PDA

View Full Version : Steadfast against Single Models



thegrapeman
19-09-2011, 00:27
Hola,

This situation came up in a game yesterday:

His Hydra charged my unit of 12 Glade Guard. He kills 6 (due to some rather poor rolling), I cause no wounds. I lose combat, but pick up my dice claiming that I am Steadfast, as my 1 rank of 6 models is greater than his 0 ranks. My opponent disputed that claim.

My opponent was of the opinion that your 'first' rank (i.e. the one with the command models in it) did not count when calculating the number of ranks for the purposes of Steadfast. I said that as a single model a Hydra has 0 ranks, and therefore so long as I had 5 guys I was Steadfast.

Can anyone shed some light on this? BRB page refs would be awesome, but we couldn't find anything...

Thanks in advance.

Rogzor87
19-09-2011, 00:34
the first rank counts for steadfast. Its still the first rank. 1 rank > 0 ranks

havockrauser
19-09-2011, 00:35
According to the wording in the rulebook, it merely says you need more ranks than your opponent. It does not say "more extra ranks than your opponent". So 5 in the front to your opponents 1 model would make you steadfast.

A rank would be 5 or more models, 3 in the case of monstrous. Hope this helps.

Mr_Rose
19-09-2011, 00:57
The extra ranks bonus defines itself in terms of "ranks behind the fighting rank" so it seems disingenuous to claim that in support of the first (fighting) rank not counting as a rank....

As for page references, p.5 is the one that explains ranks and files.

thegrapeman
19-09-2011, 01:12
Thanks for the replies guys, and Mr_Rose for the page reference. I thought that the rule was really clear, but when my opponent challenged it I started to doubt my interpretation.

Spoke to someone at the local GW. He used a 'in real life' argument. He said that my interpretation would lead to 5 guys being Steadfast against a "huge and powerful" Hydra but 4 guys running, which didn't make any sense. I pointed out that my opponent's ruling would lead to 10 guys being Steadfast against that same Hydra but 9 guys running.

Sigh.

Thanks again.

brother_maynard
19-09-2011, 01:32
Spoke to someone at the local GW. He used a 'in real life' argument

lol, i think this argument automatically fails when used to explain a game with man-sized steampunk rats with a snuff addiction that have harnessed quasi-nuclear power

Capt._Jaelinek
19-09-2011, 03:02
I hate to use this slightly round about logic, but here goes:

An infantry rank is a minimum of 5 models. Monstrous Infantry, Monstrous Cav and Monstrous Beasts achieve rank at 3 models.

So how many (if any) ranks does a Monster fill?

Unfortunately, it would have been very easy for the writers to say a monster counts as 5 models in the Unit Type section of the BRB. Alas, p.85 is silent.

BUT, on p.110 in the War Machine section it states that monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts count as 3 models and monsters count as 5 models.

As very few (if any?) monsters can be taken 'ranked up' I would opine that a hydra (or other monster) qualifies as 1 rank.

An FAQ would be nice though.

Yrrdead
19-09-2011, 03:18
Models != ranks.

I can have a unit of 5 infantry models with zero ranks. Which falsifies your premise.

Edit- The above comes off as pretty antagonistic, I apologize if you feel I'm attacking you Capt._Jaelinek. I promise I'm not :) .
Removed the snarky bit.

Mr_Rose
19-09-2011, 03:34
Monsters don't even count as five models all the time; only for determining who out of a unit gets to attack a war machine (or building).

Avian
19-09-2011, 08:16
Not only does the first rank count, this is probably an intentional choice in order to boost ranked units over things like large monsters. You can compare it with the requirement for Disrupting a unit, which is clearly worded differently.

narrativium
19-09-2011, 11:37
The intent (as far as I know) is that units in ranked up formations are more disciplined than units (like skirmishers) used to free formations. This works pretty much up to the point where the monster is in base contact with all of the survivors.

The argument as to why a unit of 5 will stay while a unit of 4 will panic is up there with why a unit of 5 won't take a panic test if one of them dies while a unit of 4 will, or why - up to a point - warriors with poisoned attacks get more dangerous when it's harder to hit (the more difficult it is to hit, the higher the percentage of hits that auto-wound). It's a quirk of the game mechanics, not a commentary on the troops' psychology.

