Detachment Steadfast

[DaemonReign]

The tactic of just chasing the detachments has just had its viability reduced in some respects.

True. And I am personally all for it. Without having tried it on I have to say I think the New Empire book deals with Detachment a lot better compared to the previous one. And I mean that both in terms of them actually getting a little 'buff' and also that these new rules lend themselves better to a dynamic game.

I really didn't like how charging the Detachments used to be such a no-brainer, as was the case before. Now it's much more of an open question, which is great (!) despite all the wrinkled foreheads over this Steadfast-bit.

[Lord Inquisitor]

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.

Far more common is "we never even thought of that!" This seems like one of those situations where it's easy to get trapped into thinking about detachments in a multiple combat with their parent unit involved.

[jtrowell]

I think that RAI, there are only 2 interpretations that make sense:

1- the detachment use the number of ranks of the regiment to count for steadfast (easy to do, no conflict possible)

or

2- the detachment is only steadfast if it is in the same fight as its regiment and the regiment is steadfast

If the second one was intented, then they forgot to specify a restriction of the detachment being in the same combat.

For this reason, I'm currently thinking that the 1st solution is the best one pending a FAQ/errata

Other interpreatations are of course possible, but all that I can think of imply some sort of strange situations or conflicts like the ones already exposed in this thread.

[DaemonReign]

I think that RAI, there are only 2 interpretations that make sense:

1- the detachment use the number of ranks of the regiment to count for steadfast (easy to do, no conflict possible)

or

2- the detachment is only steadfast if it is in the same fight as its regiment and the regiment is steadfast

If the second one was intented, then they forgot to specify a restriction of the detachment being in the same combat.

For this reason, I'm currently thinking that the 1st solution is the best one pending a FAQ/errata

Other interpreatations are of course possible, but all that I can think of imply some sort of strange situations or conflicts like the ones already exposed in this thread.

First of all, let me be overly clear (again) that I think this one will only be resolved with an Officla FAQ. If even that...

I'd say Option 2 is the closest you come to how I still interpret the situation:
- Steadfast occurs when a unit is Defeated in combat but has more ranks than the opponant.
(From this I gather that Steadfast is passed over in the combat phase each turn, only place possible that it can ever come up)
- It passes over to the Detachment regardless of all other factors - if it has Occured previously in the Combat Turn - just like the other 'simpler' Special Rules with which Steadfast has carelessly been bundled in.

It's a little more complex, but whatever shredds of actual RAW wording we have to go by, and as reasonable as Option 1 sounds in gameflow-terms, it's just 'us being reasonable'..
That's as far as I've come. And again: FAQ dammit.

[brynolf]

I think that RAI, there are only 2 interpretations that make sense:

1- the detachment use the number of ranks of the regiment to count for steadfast (easy to do, no conflict possible)

or

2- the detachment is only steadfast if it is in the same fight as its regiment and the regiment is steadfast

If the second one was intented, then they forgot to specify a restriction of the detachment being in the same combat.

For this reason, I'm currently thinking that the 1st solution is the best one pending a FAQ/errata

Other interpreatations are of course possible, but all that I can think of imply some sort of strange situations or conflicts like the ones already exposed in this thread.

This is how I see it as well. Any other interpretation would open up some very very wonky situations.
Parents hiding in buildings?
Parents having to fight their enemy (AND LOOSE?) prior to the detachment fighting theirs?
Parent 5 ranks deep fighting an enemy 4 ranks deep, while the detachment fights another enemy 10 ranks deep?

No, the two interpretations above are the only ones that could work.

[DaemonReign]

Parents hiding in buildings?

Irrelevant as it has nothing to do with Steadfast.
But yes, they'd be Stubborn (just as Archers in a Forrest) and any Detachment within 3" would be Stubborn as well. It's 'another' example of a Special Rule being given from Parent to Detachment.
.. except Steadfast is not actually listed with the Special Rules.

Parents having to fight their enemy (AND LOOSE?) prior to the detachment fighting theirs?

