PDA

View Full Version : Steadfast - should it be broken when ranks are disrupted?



ewar
15-08-2010, 13:39
Hi all,

As we all know there are plenty of 8th ed "discussion" threads about what people like and dislike.

Having spent more time than is healthy trawling through the same arguments over and over again I thought a poll would be in order, as this is the question I see brought up most.

So, should Steadfast be broken when ranks are disrupted? Assuming all other rules remain in place i.e. the flanking/rear charging unit has at least 2 full ranks at the end of the close combat phase.

I think yes. A lot of the counter arguments seem to be that it will bring back a cavalry centric focus to the game, however I think this will just not be a cost effective solution. You would need around 15 knights to be able to reliably get across the field, into a flank, take some casualties in the fight and still have enough models left to break steadfast.

This (a) costs a hell of a lot of points and (b) will be difficult to do if the person on the receiving side has any brains. Which makes the risks/rewards sensible.

Currently cavalry are massively overpriced for their usefulness - either make them much cheaper (which will take 10 years for all army books...) or make them even slightly worth their points.

Haravikk
15-08-2010, 13:41
No. I like Steadfast as it is, if you add loss by disruption then you basically eliminate the whole point of Steadfast which is to prevent one-hit kills on infantry blocks. Disruption already has it's own advantages, if you have it eliminate Steadfast then you may as well get rid of the Steadfast rule entirely which would put us right back in 7th edition.

Gatsby
15-08-2010, 13:49
if you LET someone flank charge you... you don't deserve steadfast and shouldn't get the bonus to leadership

eagletsi1
15-08-2010, 13:51
It's a new game. Rules are different then 7th edition. let move on .

Badger[Fr]
15-08-2010, 13:51
Yet another thread on Steadfast?
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271400

Eta
15-08-2010, 13:57
Yes, steadfast should be broken when you manage to flank charge a unit with a unit of your own that has at least one rank.

Greetings
Eta

Idle Scholar
15-08-2010, 14:16
Yes, for all the reasons that have been gone over repeatedly.

Badger[Fr]
15-08-2010, 14:29
You would need around 15 knights to be able to reliably get across the field, into a flank, take some casualties in the fight and still have enough models left to break steadfast.
10-15 Knights aren't that expensive compared to any decent Infantry block, and are nowhere near as vulnerable to war machines. A 40 model strong Spearmen unit is actually more expensive than ten Empire Knights, and, even with Steadfast, will still get slaughtered to the last man by said Knights if it gets flanked.

But let's not actual examples get in the way of a good ol' whinethread, do we? It's only the fourth time in less than three days that the same tired arguments are debunked over and over again.

rtunian
15-08-2010, 14:29
i vote for: other
i do not think that steadfast should be broken "merely" by disrupting a unit. instead, i believe that steadfast should be broken if disrupted AND engaged on 2 or more fronts. this would both nerf steadfast a bit and encourage tactical charging, while still keeping the main benefit of steadfast for a majority of cases.

the reason i think it shouldn't be broken merely by disrupting:
if unit A charges into unit B's flank, at the end of the round of combat, B has a chance to battle-reform so that A is now in B's front. if steadfast was negated by disrupting, then this rule change allowing even defeated units to reform in combat is rendered mostly irrelevant (because B would more than likely have broken esp if it's an infantry unit charged by a cavalry unit).

Feefait
15-08-2010, 14:35
NO, the beauty of 8th as I see it is the simplicity. Adding in too many 'if this then that' complicates things. As has been said over and over just deal with it. Sure it makes ranked infantry pretty darn nasty, and steadfast is huge but it's the game.

Urgat
15-08-2010, 14:37
No. I like Steadfast as it is, if you add loss by disruption then you basically eliminate the whole point of Steadfast which is to prevent on-hit kills on infantry blocks. Disruption already has it's own advantages, if you have it eliminate Steadfast then you may as well get rid of the Steadfast rule entirely which would put us right back in 7th edition.

That. The whole point of steadfast is to not being cancelled by disruption.

Venkh
15-08-2010, 14:41
I also think that units should lose steadfast when engaged on multiple facings by 2 or more units that have a extra rak after the first at the end of combat.

This means that you cant have a single cavalry unit sweep down your line but a unit hit by 2 big ones will be in trouble.

Tower_Of_The_Stars
15-08-2010, 14:58
Yes, yes and yes again!

Gatsby
15-08-2010, 15:04
;4912143']10-15 Knights aren't that expensive compared to any decent Infantry block, and are nowhere near as vulnerable to war machines. A 40 model strong Spearmen unit is actually more expensive than ten Empire Knights, and, even with Steadfast, will still get slaughtered to the last man by said Knights if it gets flanked.

But let's not actual examples get in the way of a good ol' whinethread, do we? It's only the fourth time in less than three days that the same tired arguments are debunked over and over again.

well clearly as people are still running into the issue so no it has not been debunked. so would you rather WHINE about people voicing their opinion or be constructive?

I for one think the multiple face charge would be a good compromise.

Haravikk
15-08-2010, 15:09
I for one think the multiple face charge would be a good compromise.
While it's better than the original proposal, I still think it's unnecessary; a unit that is engaged on multiple sides is already in trouble, and the rules as they are will represent this as it starts suffering hideous casualties, loses steadfast, and runs for the hills.

Gatsby
15-08-2010, 15:15
While it's better than the original proposal, I still think it's unnecessary; a unit that is engaged on multiple sides is already in trouble, and the rules as they are will represent this as it starts suffering hideous casualties, loses steadfast, and runs for the hills.

As it should be your almost surrounded. I'd say that be as good a time as any to start a tactical withdrawal... or just to run the hell away. Whichever you deem more appropriate at the time of impending doom.

Tae
15-08-2010, 15:17
I'm not so sure about being broken by disruption, I really don't have a view either way.

However what it should be broken by is taking combined ranks into account for all units. The fluff behind it is the enemy realising they are more numerous than their opponents.

So why the hell would one unit of 25 (5x5) be confident of victory if there were 24 enemy in the front (1 incomplete of 5x5), 24 in the left, 24 in the right, 24 in the rear. So 25 guys are steadfast because they realise they are 'more numerous' than 84 enemies. Yes because that clearly makes sense :rolleyes:

satchy
15-08-2010, 15:20
There really is no need for the multipull facings, if you are engaged on 2 or 3 units of knights or other more expensive troops. the infantry block is gonna loose so many they wont retain steadfast.

seriously whay do people think steadfast is indeffinate??you flank a unit and kill over 10, thats 2 ranks gone on a typical "steadfast" unit, you spend a couple more turns doing it and the unit disintergrates, now the tactical part is making sure you have back up plans if your knights in the flank get in trouble from a counter charge.

Oh yeah and Steadfast allows reliable Counter charge opertunity while the enemy is still engaged instead of only allowing VC and demons to pull it off

ewar
15-08-2010, 15:23
;4912143']10-15 Knights aren't that expensive compared to any decent Infantry block, and are nowhere near as vulnerable to war machines. A 40 model strong Spearmen unit is actually more expensive than ten Empire Knights, and, even with Steadfast, will still get slaughtered to the last man by said Knights if it gets flanked.

But let's not actual examples get in the way of a good ol' whinethread, do we? It's only the fourth time in less than three days that the same tired arguments are debunked over and over again.

Wow, what a constructive post.

Even in your example, 10 empire knights would be highly unlikely to even disrupt ranks in a game - a single casualty renders them unable to do so.

Maybe you didn't actually read my post, but the whole point was to make an objective test of gamers opinions, given the amount of discussion on the topic. And seeing how split the decision is, I wouldn't exactly call it universally accepted that the current method is the best for the game.

For my current army (Lizardmen) a unit of 15 cavalry with full command will cost 575 points! Even a unit of 10 will set me back 385pts and will be unlikely to even break ranks as mentioned earlier.

I would actually be very happy if steadfast was only broken when engaged on more than one side and all other criteria were met.

Bac5665
15-08-2010, 15:39
Of my long list of problems with 8E, steadfast is far from the top. I have no problem with the stubborn rules (although I don't like the general's Ld being used) for units with more ranks. It does do a good job of making core infantry relavent, and that's a good thing. The problem is that too many other changes make cav useless too, and that's a big problem.

Justice And Rule
15-08-2010, 15:48
well clearly as people are still running into the issue so no it has not been debunked. so would you rather WHINE about people voicing their opinion or be constructive?

Strawman. Just because people have an issue with it does not mean it hasn't been debunked. A prime real-life example would 9/11 Truthers: you can debunk them all you want, but they'll still keep talking about it.

Explain to me how allowing flanking units to essentially annihilate much larger units due to their already heavy combat advantage is going to get away from 7th edition insta-break/kills, and how that is reflective of real combat in any way? Explain to me why 5 knights on the side of a 5x20 unit should able to instantly annihilate them in combat, and then I'll believe you have a case. Because if you change that rule, you basically shift away from the infantry changes and make them (along with hordes) utterly useless point sinks.

Badger[Fr]
15-08-2010, 16:07
Wow, what a constructive post.
Sorry, but no matter how hard you believe Steadfast "should" be negated by flank charges, you still need proper arguments. And I have yet to hear a proper explanation as to why heavy cavalry should be able to break an Infantry block in a single round without suffering a single casualty, a feat no war machine or spell could ever achieve. For I know that, no matter how hard I manoeuvre, my rank-and-file Infantry blocks will never, ever be able to one-hit kill a heavy cavalry unit.



Even in your example, 10 empire knights would be highly unlikely to even disrupt ranks in a game - a single casualty renders them unable to do so.
Then consider fielding an unit of 15 Knights. Is it more expensive? Of course it is, but then, its not like Infantry blocks weren't horrendously vulnerable to war machines either. No unit, be it an Infantry block or a cavalry unit, can expect to cross the battlefield without suffering casualties. You may also consider that, once your heavy cavalry unit is stuck in CC, it is much less likely to suffer casualties (the average 5 WS3 S3 attacks of most flanked Infantry blocks aren't likely to get through an 1+ armour save).




For my current army (Lizardmen) a unit of 15 cavalry with full command will cost 575 points! Even a unit of 10 will set me back 385pts and will be unlikely to even break ranks as mentioned earlier.

Then you may consider that, given its price tag, Lizardmen cavalry isn't meant to be the mainstay of your army, and should instead be used to support your own Infantry blocks.



