PDA

View Full Version : Steadfast Design



Snake1311
28-09-2011, 11:33
An interesting point which comes up in this GW article: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=&section=&pIndex=2&aId=9900050a&start=3



You'll remove the enemy's rank bonus with just six Knights Errant in their flank (since Bretonnian Lance formations get a rank bonus with just three models). This means they can kiss their Steadfast bonus (and their unchivalrous hides) goodbye!

Now, this is interesting not just because its clearly wrong (such things have happened before - GW staff play the dwarven gyrocopter without partials apaprently!) but because of its implication.

Since this is in an official tactica article on their site, we can assume that its:
a) been proofread
b) a result of playtesting

So, the question of the day:

Did the designers intend steadfast to be removed by disruption?

Discuss.

The bearded one
28-09-2011, 11:47
Since this is in an official tactica article on their site, we can assume that its:
a) been proofread
b) a result of playtesting

I actually doubt they did either.



It might've been their intention for it to work like that, untill they realised they had actually written it so that this does not work..

kyussinchains
28-09-2011, 11:48
I doubt they did, as it is addressed directly in the rulebook and clarified as such, that disruption does not remove steadfast

Haravikk
28-09-2011, 12:25
Having Steadfast removed by Disruption would defeat the purpose of having Steadfast to begin with, so it seems weird that the article would make such a glaring mistake. Perhaps they did actually realise this but never amended the article?

The bearded one
28-09-2011, 12:28
Having steadfast removed by disruption does not defeat the purpose of having steadfast. It would still ensure a unit of knights or whatever can't charge the front and make the entire unit flee in 1 round.

I'm going to playtest a bit with disruption removing steadfast, because it seems like a way to force movement to be more important for both players. The attacker must try to get in a flank, the defender must prevent that.

Korraz
28-09-2011, 12:42
I'm with TBO here. Disruption removing Steadfast would benifit the game and wouldn't defeat the purpose in the slightest. It would deepen gameplay and pulling off a charge to the flank with a disrupting unit isn't all that easy anyway.

On the topic of the article... GW Tacticas are terrible and everything said there should be regarded with suspicion.

theunwantedbeing
28-09-2011, 12:48
On the topic of the article... GW Tacticas are terrible and everything said there should be regarded with suspicion.

Yes they do tend to be written with a different set of rules in mind all too often.
I'm assuming this is a mistake and the people writing the thing simply didn't know the rules that well.

That being said, having disruption be negating steadfast instead of rank bonus would certainly be an interesting game mechanic that could make the game more interesting than it currently is.

Eternus
28-09-2011, 13:22
Lets just be clear about something, and this is very important...

...Games Workshop do not proof read, well, anything I think. Either that or the proof reader in question actually has feet with opposable big toes and likes to eat bananas while hanging upside down from a jungle gym. The evidence for this is clearly visible in almost every single item of text they release. Sometimes it's so bad I have wonder if they type in the dark.

Having said that, I think that Steadfast should be lost if a unit is disrupted. Given that you now need twice as many models to break ranks, that should be enough of a requirement. I also think that units that fail a Fear test should count as Disrupted for that combat phase, because Fear is pretty pants at present, it has been overly nerfed in my opinion, speaking as a VC player of course!

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 13:54
I'm also in the camp of disruption = cancel steadfast. Our campaign plays with that rule and that prevents people from just blindly tossing units forward. They actually have to guard their flanks.

I don't understand someone's concept of "disruption cancel steadfast makes steadfast useless" either. It means frontal charges are going to fail as they should but if you give up your flank you are in trouble (as it should).

Eternus
28-09-2011, 13:56
Although flank and rear charges are still very important even if you don't negate Steadfast.

TsukeFox
28-09-2011, 14:10
Although flank and rear charges are still very important even if you don't negate Steadfast.

When skaven get flanked they lose "strength in numbers."

I liked the idea that a unit that failed a fear test should lose steadfast.

but even one flanks a unit of oh 100 night goblins with 12 knights and the goblins lose 10+- gobbos they still out number the 12 knights ergo steadfast should remain.

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 14:20
Flanking and rear charges do give you a slight bonus yes. The problem with the ease at which units are leadership 9 and 10.

One of my disputes with this edition is how much less (in my perception) psychology is. It's moving more towards 40k, where psychology plays a very minor role.

Eternus
28-09-2011, 14:23
Flanking and rear charges do give you a slight bonus yes. The problem with the ease at which units are leadership 9 and 10.

One of my disputes with this edition is how much less (in my perception) psychology is. It's moving more towards 40k, where psychology plays a very minor role.

Flank and rear charges give you big bonuses. First, if you have enough models you break ranks, next, you get +1 or +2 to combat res, and then on top of that the enemy gets no supporting attacks to the flank or rear, so that's far fewer attacks coming back at you, and they don't get a parry save to flanks and rear either. All this adds up to small elite units in the flanks lasting a lot longer than they would attacking a large infantry unit from the front.

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 14:42
I apologize, I was not clear with what I meant.

When I say slight bonus I meant they give you a slight bonus to breaking the enemy. Flanking or rear charge means you have an edge on winning combat, but steadfast with the ease of leadership 9 or 10 means that breaking said unit is very difficult.

