental unit has lost steadfast due to the number of enemy ranks.
"Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast"

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2013, 03:58:30 AM »
Nice.  Oversimplify, less intelligent, hollow and hasty, followed by the pissy "good day".  Way to follow the Cali school of passive aggressive debate.  Regarding the topic...

What I'm saying is that the faq should address that situation and tell us one way or another how it is to be resolved.
Why would they address a situation that doesn't exist, steadfast without combat?  But hey at least we agree.
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Jezza

  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2013, 04:03:16 AM »
Nice.  Oversimplify, less intelligent, hollow and hasty, followed by the pissy "good day".  Way to follow the Cali school of passive aggressive debate.  Regarding the topic...

Nice. Attack the credibility of an argument by criticising the perceived tone without actually addressing the raised points. There is only 1 point people need to understand, the answer to a question is not restricted by the question.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 04:12:26 AM by Jezza »
"Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast"

Offline Athiuen

  • Posts: 1372
  • Warhammerless since 2015. FeelsBadMan
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2013, 04:15:54 AM »
I really didn't want to have to reply again and clarify.  I was hoping your rudeness would stop and you would simply let it go.

You were oversimplifying and in doing so you were insinuating that my post was unintelligent.
You chose to make it seem irrelevant instead of answering it kindly (even if it is irrelevant).
Never did I say you were less intelligent, however, not engaging positively with my original post is certainly on that track.
Your reply was hasty and hollow.  I said that it SEEMED, and that it was CONCEIVABLE. I was not talking in absolutes, merely thinking abstractly. I wanted a positive discussion not a slinging contest.

As I said, I don't want to argue it any further, I'm simply trying to work out if an argument could exist.  I believe it could.  Perhaps instead of being pissy you could just explain to me why my want for a clarification is unnecessary.  How does the situation play out.  Perhaps I have read it before in the hundreds of pages of previous argument, but, instead of acting like it's obvious to everyone, perhaps you could just say it.
Quote from: warhammerlord_soth
No beer was wasted.
They fired at a can of Heineken.
The end is Neigh! [sic]
Quote from: Swan-of-War
Curse you clearly-written rules!

Offline Noght

  • Posts: 3105
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2013, 04:38:40 AM »
instead of acting like it's obvious to everyone, perhaps you could just say it.

Ok.  first, can we agree that Steadfast passing in the same combat is a given and supported by the rules?

Assuming the above statement is true, the FAQ now says "separate". 

So a Regiment in a separate combat that is Steadfast (see pg 54 for the definition of Steadfast) passes steadfast to its Detachment in a separate combat.

A Regiment in a separate combat that isn't Steadfast (see page 54 for the definition of Steadfast) means that the Detachment, in a separate combat, isn't Steadfast.

AND you can't play the "Regiment has more ranks than the Detachment's Foe" card either per the FAQ.

How you get from the "same or separate combat passing steadfast" argument to "no combat required steadfast" argument gets more difficult now per the new FAQ wording.

There is only 1 point people need to understand, the answer to a question is not restricted by the question.

Clarify?
"...the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance which fancies it knows everything..."  Camus.

Offline Athiuen

  • Posts: 1372
  • Warhammerless since 2015. FeelsBadMan
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2013, 04:51:44 AM »
instead of acting like it's obvious to everyone, perhaps you could just say it.

Ok.  first, can we agree that Steadfast passing in the same combat is a given and supported by the rules?

Assuming the above statement is true, the FAQ now says "separate". 

So a Regiment in a separate combat that is Steadfast (see pg 54 for the definition of Steadfast) passes steadfast to its Detachment in a separate combat.

A Regiment in a separate combat that isn't Steadfast (see page 54 for the definition of Steadfast) means that the Detachment, in a separate combat, isn't Steadfast.

AND you can't play the "Regiment has more ranks than the Detachment's Foe" card either per the FAQ.

How you get from the "same or separate combat passing steadfast" argument to "no combat required steadfast" argument gets more difficult now per the new FAQ wording.

Ok we're not talking about the same thing.  I don't know what you're talking about.

What I'm saying is that the new FAQ doesn't specify what happens if a situation occurs when the parent unit is not in combat and the detachment is and loses.  I'm asking 'What happens if a situation occurs when the parent unit is not in combat and the detachment is and loses?"  Since the FAQ doesn't apply here there is no point arguing from the basis of the FAQ.  I'm not going from same or separate combat to no combat as I don't think that that particular ruling has anything to do with no combat.

