Ideas about steadfast?

[Razaan]

I don't think so. Bretonnian units usually don't have more than 4 ranks. A slave or Night goblin horde is able to deploy in 5, 6 and even more ranks deep. And we better don't start talking about skaven chances, because Skaven are the most OP army at this moment. A small nerf wouldn't do bad to them.

My comment was in reference to someone suggesting that all cavalry charges break steadfast.

I run a fully mounted Bretonnian army. My only challenge is breaking steadfast units. If my knights broke steadfast on every charge, I'd never lose.

[Lorcryst]

Some interesting ideas in this thread, I'll concede that, but not a single one that looks better to me than the mechanisms of Steadfast as they are now.

I still cannot see what the problem is, you use Steadfast when you loose a combat, and you still have a chance of running for it if you fail your breaktest (even with those legendary Ld 10 re-rollable stats ... in my experience, it's more Ld7 just outside the range of the BSB).

Like they say in the army : "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[IcedCrow]

It by itself is not broken.

The giant units which are now common and the downplaying of needing to protect your flank are the perceived problem by some of us.

[Lorcryst]

It by itself is not broken.

The giant units which are now common and the downplaying of needing to protect your flank are the perceived problem by some of us.

That I could see, kinda-sorta ...

I admit to having a few huge blocks myself (100 NGs horde with loads of Characters, 50 NGs with shortbows to act as a bunker for my Shamans, 30+20 Squig Herd to act as my killy unit, etc), but I still have to protect my flanks, as most of my army doesn't have a save, flank/rear charges will kill a whole bunch of my gobboes with only a few WS2 return attacks ...

I can reliably tarpit something hitting the front of my blocks for several turns, but then *I* need to make flank charges to hope to win a fight ...

[IcedCrow]

I can see that as well which is cool.

I've just seen so many people at the shop just push forward and ignore things coming in from the side because they know that they have an 83.7% chance of staying even if they lose, and that kind of turns me off (difference in playstyle / what i want out of the game).

I admit everything I have a problem wtih concerning this rule is just a violation of my own personal taste.

MSU also violated my personal taste, as did all-cavalry armies. Those were reasons I quit the game to begin with.

"Armies" that consist of three or four mega units also turn me off unfortunately. The group I'm wtih now does not run uber units. The skaven guys run blocks of 40-50 but that's reasonable. There are no units of 100. There are no chosen units of 50. So there is a good number of units mixed with good amounts of models, which is a good balance.

Players tend to be an unbalanced bunch (going from one extreme to the other).

[Souppilgrim]

Steadfast should be lost if the unit is disrupted. It's simple, it works with the existing rules, it makes logical sense, and it emphasizes flank and rear charges while still making steadfast worthwhile. It should have always been like this.

I used to think that as well. After more games I've changed my mind. MSU would just rule the day again. I'm in favor of a lighter penalty. No inspiring presence or something.

[Razaan]

I used to think that as well. After more games I've changed my mind. MSU would just rule the day again. I'm in favor of a lighter penalty. No inspiring presence or something.

Again, the proposed suggestion here puts most horde armies at a severe disadvantage.

Hit a unit of marauders in the side and get rid of Inspiring Presence and they are still testing on an 8. Hit Skavenslaves in the side and they are testing on 2.

The penalty is hardly fair when considering how it would affect ALL armies, and for some, it's hardly a "lighter penalty".

[russellmoo]

Here is another simple idea-

What if steadfast had restrictions-

So when you are flanked the highest your steadfast ld check can be is an 8

And if hit in the rear- you could only be- at best ld 7-

Would something like this work?

From my perspective- huge units now become somewhat of a liability if they get flanked, etc. but not enough to completely discourage their use- this also makes flanking and rear charges much more valuable- the other "bonus" is it is a relatively simple, short rule to implement and learn-

While other units remain about the same- (Skaven tend to get reduced down to steadfast 7 anyway when a unit with 2 or more ranks flanks them)

[T10]

How about this?

1. Bring a bigger unit.
2. Turn the big enemy unit into a small enemy unit.

[Makrar]

How about counting any rank past 6 as 6. Im all for steadfast but the excessive size units could do with a little adjustment.

That or the leadership modifier idea. that i like.

[theunwantedbeing]

Again another suggestion without any regards to the consequences that it brings on other armies.

True, I gave it almost zero thought.

Skavenslaves are leadership 2. Clanrats are 5. You make steadfast test on that leadership, you've broken the skaven army completely. They don't WIN combat. That's not how that army plays.

Leadership 5 and 8 respectively with strength in numbers applied.
It would be fine, skaven won't be broken at all.

Plus if they do break, due to the large size they are much less likely to be totally destroyed.

