PDA

View Full Version : steadfast



Maglok
08-09-2012, 13:42
Alright my friends here are playing and asked me to post this:

Does the first rank of models in a unit count as a rank for purposes of steadfast?

We have a few theories:
1: Yes
2: Only if it is 5 or more big
3: No

At the start of the rulebook it states that a rank is simply horizontal rows, regardless of size. The general thought here is that a rank is only a rank if it is 5 or wide in combat resolution, and otherwise a rank is already a rank with 1 guy in it.

:) Can someone please clarify, if at all possible with a source?

theunwantedbeing
08-09-2012, 13:46
Yes it does if it is 5+ models (3+ for MI and MC)

I forget where it states that you include the first rank, but it does.

Maglok
08-09-2012, 13:47
We tried to find the defitinion of ranks but we cant seem to find it.

theunwantedbeing
08-09-2012, 13:51
Rank bonus is a bonus for each rank after the first.
So you need 2 ranks to get a rank bonus of 1.

You're having a dumb moment.
You've already found the definition of ranks.

Maglok
08-09-2012, 14:00
That is rank bonus, the steadfast rules say 'More ranks than its enemy'. Page 54 core rules.

Forming units on page 5 says: "In addition all models in a unit must be arranged in a formation that sconsists of one or more horizontal lines called ranks"

I am a tomb kings player myself and never deal with these and the two players dont know. Nothing to do with a dumb moment, mainly an unexperienced one. :)

jindianajonz
08-09-2012, 14:38
The rules seem pretty clear to me, page 54 states:

"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 five 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 five models."

So if you have a 1x7 unit facing a 1x4 (non-monstrous) unit, then the 1x7 unit is steadfast, since it has one rank and the other unit has 0 ranks.

The Low King
08-09-2012, 14:43
Steadfast rules, page 54, second paragrah.

".....the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."

Artinam
08-09-2012, 14:55
A discussion point is whether the first rank counts as being a rank for steadfast purposes. Technically it does but many I play disagree with that logic (including some tournaments).

The Low King
08-09-2012, 15:05
A discussion point is whether the first rank counts as being a rank for steadfast purposes. Technically it does but many I play disagree with that logic (including some tournaments).

Why? whats the argument agaisnt it counting?

Mr_Rose
08-09-2012, 15:07
Why? whats the argument agaisnt it counting?

The inability to not see "after the first" appended to every mention of the word "ranks" mostly.

P.S. for those that were wondering, the definition of ranks and files is a)basically the same as the one in the dictionary and b)given on p.5 of the rulebook.

DaemonReign
09-09-2012, 11:57
Why? whats the argument agaisnt it counting?

Five Goblins being 'Steadfast' against a Bloodthirster.. Perhaps?

Interesting thread this one. My Group Always assumed that you count 'the first rank' when determining steadfast, but it really shouldn't be played like that philosophically because.. damn.. those 5 Goblins should not be Steadfast in the above example. It's one of those instances where RAW seems to be clear enough, really - where-as you can't help wondering about the RAI.. *hehe*

MLP
09-09-2012, 12:15
Five Goblins being 'Steadfast' against a Bloodthirster.. Perhaps?

Interesting thread this one. My Group Always assumed that you count 'the first rank' when determining steadfast, but it really shouldn't be played like that philosophically because.. damn.. those 5 Goblins should not be Steadfast in the above example. It's one of those instances where RAW seems to be clear enough, really - where-as you can't help wondering about the RAI.. *hehe*

I don't really see a major difference between 5 goblins being steadfast against a bloodthirster and 10 goblins being steadfast against a bloodthirster. Whichever way you play it it's a bit silly when put like that.

Same with the bloodthirster not disrupting a unit of said goblins when charging them in the flank.

I think they missed out a few pages of rules for both these things with monsters and similar.

The Low King
09-09-2012, 12:29
Five Goblins being 'Steadfast' against a Bloodthirster.. Perhaps?

Interesting thread this one. My Group Always assumed that you count 'the first rank' when determining steadfast, but it really shouldn't be played like that philosophically because.. damn.. those 5 Goblins should not be Steadfast in the above example. It's one of those instances where RAW seems to be clear enough, really - where-as you can't help wondering about the RAI.. *hehe*

As opposed to ten goblins feeling much braver and being steadfast? lol

Gary wyper
09-09-2012, 12:41
nope pg 54 "a unit is considerd to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy as with calculating EXTRA ranks for combat resolution
pg 52 EXTRA RANKS-"if youre units formation is at least five models""for each EXTRA rank of five or more models BEHIND the fighting rank"
therefore the front rank doesnt count

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

theunwantedbeing
09-09-2012, 12:56
nope pg 54 "a unit is considerd to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy as with calculating EXTRA ranks for combat resolution
pg 52 EXTRA RANKS-"if youre units formation is at least five models""for each EXTRA rank of five or more models BEHIND the fighting rank"
therefore the front rank doesnt count

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

That isn't quite what it means.