And then the unit being flanked after making it's stubborn 9/10 check performs a reform and that small elite unit is now facing the front and will then proceed to be butchered.

This is why you see deathstars.

I'm a fan of steadfast. A big fan. I am not, however, a fan of the playstyle that the current ruleset encourages (mega block death stars and careless play where flanks mean very little due to the steadfast shield)

Korraz
28-09-2011, 14:47
When skaven get flanked they lose "strength in numbers."

I liked the idea that a unit that failed a fear test should lose steadfast.

but even one flanks a unit of oh 100 night goblins with 12 knights and the goblins lose 10+- gobbos they still out number the 12 knights ergo steadfast should remain.

When Knights charge into the flank of Gobbos, the Gobbos are going to lose their minimal discipline and courage really fast. No wonder if you are 120cm big, clad in rags and have to watch how steel plated juggernauts on monstrous horses clad in even more steel plow through your buddies.

Even vor Skaven losing SIN isn't all that a bother, as they'll still make the check more often than not, especially with a BSB near. Assuming they are in the LD bubble, which they should always be if played by a competent player.

Urgat
28-09-2011, 14:57
Having steadfast removed by disruption does not defeat the purpose of having steadfast. It would still ensure a unit of knights or whatever can't charge the front and make the entire unit flee in 1 round.

It wouldn't ensure that 5 mounted marauders, wait, 5 hounds cannot make 100 goblins break just by flank-charging (a great feast, the height of tactical genius! Hard to pull lol. You can hardly march block anymore. Animosity aside, I want my wolf riders in your flank, they are in your flank. Unless your army is so amazing you can dedicate enough firepower, opposing light cavalry and/or magic to stop four units of them), which was the point.
Handy to use twelve knights as an exemple when 5 skaven slaves will achieve the same result :rolleyes:

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 15:01
It wouldn't ensure that 5 mounted marauders cannot make 100 goblins break just by flank-charging (a great feast, the height of tactical genius!), which was the point.

I see this a lot. It is a common mistake.

5 mounted marauders cannot cause disruption. You need 10 models. 5 mounted marauder horsemen on the flank would therefore allow steadfast to continue.

So *10* mounted marauders could do so, but 10 mounted marauders coming into your flank can be countered by killing one of the marauders. Killing a marauder horsemen is very easy to do. Even S3 bowfire can reliably tear up a marauder horsemen unit.

And if the opposing player is running 15 or so then that's a very large cavalry unit so I can easily see that breaking a unit of 100 goblins in the flank, since the points costs are also roughly the same.

So in conclusion, you can't have 5 cav models come into your flank and roll a large unit up regardless of if disruption cancels steadfast. You need at least 10 models, and that's a dedicated assault cavalry unit that often costs a lot of points. In the case of light cav or things like dogs where the points are cheaper, they are also easy to kill off, so again I am seeing no problem with this rule (disrupt cancel steadfast) as the things steadfast was written to negate are still in effect, and by allowing disrupt to cancel steadfast, you'd be knocking out people's reasons (one of the main reasons) for taking deathstars which is also a bonus in my book.

Urgat
28-09-2011, 15:05
Yeah, you're right, it's 10, sorry. But isn't disruption decided at the beginning of the fight, not the end? I don't remember, haven't played in 6 months.

Invigilius
28-09-2011, 15:09
I think deathstars arenīt very playable at all despite steadfast, Magic effects such as dwellers, purple sun and so on limits the performance of them. The problem with steadfast is the cheap and crappy gobbo/slave units that can be used as a tarpit and work far better overall than undead themselves.

I'm also in the wagon who think that disruption should cancel steadfast. It would be a major improvement to the game (although I do like it as it is, in general).

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 15:15
Yeah, you're right, it's 10, sorry. But isn't disruption decided at the beginning of the fight, not the end? I don't remember, haven't played in 6 months.

I believe steadfast is counted at the end of combat. So if a unit of 10 slammed into your flank and you killed one of them, they would no longer be disrupting you and you'd get your steadfast.

I am not 100% on the wording.

I would not be opposed to it working either way as if I saw a unit of 10 cav moving towards my wing I would know it's intent and react accordingly, and if they did sneak in to my flank anyhow without losing at least one model, then I feel I have been outplayed.

Regardless, the old MSU flank roll tactics of 7th would not work here because you need at least 10 models, so you wouldn't have the inevitable flank charge in 7th where you had to deal with eight or nine little cav units, you'd have around four or five large cav units if someone went cav-heavy with the intent to roll a flank, which is a lot easier to maneuver and counter against (turn to face the charge instead of leave the flank open, focus fire on the units coming in to take their number down to below 10, etc)

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 15:17
I think deathstars arenīt very playable at all despite steadfast, Magic effects such as dwellers, purple sun and so on limits the performance of them. The problem with steadfast is the cheap and crappy gobbo/slave units that can be used as a tarpit and work far better overall than undead themselves.

I'm also in the wagon who think that disruption should cancel steadfast. It would be a major improvement to the game (although I do like it as it is, in general).

