PDA

View Full Version : Would this make 8th better?



Oglog
13-08-2010, 08:22
Steadfast seems to be the problem for me with 8th. It is not a bad rule, but can be abused by having billions of ranks on super cheap infantry and meaning knights and 'cool units' seem to be dissapearing from 8th edition army lists. Of course magic and shooting is another problem...but I have never had much time for magic, and shooting seems pretty balanced as most armies can spam shooting, which is boring.

Anyway, back on topic, would this make 8th better, as regards to steadfast:

If a unit wins a combat by more than the oponnents rank bonus, then they cannot use steadfast and instead have to use modified ld.

for example: 10 Chaos knights charge a unit of 40 spearmen (10x4)
-Chaos knights kill 12 spearmen.
-Spearmen kill, say, 1 chaos knight.
-spearmen have 2 more ranks, that is it.
-so chaos knights have won by 9, much more than the 4 ranks of spearmen.

they do not have steadfast. they can still re-roll with bsb, but at -9.


i don't know, but this would make cavalry and monsters much more fun, while still making large ranked up units better than in 7th

mistrmoon
13-08-2010, 08:27
feels clunky and impractical, units with only a few ranks get blasted and 15 deep slaves still hold up combat units no problem.

yabbadabba
13-08-2010, 08:32
If steadfast is an issue it can be countered in better and more tactical ways which would not see a return to 5 man units of cavalry breaking large infantry blocks with a frontal charge (bad thing). Two off the top of my head are:
Flank Charges could disrupt Steadfast
Combined Rank totals can also cancel steadfast

Both of them favour fast armies, but can be used by most if not all armies fairly simply.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
13-08-2010, 09:00
Agreed. If Steadfast could be countered by tactics, then there'd be a challenge in it. Countering Steadfast by rolling a bucket of dice is about as interesting as auto-breaking by fear.

Steadfast isn't the problem in 8th, its one of the things that make it infinitely better than 7th.

Blackknight1239
13-08-2010, 09:42
Honestly, I think if you want to fix steadfast, bring back unit strength, and make steadfast only usable if you outnumber your opponent. Otherwise, I doubt any change will do anything but make it more like the silliness of 7th.

chamelion 6
13-08-2010, 10:05
So far I like pretty much the whole concept of the game as it is. I'm generally not in favor of anythng that's going to any of the feel of the last edition. There simply was nothing about the last two editions that appealed to me.

ewar
13-08-2010, 10:15
As said before, this just brings back the same problems as in 7th. Disrupting ranks should break steadfast, that would literally solve 99.64% of 8th moaning. Fact.

Oglog
13-08-2010, 10:46
Steadfast isn't the problem in 8th, its one of the things that make it infinitely better than 7th.

I'm not talking about rules here. I dont care If i win or loose. I tend not to use overpowered armies and tend to face HE, DE and WoC. What I mean is that with the need for not much else rather than loads of infantry and war machines, cool cavalry and monster models will be discarded as using them in army lists will just be pointless and disadvantageous. Cavalry in 7th was ridiculous. Now they have got the complete opposite direction, making it not far of useless (500 points for a unit of grail knights that can slaughter anything but then get stuck in combat against Ld 9 re-rollable...no thanks)


I'm not "moaning", I just want to be able to use my favourite models in an army without them being not far off useless. I think rules such as steadfast (which could work, though is and will be abused by HUGE units) and pin-point accurate war machine 'guessing' will make boring and 'all the same style' armies rather than characterful, unique armies.

Badger[Fr]
13-08-2010, 11:01
The designers explicitely stated that Steadfast still works even when disrupted for a reason. It would otherwise entirely negate the whole point of the rule.

Really, there's no reason Flanking should be a magic "I win" button that would allow any decent cavalry unit to break most infantry blocks in a single turn, a feat no warmachine or spellcaster could ever achieve.

Flanking already negates rank bonuses and support attacks. It's a significant advantage, as it means a cavalry unit that manages to flank and disrupt an infantry block will almost always win combat and suffer next to no casualties. The days of FlankHammer are gone, and I do not miss them.

Haravikk
13-08-2010, 11:46
As said before, this just brings back the same problems as in 7th. Disrupting ranks should break steadfast, that would literally solve 99.64% of 8th moaning. Fact.
But it would immediately bring back silly one-round breakers such as a unit of knights with two ranks, as one flank charge could allow them to plough through much larger units exactly as before. With their faster movement this would be too easy to do as well, so I don't think it's an ideal solution.

I think Steadfast works just fine; horde armies benefit from it by not fleeing first chance they get, but against elite infantry they tend to eventually lose anyway as the elite warriors will cause more casualties and suffer less. But if you want to minimise the losses to your elite troops, then a flank or rear charge will really pile on the hurt as the horde loses rank bonus, and you get more bonuses and attacks in your favour, making it easy to pile on the wounds and combat resolution.

Stop expecting combats to be won in a single round of fighting, and go play more games with the Steadfast rule and an open-mind. If you're suffering at the hands of this rule, then you're probably stuck in a 7th edition mentality of 1 v 1 combats that only last one or two rounds.

Lijacote
13-08-2010, 11:48
I see no reason to change Steadfast in any way.

shadow hunter
13-08-2010, 11:51
I dont think 5 knights hitting a 40 strong unit in the front, should break them. So I see no problem in that.

Desert Rain
13-08-2010, 12:15
Cavalry shouldn't be able to destroy units like that in my opinion, that was one of the things that many people didn't like about 7th edtion, and I'm glad that they fixed that. Steadfast is perhaps a little to powerful, and perhaps it would be a bit more balanced if you lost it when you lost your rank bonus in combat.

plantagenet
13-08-2010, 12:21
Also when does steadfast win you a game?

If my opponent wants to put his men 5 and 10 ranks deep go for it. He still has to get this unit into combat and actually win for it to matter. Now if he uses a unit like this combined with another unit then thats just good play especially if I have not been able to counter it. But it wasnt steadfast that beat me just my own rubbish tactics that were not able to deal with it. Also to as an observation but 50 NG with spears and Nets deployed 5 wide 10 deep against 14 Sword Masters deployed 7 wide 2 deep will still be locked together after 6 rounds of combat that is if the NG are able to have passed 5 previous leadership tests albeit with steadfast. The points difference between the unit is only 15 points with NG unit being the more expensive.

Play the game there really isnt anything wrong with steadfast. In fact I would argue it is one fo the best addtions 8th has brought to the game.

SuperArchMegalon
16-08-2010, 11:17
Cavalry are support units. They bring extra CR by often gaining a charge bonus, and having generally strong attacks, flank bonuses, and when you have a rank, flank disruption. That's something I'd love to add to a combat my infantry is already a part of. Even when cavalry charges a flank alone, the opponent has to turn to face them or risk being whittled away, eventually breaking, losing steadfast, or being wiped out.

If you have a problem with steadfast, bring ranks of your own. It's not like your cavalry are all alone out there (or at least they shouldn't be anymore - thank goodness).

All of this not to mention cavalry are still strong against missile units, war machines, skirmishers, and scouts. They're still fast, they take less casualties from templates, etc. etc. There's more to cavalry than flanking infantry solo.

Loopstah
16-08-2010, 11:56
Steadfast isn't broken.

If your opponent is using the Steadfast rule that means you are winning anyway.

Having to fight more than one turn of combat against the same unit with your Knights isn't the end of the world.