Detachment Steadfast

[Mr Ogre]

If the parent unit is steadfast in a lost combat, then so are it's detachments. Not seeing the big problem here?

[DaemonReign]

If the parent unit is steadfast in a lost combat, then so are it's detachments. Not seeing the big problem here?

Agreed. Basically. But this leads to some situations that some people are having a hard time accepting:
1 - If the Detachment's Combat(s) are resolved before the Regimental Unit, then Steadfast has not yet occured so they won't be Steadfast.
2 - The Regimental Unit may be Steadfast vs One Opponant, while the Detachmetnt(s) are in combat with a unit that would have been Steadfast against the Regimental Unit.
3 - The Regimental Unit may be Steadfast, passing Steadfast over to a Detachment that has more than half of its models inside a Forrest.

But I agree, Mr Ogre, as far as RAW is concerned there's little room for arguing any other resolution - and thus the one you describe has got to be concidered 'official Rules' until an Errata comes along at least.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I think I'm convinced by this point, for the sake of my sanity if nothing else, to treat it as follows:

The detachment is Steadfast if the parent unit would be Steadfast if it were involved in the same combat as the detachment. All other factors affecting the parent unit (e.g. being in a forest) apply per the parent's actual location.

This is really making my brain hurt though. Should the detachment be steadfast if it is in a forest and the parent isn't? I think not but you could argue it the other way.

[DaemonReign]

The detachment is Steadfast if the parent unit would be Steadfast if it were involved in the same combat as the detachment. All other factors affecting the parent unit (e.g. being in a forest) apply per the parent's actual location.

That's reasonable.
I agree it's what the rule ought to be. Or rather, it could have been the intent.
It's an excellent contender for a Houserule pending an Errata.
Some abuse-contingency in being able to keep your Regimental out of combat while your smaller Detachment effectively become Stubborn, though.
I mean: Let's just be clear about it being a Houserule. It's got nothing to do with RAW (where I think me, Yabbadabba and EDMM are venturing much closer to what's actually written).

This is really making my brain hurt though.

It ought to hurt the brain of any thinking organism that opens the new Empire book. *lol*

EDIT
That's it.. I'm done. I've spent enough time and effort on this bloody catastrophy of rules-design. I swear to god, if I was a designer and let something like this slip into an Army book like Empire I'd seriously concider ritual suicide Japaneese style.. My god..
Anyway, seeing as RAW leads to silliness I'm just gonna settle for playing this bit in which-ever fashion the Empire player in our group wants to play it. I'm pretty certain he's not gonna abuse that right either way.

My involvement in this thread was just a futile attempt to actually reach a RAW conclusion.
This one needs an Errata, badly, no-matter which 'solution' you're personally in favor of.

[vinush]

The ruling I'm going with in my group is that I count the number of ranks of the parent unit (if it's larger than the detachment) for the purposes of working out steadfast. I discussed it last night, and that's what we decided.

It's a bit of a moot point though as I hardly ever use detachments due to the size of the games we play.

THE \/ince

[yabbadabba]

I think you are over reacting a little there DaemonReign, we are talking really fine detail here, real nitpicking. Its not that bad. The examination has been indepth and possibly way over the top. Nothing that has been discussed has really changed my thoughts on the subject and, I am not claiming any superiority of knowledge or wisdom here, but until an FAQ turns up I think the Steadfast adoption rule for me is quite straight forward:

Detachments can only be Steadfast if involved with the same combat as the parent unit, if that parent unit counts as being Steadfast.
Detachments in Forests are never Steadfast, even if the parent unit is, unless the detachment is Stubborn for any reason.
A Detachment outside of a building, with a parent unit within it, is considered to be Steadfast if the parent unit is Steadfast

For me there is nothing outside of RAW and it is also within the bounds of RAI. If I have missed something, let me know. Cheers for the discussion chaps, especially DaemonReign.

[Jumbo]

To be steadfast you must have more ranks than YOUR enemy. A parent unit outside a combat will not have an enemy to have more ranks than, thus, the detachment is only steadfast if the parent unit is in combat (against something that it has more ranks than).

[yabbadabba]

To be steadfast you must have more ranks than YOUR enemy. A parent unit outside a combat will not have an enemy to have more ranks than, thus, the detachment is only steadfast if the parent unit is in combat (against something that it has more ranks than).