While spells such as dwellers etc can destroy a deathstar, they are never given to go off. Also armies have ways around this, such as the ogres' runemaw banner which is mandatory in their gutstar formation so that spells cannot affect them at all.

Deathstars are not easy to counter, which is why they are so popular and easy to use. There are a host of ways to fight against them however (uber spells are one way, if they don't have magical protection like the ogres do)

Urgat
28-09-2011, 15:22
I believe steadfast is counted at the end of combat. So if a unit of 10 slammed into your flank and you killed one of them, they would no longer be disrupting you and you'd get your steadfast.

I am not 100% on the wording.

I would not be opposed to it working either way as if I saw a unit of 10 cav moving towards my wing I would know it's intent and react accordingly, and if they did sneak in to my flank anyhow without losing at least one model, then I feel I have been outplayed.

Regardless, the old MSU flank roll tactics of 7th would not work here because you need at least 10 models, so you wouldn't have the inevitable flank charge in 7th where you had to deal with eight or nine little cav units, you'd have around four or five large cav units if someone went cav-heavy with the intent to roll a flank, which is a lot easier to maneuver and counter against (turn to face the charge instead of leave the flank open, focus fire on the units coming in to take their number down to below 10, etc)

If steadfast is counted at the end, then I'd be fine with flanking disrupting steadfast - for (monstrous, etc) cavalry only. NOT infantry. And I speak as a goblin player, would can field so many units (small and big at the same time) that I would be the most likely to gain benefits from it.

Razaan
28-09-2011, 15:57
And then the unit being flanked after making it's stubborn 9/10 check performs a reform and that small elite unit is now facing the front and will then proceed to be butchered.

I see this a lot. You guys do realize that in order to reform, the losing unit has to pass a leadership test all while applying the combat modifiers, right?

You can't claim Steadfast to do a combat reform after losing a round of combat. Steadfast only applies to the break test.

Eternus
28-09-2011, 16:17
Also, you can't reform at all if you're under attack on two faces. Plus, all this just ties in to reinforce what I love about 8th - you have to make your units work together, single uber units will not automatically win on their own against a player with anything about them. Support, support and a bit more support, with some cohesion and redundancy thrown in for good measure.

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 16:45
I see this a lot. You guys do realize that in order to reform, the losing unit has to pass a leadership test all while applying the combat modifiers, right?

You can't claim Steadfast to do a combat reform after losing a round of combat. Steadfast only applies to the break test.

I am aware yes and you are right, however in my neck of the woods with again the plentiful leadership 9/10 and re-rolls, this reform, while not 100%, is fairly reliable.

Ghremdal
28-09-2011, 16:55
If you are steadfast, you make combat reforms amid defeat on your steadfast leadership (this is actually the only rule I would like to change about steadfast).

The bearded one
28-09-2011, 17:14
Man, combatresolution appears to have some myths :p

When reforming amidst defeat you have to pass a breaktest with the normal combat modifiers, but if you are unbreakable or steadfast you may take the test without modifiers.

2 ranks are needed to disrupt a unit. Most of us hated stuff like 5 frenzied marauders hitting the flank of something like 20 saurus and running down the entire unit, but luckily that's no longer possible. Even if houseruled it would need to be at least 10 marauder horsemen, which is already something like 200 points that would need to suffer 0 casualties.

Ranks are counted at the end of the combat; so that means at the end you count howmany ranks a flanking unit has in order to determine if that unit disrupts the unit it is flanking.



Another houserule I once thought of was:
flanking unit with 0 to 1 rank: - flanking bonus (+1 combat resolution)
flanking unit with 2 ranks: - flanking bonus & disruption
flanking unit with 3+ ranks: - flanking bonus, disruption & cancelling steadfast

Confessor_Atol
28-09-2011, 17:24
When my regular opponent and I started 8th, we mistakenly played it that disruption = no steadfast for about 6 games. They were great! Well balenced units hit and smashed each other. Cav needed a larger footprint, but were effective if the charge was well timed. Good general-ship was rewarded, and manuvering was worthwhile.

I felt pretty stupid when I found out that disrupted wasn't the same as not stead fast, but we all suffer an edition change hangover.

I really think this one change (and maybe fixing MR) would make 8th the best edition of warhammer yet.

russellmoo
28-09-2011, 17:52
What if, rather than removing steadfast when charged by a flanking unit- what if flank and rear charges applied a cumulative leadership modifier- modifying the max available leadership

So- a steadfast unit with re-rollable ld 10 gets charged in

The flank= they are now LD9 max
Two flanks= Ld 8 max
Rear= Ld 8 max
Flank + Rear= Ld 7 max
2 Flanks + Rear= Ld 6 max

Cavalry is now more powerful without being overwhelming (and pushing people back to the all cav lists of 7th) cheap infantry are now useful, but only with protected flanks

Also, I'm pretty sure that the article in question said nothing about removing steadfast. It is poorly worded, but I believe the author only meant that the charged unit would lose its bonus for ranks- so don't read too much into this- it is just a poorly proofread article not evidence that GW intended steadfast to work differently (plus I would add the article sites Skaven, and skaven that are disrupted pretty much die when flanked charged, so maybe this is what the author had in mind)

pointyteeth
28-09-2011, 18:04
Disruption negating Steadfast? Love the idea! Really hoping to see it in 9th! May have to try some games with that rule and see how it goes.

abdulaapocolyps
28-09-2011, 18:09
Yeah,we have the house rule that disrupted - no steadfast. It makes a ton of sense.getting flank charged should be a HUGE problem...warhammer is all about moment and positioning and this mechanic helps that.
Anyone who believes this would somehow unbalance the game should give it a go.you'll start protecting your flanks more and it won't ruin anything, I promise.

