PDA

View Full Version : steadfast question



kaintxu
23-09-2010, 16:36
So i was playing a tourney last monday and this happened to me

I was fighting a unit with my Stegaddon, i won combat, he had like 7 guys left, 5 front row 2 back row, and I won for like 4 or 5, he checked, rolles a 8 and I said you flee, and he said no, i have steadfast, i have more ranks than you, because i have 1 rank (front rank) consisting of 5 guys, and you have no ranks since stegadon is not 5 guys.

Mostly everyine around, who are friends with both of us, agreed with him, and I was astonished

Does steadfast work like this? or only if you have more EXTRA ranks?

Thanks a loit

narrativium
23-09-2010, 16:41
It does work like this. Fortunately you're really tough to kill and you cause terror, and in three casualties' time he's going to be running.

kaintxu
23-09-2010, 16:51
God, so just even 5 guys against any monster are steadfast? i though you needed at least 10 :S

narrativium
23-09-2010, 17:00
It can get more depressing. A Dark Elf opponent I faced last month pitched his Master on Pegasus into the flank of a unit of 6 Bulls I had, and a unit of six Cold One Knights into their front. I lost my whole back rank; I killed off two of his COK. 3 Monstrous Infantry versus a suddenly incomplete rank of cavalry, and a Tyrant and BSB nearby... a re-rollable 9 is much better than a re-rollable 2. He did massacre me eventually though.

SkawtheFalconer
23-09-2010, 17:01
Are you sure it isn't additional rank after the first one (i.e. the one the command group stand in)?

a18no
23-09-2010, 17:11
Are you sure it isn't additional rank after the first one (i.e. the one the command group stand in)?

The unit with the most rank will be steadfast. Having 1 and opponent 0, is having more rank than him:

1- Skirmisher and single model always has 0 ranks
2- If you have 2 units in the same combat with 8 and 6 ranks, and your opponent got 1 unit with 5 ranks, both of yours are steadfast. If you got 2 with 8-6 and your opponent got one with 7, only yours with 8 is steadfast.

Hope that help

kaintxu
23-09-2010, 19:08
Ok, so 1st rank, the one that give no SCR bonus, the one with FCG does count towars steadfast right?

nice to know

Rogzor87
23-09-2010, 19:19
The fun part is say if your unit gets flanked by like a Steggadon and your fighting a 5x4 block of Saurus. You can still get Steadfast if you have more ranks then the Steggadon and less then the Saurus.

a18no
23-09-2010, 19:39
The fun part is say if your unit gets flanked by like a Steggadon and your fighting a 5x4 block of Saurus. You can still get Steadfast if you have more ranks then the Steggadon and less then the Saurus.

What???

Flank attacks will only deny you RANK BONUS, you know the little bonus at the end of combat that can give you +3??

If you get 20 warriors, in 5*4 formation, against Saurus in the front that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the flank: no steadfast for anyone.

If you get 25 warriors, in 5*5 formation, against Saurus in the front that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the flank: warrior are steadfast

If you get 20 warriors, in 5*4 formation, against Saurus in the flank that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the front: no steadfast for anyone.

If you get 20 warriors, in 5*5 formation, against Saurus in the flank that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the front: warriors are steadfast

Clear now?

Rogzor87
23-09-2010, 20:06
What???

Flank attacks will only deny you RANK BONUS, you know the little bonus at the end of combat that can give you +3??

If you get 20 warriors, in 5*4 formation, against Saurus in the front that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the flank: no steadfast for anyone.

If you get 25 warriors, in 5*5 formation, against Saurus in the front that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the flank: warrior are steadfast

If you get 20 warriors, in 5*4 formation, against Saurus in the flank that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the front: no steadfast for anyone.

If you get 20 warriors, in 5*5 formation, against Saurus in the flank that are 4 deep and at least 5 wide, and a steg in the front: warriors are steadfast

Clear now?

-sigh- Reread the multi-combat steadfast.