Tregar
19-09-2011, 13:10
Spoke to someone at the local GW. He used a 'in real life' argument.

Should've just waved a space marine in his face, I severely doubt he actually plays warhammer other than the intro games he's forced to give in the store ;)

Capt._Jaelinek
19-09-2011, 20:33
I can have a unit of 5 infantry models with zero ranks. Which falsifies your premise.

No offense taken, but I don't understand how you can have 5 infantry models with zero ranks. Please enlighten me.

Also, how does this pertain to a unit having steadfast against a monster?

Harwammer
19-09-2011, 20:41
In real life aren't hydras some tiny little pondlife?

TMATK
19-09-2011, 20:43
No offense taken, but I don't understand how you can have 5 infantry models with zero ranks. Please enlighten me.

Also, how does this pertain to a unit having steadfast against a monster?

Put them in any formation that is less then 5 models wide, zero ranks.

Yrrdead
19-09-2011, 20:49
No offense taken, but I don't understand how you can have 5 infantry models with zero ranks. Please enlighten me.

Also, how does this pertain to a unit having steadfast against a monster?

You attempted to conflate models to ranks. I was simply illustrating the fallacy in that, as TMATK has shown above.

As for how it pertains, well it doesn't , which is what I was saying.

Capt._Jaelinek
19-09-2011, 20:49
So my hydra just munched 10 models out of 15 in your unit and they are steadfast because the hydra has no ranks and you technically have 1.

How much sense does this make? If everyone agrees this is the proper interpretation, then I'll play it that way and chalk it up to bad rules writing.

If 4 infantry have just won versus 5 infantry, then I agree the 5 should be steadfast. I just think they should consider a monster 1 rank.

Yrrdead
19-09-2011, 20:52
Well it is a proper interpretation. Whether it makes sense or not is a little bit more subjective than we deal with in this sub forum.

Capt._Jaelinek
19-09-2011, 20:54
Well it is a proper interpretation. Whether it makes sense or not is a little bit more subjective than we deal with in this sub forum.

Fair enough

narrativium
19-09-2011, 22:07
So my hydra just munched 10 models out of 15 in your unit and they are steadfast because the hydra has no ranks and you technically have 1.

How much sense does this make? If everyone agrees this is the proper interpretation, then I'll play it that way and chalk it up to bad rules writing.

If 4 infantry have just won versus 5 infantry, then I agree the 5 should be steadfast. I just think they should consider a monster 1 rank.
It makes as much sense as if my unit had 20 models in it and you killed 11. The remaining nine are clearly still in a disciplined formation.

It makes as much sense as a line of archers 20-long standing and shooting against an oncoming monster, and still retaining unit discipline even when only four of them are in combat and able to attack.

It makes as much sense as everyone being in units of rank and file in the first place (as opposed to scattered around in 40K/7th Edition Skirmisher formation).

It makes as much sense as skaven or dark elves or daemons of Tzeentch respecting the rules of a challenge and not stabbing either combatant in the back while they're fighting for the honour of their regiment.

These are the conventions of the warfare of Warhammer. Individuals have the comfort of knowing there are more friends beside and behind them than there are behind the monster.

Still, the fact that they're taking a Break test at all suggests they're not doing well...

T10
20-09-2011, 07:45
Put them in any formation that is less then 5 models wide, zero ranks.

A single model is a unit that has 0 ranks of 5 or more models.

However, it has 1 rank and 1 file.

-T10

Avian
20-09-2011, 07:54
Zero ranks of 5 or more is what he meant.

Zoolander
20-09-2011, 08:58
You know the best part of steadfast? If we each have 30 models in a unit, yours assembled in horde formation, 10 wide, with 3 ranks, and mine 5 wide, 6 deep, I'm going to be steadfast while you won't, despite having the same number of models in the unit. Ok, it's either that or the fact that when you disrupt a unit, you do not break steadfast, which makes NO sense.