Sequencing, yes. There is precedence for issues being solved like that, when they deal with items that pop in both Your and the Opponant's Phase. "The Player Who's Turn it is May Decide". The FAQ seems full of stuff like that really.
And so I understand if you think it's overly complex, but I don't think a little sequencing in Close Combat will be game-ruining, and in any case not worth ignoring what little RAW we have on how to solve this issue (Steadfast from Parent to Detachment). I Admit, saying that the Regiment has to fight in the same combat as the Detachment would work (!) - except it isn't bloody well written anywhere.

All it says is that a "Unit that is DEFEATED in combat.. rules-rules this-that Steadfast.."

So yes Sequencing. That's not an argumant against what I am saying, it's simply a consequence of following RAW (or rather, what little RAW we have on this matter - which is the whole problem!!)

Parent 5 ranks deep fighting an enemy 4 ranks deep, while the detachment fights another enemy 10 ranks deep?

It might seem counter-intuitive, I admit that, but indeed the 'consequence' of following logic - as far as I can see it - would indeed be that the Detachment is Steadfast in this situation (if the 5 rank deep parent loses combat and passes a Steadfast check, of course).

What exactly is the issue with this?
Too powerfull? - Well, not as Powerfull as saying that Any Detachment can effectively be Stubborn permanently as long as the Parent outranks the enemy (i.e. the Parent can even confer Steadfast when it is Not In Combat).
I have talked to people playing games with those rules, so yes, you're not the only one questioning this - but yeah the problem is there is no way to calculate Steadfast (hence it cannot exist) outside of combat.
And once you do calculate Steadfast, it's done in a certain way - a way that doesn't take anything else into account than the combat in question.
The Detachment Rule is superimposed on this, but says nothing of changing the way Steadfast works except that it is passed on to the Detachment should it occur (just like all the other Special Rules - and again, Steadfast is not a Special Rule in that sense, it's not even listed as one of them.. Stubborn is, so Stubborn is relatively simple even though it leads to some silly situations as well, as we have discussed..

No, the two interpretations above are the only ones that could work.

I really don't think this situation is helped by being categorical man.. *lol*
Until there is an actual FAQ I would prefer to look at this as coldly as possible (you need to strip away what is 'reasonable', 'easy to remember', 'makes sense', 'probably was intended' etcetera).
All we know is that Steadfast is passed over, in a bundle with a bunch of other bona fide Special Rules.
We know what Steadfast is.
Henceforth, if a Parent Unit becomes Steadfast any Detachment fighting a subsequent combat in the same turn also benefits from the effect of Steadfast.
With THIS we at least have something that doesn't blatantly 'invent' new mechanics (The un-engaged Regimental Unit passing off Steadfast because it has more ranks than the enemy which the Detachment is fighting).
And almost as importantly, it isn't completely abusable and probably quite broken - in so many words - because you're NOT effectively making Detachments Stubborn by buying extra ranks for your Regimental Units and keeping them out of combat.

But yeah Option 2 is fine, for me - but I would say that the Regiment and Detachment do not need to actually be in the same combat. Because that is not covered by a rule. The LIMITATION (instead) is that you need to be within 3" of the Parent Unit. See?

Bottom line, again and again, this one needs an FAQ.

@ Everyone Except Brynolf
We're old gaming buddies.. Just in case anyone thought I was being overly carefull to respond. This is an issue our group needs to solve, as I reckon alot of other players need solving too..

EDIT
I have edited this post to fix some spelling-errors that made the text difficult to follow...

[brynolf]

Irrelevant as it has nothing to do with Steadfast.

On the contrary. Garrisoning a building makes you steadfast, not stubborn. Check the book on the table on your right

Sequencing, yes. There is precedence for issues being solved like that, when they deal with items that pop in both Your and the Opponant's Phase. "The Player Who's Turn it is May Decide". The FAQ seems full of stuff like that really.
And so I understand if you think it's overly complex, but I don't think a little sequencing in Close Combat will be game-ruining

Not quite game ruining, but it certainly goes in that direction and IMO it should be avoided whenever possible.

and in any case not worth ignoring what little RAW we have on how to solve this issue (Steadfast from Parent to Detachment). I Admit, saying that the Regiment has to fight in the same combat as the Detachment would work (!) - except it isn't bloody well written anywhere.

