Detachment Steadfast

[Malorian]

Ok so with the new empire book the statis of the parent block is passed on to the detachment.

There is a list that covers all of the possible ones and they range from hatred to frenzy.

One of them really caught my eye: steadfast.

Now I'm not really sure how this would work... a unit has steadfast if it has more ranks than it's opponent is does that mean:

-the detachment counts as having the same number of ranks as the parent block?
-the detachment counts as having the same number of ranks as the parent block and both are in combat?
-the detachment counts as having the same number of ranks as the parent block and both are in the same combat?

Thoughts?

[T10]

I am going to assume that the intent of the rule is to be a benefit and not a liability. I don't see this working unless the detachment gets to count the parent unit or it's own number of ranks (whichever is greater) when determining if the detachment is steadfast. Also, any condition that would cause the parent unit to lose its steadfast status (such as being within a forest) would likely mean that the detachment only gets to count it's own ranks.

However, if the detachment is in a forest while the parent unit it seems the most reasonable to assume that the detachment loses its steadfast status.

-T10

[DaemonReign]

Yeah this one has been puzzling me as well.
Quite remarkable that it isn't covered in the Book since it's such an obvious issue.

All 3 alternatives that you list, Malorian, could be the 'right' solution. But I'd say option #2 is the most intuitively correct one:
Why? Well let's look at what Steadfast is:
It means you take Ld-checks on "Stubborn" if you are in combat and outrank the opponant.
Implicitly this means that you cannot actually be Steadfast unless you are in combat.
So a Detachment in combat next to 10 rank deep parent unit (that is not in combat) would really have no "Steadfast" to benefit from - since the Parent unit wouldn't actually be Steadfast, instead it would just be a unit with a "whole lot of Ranks".

The rules for Detachments state that SPECIAL RULES are transferred - not the premises on which they rest. For that to be the case the rule should have been "Number of Ranks" and not "Steadfast".

This also means that a Detachment located inside a Forrest with a Steadfast parent unit outside of the Forrest would also be Steadfast, T10, because the Detachment being located in the Forrest has no bearing on the Parent unit's status as being Steadfast (and it is the Special Rule that is transferred, and not the premise).

But the basic question that Malorian brings up here is simply a cunundrum. I said from the first mentioning of this issue that it's a definate case for a future FAQ. And indeed remarkable that Cruddace let it slip without specifying how we're supposed to implement it.

[Mr_Rose]

I think that it is really meant to be a simple Boolean query: that is, if the parent unit is, right now, Steadfast (or hating or frenzied or whatever) then so are its detachments within range. That is, figure out the present status of the parent unit and the detachment benefits regardless of contrary conditions.

Admittedly that is quite powerful, but it also doesn't require the 'transfer' of ranks between units or other complications. It also means that detachments can only 'borrow' Steadfastness when the parent unit is in combat* which is probably OK as limiting factors go.


* Possible exception; what if the parent unit is a bunch of Archers in a forest?

[Malorian]

If the parent unit doesn't need to be in combat this is going to be HUGE, so I'm really interested which why this will go.

[Gazak Blacktoof]

If the parent unit doesn't need to be in combat this is going to be HUGE, so I'm really interested which why this will go.

I think it will be powerful, but not overly so. Most of the time you'd be better off with the parent unit doing the fighting so that you can kick out damage. If you don't do damage you can't win games.

Throwing steadfast detachments at people will be a good stalling tactic, but it's likely to give up a lot of victory points quickly.

Don't forget that a detachment has to remain within 3" of its parent unit to retain its bonuses, so there's not a lot of manoeuvring you can do.


The rules don't really cover this so I'm of the opinion that the detachment should simply be allowed to use the current number of ranks of the parent unit to check for steadfast, unless the parent unit is disrupted.

[DaemonReign]

The rules don't really cover this so I'm of the opinion that the detachment should simply be allowed to use the current number of ranks of the parent unit to check for steadfast, unless the parent unit is disrupted.