[The bearded one]

Leadership 5 and 8 respectively with strength in numbers applied.
It would be fine, skaven won't be broken at all.

That's what I thought at first glance too, but then I remembered that strenght in numbers counts the rank bonus of the unit, and if flanked there is no rank bonus. Therefor a flanked unit of slaves has ld 2. IIRC this is also mentioned in the description of the rule. If, for example, you'd throw a unit of 12 or 13 models (not 10, but a little more for the possibility of taking casualties in the combat) into a flank of a skaven unit, the chance of breaking is excessively high, though it can be compensated by the insipring presence of a general, but still pretty low.

Plus if they do break, due to the large size they are much less likely to be totally destroyed.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? A unit of 100 has as much chance of being run down as a unit of 10 (disregarding 'swiftstride' and 'scurry away' of course). Or do you mean that if a unit breaks but escapes it will have more models left after the combat if it's big, than it would when it was small.





By the way, I'd like inspiring presence to be able to be used regardless of wether steadfast or not. This puts all armies on even ground and does not heavily penalise troops with naturally ruddy leadership such as skaven & goblins and giving an unfair advantage to the naturally brave (dwarfs, obviously).

There were a couple of ideas I once played around with.. I doubt they're even close to balance but might be worth considering. Remember, these are 3 different idea's.

- if a unit is steadfast, it takes the breaktest as usual, but if it passes it counts as having the 'unstable' rule (though maybe implement a maximum number of casualties that can be suffered from the instability), in a similar way to how fearless units in 40K suffer wounds if they lose. This represents soldiers being trampled underfoot in the destabilisation of the formation. It's probably far from balanced though as it could mean a ridiculous number of casualties, and/or turns losing into a no-win scenario either way because you either break or lose models. Perhaps "Suffers D6 wounds, distributed as shooting, to represent soldiers being trampled in the pressure of the tightly pressed formation" or whatever. I guess this is just a 'funny thought', but not really ironed out well.

- Flank- and rearcharging units gain +1 and +2 ranks respectively to determine who has the most ranks for the purpose of steadfast

- Flank- and rearcharging units disrupt an enemy if they have 2 ranks (as usual), in addition they cancel steadfast if they have 3 ranks. --> This means you'll be needing at least 15 models (or 9 monstrous ones) to cancel steadfast. 15 marauder horseman as quite an investment (plus some extra ones to replenish casualties, that can easily lead to 20) and while it still discourages MSU units (15-20 sized units aren't really that small anymore), it rewards the use of more a couple smaller units of around 20 as opposed to 3-4 blocks of 50+ , granting some more tactical options. It's still a pretty heavy penalty for a unit of a 100 or so models to lose steadfast to 20 enemies, but on the other hand, it discourages the use of such ultra-mega units (or encourages the protection of the flanks of such units, because it's so important)

[theunwantedbeing]

That's what I thought at first glance too, but then I remembered that strenght in numbers counts the rank bonus of the unit

Skaven need to be more careful about getting flanked then.
Simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? A unit of 100 has as much chance of being run down as a unit of 10 (disregarding 'swiftstride' and 'scurry away' of course). Or do you mean that if a unit breaks but escapes it will have more models left after the combat if it's big, than it would when it was small.

In my original post I detailed the reasoning behind this as I sugguested an alternate mechanic to catch and kill enemies.
So a unit of 100 men would be far less likely to be utterly destroyed when caught than a 10 man unit. (provided the persuer wasn't huge themselves)

[scruffyryan]

It's still important, but not that important.

With combat reform combined with steadfast you just hold, reform, crush, and reform back. The smaller unit in your flank only got a free round of hits before it was crushed.
.

Unless you engage them in the front and flank in which case they may not make a combat reform.

[Aaron Chapman]

The authors of 8th edition specifically made Steadfast to prevent Disrupted units from beign easy points. As much as generals of Elite armies (that used heavy cavalry and MSU to combine-charge and break enemies on the 1st turn of combat) hate not being able to break Steadfast units easily; I garuntee those generals who have loads of crappy infantry as their primary fighting force woudl hate the game even more if they could be butchered by elites and then break without a fighting chance.

As stated earlier Steadfast refers to a unit realizing that even though they are being butchered, there are so many men in their formation that there is still hope of a counter-charge or a reform for victory.

