PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on steadfast and horde rules . . .



gauly_13
03-10-2012, 13:46
Hey guys,

I was musing over the formation rules for units, namely steadfast and horde rules. Now, horde rules for infantry mean if you want the most attacks, you buy enough troops to hit that magic number for width and go smash skulls - easy.
Steadfast is not based upon a set figure though - it's just having more ranks than the other guy. This means part of your strategy in list building is to guess how many ranks will be enough.
This leads to a situation (at least where I am) where you typically only see two unit formations for infantry at deployment. Horde, or minimum rank width for max actual ranks. Rarely see 8 wide infantry for instance.

I'd like to suggest, and discuss, a change. How would you see it playing out if horde rules weren't 10 wide, but based upon individual combats - say, your unit is two (or more) complete files wider than your opponents unit? Would making horde situation more fluid make for more interesting list building? Do you take 15 wide savage Orcs to guarantee horde attacks? Or hope 8 will be enough as you only plan to hit his small units/monsters?

Thoughts? :)

The Low King
03-10-2012, 15:46
I take different sizes all the time. Horde formation gives you lots of attacks but means you have a huge frontage and requires a large unit. With my elite troops (hordes are very expensive) i will have them 7 wide for killing enemy 5 wide units or 8 wide if the enemy has 25mm bases. I will even take units less than 5 wide if ranks dont matter so much (skirmishers etc).

Malorian
03-10-2012, 15:55
That change would be interesting but annoying. It would require several different movement trays to be brought to every game for those that want to be flexible and competitive.

So a good idea in theory, but wouldn't work well in practice.

KidDiscordia
03-10-2012, 21:06
That change would be interesting but annoying. It would require several different movement trays to be brought to every game for those that want to be flexible and competitive.

So a good idea in theory, but wouldn't work well in practice.

Or it would mean that you take a tray for the widest formation you plan on using and live witht he overhang. We do it all the time when we have fewer ranks in depth then what the tray can hold.

danny-d-b
03-10-2012, 21:31
bit diffrent when its whith rather than depth (very rarely will you stack up trays front to back unless your playing BFTP)

Malorian
03-10-2012, 21:56
Or it would mean that you take a tray for the widest formation you plan on using and live witht he overhang. We do it all the time when we have fewer ranks in depth then what the tray can hold.

Have you ever seen a bunch of guys having a race in snowshoes? This is the situation you just described.

With muliple trays 15 wide but the units on them smaller you are going to deal with a lot of overlap.

In the end I just don't see a need for the change and as I gave it more thought I think it would make for stalemates. Remember the charge gives you +1CR but an extra rank and frontage means many more CR. You would have a situation where units would face off against each other and then keep expanding you one up the other person while their warmachines did the work.

So I think it falls flat in functionality and in improving game play.

gauly_13
03-10-2012, 23:23
Good point about the whole combat res from wider frontage. But if that rule was taken out . . . Hmmm it's just starting to snowball now. You're definitely right in saying I didn't think of the movement tray practicalities. Anyway, I intend on running a few trial games with this rule change in place just for fun, I'll let you know if it falls flat on it's face or not! :)

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 01:30
Changes I would implement:

Steadfast:Count Aggregate ranks per combat as opposed to deepest unit. The side with the most total ranks gets Steadfast for all units in the given combat.
Give 'large targets' (possibly also single-model chariot units) a rank, or start counting steadfast from the second rank - all to avoid the theorethical instance of 5 goblins being steadfast vs a Bloodthirster (ex).
You'd also be rid of a sillyness when multiple smaller units are surrounding a very deep unit from all sides but still can't break it.

Horde-rule:
Supporting attacks increases by 1 rank for every 5th model in your front-rank.
5 wide = second rank support
10 wide = second & third rank support
15 wide = 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank support
And so on..
(Monstrous stuff would still be 3, 6, 9, 12 of course..)

These changes would promote epic multiple-unit-combats where opponants throw in units en masse just to stay afloat, and the exponential nature of 'continuing' the horde-rule in infinity would suddenly make the games my group play feature real-looking armies...

It would be awesome. :)

GrandmasterWang
04-10-2012, 02:11
I like daemon reigns suggestion, excluding giving monsters a rank.

ZooKeeper
04-10-2012, 02:56
The thing I don't like about the horde rules (and by extension DaemonReign's suggestion) is why does having a bunch of guys out to the sides doing nothing cause your back ranks to perform better? Why should a unit of 30 models placed 10X3 vs a unit of 5 models get more attacks than that same unit deployed 7X4 (+2 in a 5th)? In the 3X10 there are a bunch of guys out to the side doing nothing, but in the 7X4 the 4th rank should logically be pushing up the 3rd rank closer to the enemy allowing them to fight. I think horde should require 1) wider frontage than your opponent and 2) having >3 full ranks. I think the combination of these 2 factors would better represent the swell of bodies pushing forward and add some interesting dynamics to battle strategies.
I admit the movement trays would be a concern, but adding a regiment base or two to adapt on the fly would be easy enough to do.

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 02:56
I like daemon reigns suggestion, excluding giving monsters a rank.

The point of that (aside of doing away with the theorethical silliness that I mentioned) is that it would interact with the dynamic of counting not just the deepest unit on each side (in a given combat) but ALL ranks on both sides.
Throwing in a flanking 'large target' would have a new tactical dimension beyond the additions to CR you'd be aiming for by doing so.
It's perhaps the least 'important' change I would make - out of the above suggestions - and as has been pointed out before you're never really gonna avoid potentially ridiculous situations occuring (where-as ten goblins being steadfast vs a Thirster is really almost as bad as five goblins being steadfast...)

Happy you agree with the rest! :)

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 02:59
why does having a bunch of guys out to the sides doing nothing cause your back ranks to perform better?

It's supposed to signify a rumbling 'horde' of enemies pouring forth on the enemy, as opposed to the ordered knee-by-knee advance of the 'steadfast' formation.
You're looking a bit squarely at how it 'appears' on the game-board. :)

ZooKeeper
04-10-2012, 03:19
It's supposed to signify a rumbling 'horde' of enemies pouring forth on the enemy, as opposed to the ordered knee-by-knee advance of the 'steadfast' formation.
You're looking a bit squarely at how it 'appears' on the game-board. :)

I can see your point, but I would counter that it is hard to pour onto an enemy unit that is wider than your own, as it would be pouring on you more than you are on it.
You have made me reconsider my position: I think it should a) be necessary to be wider than your opponent's formation to qualify as a horde and b) be deployed wide enough to actually count as having a rank (to prevent 2X10 formations to gang up on a lonely character or other potential rule abuses I can't think of right now).

GrandmasterWang
04-10-2012, 05:49
I think the horde rule is good and keeps thing simple. Very easy to remember and no arguments (good)

Also, with the 2 different infantry base sizes a sumple rule makes sense... Ie, 6 x 4 orcs are wider than 6 x 4 humans, should they get extra attacks for this?

Kayosiv
04-10-2012, 07:11
Horde-rule:
Supporting attacks increases by 1 rank for every 5th model in your front-rank.
5 wide = second rank support
10 wide = second & third rank support
15 wide = 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank support
And so on..
(Monstrous stuff would still be 3, 6, 9, 12 of course..)


That doesn't really work in practice because you're increasing the unit sizes exponentially.

If you take your average say, Ogre and use this formation, it becomes clear quickly that "super hordes" would be something that nobody would take.

Normal unit of 6 ogres 3X2 costs about 180 points, gets 18 attacks. That's about 1 attack per 10 points, which is good.
Horde unit of 18 ogres 6X3 costs about 540 points, gets 54 attacks. Still about 1 attack per 10 points, so good.
If you went into a super horde of 9X4 ogres, it then costs 1080 and gets 108 attacks. You're still at the 1 attack per 10 point ratio, but you're going to start wasting the fringe guys because the unit is SO WIDE that lots of it won't be in base contact.

The first horde formation paid triple points for triple offensive power. That is a potent gain and is partially offset by losing some attacks on the edges and being unwieldy to field. The super horde paid double points for double offensive power, but became increasingly unwieldy and likely has even more of its offensive power wasted because it is so wide. In virtually all situations, you would be better off taking 2 hordes instead of one super horde. There's also the situation that there's a big difference between 10 attacks and 30 attacks, but very little difference between 100 attacks and 300 attacks becuase 100 attacks is enough to kill just about anything. At some point, the unit is just overkill and you are wasting points not because it doesn't live up to it's price for survivablity or damage potential, but because with so much of your power focused in one spot on the table, it can effectively be ignored, no matter how wide it is, but feeding it low point units or getting caught up against stubborn single characters.

Warrior of Chaos
04-10-2012, 07:30
I personally do not use horde formations much unless it is my Vamps. With WoC I run my Marauders 8 wide / 5 deep. With my Dwarfs the typical frontage is 6 wide. I prefer to enhance my rank bonus and try to hold steadfast rather than maximize attacks.

Athlan na Dyr
04-10-2012, 07:30
Changes I would implement:

Steadfast:Count Aggregate ranks per combat as opposed to deepest unit. The side with the most total ranks gets Steadfast for all units in the given combat.

Agree. A sensible suggestion that fits in well/ makes sense in both the rule and background elements of the game

Give 'large targets' (possibly also single-model chariot units) a rank, or start counting steadfast from the second rank - all to avoid the theorethical instance of 5 goblins being steadfast vs a Bloodthirster (ex).

Again agree.

You'd also be rid of a sillyness when multiple smaller units are surrounding a very deep unit from all sides but still can't break it.

Horde-rule:
Supporting attacks increases by 1 rank for every 5th model in your front-rank.
5 wide = second rank support
10 wide = second & third rank support
15 wide = 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank support
And so on..
(Monstrous stuff would still be 3, 6, 9, 12 of course..)

The one major flaw with what you are proposing is the existence of 'that guy'. You know the one. He takes slaves in ridiculously sized units, tries to break the game at every possible opportunity and likes to suck the fun out of the game for kicks (he probably plays spy in TF2 as well. He's just that sort of guy).
Said person will suddenly start playing empire and deploy halberdiers 20 wide and 5 deep (or in similar, ridiculous numbers). 600 points, 5 ranks of S4 attacks. It even fills core nicely at 2400 points. Consider the support Empire can also bring (stubborn hat + magic + hatred + to hit buffs) and this would be a problem, even before 'that guy's' friend tries to one up him by taking something else 30 wide. There needs to be some form of limit on the number of additional ranks and the uber spells alone don't really suffice.

These changes would promote epic multiple-unit-combats where opponants throw in units en masse just to stay afloat, and the exponential nature of 'continuing' the horde-rule in infinity would suddenly make the games my group play feature real-looking armies...

It would be awesome. :)

Depends on the group you play with and how willing you are to have army sized units bludgeoning each other with buckets of dice. It would need a few things to be removed from the game (the stubborn hat for one) to have a reasonable chance of working, though aggregate ranks for Steadfast would mitigate the game breaking power of such mega-units.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-10-2012, 07:36
In practice, Kayosiv? Are you saying 1100 point units are the norm?

In practice and in theory it would be very welcome to see diminishing amounts of usefulness. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what happens today, so same difference. Other than that, I like the current way of things and see no need to entice players to field 8 wide units. I've seen and fielded 5, 6, 7, 10 wide units, and I've even seen a 12 wide unit once but even if I hadn't there's nothing to be gained from a change.

Urgat
04-10-2012, 07:42
(to prevent 2X10 formations to gang up on a lonely character or other potential rule abuses I can't think of right now).
2X10 would be useless, horde makes your 3rd rank fight, so if you have no third rank... would be at most 6 minis fighting your lonely character (assuming 25mm base for the hero).

Ratarsed
04-10-2012, 07:43
Some good ideas here. Some not so good.

