PDA

View Full Version : Steadfast Question



LastExile
20-12-2010, 05:05
So this came up in a game recently. After a combat between my giant and my opponents Dark Elf warriors I was up by three in combat res. Now he had six models left all in the front rank.

Since he still has five or models in a rank (the first and only rank) his unit is still steadfast since my giant has zero ranks? Or do you need to have a first and second rank ie. 10 models in two ranks of five to get steadfast against something with zero ranks.

Ramius4
20-12-2010, 05:58
5 models is still a complete rank. He would be Steadfast.

Stumpy
20-12-2010, 06:31
It depends how you play it, agree to do whatever makes sense to you. Unless its been FAQ'd without me noticing.
Personally I play 'no' as to do otherwise ends in ridiculous circumstances far too often and looks dumb.

Ramius4
20-12-2010, 06:45
It depends how you play it, *snip*

No, it doesn't. Those are the rules.

You need 5 models for a complete rank. 1 rank is more than 0. That's as clear as it needs to be.

Stumpy
20-12-2010, 07:24
There are arguements over it, lets not start it up. Just say there are people who think that's not the intent of the rules and if you dislike it, feel free to rule whatever way you like with your friends.

T10
20-12-2010, 08:57
It depends how you play it, ...


No, it doesn't. Those are the rules.



There are arguements over it, lets not start it up.

You benefit from the steadfast rule as long as you have more ranks of 5 or more models than the enemy.

I'm not sure why one would assume that a single rank should be counted as zero ranks. Maybe it is the "minimum two ranks" requirement for flanking units negating enemy rank bonus. Or maybe it is the way the first rank is effectively ignored when it comes to working out rank bonus in close combat.

Regardless, the steadfast rule does not reference these other two rules: the requirement for "winning" steadfast is spelled out right there.

-T10

a18no
20-12-2010, 19:33
You benefit from the steadfast rule as long as you have more ranks of 5 or more models than the enemy.

I'm not sure why one would assume that a single rank should be counted as zero ranks. Maybe it is the "minimum two ranks" requirement for flanking units negating enemy rank bonus. Or maybe it is the way the first rank is effectively ignored when it comes to working out rank bonus in close combat.

Regardless, the steadfast rule does not reference these other two rules: the requirement for "winning" steadfast is spelled out right there.

-T10

The error people are doing is that they are used to play "bonus rank" and not used to the term "rank". Rank worth nothing in past edition. But since the introduction of the steadfast rule, now 1 rank is something, you don't need 2 ranks to be someone. With 1 rank, you are steadfast against 0 rank.

All that to say: monsters like hydra and giant are VERY strong, and probably among the best creatures out there. But since they don't break steadfast, they can only kill figs, not units!

Good games!

Ramius4
21-12-2010, 04:23
There are arguements over it, lets not start it up. Just say there are people who think that's not the intent of the rules and if you dislike it, feel free to rule whatever way you like with your friends.

If there were arguments over this, you'd have seen a dozen posts by now. You're well within your rights to not like how the rules work, but that's still how it actually works.

Making the case of "is that really the intent?' when there is no way of interpreting the rule ambiguously is clearly not cool. The OP asked a question and I answered it correctly. Please don't confuse the issue with a non-existent interpretation just because you don't like the rules.

Stumpy
21-12-2010, 05:40
I wasn't aware the internet had come to a concensus. In my state I've only met one person who played it that way, and when I've gone interstate it was still under discussion with the players there. If its the way its played globally, my apologies.

Ramius4
21-12-2010, 05:56
I wasn't aware the internet had come to a concensus.

The internet come to a concensus? It doesn't have to. It's a clearly written part of the rulebook bud.

And just having a look through the forum here, there's not even a thread about it. I think you and your friends are the only people I've ever heard of that even question the rule. I'm not sure where this big debate is you claim is going on, but it's really a non-issue.

kingofthesquats
21-12-2010, 06:37
Yep, it seems pretty clean cut to me, 1 rank beats 0 ranks. It's written in black and White.

H33D
22-12-2010, 17:12
The reason for the confusion is clear. I personally had to read that section more than once AND have someone point this ruling out to me. The reason is because all other rules that require X amount of ranks all require X amount of ranks after the first. Naturally just like the OP I assumed that a unit had to have 1 or more complete ranks after the first. Like the others on this forum have mentioned however, you just need to have more complete ranks, not more ranks after the first.

Aergren
22-12-2010, 17:36
I have had this issue before in a tournament and after much discussion the TO's decided that because the book defines ranks as 5 models after the first one. I don't have the book i front of me but I will get the page numbers when I get home.

airmang
22-12-2010, 17:41
The book defines a rank as a row of 5 or more models(3 or more for Monstrous Infantry). Not a row after the first one. I've seen this come up a couple of times since 8th came out, and it is always because the players are still thinking of rules from previous editions.