Sent from my keyboard X5bajillion using fingers and hands

The Low King
09-09-2012, 13:16
Nor is it what it actually says, he has changed the structure of the sentence and cut off important sections that would contradict what he says.


The exact quote (P54) is: "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast."

The quote for Extra ranks (p52) is: "If your units formation is at least five models wide, you can claim a bonus of +1 combat result for each extra rank of five or more models behind the fighting rank, at the end of the fight, up to a maximum of +3."

The Quote for forming units (P5) is: "In addition, all models must be arranged in a formation that consists of one or more horizontal lines, called ranks....."


1) the bit "As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution" is clarified in the next part of the sentence, it applies only to the rule that ranks have to be 5 models wide to count. It is a completely seperate sentence from the "Simply........ enemy." bit.

2) The Extra ranks rule only applies to extra ranks "behind the fighting rank", this is stated in the quote. The front RANK is clearly still accepted as being a RANK.

3) according to to 'forming units' a rank is a horizontal line of models. Any rank of more than 5 models counts for steadfast. Therefore, any horizontal line of more than 5 models counts for steadfast.

4) "a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy". By all other definations in the book, that includes the front rank.

Kalandros
09-09-2012, 15:22
nope pg 54 "a unit is considerd to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy as with calculating EXTRA ranks for combat resolution
pg 52 EXTRA RANKS-"if youre units formation is at least five models""for each EXTRA rank of five or more models BEHIND the fighting rank"
therefore the front rank doesnt count

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

You should at least quote the rules properly.

Lord Inquisitor
09-09-2012, 16:12
They really should have released a FAQ on this because it's been a frequently asked question since the beginning of 8th.

Ultimately the answer is that since steadfast doesn't say "after the first", the first rank counts for being stubborn. Overwhelmingly this is how it is played (at least in my experience) although its taken quite a while for this one to percolate through and there was a lot of resistance to it. As you can see it hasn't gained unanimous agreement even now. While there isn't a real question in the rules, the similarity with rank bonus means there's a very understandable desire for it to work in the same way.

Lord Dan
10-09-2012, 02:09
Rank bonus is a bonus for each rank after the first.

This phrase implies that the first line of models is indeed a rank, as it is specifying that each rank after the first [rank] is counted for purposes of determining the bonus. For purposes of steadfast there is no such specification, so I don't see why you wouldn't count the first rank.

Jezbot
10-09-2012, 06:37
nope pg 54 "a unit is considerd to be steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy as with calculating EXTRA ranks for combat resolution
pg 52 EXTRA RANKS-"if youre units formation is at least five models""for each EXTRA rank of five or more models BEHIND the fighting rank"
therefore the front rank doesnt count

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

Well, I've seen some strange arguments over rules in my time, but I've never seen someone straight up lie over what the rulebook says. That really opens up a whole new world for rules debate - don't like what the BRB says? Just make something up!

DaemonReign
10-09-2012, 12:53
As opposed to ten goblins feeling much braver and being steadfast? lol

Right you are. :)
Optimally (and sorry for yet Another off-topic post guys) Steadfast should in my opinion have been set up like this:
- The First Rank (Front Rank) should not Count (I agree btw that RAW says that it does presently)
- Monsters (and Chariots?) should 'count' as having "1 Rank".

The net result would be that you'd need at least 15 Goblins in order to be Steadfast against that Bloodthirster in my example - or in order not to be disrupted by said Bloodthirster hitting the Goblins in the flank - and this would at least 'look more reasonable' (hopefully without reducing Steadfast to an empty gesture - because it could of course be argued that huge terrorcausing monsters should simply 'negate steadfast' on - say - non-fear-causers but as 'fluffy' as this would be it would probably water down the mechanic too much and 8th is supposed to be about infantry after all..)

the_picto
10-09-2012, 14:06
Generally, steadfast starts to look silly at the extremes. 10 bloodthirsters kill 100 goblins, as long as there are 5 goblins left they get to be steadfast! I'd just take the number of ranks the loser has over the winner away from the penalty to their ld. Maybe cap it at a set value. So if 4 ranks of 5 spearelves defeat 6 ranks of speargoblins by 5 points, the goblins have 2 more ranks and so only have to take their break test at -3.