Anyway, a rank of 5 men is still a rank, and therefore steadfast. If you try to argue logic or realism in any game, you've already lost the argument. Unless you can explain how a doomwheel or a steamtank actually work...

eron12
20-09-2011, 11:34
I don't think this is something that needs a FAQ, as it's pretty black and white. A single model of any type never counts as a full rank (which is defined as either 5 or 3 models).

Whether it should or not is something quite different, but the rules themselves are clear.

T10
20-09-2011, 12:22
[COLOR="YellowGreen"Ok, it's either that or the fact that when you disrupt a unit, you do not break steadfast, which makes NO sense.


The rules for disrupting units explain exactly why it does not negate the steadfast rule. It's not as if the writers forgot about it: The rule is entirely justified.

-T10

Avian
20-09-2011, 15:07
@ Zoolander: you get Steadfast, but he has four more guys fighting. It's a trade-off and almost certainly intentional.

Zoolander
20-09-2011, 23:41
The rules for disrupting units explain exactly why it does not negate the steadfast rule. It's not as if the writers forgot about it: The rule is entirely justified.

-T10


@ Zoolander: you get Steadfast, but he has four more guys fighting. It's a trade-off and almost certainly intentional.

Oh, I know it was intentional. I just think it'd dumb. If you get flanked by a unit, it should remove that as you scramble and panic to reform. Plus, it would balance out steadfast, which IMO, is broken, and add SOME level of skill in outmaneuvering people that was present in 7th but no longer. But that was also part of the joke you all missed... how I said you can't apply logic and realism, but in the paragraph above, I'm doing exactly that... comedy is a tough gig, I tells ya!

T10
21-09-2011, 06:46
What you get is this: +1 CR for flanking, another +1 if this is the turn your unit charged, and the enemy get +0 instead of +1-3 for his rank bonus. You get to fight at full effect and the enemy doesn't benefit from supporting attacks or parry saves. All this adds up to one thing that's pretty important: Winning the combat.

-T10

Harwammer
21-09-2011, 07:39
Oh, I know it was intentional. I just think it'd dumb. If you get flanked by a unit, it should remove that as you scramble and panic to reform. Plus, it would balance out steadfast, which IMO, is broken, and add SOME level of skill in outmaneuvering people that was present in 7th but no longer. But that was also part of the joke you all missed... how I said you can't apply logic and realism, but in the paragraph above, I'm doing exactly that... comedy is a tough gig, I tells ya!
Your complaint is it should be hard to reform when flanked regardless of numerical superiority? Surely the correct fix to this isn't disruption cancels steadfast, rather you can't use steadfast for reforms when disrupted?

As T10 says flanking is a massive advantage. If you don't want the opponent to reform there are mechanics you can use to ensure that. Lastly, charging (even in the flanks), isn't about auto-destroying units anymore: it is now about creating a combat (with the odds stacked in your favour) you want to be fought.

timmytool
21-09-2011, 09:08
I hate to use this slightly round about logic, but here goes:

An infantry rank is a minimum of 5 models. Monstrous Infantry, Monstrous Cav and Monstrous Beasts achieve rank at 3 models.

So how many (if any) ranks does a Monster fill?

Unfortunately, it would have been very easy for the writers to say a monster counts as 5 models in the Unit Type section of the BRB. Alas, p.85 is silent.

BUT, on p.110 in the War Machine section it states that monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts count as 3 models and monsters count as 5 models.

As very few (if any?) monsters can be taken 'ranked up' I would opine that a hydra (or other monster) qualifies as 1 rank.

An FAQ would be nice though.

as said before the monster does not count as one rank, using the logic above 2 monstrous infantry would = one rank (6) as apposed to the rank rules that say they needs 3 models to make one rank.

kingofthesquats
21-09-2011, 09:27
Spoke to someone at the local GW. He used a 'in real life' argument.

He needs some time away from the GW.

Capt._Jaelinek
23-09-2011, 02:52
as said before the monster does not count as one rank, using the logic above 2 monstrous infantry would = one rank (6) as apposed to the rank rules that say they needs 3 models to make one rank.

I conceded my argument. I agree with everyone's interpretation, but still think monsters should get some perks. Not holding my breath...

Avian
23-09-2011, 05:06
This rule is MEANT to hurt monsters, so don't hold your breath.
Besides, monsters get Thunderstomp.

