Empire 8th Army Book in Comparison to other 8th Edition Army Books

[Askari]

If you manage to wipe out the enemy maybe, but otherwise the survivors will simply strike back.

I think he meant that with ASF or I10 at least you'll get the benefit of the Warrior Priest before he inevitably dies.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Thirdly, some rules gurus have raised a pretty cogent point about HtL not transferring to detachments unless they too have a character.

I've heard this mentioned offhand somewhere else. What's the gist of this argument because it seems utterly ridiculous? The Detachment rules specifically state that HtL is one of the transferred rules.

[The bearded one]

I think he meant that with ASF or I10 at least you'll get the benefit of the Warrior Priest before he inevitably dies.

Ah, true, makes sense.

[Tuttivillus]

I've heard this mentioned offhand somewhere else. What's the gist of this argument because it seems utterly ridiculous? The Detachment rules specifically state that HtL is one of the transferred rules.

LSP said they are rule gurus. I don't know, but for me it's translated into : ppl who read between the lines with omission of the lines themselves

[Montegue]

A Captain doesn't make them strong performers, just better losers.

This line of reasoning sort of drives me nuts. To say that stubborn or Hold the Line are bad abilities because they only function when you lose combat just doesn't follow. Every unit can lose combat. Having the ability to stand there and hold another unit occupied while you shift that combat into your favor by flanking, or having the ability to stand there even in defeat and hold a more powerful unit up for several turns, is a serious amount of power in and of itself.

My hammerers can sink an enemy unit for several rounds of combat, even when the hammerers are getting the worst of it. If I can turn that combat around with support, I'm good to go. The Empire is *really* good at turning combat around, not only because they have some strong support options (detachments, swift cav and monstrous cav,etc), but also because of all the buff synergy their characters can provide.

[The Low King]

This line of reasoning sort of drives me nuts. To say that stubborn or Hold the Line are bad abilities because they only function when you lose combat just doesn't follow. Every unit can lose combat. Having the ability to stand there and hold another unit occupied while you shift that combat into your favor by flanking, or having the ability to stand there even in defeat and hold a more powerful unit up for several turns, is a serious amount of power in and of itself.

My hammerers can sink an enemy unit for several rounds of combat, even when the hammerers are getting the worst of it. If I can turn that combat around with support, I'm good to go. The Empire is *really* good at turning combat around, not only because they have some strong support options (detachments, swift cav and monstrous cav,etc), but also because of all the buff synergy their characters can provide.

I think he means just that a WP and a captain dont go well together.

The point of a WP is to grant hatred wich massively increases damage in the first round of combat. In order to maximise its use you want to take part in as many combats as you can, hopefully killing/routing the enemy in the first round and then moving on to another unit. Failing this you want to do enough damage in the first round that you can slowly win over the next few.

A captain grants that cold blooding thing, wich significantly increases your chances of passing a break test. In order to maximise its use you want a stubborn/steafast unit losing combat every turn to hold up a big nasty unit. You want combat to go on for a long time, or at least until you can get support there.

They contradict slightly.

[Jezbot]

Quite so, and I do see your point.

Cool, quite a nice change to see an internet conversation come to a reasonable conclusion

[Jezbot]

Even though that is how I would play it, you still canot speak certainly about 99% of anything. How do you know that many people play it that way?

The only thing I've learned from reading FAQs is that you absolutely cannot predict how GW will rule on things. Sometimes they'll follow the absolute, literal interpretation of what's there, sometimes they'll explain what they meant, and other times they'll invent a whole new meaning in order to balance a unit. Sometimes you'll get instances of each within the same FAQ.

And in this case, where the actual intent of the 'detachments get steadfast rule' is completely unknown, we can't even sensibly guess how GW will end up ruling on it.

[GodlessM]

If you manage to wipe out the enemy maybe, but otherwise the survivors will simply strike back.

His point is that this is one way in which the Hatred will be used before the Priest gets ganked.

In my experience so far however the Priest doesn't die nearly as easy as people make out.

[Sexiest_hero]

In my experience so far however the Priest doesn't die nearly as easy as people make out.

LIES, He dies as soon as you take out of the box.

[Yowzo]

Even though that is how I would play it, you still canot speak certainly about 99% of anything. How do you know that many people play it that way?

I said around here. Both stores and clubs in my town invariably play it that way since new empire came out.

And there're quite a few empire players around.

Obviously GW can always botch it at the FAQ level, but until then that's how we play it.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

I've heard this mentioned offhand somewhere else. What's the gist of this argument because it seems utterly ridiculous? The Detachment rules specifically state that HtL is one of the transferred rules.