Explain to me how allowing flanking units to essentially annihilate much larger units due to their already heavy combat advantage is going to get away from 7th edition insta-break/kills, and how that is reflective of real combat in any way? Explain to me why 5 knights on the side of a 5x20 unit should able to instantly annihilate them in combat, and then I'll believe you have a case. Because if you change that rule, you basically shift away from the infantry changes and make them (along with hordes) utterly useless point sinks.
Indeed. Flanking isn't the über-tactical move some players make it to be, especially when fast cavalry units are involved. Being able to negate the opponent's attacks as well as his rank bonus is already a significant advantage, and may decide the outcome of a combat between two units of roughly equal strength.

DDogwood
15-08-2010, 16:08
I vote no - I like the idea of a huge infantry block being able to hold up a deadly opponent for a couple of turns because of sheer mass.

It makes cheap troops balanced with elites for the first time in the history of WFB. It provides an incentive to take infantry instead of just cavalry and monsters. It makes characters more useful for their leadership and less useful for combat power.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 16:10
I don't mind doing this again...

But before I do I want everyone that thinks the rule should be changed to set all their arguments about game mechanics aside long enough to explain to me the logic behind the mechanics.

What does this rule potray on the battle field as you feel it should be played. I can, and have, made a sound case for the rule as it is, and I'll go over it again if anyone wants, but first, I'd like to hear some sound logic behind the case to change the rule. So far all the arguments are based on an emotional appeal, not a logical one.

If you simply like the idea of cavalry forming autonomous hunter killer groups because it's fun, that's ok, that's valid, just not accurate historically. But just be up front. If you just like 7th edition better and like that nature of game, that's valid too, but far from realistic. Again, just be up front. There is no historic or logical reason for how a knight moves on a chess board, it is simply part of the how the game mechanics work. If you simply see WFB as an extension of that kind of game we, you and I, simply aren't speaking the same language and we're just going around in circles.

Because if you are only interested in game mechanics and how your little plastic guys perform agains little plastic infantry guys then no argument from a point of logic or history makes any difference and we're just wasting time. If on the other hand you see a flaw in the logic behind the rule then that's a productive discussion. Lets define our POV's here.

rtunian
15-08-2010, 16:17
There really is no need for the multipull facings, if you are engaged on 2 or 3 units of knights or other more expensive troops. the infantry block is gonna loose so many they wont retain steadfast.

sure, a unit of 30-40 will disappear relatively quickly, but no matter what you bring, it will take them a long time to chop through 100 goblins. 3-6 player turns at least. that's enough time for it to matter.


So far all the arguments are based on an emotional appeal, not a logical one.

not all of them ;)

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 16:25
sure, a unit of 30-40 will disappear relatively quickly, but no matter what you bring, it will take them a long time to chop through 100 goblins. 3-6 player turns at least. that's enough time for it to matter.



not all of them ;)

Which? I missed it then. Remember we're looking at real world logic here, not game logic. Game logic can portray anything. Real men and real horses...

ewar
15-08-2010, 16:26
Strawman. Just because people have an issue with it does not mean it hasn't been debunked. A prime real-life example would 9/11 Truthers: you can debunk them all you want, but they'll still keep talking about it.

Explain to me how allowing flanking units to essentially annihilate much larger units due to their already heavy combat advantage is going to get away from 7th edition insta-break/kills, and how that is reflective of real combat in any way? Explain to me why 5 knights on the side of a 5x20 unit should able to instantly annihilate them in combat, and then I'll believe you have a case. Because if you change that rule, you basically shift away from the infantry changes and make them (along with hordes) utterly useless point sinks.

No-one is saying 5 knights should be able to do it - have you read anyting people have been saying?

This isn't a question of wanting small units of cav to be all powerful. I think it makes for a more fun game if your very expensive cavalry unit flank charges a big block WHICH IS ALREADY ENGAGED TO THE FRONT and then takes away their steadfast.

So this could be used as decisive combined charge because you have outmanouevred your opponent or as a counter charge.

In my opinion, it would make the game more fun. Which the point, surely? If you don't think it would be more fun that's obviously you prerogative.

Outright statements that you have "debunked" any opinions that disagree with you are laughable.


I don't mind doing this again...

OK, I think we've been through this before, but nevermind. My position is that Warhammer is a game first and foremost. No justification is needed for real life examples as to WHY a (large) unit of cavalry in the flank would make a unit lose steadfast - even discussing it in these terms is a bit ridiculous I feel.

The entire process is an abstraction of what people guess this type of war would be like.

The arguments in favour generally rest around it giving the player more choices in the game. I think this is a good thing, it would force people to think about their big blocks, encourage them to counter supporting units of heavy cav (which they don't need to worry about at the moment if they have sufficient amounts of foot troops).

Nobody wants a return to the steam-roller heavy cavalry of 7th!

Perhaps it's internet syndrome that polarises discussion into such binary terms - but I think a lot of players would be happy with a compromise that lets flanking have more of an impact, because it makes for a more fun game.

You obviously like it the way it is, which is fine; just don't think that everyone who would like a small change is crying out for a return to the way it was before.

rtunian
15-08-2010, 16:29
Which? I missed it then. Remember we're looking at real world logic here, not game logic. Game logic can portray anything. Real men and real horses...

well, if you change your mind and insist that all arguments are either "game logic" or "real world logic", as opposed to "emotional" vs "logical", then i still retort with...


So why the hell would one unit of 25 (5x5) be confident of victory if there were 24 enemy in the front (1 incomplete of 5x5), 24 in the left, 24 in the right, 24 in the rear. So 25 guys are steadfast because they realise they are 'more numerous' than 84 enemies. Yes because that clearly makes sense :rolleyes:

...as an example of an argument based on real world logic.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 16:34
You obviously like it the way it is, which is fine; just don't think that everyone who would like a small change is crying out for a return to the way it was before.

See... Now I can understand your post here. I didn't say everyone wanted to go back to 7th, I assumed were looking for their knights to be H/k units...

As you say, history and the real world dynamics of all this is not important to you, the game and how it's played is.

For me the "fun" part of the game is that it models real world mechanics and dynamics. I think it can do that, and in 8th edition I think it does do that to a large degree.

But we're never going to change each other's mind. We want completely different things out of the game that are completely oppoesed to each other. The only solution, then, is to shake hands and agree on a friendly disagreement.

Urgat
15-08-2010, 16:37
sure, a unit of 30-40 will disappear relatively quickly, but no matter what you bring, it will take them a long time to chop through 100 goblins. 3-6 player turns at least. that's enough time for it to matter.

My only comment is that you seem to think a unit of 100 goblins costs nothing and that there will be a ton of other stuff in the army... While you got two or whatever units stuck for your 4-6 turns with these 100 goblins, you're also probably going to rape the rest of the army (dunno, go and hunt the general? If the unit of gob isn't fleeing, odds are he's nearby :p). Besides, steadfast isn't unbreakable, and save for special characters, the highest Ld you'll get is 8, so the possibility of failing that break test isn't that low. And if you get the general, that the gobs are steadfast will mean a big deal to them...
So take those 100 goblins, and apply the same logic to them that everybody says should be applied to steamtanks: you don't NEED to kill them all to the last one in melee, do you? You basically need to kill only one guy to get them.

ewar
15-08-2010, 16:42
See... Now I can understand your post here. I didn't say everyone wanted to go back to 7th, I assumed were looking for their knights to be H/k units...

As you say, history and the real world dynamics of all this is not important to you, the game and how it's played is.

For me the "fun" part of the game is that it models real world mechanics and dynamics. I think it can do that, and in 8th edition I think it does do that to a large degree.

But we're never going to change each other's mind. We want completely different things out of the game that are completely oppoesed to each other. The only solution, then, is to shake hands and agree on a friendly disagreement.

Spoken like a true gent.

Now if you can just explain to me why the hell they brought in random charges... (joking!):D

red_zebra_ve
15-08-2010, 16:43
Use columns of infantry Napoleonic style, and charge with them...Goodbye steadfast.

Badger[Fr]
15-08-2010, 16:46
This isn't a question of wanting small units of cav to be all powerful. I think it makes for a more fun game if your very expensive cavalry unit flank charges a big block WHICH IS ALREADY ENGAGED TO THE FRONT and then takes away their steadfast.
Given the casualties an unit engaged on two fronts will suffer, it should lose steadfast fast enough. Unless it's a hundred model strong horde, but then it's a whole other issue...



The arguments in favour generally rest around it giving the player more choices in the game. I think this is a good thing, it would force people to think about their big blocks, encourage them to counter supporting units of heavy cav (which they don't need to worry about at the moment if they have sufficient amounts of foot troops).
Your entire argument seems to be based on the premise Infantry blocks are overpowered and have no trouble dealing with heavy cavalry units, which, in my experience, is plain wrong. The average WS3 S3 unit, not matter how numerous, cannot realistically be expected to deal with a heavy cavalry unit on its own in a six turn game, even in the unlikely event it manages to get a front charge and never fail a single break test.



So why the hell would one unit of 25 (5x5) be confident of victory if there were 24 enemy in the front (1 incomplete of 5x5), 24 in the left, 24 in the right, 24 in the rear. So 25 guys are steadfast because they realise they are 'more numerous' than 84 enemies. Yes because that clearly makes sense
This is a solid argument... But not the one which is currently discussed at the moment.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 16:48
well, if you change your mind and insist that all arguments are either "game logic" or "real world logic", as opposed to "emotional" vs "logical", then i still retort with...



...as an example of an argument based on real world logic.

Steadfast is not portraying units as being confident of victory. They're just lost the combat, remember? It potrays the idea that formed blockes of experienced troops realized that their best chance of survival was in maintaining the formation at all costs. That under stress that experience made them hard to defeat psycologically. Running meant instant death so they stay and fight even whn loosing. It's harder, not impossible, but harder to break them. Trained units preferred deeper formations because they were far easier to control.

Ok... let's disect this. A unit of 5 x 5 si stead fast as long as every other unit attacking is 4 ranks or less. If attacked from all 4 sides he only gets the step up to the front. The flankers are going to pretty much attack without being attacked. Assuming all units do average damage the target is probably going to loose at least 6 models making all the other units steadfast while the target looses it. Even if it goes badly for the attackers and the target only looses one model the unit fails to keep steadfast because it now only equals the largest rank of the attacker.

The likelihood is that even if the attackers are in 3 ranks the target will loose steadfast just because of casualties. If it's Cav in two ranks then the killing power goes way up and most likely going to loose even more wounds.

In the real world the target has been swamped, the masses crushing in on it cause it to faulter and break.

Attacked on two sides by well planned infantry and cavalry support most targets are going to faulter and break. Steadfast is supposed to favor the looser, you only get it if you loose the combat. If you negate it just because a single unit charges it in the flank then it does nothing. So just do away with it completely. But then you're back to 7th, for the most part.