I like the idea that monsters should have a rank size of 1 stopping the 5 models remain steadfast issues that occur from time to time. Although as someone alluded to earlier how many goblins would you need to remain steadfast against a Bloodthurster?

An Idea I have had is to make models that cause Terror remove steadfast from any unit that fails their fear test whilst in combat. Terror seems to have lost a lot of it's impact in this edition and it seems odd to me that a unit that is terrified of its opponent, wetting its pants, fighting with WS1, remains steadfast.

As for the horde rule suggestions how would being wider work when base sizes are different. Ten 20mm models are as wide as eight 25mm models. do the 20mm models gain even the advantage of more models per rank or do the 25mm models gain the advantage for wider frontage? I think the Horde rules work well as they are to be honest. I know I frequently field 6 wide and 7 wide units so I'm not convinced with the variety argument.

Urgat
04-10-2012, 07:51
I'm honestly not too much of a fan of the OP's suggestion. Which is odd because I should, but there's something about it that bothers me, just can't find what.


I like the idea that monsters should have a rank size of 1 stopping the 5 models remain steadfast issues that occur from time to time. Although as someone alluded to earlier how many goblins would you need to remain steadfast against a Bloodthurster?
Need a rank, so 5, but of course being steadfast is not exactly going to change anything to the outcome of that combat :p


An Idea I have had is to make models that cause Terror remove steadfast from any unit that fails their fear test whilst in combat. Terror seems to have lost a lot of it's impact in this edition and it seems odd to me that a unit that is terrified of its opponent, wetting its pants, fighting with WS1, remains steadfast.

In theory, steadfast (and horde) is supposed to be used by weak troops so they have some staying power ( I don't think GW expected chosen or GG hordes). Usually these units have low ld. If all it takes to remove their only advantage is to ram a terror causing monster in them (which is going to win the fight, btw, so it both removes steadfast AND wins the fight...), you basically move back to 7th ed, nobody's going to use big units again (nope, not even against Empire. Even dragons can survive a turn against cannons if the player thinks even a little). I like my big terror causing monsters too, but I don't want them to dictate the metagame this way. Monsters are there to remove steadfact by destroying ranks fast.

Petey
04-10-2012, 08:39
Changes I would implement:

Steadfast:Count Aggregate ranks per combat as opposed to deepest unit. The side with the most total ranks gets Steadfast for all units in the given combat.
Give 'large targets' (possibly also single-model chariot units) a rank, or start counting steadfast from the second rank - all to avoid the theorethical instance of 5 goblins being steadfast vs a Bloodthirster (ex).
You'd also be rid of a sillyness when multiple smaller units are surrounding a very deep unit from all sides but still can't break it.

Horde-rule:
Supporting attacks increases by 1 rank for every 5th model in your front-rank.
5 wide = second rank support
10 wide = second & third rank support
15 wide = 2nd, 3rd and 4th rank support
And so on..
(Monstrous stuff would still be 3, 6, 9, 12 of course..)

These changes would promote epic multiple-unit-combats where opponants throw in units en masse just to stay afloat, and the exponential nature of 'continuing' the horde-rule in infinity would suddenly make the games my group play feature real-looking armies...

It would be awesome. :)

QFT words for teh word god

Kayosiv
04-10-2012, 09:10
In practice, Kayosiv? Are you saying 1100 point units are the norm?

Ha, funny you should bring that up. In my last 3 games, they've all had units with over 1000 points in them.

No, I don't think it is or should be the norm. Horde rules as they exist work quite well in that they are powerful but also self limiting. I'd like them to stay unchanged.

Lord Solar Plexus
04-10-2012, 09:25
An Idea I have had is to make models that cause Terror remove steadfast from any unit that fails their fear test whilst in combat. Terror seems to have lost a lot of it's impact in this edition and it seems odd to me that a unit that is terrified of its opponent, wetting its pants, fighting with WS1, remains steadfast.


Good gracious, that's a bit reminiscent of the good aulde days of useless infantry without steadfast. While I do understand where you are coming from, it seems to make terror extremely strong.

xxRavenxx
04-10-2012, 09:36
I think the obvious fix that steadfast and horde needed was putting unit caps back in.

They were designed to let cheaper troops last longer, not power up the elite ones by "death-staring", but didn't have the depth to allow it to happen.

If you put a cap on chaos warriors at say, 25 men, but marauders at 50 men, (I'm guessing at numbers) so that they can last an extra X rounds, or horde up to retaliate a little better, it would make the system more interesting I think.

I'm personally fed up of watching two customers play a game of "all my ogres smash into all your WoC, and grind for an hour"...

Lord Solar Plexus
04-10-2012, 10:34
To be honest, I rarely saw such games in the past, perhaps due to not playing at the store very often. Many of our games were characterized, and, indeed, decided by movement, positioning, and generally trying to get the right matchups. During the last tournament however, I had a couple of such moments where both armies were locked into a vice from turn 2 and I found myself wondering why people even bothered to roll yet another five horses' attacks when it was so painfully obvious that they wouldn't take the horde down to remove steadfast until turn 20+.

Hakkapelli
04-10-2012, 10:57
My take on horde and steadfast would be:

Steadfast: As now.
-Rather good rule, just a bit too powerful occasionally, we'll get to that later

Disruption: As now + a Disrupted unit may not use the Inspiring prescence or Battle Standard rules.
-Reins in Steadfast a bit by making flanked units test leadership on their own Ld without BSB re-roll.

Terror: As now+a unit that fails the fear test for being in combat with a terror causing enemy is Disrupted
-A bit of power to terror-causing monsters. If you fail your "Ld9/10 with re-roll" terror test then you'll use your own leadership on the break test.

Remove Horde
-Replaced with Lap Around

Add Lap Around: If a unit have unengaged models in the first rank it gains the Fight in extra rank rule unless the enemy unit have both flanks Secured or the unit is engaged in the flank or rear.
-Brings it in line with steadfast and adds a bit of importance to keeping battlelines intact

Add Secure Flank: If a unit have friendly units or difficult/impassable terrain within 2" of it's flank then that flank is Secured, unless the flank is engaged by an enemy unit. A unit gains +1 combat resolution for each Secured flank.
-Adds advantages to keeping a battle line. The lone deathstar just lost one ranks worth of attacks and two combat resolution (not that 2 combat resolution will tip the combat). Also adds an additional role to CC skirmishers - remove secured flank from difficult terrain

BlackPawl
04-10-2012, 10:59
I'd like to suggest, and discuss, a change. How would you see it playing out if horde rules weren't 10 wide, but based upon individual combats - say, your unit is two (or more) complete files wider than your opponents unit? Would making horde situation more fluid make for more interesting list building? Do you take 15 wide savage Orcs to guarantee horde attacks? Or hope 8 will be enough as you only plan to hit his small units/monsters?
Thoughts? :)

I think that this is not a great idea, just because I can not plan to use my unit as a horde or not. Now two units with each 10+ wide can use the 3rd rank as support attacks, but with this rule only one (the unit with the most troops in the first rank) can use the horde rules. If now two units with 10 models in the first rank fight they each loose the the 3rd rank with their support attacks.

And what happens if a horde unit (10 wide) fight against two units - one normal (5 wide) and a horde unit (also 10 wide). Did it loose its support attacks from the 3rd rank or can it use its attacks against the "normal" unit (but not against the other horde)? Did not make much sense to me ...

Hakkapelli
04-10-2012, 11:10
I think that this is not a great idea, just because I can not plan to use my unit as a horde or not.

You can't plan on being steadfast either. Just make it likely that you'll be by taking a big unit in deep formation. Sometime however you'll have to change your plans in face of the enemy.

Ratarsed
04-10-2012, 11:33
Good gracious, that's a bit reminiscent of the good aulde days of useless infantry without steadfast. While I do understand where you are coming from, it seems to make terror extremely strong.

Bear in mind you have to fail your fear test first off. With LD9 and BSB re-rolls abounding that seems to happen less frequently than you pass. I think it would not be as good as you think but certainly better than current.


Need a rank, so 5, but of course being steadfast is not exactly going to change anything to the outcome of that combat

Haha, yes I know what the rules are, but the issue is that it feels wrong a unit of goblins gets savaged by a Bloodthurster but remain steadfast because 5 of them still live. The question was to ask how many do you feel should remain to provide steadfast?

Haravikk
04-10-2012, 11:33
I think that Horde works fine as it is. To be honest I think the opposite idea would be better; having Steadfast always apply if your units is more than say, five ranks deep. It's not like many units could easily achieve this, but it means that building deep units is less of a guessing game. Fans of Steadfast probably still wouldn't like it, but it would mean that a unit that is big enough becomes courageous, since in the thick of combat it's not like it would be that easy for them to tell relative numbers anyway, and it means the quality of the models remains important, since stronger ones will whittle down the weaker very quickly, while suffering less damage in return, so potentially being Steadfast themselves.


Personally I use a mixture of Horde and Steadfast units with my Dwarfs. Though hand weapon and shield Dwarfs are currently a bit over-priced, a unit of 40 (5 wide, eight deep) can make a great central unit, especially if you slap a defensively built battle standard on oath stone in there for good measure. Any unit big enough to outnumber them is unlikely to do enough damage to threaten them anyway, while higher damage units will run up against Steadfast for several turns. Backing this up I then have a Horde of Great Weapon dwarfs, and/or several smaller units (depends on game size) for the horrifyingly high damage output. The mixture is fun to play, if a bit awkward to fit into most lists; for smaller games I'll usually take one big block or the other, and use smaller blocks for a bit more flexibility.

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 16:17
That doesn't really work in practice because you're increasing the unit sizes exponentially.

Going 15-20 wide shouldn't be a competative choice in a normal sized game. As LordSolarPlexus already said diminishing returns is probably desirable. As you Point out yourself it wouldn't be a no-brain move to field these units as Wheeling the unit around would take forever. My gaming Group is prone to playing games between 5 and 10k and it's really for those game-sizes I see these super-hordes as a welcome addition to the ruleset. I personally wouldn't hesitate to field 12pts Daemons 20 wide and 6 Deep just to marvel how frickin' sweet that would look when placed at the center of the table.
Then there's the issue of simiplicity: There's a lot of good ideas in this thread, an unusually interesting thread actually(!), and things could be 'changed' every which way but there's virtue in keeping things 'easily understood'. I was merely trying to jot down a happy medium that would give some more dynamic to these rules (Horde, Steadfast) without adding any further head-scratching in-game.


Depends on the group you play with and how willing you are to have army sized units bludgeoning each other with buckets of dice.

Those 20 wide Halberdiers would be sort of a one-trick pony no? I feed them chaff all game and then dogpile them, it them with Dwellers, Plaguewind, Final Transformation, the Net, a well-placed Purple Sun (?) - however you certainly have a Point about the synergies of the Empire being rock-hard once you enter game-sizes where all those synergies can really be put into gear.
And that guy (haha!!) is Always a clear and present danger to this game, isn't he? I mean, like, even now - with the rules being exactly what they are and all. It's a relevant concern of course, and it's not like I have playtested these ideas or anything like that - certainly not against 'that guy' at any rate. :D


My take on horde and steadfast would be:
*Sample Hakkapelli's post upthread*

Interesting ideas. Good ideas. The only drawback being the added complexity (making LapAround a relative condition, secure flanks etcetera). The issue of Terror fell outside of my scope (in my own suggestions) but now that you mention it this Special Rule is indeed a bit to lackluster in 8th Edition. That said, perhaps LordSolarPlexus (again), should be heeded in saying you're a bit Heavy-handed when suggestion a failed Fear-check vs a terror-causer should cancel HoldYourGround/InspiringPresence. I don't know.. I would go easier with Terror just to avoid ever ending up in 7th Ed again: Something like Terror-causers giving a -1Ld penalty on all Fear-checks they cause, nothing too fancy in other Words.. but still notably more potent than regular 'Fear'.
As for Disruption: Again I fear your suggestion is slightly Heavy-handed. I my opinion counting aggragate ranks would take care of this in a more dynamic and "fair" fashion - and by 'fair' I mean that some armies can live without Inspiring Presence/Hold Your Ground, but other armies would be dead in the water if you ever managed to Disrupt them.
I also don't really see what Inspiring Presence/Hold Your Ground has to do with Disruption, really - as if the fact that your unit is flanked makes you suddenly 'forget' that your General is nearby or that you've got a banner to honor. It's certainly an 'effective mechanic' to tamper with in order to shift balances, so to speak, but it appears a bit technocratic to me.
That said, an interesting set of ideas! :)

@ xxRavenxx: I Think for good or worse caps on unit-sizes are sort of against GW's marketing strategy. ;)

Wesser
04-10-2012, 16:39
I see plenty of formations besides horde and train.

