Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the new Empire book a Regimental unit can transfer some special rules to it's detachments. It looks pretty handy, as greatswords can now transfer stubborn to attached missile troops, and one warrior priest in a regimental unit can give hatred to three units (regimental unit plus two detachments).

But one of the 'special rules' transferred is steadfast, with no extra detail given. So what does this mean?

Does it mean that you can use the regimental unit's rank bonus for determining if the detachment has steadfast in any combat it is in (potentially very useful)

Does it mean that if the parent is in combat in a fight in which it has steadfast then detachments in that fight (or possibly any other fight, depending on how you care think about it), are given steadfast as well?

I believe it means that the Detachment may use its parent unit's number of ranks as its own for the purposes of being Steadfast.


Say a detachment of handgunners has a unit of Halberdiers as its parent. The Halberdiers are currently in bus formation and have 7 ranks. The Handgunners are fighting an enemy unit and have just lost. They will count as having 7 ranks for the purposes of calculating Steadfast. So they would be steadfast against enemies with 6 or less ranks.

Grey Templar wrote:I believe it means that the Detachment may use its parent unit's number of ranks as its own for the purposes of being Steadfast.


Say a detachment of handgunners has a unit of Halberdiers as its parent. The Halberdiers are currently in bus formation and have 7 ranks. The Handgunners are fighting an enemy unit and have just lost. They will count as having 7 ranks for the purposes of calculating Steadfast. So they would be steadfast against enemies with 6 or less ranks.

Yeah, that's what I'd think it means, and what I hope it means, but it doesn't actually say that. To read it at it's most literal, it says if the unit has 'any of the special rules below' and then lists 'steadfast' as one option, but a unit only has steadfast when it is in combat and has greater ranks than its opponent, so if a parent unit is just standing there doing nothing then it can't transfer steadfast, because it itself doesn't actually have it.

sebster wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:I believe it means that the Detachment may use its parent unit's number of ranks as its own for the purposes of being Steadfast.


Say a detachment of handgunners has a unit of Halberdiers as its parent. The Halberdiers are currently in bus formation and have 7 ranks. The Handgunners are fighting an enemy unit and have just lost. They will count as having 7 ranks for the purposes of calculating Steadfast. So they would be steadfast against enemies with 6 or less ranks.

Yeah, that's what I'd think it means, and what I hope it means, but it doesn't actually say that. To read it at it's most literal, it says if the unit has 'any of the special rules below' and then lists 'steadfast' as one option, but a unit only has steadfast when it is in combat and has greater ranks than its opponent, so if a parent unit is just standing there doing nothing then it can't transfer steadfast, because it itself doesn't actually have it.

That's how I read it as well. If the parent regiment is in the combat and steadfast (or in another one...), the detachment will be as well. If the parent unit is just standing around, then no Steadfast.

Yep, if in combat with the parent and detachment, and the parent is steadfast, then so will the detachment. It means you can lose combat and not have your non-steadfast flanking unit run away (or, have less chance of doing so...)

It transfers the ability, so the parent has to have it. If the parent regimental unit is not in combat, it is technically not steadfast, as there's nothing to compare it to.

Such as you have a 6 rank regiment with a 1 rank detachment and the regiment is fighting a 5 rank enemy. If that detachment is within 3" of the regiment, regardless of who he is fighting or how many ranks it has, he will be steadfast. Which could be pretty awesome, actually, it's almost Stubborn. You just have to have enough ranks in the regiment.

The question I have is whether or not the regiment has to have lost combat. The 2nd paragraph defines steadfast as simply having more ranks than the enemy. But the first sentence describes it as a defeated unit. Normally it's a moot point because it's not taking a break test unless it loses, and therefore doesn't need to know whether or not it's steadfast. But since the regiment/detachment can be fighting completely different units and the regiment could actually win and the detachment lose, they all of a sudden become independent and you need to know whether it's transferred.

DukeRustfield wrote:It transfers the ability, so the parent has to have it. If the parent regimental unit is not in combat, it is technically not steadfast, as there's nothing to compare it to.

Such as you have a 6 rank regiment with a 1 rank detachment and the regiment is fighting a 5 rank enemy. If that detachment is within 3" of the regiment, regardless of who he is fighting or how many ranks it has, he will be steadfast. Which could be pretty awesome, actually, it's almost Stubborn. You just have to have enough ranks in the regiment.

The question I have is whether or not the regiment has to have lost combat. The 2nd paragraph defines steadfast as simply having more ranks than the enemy. But the first sentence describes it as a defeated unit. Normally it's a moot point because it's not taking a break test unless it loses, and therefore doesn't need to know whether or not it's steadfast. But since the regiment/detachment can be fighting completely different units and the regiment could actually win and the detachment lose, they all of a sudden become independent and you need to know whether it's transferred.

Yeah, this really, really needs an FAQ.

But wouldn't the flanking detachment unit cancel out the ranks of the unit they are fighting, almost automatically giving the parent unit steadfast?

For example, Parent unit of 40 Spearmen (5 wide 8 deep) gets charged by a unit of 45 Night Goblins (5 wide 9 deep). The detachment of say, 10 halberdiers counter charge the Night Goblins. Say that the Night Goblins win the Combat, for argument sake, would their ranks not be shattered by the Halberdiers?