But maybe steadfast is fine how it is.

hamsterwheel
10-09-2012, 14:55
Right you are. :)
Optimally (and sorry for yet Another off-topic post guys) Steadfast should in my opinion have been set up like this:
- The First Rank (Front Rank) should not Count (I agree btw that RAW says that it does presently)
- Monsters (and Chariots?) should 'count' as having "1 Rank".

The net result would be that you'd need at least 15 Goblins in order to be Steadfast against that Bloodthirster in my example - or in order not to be disrupted by said Bloodthirster hitting the Goblins in the flank - and this would at least 'look more reasonable' (hopefully without reducing Steadfast to an empty gesture - because it could of course be argued that huge terrorcausing monsters should simply 'negate steadfast' on - say - non-fear-causers but as 'fluffy' as this would be it would probably water down the mechanic too much and 8th is supposed to be about infantry after all..)

This would greatly reduce the survivability of elite units and have little to no effect on bus anvil units except remove one round of combat. I agree that Monsters should have a rule that says 1 model equals one rank. I also think they should auto disrupt no matter if attacking from the front/flank or rear. It's ridiculous when a monster loses combat due to average rolling and static combat resolution.

Mr_Rose
10-09-2012, 15:31
Suggestions:
• Add to Large Target rule that LTs count as a complete rank even if there's just one of them and only need three to form a Horde.
• Add to Terror rule that each complete rank of Terror causers negates one enemy rank for the purposes of Steadfastness.

One or both should help fix things I think.

AMWOOD co
10-09-2012, 16:03
Suggestions:
• Add to Large Target rule that LTs count as a complete rank even if there's just one of them and only need three to form a Horde.
• Add to Terror rule that each complete rank of Terror causers negates one enemy rank for the purposes of Steadfastness.

One or both should help fix things I think.

I like the Large Target one, it solves the issue for most Monster units. The Terror one, however…

"And my Black Orc Horde has the terror banner, with 4 complete ranks still, so your unit breaks."
"What!?! I've still got eight ranks of guys left! They outnumber you two to one!"
"Yeah, but they cause terror."
"Isn't this what steadfast was trying to avoid?"
"Pretty much."

Mr_Rose
10-09-2012, 19:29
Tone it down a touch then. Cap it at a single rank as long as the entire fighting rank (we don't need single dudes with the mask of eee! driving off hordes alone) is terrifying or something.
So a terrifying large target would effectively have two ranks for steadfastness.

theunwantedbeing
10-09-2012, 19:50
Tone it down a touch then. Cap it at a single rank as long as the entire fighting rank (we don't need single dudes with the mask of eee! driving off hordes alone) is terrifying or something.
So a terrifying large target would effectively have two ranks for steadfastness.

Large Targets counting single models as a rank makes sense (as well as needing 3 models for a horde).
Terror somehow being related to rank bonus however makes no sense and is just abusable as it shown from all the bizarre patches you are coming up with to make it work properly.

Moss
10-09-2012, 20:19
Why shouldn't five Goblins be steadfast against a bloodthirster? They're not thinking, "Hey, it's five on one; we're going to win this!" They're thinking, "Hey, there are four other Goblins he might kill instead of me!" That's how they muster the courage to stay.

SimaoSegunda
10-09-2012, 21:25
What about a rule that if you lose a combat against a Large Target that causes Terror, you are steadfast, but cannot benefit from Inspiring Presence or Hold Your Ground unless the General or BSB is actually in the unit? The idea being that if you're in combat with a big, noisy dragon, you are focussing all your attention on it, and can't really see / hear much else going on around you.

theunwantedbeing
10-09-2012, 21:27
Why shouldn't five Goblins be steadfast against a bloodthirster? They're not thinking, "Hey, it's five on one; we're going to win this!" They're thinking, "Hey, there are four other Goblins he might kill instead of me!" That's how they muster the courage to stay.

That isn't a believable reason.

Sure the general might be breathing down their necks and he may well be bigger and scarier than the thing they are fighting (he'll need to be on a wyvern for that) and the battle standard may be easily in view of them while no other enemies are but that is still going to test your nerve to breaking point when fighting a LARGE TERROR CAUSING MONSTER and having a handful of other guys around for "moral support" just isn't going to help.

A rank of guys behind you sure, the guy behind you has a pointy thing to stick you with and he's got much more chance of running away if it does come to that.
But with nobody behind you and having just lost the fight to a LARGE TERROR CAUSING MONSTER, a few guys to either side of you won't help you want to stick around.

The idea of steadfast in that sort of scenario doesn't work.
You need that rank behind the first to make the whole thing make any sense.


What about a rule that if you lose a combat against a Large Target that causes Terror, you are steadfast, but cannot benefit from Inspiring Presence or Hold Your Ground unless the General or BSB is actually in the unit? The idea being that if you're in combat with a big, noisy dragon, you are focussing all your attention on it, and can't really see / hear much else going on around you.