That's the cruxt of the argument. shopuld cav be able to sweep anything from the field in one turn if it hits the flank?
Yes -then just remove steadfast as it runs counter to what you want.
No- then steadfast is the balance and if you change it you're simply negating it.

bluemage
15-08-2010, 16:52
Yes steadfast should be lost if your ranks are disrupted. There should be more to warhammer then, a) having a large unit with 20 ranks that will never run away. Or b) having a killing unit that won't lose combat, but also won't have enough ranks to get rid of steadfast for 4+ turns.

Badger[Fr]
15-08-2010, 16:56
No- then steadfast is the balance and if you change it you're simply negating it.
Truth to be told, I do think Steadfast requires improvements. As an example, granting Heavy Cavalry units additional ranks for the purpose of determining whether an unit is Steadfast or not would a more sensible idea than bringing back the horrible 7th Edition one-hit kills.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 17:09
;4912438']Truth to be told, I do think Steadfast requires improvements. As an example, granting Heavy Cavalry units additional ranks for the purpose of determining whether an unit is Steadfast or not would a more sensible idea than bringing back the horrible 7th Edition one-hit kills.


Yes steadfast should be lost if your ranks are disrupted. There should be more to warhammer then, a) having a large unit with 20 ranks that will never run away. Or b) having a killing unit that won't lose combat, but also won't have enough ranks to get rid of steadfast for 4+ turns.

The problem I have is that disruption is automatic. A unit hit in the flank or rear, or worse, both, has no realy chance of doing enough damage to the attackers to pull their ranks down, so it becomes a moot point. Getting charged in the flank negates steadfast and we're back to where we were. The rule becomes pointless, because this is exactly when the unit needs it. Remember the point of the rule is to keep cavalry from running over everything. The infantry isn't unbreakable, they still usually have no better than a 50% chance of standing even with the rule.

If on the other hand disruption were not automatic, say when they are charged in the flank they roll on their unmodified leadershit before any casualties, to see if the charge disrupts them, then I would say that loosing steadfast on being flanked has merit. But that's not all that much different than the current rule, really, if the goal is to give a single unit the chance to break them.

Where that rule would make a difference is mutiple charges would allow multiple opprotunities to disrupt the unit. But in the current game, if you charge that much stuff in, the casualties are gonna pile up so fast the unit will probably loose steadfast anyway.

I don't see the gain.

itcamefromthedeep
15-08-2010, 17:20
I looks to me like the "engaged on two fronts" exception is already there. Just make sure that the unit engaging your target in the front is ranked infantry. With the casualties your cavalry cause, you may very well break steadfast.

Infantry fight infantry to each others' front, and cavalry hit the flank to cause lots of casualties and break the tie. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

If the unit in the front of those 60 Slaves is a Great Eagle, I don't think that should help break steadfast.

My vote was no.

---

A note on realism.

In this game, stopping to fight makes you go *faster*. If you're willing to go along with that, then I say that you've conceded your need for realism.

DDogwood
15-08-2010, 18:40
Here's something else to consider - if steadfast could be removed with a flank charge, a unit of 150 goblins would be demonstrably worse than 3 units of 50 goblins in virtually every possible situation. As it stands now, neither choice is clearly "better" without knowing the composition of the rest of the army, the battle plan, and the opponent.

That seems a lot more interesting to me.

rtunian
15-08-2010, 18:45
...you're also probably going to rape the rest of the army...

you throw that word around a little too casually for my liking, urgat.

Urgat
15-08-2010, 18:47
It's just a word, neither a swear word nor coloquial, rtunian. Replace it with whatever fits your sensibilities better, I do understand that "slaughter" or "massacre" is much less shocking.

zak
15-08-2010, 18:53
I am happy playing the rules as they are. However, I would have preferred not playing this particular one. If they made it 10 models then cavalry would have to be fielded in large units to be effective, but still make it possible to flank units.

Oglog
15-08-2010, 18:55
Perhaps something like this would help (probably just get a barrage of comments saying "no i like 8th, live with it" etc...)
Units that cause fear or terror remove steadfast. Units of at least 10 cavalry cause fear on the charge (against infantry). If they win, no steadfast. If the infantry unit holds for a turn, they then get steadfast. this means:
units of 5 knights cannot easily break on the charge.
Will requie at least 10 knights, knights are 20+ points = 200 points MINIMUM.
If the infantry hold for one turn (do-able), they then have the advantage.

decker_cky
15-08-2010, 19:23
I like steadfast as is, except for that it counts for the combat reform. Make the combat reform fully affected by CR and steadfast as is is perfect.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 20:31
Interesting... If you take the "other solutions" (6) and add them to "yes" (41) as they both favor altering the existing rule, to the "No" at 47... It's a dead draw. I recall the yes's were way ahead at the beginning of the discussion.

Not sure what to read into that exactly, except that stead fast has become the most controversial rule. I think it's got more people talking that TLoS at this point.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
15-08-2010, 20:43
I think it's got more people talking that TLoS at this point.

Locally at least, that is probably because people are already making up their own LOS systems for tournament play.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 20:54
Locally at least, that is probably because people are already making up their own LOS systems for tournament play.

You're probably right. Honestly, I was thinking the "change it" side was going to put the "keep it" side away on this one topic.

I'd love to have some demographics to go with those numbers. :)

Badger[Fr]
15-08-2010, 21:40
Units that cause fear or terror remove steadfast. Units of at least 10 cavalry cause fear on the charge (against infantry). If they win, no steadfast. If the infantry unit holds for a turn, they then get steadfast. this means:
Just when I thought the Hellpit Abomination couldn't get even more broken...



I like steadfast as is, except for that it counts for the combat reform. Make the combat reform fully affected by CR and steadfast as is is perfect.
Now this sounds reasonable, although it could be argued that units engaged on two fronts already don't get the opportunity to reform.

In my opinion, the Steadfast rule was designed in order to favoured combined arms. Basically, the most reliable way to wipe out a huge Infantry block is still to weaken it with war machines, then charge it with your own Infantry block while a cavalry unit disrupts the foe's ranks, racks up kills, and ensure that the opposing unit is wiped out when it eventually breaks. Any unconsidered change may break the balance 8th Edition somehow managed to achieve.

Oglog
15-08-2010, 21:45
;4913044']Just when I thought the Hellpit Abomination couldn't get even more broken...

true, I dislike the HPA and it is unbalanced, but it makes sense ruleswise. Terror/fear causing shouldn't encourage troops to stay fighting in combat. But on game balance, my rue wouldn't work...:mad:

Souppilgrim
15-08-2010, 22:55
At first I was amazed that disruption didn't remove steadfast, but after playing more games I'm not so sure it's needed.

chamelion 6
15-08-2010, 23:16
;4913044']

In my opinion, the Steadfast rule was designed in order to favoured combined arms. Basically, the most reliable way to wipe out a huge Infantry block is still to weaken it with war machines, then charge it with your own Infantry block while a cavalry unit disrupts the foe's ranks, racks up kills, and ensure that the opposing unit is wiped out when it eventually breaks. Any unconsidered change may break the balance 8th Edition somehow managed to achieve.

I don't have a proper argument as to why I don't like this, but I dont.

I want him to turn, I'm banking on him turning. If I've set myself up properly, that turn to face his flankers is his doom. Because it means he's abandoned steadfast and opened his flank to get hammered.

Gatsby
15-08-2010, 23:41
Which? I missed it then. Remember we're looking at real world logic here, not game logic. Game logic can portray anything. Real men and real horses...

no we're basing it on real world logic, we need to take into account the demonic entity currently in possession of the men and horses. I base everything on real world logic but I have to accept twisting to make up for the fact that dinosaurs still roam the earth, rats are people too, and that kid I beat up in high school turned out to be an all powerful mage.

comparing 5-10 man empire/bretonnian cavalry charging 30-40 man empire/bretonnian infantry is one thing, but im not charging you with 5-10 man empire/bretonnian cavalry im charging you with 5-10 man vampire/undead/demonic/lizard/masochistic elf. the change in rules made my knight, who isn't 20 points hes 55 points, obsolete. if they are going to add a rule like steadfast they needed to add a rule so that cavalry are still decent.

giving cavalry the ability to disrupt steadfast is not going to make cavalry the end all of large infantry blocks. Infantry got SO many boosts in this edition that adjusting this rule would keep infantry viable and just means the infantry blocks need to make sure they have support on their flanks so they don't get flank charged. why dumb down the rules to benefit taking nothing but large infantry blocks to just move forward for a few turns towards the opponent whos doing the same thing? I'm sure 25 bucks a rank has something to do with it but ill leave that argument out. When taking large blocks of infantry and marching forward became the standard, all strategy in the game was removed as the game became, whos got higher initiative/strength/armor in their block.

Urgat
16-08-2010, 00:05
the change in rules made my knight, who isn't 20 points hes 55 points, obsolete.

55 points, that's blood knights, right? You're kidding, right? Blood knights charging in the flank of a unit? How many kills would they rack up against 30 or 40 empire state troops? Yeah, your 5 knights aren't killing them in one turn. They're killing them all in two.¨Probably w/o losing one guy (who could be raised back anyway). Oh my god the shock, the horror.
I'm disgusted :/

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 00:12
no we're basing it on real world logic, we need to take into account the demonic entity currently in possession of the men and horses. I base everything on real world logic but I have to accept twisting to make up for the fact that dinosaurs still roam the earth, rats are people too, and that kid I beat up in high school turned out to be an all powerful mage.

comparing 5-10 man empire/bretonnian cavalry charging 30-40 man empire/bretonnian infantry is one thing, but im not charging you with 5-10 man empire/bretonnian cavalry im charging you with 5-10 man vampire/undead/demonic/lizard/masochistic elf. the change in rules made my knight, who isn't 20 points hes 55 points, obsolete. if they are going to add a rule like steadfast they needed to add a rule so that cavalry are still decent.

giving cavalry the ability to disrupt steadfast is not going to make cavalry the end all of large infantry blocks. Infantry got SO many boosts in this edition that adjusting this rule would keep infantry viable and just means the infantry blocks need to make sure they have support on their flanks so they don't get flank charged. why dumb down the rules to benefit taking nothing but large infantry blocks to just move forward for a few turns towards the opponent whos doing the same thing? I'm sure 25 bucks a rank has something to do with it but ill leave that argument out. When taking large blocks of infantry and marching forward became the standard, all strategy in the game was removed as the game became, whos got higher initiative/strength/armor in their block.

So essentially your argument is based on the idea you feel cheated that your expensive cav can no longer dominate like it used to. It's a game mechanics argument then?