Mr_Rose
23-09-2011, 05:26
Yeah, because high toughness, lots of wounds and attacks and probably a psychological effect and the odd smattering of other special rules isn't enough.
Or did we miss that the only time a unit has to be Steadfast is when it already lost the combat round i.e. the monster already beat them.

P.S. Avian, I think the Steadfast rule is meant to balance out all combats, not just units vs. monsters. The whole idea is to reduce the impact of any given single round of combat and make the whole game more grind-y. However this does mean units of spear-dudes naturally get to make heroic last stands against ravening monsters...

eron12
23-09-2011, 06:39
P.S. Avian, I think the Steadfast rule is meant to balance out all combats, not just units vs. monsters.

I think you are right, and steadfast is not soley directed at monsters. However, I think they had monsters in mind when designing the rule. (as well as characters and small elite units)

Glemigobles
23-09-2011, 10:57
If you think that the 'first' fighting rank gives you staedfast bonus vs monsters why doesn't it counts twards CR against monsters? I think you have to have something backig your front to claim steadfast. TBH I'd never think that 5 orcs can be staedfast against a monster :)
BRB:
"Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution the ranks have to be 5 or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. The last rank doesn't have to be complete but must have at least 5 models". (p.54)

Simply put - no, fighting rank alone does not make you steadfast against monsters or lone characters.

Guanyin
23-09-2011, 11:15
If you think that the 'first' fighting rank gives you staedfast bonus vs monsters why doesn't it counts twards CR against monsters?

Because the rules for rank bonus in combat express that you get a bonus for each rank behind the fighting rank, while steadfast only require more ranks.

The reference to rank bonus says the rank has to be at least 5 models wide, not that steadfast is calculated like rank bonus.

Mid'ean
23-09-2011, 11:17
Simply put - no, fighting rank alone does not make you steadfast against monsters or lone characters.

The rules say otherwise.

monstallion
23-09-2011, 11:52
I think people may have got this wrong, the monster has 1 rank and 1 file, this is the same number of ranks as the unit its fighting so the unit is not steadfast. A unit will need two ranks of 5 or 3 models depending on what you are fighting to get steadfast.

The wording is around the number of models in a rank to have steadfast in the unit that lost not the number of models in a rank fighting against them.

Kev

Guanyin
23-09-2011, 12:08
I think people may have got this wrong, the monster has 1 rank and 1 file, this is the same number of ranks as the unit its fighting so the unit is not steadfast. A unit will need two ranks of 5 or 3 models depending on what you are fighting to get steadfast.

The wording is around the number of models in a rank to have steadfast in the unit that lost not the number of models in a rank fighting against them.

Kev

"Simirarly, the enemy ranks also have to be five or more models wide to counter your unit from being steadfast" small rulebook p 54

1 monster does therefore not remove steadfast from a unit with a rank of 5 or more models.

Glemigobles
23-09-2011, 14:35
It also sais that a unit has to have more RANKS of 5 or more troopers than its enemy. Steadfast is about ranks, not troopers. It is said that soldiers feel confident because of their numbers. It's more about common sense than rule not being clearly stated in the BRB...
Anyways I never had any problem with this matter as nobody in my area ever tried (nor will try...) to force steadfast that way.
I can be wrong though...common sense is a 'rare choice' these days...

shelfunit.
23-09-2011, 16:16
It also sais that a unit has to have more RANKS of 5 or more troopers than its enemy. Steadfast is about ranks, not troopers. It is said that soldiers feel confident because of their numbers. It's more about common sense than rule not being clearly stated in the BRB...
Anyways I never had any problem with this matter as nobody in my area ever tried (nor will try...) to force steadfast that way.
I can be wrong though...common sense is a 'rare choice' these days...

So you are in agreement with the majority here then? Having "more RANKS of 5 or more troopers than it's enemy", 1 rank of 5 (or more) troopers is more than 0 ranks, therefore a rank of 5 models is steadfast against a single (or multiple) monsters. Steadfast is never "forced", it is or it isn't, and "common sense" is commonly used in this particular forum as an argument against clear rules.