Or just as an additional benefit for being a monster?
That said getting flanked by a flying monster could potentially lead to game breaking scenarios.

Jezbot
11-09-2012, 06:38
Generally, steadfast starts to look silly at the extremes. 10 bloodthirsters kill 100 goblins, as long as there are 5 goblins left they get to be steadfast! I'd just take the number of ranks the loser has over the winner away from the penalty to their ld. Maybe cap it at a set value. So if 4 ranks of 5 spearelves defeat 6 ranks of speargoblins by 5 points, the goblins have 2 more ranks and so only have to take their break test at -3.

But maybe steadfast is fine how it is.

The problem is that if you put a cap on steadfast you open the door for people to build units with so much killing they just overload the steadfast protection. So you have your horde of crappy infantry and are happy you've got 6 ranks, but the other guy just gears up his elite killing unit so that even though you get to negate losing combat by 4, he's still hacked through so many of your troops that it doesn't matter, you'll still be testing close to snake eyes.

Gary wyper
11-09-2012, 07:16
i cut out the irwlevant parts, I think you are assumed to have the intelegence to see which part of the rule relates to the steadfast situation

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

Jezbot
11-09-2012, 08:05
i cut out the irwlevant parts, I think you are assumed to have the intelegence to see which part of the rule relates to the steadfast situation

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

No, you changed the basic meaning of the rule to pretend it means what you had claimed earlier.

If you really, really want to go into this, you removed a full stop and then deleted half a sentence in your pretend quote. This had the effect of confusing what had been two clear and distinct point; combining two clear and distinct points that a unit is steadfast if it has more ranks than the enemy, and that ranks must be at least five wide just like the rank bonus.

You did this so that a clarifying point about how wide a rank must be, became part of the rule on how you determine if you have enough ranks to be steadfast.

Jim
11-09-2012, 09:17
i cut out the irwlevant parts, I think you are assumed to have the intelegence to see which part of the rule relates to the steadfast situation

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

You presented your post as a direct quote when it was not.

Your paraphrased quote changed the clear meaning of the original rule to something that more closely resembled your opinion.

Posts like yours are hugely mis-leading and damaging to a forum area concerned with RULES... Someone could easily have come into this thread to see the answer to the original poster's question, read your reply and gone away with a totally FALSE impression of the rules as they may not have seen the follow up replies which show how mis-leading you have been.

Please do not post your opinions dressed up as facts or quotes from the rulebook :mad:

Jim

PS While this might be irrelevant, you should have the intelligence to spell correctly or use the spell check button before you post

T10
11-09-2012, 10:04
Five Goblins being 'Steadfast' against a Bloodthirster.. Perhaps?

Or how about those same five goblins being surrounded on all sides by eight individual Bloodthirsters? They still count as Steadfast: How on earth can the game justify this?

It is because the rules for Steadfast (and combat resolution bonuses from ranks, and disruption from flanking units) do not take into account the quality of the models that make up the ranks: Each model is counted equally.

However, the rules for the troop types also come into effect: Monstrous infantry and monstrous cavalry are in effect higher quality models since they need fewer individual models to make up an effective rank. Surely this is the key to fixing the perceived flaw in the game?

Now, let's say we allow the monster model to count as 5 models wide (and presumably 1 rank deep) then he can suddenly affect other units for the purpose of steadfast. It seems a pretty neat way to fix the above issue.

-T10

The Low King
11-09-2012, 10:12
Or how about those same five goblins being surrounded on all sides by eight individual Bloodthirsters? They still count as Steadfast: How on earth can the game justify this?


You shouldnt have eight bloodthirsters in combat with a unit of goblins at that points value :p

Artinam
11-09-2012, 11:09
Its a game, simplifications always lead to situations like this. I'd agree that monsters might need something to help them a bit against steadfast but doing it to much will break the game again. Blocks of infantry will be playthings of monsters.

A rank of Ogres would even look silly vs 8 bloodthristers.

DaemonReign
11-09-2012, 11:50
Isn't talking about "8 Bloodthirsters" kind of.. silly? ;)
It's of course that rhethorical (and extreme) example to argue a Point - I get that, course - but really: Not very necessary in this case.

Large Target Single Models (better definition than the 'Monsters' I talked about initially) counting as though they had a rank whilst ranked units did not Count the Front Rank for the purpose of Steadfast (just like with Rank Bonus) wouldn't 'break the game' - or would it?