Yes mate, that's not the problem when you get down to the nitty gritty. In fact that's the easiest part

[brynolf]

Since I don't have a life, I made a mindmap (or flowchart or whatever it's called) on this issue. The "A" box contains all the relevant sentences in the rules. The "B" boxes are the different ways I have seen people interpret the Steadfast rules according to the given rules. The "C" boxes are the conclusions people have been drawn from the interpretations in the "B" boxes, with regards to the new detachment rules.

IMO, C1 is just non-RAW wishthinking and I think the logic behind C4 is very far fetched. Making C2 and C3 the best candidates for RAW.

Please let me know if it's some rule or interpretation I have missed.

[DaemonReign]

@ Yabbadabba: Thanks for the kind words man. For some reason this issue really stuck with me, became like a Rubrics Cube that I just wanted to solve in a plausible manner (i.e. ANY resolution is fine with me, as long as it's believable by RAW).
I think Your take on this situation is rather a lot like the Empire Player (Brynolf) in our group will ultimately want to play this. The 'issues' I have with it are the following:
- No-where is it mentioned that you need to be in the same Combat - that's a very reasonable assumption though (but still an assumption which is what's driving my nuts!) haha (Jumbo underscores exactly this: Being in 'joint' combat is not part of the mechanic for determining Steadfast.)
- If a Detachment in a Forrest can't be Steadfast (like you say) then we're not passing Steadfast over by the same process of the other Special Rules. We're giving Steadfast a conditional status that doesn't rhyme with how Stubborn, Stupidity, or the other 'traits' are passed over from a Regimental within 3".

You're right however, that the analysis that we did on this issue eventually started to look silly as well. What made me resign was when I caught myself arguing back and forth about the 'duration' of Steadfast, the "To The Start of its Next Combat Turn" stuff - because it just seems that GW would never intentionally create a rule that required that sort of advanced extrapolation for us to resolve it. Which added further misery to my frustration.
My assertion that this is a 'catastrophy' (i.e. veritable 'brain-fart') in terms of rules-design springs from exactly that: A stern adherence to Rules As Written leads into 'insanity' (as I believe Lord Inquisitor hinted).

@ Vinush - For once I am almost jealous about those general game sizes you refer to. I can see that in games of ~1-2k interpretations like mine or Yabba's become close to meaningless, while the very 'straight foward' counting of ranks at all times that you've gone for perhaps doesn't cause much problem. But I'll have words with anyone claiming that such a resolution wouldn't cause serious issues in games ranging between 5-10k (because yes our group plays that size more often than not these days). At game-sizes like this what you're talking about means, in essence, that Empire gets 'Army Wide Stubborn' - and I'm not actually saying that's necessarily 'broken', but for something having such a profound impact I would personally require more than assumption, more than simplification of a rule where RAW (at the moment) simply makes little to no sense. The whole issue takes on a completely different shape with your suggestion - the small mention of 'Steadfast' bundled together with other Special Rules in the rules for Detachments become a paramount mechanic that (one would have thought) would have warranted a whole Paragraph just for itself (it's tantamount - for example - to finding out about Daemonic Aura Wardsave a few para's down in the description of some exotic special character, only hinted at, not really spelled out).
See what I mean?

Bottom line is that I am pretty much in the same camp as Yabbadabba on this one. The little nuances I would factor in to his conclusion are really nit-picking and getting stuck, perhaps, in a very pedantic way on How certain parts of current RAW is actually worded - like the part about being in the same combat for example.
In the end, in our group we're just gonna let Brynolf decide. The way I see it he just got a new Army Book for his fav-army, and continuing to hammer this subject is just gonna sap the fun out all the new shiny toys he's been getting. I'll be damned if I let this brain-fart of Design ruin the fun for a friend or indeed, the rest of our group. It's just not worth it.

EDIT
*sigh*
.. Nice flow-chart.. This bs is taking waaaay too much time away from our Painting isn't it...
I think you covered most of the bases here. In the spirit of keeping things 'scientific' however, I would remove the sentence about "Since Detachments cause Panic Tests now they would be crap otherwise" as this is not pertinent to the rules and simply a 'political' (or opinion-based) stance you've no doubt picked up while discussing this with fervent Empire players.
I don't buy for one second that Detachments are crap in Cruddace's book. Even if Steadfast is completely Errata:ed OUT of the equation they'd still be gravy, especially in the kind of games that we usually play.
Secondly, the "end results" of your flowchart does not include the 'last alternative' we discussed (or am I missing it) - we (or at least I) concluded that if Steadfast is assumed to last until resolved again then at least some of the sequencing-issues are taken care of (i.e. some of the sequencing is no longer an issue).