Andy p
28-09-2011, 18:16
I really think this one change (and maybe fixing MR) would make 8th the best edition of warhammer yet.

Most likely they will save this for 9th.....why not make money off your mistakes eh? :(

I dont mind if people did start playing distruption, (or it was FAQ'ed), as stopping steadfast, it still requires a certain investment in units that can distrupt.

The only worry would be if it swung too far the other way again with everyone running around with little cavalry blocks and slamming them into the flanks and rear.
Although I will admit that it would take a certain amount of....what is that word people here use? Ah yes, generalship, to pull that off.

yabbadabba
28-09-2011, 18:22
Since this is in an official tactica article on their site, we can assume that its:
a) hasn't been proofread
b) was written before the final editing of the rules

Changed that for ya ;)

As for Deathstars - love 'em. Could eat them up all day :evilgrin:

Urgat
28-09-2011, 18:39
Although I will admit that it would take a certain amount of....what is that word people here use? Ah yes, generalship, to pull that off.

It amuses me how people make it sound like flanking is rocket science :p You either can flank or you don't. People make it sound like they trick the opponent into offering a flank and opening a path, all by their outstanding generalship. Well, whatever strokes their ego, I guess.

nurgle5
28-09-2011, 18:54
One of the major complaints about steadfast I'm seeing here is the application of the rule to "death stars". My understanding of a deathstar, as opposed to a horde, is that is made up of quality troops and/or has several characters in it, enhancing it's resilience and/or killing power. Now, steadfast only applies if said unit loses a combat, this doesn't seem a likely thing to happen to a smaller flanking unit at any rate. In regards to the realism of steadfast, someone made an excellent post on this in another topic. Large blocks of infantry rarely fled from smaller groups or 'units' in real life.

Also, I've seen "deathstars" made up of bloodknight units crammed with characters, give that the power to cancel ranks and we're just playing a different kind of super unit. Compared to this or the MSU of 7th ed, steadfast should be considered at the very least the lesser of the evils.

In regards to combat reform, I see two issues here. First of all, why on earth would you charge a steadfast unit with a single unit and expect to do well? You already know you're unlikely to break them in one turn. Multiple charges is key. Secondly, in changing formation to face the flanking unit, the steadfast unit would usually have to expose it's flank or rear to the rest of your forces. You can't look at combat reform in a vacuum, your opponent will giving away combat res. whether he reforms or not.

Deathstars are not the be all and end all. The fact that people can complain about deathstars being too hard to kill and magic wiping out units too easily in the same breath always amazes me. Yes, some armies may have ways around this, but it's not like artillery gets less effective the bigger the unit, it's usually the complete opposite in fact :rolleyes:.

Tuttivillus
28-09-2011, 19:06
This! GW writers just do that sometimes. In Empire Tactica section, waaaay back in 7th ed. author wrote that one of his favourites is regiment composed of 25 free companies with 2*10 free companies detachments, which was and still is impossible :D

Sexiest_hero
28-09-2011, 19:08
Steadfast is fine. The cure for it is lazer guided war machines and Mega death spells. Let us not go back to the days of small units killing hundreds.

Korraz
28-09-2011, 19:51
So, making breaking in combat extremely rare balances the Big Spells how exactly...?
And stop it with the Laser Guided Warmachines. Unless you were a babbling idiot with only one eye left that needed his fingers to count to three, you had a pretty good hit rate after a few games, and after playing a month or two were able to bullseye every time.

IcedCrow
28-09-2011, 19:58
I agree. Guessing ranges was an elementary "skill" that you learned how to do a month into the game.

nurgle5
28-09-2011, 20:19
So, making breaking in combat extremely rare balances the Big Spells how exactly...?
And stop it with the Laser Guided Warmachines. Unless you were a babbling idiot with only one eye left that needed his fingers to count to three, you had a pretty good hit rate after a few games, and after playing a month or two were able to bullseye every time.

Perhaps the high damage spells are there to tear lumps out of these units before you have in engage them in CC. Maybe more accurate war machines are there for likewise reasons. Between these two things you have the opportunity to eliminate steadfast before the unit gets anyone near you.

Korraz
28-09-2011, 20:25
But... then the Cannons and Spells balance the big blocks, and not vica versa.
And my Warmachines haven't become any more accurate.

nurgle5
28-09-2011, 20:42
But... then the Cannons and Spells balance the big blocks, and not vica versa.

Well, that's what I assumed warmachine hunters are for. A check and balance system.



And my Warmachines haven't become any more accurate.