Just as with the notion of counting 'aggregate ranks' for Steadfast - rather than the simplification [and current RAW] of simply counting the ranks of the single deepest unit in any given combat - it seems it's really just a tweak of the rules to make sure that a very rare/unlikely situation doesn't ever run the risk of being totally counter-intuitive.

I mean: Whether it takes 5 or 15 Goblins to be Steadfast vs a Bloodthirster sending the angry red dude into that combat is probably not the most efficient thing you can do, right?

theunwantedbeing
11-09-2012, 12:02
I mean: Whether it takes 5 or 15 Goblins to be Steadfast vs a Bloodthirster sending the angry red dude into that combat is probably not the most efficient thing you can do, right?

Why would you need 15?
Monsters with 1 rank.....you need 10 left a the end of the combat in a 5x2 formation
Steadfast not counting the first rank...again, you need 10 left in a 5x2 formation.

Both?
The monster has a rank...but it gets ignored for steadfast.
The goblins again only need to be 10 strong in a 5x2 formation to outrank and therefore get steadfast.

If you mean the monster gets a rank bonus, then all he needs to do is flank, disrupt and then he wins that way.
This is of course the scenario steadfast was created to stop, so giving him a rank bonus is not the way to do it.

Lord Zarkov
11-09-2012, 12:19
I would have the following:

Add to Large Target:
Monsters who are a Large Target count as having a single rank for the purposes of Steadfast

Add to Terror (which is IMO fairly pointless atm):
A side with one or more models that cause Terror count as having an extra rank for the purposes of Steadfast.

Then make Steadfast total ranks rather than just the largest unit (to get rid of completely surrounded silliness). Note you would still get Steadfast if disrupted like at the moment.

We now require 15 goblins to be Steadfast to a Bloodthirster; Terror is a bit more useful, but not overpowering (like in the Black Orc example someone gave); and Steadfast makes a bit more sense, but still does the job it was invented for (stopping a single monster or unit of cavalry steamroller large blocks).

DaemonReign
11-09-2012, 12:43
Why would you need 15?

The Large Target would have '1 rank' innately (for Steadfast-purposes, not necessarily as straight Rank Bonus - as an aside..)
The unit of Goblins wouldn't Count the Front rank (5 models), and the second rank (10 models) would put it equal to the Large Target -
at 15 models (2 back-ranks) the Goblins would be Steadfast.

That's what I meant anyway.. Where I'd call things 'as intuitive as the game allows' - because the basic idea of Steadfast is great and I wouldn't want to water it down to become meaningless - like what happened to Terror..

@ Zarkov:
Well something distinguishing Terror should definately be in the mix.
On this subject though I would have 'built' on the 8th Ed mechanic of Fear.
Something like that:
"In addition to causing a Panic Check when charging, a unit that causes Terror forces any unit it is fighting [that is not immune to Fear] to take its Fear-Test with a -1 (-2?) Penalty to its Leadership value."

Something nice and soft like that. Where-as as Steadfast in my opinion should be all about standing fast in the face of unthinkable evil, but the rules right now are so squarely written there's glitches that just look stupid (like the 5 Goblins being Steadfast against some huge terrible monster..).

Lord Zarkov
11-09-2012, 12:52
@ Zarkov:
Well something distinguishing Terror should definately be in the mix.
On this subject though I would have 'built' on the 8th Ed mechanic of Fear.
Something like that:
"In addition to causing a Panic Check when charging, a unit that causes Terror forces any unit it is fighting [that is not immune to Fear] to take its Fear-Test with a -1 (-2?) Penalty to its Leadership value."

Or "Terror causing models also cause Fear, even in models normally immune to Fear (unless also immune to Terror). Models not immune to Fear suffer a penalty of -2 to any Fear tests caused by Terror causing models" put in between the bit about the Panic test and the bit about Terror causing models being immune to Terror.

Does make certain VC builds a bit grim though.

The Low King
11-09-2012, 13:10
that seems a little much, monsters all have terror so they dont need both rules.

And the total ranks thing is a huge change to steadfast, and has minimal effect on monsters.

Lord Zarkov
11-09-2012, 13:22
that seems a little much, monsters all have terror so they dont need both rules.

And the total ranks thing is a huge change to steadfast, and has minimal effect on monsters.

It was just a way to a) maker Terror useful, and b) increase their ranks for SF without causing disruption.

Total ranks thing is just an in general change I'd like to Steadfast, rather than specifically because I think it'll be good for monsters.

theunwantedbeing
11-09-2012, 14:07
The Large Target would have '1 rank' innately (for Steadfast-purposes, not necessarily as straight Rank Bonus - as an aside..)
The unit of Goblins wouldn't Count the Front rank (5 models), and the second rank (10 models) would put it equal to the Large Target -
at 15 models (2 back-ranks) the Goblins would be Steadfast.