EDIT 2
Bottom line, Brynolf, is pretty much still that I "can live with" Alternative C2, while C3 seems a real stretch.. C4 comes the closest to following every exact word in a pedantic nazi manner..
But yeah, if you're giving me the choice between C2 and C3 the former is the closest to actual rules.

[yabbadabba]

@Brynwolf and DaemonReign - best thig to do at this point is to let you guys play and let us know how it goes.

[LiddellHart]

My vote is up for B2 and C3.

Upon reading the rules on steadfast in BRB I find the second normal print paragraph very clear: "a unit is considered steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy". Nothing more, nothing less.

If've seen before that the bold paragraphs make things confusing, if given equal weight as the normal print paragraphs. IMO the bold sentences give a sort of summary for easy reference, but the rules are always explained in full in normal print (or should be ). B2 seems the only logical conclusion with this in mind.

As regiments are (under said circumstances) continously steadfast (following the above line) the detachments are then also continously steadfast, whether they are in combat or not.
I doubt if it was meant to apply when parents and detachments are in different combats, but hey, until it is clarified it is the best we have.

[brynolf]

In the end, in our group we're just gonna let Brynolf decide. The way I see it he just got a new Army Book for his fav-army, and continuing to hammer this subject is just gonna sap the fun out all the new shiny toys he's been getting. I'll be damned if I let this brain-fart of Design ruin the fun for a friend or indeed, the rest of our group. It's just not worth it.

I'm basically advocating a less powerful variant than you, so I guess you guys won't have a problem with it anyway =)

I think you covered most of the bases here. In the spirit of keeping things 'scientific' however, I would remove the sentence about "Since Detachments cause Panic Tests now they would be crap otherwise" as this is not pertinent to the rules and simply a 'political' (or opinion-based) stance you've no doubt picked up while discussing this with fervent Empire players.
I don't buy for one second that Detachments are crap in Cruddace's book. Even if Steadfast is completely Errata:ed OUT of the equation they'd still be gravy, especially in the kind of games that we usually play.

Yeah, I included it because there really are no "hard" arguments for C1. It shouldn't really be there, I agree.

Secondly, the "end results" of your flowchart does not include the 'last alternative' we discussed (or am I missing it) - we (or at least I) concluded that if Steadfast is assumed to last until resolved again then at least some of the sequencing-issues are taken care of (i.e. some of the sequencing is no longer an issue).

That's B3 -> C4. You're right I didn't mention anything about the "side-effects" of the different conclusions like sequencing, woods, buildings and other pros and cons.

@Brynwolf and DaemonReign - best thig to do at this point is to let you guys play and let us know how it goes.

Yeah, definitely. This is all just theory of course until we have actually tried out the new book in the first place.

[DaemonReign]

... At this point I'd be fine with playing it like LiddleHart says too. I just want to point that out.
You decide Brynolf! This is not me being childish saying 'whatever but I'm really right' it's more a case of us having taken the road of 'strict RAW' and we've seen where it leads, more or less. There's No good answer here that can't be argued back and forth for all eternity - and as long as you don't want to give Empire 'Army Wide Stubborn' I guess should just simply not complain.

But - and just nitpicking a little - why do I see mention of "Detachment's being Steadfast even if not in combat" (thanks to the Parent being in combat and being Steadfast).
May I remind us all again that Steadfast only effect Break Tests. Saying that something is Steadfast "outside of Combat" is an empty gesture.
Which doesn't change anything, I just think it helps other readers if we keep our terminology straight.

@ Yabba: Yeah that's the 'truth' of the Day I reckon.
Now I'm gonna tear myself away from the Keyboard and get some 'real' hobby-stuff done.

[T10]

I think I'm convinced by this point, for the sake of my sanity if nothing else, to treat it as follows:

The detachment is Steadfast if the parent unit would be Steadfast if it were involved in the same combat as the detachment. All other factors affecting the parent unit (e.g. being in a forest) apply per the parent's actual location.

This is really making my brain hurt though. Should the detachment be steadfast if it is in a forest and the parent isn't? I think not but you could argue it the other way.

Seems a reasonable way to resolve it, though there are plenty of issues that seem weird one way or another when the either the Regimental unit or Detachment unit cannot be/is always Steadfast.

The one situation where this is all entirely clear is if both units are involved in the same combat...