Yes, that interpretation is probably the best compromise between RAW and playability. And it doesn't open up for cheesy abuse of detachments.

All it says is that a "Unit that is DEFEATED in combat.. rules-rules this-that Steadfast.."
So yes Sequencing. That's not an argumant against what I am saying, it's simply a consequence of following RAW (or rather, what little RAW we have on this matter - which is the whole problem!!)

Well, I'm not sure on the consensus on the definition of Steadfast, but it can be interpreted that you don't have to lose to "gain" steadfast; having more ranks is enough (but on the other hand, those ranks may be fewer after you fought).

It might seem counter-intuitive, I admit that, but indeed the 'consequence' of following logic - as far as I can see it - would indeed be that the Detachment is Steadfast in this situation (if the 5 rank deep parent loses combat and passes a Steadfast check, of course).

Madness as a consequence of following logic is generally known as a paradox and should be avoided.

What exactly is the issue with this?
Too powerfull? - Well, not as Powerfull as saying that Any Detachment can effectively be Stubborn permanently as long as the Parent outranks the enemy (i.e. the Parent can even confer Steadfast when it is Not In Combat).

No, the issue is that it doesn't make any sense. Or at least potentially. It is awful rules design.

I have talked to people playing games with those rules, so yes, you're not the only one questioning this - but yeah the problem is there is no way to calculate Steadfast (hence it cannot exist) outside of combat.
And once you do calculate Steadfast, it's done in a certain way - a way that doesn't take anything else into account than the combat in question.
The Detachment Rule is superimposed on this, but says nothing of changing the way Steadfast works except that it is passed on to the Detachment should it occur (just like all the other Special Rules - and again, Steadfast is not a Special Rule in that sense, it's not even listed as one of them.. Stubborn is, so Stubborn is relatively simple even though it leads to some silly situations as well, as we have discussed..

The Stubborn thing is not an issue (even if it can be abused). And yes, the interpretation that you should count the ranks of the parent unit to calculate a detachment's steadfast status is not RAW. Hence "both parent and detachment must be in the same combat" being the pest interpretation. Probably.

But yeah Option 2 is fine, for me - but I would say that the Regiment and Detachment do not need to actually be in the same combat. Because that is not covered by a rule. The LIMITATION (instead) is that you need to be within 3" of the Parent Unit. See?

With that premise, it is no longer "option 2", though. I'll give you that your solution might be the most RAW, but it is also the most unplayable. Since I'm the empire player in our group, I'll be happy to nerf myself by only using "option 2" to make the game flow and to keep us from going insane.

Bottom line, again and again, this one needs an FAQ.

Very much so. But while we're waiting, further discussion on this topic is of course encouraged.

[DaemonReign]

With that premise, it is no longer "option 2", though. I'll give you that your solution might be the most RAW, but it is also the most unplayable. Since I'm the empire player in our group, I'll be happy to nerf myself by only using "option 2" to make the game flow and to keep us from going insane.

Sure it is Option 2, just take away the arbitrary 'extra rules' you're inventing by restricting it all to 'the same' combat.
Like you say: It's your loss. As the Daemon Player in our group I'd certainly let you use it in two different combats though - and if that is the only thing you want to drop from my reasoning, then Fine.

I'll grant everyone that there's likely to be a FAQ on this one.. hehe And sometimes those FAQ answers can be really *funny* too so this will be interesting.

About Buildings:
Well I only looked up if Skirmishers are Stubborn or Steadfast if they are in a Forrest, turns out they are indeed Stubborn (phew.. haha)
If it's correct that you are Steadfast in Buildings (wtf?!) then yeah that debalances the 'logic' of what we've come up with so far.. Because now Steadfast is actually being 'granted' in the same manner as any Special Rule, it is no longer only 'mentioned' together with them.

So yeah that's just dandy.. Damn it.