Just a thought. Or am I way off here?

Flanking doesn't matter for steadfast, as per the steadfast rules.

What's funny is that the parent unit has to lose combat to be steadfast. If you read the steadfast rules, you'll note that it starts with 'a unit beaten in combat'.

So if a parent unit gets charged by 4 chaos hounds, and a detachment is fighting some mounted marauders, the parent can only pass on steadfast if they somehow lose combat.
Technically, if they are in different fights, the detachment can't be steadfast if that combat is resolved first.

Everything works fine when all in the same fight, but it turns messy if they are in their own isolated combats.

-Matt

A detachment gets the rule if he's within 3" of the regiment. They don't have to be fighting the same unit. So it's actually pretty sweet. I'm still not sure if steadfast = lost combat. I tend to believe it's simply more ranks than the enemy, because it also says that in a fairly simple sentence describing it.

Turalon wrote:But wouldn't the flanking detachment unit cancel out the ranks of the unit they are fighting, almost automatically giving the parent unit steadfast?

A HawaiiMatt pointed out flanking doesn't remove ranks for the purposes of determining steadfast. Not only that, but counter-charge doesn't automatically impact the enemy's flanks anymore, they've removed that bit so now the counter charge follows the standard rules for charging and so if the detachment is in the front arc, it is expected to charge the front of the enemy.

Instead they've allowed the detachments to benefit from characters placed in the regimental unit (so a Captain's Hold the Line ability, or anything a Warrior Priest casts on the unit), and maybe even benefit from a regimental unit's deep ranks granting steadfast to an otherwise flimsy archer unit). Which is a nice change, but the steadfast bit is really poorly explained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:Flanking doesn't matter for steadfast, as per the steadfast rules.

What's funny is that the parent unit has to lose combat to be steadfast. If you read the steadfast rules, you'll note that it starts with 'a unit beaten in combat'.

So if a parent unit gets charged by 4 chaos hounds, and a detachment is fighting some mounted marauders, the parent can only pass on steadfast if they somehow lose combat.
Technically, if they are in different fights, the detachment can't be steadfast if that combat is resolved first.

Everything works fine when all in the same fight, but it turns messy if they are in their own isolated combats.

-Matt

Yeah, I think this might be an effort to stop the problem that cropped up with detachments in the old rules, where you'd counter charge and look great, lose but have enough troops in the parent unit to expect to win a war of attrition with your steadfast... except the detachments didn't have steadfast and they'd all panic and run off leaving the parent unit standing there looking stupid.

Or it might be there that if a supporting detachment of crossbowmen gets assaulted, the intent is for the parent unit's ranks to provide steadfast to the detachment, keeping it in the field long enough for the parent to get around and counter-charge. That isn't how it's written but there's every chance that's what they mean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:A detachment gets the rule if he's within 3" of the regiment. They don't have to be fighting the same unit. So it's actually pretty sweet. I'm still not sure if steadfast = lost combat. I tend to believe it's simply more ranks than the enemy, because it also says that in a fairly simple sentence describing it.

The problem is that the rule for steadfast was written with the assumption that it would only ever apply to units that have just lost the combat. This is quite understandable because the only time you'd normally need steadfast is when you just lost a combat.

The Empire book has produced situations where a unit could potentially give it's 'steadfast' status to another unit, meaning we now need to know if a unit can be considered to have steadfast if it is in combat but winning, or not in combat at all, and frankly that could go anyway.

Really, the rule for granting steadfast needed further wording and at least one example in the book, but GW gave us none of that. It really was a poor effort on their part.

I'm going by the assumption of Steadfast as per BRB p. 54 2nd para. "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemies." And this is in the close combat section.

-If they are more than 3" away from the regiment, they get nothing.
-Detachments don't have to attack the unit the regiment is. If they don't counter charge for whatever reason (like they can't). They may still still get engaged in CC to a different unit but if they are within 3" of the regiment, they will be steadfast if the regiment is steadfast.
-If the regiment isn't steadfast, the detachment isn't steadfast IF it isn't also steadfast on it's own. Such as 2 ranks of archers get charnged by a rank for snotlings. The archers would be steadfast even though his 7 deep regiment of halbidiers is fighting a 10 rank of goblins and thus not steadfast.
-If the Regiment loses it's steadfast through attrition or through no longer being in combat, the detachtments lose theirs.
-If the Regiment is steadfast but moves more than 3" away from the detatments through such actions as pursuing the enemy or other compulsory moves, the detatchments lose any steadfast unless they naturally have it.

That's how I see it, anyway. It's a pretty good rule for Empire as it takes nearly the only weakness of MSU and gets rid of it.

I think it's a mistake to ignore the rest of the steadfast rules for detachments.
I kind of like the bold part:
If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its Break test on its unmodified leadership.
Page 60 also has rules for steadfast that again state Any unit on the losing side.
Winners aren't steadfast.

If you're going to claim you don't have to lose to be steadfast, why claim you even need to be in combat?
Devils advocate:
My parent unit has 8 ranks, which is more that the nothing you have, so they are steadfast. 8 is more than nothing.