With all due respect I'm having a hard time seeing that..
Since a unit is only ever Steadfast if in combat just counting the ranks doesn't really add up.
And what would be the point of Stubborn, then, if you can essentially 'buy' Stubborn Detachments everywhere by just deploying deep Parent units. (?)
Admittedly, sometimes GW answers their FAQ as though they don't know their own rules, but everything about how this is worded in the new Empire book implies that the parent unit must reach the requirements for Steadfast - where the bottom line is that you indeed have to be in close combat.
Once that requirement is filled, however, I don't think any thing else matters (since the Steadfastness is simply copied over to the Detachment) - so you could for instance end up with a Stubborn (Steadfastified) Detachment standing in a Forrest (or being locked in combat with a unit that is much deeper compared to the actual parent unit), and so on..

For your interpretation above to be valid, the rule would have to be something like '.. In addition to benefitting from these Special Rules, a Detachment also counts all ranks in the Parent Unit as if it was its own ranks, as long as it does not have more ranks compared to the Parent Unit, for the purpose of determining Rank Bonus, Steadfast, and so on.

Now it just says: 'Steadfast'
.. And that means by definition the Parent needs to be in combat.

[Malorian]

Now it just says: 'Steadfast'
.. And that means by definition the Parent needs to be in combat.

That was my feeling too, but then does it have to be the same combat?

This could come up where the parent unit is in a fight and a detachment is deployed to block something from flanking it.

[GodlessM]

Since a unit is only ever Steadfast if in combat just counting the ranks doesn't really add up.

Except this rule doesn't exist. It is taken for granted since there has never before been a case of having to check for steadfast while not in combat but in this case there is. The rules for steadfast say you roll unmodified Ld for break tests if you have more ranks than the enemy. That's all. So if the parent unit has more ranks than the enemy fighting the detachment, then the detachment is Steadfast (so as long as it is within 3" of the parent).

[Shan-Leng-Tzey]

Except this rule doesn't exist. It is taken for granted since there has never before been a case of having to check for steadfast while not in combat but in this case there is. The rules for steadfast say you roll unmodified Ld for break tests if you have more ranks than the enemy. That's all. So if the parent unit has more ranks than the enemy fighting the detachment, then the detachment is Steadfast (so as long as it is within 3" of the parent).

I'm quoting the BRB directly, page 54:

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

How can a unit be defeated if not in combat? Consequently, how can a unit be steadfast if not in combat?

Edit:
I can see now how you can look at this in two different ways.
On one hand, you could say that a unit who has more ranks than its enemy gains the special rule steadfast. This rule makes that, if the unit is defeated, it takes its Break test on an unmodified Leadership score. On the other hand, you could say that the requirements for a unit to have the rule steadfast is to have lost a combat and to have more ranks than its enemy. Only with the second interpretation is it necessary for the unit to be in combat to gain the steadfast rule.

"FAQ needed" is once more my conclusion.

[DaemonReign]

Malorian: I would say ANY combat will do.
The only relevant issue is whether or not the Parent is Steadfast, and whether the Detachment is within 3".

[yabbadabba]

That was my feeling too, but then does it have to be the same combat?
This could come up where the parent unit is in a fight and a detachment is deployed to block something from flanking it.

Yup, that works for me. If the arent unit is steadfast (and therefore in combat) the detachment is steadfast if it is within 3" no matter what combat it is in.

Makes up for the lack of offensive detachment capability

[Scalebug]

See no problem with them being in unconnected combats, other than the weirdness of the situation that if the parent unit win their fight, and the detachment lose their, "steadfast" will not kick in for the parent unit, and will not be transfered...

Seems to me the author had assumed the detachment would always be fighting in the same combat as the main unit, and that those external playtesters they claim to have never stumbled across the situation....

[RanaldLoec]

I think it will be powerful, but not overly so. Most of the time you'd be better off with the parent unit doing the fighting so that you can kick out damage. If you don't do damage you can't win games.

Throwing steadfast detachments at people will be a good stalling tactic, but it's likely to give up a lot of victory points quickly.

Don't forget that a detachment has to remain within 3" of its parent unit to retain its bonuses, so there's not a lot of manoeuvring you can do.


The rules don't really cover this so I'm of the opinion that the detachment should simply be allowed to use the current number of ranks of the parent unit to check for steadfast, unless the parent unit is disrupted.

If a parent unit can pass on steadfast when not in combat the abuse the detachment rule will give will be tremendous.

Imagine a Congo line of 20 swordsmen with a parent unit at the far end with a captain with the crown of command.

If the opponent has no free units the Swordsmen will keep that unit busy a fair few turns for very few points given away.