Ramius4
22-12-2010, 17:50
The reason for the confusion is clear. I personally had to read that section more than once AND have someone point this ruling out to me. The reason is because all other rules that require X amount of ranks all require X amount of ranks after the first. Naturally just like the OP I assumed that a unit had to have 1 or more complete ranks after the first. Like the others on this forum have mentioned however, you just need to have more complete ranks, not more ranks after the first.

I can see a person being confused about it at first, (like many other rules) but not once you know the facts of it. The facts are indisputable and clear.


I have had this issue before in a tournament and after much discussion the TO's decided that because the book defines ranks as 5 models after the first one. I don't have the book i front of me but I will get the page numbers when I get home.

Well then they did it wrong lol:p That's not the way ranks are defined. That's the way rank bonus is defined...


The book defines a rank as a row of 5 or more models(3 or more for Monstrous Infantry). Not a row after the first one. I've seen this come up a couple of times since 8th came out, and it is always because the players are still thinking of rules from previous editions.

Exactly.

Tregar
22-12-2010, 17:57
It really is as simple as asking, "does one unit have more ranks (of 5 models) than the other". That's what the rules tell you to do... so do it!!

LastExile
23-12-2010, 19:00
Thanks for all the responses.

After looking at the rule again and your input we are going to play as is written with the first rank giving steadfast against units with a rank of zero.

Dante blackfur
22-01-2011, 00:54
So how would steadfast affect skavens strength in numbers since steadfast says they make a check on they're UNMODIFIED lds but they strength in numbers ability says you get +1 bonus for each rank after the first to a maximum of lds 10. So would they only get to make they're save of 3? Since techenchly they are modifying they lds value with SIN.

TMATK
22-01-2011, 01:02
So how would steadfast affect skavens strength in numbers since steadfast says they make a check on they're UNMODIFIED lds but they strength in numbers ability says you get +1 bonus for each rank after the first to a maximum of lds 10. So would they only get to make they're save of 3? Since techenchly they are modifying they lds value with SIN.

Steadfast doesn't use unmodified leadership.

From the faq

Page 54 – Steadfast
Change the first paragraph to “If a defeated unit has more
ranks than its enemy, it takes a Break test without applying the
difference in the combat result scores.” Change the fourth
paragraph to “Steadfast units don’t apply the difference in
combat result scores to Break tests.”

FAQs are here http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=1&aId=3000006&multiPageMode=true&start=2

Dante blackfur
22-01-2011, 01:10
Ahh, tyvm for clarifying. :)

Haravikk
22-01-2011, 11:32
It's come up a few times round my way as well, but it's really just an issue of confusing "ranks" with "rank bonus" which have always been two separate things, but under 7th ranks didn't really do anything outside of rank bonus which I think is why people have been getting confused.

Admittedly it does result in some silly situations, but nothing more silly than a unit with 14 models not being Steadfast while a unit of 15 facing them is.

AMWOOD co
23-01-2011, 09:22
I think you mean that the other way 'round as a unit of 14 infantry models (5 wide) won't be steadfast against like units numbering 10+. Units of 15, however, will be steadfast facing 14 or less. It does seem a bit silly, though; I agree.

Trikk
23-01-2011, 09:33
It's come up a few times round my way as well, but it's really just an issue of confusing "ranks" with "rank bonus" which have always been two separate things, but under 7th ranks didn't really do anything outside of rank bonus which I think is why people have been getting confused.

Admittedly it does result in some silly situations, but nothing more silly than a unit with 14 models not being Steadfast while a unit of 15 facing them is.

I think the extreme that sometimes comes up in play is a horde of 30 models not being steadfast against 15 models.

narrativium
23-01-2011, 13:53
Then the 30 shouldn't have lost the combat, should they?

Trikk
23-01-2011, 14:03
Then the 30 shouldn't have lost the combat, should they?

I'm sure they got a stern talking to after the battle was over.

Haravikk
23-01-2011, 14:32
I think you mean that the other way 'round
Ah, I seem to have done one of my usual tricks of omitting a key part of my sentence, lol, your case fits the bill exactly though!


I think the extreme that sometimes comes up in play is a horde of 30 models not being steadfast against 15 models.
Well, I can kind of see why that case should play as it is; the unit of 15 as a tighter more focused unit could presumably push through that horde and break it apart down the middle if it does enough damage, which would separate parts of the unit and destroy its ability to fight as a unit.

So while the horde is more numerous, it has the same ability to maintain a coherent formation, and the same momentum behind each individual file. I mean if the lap-around mechanic still existed it could be a different story altogether, but I expect that's partly why the horde rule exists in the first place; big swarming mass gains extra attacks they lap around, without the complexity of actually having to do a lap around manoeuvre.