Cause I got a heap of stuff here on why a historical argument makes sense and why the point's you paid for your cav is irrelevant, and why charging lots of guys on horses is no different that charging slightly fewer but bigger guys on horses. It has nothing to do with balance or overpowered cavalry. I don't care about balance or how strong or weak cavalry is or isn't. I care about how accurately it behaves within the game environment. Balance, to me is trivial compared to realism within the elements of the game that warrant it.

I could spend the next 20 posts trying to explain why having an internal logic in the game that derives from the real world is important even when dealing with deamons, vampires, orcs, skaven, poodles, pygmies, orangutans, 3 toed sloths, and other assorted fauna.

However...

If all you're interested in is game mechanics, then any argument I present is futile. Game mechanics are what you want them to be. If we abandon the logic and dictates outside of the game to bring balance then all we have are artifical constructs. I can't explain why a chess knight moves the way he does. It relates to nothing outside the game.

So if that's where you're coming from, we're beating a dead demon posessed horse and going nowhere. I'm not going to change your mind and not going to try, and you have no argument capable of changing mine, since your post suggests you don't really get where I'm coming from. I hated 6th and 7th for all the mechanical reasons you present.

Doesn't mean it was a bad or stupid game, just that those kind of rules and ideas don't appeal to me.

Gatsby
16-08-2010, 00:45
So essentially your argument is based on the idea you feel cheated that your expensive cav can no longer dominate like it used to. It's a game mechanics argument then?

Cause I got a heap of stuff here on why a historical argument makes sense and why the point's you paid for your cav is irrelevant, and why charging lots of guys on horses is no different that charging slightly fewer but bigger guys on horses. It has nothing to do with balance or overpowered cavalry. I don't care about balance or how strong or weak cavalry is or isn't. I care about how accurately it behaves within the game environment. Balance, to me is trivial compared to realism within the elements of the game that warrant it.

I could spend the next 20 posts trying to explain why having an internal logic in the game that derives from the real world is important even when dealing with deamons, vampires, orcs, skaven, poodles, pygmies, orangutans, 3 toed sloths, and other assorted fauna.

However...

If all you're interested in is game mechanics, then any argument I present is futile. Game mechanics are what you want them to be. If we abandon the logic and dictates outside of the game to bring balance then all we have are artifical constructs. I can't explain why a chess knight moves the way he does. It relates to nothing outside the game.

So if that's where you're coming from, we're beating a dead demon posessed horse and going nowhere. I'm not going to change your mind and not going to try, and you have no argument capable of changing mine, since your post suggests you don't really get where I'm coming from. I hated 6th and 7th for all the mechanical reasons you present.

Doesn't mean it was a bad or stupid game, just that those kind of rules and ideas don't appeal to me.

game mechanics SHOULD follow logic and realism, there is a reason horse based cavalry was used up until WWII (although not to effectively in that last one) however steadfast effectively makes cavalry obsolete, there is no use for them in this game, you are better off if you abandon them and take more infantry in 8th. Yea 7th wasn't perfect but this is an extreme fix.

In your post you say that game balance doesn't matter to you, well to most everyone else that is what this game is about, balance, and that is what everyone is arguing. Im not saying cavalry should curb-stomp infantry, but im also not saying infantry should jump cavalry, there needs to be a balance. cavalry in this game no longer do what they were designed to do plain and simple. they need to have a purpose and i propose that the purpose be the same one that led to the development of cavalry in the first place. Flanking an enemy while theyre busy fighting to the front. Removing steadfast when you disrupt their flank while they are engaged elsewhere is the most accurate way to portray this, if you can come up with a better way i will accept that, but i havent seen solutions ive only seen "no it works."

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 01:03
game mechanics SHOULD follow logic and realism, there is a reason horse based cavalry was used up until WWII (although not to effectively in that last one) however steadfast effectively makes cavalry obsolete, there is no use for them in this game, you are better off if you abandon them and take more infantry in 8th. Yea 7th wasn't perfect but this is an extreme fix.

In your post you say that game balance doesn't matter to you, well to most everyone else that is what this game is about, balance, and that is what everyone is arguing. Im not saying cavalry should curb-stomp infantry, but im also not saying infantry should jump cavalry, there needs to be a balance. cavalry in this game no longer do what they were designed to do plain and simple. they need to have a purpose and i propose that the purpose be the same one that led to the development of cavalry in the first place. Flanking an enemy while theyre busy fighting to the front. Removing steadfast when you disrupt their flank while they are engaged elsewhere is the most accurate way to portray this, if you can come up with a better way i will accept that, but i havent seen solutions ive only seen "no it works."

Warfare isn't, wasn't, and never will be balanced. An while a signifigant number of people want balance you are incorrect in assuming that's nearly universal. Historic gamers don't concern themselves with balance. It's not at all part of the goal. Realism is.

40% of my army, by unit volume is cavalry, not even the best and they do just what they did historicaly. I'm not having problems. Use them in a historical manner, they function quite well. Cav was not, not ever, and at no time, used as an autonomous hunter killer formation.

And cavalry was on the books well past WWII. That doesn't prove alot. They were in fact used in WWII. The last massed cavalry charge was in WWI and it wasn't performed by a cavalry unit, it was Mounted Infantry using bayonets. That was one charge... one. During WWI the cavalry rotted in the rear waiting for the moment of opportunity which never came. It never came because trenches and machine guns changed the dynamics.

Let's put this in perspective. If we go to the mid 1400's to the early 1600's you find a near perfect matchg for the WFB world, minus magic and deamons. All the common troop types and formations are there. It becomes the perfect period to draw conclusion on how this stuff might work in the real world. Get a book io the Italian wars during that period. Cavalry did NOT operate as you suggest. And everytime they tried, and the French did try, the died. Without proper support they were next to useless. Deep blocks of trained infantry absolutely ruled the battlefield. The battles of the period centered around them, they became the focal point. Break them and you win. That was the military mindset pretty much until the invention of the plug bayonet. The ration of firearms to pikes shifted as firearms became more efficent, but the tactic remained.

In a hundred years of nearly constant warfare I've not found a single example of cavalry being used that way or that effectively.

That doesn't make the concept invalid. If you like that kind of game play that's a whole other issue. As a contest of skill between players all those ideas are valid, but they are not historic.

Blackknight1239
16-08-2010, 01:17
giving cavalry the ability to disrupt steadfast is not going to make cavalry the end all of large infantry blocks. Infantry got SO many boosts in this edition that adjusting this rule would keep infantry viable and just means the infantry blocks need to make sure they have support on their flanks so they don't get flank charged. why dumb down the rules to benefit taking nothing but large infantry blocks to just move forward for a few turns towards the opponent whos doing the same thing? I'm sure 25 bucks a rank has something to do with it but ill leave that argument out. When taking large blocks of infantry and marching forward became the standard, all strategy in the game was removed as the game became, whos got higher initiative/strength/armor in their block.

Yes. Yes it will. I don't think you realize how crucial steadfast is. Let's say you charged 10 knights of the Realm into, say, some Str 4, T4, 4+ armour save troops. 100 of them. Static CR works out to 1 for the 100 man unit, and 3 for the Cavalry unit. You're already winning by a decent margin. So, at best, the troop is getting 7 models into the fight. 7 attacks. Even at Str 4, with a solid 2+ save, you won't be killing much. Compare that to 1+ Cav? They aren't killing a thing. Then, the cavalry attacks slaughter. Wounding on 3+, and a -2 save? There is no chance the infantry can win convincingly enough. It's easy to get 5-6 CR, and even for a Ld 8 squad, that's good bye 100 men. Steadfast is NEEDED to make large blocks usable.

Well, in my opinion, pointing and clicking your entire army isn't indicative to tactics at all. Let's not talk about dumbing down, buddy.

Gatsby
16-08-2010, 01:21
As a contest of skill between players all those ideas are valid, but they are not historic.

its this argument i don't like. there are historic games and then there is warhammer FANTASY. Its not historical, it can base things using historical context but in the end it is fantasy. imagine if you will the battle of Agincourt but rather than footslogging knights its bloodletters on juggernauts i think the outcome may have been different. The rules cannot compare real world to fantasy, they can only inspire them.

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 01:26
its this argument i don't like. there are historic games and then there is warhammer FANTASY. Its not historical, it can base things using historical context but in the end it is fantasy. imagine if you will the battle of Agincourt but rather than footslogging knights its bloodletters on juggernauts i think the outcome may have been different. The rules cannot compare real world to fantasy, they can only inspire them.

That's your opinion. I've played more than enough historic games to have a very different opinion. I've read enough fantasy fiction to understand that a fantastic story can effectively be set in a hard as nails realistic setting.

There is no reason it has to be all one way or the other. Take out the magic and the deamons and WFB would make a rather nice historic wargame at this point.

Your thinking limits you.

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 03:05
game mechanics SHOULD follow logic and realism, there is a reason horse based cavalry was used up until WWII (although not to effectively in that last one) however steadfast effectively makes cavalry obsolete, there is no use for them in this game, you are better off if you abandon them and take more infantry in 8th. Yea 7th wasn't perfect but this is an extreme fix.

This is so, so historically wrong it is not even funny. Cavalry after the Middle Ages was a fast maneuvering element to support the infantry blocks more than anything. In the age of firearms, Cavalry did barely anything outside of scouting, running down broken enemies, and tying up units in square, which was a perfectly adequate defense against them. Look at the American use of Cavalry; it wasn't as linebreakers, but more like highly-mobile infantry units who would dismount to fight rather than charge an enemy.

The reason you see cavalry units still around at the time of World War I and II is tradition. Armies are notoriously conservative, and Cavalry carried a great deal of prestige with it.


In your post you say that game balance doesn't matter to you, well to most everyone else that is what this game is about, balance, and that is what everyone is arguing.

Those arguing the balance line would point out to you that putting in place those changes would completely throw off the balance of the game into a cavalry flanking contest, with infantry units and hordes falling by the wayside due to their fragility.


Im not saying cavalry should curb-stomp infantry, but im also not saying infantry should jump cavalry, there needs to be a balance.

Cavalry currently have better stats, armor, movement, and serious advantages on the charge. How is it balanced to hamstring infantry again?

Answer: It's not. Infantry survive through numbers and formations, which is why steadfast is the way it is. Otherwise there is no return on points put into large infantry units.


cavalry in this game no longer do what they were designed to do plain and simple. they need to have a purpose and i propose that the purpose be the same one that led to the development of cavalry in the first place.

Maneuvering to threaten enemy flanks and chase them down when they were disrupted or broke? Or are we going with a more Medieval Knights focus, where they would generally ride closer to the infantry and then advance on foot to fight in hand to hand? Scouting out the enemy and harassing smaller, vulnerable specialist units before running off like Light Cavalry?


Flanking an enemy while theyre busy fighting to the front.

Oooh, swing and a miss.