The potential for dirty tricks is skaven and skarsnik in Its proportions.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Surely that can certainly be done because stubborn is definitely passed on whether the parent is in combat or not.

Or for that matter you could have a conga line with the crown of command character in the second rank too.

I don't think there's much to get excited about steadfast, particularly since empire have so many sources of stubborn.

[Mike45]

I can see GW saying that detachments can use there Regimental's ranks. Only because there limited to how many men they can take and how they cant take a battle standard. With those disadvantages you would think they could get a little help in combat.

[LiddellHart]

Or for that matter you could have a conga line with the crown of command character in the second rank too.

Shouldn't the character go in the front line if there's room?


Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

[Balerion]

Shouldn't the character go in the front line if there's room?


Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

Command models displace characters in the front rank unless and until a character utilizes the voluntary "Make Way" rule in combat. So in a conga line formation the musician/standard bearer can always be at the front.

[DaemonReign]

I'm quoting the BRB directly, page 54:

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

How can a unit be defeated if not in combat? Consequently, how can a unit be steadfast if not in combat?

I really don't think there's two ways of looking at that. For a unit to be Steadfast it must lose a Combat while having more Ranks than any enemy unit it is fighting. The fact that it's an implicit rule doesn't make it any less clear.

So thus far we don't actually need a FAQ, as it's just common sense. But the rule that Steadfast can be 'copied' by a Detachment is still sort of a mess, in all honesty.

Scenario A
Imagine the Parent unit having 10 ranks while fighting a lone Monster (loses the combat but is Steadfast).
At the same time the Detachment has 3 ranks and is fighting a 15 rank unit of Goblins.
The Detachment is now Steadfast.

Scenario B
Take the above scenario, but the Detachment is located in a Forrest while the Parent Unit is on open ground.
The Detachment is still Steadfast.

Scenario C
GodlessM started a specific thread regarding what happens in buildings. So I'm just gonna throw in here that if the Parent Unit is inside a house any Detachment 'just outside' will naturally become 'Stubborn'.

These odd instances should have been enough, probably, to concider perhaps not including Steadfast in that list of psychology rules that the Detachment may 'copy'. But - as if that wasn't enough - you also have the small issue of sequencing:

If a Detachment and a Parent Unit are fighting two separate combats next to each other, whether or not the Detachment will be able to benefit from the Steadfast Parent is completely dependant on which combat you resolve first. Strictly speaking, this means that since it's the Player Who's Turn it Is that decide the sequence of resolved Combats you'd really only ever be able to utilize Steadfast (in this way) in your own Turn - because in your opponant's turn he/she is just gonna opt to resolve the Detachment's Combat before resolving the combat with your [possibly Steadfast] Parent Unit.

Having thought some more about this I can't help feeling that Cruddace should have left Steadfast out of this equation.
All though as long as we accept the [obvious] premise that a unit must be in combat (as well as actually having fought its combat Round this turn) in order for Steadfast to even be on the table, well the 'rule' actually works even though it will lead to silliness sometimes.

But especially given the issue of sequencing it becomes rather meaningless, and even more so if we concider that being 'true' Stubborn is also available to Empire troops. But sometimes you'd have use for it (for example if your Parent is fighting something and your Detachments are protecting the flanks of the parent - then (at least in your own turn) you could hope to be Steadfast with your Detachments!).

GW might try to solve all this with one Gordian Strike, as it were, and just conclude in a FAQ that Detachments may count the Parent's ranks as their own. But that is not supported by the current rules at all. That's just something - in my opinion - that some guy answering the phone at GW would think of in 2 seconds and it would really add insult to injury.. Because as others have already said, in this thread, that would be too abusable.

[yabbadabba]

That's really well discussed Daemonreign, but those scenarios do fall into the "and so" category.

While I reckon there will be an Faq on this, I don't think GW are going to list a series of cases of when it does and doesn't apply. I think this is one of those simplicity of writing vs frequency of occurence vs tactical decisions vs players common sense and house rules situations that GW sometimes throws up.

It also adds a measure of protection to the detachments in terms of your are going to need to negate that steadfast and/or engage detachment and regimental unit at the same time to cut down on that steadfast situation. The tactic of just chasing the detachments has just had its viability reduced in some respects.