[DaemonReign]

The one situation where this is all entirely clear is if both units are involved in the same combat...

Yeah perhaps it's best to narrow this issue down to what we can resolve without creating further conflicts [of rules].
If Regimental and Detachment must be in the same combat we do away with almost every contradiction people have been able to think of it.
It might really be the best solution we'll ever reach without an Errata.
... Catastrophy ...

[Souppilgrim]

That graph is nice, but it boils down to A1 or A2 ruling. Raw A1 the parent has to lose combat (and have more ranks) and then the detachment is steadfast regardless of any other situation ie forest. When you look at it from a spirit of the rules position, this is terrible. It makes the rule pretty useless in most situations, and just clunky. If A2 overrules A1 then I think C1 applies.

[yabbadabba]

and then the detachment is steadfast regardless of any other situation ie forest.

I don't agree with that, because the BRB trumps the army book in this case unless the detachment fulfills one of the requirements for steadfast in the BRB.

[DaemonReign]

I don't agree with that, because the BRB trumps the army book in this case unless the detachment fulfills one of the requirements for steadfast in the BRB.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Yabba, but at the same time... *meh* - From the way that 'Steadfast' is simply listed along with all the other 'Special Rules' that can be shared between Regimental and Detachment one could easily conclude that it is simply passed over if the Regimental lives up to the requirements of Steadfast (and hence completely regardless of the situation for the Detachment).
After all, one way or another, what Cruddace 'intended' might be shrouded in mystery but he did obviously intend for Detachments to have a chance to become Steadfast in situation where any other unit certainly wouldn't be Steadfast - so why should the bit about Forrests really be any different?

Seeing some new posts pop up in this thread I just spent a little while looking over that flow-chart Brynolf made once more. All I can say is: With some perspective I think this is all even more of a mess than I thought a few days ago. Just look at us posting in this thread:
We can't get a coherent agreement on even the premises (the first first steps of the flowchart), let alone where the conclusion should be arriving.
Either and All possible interpretations and conclusions either redefines what Steadfast is or how it works.

The only solution that doesn't do this, to use Souppilgrim's expression, becomes 'clunky' and doesn't seem like a reasonable candidate for what Cruddace could have possibly intended.

However, mechanically speaking I just can't see how you could be Steadfast before having resolved this Turn's Combat - because there's just no way of knowing whether or not you'll still be Steadfast when it's time to take your Break Test. So focusing squarely on that "Put Simply.." sentence still seems like selective reading in the extreme.

Anyhow, last thing I heard from Brynolf the 'version' he favors was pretty much acceptable - and above all a lot more simple and straightforward compared to mine.

I guess we shouldn't get into the subject of the usefullness of these different interpretations, but Souppilgrim describes some of them as pretty much circumstantial and meaningless.. and hey maybe they're supposed to be!. After all, if you want Stubborn Detachments just take Archers for Regimental and Stick them in a Forrest, or take Great Swords for Regimental and stick them.. well anywhere you like.

The idea that Empire would effectively get Army Wide Stubborn by the token of a breif and wholly unexplained 'notation' (Steadfast mentioned in a list of Special Rules) that requires a redefinition out-side of actual rules-texts in order to work is just a no-go for me - at least without a concisely written 'cover-all-loose-ends' Errata.

[Souppilgrim]

I don't agree with that, because the BRB trumps the army book in this case unless the detachment fulfills one of the requirements for steadfast in the BRB.

That seems like a huge stretch. If you use that definition of the BRB trumping the army book, you are going to run into a lot of special rules that simply cease to exist. The BRB could trump the army books on combat resolution, so say goodbye to strength in numbers. It also renders the entire detachment special rule as completely useless. In the most straightforward example of steadfast sharing: Parent and detachment fighting same unit---->BRB says you need more ranks, therefore it ignores the steadfast the parent gave it. That's clearly wrong.

I honestly believe the two most extreme examples can be argued with RAW. 1. Parent has more ranks even if it isn't fighting anyone because BRB p54 you only need more ranks than the enemy. That means you can be steadfast without even being in combat. Which enemy you ask? Take your pick, if you outnumber them, you are steadfast, even if they are 2 feet away. Or extreme example on the other side of the coin: You are steadfast for the duration of your break test. Therefore the parent unit must lose a combat, then it passes it's steadfast to the detachment, however by the time the detachment takes a break test the parent is no longer steadfast because it isn't currently taking a break test. Therefore detachments (in effect) will never enjoy the steadfast sharing rule.