Removing steadfast when you disrupt their flank while they are engaged elsewhere is the most accurate way to portray this, if you can come up with a better way i will accept that, but i havent seen solutions ive only seen "no it works."

No, no it wouldn't. Cavalry might charge into a units flank, but that doesn't mean it would instantly break, either. Larger units should be tougher to break by sheer weight of numbers, which is accurately reflected in how steadfast currently works.

Let me say this again, in small words:

Your rule breaks the game.

There is no other way to say it. You will make infantry useless as cavalry have a completely unrealistic ability to break units 5 to 10 times their size with one charge. With flank charging as is, they will maul any core infantry they contact due to better strength (lances), better armor, and more attacks (two ranks vs. one rank).


its this argument i don't like. there are historic games and then there is warhammer FANTASY. Its not historical, it can base things using historical context but in the end it is fantasy.

Fantasy does not mean that it shouldn't be consistent to the historical period that it borrows from heavily. Nor does it mean it should ignore obvious tenants of war without explanation or reason. Your version of cavalry has been debated already in other threads, and has really been shown to not exist.


imagine if you will the battle of Agincourt but rather than footslogging knights its bloodletters on juggernauts i think the outcome may have been different.

There are so many things wrong with your statement.

If we were to compare similarly equipped in-universe types, I doubt it would be much different. A better comparison would be Empire Greatswords trudging through mud against Bretonnian Longbowmen or other marksmen, the result would largely be the same.

Not only this, but your Bloodcrusher comparison fails because Bloodcrushers have specific advantages which allow them to do what they do: They are tougher, have magical protection, among other things. They are able to ignore the traditional result due to fantastical advantages, unlike Empire, Bretonnians, or even High Elves and Dwarves.


The rules cannot compare real world to fantasy, they can only inspire them.

Okay, so barding no longer slows down horses. Infantrymen can outrun flying dragons. Pistols don't compare to slings. Remember; the real world can not compare, so we are free to do whatever we want!

Oh, wait. Maybe we should establish some consistency with the real world. That way the fantastical is, well, actually fantastical.

DaemonReign
16-08-2010, 03:22
I vote NO.

My "in-between" standpoint here is a ghost of the now gone "unit strength" - I think the actual outnumbering is what should matter. Thus this argument I've been pushing about counting "aggregate ranks" - i.e. just flanking with one or two ranks should NOT be enough to break steadfast - but if you after combat has been resolved actually have more ranks (thus probably more models) than the enemy, then this should break steadfast.

The counter argument for this has been that elite champions walk in the flanks and keep the cowards in check with their discipline - but these units already have the Stubborn rule (GreatSwords, BlackGuard etc).

I've been told by certain people that what I am pushing here is just another mechanic. I'm not sure I agree. If anything, a purely game-mechanical argument (I think) might be the best one to actually support the rules as they currently are. Steadfast needs to only be a measure between the "two main units in the battle" because otherwise Steadfast won't ever be a competative alternative to going Horde.

Again, I am not sure I actually believe this. Somehow, you still SHOULD NOT let yourself be flank-charged. You should try to desperately avoid that.

But the answer to the question in this poll is a definate NO. "Just" flanking should not be enough. Aggregate ranks, maybe, but otherwise NO.

Blackknight1239
16-08-2010, 04:17
I just want to ask the yes supporters a question.

With flanking negating steadfast, why is it fair that a 300 point unit (15 Cavalry) can easily break a unit of infantry of any number? What does this bring to the game aside from making large units of infantry (even small numbers of them) completely useless?

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 04:17
I vote NO.

My "in-between" standpoint here is a ghost of the now gone "unit strength" - I think the actual outnumbering is what should matter. Thus this argument I've been pushing about counting "aggregate ranks" - i.e. just flanking with one or two ranks should NOT be enough to break steadfast - but if you after combat has been resolved actually have more ranks (thus probably more models) than the enemy, then this should break steadfast.

The counter argument for this has been that elite champions walk in the flanks and keep the cowards in check with their discipline - but these units already have the Stubborn rule (GreatSwords, BlackGuard etc).

I've been told by certain people that what I am pushing here is just another mechanic. I'm not sure I agree. If anything, a purely game-mechanical argument (I think) might be the best one to actually support the rules as they currently are. Steadfast needs to only be a measure between the "two main units in the battle" because otherwise Steadfast won't ever be a competative alternative to going Horde.

Again, I am not sure I actually believe this. Somehow, you still SHOULD NOT let yourself be flank-charged. You should try to desperately avoid that.

But the answer to the question in this poll is a definate NO. "Just" flanking should not be enough. Aggregate ranks, maybe, but otherwise NO.


I don't think I explained that idea very well. The guys on the flanks of a formation aren't vet's or elietes like those in a great sword unit... That's not what I meant.

Think of one unit alone all by itself. Not every guy in this unit is of equal experience, build, and cool natured. Some are much more skittish. What they did to control the unit is put the best the unit had to offer on the flanks and rear. The bravest and toughest men in the unit. The more easily intimidated were formed into the center of the unit. Deep formations allowed the tougher guys on the edges of the formation to control the guys in the center. The result is that when things go wron, panic is controlled. These guys were trained to mind the flanks of their unit. That is their whole purpose.

Now lets look at the longer, thinner formations, including the hoard. These formations made better use of their numbers. By streatching out wider than the enemy they had more freedom to attack. That's reflected in the hoard rule and you get additional attacks. But that freedom comes sith a price. Your better, more ecxperienced soldiers in the unit don't have the cowards an noobs on a tight leash anymore. More freedom to move an fight, but more freedom to panic and run. The deaths of any formation in this era is panic. Once it starts the unit simply dissolves.

In game terms the stead fast unit is holdin by the sheer will of the best soldiers in the unit, the bravest and most experienced. You have to break the will of the best they have to make the uniit fall apart. These guys are packed in tight, shoulder to shoulder and pressing together.

In the thinner, looser formation the unit breas as soon as the first coward screams and runs away. Be it because he saw too many of his friends die or because those big guys on big horses scared him out of his wits. They are happy when they are winning but easily broken.

Let's say now two of these looser thinner units hit our resolute deep unit. They add more attacks but what do they contribute to each other? Nothing. They are still loose easily panicked but furious units. They don't contribute any more force to the other's attack. Their best hope is to kill enough ot the formed units numbers that they can't sufficently maintain control. If you get warmed by 100 bees and another hundred bees show up it doesn't add force to the attack, more stings maybe, but no impetus.

Isn't that pretty much what steadfast does?

In other games you find things like "close order troops" and "order troops" and so forth. This is another way this concept is done in other games. Order troops are looser not as steady, these are you normal day to day formations, close order troops are the hard formed troops. WFB took a simpler way to portray these ideas. It's not perfect but within the context and the current level of abstraction I think it works as well as many other more complicated systems. I think GW found a very nice balance between realism and game play.

As for the BSB and general... The guys holding that unit togeter are exactly the ones to find that extra resolve by fighting near their general or at the sight of their army's banner. That's going to make them that mucdh more resolute if the battle is going against them.

Maoriboy007
16-08-2010, 04:24
I just want to ask the yes supporters a question.

With flanking negating steadfast, why is it fair that a 300 point unit (15 Cavalry) can easily break a unit of infantry of any number? What does this bring to the game aside from making large units of infantry (even small numbers of them) completely useless?

First the unit has allowed itself to be disrupted, meaning the cavalry player has gone to a fair amount of trouble to outmaneuver his opponant.
Now take into account that with the new reforms, this will usually mean that the disrupted unit is also probably in combat to the front as well.
This means that rather than plunking some obscenely sized unit on the table as some sort of anvil you'll have to put some thought into using it.


But the answer to the question in this poll is a definate NO. "Just" flanking should not be enough. Aggregate ranks, maybe, but otherwise NO.

The poll is pretty neck and neck.

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 04:34
First the unit has allowed itself to be disrupted, meaning the opponant has gone to a fair amount of trouble to outmaneuver his opponant.
Now take into account that with the new reforms, this will usually mean that the disrupted unit is also probably in combat to the front as well.
This means that rather than plunking some obscenely sized unit on the table as some sort of anvil you'll have to put some thought into using it.

Why sould my unit oblige you and run screaming off the table just because you worked so hard to flank it?

Remember this goes both ways. The assumption that sombody fielding a large unit has no other ideas is screwy. Deep steady units like this arent a crutch, they're a tool. They dominated military thinking for over 2oo years. Were the Spanis lazy tacticians for fielding their Tercios and dominating European warfare?

And in dealing with these large units the best approach is to NOT hit them in the front first.

The beginnings of all this tactical thinking should satart wit the questions, "Do I need to defeat this unit to win?"

Duke_Corwin
16-08-2010, 04:38
If you lose steadfast from disruption then you are right back to smallish cavalry units running around flank charging big blocks and breaking units all over the battlefield. Needless to say the big blocks would become extinct again. Also it is not even historical. Disruption was never the end all of ancient or medieval combat.

Now if there was a rule that reduced a units effective ranks for steadfast if it was disrupted (say -1 rank for flank disruption -2 for rear disruption) and make it additive (disrupted in both flanks -2, disrupted in a flank and rear -3 both flanks and rear -4) that would be ok.

In fact I am adding the above to the proposed rules.

Blackknight1239
16-08-2010, 05:10
First the unit has allowed itself to be disrupted, meaning the cavalry player has gone to a fair amount of trouble to outmaneuver his opponant.
Now take into account that with the new reforms, this will usually mean that the disrupted unit is also probably in combat to the front as well.
This means that rather than plunking some obscenely sized unit on the table as some sort of anvil you'll have to put some thought into using it.

Not so. What if, on my turn, I lose a combat with the unit protecting my flanks, they flee, leaving my flank open to a flank charge. Or heck, the cavalry overran from the unit protecting my flank, because cavalry are so awesome on the flanks. I don't see this as a "fair amount of trouble". Why should I basically remove a unit because it's flanked?

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 05:44
If you lose steadfast from disruption then you are right back to smallish cavalry units running around flank charging big blocks and breaking units all over the battlefield. Needless to say the big blocks would become extinct again. Also it is not even historical. Disruption was never the end all of ancient or medieval combat.

Now if there was a rule that reduced a units effective ranks for steadfast if it was disrupted (say -1 rank for flank disruption -2 for rear disruption) and make it additive (disrupted in both flanks -2, disrupted in a flank and rear -3 both flanks and rear -4) that would be ok.

In fact I am adding the above to the proposed rules.

Seems unnecessary to me. If you are completely surrounded, you are going to get torn to shreds in just about every situation. I think people don't realize that people will lose troops quicker when flanked, which will lead to losing steadfast much quicker. If a unit is being attack from three sides, I'd worry about surviving to the leadership test, let alone holding steadfast.

