Why I dont take Combat Block detachments-Empire

Hi All,
Warhammer nerds in the modern age tend to spend time in forums discussing tactics, armylists, and debating rules. Fans of the Empire tend to gather at www.warhammer-empire.com.

With a new book released last year, there was a flurry of posts, and with 2 FAQs this has not ceased. This brings me to...

DETACHMENTS IN THE NEW ARMYBOOK.

They look awesome on paper. They benefit from prayers and special rules like stubborn. They can counter shoot and counter charge (though not as well as old book)...oh, and they can share Steadfast.


Now this created some discussion around what they meant by sharing Steadfast. So GW released this FAQ:


Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast
special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either
not in the same combat or is involved in another combat? (p30)

A: Yes. 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.

Now there is a reason I dont use Detachments as anything more than 5 man archer chaff drops (and never bother measuring whether or not they are within 3 inches of the parent). The quote below (which can be found here. Credit to "Calisson") sums it up nicely. In the words of Fox News "YOU DECIDE".

Hi, all fans of steadfast detachment discussions! 
New information: FAQ has been amended but not the steadfast wording.
The wishes for further clarification were not granted. It seems that the FAQ is supposed to be clear enough.
I’ll try to summarize some of the previous discussions in this post.


1.   Where to find steadfast information.
What can a unit do with steadfast status?
Steadfast status has 2 uses:
-   Break tests, i.e. after losing a combat (BRB p.54),
-   Providing steadfast status to detachment (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).

How to gain steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be investigated for any of the following 4 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met:
-   ranks (BRB p.54/ & 60),
-   stubborn (BRB p.76). This one is simple: {stubborn} => {steadfast}
-   building (BRB p.129),
-   parent unit (Empire AB p.30 + FAQ).
Several interpretations exist about the additional conditions, which matter only when detachments are involved.

How to deny steadfast status?
Steadfast status can be denied by any of the following 3 reasons, when specific additional conditions are met, except when the unit is stubborn:
-   Enemy’s ranks (BRB p.54/60 and Empire AB FAQ, exception for stubborn BRB p.76),
-   Forest (BRB p.119 – steadfast lost, but rank bonus kept),
-   River (BRB p.120 – steadfast lost, rank bonus lost, but ranks themselves kept).
The conditions for denying steadfast are clear and consensual.


2.   What’s the problem with passing steadfast to detachments at 3”?
Here, I list the problems, I don’t discuss them yet.

AB p.30 (not taking yet into account FAQ):  {parent steadfast} => {detachment steadfast}.
First issue: what is exactly steadfast satus is not consensual.
Second issue: the FAQ introduced new conditions.

Let’s sum up what are the conditions for steadfast listed p.54.
There are three possible interpretations of steadfast status mentioned p.54:
A.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
B.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
C.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Note that it changes absolutely nothing for break test, except for a detachment’s break tests.
For that case, we need to go through the AB rule and its FAQ.

Let’s recall the issues with the FAQ.
There is a problem of interpretation in the second half of the question, about the parent’s position.
“either not in the same combat or in another combat” can be understood in two ways:
D.    “either in another combat or in another combat”, i.e. {only in combat}
E.   “either not in combat or in another combat”, i.e. {even not in combat}.

Furthermore, it has been argued that the FAQ may cancel the necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast at all, replacing the AB requirement by rank counting.
F.   {AB + FAQ} the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
G.   {AB + FAQ} The FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
It makes a difference when the parent unit is in a river or a wood.

There’s one more issue when the parent unit is in a building, where two opposite interpretation exist:
H.   {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
I.   {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
That’s quite independent from other issues.


Three interpretations for detachment steadfast.
When we combine the different interpretations of the BRB and the FAQ, we have seen the following interpretations proposed about what is necessary for the parent not in the same combat:
J.   {even not in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated}
K.   {even not in combat}, {steadfast} {just use ranks}
L.   {only in combat}, {more ranks + combat + defeated}
The difference between J and K is that in J., steadfast status can be denied by a forest or a river; in K., steadfast status is not examined, only ranks.


3.   Arguments about steadfast status, BRB p.54.

The BRB index tells us that steadfast is referred in BRB p.54 and 60.
The tenants of either steadfast definition listed above (A., B. or C.) can justify their position with a quote, however, they struggle to really prove the other positions to be wrong.

A.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no defeat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the difference in the combat result scores.”
Rationale: it is the first sentence; it is in bold; the whole page is about losing combat.
Weak point: the sentence does not contain the word “steadfast” it is supposed to define; it does not preclude a unit not in combat or not defeated to be steadfast, too, so it is necessary to argue that no other of the sentences p.54 can be considered as a definition of steadfast.