As long as the unit on the losing side has more ranks then ANY of the enemy units its gains steadfast.....

5x4 Warriors vs Steggadon + Saurus 5x4 or 5x10 or 5x1000 will still give the Warriors Steadfast because they have more ranks then the Steggadon.

So is that Clear now?

a18no
23-09-2010, 20:11
-sigh- Reread the multi-combat steadfast.

As long as the unit on the losing side has more ranks then ANY of the enemy units its gains steadfast.....

5x4 Warriors vs Steggadon + Saurus 5x4 or 5x10 or 5x1000 will still give the Warriors Steadfast because they have more ranks then the Steggadon.

So is that Clear now?

Don't know where you took that... you quote the exact ruling or just reverse it??

I'll re-read it. But the last time i saw it, the winning side only neaded the unit with the most rank to negate ALL the steadfast on the other side. And you bring something that make it completly different: if the winning side bring only one unit with no rank (skirmisher or monstres), any loosing unit with at least 1 rank will be steadfast...

With that ruling you just killed any tactic that involve chariot, monster, dragon, etc... Or any elite unit. Let say 14 executionner in 2 ranks, combine with a steadfast unit of 40 warriors (in 5*8) fighting a horde of 40 goblin spears (10*4), the Dark elfs are loosing because of the 2 ranks executionners: the 40 goblin spears are steadfast with only 4 ranks... against the 8 from the warriors that bring nothing to the fight...

But you brought something special that need a re-read of the ruling... thank you. I'll come with more informations tomorrow. Or if someone can make some light on this...

Malorian
23-09-2010, 20:16
I also disagree with that statement.

I would read it that when it stays you need to have more ranks than any of the opponent's units that if even one of them has more ranks then you would wouldn't be steadfast.

That's also how everyone plays it around here...

a18no
23-09-2010, 20:20
I also disagree with that statement.

I would read it that when it stays you need to have more ranks than any of the opponent's units that if even one of them has more ranks then you would wouldn't be steadfast.

That's also how everyone plays it around here...

I'm pretty sure that teh interpretation of Rogzor87 is incorrect:

40 warriors in the front, in a 5*8 formation, against a horde of goblin in 10*5 formation. If the dark elf player brings a unit consisting of 12 cold one in the flank in a 6*2 formation to negate the rank bonus, he is just giving steadfast to the goblin... so what's the purpose of negating rank bonus???

Malorian
23-09-2010, 20:22
Exactly.

Seem though that the problem is with the word 'any'.

In his mind since you need to have mroe ranks than 'any' of the opponent's that it means he can just pick 'any' of them.

Us on the other hand read 'any' as 'all'.


Seems clear to me the intent, but unfortunately the wording has this debate opened up...

a18no
23-09-2010, 20:29
But the definition in the dictionnary could be both... Any like ALL or any like one or many....

Ouch, not again... panic in forums, we'll see that poping in warhammer.uk and other in no time!

Need to read the correct wording... can someone post it? not ALL the ruling, but just that little part (or PM me if you don't want to break copyright). Cause if I read it tonight, it will be in french where their's half problem as in english ;)

Ramius4
23-09-2010, 20:44
Quick, someone erase this thread before his wrong interpretation gets out! :p

Rogzor87
23-09-2010, 20:56
I haven't read the FaQ/Errata in awhile but I stand corrected. It says to change references of "Any enemy unit" to "All enemy Units"

Quinn
23-09-2010, 21:02
Check the FAQ guys. the phrase 'any enemy units' was changed to 'all enemy units'. This has come up before and been discussed.

a18no
23-09-2010, 21:03
I haven't read the FaQ/Errata in awhile but I stand corrected. It says to change references of "Any enemy unit" to "All enemy Units"

Nice to see that you don't take for granted that you are right!! And search for FAQ and ruling if someone has a different ruling than you do! If they were more people like that on warseer, I think we could be able to advance more!!

So, we are set for steadfast ruling. !