Then I applaud you on your excellent skills at guessing range. Players who use war machines less frequently or who weren't as adept at guessing range as you are now more accurate.

theunwantedbeing
28-09-2011, 20:46
Then I applaud you on your excellent skills at guessing range. Players who use war machines less frequently or who weren't as adept at guessing range as you are now more accurate.

My bolt throwers didn't get more accurate :(
Infact, they got less accurate seeing as the large target modifier disappeared!

Snake1311
28-09-2011, 20:58
The only massive issue I can see with steadfast becoming disruptable, is that, once again Undead and Deamons get a big lead on everyone else.

I'm against fear causing disrpution for the same reason.

Otherwise, it seems reasonable. Disrupting with a fast unit with any sort of cavalry would require a reasonable point investment (200ish as a minimum), whereas if you disrput with infantry it means you managed to get in a good position. It encourages people to play MSU, which means that their army becomes actually succeptable to panic (gasp!), and maybe, just maybe, they won't be able to cram every single one of their MSUs in their Ld bubble.

....all great until we think of VC and Vanhels. 100pts of Ghouls disrputing anything they feel like, yay....

P.S. thread up to 3 pages mere 10 hours after I posted it? impressed.

yabbadabba
28-09-2011, 21:25
But... then the Cannons and Spells balance the big blocks, and not vica versa. then you don't take big blocks and negate the balance the war machines and spells bring.

And my Warmachines haven't become any more accurate. Nope they have just got more dangerous, especially those with a template :evilgrin:

Ghremdal
28-09-2011, 22:09
Maybe the metagame has to evolve to deal with steadfast. Perhaps in the future general/BSB assassination will become more common.

For example, I keep a unit of 6 boar boyz for the sole purpose to slam into a unit with a wizard, and allocate as many attacks as possible against him, hoping for a wound or 2. Even if my boar boyz get wiped out, they are still cheap enough to be worth it if they do 2 wounds. A wizard with one wound remaining will be very careful about miscasting. And if they are lucky they can even wipe out the wizard.

Stronger units can be used against other characters also, and fast against bunkers.

The Low King
28-09-2011, 22:37
Then I applaud you on your excellent skills at guessing range. Players who use war machines less frequently or who weren't as adept at guessing range as you are now more accurate.[/QUOTE]


i dont know, it was pretty easy to get the hang of guessing ranges after a few games.


I have no problem with steadfast, if someone wants to stick 100 models together in one big block then my warmachines have a field day.....

The simple fact is that 100 goblins should almost always hold against 15 swordmasters, your hardly going to flee from someone you outnumber more than 5-1.

However, possibly having a limit such as 'only negates the first 10 points of combat res' or 'steadfast if you have more than 2 ranks more than them' etc

Sexiest_hero
28-09-2011, 23:27
Hide in the woods=no steadfast.

The bearded one
29-09-2011, 00:39
no steadfast for yourself either.

Korraz
29-09-2011, 01:24
Nope they have just got more dangerous, especially those with a template :evilgrin:

That is true. But more accurate? No.


no steadfast for yourself either.

Unless you are a skirmisher.

z4carlo
29-09-2011, 01:50
I, as others, played disruption as removing steadfast for my first 5 or so games of the edition. It wasnt until my regular opponent pointed out to me that my large halberdier blocks with counter-(flank)charging 15 man halberdier detatchments were even better this edition that I gave the rules a reread.

Since changing to use the proper rules i dont think it has made a huge change to the way we play the game except that ive slowly been phasing out my detatchments to make my hordes deeper which achieves the same effect to a lesser extent. Now i have to admit i dont play alot of horde armys at my local gaming group so havent come to loath being held up by gobbos or slaves as so many of the more vocal posters seem to have.

I find this edition quite dynamic and fast paced compared to 7th which pleases me alot as games in 7th seemed to be just too big an undertaking for me, they took forever. I seem to be rambling but basically i dont think that movement has lost anything from the 7th to 8th transition (except the addition of pre measuring which is a totally different topic) and in my experience disruption removing steadfast never added an entire new dimention to the game.

I know lots of people on here like to talk about how simple fantasy is and how there are no real tactics to it, while simulataneously telling us how amazing a general they are at the same time but gameplay wise im sure they playtested both while developing 8th as a few people have and its just down to preference.

If you want to consider the realism of the combat as some people have put arguments forward for, then in my opinion you need to consider that realistically units would not fight as rigid rectangular blocks and therefore the concept of a flank is less solid. Obviously im not saying that units didnt have flanks and that they wouldnt have prefered to fight enemies to thier front, but unless you are talking large scale charges (preferably unexpected) in the flank then most will be able to roughly cope (dependent upon the weopon weilded i guess).

I find from other game systems and some computer games (total war springs to mind) that what would probably daunt me most is actually being side by side with another unit and both recieve a frontal charge. Be it dice gods or whatever one defender breaks and the other holds. The winning attacking unit reforms to charge you in the flank while your allready engaged to the front. That is the unit i dont want to be in after watching my friends protecting my flank flee! I think the addition of +1 for charging +1 flank and disruption to an allready ongoing combat about sums this up for me tactically.

On the idea of deathstars, i think that the idea of large blocks of elite units holding againt enemies on all sides as completely fine they would more than likely imo be able to fight on 2 or 3 fronts, admittedly not QUITE as well. I think the current system represents that as well as it ever has in my experience.