Elven spearmen are a great example of units where the actual width of the unit isnt set in stone.

Personally I often use smaller units of Flagellants to hit enemy flanks etc.


The only thing I'd like is for cavalry to get horde rules when less wide than 10.....10 wide horses is sooo huge. 8 would be more appropriate

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 17:29
The only thing I'd like is for cavalry to get horde rules when less wide than 10.....10 wide horses is sooo huge. 8 would be more appropriate

I've been thinking along those lines too at times, and not just regarding Cavalry.
5 20mm bases is the same width as 4 25mm bases - so perhaps 25mm bases should only be required to be 4-wide for 'a rank' and 8-wide for 'Horde'.
It's mostly a practical reflection: For example the Modular Movement tray that GW sells comes perfectly fitted for making "horde-trays" for 20mm bases, but if you want to make a Horde for 25mm bases you need to get creative - essentially if you had the above suggestion you would oftentime be able to use the same movement-trays for 20mm and 25mm models. hehe

Urgat
04-10-2012, 17:44
Haha, yes I know what the rules are, but the issue is that it feels wrong a unit of goblins gets savaged by a Bloodthurster but remain steadfast because 5 of them still live. The question was to ask how many do you feel should remain to provide steadfast?
Should stay that way imho. Sure 5 goblins being steadfast sounds a tad crazy, but what about 5 chaos knights? The BT (or the dragon, or the hydra, or whatever) certainly has enough arguments for itself that it doesn't need (I stress "need") to ignore steadfast too. He missed his opportunity this turn, and has to allow for the fact the opponent was lucky and brought enough gobs to stand around one more turn.

CrystalSphere
04-10-2012, 19:38
I never liked steadfast, but i think horde rules are a good concept that needs more refining. As i understand it, hordes are meant to make what would otherwise be chaff troops, into combat blocks (say 60 or more night goblins in horde with spears) that can do some damage.

Steadfast is in my opinion more of a patch to fix the absolute importance that dinamic combat resolution gained in 8th edition, thanks to fighting in two ranks. I like that combats are more bloody than before (as well as shooting taking less space on the table), but i miss the static combat resolution that made WHF what it is (as opposed to 40k, whose combats are based solely on kills). I miss when you would take a 25-30 unit of infantry with the warbanner, 5 wide, and hold something a turn thanks to the +6 static combat resolution (this worked fine in 6th, but also early 7th, before the armybook craziness). I would propose, instead of steadfast, to bring back static combat resolution as something of at least equal importance to kills.

This could be done by, for example, allowing rank bonus to combat resolution to cap at +6 instead of +3, bringing back the bonus for outnumbering (maybe make it +2), make flanking bonus +2 instead of 1, etc. This would provide a similar effect for an infantry that wants to hold the enemy, but things like skaven slaves or goblins would have a hard time if they receive too many casualties. Resilient infantry pays for the increased stats, and i think they would be more worth it if they were better able to hold than other troops (compare dwarf warriors with shields with goblins, at the same point cost, the goblins hold steadfast longer). Bonuses like ranks (or skaven leadership for that matter) would be disrupted by a flank charge, unlike steadfast currently which cannot be cancelled except by removing ranks. I feel like the addition of steadfast was poorly done, and instead the developers could have used the existing framework of rules to create a similar effect, as in making infantry capable to hold agaisnt enemy units for several turns.

About hordes, i like the idea but i think there should be some cap, either in unit size, or preferably in point cost. This way cheap units could be horded to become more threatening combat units, but expensive ones could not become deathstars. I think there should also be a limit in the number of characters that can join a unit, perhaps up to 2 maximun (as most people put the BSB next to the general). I also donīt like the current rules of BSBs (i much prefered the old ones, where psychology tests mattered a lot more) but iīm dangerously going into wishlisting and offtopic now :P

Minty
04-10-2012, 20:11
I never liked steadfast, but i think horde rules are a good concept that needs more refining. As i understand it, hordes are meant to make what would otherwise be chaff troops, into combat blocks (say 60 or more night goblins in horde with spears) that can do some damage.

Steadfast is in my opinion more of a patch to fix the absolute importance that dinamic combat resolution gained in 8th edition, thanks to fighting in two ranks.


Now... I'm a big fan of Steadfast. I do like it. It's a good idea. Could have been implimented better (f'rex, monsters counting as having a rank), but it's a good rule.

The trouble is not that a unit can be steadfast, the trouble is that it's so trivially easy to be steadfast on a rerollable ten for multiple turns.

No-one would complain if, say, Skaven Slaves cost 4 points and were making their checks on a seven (even a rerollable seven), because, though they'd be steadfast, that'd only buy them one or two turns at best before their numbers fell.

So long as the game has troops priced for seventh ed, and also has the Standard of Discipline and 12"/18" Inspiring Presence (and the Crown of Command too, for that matter, which also shouldn't exist in a world of everyone-has-rerollable-Ld10), Steadfast will continue to be problematic.

Any attempt to 'fix' steadfast must address those problems, not the rule itself, which works exactly as intended.

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 20:12
The question was to ask how many do you feel should remain to provide steadfast?

As Urgat Points out there's Always going to be units that 'stand out'. As things are right now "5 models minimum" is perhaps suitable for Chaos Knights but looks absolutely daft for Goblins, Statetroops, or indeed the vast majority of other infantry/cavalry troop-types.
I would personally say that 10 models minimum is a happy medium. If we necessarily have to have one number for all.


Should stay that way imho. Sure 5 goblins being steadfast sounds a tad crazy, but what about 5 chaos knights? The BT (or the dragon, or the hydra, or whatever) certainly has enough arguments for itself that it doesn't need (I stress "need") to ignore steadfast too. He missed his opportunity this turn, and has to allow for the fact the opponent was lucky and brought enough gobs to stand around one more turn.

Do the Chaos Knights need it then?
My opinion is as good as yours man, just stressing it's opinion. ;)

But Reading your post I had this brilliant flash of an idea that could satisfy us both:
How about saying that a unit needs to be at least it's "minimum fieldable unit size" in order to ever claim steadfast?
So 5 for the Knights, and 20 for the Gobbos..(?)

Urgat
04-10-2012, 20:41
Resilient infantry pays for the increased stats, and i think they would be more worth it if they were better able to hold than other troops (compare dwarf warriors with shields with goblins, at the same point cost, the goblins hold steadfast longer).

They do, they do so by winning combats instead of losing and then relying on steadfast.


Do the Chaos Knights need it then?

The goblins do :p You won't find a right answer with a clear cut limit like that, as you said, no matter what, some units will stand out in regard to a rule. The moment you start adding provisions, it's becoming cumbersome. So it's daft that 5 gobs are steadfast against a BT, sure, I agree. Should the goblins be 10 to remain steadfast against one bretonnian MaA?...



How about saying that a unit needs to be at least it's "minimum fieldable unit size" in order to ever claim steadfast?
So 5 for the Knights, and 20 for the Gobbos..(?)
... or, even better, 20? I thought about it already and I didn't like it actually: if someone wants that kind of limit, he better not whine about units of 100 slaves or he'll deserve a good slapping :p If I must abslutly not drop under 20 gobs in order not to see them run the moment they lose a fight, I will NEVER field a unit smaller than 60. Make your own opinion on what that will do to your local metagame.


My opinion is as good as yours man, just stressing it's opinion. ;)


Oh, don't worry, so do I, I like the rules the way they are already, so I don't have any reason to get worked up or anything ;)

theunwantedbeing
04-10-2012, 20:58
I'd like to suggest, and discuss, a change. How would you see it playing out if horde rules weren't 10 wide, but based upon individual combats - say, your unit is two (or more) complete files wider than your opponents unit? Would making horde situation more fluid make for more interesting list building? Do you take 15 wide savage Orcs to guarantee horde attacks? Or hope 8 will be enough as you only plan to hit his small units/monsters?

Thoughts? :)

The other guy's size decides if you are a horde or not?
Strange concept but I can see how it would encourage alternate unit formations.

That said, I think all that will happen is people will deploy as wide as possible to gain those maximum attacks with units that they expect to fight well and unit's they don't will just be the long thin columns. So there won't be a lot of change, you'll still see 2 main formations...one wide and one narrow.

DaemonReign
04-10-2012, 21:20
If I must abslutly not drop under 20 gobs in order not to see them run the moment they lose a fight, I will NEVER field a unit smaller than 60. Make your own opinion on what that will do to your local metagame.

*thihi!*
In our local meta where the average game size ranges between 5k and 10k it wouldn't be the reason for much fuss.

I think the rules are more or less all right too, what we're doing here is nitpicking about details that could've-been.
So no hard feelings! Absolutely not! :)

Urgat
04-10-2012, 21:22
*thihi!*
In our local meta where the average game size ranges between 5k and 10k it wouldn't be the reason for much fuss.
For me games are often around 1500pts, so such high limits could be very problematic, they'd actually favorize elite troops


I think the rules are more or less all right too, what we're doing here is nitpicking about details that could've-been.
So no hard feelings! Absolutely not! :)
Never crossed my mind there could be any :p

theunwantedbeing
04-10-2012, 22:24
Steadfast: As now.
-Rather good rule, just a bit too powerful occasionally, we'll get to that later

Making it work off the second rank changes very little but make single lines of troops a lot weaker (which is a good thing)



Disruption: As now + a Disrupted unit may not use the Inspiring prescence or Battle Standard rules.
-Reins in Steadfast a bit by making flanked units test leadership on their own Ld without BSB re-roll.

Agreed, this solves the main abuse of steadfast.

I'de add that large targets will disrupt when attacking the flank/rear of an enemy. On account of their huge bulk being enough to do that.



Terror: As now+a unit that fails the fear test for being in combat with a terror causing enemy is Disrupted
-A bit of power to terror-causing monsters. If you fail your "Ld9/10 with re-roll" terror test then you'll use your own leadership on the break test.

Reasonable, if not overly useful.



Remove Horde
-Replaced with Lap Around

Add Lap Around: If a unit have unengaged models in the first rank it gains the Fight in extra rank rule unless the enemy unit have both flanks Secured or the unit is engaged in the flank or rear.
-Brings it in line with steadfast and adds a bit of importance to keeping battlelines intact

The current horde rule is better.
Why should a 5 man unit get an extra rank of attacks against a monster or chariot similar?



Add Secure Flank: If a unit have friendly units or difficult/impassable terrain within 2" of it's flank then that flank is Secured, unless the flank is engaged by an enemy unit. A unit gains +1 combat resolution for each Secured flank.
-Adds advantages to keeping a battle line. The lone deathstar just lost one ranks worth of attacks and two combat resolution (not that 2 combat resolution will tip the combat). Also adds an additional role to CC skirmishers - remove secured flank from difficult terrain
I'm not sure about this at all.
There's no encouragement to move, merely to just sit there with walls or similar next to your own unit which in my mind makes for an incredibly boring game.
I don't like the idea of things like shooty troops getting a bonus because one edge of a line of men is near some woods, it feels wrong.