I think it should have been explained better, but until FAQ'ed I'll run it as the more restricted reading.
-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:If you're going to claim you don't have to lose to be steadfast, why claim you even need to be in combat?

Because you have a unique situation where the detachment can lose and regiment win. That obviously can't happen in a solo unit. To devils advocate you back, an enemy could simply be a jerk and always resolve the detachment first (if its his turn) so there is never a chance for the regiment to be steadfast--even if a moment later the regiment was steadfast. That would clearly be horrendous.

As for why does it have to be in combat, because steadfast is only defined in close combat. And it's instructions are having more ranks than its enemy. There is no other way to determine it.

The first sentence of steadfast is a description. The definition starts with "simply put." The two aren't mutually-exclusive. The detachment, in a relevant example, would not be steadfast on its own, but because of a Special Rule, is.


I can see no other way for it to work. The regiment clearly has to be in combat, or you would have to pick (a random?) enemy unit on the battlefield to test to see if it was larger than. There has to be some way for the regiment to transfer the ability or this has no value. The detachment isn't going to care unless it loses and has to take a break test. The only even partial question is whether or not the regiment has to be a loser and the definition of steadfast makes no mention of it. It's clearly implied, because for every other instance it only comes up during losing combat.

And lastly, quoting the rule of Least Lameness™, if it didn't work this way it would be more beneficial for your detachments if the parent regiment actually lost combat. I.e., the detachments would take heart seeing their main force get beaten, but would get no reassurance if their parent regiment actually won.

DukeRustfield wrote:I can see no other way for it to work. The regiment clearly has to be in combat, or you would have to pick (a random?) enemy unit on the battlefield to test to see if it was larger than.

Well, the enemy unit would be the one the detachment is in combat with. I'd guess.

There has to be some way for the regiment to transfer the ability or this has no value. The detachment isn't going to care unless it loses and has to take a break test. The only even partial question is whether or not the regiment has to be a loser and the definition of steadfast makes no mention of it. It's clearly implied, because for every other instance it only comes up during losing combat.

It could be that the intent was really for the detachments to benefit from the number of ranks of the regimental unit when they are all in the one combat together (likely due to a counter charge), and GW didn't even consider the possibility of the detachment being in combat without the regimental company, or that the regimental company might be in it's own combat somewhere else.

And lastly, quoting the rule of Least Lameness™, if it didn't work this way it would be more beneficial for your detachments if the parent regiment actually lost combat. I.e., the detachments would take heart seeing their main force get beaten, but would get no reassurance if their parent regiment actually won.

Which is why the rule as literally translated is clearly not what was intended, leaving us to guess what they actually meant.

I am going to predict that GW will say that the steadfast transfers if they are in the same combat only. If they don't or better if they say you are steadfast without the parent having to be in combat Empire is not as bad as people are saying IMO.

What about victory points for detachments? Do you have to destroy the regiment also, or do you get points just for the regiment if you break it and chase it down and the detachment stays on the board.

Regiment & Detachment - VP for all
Regiment is alive, detachments dead - VP for detachments or no?
Regiment is dead/gone, detachments still on the board - do you get all the VP because the parent unit is gone or do you now treat them as seperate units? The book states that the detachment counts almost as an upgrade as far as point cost go (whether it's special or core, etc.) so I'd say that if you defeat and catch the regiment, you still get full victory points, but I could see others saying the whole unit is not destroyed, therefore you don't get any VP which would be nasty to make a small cheap detachment and hide it for point denial.

I would think they are calculated up seperatly. Detachments give up their own points if destroyed, same with parent units too.

Doesn't make much sense if they arn't worth anything till the parent is destroyed.

They have no other rules than the rules listed and the rules that every other units gets.

Hi - I am new to Empire and did a search to find answers to two questions, both were discussed in this thread already, so thanks... in case anyone else did same search, I thought my comments below would clarify any ambiguity.

Steadfast for Detachments is defined in GW FAQ - "...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..." So the Regiment doesn't have to be in combat, it just needs to be within 3" of the detachment.

Victory points: Detachments are effectively independent units. They can do and go as they please. VPs are separate for the detachment. The reference to the points cost under ARMY SPECIAL RULES (pg 30) refers to '... the same unit category as the Regiment..." This relates to the composition of point categories in your army, e.g. If you have a regiment of Greatswords (Special Units) and a detachment of Handgunners (Core Units), then the points total of the Handgunners count among your Special Units subtotal when building your army rather than the Core Units sub-total.

Agincourt wrote:
Hi - I am new to Empire and did a search to find answers to two questions, both were discussed in this thread already, so thanks... in case anyone else did same search, I thought my comments below would clarify any ambiguity.

Dude, this thread was from April, long before the FAQ came out.

And yeah, the FAQ resolved the issue (albeit not by clarifying anything but basically by making up an entirely new rule).

And note the use of the word 'always' - this means that even if the detachment has more ranks than the unit it is fighting, if the parent unit has less then you're not steadfast. Which is hardly going to be common, but means what we're looking at is not a clarification of what's written in the book but a whole new rule.