Duke_Corwin
16-08-2010, 06:17
Seems unnecessary to me. If you are completely surrounded, you are going to get torn to shreds in just about every situation. I think people don't realize that people will lose troops quicker when flanked, which will lead to losing steadfast much quicker. If a unit is being attack from three sides, I'd worry about surviving to the leadership test, let alone holding steadfast.

Not always. You may have a magic buff that reduces casualties. In warhammer you can have a unit with +4 toughness for example, or regeneration or ward saves. You may lose but still have a decent number of ranks left and not lose steadfast.

Currently a losing unit with enough ranks is steadfast even if surrounded. Now a reduction in ranks of -4 could reduce that 8 rank unit down to 4 ranks maybe causing it to lose steadfast. Remember to get the minus the attacking unit must be able to disrupt so it will need at least 2 ranks.

Consider that currently a weak unit 5x10 turned flank toward the enemy is harder to break than if it is in a line 10x5 front to the enemy. When has a real general had his units turn flank toward the enemy to make them harder to break? In warhammer 8th it is a viable strategy.

There should be some penalty to getting flanked that reduces a units chance of not breaking with a bigger minus for being surrounded. The rule I proposed does this, it is easy to remember as it uses the standard bonus for flank and rear attacks, and it still allows a unit to remain steadfast if it has enough ranks after the minus.

soots
16-08-2010, 06:40
Id say no if disruped required 5 models, but it requires 10, with lots of opportunity to remove those 10. So a big YES from me.

I would have preferred steadfast to be used on some other requirement. Like atleast being a threat to the enemy.

Case 9 Bloodthirsters vs 50 goblins.

Bloodthirsters costs about 4000 points. 30 goblins 90pts.
Goblins wont do a single wound. Bloodthirsters do maybe 20 wounds.
end result = 10 goblins vs 9 bloodthirsters
Goblins have more ranks and therefore steadfast.
I cannot fathom the idea of goblins hanging around against 9 bloodthirsters after the most lobsided combat round in history. GOBLINS MASSACRED!! 9 Bloodthirsters!! Its just not warhammer.

I dont call that skill, i call that poor mechanics. Also what hurts is EVERY book out atm is based upon different mechanics and foot troops are priced accordingly. It should be interesting seeing the new costs for troops. Im guessing peons go up, mediocre stay put, elite go down, and cavalry goes down big time.

jamano
16-08-2010, 06:53
Flank charges in 8th are alot easier to get with how charge ranges work(not having to pay to wheel) so it's not like you should get a super reward for your brilliant tactical mastery, rank disruption and getting lots of free hits in is good enough.


and why would someone waste 3000 pts chasing down one unit of goblins?


AND lets not forget in all of these examples of a big horde of weenie troops, they could still fail even with steadfast because of poor leadership! Making some hundred man block may let you keep steadfast for a long time, but its alot of eggs in one basket, even with a BSB reroll, if you mess it up thats alot of points to lose out on

soots
16-08-2010, 06:59
101 times out of 100 the goblins would run though. But in 8th edition, suddenly the orc war boss around the corner is telling the goblins theyll be fine and they hold their ground and focus on the 9 bloodthirsters. Its taking the RP away from warhammer.

jamano
16-08-2010, 07:08
Wheres the RP in bloodthirsters wasting their time with goblins?

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 07:11
Id say no if disruped required 5 models, but it requires 10, with lots of opportunity to remove those 10. So a big YES from me.

I would have preferred steadfast to be used on some other requirement. Like atleast being a threat to the enemy.

Case 9 Bloodthirsters vs 50 goblins.

Bloodthirsters costs about 4000 points. 30 goblins 90pts.
Goblins wont do a single wound. Bloodthirsters do maybe 20 wounds.
end result = 10 goblins vs 9 bloodthirsters
Goblins have more ranks and therefore steadfast.

I cannot fathom the idea of goblins hanging around against 9 bloodthirsters after the most lobsided combat round in history. GOBLINS MASSACRED!! 9 Bloodthirsters!! Its just not warhammer.

I dont call that skill, i call that poor mechanics. Also what hurts is EVERY book out atm is based upon different mechanics and foot troops are priced accordingly. It should be interesting seeing the new costs for troops. Im guessing peons go up, mediocre stay put, elite go down, and cavalry goes down big time.

My God, you've created the worst example in Warhammer history. Not only do you screw up your numbers (A Bloodthirster would average something like 5+ kills a turn against Gobbos without anything special, let alone upgrading it as your prices suggest), screw up the rules (Unless the gobbos attacked in a 3x10 road column they would be outranked by any version of the Bloodthirsters since they are monsters and rank up in 3s instead of 5s), missing that this is already taken into account with other rules (Terror, hello!), the unlikeliness of the outcome (Steadfast Gobbos have a Ld of 5, which makes them unlikely to fight at all, let alone pass the second test), but you made it such a ridiculously extreme situation that you could almost never see this on the battlefield to take as the rule and not the exception.

Your entire example is so fraught with stupid holes and absurdity that it not only holds no water, but destroys all water in nearby rivers and lakes. You've caused a logical drought of epic proportions. God.

The idea of "being a threat to the enemy" is almost impossible to judge. Points won't accurately judge because a cannon is worth points but not the same HtH threat an equal amount of troops are. It'd be incredibly arbitrary and impossible to accurately implement. Steadfast is simple, balanced, and easy to assess in just about every situation. Let's compare examples to see which covers better:

My example: 12 Cavalry models charge 60 (6x10) infantrymen on the flank. Due to being attacked on the flank, they lose badly since they lose most of their advantages when attacked from the side. Without steadfast, they break, and the Cavalry run down an entire unit of 60 models in one turn. Steadfast prevents this.

Your example: A road column of 10x3 goblins are beset by a 3x3 block of Bloodthirsters. After the gobbos pass their terror test, the Bloodthirsters only manage to kill 20, leaving 10 left in a 3x3+1 block. Because of this, the Goblins have a steadfast leadership of 5, which they once again passed. Based on this, it is obvious that Steadfast does not work.

Which example seems like a more realistic concern on the battlefield?

Cavalry already have many advantages which many of us have already listed. If you took the time to read why they are still great at flanking and actually look at what flanking does instead of writing up a horribly researched and thought-out example, maybe we could have a constructive debate. Sadly, this does not look to be the case.

Edit: I forgot thunderstomp in there, too. If the Gobbos were stupid enough to hold, the Thirsters would likely take out a good 30-35 of them.

Gatsby
16-08-2010, 07:27
ya know justice it was a rather civil thread with out insulting or attitude until you came along.

soots argument while not the best example actually does work, just fix the numbers a bit and it works just fine as an example.

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 07:39
ya know justice it was a rather civil thread with out insulting or attitude until you came along.

soots argument while not the best example actually does work, just fix the numbers a bit and it works just fine as an example.

I'd be civil if some of these people didn't constantly use bad examples and such to defend their concepts with. It's immensely frustrating, and I'm frankly tired of people who seem to be trolling about 8th edition going into threads with poor, meaningless, or false information on it. People who disregard everything that people like chamelion 6 have consistently posted in favor of essentially running away to other threads so they don't have to address his arguments. It's utterly irritating trying to discuss someone who refuses to actually discuss something.

I'm civil with people who actually know their stuff and make good arguments. Gork and/or Mork, for example: He brought up things about steadfast in another thread and I was completely civil with him, constructively criticizing his idea. But using a 9 monster unit, getting the rules wrong, and trying to pull that off as a reason that Steadfast doesn't work? I don't see a reason to try if he doesn't try to post anything worthwhile.

And the example doesn't work. It fails on any level you want it to, even if you try to fix it. Compare it to the cavalry example being brought up against it and tell me which is an actual, valid example of how the rules work and which is a ridiculous scenario which will never appear on a battlefield?

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 07:46
Justice has a point... IF the goblins survive the terror test and engage the Bloodthirsters in the first place, doesn't that represent them overcoming their fear of the thing? So it stands to reason that once they are engaged and fighting they'd understand the best chance they have to survive is to hold the line... And then we're talking 5 on two dice to stay?

I dunno... this whole thing is getting sillier and more extreme.

9 Bloodthirsters?

If you want a game that emphasizes competition that's fine. But trying to prove the current rules lack logic or history to back them up has just gone completely off the deep end. You start pulling things like 9 Bloodthirsters versus a couple of what evers and game mechanics are gonna start falling apart all over the place.

Bottom line. I don't want H/K cavalry teams. save it for 40k. I seed no historic or logical example to support it. So far the argument for altering the rule is strictly based on game mechanics and desired outcomes, not examples of something to base that idea on.

Gatsby
16-08-2010, 07:46
I'd be civil if some of these people didn't constantly use bad examples and such to defend their concepts with. It's immensely frustrating, and I'm frankly tired of people who seem to be trolling about 8th edition going into threads with poor, meaningless, or false information on it. People who disregard everything that people like chamelion 6 have consistently posted in favor of essentially running away to other threads so they don't have to address his arguments. It's utterly irritating trying to discuss someone who refuses to actually discuss something.

I'm civil with people who actually know their stuff and make good arguments. Gork and/or Mork, for example: He brought up things about steadfast in another thread and I was completely civil with him, constructively criticizing his idea. But using a 9 monster unit, getting the rules wrong, and trying to pull that off as a reason that Steadfast doesn't work? I don't see a reason to try if he doesn't try to post anything worthwhile.

And the example doesn't work. It fails on any level you want it to, even if you try to fix it. Compare it to the cavalry example being brought up against it and tell me which is an actual, valid example of how the rules work and which is a ridiculous scenario which will never appear on a battlefield?

whereas i respect chamelion 6 because he is remaining civil and refraining from insulting people all I'm reading in your post is "superiority complex." your doing your side no good by insulting people, please refrain or go to a different thread/forum so this dicussion can continue civilly.


Justice has a point... IF the goblins survive the terror test and engage the Bloodthirsters in the first place, doesn't that represent them overcoming their fear of the thing? So it stands to reason that once they are engaged and fighting they'd understand the best chance they have to survive is to hold the line... And then we're talking 5 on two dice to stay?

I dunno... this whole thing is getting sillier and more extreme.

9 Bloodthirsters?

If you want a game that emphasizes competition that's fine. But trying to prove the current rules lack logic or history to back them up has just gone completely off the deep end. You start pulling things like 9 Bloodthirsters versus a couple of what evers and game mechanics are gonna start falling apart all over the place.