I'de envision it as more of a negative, something like No way out!
An engaged unit with it's opposite unengaged side in contact with Dangerous/Impassable terrain must take dangerous terrain tests immediately upon losing combat. The break test is then taken as normal.

ZooKeeper
04-10-2012, 22:42
2X10 would be useless, horde makes your 3rd rank fight, so if you have no third rank... would be at most 6 minis fighting your lonely character (assuming 25mm base for the hero).

You are thinking of this the opposite direction of my intentions. Think 2 wide 10 deep of a 25 mm base unit vs a 20 mm character base, max 2 in the unit in base contact + potential for 3 ranks, 3X8+2 if you are are both 20 mm to maximize base contact. If the character had a 25 mm character base, deploying 3 wide would maximize attacks on standard infantry models. This was just an example of ridiculous formations though.

Ratarsed
04-10-2012, 23:04
Should stay that way imho. Sure 5 goblins being steadfast sounds a tad crazy, but what about 5 chaos knights? The BT (or the dragon, or the hydra, or whatever) certainly has enough arguments for itself that it doesn't need (I stress "need") to ignore steadfast too. He missed his opportunity this turn, and has to allow for the fact the opponent was lucky and brought enough gobs to stand around one more turn.

That's why I like the failed terror cancels steadfast idea. A bunch of cowardly goblins are much more likley to flee from a Bloodthurster than well trained fearsome Chaos warriors, which is how it should be.

Malorian
04-10-2012, 23:52
That's why I like the failed terror cancels steadfast idea. A bunch of cowardly goblins are much more likley to flee from a Bloodthurster than well trained fearsome Chaos warriors, which is how it should be.

If only they had a stat, like leadership, that could cover that...

Kayosiv
05-10-2012, 02:29
They do, that's what he's talking about.

I think the terror being leadership -1 would be fine. Weaponskill 1 is a pretty big bonus, it just doesn't happen quite enough.

GrandmasterWang
05-10-2012, 05:50
The steadfast in minimum unit size post gave me the thought of stubborn sabretusks... Shudder

I just think if a unit of 30 gets flanked on both sides by 2 ynits of 20(no casualties) it shouldnt be steadfast.

Re: the giving monsters a rank, it would just change the magic "5" figure to 10.

Hakkapelli
05-10-2012, 07:01
(Terror suggestions)
Reasonable, if not overly useful.

It was not supposed to be that powerful, just a nice extra bonus sometimes.


(Lap Around)
The current horde rule is better.
Why should a 5 man unit get an extra rank of attacks against a monster or chariot similar?

The idea is that the unengaged men on the flank turns the enemy flank and attacks them. There used to be a rule where you actually moved models from the back rank to do this. This rule was intended as a less fiddly solution.
-Maybe making it not work on the turn you're charged or something.


(Secure flank)
I'm not sure about this at all.
There's no encouragement to move, merely to just sit there with walls or similar next to your own unit which in my mind makes for an incredibly boring game.
I don't like the idea of things like shooty troops getting a bonus because one edge of a line of men is near some woods, it feels wrong.

It was just an idea to make actual battlelines better then spread out units. The encouragement to move would be when you lack suitable terrain in your own deployment zone.
Just realised that disruption provides the encouragement. You'll want to keep your flanks protected. -Drop-

Ratarsed
05-10-2012, 07:55
If only they had a stat, like leadership, that could cover that...

True. But if you have already failed your leadership and are cowering behind your shields it feels wrong to me that you remain steadfast. (It sort of applies to fear as well but it's good to distinguish between the 2 and I assume being terrified is worse than fearing something)

Reading a re-enactment battle report of a Wahammer 1st edition game on Warhammer-Empire forum got me thinking the old pushback rules could be adapted to replace steadfast.

TheDungen
05-10-2012, 12:19
I dont mind horde, but steadfast makes elite armies damn hard to play i think they should revise those rules next time around. Not going as far in the other direction as previous editions but not quite as far in this direction as 8th.

Kayosiv
05-10-2012, 13:41
The "elite armies" which are pretty much elvesx3, dwarfs, warriors of chaos, and to a lesser extent demons of chaos, all do fine in this edition. The exception would be wood elves and it is not because their book isn't designed for this edition or that skirmishing/shooty armies don't work either. It's simply because all their stuff is too expensive.

Djekar
05-10-2012, 14:40
I've been thinking along those lines too at times, and not just regarding Cavalry.
5 20mm bases is the same width as 4 25mm bases - so perhaps 25mm bases should only be required to be 4-wide for 'a rank' and 8-wide for 'Horde'.
It's mostly a practical reflection: For example the Modular Movement tray that GW sells comes perfectly fitted for making "horde-trays" for 20mm bases, but if you want to make a Horde for 25mm bases you need to get creative - essentially if you had the above suggestion you would oftentime be able to use the same movement-trays for 20mm and 25mm models. hehe

I really like this idea a lot.

MLP
05-10-2012, 15:22
The lapping round rules was terrible when it was still in the rules. Very awkward to use. And it doesn't really represent how blocks of troops fight anyway. When two units engage there would be a massive surge through the front lines of both units and they would be mostly mixed up in individual combats. It was only in the cases of very well trained military fighting against untrained when a unit would be able to hold its ranks. And even then only in certain formations with certain weapons/shields.

I think the horde rules pretty fairly represent this overwhelming with larger units, if it is a little simplistic.

My suggestion would be that only one unit should be classed as horde, for example if a unit out numbers by 2:1 it counts as horde and gains extra attacks.

Or perhaps have horde attacks not count on the turn of charging(because the masses haven't built up yet). This would make horde/steadfast a more tactical consideration.

I also agree with the terror rule proposed. There should be no unit of troops (except ItP or Unbreakable) that could be steadfast against a terror causing monster like a Bloodthirster or Dragon! It's ridiculous! These huge terrifying monsters aren't exactly common, even in these fluff days of monstroushammer!

Malorian
05-10-2012, 15:44
I also agree with the terror rule proposed. There should be no unit of troops (except ItP or Unbreakable) that could be steadfast against a terror causing monster like a Bloodthirster or Dragon! It's ridiculous! These huge terrifying monsters aren't exactly common, even in these fluff days of monstroushammer!

I in no way want to go back to the days when dragons and knights could any unit they want and break and run them down. This is why steadfast is in the game, and it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with game play.

MLP
05-10-2012, 16:46
I in no way want to go back to the days when dragons and knights could any unit they want and break and run them down. This is why steadfast is in the game, and it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with game play.

I do agree. I've always wanted warhammer to be based more on ranked up units of infantry and cavalry with the odd monster, not the other way round it is these days. But I do find it annoying how ineffective these supposedly terrifying monsters and daemons are.

Malorian
05-10-2012, 16:57
I think monsters are plenty effective. Between their own attacks, rider attacks, and stomp attacks, their damage output is very respectable. All you have to do is combine it with a block to take away steadfast rather than sending them in super solo.

So a bloodthirster can be slammed into a unit and beat it over several rounds, or you can follow up with a block of daemons and break them.

TheDungen
05-10-2012, 22:49
The "elite armies" which are pretty much elvesx3, dwarfs, warriors of chaos, and to a lesser extent demons of chaos, all do fine in this edition. The exception would be wood elves and it is not because their book isn't designed for this edition or that skirmishing/shooty armies don't work either. It's simply because all their stuff is too expensive.

Elves only survive because they're good at magic. Warriors of chaos i dont know but i'm guessing chosenstar has something to do with it. dwarf have exactly one viable strategy, and i have no idea about demons, didnt they use to be OP?

while 7th from what i have understood (didnt play 7th latest edition i played was 6th) was an affair where the one that charged won, 8th i an affair where charging is actually pointless, cause beating a steadfast unit with more or less resolution doesnt actually do anything.
I'd prefer if steadfast set a maximum limit how much ld penetly an outnumbering unit could get from resolution rather than remove it altogether.

Urgat
05-10-2012, 22:53
No man, last battle I played, a unit of warriors with AHW (not even marked) munched through half my horde of 100 gobs by themselves, in two turns. He would have had his way with the rest of his army, he'd have won badly (well he won regardless). Elite armies win because they kill a lot. SOme day, people will understand that relying on steadfast is a losing battle, because if you test on steadfast, it means your losing combats. Whatever people think, this is bad.

The Low King
05-10-2012, 23:16
Elves only survive because they're good at magic. Warriors of chaos i dont know but i'm guessing chosenstar has something to do with it. dwarf have exactly one viable strategy, and i have no idea about demons, didnt they use to be OP?

Ive played magicless Woodelves and seen magicless High and dark elves win fine (by magicless i mean only a bit of cheap magic defence).
Ive played Dwarf combat and Ninja lists, Anvil lists, Gunline lists and hybrid lists. In fact, my current list (wich has my best win ratio so far) is very far from the 'one viable strategy' you suggest.
Ive seen the Chosenstar beaten more times than ive seen it win.

Elite armies do fine, their units just require a bit more thought, you cant just throw your S6 Ws5 unit against that massive unit, just as you wont throw that S3 3attacks unit against those knights.

All in all, i have never had a problem with steadfast. I see that unit of 200 billion slaves or goblins and i work out how to deal with it before the battle. Sure, it has an effect on your plans, but then so does every unit in the enemy army.


SOme day, people will understand that relying on steadfast is a losing battle, because if you test on steadfast, it means your losing combats. Whatever people think, this is bad.

Words of wisdom.

Ratarsed
05-10-2012, 23:24
I in no way want to go back to the days when dragons and knights could any unit they want and break and run them down. This is why steadfast is in the game, and it has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with game play.
I don't think the proposed idea would mean going back to to hero-hammer days where monsters ruled. Most fear checks are passed, especially when a BSB or General is about and this is where the big, important units can be found. The peripheral "chaff" as it's become known is pretty much vulnerable to big terror causers already. Logic or at least some degree of intuitive rules are important and regiments cowering in fear but remaining steadfast just shouts "wrong" to me. (Steadfast is having courage and being resolute and brave despite set-backs. Being in fear is the opposite of this and the two just don't pair up well IMO)

Ridden Monsters are a big risk already and usually a 400+ point unit that needs support to effectively deal with 250+ point units. I think giving them a small chance to have a massive impact on the battle would be worth playtesting if nothing else.

The Low King
05-10-2012, 23:29
The suggestion is that you cant be steadfast agaisnt anything that causes terror isnt it? rather than not being steadfast if you fail a terror test.
The first one is too powerful and takes us back to 7th, the second is too random, not to mention LD bombs would be insane.

Also, steadfast is not about having courage and being resolute, it is about outnumbering the enemy so much (basically thinking "its cool, we outnumber this guy 30 to 1")

sulla
06-10-2012, 01:09
I'd like to suggest, and discuss, a change. How would you see it playing out if horde rules weren't 10 wide, but based upon individual combats - say, your unit is two (or more) complete files wider than your opponents unit? Would making horde situation more fluid make for more interesting list building? Do you take 15 wide savage Orcs to guarantee horde attacks? Or hope 8 will be enough as you only plan to hit his small units/monsters?

Thoughts? :)The problem with this is it further encourages giant units which in turn, makes normal shooting, magic missiles and small strike units (cav etc) less relevant.

I think going the other way would give more viable formations. If most units (there could be case by case exceptions) capped at, say, 30 wounds, you would see hordes retaining their hitting power for less time, and steadfast units remaining stubborn for shorter times and all those units that are less relevant now, including wider non-horde formations becoming more useful.

Limit unit sizes and deathstars and high strength hordes become less of a solution to all things. Even fighter characters become more useful again because they only have to survive 2-3 phases of combat instead of the 'approaching infinty' turns they face right now. Heck, with those smaller units on the field, manouver even starts to become more important again because flank charges actually matter.