But still, all it means is simply that in the Instance of Buildings being occupied, Steadfast really has the same mechanics as Stubborn as far as Break Tests are concerned. Because buildings don't mention that you May benefit from Something that you Get (like the Detachment rule does) but instead it flat out gives you a Mechanic superimposed on Whatever is going on. That's a key difference. And in game terms it simply means that if a Detachment is within 3" of a Regimental unit inside a building the Detachment is Steadfast (When it is defeated in combat).

But the inconcistency of them Not writing Stubborn as the Special Rule both for Buildings and Forrests&Skirmishers is really quite irritating. That's for sure.

[Chicago Slim]

No offense, DaemonReign, but one of the things I've learned to look at, in trying to anticipate how GW will FAQ things, comes down to how easy the rules logic is to explain.

The logic behind jtrowell's argument is easily and neatly summed up in a couple dozen words.

The logic of your argument requires hundreds of words, and relies upon several painstakingly careful dependencies.


Just sayin', if anyone's looking for a wager, my money's on GW eventually FAQ'ing this the way jtrowel's described (i.e., Detachments within 3" of their Regimental can choose to use the Regimental's ranks when determining if the Detachment can claim Steadfast). That's certainly how we'll be playing it here (and it's my housemate who's the Empire player... As he said just tonight, "This turns Detachments from the thing I never bring, because it's easy points given up to my opponent, into the thing I often bring, because it's useful.")

My broader analysis is that Detachments in 7th ed. were glass hammers: If they got their super-flanking on, they'd rip you apart. The introduction of Steadfast in 8th ed. nerfed them heavily, since many things don't much care now if they get a handful of moderately decent attacks into their flanks (even if they Disrupt, they didn't break Steadfast...) The new book makes Detachments less dangerous than they were in 7th (they just don't deliver the kind of nearly-auto-breaking punch they did in 7th), but also a lot sturdier (they don't nearly auto-crumble when charged by any decent opponent...)

[DaemonReign]

No offense taken! Glad you'd add your two cents!

I don't think my interpretation of this requires even One word beyond the rules already given in the BrB and the Empire Book. That's the whole point: My 'hundreds' of words comes from following the logic of 'what might happen' if you follow RAW (and again I admit, we have close to nothing to go on here).

As for 'what GW might decide to write in a FAQ':

Well this is yet again not really relevant here. Neither is the power level, whether 'deserved' or not.. I think your Empire friend will be bringing Detachments under the new rules completely regardless of the final outcome of this Steadfast-business. Detachment are hugely better in this new Empire Book. They are hugely better regardless, but exactly because of that I might argue that 'being able to buy Stubborn by getting extra ranks and staying out of combat' is opening the door to alot of crap (conga-line crap etcetera). Practically the entire line of an Empire Army would be Stubborn, period.
And again this is not relevant.

I mean don't misinterpret this - you do have a point about it being 'simple', I am not dismissing the sentiment, it's just that it's not a Rule.
What I think I have shown with my hundreds of words, is that there is indeed A Way to apply the Detachment rule to Steadfast without having to arbitrarily invent a new mechanic ("counting ranks on parent unit for determining steadfast" is a new mechanic, where-as what I am arguing for simply follows Sequence from A-B-Z..
Or at least that is my attempt..

So aside of Your Group deciding to simplify into something completely different (that, I admit, may have been Intended), and aside of how good you are at guessing how GW will respond to a FAQ, and even aside of the fact that a lot of Empire players are probably happy to [effectively] get cheap Stubborn Detachments and Core points at the same time - aside of all this;
You are also not finding any Errors in my interpretaion of RAW, then?
I mean 'clinical errors', hehe,