Okay. Promise not to shoot the messenger:

"HtL" = "If a character with this rule is in a unit, this unit benefits from xyz"

Detachment benefits from HtL. -> Detachment benefits from "If a character with this rule is in a unit, this unit benefits from xyz"

Ergo detachment needs a character with this rule. Every character (a WP, WH, everyone) in every detachment has this rule if the parent has it through virtue of being accompanied by a GotE or Captain because it's transferred from the parent to the character in the detachment.

This line of reasoning sort of drives me nuts. To say that stubborn or Hold the Line are bad abilities because they only function when you lose combat just doesn't follow.

Sorry, that was badly phrased. I'm not thinking of it as a bad ability. In fact, it, like the Crown or some other stuff can be useful in any anvil, and an anvil can obviously perform very well if it holds up an enemy for a long time. With an army of stubborn and unbreakables, Ld 9-10 at possibly 18" and re-rolls, possibly at 18" as well I just kind of find it superfluous. There are limits to what one can add, and to what different kinds of players are willing to add to fulfill certain roles. In principle there's nothing wrong if you want to have another level of redundancy. The question, as always, is what we could get in the Captain's stead, and I'm aware that sometimes the answer is "nothing useful".

I said around here. Both stores and clubs in my town invariably play it that way since new empire came out.

And there're quite a few empire players around.

That's fine with me. It's just that I don't like to make an army list based on some assumptions and then find myself in a huge debate at the store prior or, even worse, during a game.

[Montegue]

In so far as Hold the Line is concerned, that's just a silly way to look at the rule. It's very clear that the intent is to have the Detachment of a unit under the command of the guy providing HtL, and that the benefit from it. That's like arguing that they don't share stubborn because they don't have a stubborn character in there with them, and the crown of command makes the character and any unit he's in stubborn.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

In so far as Hold the Line is concerned, that's just a silly way to look at the rule. It's very clear that the intent is to have the Detachment of a unit under the command of the guy providing HtL, and that the benefit from it.

Oh, I think it shows a deep-seated understanding of logic. Put a character in a parent. Your detachment now has the rule that "If a character with this rule...then". It's not necessarily apparent what Mr Crudace wanted. Transferring HtL while requiring the presence of a character would still be a boost.

One problem with this interpretation is that the rule says "is in a unit". Anyways, just saying. I'd prefer to see it FAQ'ed if they have nothing better to do at Nottingham.

That's like arguing that they don't share stubborn because they don't have a stubborn character in there with them, and the crown of command makes the character and any unit he's in stubborn.

Stubborn is phrased completely differently and does not require the presence of a character. It applies and transfers irregardless. Parent doesn't count negative mdifiers, detachment doesn't count negative modifiers.

[Montegue]

If you have to begin an argument with the word "technically" in a gaming environment, you're probably doing it wrong. I see the line of reasoning, but it fails the general sniff test regardless.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Okay. Promise not to shoot the messenger:

"HtL" = "If a character with this rule is in a unit, this unit benefits from xyz"

Detachment benefits from HtL. -> Detachment benefits from "If a character with this rule is in a unit, this unit benefits from xyz"

Ergo detachment needs a character with this rule. Every character (a WP, WH, everyone) in every detachment has this rule if the parent has it through virtue of being accompanied by a GotE or Captain because it's transferred from the parent to the character in the detachment.

I see. Okay, I didn't get the piece in the puzzle that any character not just one with HtL would be required. Clearly not the intent, but logically sound.

[Tuttivillus]

Really? IMO it works otherwise:
Regimental units rule - if a regimental unit has HtL rule (by a presence of either captain or GotE in it) it confers this special rule onto all of their detachments whilst they have at least one model in 3".

I'm sorry, but where that bonkers about necessary presence of another character in detachment to get HtL comes from? Do I have some exceptional copy of the book or just missing something?

[Lord Inquisitor]

The Hold the Line rule is written poorly. What it should say is: "Hold the Line! A unit with this special rule rolls 3D6 for any Break test it is required to take and uses the two lowest scores. This rule is transferred by a character to any unit he joins." What it actually says is "while a character with this special rule is in a unit, the unit blah blah blah". That means the detachment then gets the rule "while a character with this special rule is in a unit" meaning you need a character to "unlock" the rule. Your interpretation is absolutely the right way to play it, it's just a logical loophole from the way the Hold the Line rule is worded.

Given the colossal confusion over how Steadfast should be transferred, it's pretty clear Cruddace didn't really think all of the special rule transferals through.

[yabbadabba]

I can't see any problem with the definition of either rule to be honest. I am beginning to think there is a touch of interpreting RAW through RAI influenced eyes, but thinking its being looked at as RAW.

[Yowzo]

That's fine with me. It's just that I don't like to make an army list based on some assumptions and then find myself in a huge debate at the store prior or, even worse, during a game.

I would be very tempted to walk off a game if the opponent insisted on interpreting the transfer of steadfast in a funny way.