Ratarsed
06-10-2012, 07:40
The suggestion is that you cant be steadfast agaisnt anything that causes terror isnt it? rather than not being steadfast if you fail a terror test.
The first one is too powerful and takes us back to 7th, the second is too random, not to mention LD bombs would be insane.

Also, steadfast is not about having courage and being resolute, it is about outnumbering the enemy so much (basically thinking "its cool, we outnumber this guy 30 to 1")
No the suggestion is if you fail your fear test in combat against a unit that causes Terror you lose any steadfast you may have.
Too random? In a game of dice and chance? No it's not random. Chance of failure and success will be based on the leadership (courage?) of your troops so no more random than failing a terror test from being charged by a terror causer. I've not heard anyone complain that as being "too random".

What exactly do you mean by a leadership bomb?


Limit unit sizes and deathstars and high strength hordes become less of a solution to all things. Even fighter characters become more useful again because they only have to survive 2-3 phases of combat instead of the 'approaching infinty' turns they face right now. Heck, with those smaller units on the field, manouver even starts to become more important again because flank charges actually matter.
I'm againt restricting choice. I like the added freedom players have to design their armies over the last two editions army list rules.

Hordes are only really popular because of steadfast. They are steadfast againt units that can reliably win against them (monsters) but don't lose combat to units that remove their steadfast (bus formation units). If you can make the life of a horde just a little less reliable (not too much so they become unviable) they will not be the near automatic choice you see now. It's a very difficult balance to achieve but my personal view is at the moment hordes are a little bit too reliable.

Ratarsed
06-10-2012, 07:56
Another suggestion I have for hordes is to make them less manouverable. Another one of those fluff vs rules bugbears but I don't like how a horde of troups is just as manouvreable as a small unit.

I would propose that Horde units cannot swift reform and (here's the biggie that would need playtesting ;) ) No combat reform either???? :eek:

Urgat
06-10-2012, 09:07
I think going the other way would give more viable formations. If most units (there could be case by case exceptions) capped at, say, 30 wounds, you would see hordes retaining their hitting power for less time,
No kidding, if you limit my goblins at 30 and my pal can still take his units of 20 + chaos warriors, sure thing, they're going to retain their hitting power for less time (they won't get to use it at all). I'm ok with that if you cap elites at 5 max. For the record, I'm absolutly against any cap limit, if only for the fact it doesn't scale at all between units of different strenght. This kind of hard limits just can't work, they make no sense. The only strenght of horde troops is to go in big numbers, it's like deciding to limit the number of wounds an elite unit can inflict per turn.


Limit unit sizes and deathstars and high strength hordes become less of a solution to all things. Even fighter characters become more useful again because they only have to survive 2-3 phases of combat instead of the 'approaching infinty' turns they face right now. Heck, with those smaller units on the field, manouver even starts to become more important again because flank charges actually matter.
This is all true, because steadfast would become irrelevant and we would go back straight to 7th ed. Combined to step up and support attacks, cheap troops won't even be fielded at all. I can't see this being good. (obviously not, with these rules, I'd shelve my gobs).



Hordes are only really popular because of steadfast. They are steadfast againt units that can reliably win against them (monsters) but don't lose combat to units that remove their steadfast (bus formation units). If you can make the life of a horde just a little less reliable (not too much so they become unviable) they will not be the near automatic choice you see now. It's a very difficult balance to achieve but my personal view is at the moment hordes are a little bit too reliable.

I know we're already swamped under special rules, but how about that:
you divide the infantry in two groups:
rabble and elite (or whatever name you prefer)
troops with the "rabble" special rule have access to steadfast and horde
troops with the "elite" special rule have access to their own special rules, something that doesn't rely on numbers.

Dark Aly
06-10-2012, 11:26
My problem with the horde rule and steadfast is it works the wrong way round. wider shallower units should be defensive alla shield walls but deeper columns of troops should be the line breakers alla napolean.

Ganymede
06-10-2012, 11:53
I would probably fix both of those rules by removing them.

The Low King
06-10-2012, 12:08
No the suggestion is if you fail your fear test in combat against a unit that causes Terror you lose any steadfast you may have.
Too random? In a game of dice and chance? No it's not random. Chance of failure and success will be based on the leadership (courage?) of your troops so no more random than failing a terror test from being charged by a terror causer. I've not heard anyone complain that as being "too random".

What exactly do you mean by a leadership bomb?


A Leadership bomb is anything that reduces LD, but more specifically things like the masque.

Too random because most of the time it will do absolutely nothing but when you fail the test you pretty much auto-lose that unit. Failing a terror test on its own does little. It is also very difficult to correctly value when pointing the monster, and with that monsters would have to go up in points.

Urgat
06-10-2012, 12:10
Ah, the joys of going back to previous editions where you'd drop a terror-causing monster among the enemy lines and watch everything not in the general's Ld bubble run for it just because.

TheDungen
06-10-2012, 12:18
No man, last battle I played, a unit of warriors with AHW (not even marked) munched through half my horde of 100 gobs by themselves, in two turns. He would have had his way with the rest of his army, he'd have won badly (well he won regardless). Elite armies win because they kill a lot. SOme day, people will understand that relying on steadfast is a losing battle, because if you test on steadfast, it means your losing combats. Whatever people think, this is bad.

Unless you kill a higher % of you opponents Unit Strength than he kills of your every turn. in that case he'll win by less and less until you've grinded his unit down. also cavalery charges should be able to break units, in this edition they dont unless they outnumber.

Urgat
06-10-2012, 12:21
Unless you kill a higher % of you opponents Unit Strength than he kills of your every turn. in that case he'll win by less and less until you've grinded his unit down.
One unit of 21 would have won against one of 100, and it's not even the most murderous one WoC could field. What do you want, that hordes don't even manage to do their role, holding stuff?

also cavalery charges should be able to break units, in this edition they dont unless they outnumber.
No they shouldn't, not if they're not numerous enough. What's wrong, though, is that it's all or nothing, imho. Take the big block of goblins charged by a big bus of knights. The bretonnians don't kill enough, and it's steadfast + general+ BSB. Now they kill one more, and right of the bat, it's snake eye or flee. That's what I don't like about the current rules.
Additionnally, I think it was a mistake to remove unit strenght. It would have been very useful this edition.

logan054
06-10-2012, 12:30
This is all true, because steadfast would become irrelevant and we would go back straight to 7th ed. Combined to step up and support attacks, cheap troops won't even be fielded at all. I can't see this being good. (obviously not, with these rules, I'd shelve my gobs).

I actually think the horde and steadfast rule took things to far, striking in a I order, stepup seemed to fix most of the issues with infantry, the problem with have with steadfast now is cheap units, with high leadership and loads of ranks (ala slaves), all it does is stop lone monsters marching through armies (which is good), then you factor in the changes to the vp system, its just another heavy handed slant in the rules towards a certain type of play style, I dare say come 9th cavalry will be the big thing again.

Urgat
06-10-2012, 14:04
I actually think the horde and steadfast rule took things to far, striking in a I order, stepup seemed to fix most of the issues with infantry,

Throw anything a bit hitty at a unit of weak troops, with step up and steadfast, strike on initiative and stuff, you're pretty sure to break them in one round of combat. We''re talking losing combats by 15 or 20 now. Everytime steadfast kicks in, if it didn't, I'd be required to troll snake eyes. There would be no way ever for stuff like goblins or state troops to ever win combats against the ilks of elves, WoC or ogres and so on. It's not the couple casualties back that will mitigate the monstrous massacre. That's the point of steadfast, being able to hold even after a colossal beating, because there's numbers to suck the damage.


the problem with have with steadfast now is cheap units, with high leadership and loads of ranks (ala slaves), all it does is stop lone monsters marching through armies (which is good), then you factor in the changes to the vp system, its just another heavy handed slant in the rules towards a certain type of play style, I dare say come 9th cavalry will be the big thing again.
The problem is that slaves are too cheap for the Ld they get, and that VP has been changed. It's not steadfast's fault. Most of the time, steadfast works quite fine. It's the instance where it fails that should be fixed, not the whole rule.
Pretty sure 9th ed won't be cavalry either, imho they're going to go for the combined mount+rider profiles, and big ridden monsters will be the new flavour :)

yabbadabba
06-10-2012, 15:19
I think that there are some great ideas for modifying steadfast but they will all be classified as "advanced or veteran" rules.

For instance, you could include a rule that any unit with a majority LD of 5 or less suffers a -1LD penalty for any tests taken while in combat with Monsters, Fear or Terror causing creatures. Add in a Ld test for units that are charged in the flank that, if failed, could cause a potential loss of Steadfast and all of a sudden it becomes a very different gaming environment for Monsters and weaker LD units.

sulla
08-10-2012, 20:02
No kidding, if you limit my goblins at 30 and my pal can still take his units of 20 + chaos warriors, sure thing, they're going to retain their hitting power for less time (they won't get to use it at all). I'm ok with that if you cap elites at 5 max. For the record, I'm absolutly against any cap limit, if only for the fact it doesn't scale at all between units of different strenght. This kind of hard limits just can't work, they make no sense. The only strenght of horde troops is to go in big numbers, it's like deciding to limit the number of wounds an elite unit can inflict per turn.


.I agree about chaos warriors/chosen, but they are probably the only current troops that are really an issue here, and mainly because of their pricing. If you take any of the other real chainsaw units out there like anything in the DE or HE books, or ogres, they are much easier to hurt on the way in, making them less able to sustain their damage output over successive phases.

Also, consider that if both your armies units are limited in size, you can negate his big units simply by target saturation. Those big blocks of chaos warriors simply can't rack up enough vp's to pay for themselves (unlike in the current deathstar vs deathstar meta) so the chaos player would likely shift to smaller, more vulnerable units to hit more units.

Regardless of that, there would still be the potential for some unit specific tailoring; eg skaven slaves and goblins may be allowed +10 to their unit caps or very rare units may get reduced caps.

Urgat
08-10-2012, 20:46
I agree about chaos warriors/chosen, but they are probably the only current troops that are really an issue here, and mainly because of their pricing. If you take any of the other real chainsaw units out there like anything in the DE or HE books, or ogres, they are much easier to hurt on the way in, making them less able to sustain their damage output over successive phases.
That's a lot of units to remove, don't you think? What's left if you remove these? That's lat least a third of the infantry in the game. On the other hand, you fix slaves, the one unit that really abuses steadfast, and the job's a good one. If I have to change the rule to balance half the unit, or change one unit to have no pb anymore, I know which choice I pick. Besides, my goblins look kickass when fielded in huge units, they look like in the drawings, they look like how the fluff describes them. I like it that way, I don't want it to change :p (in short, screw the rules).

Dark Aly
09-10-2012, 16:31
I'd just make it so the same as stubborn used to be- the units own unmodified Ld or the generals modified one- which ever is higher.

sulla
09-10-2012, 19:43
That's a lot of units to remove, don't you think? What's left if you remove these? That's lat least a third of the infantry in the game. On the other hand, you fix slaves, the one unit that really abuses steadfast, and the job's a good one. If I have to change the rule to balance half the unit, or change one unit to have no pb anymore, I know which choice I pick. Besides, my goblins look kickass when fielded in huge units, they look like in the drawings, they look like how the fluff describes them. I like it that way, I don't want it to change :p (in short, screw the rules).I may not have been entirely clear. The only units that really break the system with smaller units are chaos warriors( & chosen) IMO. And even then, this is mainly because of cost, especially their cheap marks and equipment and warshrines. Personally, Make marks a 'points per model' upgrade, increase the cost of halberds and make warshrine buffs last for a limited time and warriors become a lot more reasonable.

What I was trying to say is that even the best high damage output units in other armies are manageable with 30 wound caps because they are far more vulnerable to all the things that have been marginalised in this edition; small cav units, chariots, bs based shooting, magic missiles etc.