As an aside:
While I agree that Detachments were *meh* (sort of) in 7th Ed, and that this was further amplified by 8th Edition - I disagree pretty strongly with what you say about the New Empire Book..
Detachments are filthy good, already (without the Broken and Invented 'simplification' your group has opted to play with) - they are Now better than they have ever been before. The Detachment rules are the single biggest reason for the across-the-board pointhike on rank and file stuff.
That is my sincere belief.
And I'd like to add that I look forward to facing off against 8th Ed Empire (!), and if a FAQ (or anyone else) proves my 'logic' incorrect then I shan't bemoan Empire players that further Boost.
It'd be the day of 'Oh, so Cruddance really meant That.. Ok.. Another challange on the path of spilling blood for the blood god, bring it on!!'
But until that happens, I simply think that if there actually is a RAW solution that Works if you think about it - then hey, that's what we gotta use until something better comes along.
I would love to "simplify" that Mortiis Engine crap. Keeping track of what turn it is and adding to dice-rolls and yadayada.. Too bad they are clearly written and explained in that instance.. *hehe*

[shakedown47]

Of course the simplest solution of all, which if I'm not mistaken hasn't been mentioned here so far, is for GW to simply forego any notion of an FAQ on the matter and instead use the mighty power of the Errata to handily remove "Steadfast" from the description in the book. In all honesty, I think an errata would work far better than an FAQ to clear up the matter, by again either removing the word "Steadfast" from the description or adding an entirely new rule regarding Ld tests for detachments whose parent units are steadfast. As of right now, playing all of the various situations RAW will result in very clunky and "gamey" mechanics, while playing it any number of different RAI ways will require the spontaneous and arbitrary application (not to mention invention!) of previously non-existant rules.

Errata it, GW.

[DaemonReign]

+1 to that

That was very well put. I wish I could be so 'to the point'. haha

After you've come to the inevitable conclusion you describe, it becomes down for each and everyone to decide for themselves how to play it. Like it's written, or like we think they might have meant to write it.

And yes, removing Steadfast from the list of applicable bonuses for Detachments would probably be the best solution [in the end]. I certainly agree with that too.

And I personally rather like that "gamey" and wierd way in which really 'bizare' (i.e. 'new') situations might arise because of this rule, but I guess that's rather obvious! haha

[Lord Solar Plexus]

I really don't see the issue here. Steadfast is contingent on being in combat, just like every other rule is contingent on being cast, brought about by the presence of a character and so on.

A detachment is steadfast when its parent is in a combat. It loses SF if the majority of its models are in a wood - you lose SF there regardless of the source.

[DaemonReign]

A detachment is steadfast when its parent is in a combat.

So IN combat, that's it?
I assume you mean that the Detachment gets to count the ranks of the Parent Unit if both are in combat (not necessarily the same combat, though) - if the parent unit's ranks are more than its enemy (or the Detachment's enemy, which one is it?) the Detachment is Steadfast.
Yes?

This is simple, but you'd still need to invent new Rules to really support it (i.e. HouseRule) - I'm not trying to be piss you off I'm just saying that's what it is.

Because we can follow 'When a defeated unit in combat has more ranks...' (etcetera) in a logical strain that results in a couple of fairly unlikely (but none the less realistic) 'weird' scenarios appearing on the table, sure, it could be simpler (like for example what you suggest) - but I read your comment almost as saying that you are getting your 'version' from the actual Rules, and in that case I'd be thrilled to understand how you came to that conclusion.

It loses SF if the majority of its models are in a wood - you lose SF there regardless of the source.

Granted. That one could be debated either ways. I admit that now that you mention it. I'll have to read those rules again with this in mind though.
The assumption that you lose Steadfast "regardless of the source" is the important part. You write it out in a rather certain way, but surely it's not actually written like That in the BrB. (?)
Again, unless I am mistaken, this is also on the verge of being 'invention'.. All though it's less clear-cut, perhaps, compared to the On-Topic Rules Question.

[yabbadabba]

For me I think the rules are quite clear and while there might be illogical situation that are thrown up, GW games are not 100% logical, so this doesn't cause too many issues for me.

Also, the change in detachments means, for me, we will probably see less of them. They are less useful in the offence so will probably apear more in defensive armies. Not exclusively, but mostly.

[EDMM]

I don't think it will have anything to do with "counting ranks."

Does the parent unit have Hatred? The detachment has Hatred.

Does the parent unit suffer from Stupidity? So does the detachment.