My 2 cents!

Razaan
29-09-2011, 01:58
So I stand corrected on my assessment that combat reforms amid defeat are rolled on leadership minus combat resolution. Our group always played it that way, but upon further investigation, it is pretty clear that steadfast units make the test on their leadership value. It does say "unmodified leadership", though and I found nothing in the FAQ to change this paragraph.

I also saw that a unit cannot combat reform under any circumstance if they are engaged on one more than one facing. That's huge and would have won me a game at my last tournament had I remembered that little rule!

unheilig
29-09-2011, 03:07
We must truly understand the rules as they are before we can criticize them. I learn something new every game.

TsukeFox
29-09-2011, 03:23
When Knights charge into the flank of Gobbos, the Gobbos are going to lose their minimal discipline and courage really fast. No wonder if you are 120cm big, clad in rags and have to watch how steel plated juggernauts on monstrous horses clad in even more steel plow through your buddies.

Even vor Skaven losing SIN isn't all that a bother, as they'll still make the check more often than not, especially with a BSB near. Assuming they are in the LD bubble, which they should always be if played by a competent player.

Ya let us hope that Bret Knights get like impact hits next codex to make that statement true.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 08:43
That is true. But more accurate? No. Its more accurate because there is no guessing range which for people like yourself and myself, was immaterial anyway due to good guessing.

Only warmachines needing a BS roll haven't improved, but that's just a small part of the overall game.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 08:45
I also saw that a unit cannot combat reform under any circumstance if they are engaged on one more than one facing. That's huge and would have won me a game at my last tournament had I remembered that little rule! The game has lots of little rules which can make a difference. BSB dying as soon as they break and wizards being unable to cast more spells if they fail meet the casting value on a roll is another. Gods know how many times my opponents and I have forgotten that one!

Eternus
29-09-2011, 09:10
They said it when 8th was released, it's not just a few minor alterations, it's lots of pretty big alterations to the mechanics of the game, and there is now a huge underlying interlocking of the rules. One rule on it's own may seem daft or inconsequencial, but it's only when you realise that it ties into two or three other rules that you can see the real impact of apparently minor rules alterations.

And, regarding Steadfast, yes it really gives Infantry units the staying power they always needed to make them the heart of the game, which they always should have been in my opinion, but it only negates the negative modifiers from combat res. If a unit doesn't benefit from the generals Ld and BSB re-rolls, then Steadfast is only so good, and is dependant on the natural Ld of the unit. Not much good with unit of Ld5 Bretonnian Peasants eh? Also, there are ways to reduce a units Ld other than combat res. Aura of Dark Majesty for example, which I like to combine with the Screaming Banner.

diggerydoom
29-09-2011, 10:40
I believe that disrupting a unit should break the steadfast. A situation where I have 2 units of 30 saurus, one in the front and on in the side of a block of 100 goblins, win the combat by 10-15 and the goblins still get their Ld 8 (from the warboss) seems a little silly.

The steadfast mechanic is good in making blocks of infantry effective, particularly when combined with the ability of all models fighting back (presuming you have enough after casualities), however at the moment steadfast is a little to good!

nurgle5
29-09-2011, 11:26
I believe that disrupting a unit should break the steadfast. A situation where I have 2 units of 30 saurus, one in the front and on in the side of a block of 100 goblins, win the combat by 10-15 and the goblins still get their Ld 8 (from the warboss) seems a little silly.


This is a pretty silly example (probably part of the intention). Steadfast does not equate with invincibility. In situations similar to this one (less OTT), the steadfast unit is still going to have the living daylights hammered out of it and would be unlikely to last more than 2 turns.

Steadfast ensures that a significant point investment isn't as likely to be floored in one turn. If you are consistently winning combats, your opponent will lose the bonus.

Snake1311
29-09-2011, 12:15
Steadfast ensures that a significant point investment isn't as likely to be floored in one turn. If you are consistently winning combats, your opponent will lose the bonus.

QFT.

The only exception to this is Skaven Slaves, which do not represent a significant investment in any way, and are LD10 more often than not. Which is why people are mentioning Skaven as a problem, and they really shouldn't - its an Army Book specific problem, rather than one witht he Steadfast rule.

And no, Brets should not be getting massive boosts in the next book; if they are subpar in your experience you and/or your opponents are playing them wrong. The reason they need a new books is because not only do they have about half the unit choices of other armies, but many of their choices do the same thing. Their overall power level is fine though.

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 12:27
Houserule: If a unit passes its Ld test in combat using Steadfast but the amount rolled is greater than what would have been needed if Steadfast was not used, the unit loses its Steadfast status for the follwing round of combat. In that following round if it passes its Leadership test it may regain Steadfast. Apply every time Steadfast is used.

Rosstifer
29-09-2011, 12:33
That would work. I personally don't think Steadfast is too horrendous most of the time, but then you get Skaven Slaves. 80pts to tarpit ANYTHING. Yikes.