Lordy
24-09-2011, 16:04
Just to finish this off, noone seems to have mentioned the diagram on page 54 which clearly shows the front rank counting towards steadfast.

nzkoston
01-10-2011, 01:43
oh, when me and my friends count up CR for ranks we never count the front line for the ranks. So when we do steadfast it never includes the front line either. Minimum of 10 models of infantry for steadfast is how we've played it. Maybe i'll take another look!

Mid'ean
01-10-2011, 03:51
oh, when me and my friends count up CR for ranks we never count the front line for the ranks. So when we do steadfast it never includes the front line either. Minimum of 10 models of infantry for steadfast is how we've played it. Maybe i'll take another look!

You should check the rules a tad better. Steadfast and CR are 2 different things.

eron12
01-10-2011, 05:08
oh, when me and my friends count up CR for ranks we never count the front line for the ranks. So when we do steadfast it never includes the front line either. Minimum of 10 models of infantry for steadfast is how we've played it. Maybe i'll take another look!

I would sugest taking a second look. It can make quite a difference.

OldMaster
02-10-2011, 08:12
After reading this thread I kinda started missing Unit Strength...

fusionmonkey
02-10-2011, 12:24
it makes no sense that if i had 5 skaven slaves with 3 giants in the front 3 giants in the back and still being steadfast:wtf:
i mean come on youre outnumbered by giants...

Ravenar
02-10-2011, 13:15
It also seems to make little semse to send 6 giants against one unit of Skaven, but to each....

Though I do not agree with all the steadfast rules, they are what they are.... it only takes one rank (of five) to remain stubborn vs 0 ranks (of five). It makes playing monsters and skirmishers a bit more challenging and playing hordes less challenging.

Avian
02-10-2011, 19:13
it makes no sense that if i had 5 skaven slaves with 3 giants in the front 3 giants in the back and still being steadfast:wtf:
i mean come on youre outnumbered by giants...
To some extent, you are doing it wrong if you throw six Giants against a unit of Slaves, but neglect to throw in even a single unit of five infantry. It's like only taking cavalry when you know you will be playing the Watchtower scenario. You really only have yourself to blame.

I for one like the way the rule encourages more of a combined arms approach - it means that you don't need as many restrictions for selecting armies.

That being said, all abstractions reach a point somewhere where they look odd, but they will do so regardless of what that threshold is. If you had required units to have at least two ranks of 5 to qualify for Steadfast, you'd get the situation where 10 guys could hold against 6 Giants, but 9 would run away screaming. Same wierdness, but at a different point.

eron12
03-10-2011, 03:25
it makes no sense that if i had 5 skaven slaves with 3 giants in the front 3 giants in the back and still being steadfast:wtf:
i mean come on youre outnumbered by giants...

Like Avian said, if you move the steadfast goalpost, it just changes where the line is. At what point should should slaves be able to stand against giants? does 10 make more sense? 15, 20? You are still going to have a situation where having 1 model less loses steadfast and makes all the difference.

T10
03-10-2011, 06:46
Even the Outnumbering bonus to combat resolution in 7th edition had it's issues: Wasn't it strange that a unit of 1001 Goblins would outnumber 1000 Chaos Warriors? A full +1 CR for a 0.1% advantage in numbers?

-T10

AMWOOD co
03-10-2011, 12:18
Even the Outnumbering bonus to combat resolution in 7th edition had it's issues: Wasn't it strange that a unit of 1001 Goblins would outnumber 1000 Chaos Warriors? A full +1 CR for a 0.1% advantage in numbers?

-T10

Please tell me you never actually saw that matchup. It's only theoretical, right? I don't want to picture the game where a unit of 1000 Chaos Warriors was even viable, let alone doable...

...then again, I would love to see it, but I'd also want to control it.

goodz
03-10-2011, 19:24
Please tell me you never actually saw that matchup. It's only theoretical, right? I don't want to picture the game where a unit of 1000 Chaos Warriors was even viable, let alone doable...

...then again, I would love to see it, but I'd also want to control it.

The best part is in 7th the goblins would win combat due to max rank bonus and max kill bonus and outnumber potentially defeating all those chaos warriors