PDA

View Full Version : Proposal for a reduction to steadfast.



Duke_Corwin
16-08-2010, 04:48
While losing steadfast as a whole just because a unit is disrupted would be excessive and lead to unrealistic situations where 10 men could remove steadfast from 100. A rule that reduces the effective ranks counted for steadfast could work.

THE PROPOSED RULE (House rule or rule for 9th edition).

A losing unit's effective ranks for counting steadfast is reduced if it is disrupted. (Rank bonus is all lost as the unit is disrupted).

-1 rank for flank disruption
-2 for rear disruption

The modifiers are additive (disrupted in both flanks -2, disrupted in a flank and rear -3, in both flanks and rear -4).



EXAMPLE 1

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on one flank - it counts as having only 3 ranks.

EXAMPLE 2

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on both flanks - it counts as having only 2 ranks.

EXAMPLE 3

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on one flank and disrupted in the rear - it counts as having only 1 rank.

Example 4

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on both flanks and disrupted in the rear - it counts as having 0 ranks.

Dutch_Digger
16-08-2010, 09:38
A unit does not lose steadfast for being disrupted, it loses it's rankbonus instead.

I think people are quite contend with that rule, for in your example, those 10 men would only break steadfast if the 100 men being flanked had less ranks than the 10 guys, so that unit has to be 50 men wide in order to lose steadfast xD

Urgat
16-08-2010, 10:57
Wrong forum, this should be in rules developement.

T10
16-08-2010, 11:31
A unit does not lose steadfast for being disrupted, it loses it's rankbonus instead.


And even a 10 x 10 unit will only have a +3 rank bonus, not a +9. Getting charged in the flank "only" costs three points of combat resolution.

Assuming the big unit doesn't break (the odds are reasonably good as it will remain steadfast) it can then reform (at worst this requires a Ld test, unmodified because the unit is steadfast) to turn and face the flanking unit, thus restoring their rank bonus.

-T10

Haravikk
16-08-2010, 11:38
But if struck by multiple units it'll go down hard after a round or two of combat :)
I'm getting kind of tired of people complaining about Steadfast; sure in some cases it doesn't make much sense, but IMO it's a good rule and people should just play with it instead of whining and demanding an alternative.

Loopstah
16-08-2010, 11:49
And even a 10 x 10 unit will only have a +3 rank bonus, not a +9. Getting charged in the flank "only" costs three points of combat resolution.
-T10

Actually four points, as you get +1 for a flank attack.

Duke_Corwin
16-08-2010, 16:08
Maybe an admin could move this to rules development.


As for people being content, there are many threads including a poll about how flank charges should remove steadfast so not all people are content.

The intent of this rule is to reduce the effect of ranks on steadfast but not eliminate them completely. Some people have proposed that a unit should lose ALL steadfast if flank disrupted. This rule reduces but does not automatically eliminate it.

Lets say a four rank unit attacks from the front and a two rank unit attacks from the flank. If the losing unit in the middle has say five ranks under the current rules it would remain steadfast but under this PROPOSED rule it would count as one less rank and thus lose steadfast.

However if it had say six ranks then the one rank effective reduction would leave it at five and it would still be steadfast.


The idea is to penalize a unit that is attacked from the flank and/or rear and increase the penalty if it is attacked from multiple flanks and/or the rear.

Duke_Corwin
16-08-2010, 16:22
A unit does not lose steadfast for being disrupted, it loses it's rankbonus instead.

I think people are quite contend with that rule, for in your example, those 10 men would only break steadfast if the 100 men being flanked had less ranks than the 10 guys, so that unit has to be 50 men wide in order to lose steadfast xD

The example of 10 easily breaking 100 just because they flank charged is based on the 7th edition rules (where it could and did happen - in fact 5 could break 100). Some people want to go back to it. There is even a poll vote on the subject.

I believe that 10 easily breaking 100 just because of a flank charge is wrong. My rule would not let that happen unless some weird formations were used.

But the rule would allow a unit to lose steadfast if the enemy has one less rank but gets a flank disruption or two less ranks with a rear disruption, etc.

Is it not reasonable that a 4 rank unit beating a 5 rank unit from the rear should have a better chance of breaking it than if it had attacked from the front? Should the losing unit in this case be allowed to make a steadfast roll,then potentially reform and face it's enemy?

Since it is not much deeper in ranks, should it not have to pass a check with CR minuses and only then, if it still holds, have a chance to re-form.

Dutch_Digger
17-08-2010, 00:15
Sorry, i didnt know you were referring to 7th edition.

But another penalty, thats overkill. The flanked unit allready has penalties in the form of rear attack bonus and because they do not get support attacks to the back.

If the attacker still is not able to have more ranks after fighting like this, than the guys they reared do not deserve additional penalties.

Macavity
17-08-2010, 01:23
I really don't see anything wrong with the current rule. I'm probably mis-understanding, but a lot of people seem to be talking as if steadfast=unbreakable. The really high Leadership troops (Elves and Dwarves for instance) should last a while, but they are only going to have so many numbers in most cases. A horde of Goblins, or State Troops, or Orcs, or Skaven, or.... whatever may very well still break, but in 7th it could be a virtual guarantee that a small number would route a huge one. This is giving the large groups of weaker troops a chance to fight. Believe me, with negating rank bonus and you getting flank bonus, they will be rolling and eventually breaking.


I think people just need to make the mental switch to the idea that 1 turn combats will be relatively rare now. "Fixing" a system that most people have only played a handful of times, and likely with armies not really designed for it really seems odd to me. Give it a shot.