I see, I'm not a fan.
Simply because it requires all units to be 15 strong to be steadfast against a single enemy.

15 goblins, okay.
15 chaos warriors, saurus, swordmasters, cavalry? it stops making sense when the cost goes from "goblin" to "anything actually any good".

10 just works for more situations.

DaemonReign
11-09-2012, 14:20
10 just works for more situations.

Fair enough.. Or rather: You make a good Point about it hitting Chaos Warriors just the same as goblins and thus we'd need to find a happy medium:
Either we don't Count the front rank for Steadfast, or we say that Large Targets have an 'innate rank' - making 10 rnf-models the minimum by witch you could ever claim Steadfast.

The Low King
11-09-2012, 15:03
Why is 5 models being steadfast against a monster so different from 10 models being steadfast?

And the problem with monsters having a rank is that they are then steadfast against characters or other lone models.

Lord Dan
11-09-2012, 15:07
And the problem with monsters having a rank is that they are then steadfast against characters or other lone models.

Or a unit of 9 cavalry, 8 separate chariots (it's doable in one combat!), 500,000 skirmishers. :p

T10
11-09-2012, 15:12
And the problem with monsters having a rank is that they are then steadfast against characters or other lone models.

I don't have a problem with a Dragon standing his ground fighting an Empire Captain.

-T10

DaemonReign
11-09-2012, 15:50
Why is 5 models being steadfast against a monster so different from 10 models being steadfast?

There's no huge difference really.
Which is why my 'knee-jerk' reaction would have been to make 15 models required to be Steadfast against a single Large Target Monster.
As was pointed out, however, there's a difference between Goblins and Chaos Warriors (etcetera) and so it would come down to finding a happy medium (i.e. something more intuitive than 5 Gobbos being Steadfast vs a Thirster - while at the same time not 'ruining the mechanic' in other instances).

I'm not sure 15 models [minimum] is a crazy requirement for being Steadfast vs Dragons/Giants/Greater Daemons etcetera. I certainly play big enough games for this not to become any kind of problem. However, if it's going too far I would still say that 10 models [as required minimum] is just about twice as intuitive as 5.. ;)

Lord Dan
11-09-2012, 16:11
I think determining steadfast using ranks is inherently flawed for the reasons listed above. Bring back unit strengths, and if you outnumber your opponent more than 2:1 you have steadfast. You'd need 31 goblins to be steadfast against 15 warriors and you'd need 13 to be steadfast against a dragon (assuming they bring back the wounds=unit strength rule for monsters).

What do you guys think? Am I overlooking something critical?

The Low King
11-09-2012, 17:04
I don't have a problem with a Dragon standing his ground fighting an Empire Captain.

-T10

What about a griffon being steadfast against 4 chaos lords?

Thats the problem, give monsters a rank and you start having to work out how characters, skirmishers, chariots etc can all fit into it.


I really cant see why it matters if 5 goblins are steadfast

Lord Zarkov
11-09-2012, 17:13
What about a griffon being steadfast against 4 chaos lords?

Thats the problem, give monsters a rank and you start having to work out how characters, skirmishers, chariots etc can all fit into it.


I really cant see why it matters if 5 goblins are steadfast

If a griffon manages to not die when in combat with 4 Chaos Lords, then frankly he deserves Steadfast for their ineptitude - the Chaos Gods would definitely approve.

DaemonReign
11-09-2012, 18:21
What about a griffon being steadfast against 4 chaos lords?
Thats the problem, give monsters a rank and you start having to work out how characters, skirmishers, chariots etc can all fit into it.
I really cant see why it matters if 5 goblins are steadfast

It doesn't matter I guess, because just as with the 'aggregate ranks'-suggestion for calculating which side is Steadfast it almost never occurs. Usually situations are pretty clear-cut and the RAW is sufficient to deduce an intuitive resolution.
However, aside of Lord Zarkov having a Point deserves to be Unbreakable *lol*] let's not take the idea of 'extremes' completely overboard:
If we're talking about a Bloodthirster fighting a unit of Goblins - now that's something you'd try to avoid (as a Daemon Player) but it could happen.
But "8 Greater Daemons" fighting those Goblins.. Or 4 Chaos Lords (deployed as single models) ending up fighting a Gryphon-rider.. (?!)
Come on.. I get what you're getting at, but these examples arn't really helping. I like playing big games and all.. but examples like this just arn't reasonable. :p

And Unit Strength was a nice concept. I'd have to agree it was a shame they removed it.