It means that a horde only gets full attacks for one phase- possibly not even that if they take great weapons or have low initiative. It makes those great weapon hordes less of a no-brainer; they can still do a heck of a lot of damage but only for 1-2 phases.

Similarly, it means deep units can be steadfast but their opponents can also do something about it with focused fire; something they can't do right now to these 50+ model units without one of the mega spells.

On the subject of those mega spells, it would also make them less powerful since they could only hit a proportion of a smaller unit, so their effect on the battleline would be lessened (halving a 30 man unit is better for the overall game than halving a 60-100 man one, after all).

I'm tellin' ya; unit caps would make for more balanced games with more varied tactics and army builds. :)

MLP
09-10-2012, 21:03
I think the most reasonable suggestion here would be to have kept unit caps in each respective army book, this way units like Chaos Wariors could be kept low at say 30 and units like skaven slaves and goblins could be capped at say 50. Another option could be to limit maximum unit size by base model cost: under 5 points capped to 50, 6-10 points capped at 40 10-15 capped at 30... No need for a blanket cap.

Urgat
09-10-2012, 23:03
I may not have been entirely clear. The only units that really break the system with smaller units are chaos warriors( & chosen) IMO. And even then, this is mainly because of cost, especially their cheap marks and equipment and warshrines. Personally, Make marks a 'points per model' upgrade, increase the cost of halberds and make warshrine buffs last for a limited time and warriors become a lot more reasonable.
I got to point out the unit that slaughtered my horde of goblins over 2 turns (so 4 rounds of combat) were unmarked chaos warriors with AHW. I don't think these guys are OP at all, and still my unit would have never hold if they hadn't been such a large group. Maybe luck played a part in the result, but the horde played its role, barely, because it was so freaken huge. It wouldn't have held one turn if you had it capped at 40 or 50 (well, it would have, but only because the first round, he wasted a large amount of attacks because he needed to allocate many of them on the champio and the 3 sneaky skewer, which did help a lot- fortunately, because that was the plan). Well, scrap that, they didn't hold, because my opponent bitched about the amount of poisonned arrows the unit could pump out, and so I broke the unit in two in the following battle, and, well, the result when they got in melee was quite clear cut (pun not intended).


What I was trying to say is that even the best high damage output units in other armies are manageable with 30 wound caps because they are far more vulnerable to all the things that have been marginalised in this edition; small cav units, chariots, bs based shooting, magic missiles etc.
Clearly not, from my example above. That's the point I'm making. And that's no surprise, because there was no point in going higher than that in the previous editions, and that was w/o step up and supporting attacks (which clearly advantage the chaos warriors, not my goblins), and that's exactly what would happen already: elite walks in, slaughters gobs, gobs do little to no damage in return, gobs break and flee.


It means that a horde only gets full attacks for one phase- possibly not even that if they take great weapons or have low initiative. It makes those great weapon hordes less of a no-brainer; they can still do a heck of a lot of damage but only for 1-2 phases.
I'm not following you there, i'm not sure which side you're talking about that has great weapons, sorry XD


Similarly, it means deep units can be steadfast but their opponents can also do something about it with focused fire; something they can't do right now to these 50+ model units without one of the mega spells.
Well as I said, 21 chaos warrios, unmarked, unsupported, did the trick. My opponent is not a powergamer at all (well, not anymore), there was nothing wrong with his unit, it did the damage it was supposed to do, and my horde held the way it was supposed to do, because it vastly outnumbered the warriors. With 8th ed rules, if you take that away from me, I have no goblin unit that can sustain this kind of punishment, which would be sad because the only real value of goblins is to do just that, soak up damage. The result would be the same if you replaced warriors with sword masters, bloodletters, saurus, anything that hit and wound gobs on 3+ and have at least 2 attacks per model.


On the subject of those mega spells, it would also make them less powerful since they could only hit a proportion of a smaller unit, so their effect on the battleline would be lessened (halving a 30 man unit is better for the overall game than halving a 60-100 man one, after all).
I don't really care about mega spells, in the same battle, he pit-of-shaded my trolls to oblivion (woopie!), but I guess that's the point of PoS, I grumbled about it, but he grumbled just as much when my horde poison-shot his giant to death in one go, so we were even.


I'm tellin' ya; unit caps would make for more balanced games with more varied tactics and army builds. :)
I hear you, but I'm telling you that I'm absolutly opposed to unit caps because if you do, I have to scrap my goblins and field only orcs, and as I don't want to do that, I'd just stop playing. That's npot making for more varied tactics, that's making for the contrary, regarding my own army.
I've been playing since 5th ed, and it is the first time I can field my gobs the way they are supposed to be fielded (in large units) and not just hand free VP to my opponents for it. So I'm fine with mega units. But I tell you: I'm ok for capping the number of bodies in horde units if the number of wounds that can be inflicted by elite units is capped too. Deal? :p Well in fact no, because my main point remains:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?101658-The-Gut-Reapa-(orcs-and-gobs-army-probably-image-heavy-soon)&p=6374703&viewfull=1#post6374703
This is my goblin horde of 100 goblins, and it looks flipping kickass (allow me some self-indulgement there :p). When I fielded it, my opponent told me: "woah, that's awesome". That's all that really matters to me when all is said and done. That's how I picture Warhammer. That's MY Warhammer, and I love GW for finally making it possible. If tweaking steadfast can make people happy, I'd accept any consession, as long as I can field such a cool unit and not shoot myself in the foot by doing so as I would have in all the previous editions, w/o exception. If 9th ed reintroduces unit caps, I'll stick to 8th ed, because I love this edition, for me, it's the best edition of Warhammer, by far.

Dark Aly
10-10-2012, 08:45
I believe unit caps are a good idea- but not blanket cover over all the units. E.g. Goblins and slave should be around 60 while warriors around 25 not both capped at 30.

Ninja'd by MLP previous page.

DaemonReign
10-10-2012, 12:05
Caps.. *sigh*
What's next? - You want to cap the game-sizes played as well?
Any kind of unit-caps being reintroduced to Warhammer would completely ruin the entire bloody game for me.
Don't mean to downplay the issues of steadfast/horde-rule - very few rules are perfect(!) - but at the same time... well again perhaps it's a matter of game-size but (damn it) I've just never experienced these problems.. haha

I feel counting Aggregate ranks for Steadfast would deal with pretty much all these issues. If not resolve them completely at least smoothing them out substantially - without (once more) putting a choke-hold on the entire game.

The Low King
10-10-2012, 12:51
What would unit caps actually achieve?

Low initiative/GW hordes would be almost useless.
Hordes in general would be pretty rubbish against any army with shooting.
Cheap units would lose their main attraction.
Deathstars would still be there.

I think that unit caps reduce variety and by that tactics.

DaemonReign
10-10-2012, 13:49
... and EPICness.. *lol*

Just thinking about it makes me a sad panda.

The Low King
10-10-2012, 14:35
... and EPICness.. *lol*

Just thinking about it makes me a sad panda.

Exactly. Warhammer is about big epic battles, not a few elves having a dance.

Dark Aly
10-10-2012, 17:26
Well in a standard 1500-3000 point game I think 4-6 combat ready units of around 20-30 troops makes a much more enjoyable spectacle with manouvering and reserves etc, than 3 massive hordes of 60-70 models slugging it out all day long. Obviously a different approach is required for larger games but warhammer has never scaled well anyway.

Urgat
10-10-2012, 17:32
That'd be a valid point... if I wasn't able to field a ton more stuff besides these three big units, especially at 3K points. Even with 3 hordes, I bet you I'd still have more units than many other players.

The Low King
10-10-2012, 22:53
Well in a standard 1500-3000 point game I think 4-6 combat ready units of around 20-30 troops makes a much more enjoyable spectacle with manouvering and reserves etc, than 3 massive hordes of 60-70 models slugging it out all day long. Obviously a different approach is required for larger games but warhammer has never scaled well anyway.

You have a strange meta if people take hordes of 60 models, thats one huge tactical liability right there.

HurrDurr
10-10-2012, 23:37
The thing I don't like about the horde rules (and by extension DaemonReign's suggestion) is why does having a bunch of guys out to the sides doing nothing cause your back ranks to perform better? Why should a unit of 30 models placed 10X3 vs a unit of 5 models get more attacks than that same unit deployed 7X4 (+2 in a 5th)? In the 3X10 there are a bunch of guys out to the side doing nothing, but in the 7X4 the 4th rank should logically be pushing up the 3rd rank closer to the enemy allowing them to fight. I think horde should require 1) wider frontage than your opponent and 2) having >3 full ranks. I think the combination of these 2 factors would better represent the swell of bodies pushing forward and add some interesting dynamics to battle strategies.
I admit the movement trays would be a concern, but adding a regiment base or two to adapt on the fly would be easy enough to do.

Don't forget it needs to be a functioning game first and a "what would happen if a horde of bloodletters attacked a block of dwarves in real life" simulator :D

To the op and demons suggestions, I wouldn't consider those final drafts but I really like the idea of dynamic scaling for as many things as possible. Some things scale some don't, table size generally scales with the points size of the game because its well understood why, yet GW thought 2d6 would be enough power dice for a 750 pnt game but also be enough for a 4000 pnt game (in its current form it probably is because the power of one spell can be so inflated and powerful they make it an all or nothing system)

DaemonReign
11-10-2012, 00:32
Obviously a different approach is required for larger games but warhammer has never scaled well anyway.

That's about as incorrect as it gets I'm afriad. Typically a prejudice held by folks who really have no experience in playing truly large battles (5-10k) on a regular basis.
It's just not true that it scales poorly, perhaps in the case of minimum-sized games but in all honesty "balance" just keeps increasing the further up the ladder of size you climb.
Playing normal sized games is endowed with other perks, the main one really being that you can finnish a game within a reasonable time-limit, but the idea that those games are better balanced is just wrong and anyone who's got actual experience with what I'm talking about will agree.
In fact, I'll assert that if Tournaments doubled or trebled the size of their games they could toss out every single bit of 'comp' ever invented and still be better off for it in terms of balance.

That said, I can understand if it's boring facing someone who repeatedly brings two or three mega-blob units to a 2,4k game.. But I can't imagine it's very 'good' so it seems like we're mostly talking about that theorethical person here, that few (if anyone) have ever really met but everyone brings up as a prime example of why the rules should be revamped.. because you can just imagine what he'd do if.. etcetera. :)

I mean: One trick ponies are just that - they'll work once and after that you better re-invent yourself.

Ratarsed
11-10-2012, 08:18
That said, I can understand if it's boring facing someone who repeatedly brings two or three mega-blob units to a 2,4k game.. But I can't imagine it's very 'good' so it seems like we're mostly talking about that theorethical person here, that few (if anyone) have ever really met but everyone brings up as a prime example of why the rules should be revamped.. because you can just imagine what he'd do if.. etcetera. :)

I mean: One trick ponies are just that - they'll work once and after that you better re-invent yourself.
It's certainly not a theoretical person. Many Empire, Skaven, Orc and goblin and Vampre count armies run multiple horde armies and the only reason the more elite armies such as Elves and Chaos don't is cost of units. Having said that Daemons regularly run two horde units in 2K and they cost 12 points each.
The reason they are seen regularly is because they work. They kill stuff and don't easily give up their VPs, although when they do and can be a game clincher.

As for rules being re-vamped, that's what happens every 4 years or so. I think the steadfast rule is in prime position for some tweeking. I currently feel it is too effective and takes away alot of the risk in the game without rewarding those who manage to out play their opponent.
For example you can get a flank or rear charge on a horde unit, win the combat handsomely but the horde just holds, reforms and butchers you next turn. Very frustrating for the player who managed to out manouvre his opponent to find it made little difference at all.

I feel disrupted units should not be steadfast, nor should units that fail fear tests against terror. Increase the chance of things going wrong, decrease the saftey and secureness people get with their hordes and it will be an improvement for the game IMO.