The rules as they are happen to be perfect. the problem is that players refuse to adopt 8th edition rules and the playstyle that is required! So if you want to break the enemy you can't just expect an deasy win just by killing 20 out of a unit of 100! you have to kill a decent amout and outnumber them too! Pretty much every army has dirt cheap units mixed in with their super-elite units (DE, WoC, Emp, LM, BM, Bret, Sk, O&G, CD, VC, TK) and there are plenty of armies that have tough , but cost effective units that cost a bit more than th echeap ones, but can still be deployed in big units at a reasonable price (Dwarf, DoC, Ogres, HE). If you want to negate steadfast take a combined arms approach and have a fast elite unit flank to cause kills while a cheap numerous unit frontal charges and voila you've broken Steadfast rather easily.

So take a fast flankign force to round out your large cheap units lets say 20 Knights and 2 units of 50 infantry deployed in 5x10 formation and then rush the Knights to the flank of the enemy while the infantry pin them to th efront and watch of you roll their line quickly.

If you want to play 7th edition, then play it, but 8th edition is way better and Steadfast is the single most important reason why it's better.

[Jind_Singh]

Agreed!

Steadfast is a good mechanic and it's a great game because of it - however I feel even a small tweak on steadfast if a unit is flanked/reared is called for - even a simple:

If the unit is flanked (one or two sides)or rear charged by an enemy then -1 to it's leadership test

If it's flanked (1 or 2 sides) AND reared then a -2 to it's leadership test

This won't be as harsh as my earlier maximum -4 post I made, this way it's a maximum -2 - which is still fine as even a leadership 9 general means the unit is still steadfast on a 7+, but it represents the additional confusion thrown on a unit when engaged to the flanks/rear.

It also makes flanking more meaningful as right now it's not that epic, as stated by other posters you can shrug off the attacks and keep a unit locked until such a time you can send a unit to relieve it.

A small tweak but one that could have subtle influnces on deployment and unit movement.

[RichBlake]

EDIT* Regarding fluff reasons I would almost argue that the larger the unit the easier it is to make it rout - Situation;
Private Joe Blogs was standing in the middle of his regiment of halberdiers waiting to get pushed up to join the fray, when he suddenly heard sounds of screaming and steel clashing against steel behind him. Confusion spread like a whirlwind through the ranks as no one around him knew what this threat was. Terrifyed he started to feel the push around him as... etc.
We have an overhead view - They don't

Apart from in a 100 man regiment in the field of war you want have anywhere to run to. You ever been standing in a huge crowd of people looking at something and tried to get out the opposite way? Think how difficult that is and then imagine if those people aren't occasionally moving aside to let you out.

It's still important, but not that important.

With combat reform combined with steadfast you just hold, reform, crush, and reform back. The smaller unit in your flank only got a free round of hits before it was crushed.

Apart from Steadfast doesn't effect your reform. So if you lose combat by 6 and you're steadfast with leadership 9 you are on a Break Test of Ld 9 and a Reform test at Ld 3. As someone who makes great use of Steadfast with my Empire army trust me, reforming isn't easy, it's just holding.

I do not like how it makes people decide to field all of their units in giant super units so that they can benefit from the rule.

Then you watch as someone casts a spell like Dwellers Below on the unit and annihilates half of it with one spell. There is a down side to super units and that's the new magic spells. Plus with template weapons being more effective anything that shoots even a small blast template (never mind the large one) loves massive units.

But I also don't like how it cheapens the flanks. I've seen people just toss units forward with no regard because they are huge and they will bascially be stubborn on a 9 or 10 or whatever even if they get hit in the flank.

That to me removes some of the tactical decision-making out of the game, because it is not AS IMPORTANT (note I am not saying not important at all) to protect your flanks.

No offence it sounds like you've watched idiots play. Let's look at the disadvantages to being charged in the flank:

1) Your enemy gets +1 combat res
2) You can't fight in more then one rank
3) If your unit is long (i.e more ranks) rather than wide your enemy can go wide and get more attacks in.
4) You can't parry
5) Steadfast doesn't protect your reform test from negative modifiers, meaning you need to actually not lose combat by a lot to turn and face them
6) If your opponent has at least 2 ranks you lose up to 3 CR

Now, call me old fashioned but there seems to be a LOT of negatives for fighting an enemy at the side. Does that mean it cant be done? No, I've even knowingly taken a charge in the rear from some witch elves (hur hur). Why? Because the unit was just trying to hold them up while I re positioned myself, also my wizard was at the front and he didnt feel like fighting.

The days of 5-10 man flanking units are gone. My flanking unit is 21 Greatswords. 21! Back in 7th that would be a massive unit. They hit you in the flank though and they add:

1) +1 for charging
2) +1 for Flank Charge
3) +1 for standard (if there isnt one already)
4) - 1/2/3 from your ranks
5) + Casualties

Ignoring the casualties as they are random they can actually swing CR by 6 points! That's probably enough to win, if you combine that with a many ranked unit of your own to break their steadfast they go. Will they break a steadfast unit on their own in one turn? No, that's why you need to combine it, but it can be done.