... Thinking perhaps if we tighed Steadfast to Combat Resolution it would work more universially:
If you lose combat by more than your total ranks your Steadfast-status is negated .. (?)
You'd still base it all on which side has the "most ranks" but super-impose the relationship to combat resolution so that those 'extreme' cases would create a possibility to cancel Steadfast (such as when my fabled Thirster has just killed more Goblins than are actually left in the unit..)

The Low King
11-09-2012, 18:23
If a griffon manages to not die when in combat with 4 Chaos Lords, then frankly he deserves Steadfast for their ineptitude - the Chaos Gods would definitely approve.

And if those 5 goblins have managed to survive against 8 bloodthirsters?

Lord Zarkov
11-09-2012, 22:04
And if those 5 goblins have managed to survive against 8 bloodthirsters?

If they managed to kill the other 7 and remain 5 then how have they lost combat?

But this is derailing rather much now. As DaemonReign points out really extreme and unlikely examples are always going to be silly.

DaemonReign
11-09-2012, 23:08
As DaemonReign points out really extreme and unlikely examples are always going to be silly.

Thanks for noticing! :)
And let me underscore what I was saying by saying that "A Bloodthirster fighting Goblins" is silly (but possible)...
- Where-as 'examples' including 8 Bloodthirsters fighting *anything* or 4 lonesome Chaos Lords ganging up on a Griphon are not even seriously in the game (at all). ;)

Jezbot
12-09-2012, 02:16
I think determining steadfast using ranks is inherently flawed for the reasons listed above. Bring back unit strengths, and if you outnumber your opponent more than 2:1 you have steadfast. You'd need 31 goblins to be steadfast against 15 warriors and you'd need 13 to be steadfast against a dragon (assuming they bring back the wounds=unit strength rule for monsters).

What do you guys think? Am I overlooking something critical?

The major reason now for deploying in deep formations is steadfast (the rank bonus is nice, but most decent sized units have at least three ranks even in horde formation). If we went back to unit size there'd be little reason not to deploy every unit in horde formation.

There'd also be an unwelcome return to units being able to just smash their way through enemy units in a single turn. As it'd become optimal to take massive units of powerful troops like Chaos Warriors, deploy them in horde formation and just smash through the enemy, with the enemy unable to deploy in bus formation to survive multiple turns as the unit strength of that massive unit of Chaos Warriors would be too much.

Jezbot
12-09-2012, 02:30
... Thinking perhaps if we tighed Steadfast to Combat Resolution it would work more universially:
If you lose combat by more than your total ranks your Steadfast-status is negated .. (?)
You'd still base it all on which side has the "most ranks" but super-impose the relationship to combat resolution so that those 'extreme' cases would create a possibility to cancel Steadfast (such as when my fabled Thirster has just killed more Goblins than are actually left in the unit..)

But this is producing a situation where a sufficiently geared unit can simply hammer its way through an anvil unit. Gear up a unit to inflict 10 or so casualties and add in some static combat res, which is not beyond a lot of potential unit builds, and you can be fairly sure you'll just slaughter your way past all but the most ludicrously deep enemy units.



I really think steadfast as it is gives the game anvil units that can actually hold the line for some amount of time against more potent enemies, and so gives WHFB a depth it had lacked previously. There are certainly odd results, but these could almost all be fixed by counting only ranks past the first.

And possibly having disruption get rid of steadfast. If only because it should be more important to guard the flanks of your big units.

narrativium
12-09-2012, 23:34
I see, I'm not a fan.
Simply because it requires all units to be 15 strong to be steadfast against a single enemy.

15 goblins, okay.
15 chaos warriors, saurus, swordmasters, cavalry? it stops making sense when the cost goes from "goblin" to "anything actually any good".

10 just works for more situations.
Isn't this why the actually good things have actually decent Leadership values? Even steadfast, a goblin ought to fail more tests than it passes.

theunwantedbeing
12-09-2012, 23:47
Isn't this why the actually good things have actually decent Leadership values? Even steadfast, a goblin ought to fail more tests than it passes.

Depends if the goblin is steadfast on his own pathetic leadership, or the generals not pathetic at all leadership.

DaemonReign
13-09-2012, 14:36
Well we had the 'autobreak'-shennanigans in 7th and, while handling situations such as the five goblins fighting the BT rather damn appropriately, we all got tired of this after a while. ;)
So I guess this is just Another instance of the pendulum swinging back with full force, as a GW does have a tendency to conduct things for better or worse..
In the end, and perhaps because I'm not yet bored with it, I Think the merits of Steadfast outweighs the Corky off-chance stupid scenarios (Thirster vs Goblins being one, and clearly outnumbered/surrounded units being Steadfast the other) - that probably could have been tended to in an alternate universe without 'destroying' the mechanic as a whole.

dms505
19-09-2012, 18:08
This is one of the reasons I am starting to run 10 man skink cohort units for 50 points. I can stop a decent sized monster or small unit of scouts or cavalry for 2 or 3 rounds sometimes.