Eternus
29-09-2011, 12:43
Hmm, not sure about the idea of passing a test having a negative effect. I wonder whether proximity of friendly units shouldn't have some effect, for example, you cannot be steadfast if there are enemy units within 12" but no friendly units, to represent the unit getting decidedly nervous as they realise their predicament, or maybe there shouls be a friendly character within 12" to allow units to be Steadfast?

Urgat
29-09-2011, 13:08
That would work. I personally don't think Steadfast is too horrendous most of the time, but then you get Skaven Slaves. 80pts to tarpit ANYTHING. Yikes.

Mmh. Slaves that tarpit my gobs. How horrible a thought :p While those slaves are cheaper than my gobs, all my support units are cheaper than theirs (arach aside), so heh :D

yabbadabba
29-09-2011, 13:14
Hmm, not sure about the idea of passing a test having a negative effect. It has precedence elsewhere. If steadfast is due to havig huge numbers of troops, then losing it even when passing your break test seems reasonable as the huge numbers are found to count for little. And they can then regain it next round.

Its a rule change that can represent the ebb and flow of morale in a combat situation.

Brian Mage
29-09-2011, 13:18
just my 2p's

But i think disprution was always intended to remove steadfast; but the rule was written wrong.

The fact that the rules state Disruption removes "rank bonus" is the evidence i am using. (its a bit of a columbo moment)

A bonus to having many ranks is steadfast
remove that bonus = remove steadfast.

Now, not for a moment am i claiming that is how the rules ARE presented in the book - clearly it doesn't. We must therefore use the RAW (unless house ruled differently). I just think the evidence points to the above.

I'm sure i'll get told how wrong i am... but hey... :shifty:

Eternus
29-09-2011, 13:27
just my 2p's

But i think disprution was always intended to remove steadfast; but the rule was written wrong.

The fact that the rules state Disruption removes "rank bonus" is the evidence i am using. (its a bit of a columbo moment)

A bonus to having many ranks is steadfast
remove that bonus = remove steadfast.

Now, not for a moment am i claiming that is how the rules ARE presented in the book - clearly it doesn't. We must therefore use the RAW (unless house ruled differently). I just think the evidence points to the above.

I'm sure i'll get told how wrong i am... but hey... :shifty:

Most people would agree if they hadn't explicitly stated in the rules that disruption does not negate steadfast.

The Low King
29-09-2011, 20:45
what about this;

Units in the flank double their number of ranks for the purposes of calculating steadfast.
Units in the rear Tripple it.

That way a massive block of 100 is not going to be broken by 15 swordmasters in the flank but cant stand up to 50 saurus

oldWitheredCorpse
29-09-2011, 21:33
Also, you can't reform at all if you're under attack on two faces. Plus, all this just ties in to reinforce what I love about 8th - you have to make your units work together, single uber units will not automatically win on their own against a player with anything about them. Support, support and a bit more support, with some cohesion and redundancy thrown in for good measure.

This is my biggest gripe with 8th ed Tomb Kings. As a TK forum guy summarized it: "All TK units fight and die on their own". This makes it difficult to combine forces for the TK general. If your big unit of skellies get a whipping in the same combat as an elite unit, that elite unit inevitably goes poof. Most other armies can combine cheap infantry with stubborn elite/monster, creating a radically different dynamic, especially if within the range of a BSB.

Thus TK have to rely on monsters and elite units for everything besides charge redirection and speed bumps. You become forced to invest 80% in hammers and 20% in chaff and support.

cyberspite
29-09-2011, 21:50
LoL, I reckon they're saving it for wood elves. "All wood elf units break steadfast when charging in the flank or rear, and no combat reforms either!"

I can smell the :cheese:

kardar233
30-09-2011, 00:35
Houserule/fix suggestion: When counting ranks for Steadfast, the ranks of all units on the winning side are totaled; the losing unit must have ranks greater than the total ranks of all its opponents to stay Steadfast.

Optional addition: When counting ranks for Steadfast, attackers in a unit's flank multiply their number of ranks by 1.5, rounding down. Attackers in a unit's rear multiply their ranks by 2.

Squigkikka
30-09-2011, 10:59
Guy in the article is playing it wrong.

Lord Solar Plexus
30-09-2011, 11:12
Hide in the woods=no steadfast.

And then what? Ask your opponent nicely to come fight there? Hide all game if he declines?


no steadfast for yourself either.

Aren't we looking at a situation where the opponent's steadfastness is the stumbling block? That means your unit is going to win. It's still going to win in a wood, so why on earth does it matter that it is not steadfast either? :confused:

The bearded one
30-09-2011, 11:18
The concept of 'fluffing your attacks' is a harsh one.


"Yay, my saurus unit has 19 attacks!"
* rolls 3 hits *
"awww..."


That happened to me yesterday, so even with toughness 8 saurus I luckily was steadfast..

theJ
30-09-2011, 12:08
From a theoretical standpoint, it's worth pointing out that steadfast, in and of itself, does not turn a unit unbreakable. It's the combination of steadfast, general and BSB which does that.

The problem could be fixed by changing steadfast or its counters, but it could also fixed by making generals and BSBs more vulnerable.

For instance, I can't help but notice the 'Sniper' special rule, which would be the perfect counter to both BSBs and the high level wizards people keep complaining about. More ready access to rules like that could help shake up the metagame quite nicely, methinks - hopefully in a positive way.