As for Jezza, he is arguing (as far as I can tell) that the line  Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast... applies at all times to the relationship between a parent and regimental unit, and that the rest of that particular FAQ goes on to explain in more detail how this works in two specific instances (Where the parent and detachment are in the same combat, and where the parent and detachment are in different combats), but that it assumes that you will use the above bolded line, in a similar way, for any other event that might occur.

Is that right Jezza?



« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 04:54:52 AM by Athiuen »
Quote from: warhammerlord_soth
No beer was wasted.
They fired at a can of Heineken.
The end is Neigh! [sic]
Quote from: Swan-of-War
Curse you clearly-written rules!

Offline EmpiresArsenal

  • Posts: 173
  • Hoarding Spearmen & Flagellants since 2010
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2013, 05:02:05 AM »
(1)So you need the regimental unit to be in same or separate combat to transfer steadfast  itself, (2)but you don't need the Regimetal unit to be in combat to use its(regimental) RANKS to determine if  the detachment that is in combat  gets to be steadfast in its own combat.

(2) is address by the "always" part of the FAQ,
(1) is the "however" part

This is what I believe GW intended . Although I am aware not everyone agrees 

Dwellers seems to be the internet's answer to and cause of all problems in Warhammer.  

Offline Jezza

  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #20 on: January 17, 2013, 05:02:46 AM »
@athiuen yes that is the point that I'm conveying to deaf ears. @noght I've said all that needs to be said in my first post I am now leaving my points as I doubt any change will arise from repeating my previous statements.
"Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks to determine whether or not its Detachments are Steadfast"

Offline TCWarroom

  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #21 on: January 17, 2013, 05:16:16 AM »
I think it is crazy to assume that the parent unit has to be in the same or different combat to use its ranks to determine the steadfast of the detachment.

I never read it that way and no amount of arguing could make me see it that way.

I will do it my way until told otherwise.

Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2013, 06:13:46 AM »
Reading this, the AB and the BRB, I'm going to use this interpretation:

As far as I see it, a unit can't have steadfast out of combat. Nothing I've seen allows it.* The AB says the detachments will have steadfast if the Parent unit has steadfast. So, if the parent unit isn't in a combat, it has no steadfast to give.

The question in the FAQ doesn't explicitly ask if the detachment gets steadfast from a parent unit not in combat at all when and if the detachment makes a break test.

*page 129 of my lil' brb tells me a garrisoned unit is always considered steadfast, but is mentioned in the assaulting-a-building section for determining results of a losing defender.

Offline theorox

  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
    • Theo's Orcy Blog!
Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2013, 07:37:09 AM »
Reading this, the AB and the BRB, I'm going to use this interpretation:

As far as I see it, a unit can't have steadfast out of combat. Nothing I've seen allows it.* The AB says the detachments will have steadfast if the Parent unit has steadfast. So, if the parent unit isn't in a combat, it has no steadfast to give.

The question in the FAQ doesn't explicitly ask if the detachment gets steadfast from a parent unit not in combat at all when and if the detachment makes a break test.

*page 129 of my lil' brb tells me a garrisoned unit is always considered steadfast, but is mentioned in the assaulting-a-building section for determining results of a losing defender.

Since the detachment uses the parent unit's RANKS for Steadfast your interpretation is invalid. The parent unit doesn't need to be currently steadfast, it just needs to outrank A) any unit it might itself be in combat with and B) any unit the detachment is in combat with. :)

Theo

Offline pistolpadds

  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
Re: Steadfast & detachment with the new FAQ
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2013, 08:26:08 AM »
Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions!  :icon_biggrin:
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
Simple.
  • Steadfast needed no clarification, it's very clear.
  • Changing the FAQ to "separate" ends the "No Combat Regiment" passing of Steadfast.
  • It was clear before, it's clearer now though.

Everything else you typed seems like an enormous waste of time my friend.... :icon_sad:


the part of the faq that says seperate does not mean not in combat. It says (not word for word) if the regement is in a seperate combat in which its self is not steadfast then it cannot pass. Nothing about not being able to use the parrents ranks if they are not in combat