Is the parent unit Steadfast? So is the detachment.

It will work like thus:
1. Both the parent unit and detachment must be engaged in combat - a unit is only steadfast in combat;
2. The detachment must be within 3" or the parent unit - detachment rules; and
3. The parent unit must be steadfast - the parent unit must have more ranks than the enemies it is engaged with.

Those are the only requirements. You can have the detachment in a separate combat. If your 2 rank parent unit is in a combat with a 1 rank enemy, your detachment within 3" are also steadfast even against an enemy with 60 ranks.

[yabbadabba]

Don't forget the other reason for including steadfast is so that your detachments don't bugger off needing a double 1 while your parent unit is on an 8 in the same combat.

[brynolf]

About Buildings:
Well I only looked up if Skirmishers are Stubborn or Steadfast if they are in a Forrest, turns out they are indeed Stubborn (phew.. haha)
If it's correct that you are Steadfast in Buildings (wtf?!) then yeah that debalances the 'logic' of what we've come up with so far.. Because now Steadfast is actually being 'granted' in the same manner as any Special Rule, it is no longer only 'mentioned' together with them.

Are we reading different pages here? BRB page 129, under "defender loses" clearly states that "units garrisoning buildings are always considered steadfast".

Anyway, we need to reach a consensus on exactly how Steadfast is defined to be able to further debate this detachment issue. You are basing your logic on the assumption that the steadfast rule only "appears" when you fight and lose.

...and the BRB FAQ actually comes to the rescue here... Check it out: We are supposed to:

Page 54: Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”

And the definition of steadfast on page 54 then actually becomes quite clear: "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy".

This still leaves room for the interpretation that the parent and detachment don't have to be in the same combat. And there still is a bit of "sequencing" left; ie if the parent fights first, it may lose its steadfast status by:
a. Losing enough models in the combat.
b. Breaking and running off, effectively losing Steadfast due to no longer being in combat.
c. WINNING and breaking the enemy, effectively losing Steadfast due to no longer being in combat.

It leaves us with a few ugly situations (and the 1rank parent vs 2rank enemy + 1rank detach vs 20rank enemy is still in), but it's better than the previous assumption that the parent first have to lose to obtain steadfast.

This is the interpretation closest to RAW, and it actually makes at least some sense. But I still think "options 1 & 2" would be more elegant rules design, and I hope the FAQ will realise this too when it comes out.

EDIT: Sorry, I misread the FAQ. It still says you have to lose to use steadfast. But still that is contradicted by the "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy"... So Steadfast is NOT clearly defined. Way to go, Ward! Anyway, the only way to keep DemonReign et al's version of "option 2" (let's call it "option 3") sane is if Steadfast doesn't require the unit to lose to get it.

[brynolf]

1. Both the parent unit and detachment must be engaged in combat - a unit is only steadfast in combat;

Unless it's in a building, it seems. BRB page 129. This might have to be errata:d though. The building rules are not consistant with forest rules. You are Steadfast in a building, but skirmishers in forests are not Steadfast, they are Stubborn. It would make more sense if garrisoning a building would make you Stubborn instead.

[brynolf]

(Copied from a similar discussion over att W-E):

Steadfast is not clearly defined in the BRB. What it says is this:

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.”

The above is not a criterium for being steadfast. It just explains how Steadfast works if you have it. The criterium for getting Steadfast is this:

Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.

I interpret this as "you don't have to lose the combat to be Steadfast, but if you do, and if you are, you use your unmodified Ld."

This makes "option 3" above easier to swallow IMO. I'd still prefer 1 or 2 though. But RAW, option 3 is probably the one to use.

---

This is how I see it. It can still be argued that you have to lose to be Steadfast. If you're in that camp however, I'd like you to tell me how long does Steadfast last? You're saying it doesn't "start" until the very moment you make your Break test. But by that logic it should cease right after you rolled. That means you are no longer Steadfast when it is time for the Detachment to roll. Regardless if the detachment fights before or after the Parent, it won't be Steadfast since the Parent only has the rule at the exact moment it is making its break test.

Sense not made.