B.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no combat} => {no steadfast}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy.”
Rationale: the sentence {more ranks than enemy} => {steadfast} says that it defines what is steadfast; it is very consistent with the paragraph just before, which seems to specify the RAI for steadfast: “To represent this in our games, we have something called the Steadfast rule”.
Weak point: It does not mention anything about combat, just about enemy, so we’re left to suppose that a unit not in combat, having no enemy, is not steadfast. However, that is not obvious in the alleged RAI nor in the RAW.

C.   {more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}; and also, {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}
Relevant quote: BRB p.54. “Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating the extra ranks for the purpose of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. (…). Similarly, the enemy’s ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast.”
Rationale: The second sentence {ranks of 5} => {steadfast} indicates that having ranks is enough to be a steadfast candidate; the last sentence {enemy ranks of 5} => {steadfast denial} indicates the necessary condition for a steadfast candidate to be denied steadfast; when there is no enemy with five models, there is no steadfast denial, therefore the unit is steadfast.
Weak point: it takes many quotes to reach the result {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.


4.   Arguments about FAQ “either in another combat”
The quote is: “Q: If a Detachment has lost a combat, can it claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks even if that unit is either not in the same combat or is involved in another combat?”
Everyone agrees that the wording requires some interpretation. Not everyone agrees on the interpretation itself.

D.   {only in combat}
Rationale: Not in the same combat does not remove the necessity for combat. The FAQ is a tautology: either not in same combat or not in same combat, i.e. not in same combat, i.e. only in combat.
Weak point: grammatically not convincing; it requires GW to have made a mistake, and to have maintained that mistake in the next edition of the FAQ.

E.   {even not in combat}.
Rationale: If a unit is anywhere except in the same combat, it could be in two places: not in combat at all, or in another combat.
As the FAQ mentions “either/or”, which is grammatically exclusive, and the other combat is already mentioned after “or”, the only place “either” can be about is not in combat at all.
Furthermore, the French edition of the FAQ is not ambiguous.
Weak point: the grammar is not perfect either.


5.   Arguments about FAQ replacing or complementing the AB.

F.   {AB + FAQ} - the parent needs to be steadfast in the first place.
The FAQ is not an errata. See GW’s website about “Shrine of Knowledge - FAQ's and Errata”. It says “Errata provide corrections”, “Amendments are changes”, while FAQ “are not hard and fast rules”.
Therefore, the AB rule remains, the FAQ is just a comment, adding to the rule.
Weak point: obviously, the FAQ is not merely commenting the rule, it is at least amending it.

G.   {AB + FAQ} - the FAQ removes the AB necessity for the parent unit to be steadfast.
The FAQ mentions “Always use the Regimental Unit’s ranks”. It does not mention conferring steadfast. It is obviously not an FAQ but must be an errata.
Weak point: Whatever it is, it is mentioned by GW to be an FAQ, and remains an FAQ.


6.   Arguments about FAQ applying when parent is in a building.

H.   {parent in building} => {detachment steadfast}
Rationale: The FAQ says in the question: to “claim the Steadfast special rule for its Regimental Unit’s ranks”. The parent’s steadfast rule does not come from the regiment’s ranks, therefore buildings are outside of the scope of the FAQ. Therefore detachments are auto-steadfast.

I.   {parent in building} => {detachment counts zero rank}
Rationale: The FAQ applies, why wouldn't it? Furthermore, in a building, a unit has zero rank (per BRB FAQ) therefore the detachment would get to use the parent’s zero ranks when checking to be steadfast.


7.   Where come the 3 interpretations for detachment steadfast.

J.   If someone understands the FAQ sentence to allow {even not in combat}
and he does not believe that FAQ cancels AB,
then parent can be steadfast even when not in combat,
which proves the understanding of steadfast status exists even when not in combat.
{more ranks + combat + defeated} => {steadfast}
The only explanation can be that {no enemy} => {zero enemy’s rank}.
Weak point: it raises suspicion that one tries to get too much of the rules.

K.   If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast but still understand the FAQ to allow {even not in combat}, he can only insist that the FAQ cancels the AB.
In that case, the FAQ mentioning a parent {even not in combat} does not imply that the parent was steadfast in the first place. {steadfast} {just use ranks}.
Weak point: the argument that an FAQ cancels a rule altogether is hardly convincing, all the more that the FAQ has not been changed with a later revision.

L.    If someone refuses the “no combat” interpretation of steadfast and refuses the FAQ to cancel the AB, then he can only interpret the FAQ the most restrictive way, {only in combat}. 
Then, he can consider steadfast to be restricted to defeated situations.
Weak point: the FAQ would be useless, except in the very restricted and rare situation when a parent has fought the combat first, has lost it, was steadfast and has passed the break test successively; then the detachment at 3” can only fight later to pretend to benefit from parent’s steadfast status.
Weak point: Who can believe GW create a new rule because such a case was “frequently asked”?