Bottom line. I don't want H/K cavalry teams. save it for 40k. I seed no historic or logical example to support it. So far the argument for altering the rule is strictly based on game mechanics and desired outcomes, not examples of something to base that idea on.

once again we arent asking for steadfast to be removes as a whole, but to be nerfed a bit to make it less broken. if a unit is being hit from 2 sides it stands to reason that short of snake-eys it should be running as its in a very bad situation. and to counter the argument of "well if they're going to lose anyway why change steadfast" because other aspects of the game have been changed to speed the game up, why not in this situation as well. I feel a VERY large number of people have decided that they agree that steadfast is to powerful in its current form, this solution keeps steadfast and only nerfs it to a more manageable level and it means people will have to be careful with their infantry and not let them get flanked. And there are examples of cavaly breaking infantry give me some time and i will get them for you in one long post.

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 07:57
whereas i respect chamelion 6 because he is remaining civil and refraining from insulting people all I'm reading in your post is "superiority complex." your doing your side no good by insulting people, please refrain or go to a different thread/forum so this dicussion can continue civilly.

We're all good here... It's just a game, after all.

I think my frustration is that I really believe were just in two different places and not getting anywhere. I'm overly hung up on history. It's what I know and comfortable with.

I don't play tournaments, I don't play pickup games really. The idea of competing against another player in WFB is rather un appealing. For that kind of direct competition I'd prefer Axis & Alies, Risk, Chess...

WFB, I want the fantasy, the wild and unpredictable. Stuff that makes it a poor game competitive game. I'm happy with 8th exactly because it's not like 7th.



once again we arent asking for steadfast to be removes as a whole, but to be nerfed a bit to make it less broken. if a unit is being hit from 2 sides it stands to reason that short of snake-eys it should be running as its in a very bad situation. and to counter the argument of "well if they're going to lose anyway why change steadfast" because other aspects of the game have been changed to speed the game up, why not in this situation as well. I feel a VERY large number of people have decided that they agree that steadfast is to powerful in its current form, this solution keeps steadfast and only nerfs it to a more manageable level and it means people will have to be careful with their infantry and not let them get flanked.

But I disagree the rule is broken.

So far every suggestion has the effect of removing it alltogether. You don't need to roll snake eyes to break them. They roll on their unmodified LD. For most units in most situations that's less than a 50 /50 chance. So we're either faced with going back to autobreak on a flank charge or a minimal chance they don't break. What's in between? As for the number of people, this poll is just about split down the middle. I don't want to go back to 7th, I didn't like 7th. Most of the people arguing the change are also defending the previous edition's approach to the game. For good or bad, this edition is deliberately trying to get away from that.

I like the nod to historic tactics. I'd say a signifigant number of others do to. If you want to convince me GW got it wrong you're going to have to stop justifying it with wonky game examples. They mean nothing to me.

jamano
16-08-2010, 08:02
Well as a tournament player, I'm happy with steadfast the way it is chameleon, it makes infantry better and makes alot more options viable. Making for a more interesting competitive game ;)

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 08:06
whereas i respect chamelion 6 because he is remaining civil and refraining from insulting people all I'm reading in your post is "superiority complex." your doing your side no good by insulting people, please refrain or go to a different thread/forum so this dicussion can continue civilly.

I will not back off people who use arguments and examples which go directly against the rules and logic of the game. That example absolutely deserves to get ripped apart; it was poorly thought-out and meant to show brokenness by making up a completely impossible situation and trying to use it as the rule, not the exception (And it still wasn't even the exception).

Generally I'm a nice guy and I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong (check some of the other threads where I've discussed these sorts of things), but I find that I've reached my frustration threshold with a concerted group of anti-8th posters who apparently can do nothing other than put forward false or misleading ideas and examples into what would otherwise be a... well, a more reasonable debate.

Oglog
16-08-2010, 08:11
My God, you've created the worst example in Warhammer history. Not only do you screw up your numbers (A Bloodthirster would average something like 5+ kills a turn against Gobbos without anything special, let alone upgrading it as your prices suggest), screw up the rules (Unless the gobbos attacked in a 3x10 road column they would be outranked by any version of the Bloodthirsters since they are monsters and rank up in 3s instead of 5s), missing that this is already taken into account with other rules (Terror, hello!), the unlikeliness of the outcome (Steadfast Gobbos have a Ld of 5, which makes them unlikely to fight at all, let alone pass the second test), but you made it such a ridiculously extreme situation that you could almost never see this on the battlefield to take as the rule and not the exception.

Yes best most situations where steadfast could be 'broken' is when there is a general and battle standard right next to a huge unit, for ld 8 or 9 reroll with 100 goblins could hold for much more than one turn (shouldn't be the case vs 4000 points!)


Your entire example is so fraught with stupid holes and absurdity that it not only holds no water, but destroys all water in nearby rivers and lakes. You've caused a logical drought of epic proportions. God.

You didn't need this... :)


Edit: I forgot thunderstomp in there, too. If the Gobbos were stupid enough to hold, the Thirsters would likely take out a good 30-35 of them.

thats the point steadfast shouldn't allow units that are getting slaughtered to "be stupid enough to hold", but lets say that goblin unit was 100 (still only 300 points), they they would be holding up for at least 2 turns, maybe 3. I know, I agree with you, it doesn't seem right, but your argument is FOR steadfast.

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 08:16
Well as a tournament player, I'm happy with steadfast the way it is chameleon, it makes infantry better and makes alot more options viable. Making for a more interesting competitive game ;)
Lol!

I have no response except You just proved the more we generalize, the further we get from the truth. ;)


To the people that want to change the rule. Why do you assume that these guys are going to break on contact? Where is that coming from? What do you have to back it up?

These aren't 1st graders on a playground. They are hardened vetrans of countless wars. That's what the premise says anyway. Goblins are supposed to be mean and nasty. Running away from a few guys on horses sound out of character to me.

Talking about steadfast with no context other than game mechanics has the logic of the situation turned on it's head.

I do not accept the premise that units break that easily. If real units didn't why would the plastic ones? Holding wasn't stupid, it was survival. The second you turn your back to run the enemy is attacking for free... Your chance of survival just went down by 2/3rds. Why would you turn and run?

Dag
16-08-2010, 08:21
Steadfast is only broken if you assume 50 goblins represents 50 goblins, or swordsmen, or orcs, or marauders, skaven, all those races are all represented by a model that doesnt do the army justice.

a unit of 100 goblins would represent in the neighborhood of 3000 goblins running around, most wouldnt even know the thirster is raping them, and thus dont care if those infront are being stomped to death... because their warboss will just crush them if they flee, seems pretty straight forward.

the majority of people who complain about steadfast love their heavy cav and monsters too much to realize that their role is completely different now in 8th over 7th, in 7th a big monster or cav unit would destroy every single thing in its path until your paper met their rock, or whichever "anti-smasher" unit you brought. Cavalry, no matter how heavy, and big mean monsters were never used to break entire lines themselves. In history, heavy cav was used to break formations up (disruption) and big monsters (elephants are the closest example imo) they were used to throw your enemies lines into disarray, causing your infantry to push in with the cav/ele's to force your opponent off the field.

they all work in the same principle in 8th, which is good. Heavy cav not being able to steamroll less adequete troops, also good.

gota realize not everyone plays with bloodthirsters, chaos knights/chosen, swordmasters, massively over'kitted out heroes who run around solo, or with 300 man units... dont forget a unit that cant be deployed is an illegal unit and your opponent forfeights it as a casualty.

I personally love how steadfast is unbreakable until you get them below a certain amount, this stops the cav rush. you have to get their support, be it boyz, marauders/warriors, saurus, hell even slaves w/doomwheel will smash most things, people are just unawares of the all the savage combo's that cost WAY less than these monsters n jazz.

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 08:30
]
once again we arent asking for steadfast to be removes as a whole, but to be nerfed a bit to make it less broken. if a unit is being hit from 2 sides it stands to reason that short of snake-eys it should be running as its in a very bad situation.

I disagree. If you have three units with two on the flanks, it's very unlikely for that unit to have more ranks than all three unless

1) The units attacking it are very small...
2) The unit is so big that it should actually have a reasonable chance of fighting it off.

Most of the time, when a unit is being hit from both sides it will lose the flank combats horribly because combat is very slanted towards the flankers. I have trouble imagining the flanked unit keeping its rank bonus for more than a single turn, if that.


and to counter the argument of "well if they're going to lose anyway why change steadfast" because other aspects of the game have been changed to speed the game up, why not in this situation as well.

Because you create an auto-break game mechanic which greatly unbalances the game. We've said this many times before; allow steadfast to be neutralized so easily will make infantry and hordes absolutely useless, because you just need to get one unit along side of them to destroy them in one turn.

The game has been sped up in many regards, but combat really should be a more prolonged affair. Units should be a bit more survivable, and they should actually fight rather than getting into a single round of combat before breaking and dying off. By completely killing steadfast, you are inviting back repeats of the Autobreak disasters of 7th edition.


I feel a VERY large number of people have decided that they agree that steadfast is to powerful in its current form, this solution keeps steadfast and only nerfs it to a more manageable level and it means people will have to be careful with their infantry and not let them get flanked.

By the poll (which is completely unscientific), a majority believe that ewar's rule change is not the one for them. I would say that the community is split, and leave it at that.

More to the fact, you fail to produce any reasonable examples as to how it is broken other than "it is". I need to see why you think it is broken before I can take your argument seriously, because the pro-steadfast side has been the only one posting examples and reasons as to why it is broken. It seems that people are simply frightened by the idea of them rather than seeing them in practice. In practice, steadfast is basically something that allows infantry to keep fighting despite losing a single combat. It makes it so that infantry has to be whittled down rather than crushed in one fell swoop.

Right now, steadfast does not make flanking meaningless. Flanking is very powerful right now as is, considering most infantry types lose their weapon advantages because of it (Parrying, Spear Bonus, etc) and it allows someone to hammer a unit with two ranks to their one. Flanking rocks, and it's already hard to lose a combat once you've flanked a unit.

Steadfast does not allow units to ignore flanking maneuvers. There is nothing which suggests people are leaving their flanks completely open. Rather, Steadfast makes it so that things like flanking are no longer a win-button against large infantry blocks which would not be completely freaked out by 5-10 cavalrymen charging them. It allows infantry to be the core unit of armies (Which they should, judging by history and the fluff itself) and gives them actual benefits which sync up with why infantry units were damn useful (Survivability through numbers and discipline).


And there are examples of cavaly breaking infantry give me some time and i will get them for you in one long post.

We already went over it in great detail in another thread, full of historical examples. Cavalry breaking infantry generally only occurs when the infantry is poorly trained and motivated. Even then, cavalry is reliant on them breaking formation so that their horses will actually charge in rather than just breaking off instead.