Another 'solution' is simply making sure all(/most) armies have ready access to template/blast weaponry and/or spells, which is the perfect counter to big steadfast blocks.

It doesn't help cavalry any, I guess... but it does help diminish the power of both deathstars and slave-style blocks.

Haravikk
30-09-2011, 12:25
I'm with TBO here. Disruption removing Steadfast would benifit the game and wouldn't defeat the purpose in the slightest. It would deepen gameplay and pulling off a charge to the flank with a disrupting unit isn't all that easy anyway.
Except that it could just end up bringing back the unstoppable cavalry of 7th, since cavalry find it easier to get onto a unit's flanks, and tend to have the first round damage output to break the unit.

It's worth remembering that Warhammer's choice of formations is very limited, and doesn't really represent the options that massed infantry would actually have in dealing with cavalry, or being surrounded and so-on. So in game-play terms a unit's flanks and rear are always vulnerable, even though real infantry regiments could form into a square formation to defend itself more effectively from such attacks; the only unit in the game able to do this are the Dwarf Stonebearers (unit containing a character with Oath Stone).

Steadfast quite neatly represents the fact that units aren't completely thick and perfectly happy to have themselves wiped out from the flanks or rear. It also doesn't require us to reform into actual square formations, which would be the alternative, sure they could use markers to simplify it, but I think Steadfast is a good solution as it represents both weight of numbers and the fact that units will actually try to avoid being run down and slaughtered when at all possible.

Removing Steadfast with Disruption actually penalises elite infantry far more than it does cheap, annoying blocks, as a properly executed flank charge will do enough damage to render Leadership meaningless to either unit, at which point both would be as likely to flee. The difference being that the elite unit (which should have the training and skill to handle a flank charge) will lose a lot more points than the cheap and nasty block of slaves. This is why in my house-rules I much prefer to have Disruption remove the unit's ability to use a general's Leadership or Battle Standard Bearer's re-roll, unless they are actually present in the unit, as this has a much more pronounced effect on cheap tar-pits as Steadfast isn't so hot if you only have Leadership 5 on your own, while elite troops on Leadership 8 or 9 can usually still handle themselves.

The bearded one
30-09-2011, 12:32
After explained it does sound like a decent fix; though I think in certain cases it will have a really, really limited effect, like when 12 knights flank some spear elves.

papabearshane
30-09-2011, 13:00
I like stead fast the way it is but Haravikk's fix for it would make total sense in the new edition.

For those complaining of Gobbos and Slaves, If you are having a hard time beating these units then try some new tactics. I love the challenge of out thinking my oponent and messing with his stratagy during games, fast cav, cheap drops, redirecters and all the other things you can do to take one or two units out of a game are still great tactics BUT that means you might have to drop that hord of chosen down to 20 instead of 40 models to fit it in ;)

IcedCrow
30-09-2011, 13:24
We've been playing disruption canceling steadfast all year now and these situations that everyone fears so much still has not come up. And that involves elite armies with elite infantry.

Avian
02-10-2011, 10:57
This is my biggest gripe with 8th ed Tomb Kings. As a TK forum guy summarized it: "All TK units fight and die on their own". This makes it difficult to combine forces for the TK general. If your big unit of skellies get a whipping in the same combat as an elite unit, that elite unit inevitably goes poof. Most other armies can combine cheap infantry with stubborn elite/monster, creating a radically different dynamic, especially if within the range of a BSB.

That's a problem for everyone else as well - if my goblins get a beating in the same combat as my Black Orcs, my elite guys are in trouble.
I'd claim that the TK problem is more that all the infantry are fairly weak in combat - even the supposedly elites.

The bearded one
02-10-2011, 13:24
A fair point, mr birdie avatar.

Though with living troops the tarpit will keep tarpitting and hold the enemy in place while the socalled elites run off..

Avian
02-10-2011, 21:55
Well, yes, but it's one of the fundamentals of this game to know when it's profitable to have a weak unit help out a strong one. I talk about it in one of my old tactics articles on my website, calling it Reinforcing a Disaster (http://www.avianon.net/tactics/how_to_win.php#d_reinforcing). Indeed, one of the main ways of dealing with very tough foes is to splat any weaklings in the same combat and let the combat result help you out.
Against Undead, you often need a bigger swing in CR to get rid of the elite guys, but when you do get rid of them, they are gone for good. With a 'normal' unit, a smaller shift in CR will probably see them break and run, but their foes need to pursue them to ensure their destruction.

Eternus
03-10-2011, 09:38
You have to consider one point, which is entirely in keeping with the whole ethos of 8th edition. What effect does Steadfast really have on the game, broadly speaking? It creates two new situations, the first being the increase in the value of Infantry blocks in almost every area of the game, and the second is that it reinforces the 'ratcheting up' (to use a much used phrase when GW have discussed 8th) of the carnage on the battlefield, the casualties caused actually in combat, rather than having more models caught while fleeing from combat as was the case much of the time in 7th. Now you have to kill the enemy face to face, rather than just find easy ways to break them and then run them down.

Doesn't that mean that Steadfast does exactly what it's meant to do?