PDA

View Full Version : Stubborn with ranks - its like insurance?



Latro_
20-06-2010, 19:33
Just been planning armies today. This whole more ranks and your stubborn thing has got everyone in a spin saying increased unit sizes are the way forward.

But surely this is going to be a two way thing? Like folks generally have tried to go 4 ranks for the +3 combat res in the past but now I'm thinking there is going to be a settle on another number of ranks to try and ensure stubborn.

Also surely all this means combat ist actually going to be that long and drawn out but much more targeted with choppy units getting the crump on not so choppy.

For example if you attacked a unit with 2 more ranks (say 6) but inferior troops and killed say 10 of them and they did 5 in return. Not only are they now no longer stubborn they'v lost by losts (assuming other things equal) and that could be a still 4 rank strong unit running away to its doom in the false hope it was gonna be stubborn.

Then you have to factor in that the stronger unit should be more expensive but it might not of been with 2 ranks less, might actually of been cheaper!

going off on a rant but i'm thinking perhaps massive units to rely on stubborn might just loose out to units with a decent punch.

Kerill
20-06-2010, 20:27
It takes a long time to kill 200 skavenslaves no matter how choppy you are.

The answer to these units might be a big unit in depth (7-10 ranks) and only 5 wide.

dragonet111
20-06-2010, 21:46
Or some spells like flames of the phoenix

Poseidal
21-06-2010, 13:07
Skaven Slaves aren't likely to pass even with stubborn.

200 slaves make a nice explosion though.

Gaargod
21-06-2010, 20:32
Unfortunately, units are rarely cheap AND good enough LD for stubborn to be really useful without spending a lot.
Possibly halberdiers/spearmen with a BSB nearby might count.

And yes, its going to be a balance between anvils and hammers. Which is... pretty much what it should be. That big expensive unit relying on steadfast might well explode if hit in the flank.

Skyros
21-06-2010, 20:40
For example if you attacked a unit with 2 more ranks (say 6) but inferior troops and killed say 10 of them and they did 5 in return. Not only are they now no longer stubborn

They'd still be stubborn. They'd have 4 ranks, and you'd have 3 ranks.



Then you have to factor in that the stronger unit should be more expensive but it might not of been with 2 ranks less, might actually of been cheaper!

If GW is pricing things correctly, a unit that can outkill another unit by a factor of 2:1 is going to cost (at least) twice as much if they are the same size.

Stubborn isn't going to be an autowin, but it is going to be significant. Especially if you use good troops like stormvermin.

RulesJD
21-06-2010, 20:50
Steadfast is THE most important rule of the game. Combine this with 25% minium core and you should see large blocks of core troops fairly regularly.

Case in point, I played 2250 Dwarves saturday against Warriors of Chaos and massacred them. A block of 25 Dwarves armed with GW and full command was smacked by two chariots taking 9 wounds from impact and attacks. They fluffed there return attack for only one wound losing combat by 6 (after nearby magical BSB adjsutment) but, held on due to steadfast. This allowed a nearby unit of ironbreakers to charge the chariots and take them out. The fact that winning combat allows a reform meant the ironbreakers could then immediately turn to face additional chaos units.

Because steadfast is SO important, flanking will be even more important and harder to achieve. No longer will US5 monsters and single ranks of fast cav or knights be sufficient to break ranks.

Deathstar units with stubborn or unbreakable will still be valuable. However, I think people will now be looking to get their anvil units on the side or rear of enemies with hammers going for whatever is accessible.