Urgat
11-10-2012, 08:22
That's about as incorrect as it gets I'm afriad. Typically a prejudice held by folks who really have no experience in playing truly large battles (5-10k) on a regular basis.

Well it did, but going back to percents mostly fixed that. I agree magic still doesn't scale well at all, it's clearly balanced for the 2.5k-3k points bracket.

Snake1311
11-10-2012, 10:05
What would unit caps actually achieve?

Low initiative/GW hordes would be almost useless.
Hordes in general would be pretty rubbish against any army with shooting.
Cheap units would lose their main attraction.
Deathstars would still be there.

I think that unit caps reduce variety and by that tactics.

Low initiative / GW hordes are far from useless - how low do you think the caps are? its usually 40 models / 450 pts, absolutely fine for hording anything thatd eserves to be horded.
Shooting is meant to weaken units, especially if focused. When someone pours 500 points of shooting over 2-3 rounds in a unit, its not meant to be as effective as it was at the start.
Cheap units don't lose anything, since they are still cheap, and elite models hit the model cap before the point cap anyway.
Deathstarts are there, but less offensive - smaller means you can deal with them, and they can't hide all their points in one unit - meaning that distracting the unit and collecting points elsewhere is viable. No unit caps means massive gutstar with characters and 2 sabretusks is one of the most awesome armies out there.

Snake1311
11-10-2012, 10:09
As for rules being re-vamped, that's what happens every 4 years or so. I think the steadfast rule is in prime position for some tweeking. I currently feel it is too effective and takes away alot of the risk in the game without rewarding those who manage to out play their opponent.
For example you can get a flank or rear charge on a horde unit, win the combat handsomely but the horde just holds, reforms and butchers you next turn. Very frustrating for the player who managed to out manouvre his opponent to find it made little difference at all.


If you flank or rear a horde unit, they won't have that many ranks, because they are in horde formation.
The days of 5 cav models wiping out entire armies were much worse than the current situation.
If you outmanouver your opponent with your actual combat units, you will probably break them. *

*10 cavalry models are a support unit.

Engineer
11-10-2012, 12:46
I think the problem boils down to the huge combat resolutions that are very common now. The break test system was designed for combats that are won by 3 or less. So I propose a simply addition to the stubborn rule. If the unit is to test on stubborn it subtracts 1 for each flank engaged in combat and 2 if the rear is engaged. So if a single unit crashes into the front nothing changes, but if you can get a support unit to a flank or the rear, and that support unit is still alive at the end of combat, then the losing stubborn unit will test at LD -1. This rewards coordinated attacks but does not lead to auto-break situations.

Ratarsed
11-10-2012, 13:02
If you flank or rear a horde unit, they won't have that many ranks, because they are in horde formation.
The days of 5 cav models wiping out entire armies were much worse than the current situation.
If you outmanouver your opponent with your actual combat units, you will probably break them. *

*10 cavalry models are a support unit.

From my experience Horde units still have 4-5 ranks as norm (50 models seems about normal for non-elite hordes) so you are looking at units of 25+ flanking or rear charging to rob them of steadfast. Sure it happens but not frequently enough IMO. I certainly would not reguard a unit of 10 cavalry as a mere support unit. Any unit that is 250+ points in cost should be reguarded as a main unit and it is symptomatic of the problem with steadfast that such units have been relegated to support. There are not enough threats to horde units that are not also horde units. I feel the game would benefit a great deal if there were more dangers to these massive points sinks. I'm not looking at going back to previous editions which had issues of their own. I feel 8th is possible the best edition of Warhammer I have played. But that is not to say it cannot be improved further by making a few rule changes.

DaemonReign
11-10-2012, 13:32
I feel disrupted units should not be steadfast, nor should units that fail fear tests against terror.

I sympathize with your concerns.. It's just, well, I feel one should be very carefull because (with 7th still in memory) it's just so damn easy to get more than one bargains for. Terror-causers 'breaking steadfast' could quickly become the malaise of auto-breaking from Fear that almost everyone got bored with last edition. Not saying it definately would, just saying it could - and that one should be, well, carefull.
Because I agree that 8th is the 'best so far', as flawed and riddled with contradiction as any human endeavor (absolutely!) but none-the-less the best core-system for this game I've ever had the pleasure of playing.

@ Urgat: 7th was (by comparison) static in many ways that 8th is not. I Think 7th amplified imbalances where 8th diminishes them (as you go up in game-size).
It's true that the Magic Phase doesn't scale. Your allowed number of duplicate rares and specials don't really scale properly either beyond 5k+. The 'sum', however, is rather satisfying.

The Low King
11-10-2012, 14:03
Low initiative / GW hordes are far from useless - how low do you think the caps are? its usually 40 models / 450 pts, absolutely fine for hording anything thatd eserves to be horded.
Shooting is meant to weaken units, especially if focused. When someone pours 500 points of shooting over 2-3 rounds in a unit, its not meant to be as effective as it was at the start.
Cheap units don't lose anything, since they are still cheap, and elite models hit the model cap before the point cap anyway.
Deathstarts are there, but less offensive - smaller means you can deal with them, and they can't hide all their points in one unit - meaning that distracting the unit and collecting points elsewhere is viable. No unit caps means massive gutstar with characters and 2 sabretusks is one of the most awesome armies out there.

The suggested cap on this thred would have limited My saurus, Temple guard and any dwarf units other than the core warriors to 30 model, wich is not enough to put them in horde formation.
I dont get your shooting point, my suggestion is that any horde of 30 (or even 40) is very easy to reduce enough that the player will remove them from horde formation. kill 5 of that unit of 30 and i would probably reform them into a smaller unit.
A unit of 40 goblins is pretty weak, it will hold up a horde for a turn or two before it falls (less for more killy units). a unit of 100 golbins can tarpit most things til the end of the game.


Any unit that is 250+ points in cost should be reguarded as a main unit and it is symptomatic of the problem with steadfast that such units have been relegated to support. There are not enough threats to horde units that are not also horde units. I feel the game would benefit a great deal if there were more dangers to these massive points .

In my armies up to 150 points tends to be a sacrificial unit. Up to about 300 points is a support unit.

Snake1311
11-10-2012, 14:26
The suggested cap on this thred would have limited My saurus, Temple guard and any dwarf units other than the core warriors to 30 model, wich is not enough to put them in horde formation.
I dont get your shooting point, my suggestion is that any horde of 30 (or even 40) is very easy to reduce enough that the player will remove them from horde formation. kill 5 of that unit of 30 and i would probably reform them into a smaller unit.
A unit of 40 goblins is pretty weak, it will hold up a horde for a turn or two before it falls (less for more killy units). a unit of 100 golbins can tarpit most things til the end of the game.

In my armies up to 150 points tends to be a sacrificial unit. Up to about 300 points is a support unit.

I haven't actually followed the thread closely - don't know what the suggested cap was. The one I was quoting is used as standard, and it allows 35 hammmerers or 40 dwarf warriors - both are sufficient numbers for hording, but your horde won't last through a few rounds of combat, which means you need to plan ahead when deciding on formation (thats a plus)

Removing horde capacity from units via shooting is a plus - that was the point I was making. If a unit was effectively horded at the start, you pour resources into hampering it, and it is still effectively horded when it reaches you, well, thats just very very bad game mechanics.

100 goblins tarpitting units for the whole game is also bad. You can achieve something similar with 2 or 3 units of 40, the difference being that as the units die, they give away points. Which is fair.

Ratarsed:

Horde units will have 40 models max (if you use caps) + some heroes - so lets say 5 ranks tops. When you get them in the flank, you will definitely reduce them to 4 ranks, maybe 3 if you smack them with something elite. That means just over 20 is fine for the purpose - and that is easy enough to do with infantry. Cavalry units around 250 points simply cannot break infantry on their own - I presonally regard this as an improvement.

In conclusion, unit caps are awesome and should have been in the game from the start (then they could have been done separately for each unit like in 40k). Since that was not done, gamers introduce their own blanket restrictions, which sometimes derp because units and armies are different; however still better than without them.

Warrior of Chaos
11-10-2012, 14:32
... Cavalry units around 250 points simply cannot break infantry on their own - I presonally regard this as an improvement.

I agree completely. It is interesting to read through these posts. Hordes are just not all that common where I game so I'm finding a bunch of this info you guys are discussing quite fascinating! Great discussion so far.

Dark Aly
11-10-2012, 15:19
That'd be a valid point... if I wasn't able to field a ton more stuff besides these three big units, especially at 3K points. Even with 3 hordes, I bet you I'd still have more units than many other players.
Thats true for goblins (I have a goblin army too) and it should be, but deamons, dwarves and warriors armies only seem to have 3 units every time I've come against them and many empire generals do this too. It doesn't make for very exciting or epic games IMHO.


You have a strange meta if people take hordes of 60 models, thats one huge tactical liability right there.

I don't see why. 60 halberdiers is quite common as is 60 goblins, when they get to <15 you try and hide them


That's about as incorrect as it gets I'm afriad. Typically a prejudice held by folks who really have no experience in playing truly large battles (5-10k) on a regular basis.
It's just not true that it scales poorly, perhaps in the case of minimum-sized games but in all honesty "balance" just keeps increasing the further up the ladder of size you climb.
Playing normal sized games is endowed with other perks, the main one really being that you can finnish a game within a reasonable time-limit, but the idea that those games are better balanced is just wrong and anyone who's got actual experience with what I'm talking about will agree.
In fact, I'll assert that if Tournaments doubled or trebled the size of their games they could toss out every single bit of 'comp' ever invented and still be better off for it in terms of balance.

That said, I can understand if it's boring facing someone who repeatedly brings two or three mega-blob units to a 2,4k game.. But I can't imagine it's very 'good' so it seems like we're mostly talking about that theorethical person here, that few (if anyone) have ever really met but everyone brings up as a prime example of why the rules should be revamped.. because you can just imagine what he'd do if.. etcetera. :)

I mean: One trick ponies are just that - they'll work once and after that you better re-invent yourself.

Any larger than 4000points and the game takes too long for the rules to be considered scaleable IMO. Sure these weekender/multiplayer events can be good but they don't scale and balance is irrelevent when somthing special like these battles is going on. You are right though- I don't get to play these big games often, I have only had 2 5k games in 8th so far and steadfast was less of an issue but thats because 12" inspiring presence dosn't cover many units. The point being that there are more units at this size rather than just making existing ones bigger- usually due to peoples model collection rather than people taking advantage of the rules and I'd like to face armies with more units (rather than just bigger ones) at 1500-3000 points too.

TBH unit size caps would probably not work as people would only take the max size and so armies would look the same and then I'd be wanting some people to field massive units again. I just like variety in peoples armies and I don't like it when a certain 'build' or style of army is all that appears. For example- since the start of 8th most people don't take cavalry as they apparently suck now. Therefore I started an all cavalry empire army recently just so my opponents have to face something other than horded of halberiers and steadfast spearmen backed up by cannons. It's going well but only, I suspect, because people have not been prepared for it. Sure it is a one trick pony army :) but it helps diversify the game.

Snake1311
11-10-2012, 15:36
TBH unit size caps would probably not work as people would only take the max size and so armies would look the same and then I'd be wanting some people to field massive units again. I just like variety in peoples armies and I don't like it when a certain 'build' or style of army is all that appears. For example- since the start of 8th most people don't take cavalry as they apparently suck now. Therefore I started an all cavalry empire army recently just so my opponents have to face something other than horded of halberiers and steadfast spearmen backed up by cannons. It's going well but only, I suspect, because people have not been prepared for it. Sure it is a one trick pony army :) but it helps diversify the game.

Yeah, not quite. The people who would only ever take the max size are the ones who would be triggering an arms race in unit size normally. Plus if your unit size is capped, you take more units, and being foced to take more units brings more variety by itself. Not to mention that when you have a unit point size, you have to make decisions on whether you want to put that magic banner on there, or whether u want to squeeze a few more models in.