Lord Solar Plexus
21-09-2012, 08:38
Depends if the goblin is steadfast on his own pathetic leadership, or the generals not pathetic at all leadership.

That only gives us one more reason to kill the General. It makes so much sense it's uncanny.


This is one of the reasons I am starting to run 10 man skink cohort units for 50 points. I can stop a decent sized monster or small unit of scouts or cavalry for 2 or 3 rounds sometimes.

What is one of the reasons, steadfast? How do those 10 skinks survive even a single round against a "decent sized monster", assuming they are still SF after the first round? How is a Varghulf equivalent to a small unit of archers or Pistoliers...? And how do you hold up 5 Knights for more than one turn?

Lord Dan
21-09-2012, 14:06
What is one of the reasons, steadfast? How do those 10 skinks survive even a single round against a "decent sized monster", assuming they are still SF after the first round? How is a Varghulf equivalent to a small unit of archers or Pistoliers...? And how do you hold up 5 Knights for more than one turn?

Yeah, I'm not sure 10 skinks hold a monster up for that long. Between their attacks and thunderstomp a monster only needs to do 6 wounds for you to lose steadfast.

dms505
25-09-2012, 16:49
I'm not saying it will work every time, but it can. Monsters aren't guaranteed to do 5 or more wounds and you can't COUNT on them every time, but it can.

As far as the knights I'll give the example of my last tournament. My unit of 10 charged a unit of 4 demigryph knights in the flank and held them for 2 turns because not only did they hold, they won the combat due two 2 wounds and a flank charge against his 2 wounds.

For 50 points it scared the heck out of him and made a huge difference in the battle because that unit was poised to flank charge my large block and then had two wait two turns to do it. The opponent just assumed he could ignore the skinks. Also many games can be won by out-deploying and for only 50 points you get another drop with 6AS, 6Parry save, poison javelin toting, aquatic, cold blooded annoyances.

The bearded one
25-09-2012, 17:18
As far as the knights I'll give the example of my last tournament. My unit of 10 charged a unit of 4 demigryph knights in the flank and held them for 2 turns because not only did they hold, they won the combat due two 2 wounds and a flank charge against his 2 wounds.

I think you were outrageously lucky to do 2 wounds. Had you not done 2 you'd already have lost by 1. Had the demigryph not fluffed so badly, 3-5 skinks mightve been dead in one round.

Lord Dan
25-09-2012, 17:29
I think you were outrageously lucky to do 2 wounds. Had you not done 2 you'd already have lost by 1. Had the demigryph not fluffed so badly, 3-5 skinks mightve been dead in one round.

This.

You're also lucky your opponent didn't reform into a 2x2 (which probably would have been better in the ensuing combat, as I'd rather have a smaller frontage than 2 extra stomp attacks) and luckier still that he didn't run them in the more-typical 3x2 formation. A single demigryph should average 3 wounds against skinks, so two would have (on average) knocked out steadfast and forced you to take a test at -5.

More importantly, you wouldn't have been steadfast against him in the combat you described, as you both had a single rank remaining after wounds. This means even if he hadn't done any of the things I mentioned above, you would have lost combat by 1 (without steadfast) if you hadn't gotten in those two unlikely wounds.

Lord Solar Plexus
26-09-2012, 11:24
I don't quite see the advantage of a 2x2 formation over 4 wide. You're not only losing stomps but all of the DG's attacks. 3x2 however is rather difficult with only 4 models.


I'm not saying it will work every time, but it can. Monsters aren't guaranteed to do 5 or more wounds and you can't COUNT on them every time, but it can.

Sure, but in 99 percent of the cases the monster will still win. Being steadfast alone doesn't mean you automatically hold. Just because "it can happen" doesn't make it good idea. Chances are that you're throwing away those 50 points. They would be better employed by diverting.

Lord Dan
26-09-2012, 14:46
I don't quite see the advantage of a 2x2 formation over 4 wide. You're not only losing stomps but all of the DG's attacks.

Hey, looks like we've been playing monstrous cavalry incorrectly!

dms505
26-09-2012, 15:12
Not that I don't agree with most of what you guys have said but it's still such a small points cost and they have many uses. I do see however that I was wrong in that they would have been steadfast, silly to even miss that, but since I won the combat regardless that first round it didn't matter. The reason he didn't reform was because he had assumed that the skinks would break and it would have totally put his unit out of position to get into a real combat for another 2 rounds. Which, again, was well worth my 50 point unit.