Overall, it's very hard to find a field where cavalry sweep the field of large, orderly infantry blocks. I personally can't think of one.

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 08:42
Yes best most situations where steadfast could be 'broken' is when there is a general and battle standard right next to a huge unit, for ld 8 or 9 reroll with 100 goblins could hold for much more than one turn (shouldn't be the case vs 4000 points!)

Indeed, but there's a point at which individual monsters can simply get swamped. For everything that Bloodthirsters can do, they should be able to be overwhelmed.

And lets get our mechanics straight: The terrifying power of a Bloodthirster is not neutralized by the Steadfast rule, but the Gobbos passing their Terror roll. If they fail that, the entire unit of 100 gobbos runs off. I don't see how this is the fault of steadfast; once you are in combat.


You didn't need this... :)

Yes, yes I did. I can't let something like that get past without being ripped apart. Cruel as it may be, it had to be done. As long as no one makes any "12 Plaguelords versus 40 skavenslaves" examples, I'm sure we'll all be fine. :D


thats the point steadfast shouldn't allow units that are getting slaughtered to "be stupid enough to hold", but lets say that goblin unit was 100 (still only 300 points), they they would be holding up for at least 2 turns, maybe 3. I know, I agree with you, it doesn't seem right, but your argument is FOR steadfast.

But, realistically, you can only kill so much. If we wanted to have monsters completely rampage through everything, I'd agree, but if the Gobbos pass their terror roll, then they stay their ground. There isn't much more than that, really.

And I don't have a problem with 100 Gobbos holding up 9 Bloodthirsters for a turn or two. At that point, the unit has become a tarpit, just like Skavenslaves in a more reasonable example. Not a particularly good tarpit, considering that the Bloodthirsters will be averaging around a third of their numbers, but they'll lose 3 ranks in a 10x10 formation. Maybe they hold if only because they know they are dead already, or this presents the only slim chance to continue living. But again, we are talking about an example which is beyond the scope of the rules in just about every way.

Steadfast only gives you your base leadership. If you have your general in the area, good for you because you knew where he was going to be needed the most and used good tactics in placement. Otherwise, it's about one friendly/opponent cycle before steadfast will either break down (you've lost too much) or you fail an Ld test (considering most Lds average around 7).

Dag
16-08-2010, 08:42
well.... english heavy horse back in the day crushed everyone, but they were lifted onto horses... and died when people built longer spears lol, and xbows.

but ya, cavalry wasnt made to smash the heart of an army, only alexander the great did that and he fought in like... cathay?

Oglog
16-08-2010, 08:45
Overall, it's very hard to find a field where cavalry sweep the field of large, orderly infantry blocks. I personally can't think of one.

The Two Towers anyone? Gandalf+Rohan = death to pretty decent infantry. Oh sorry, that isn't historical, but cool nontheless. Thats what people want in wargaming! Okay, this would make cavalry too good, but those uruk-hai bashed plenty of stuff before hand.

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 08:51
Weren't English Knights known for dismounting rather than charging? The French ideal of Chivalry made them more keen to charge.

Alexander's charges only succeeds because he managed to freak out Darius. If you look at it, every battle Alexander has trouble, charges, and Darius panics and flees. This takes the heart out of the Persians and they run off, too. It's not that they wiped out masses of infantry units insomuch as Darius was not a particularly brave guy.


The Two Towers anyone? Gandalf+Rohan = death to pretty decent infantry. Oh sorry, that isn't historical, but cool nontheless. Thats what people want in wargaming! Okay, this would make cavalry too good, but those uruk-hai bashed plenty of stuff before hand.

HA! Nice. But the problem with that is you get Pelannor Fields, where a Cavalry charge breaks the infantry, and then we are back to 7th edition autobreak.

But cavalry can still lay a beatdown on infantry, they just need to be more cautious and thoughtful in the way they do it. There is no sure-fire auto-win button with them like they had in 7th edition. Now they have to maneuver and think before they rush in.

Dag
16-08-2010, 08:53
lol ya, when i saw that part i laughed, i was like "lol those 2k horsemen are dead, theres like 40k orcs in a valley, holding a castle now, with about 1/2 their number in a giant phalanx with their back to a wall... that would have been horrible for those horsemen.

i was speaking more of english cav vs scotts, the untrained and undisciplined part was what made them nasty.

Gatsby
16-08-2010, 08:53
It's not that they wiped out masses of infantry units insomuch as Darius was not a particularly brave guy.

sounds like gobbos...

Justice And Rule
16-08-2010, 08:55
sounds like gobbos...

Yeah, and that would be reflected in panic tests, and not affected by steadfast.

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 08:55
And there are examples of cavaly breaking infantry give me some time and i will get them for you in one long post.

Justice is right, we did do this. But I'll be happy to discuss what you bring to the table. But here is the deal. We're not talking about Cavalry running off infantry. I can do that in the game, right now, using the steadfast rule as it is. There was a method to it, use that method and you can do it.

What you need to find is cavalry running off infantry say you and others are insisting it works. One unsupported cavalry unit running down a trained, formed deep block of infantry 10 times their number. Un supported measn ther is nobody else in the area. The cav must be all alone. I also want to see this intricate ballet that develops while the cavalry shuffels themselves into position.

Dag
16-08-2010, 08:56
psh, one greek boylover finally decides to come east and just so happens theres a panzy who executed all his generals on the throne....

buggers and their good timing...

chamelion 6
16-08-2010, 09:03
The Two Towers anyone? Gandalf+Rohan = death to pretty decent infantry. Oh sorry, that isn't historical, but cool nontheless. Thats what people want in wargaming! Okay, this would make cavalry too good, but those uruk-hai bashed plenty of stuff before hand.

Let's look at the movie rendition. It's nice and graphic and visual. There were as many horses as there were pikes... (negates steadfast, they wer as deep as the orks) The orks in the film were attacked in the rear but reformed to face away from an enemy to their front. They got butchered.

But they didn't break when they got hit! They stood!

Pavia, 1525. French king charges all the kings horses into formed infantry supported by handgunners. Result, French are looking for a new king the next morning.

French seemed to do that a lot. I suspect they didn't like the steadfast rule much either.

DaemonReign
16-08-2010, 09:22
I've read through all the posts from my last entry here - thanks for commenting Chamellion6 like I said before I think you make a very respectable argument, which is the only reason I still find it interesting to actually "argue" any further because usually - at This point - I would just have taken my own opinion and moved on.

I think the posting here has derailed. That example about 9 Bloodthirsters versus 50 nightgoblins was ridiculous - it wasn't stupid enough to deserve insults or general derition, but it still wasn't (at all) what I am contemplating about Steadfast.

Steadfast really IS a great frickin rule - for the most part. Only the rarest of situations can I see THEORETHICAL stuff arising that would seem "ugly" and sort of "meh" on the field of battle.

This probably sounds very untrustworthy coming from someone who plays DoC - but I am actually glad that my "one rank" units of Seekers and FleshHounds can't do the monotonous simplistic stuff that 7th Ed allowed them to do. However, and this is I guess is where we are gonna have to settle for disagreeing, I still think I should be allowed that luxury if I spend 3-4 times the points on those units of FleshHounds or Seekers - if I rank them up, and I am not just talking about One rank here, no, I'm talking about aggregate ranks for Reason.

The tight disciplined formation displaying a wall of sheilds on all sides is designed to withstand a beating. I fully support this. I just have questions about where the exact line has been drawn - because ultimately This particular rule is just as narrow as that old (and oh so loathed) autobreak if outnumbered by fear-causers rule was - it ultimately comes down to plus/minus One single model.

Forget about the ranks for a second. Just take the actual number of heads.

40 guys being beaten in combat by 20 (hell, make it thirty guys!) - fine, let them be stubborn!

The same 40 guys being surrounded and beaten in combat by 60 guys - why would they be stubborn??

I actually sympathize alot with Chamellion's argument. I too am a friendly gamer who cares little for the "winning" and alot more for only fielding painted goodlooking armies and having a good time with my buddies - a Fluff DoC players if you people can even believe in the existance of something such as that! - and still I have to say that if a unit (no matter who disciplined in its formation) is outranked and losing in the aggregate.. Then it doesn't seem realistic that they would be steadfast (I don't even actually care if it's "broken" or "just right" in terms of balance) - because heck, those tough guys on the edges would Realistically be the ones that just got cut down in that case, wouldn't they?

I can't see how counting the aggegate ranks would made Steadfast That Much Worse either. It would just do away with ridiculous situations (like, ok, maybe not the 9 Bloodthirsters, but somewhere to that degree of extreme) - because if you happen to be flankcharged by a Horde of FleshHounds (which might happen if you ever played against me personally) then the chance of your unit being steadfast even with current rules are pretty darn small - arn't they?

And that's why it's not even a big deal. I'm not gonna claim to be some expert of who historical fighting units fought. Aggregate ranks would have made perfect sense to me - whereas the current rules I can readily accept as well.

Haravikk
16-08-2010, 10:43
So why the hell would one unit of 25 (5x5) be confident of victory if there were 24 enemy in the front (1 incomplete of 5x5), 24 in the left, 24 in the right, 24 in the rear. So 25 guys are steadfast because they realise they are 'more numerous' than 84 enemies. Yes because that clearly makes sense :rolleyes:
While it's an odd, borderline case, do remember that those 84 models only need to cause one casualty to remove Steadfast from the beleaguered unit in the model :)

Loopstah
16-08-2010, 10:55
I voted No.

Steadfast isn't broken, it's a new rule, get used to it.

If you want to play without steadfast why not just play 7th Edition.

Unless you have the General and BSB next door most bog standard units will probably break from combat anyway due to their average Ld unless they are an elite unit, and elite units should stay in combat. That's the idea behind them being elite.

Not having a massive -Ld modifier wont make much of a difference as the unit is still losing the battle or they wouldn't need steadfast in the first place. Removing steadfast is just a win more idea.

rodmillard
16-08-2010, 11:48
I voted yes, but having read the arguments I have to say you've convinced me that steadfast works fine as it is.

We don't need to take away the buffs given to infantry blocks, we need to learn to counter them properly - and the historic way of doing this was with artillery (and in warhammer magic as well) to whittle down the ranks before you get into combat. There is a classic example of this in one of the Sharpe series, where he tricks the french commander into thinking he is going to be flanked by cavalry. The french commander therefore forms his infantry into squares (since charging large blocks of ranked infantry was widely regarded to be suicide for the cav) opening them up to attack from Sharpe's artillery.

Cavalry can no longer expect to break ranked infantry on the charge, so we have to find a new way to use them. Whether they are now worth their points values (set back in the days when a flank charge from blood knights was an instant death sentence) is a matter for a whole new thread...