steadfast

[Maglok]

Alright my friends here are playing and asked me to post this:

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

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

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

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

[theunwantedbeing]

Yes it does if it is 5+ models (3+ for MI and MC)

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

[Maglok]

We tried to find the defitinion of ranks but we cant seem to find it.

[theunwantedbeing]

Rank bonus is a bonus for each rank after the first.
So you need 2 ranks to get a rank bonus of 1.

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

[Maglok]

That is rank bonus, the steadfast rules say 'More ranks than its enemy'. Page 54 core rules.

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

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

[jindianajonz]

The rules seem pretty clear to me, page 54 states:

"A unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. The last rank doesn't have to be complete, but must have at least five models."

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

[The Low King]

Steadfast rules, page 54, second paragrah.

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

[Artinam]

A discussion point is whether the first rank counts as being a rank for steadfast purposes. Technically it does but many I play disagree with that logic (including some tournaments).

[The Low King]

A discussion point is whether the first rank counts as being a rank for steadfast purposes. Technically it does but many I play disagree with that logic (including some tournaments).

Why? whats the argument agaisnt it counting?

[Mr_Rose]

Why? whats the argument agaisnt it counting?

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

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

[DaemonReign]

Why? whats the argument agaisnt it counting?

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

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

[MLP]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Low King]

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

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

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

[Gary wyper]

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

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

[theunwantedbeing]

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

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

That isn't quite what it means.

Sent from my keyboard X5bajillion using fingers and hands

[The Low King]

Nor is it what it actually says, he has changed the structure of the sentence and cut off important sections that would contradict what he says.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Kalandros]

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

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

You should at least quote the rules properly.

[Lord Inquisitor]

They really should have released a FAQ on this because it's been a frequently asked question since the beginning of 8th.

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

[Lord Dan]

Rank bonus is a bonus for each rank after the first.

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

[Jezbot]

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

Sent from my GT-S5830 using Tapatalk 2

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