I think steadfast should be broken by flanking, but i also like the idea of -1 to Ld if flanked by ememy which distrupts ranks, -2 if caught in the rear. Phrase it so that it isnt ignored by generals Ld etc. This could be instead of the +1, +2 combat res. That would be a nice compromise. would have the same effect if you win the combat anyway, but also affects steadfast, at the cost of making it slightly harder to win combat in the first place.

If steadfast was broken by flanking or disruption we'd be back to the days of 15 man units of Free Company breaking 150 rat strong Skaven units. Frankly I'm glad we're past that.

EDIT; found the quote i was after.


What is a strong tactic if outmanouvering and concentration of forces isnt one?

1) Composing a force based upon combined arms tactics
2) Managing and positioning those units so they can assist each other
3) Designating which enemy units are the highest threat and how many of your resources to allocate to attacking them
4) Positioning on the board to take use of any special terrain features (buildings, magic things etc)
5) Identifying and eliminating characters or units essential to your opponents battle plan (usually wizards)

Need I go on?

I've just seen so many people at the shop just push forward and ignore things coming in from the side because they know that they have an 83.7% chance of staying even if they lose, and that kind of turns me off (difference in playstyle / what i want out of the game).

Again, I wish I played against people who played like that. Victories would be so much easier.

"Armies" that consist of three or four mega units also turn me off unfortunately. The group I'm wtih now does not run uber units. The skaven guys run blocks of 40-50 but that's reasonable. There are no units of 100. There are no chosen units of 50. So there is a good number of units mixed with good amounts of models, which is a good balance.

I tend to find armies these days consist of the following:

1) A Level 4 Wizard
2) A suitable General
3) A BSB
4) 3 Block units of inftantry
5) A hard hitting unit/monster

That usually takes up 1000-1500 points of an army, the variation comes on which block units they pick, which hard hitting unit they take, what general they take and how they spend their remaining 500 points.

This does make things a bit samey, but armies generally are.

Personally the only thing I would suggest is the following:

Either:

A unit with more ranks then it's opponent it Steadfast.
Steadfast units ignore negative modifiers for break tests.
A unit charged in the flank cannot use the Inspiring Presence special rule
A unit charged in the read cannot use the Inspiring Presence or Hold Your Ground special rule

OR


A unit with more ranks then it's opponent it Steadfast.
Steadfast units ignore negative modifiers for break tests.
Cavalry count their ranks as double for the purposes of Steadfast.

Since most cavalry models cost at least double the model on foot I think it makes sense.

[sulla]

How about this?

1. Bring a bigger unit.
2. Turn the big enemy unit into a small enemy unit.

Problem with )1 is that we don't really want to get into a game of just bringing 2-3 huge units...

Similarly, with no units caps in the game, it is almost impossible for armies to reduce the size of those huge units we see now without going magic heavy. Again, this leads to a sameness of armies, with a few 30+ blocks and a lvl4 in a bunker. The logical progression is 2 units of 5 skirmishers or some other small utility bunker and one superunit filled with magic resistance, general etc to grind/bore the enemy to submission.

I think unit size caps would go a long way to preventing the excesses we see now. If units could only be taken max 40 strong, or say, 400pts, it makes them small enough that you can reduce their ranks if you want to, or make them lose steadfast if you hit them in the flank.

One final note to all; I don't think there's much value bringing skaven slaves or khorne marauders into the discussion. We know they are broken. They shouldn't be included in the equations because 95% or units in the game are not able to do what they do. Making rules to penalise those units will have far greater effects on all the other units out there which are not as good or cheap and whose only defence is numbers.

[Sexiest_hero]

These units are what Purple sun are for. Then people complain about that. Magic killed my uber units, uber units killed my flanking units. I want to go back to 7th, were Vamps, Daemons, and DE ruled with their broken magic, and wizards were just scroll caddies.

I learned a new skill I call the check mate. I flank with Blood knights and threated with a unit of wraiths. A reform will tie up heros with magic weapons and get ethereals in their new flank.

A reform in battle, puts their flank facing your front and rear facing your side. Thinking 2 or so turns ahead or planning your assault with two units in tandem is a skill well learned. But skills were in 7th when my bloodknights killed 5 guys and the other 95 stood there gaping like fools....

[Urgat]

How about this?

1. Bring a bigger unit.
2. Turn the big enemy unit into a small enemy unit.

Or bring a hitty unit. Last time my mega unit of night goblins crossed (the path of) chaos knights, it didn't go so well for them, steadfast or not. And I had taken the big bus especially to see if they could stop them... Well they can... for a very little while >>