Cavalry empire is one the strongest builds at the moment, although naturally including cannons makes it better.

The Low King
11-10-2012, 15:37
I don't see why. 60 halberdiers is quite common as is 60 goblins, when they get to <15 you try and hide them


How much terrain do you play with?

Ive never seen a horde of golbins, unless its a purely goblin army, they are always in deep formation for steadfast.
Halberdiers though, usually with a warrior priest in the unit and a wizard-chariot nearby, thats a killy one. But it makes one massive easy target, it will not reach combat.

DaemonReign
11-10-2012, 16:38
Any larger than 4000points and the game takes too long for the rules to be considered scaleable IMO. Sure these weekender/multiplayer events can be good but they don't scale and balance is irrelevent when somthing special like these battles is going on.

It's the way we play locally. 4k is the lower end of the spectrum too.
You're saying the rules don't scale because bigger games require more time? :confused:
In that case we've been attaching different ideas to the term I'm afriad. :p
I understand if you Think balance is irrelevant in a game that feels like a once in a Life-time thing, in order to understand where I'm coming from though you need to imagine what your mindset would be like if playing such games was the norm.
I Think balance is Paramount. Which is one of many reasons for bigger-than-standard game-sizes afaic. This is compounded by my dislike for early game-over moments, as well as the inevitable arbitrariness of comp.
On the flip-side my experience of how 8th works for the 'intended' spectrum of game-sizes (2k-3k) is very limited. Well.. Since everybody on the net talks about the game with these 'sizes' as basis I guess I've picked up one or two wisdoms - but in terms of experience I'm just as much a sucker as you are when it comes to these 'week-enders'.
So perhaps try some houserules to split those lists up into something more similar to msu-style builds, I don't know.. How about fraternal agreements, in all simplicity? All I'm saying is such strict restrictions imposed in the core mechanics would really ruin things a lot for me.

theunwantedbeing
11-10-2012, 17:04
Thats true for goblins (I have a goblin army too) and it should be, but deamons, dwarves and warriors armies only seem to have 3 units every time I've come against them and many empire generals do this too. It doesn't make for very exciting or epic games IMHO.
Agreed, 3 big units on either side running into each other is really very boring.


TBH unit size caps would probably not work as people would only take the max size and so armies would look the same and then I'd be wanting some people to field massive units again.
So long as there is some advantage to large units, people will take them.
In 7th they didn't really exist as the units that could abuse being a huge unit (through stubborn or unbreakable) were generally capped in size.


I just like variety in peoples armies and I don't like it when a certain 'build' or style of army is all that appears. For example- since the start of 8th most people don't take cavalry as they apparently suck now. Therefore I started an all cavalry empire army recently just so my opponents have to face something other than horded of halberiers and steadfast spearmen backed up by cannons. It's going well but only, I suspect, because people have not been prepared for it. Sure it is a one trick pony army :) but it helps diversify the game.
The main reason you only see large blocks of troops is because that is what is the most effective by a very long way.
Drop 500pts into a huge 60+ man unit and the enemy will have a helluva job getting any of those points by the end of the game
Drop 500pts into a monster and it's relatively easily killed, even if the enemy doesn't have multiple cannons or anything that could remove it in a single hit it's still highly unlikely to survive untill the end of the game.

Same reason we see mage lords, not fighter lords for the most part.
A mage lord is just plain better, more expensive yes...but a damn sight better.

In much bigger games mages take a back seat, fighters appear en masse and hordes of fodder turn into hordes of elites.
The giant steadfast deathstar doesn't go away and variety doesn't appear at any points value untill the game is too small for them (under 1k where even lord mages aren't usable).

Urgat
11-10-2012, 17:20
So long as there is some advantage to large units, people will take them.
[...]
The main reason you only see large blocks of troops is because that is what is the most effective by a very long way.

You could give certain advantages or disavantages on small/big units w/o capping them though. Past a certain size (like minimum x2), the unit can't make swift reforms, can't back or sidewalk, stuff like that. I'd make the big units cumbersome, because, well, they should be cumbersome.
Oh and of course every unit should give up VP for every 25% of it destroyed.

Phazael
11-10-2012, 17:26
This thread makes me smile a bit, because I have yet to field a horde unit since 8th came out and I win far more games than I lose. Further, when you horde up and have a limited number of unts, you are basically bending over to take it from chaffe and magic debuff/kill spells. I have done MMU and its served me very well, mostly because my entire game plan does not collapse when one unit gets crippled by a lucky spell. The only real concern I have is that those 80 man slave units (and I have seen them) do not cough up points until the last man is dead, but I have since learned to adjust my approach to dealing with those units, mostly through isolation in the movement phase. Most of the concerns people have with steadfast and/or hordes can be dealth with through a combination of magic and movement.

Snake1311
11-10-2012, 17:30
Most of the concerns people have with steadfast and/or hordes can be dealth with through a combination of magic and movement.

And dwarfs can suck it ;) subpar faction for 8th, I called it over a year ago!

The Low King
11-10-2012, 17:31
The main reason you only see large blocks of troops is because that is what is the most effective by a very long way.


I disagree, i drifted towards hordes when 8th started, eventually arriving at the dwarf internet list. But then i started drifting away from massive units again and now no longer take any hordes in my games, i find having more units is more effective.

Urgat
11-10-2012, 17:33
And dwarfs can suck it ;) subpar faction for 8th, I called it over a year ago!

Dwarfs are likely to become quite different, from the sound of the rumors. And then no doubt people will complain that they prefered them as they were >.>

The Low King
11-10-2012, 17:36
And dwarfs can suck it ;) subpar faction for 8th, I called it over a year ago!

Lol, did you just call 'FIRST!!!'?

Ratarsed
11-10-2012, 17:47
I sympathize with your concerns.. It's just, well, I feel one should be very carefull because (with 7th still in memory) it's just so damn easy to get more than one bargains for. Terror-causers 'breaking steadfast' could quickly become the malaise of auto-breaking from Fear that almost everyone got bored with last edition. Not saying it definately would, just saying it could - and that one should be, well, carefull.
Absolutely. I would not advocate making any changes without first play-testing them. The no steadfast if distrupted suggestion has been doing the rounds since the early days of 8th edition and I am confident would prove to be a marked improvement. The terror suggestion I'm not so sure about, but my theory-hammer mind is thinking it should not be game breaking.

As for unit caps I'm dead set against them. 8th did away with all the restrictions on choice and for the better. If players want to take huge units then they should be allowed to.

theunwantedbeing
11-10-2012, 17:54
You could give certain advantages or disavantages on small/big units w/o capping them though. Past a certain size (like minimum x2), the unit can't make swift reforms, can't back or sidewalk, stuff like that. I'd make the big units cumbersome, because, well, they should be cumbersome.
I don't see this being any real hindrance to a horde.
Stopping them marching or pursuing though.


Oh and of course every unit should give up VP for every 25% of it destroyed.
This is a much better solution, single models won't give up anything unless dead while hordes and the like will bleed points as they get steadily chipped away, plus it makes the uber spells do the supposed "horde balancing" thing they are often claimed to do.

Urgat
11-10-2012, 18:13
I don't see this being any real hindrance to a horde.
Stopping them marching or pursuing though.
Just examples off the hat (that being said, being able to walk sideways is a real boon for my horde, it is very cumbersome to manoeuvre otherwise). I'll agree they could also be prevented from pursuing; outward forbidden from marching, though, nah, that's too harsh. Ld test with musician like for swift reforms in order to march?


This is a much better solution, single models won't give up anything unless dead while hordes and the like will bleed points as they get steadily chipped away, plus it makes the uber spells do the supposed "horde balancing" thing they are often claimed to do.
Well, to be honest, we already do it in my playing group anyway, well, somewhat, we just count models at the end of the battle (if you've killed 72 goblins out of my horde, you get the points of 72 goblins, we don't use the BRB VP system).

Phazael
11-10-2012, 21:07
And dwarfs can suck it ;) subpar faction for 8th, I called it over a year ago!

Dwarves have fundemental issues not easily solved. But as Urgat said, even if they are reworked into something less tedious, dwarven players are just as likely to complain about the changes. As it stands now, basic warriors can make really big hard to break steadfast chain units at a descent price and they SHOULD win the rank battle by softening things up with some ranged attacks. Their only means of using manuevering to their advantage is to anvil charge, which is a sad state of affairs. The trap a lot of dwarven players seem to fall into is overspending on the toys. I think (from playing around with the army) that tons of warriors backed by limited shooting and an anvil works pretty well against the current power level, but the older books built around T4 infantry (notably Chaos and Lizardmen) pose some serious problems.

Fundementally, Dwarves are boring and I do not think its worth breaking the entire game to try and make their current design work (and I feel the same about Wood Elves).

Urgat
11-10-2012, 21:30
The trap a lot of dwarven players seem to fall into is overspending on the toys.

Well I would be playing dwarves, I think I'd have a hard time not overspending on the toys too :p

The Low King
12-10-2012, 01:14
Fundementally, Dwarves are boring and I do not think its worth breaking the entire game to try and make their current design work (and I feel the same about Wood Elves).

I dont think they are boring to play, they just lack variety (with the exception of a few very extream lists)

Snake1311
12-10-2012, 09:51
I disagree, i drifted towards hordes when 8th started, eventually arriving at the dwarf internet list. But then i started drifting away from massive units again and now no longer take any hordes in my games, i find having more units is more effective.

Location: London/Bath.

Could you let me know which tournament you have managed to do well in with multiple units under 400 pts? :D I'm genuinely curious, if someone managed to change the current dwarf paradigm effectively they should get some recognition.

The UK scene is almost universally comped too, so I'm not sure what you are calling 'the net list', the '3 hordes build' goes over the unit point caps.

For the record, I don't use horde formation either, but I can't think of many examples of people not taking a 400-450pt unit of hammerers.

You don't have to take MANY big units in 8th, but you will generally have at least one heavy hitter.

I didn't mean to derail this on dwarfs, was just making a jokey observation regarding their suckyness ;) it just annoys me when people see them as a power army, when all results show otherwise.

The Low King
12-10-2012, 10:50
Could you let me know which tournament you have managed to do well in with multiple units under 400 pts? :D I'm genuinely curious, if someone managed to change the current dwarf paradigm effectively they should get some recognition.

The UK scene is almost universally comped too, so I'm not sure what you are calling 'the net list', the '3 hordes build' goes over the unit point caps.


I wouldnt say im changing the dwarf 'paradigm' lol, that would be a bit too far, i have just personally found that smaller units is better. That may be a result of my local Meta (in more than one place though).

I dont really go to tournaments unless they are local ones. We never play with comp, bar the occasional 'no SCs' blanket rule, certainly not the ETC comp. Netlist i mean the 3 horde, 5 warmachine list.

I do play a lot of online battles now (yeah) and that gives me a broader level of experience.

I dont go to tournaments beyond ones with my local club

Snake1311
12-10-2012, 11:59
Thats fair enough! Unfortunately not much of an indicator though - I have no idea what level of competition your clubmates provide, clubs vary quite a lot - some of the London ones have tournament players are regular attendees, but for example the one in central Birmingham (where I went to uni) only had new players and fluff gamers at the time - so if you took a properly optimized list you'd cause absolute carnage. You may find (quite likely IMO) that a MSU/MMU dwarf list has a lot of weak points, which more experienced and better prepared players can exploit. Or maybe not - maybe you are a much better dwarf player than the ones currently on the scene and can make more challenging things work - but we won't know until you come out of your bubble ;)

Weird to meet an active UK WH player who doesn't get invovled in independent tournaments though - we have probably one of the best scenes in the world, there are 1-2 100ish player events every month. You should give it a try, its good fun! :)