PDA

View Full Version : Steadfast in 40k?



Malorian
29-12-2010, 22:05
I was thinking about some of the new rules in 8th for fantasy and was wondering if actually one of them would make a lot of sense in 40k.

You see in fantasy there is a new rule called steadfast. If the losing side in a combat has more ranks than the winning side then the losing side tests on their base leadership.


Now there are no ranks in 40k but the same rule could be applied to models. It could go something like this:

"Any unit that loses combat, and has more models than the largest enemy unit in the same combat, makes their leadership test on their unmodified leadership."


So now when a deamon prince runs in and kill 4 of 20 necrons warriors at least the necrons will hold for a while.

Sure there could be odd times like 5 terminators killing all but 6 grots and them holding, but it's not like their leadership is that high, plus they will be toast in the next round of combat anyway.


So what thinks the 40k side of Warseer? Would this rule be well suited to 40k, or is it best left with fantasy?

zantis
29-12-2010, 22:24
it should be left to fantasy. in the situation with the demon prince and the necrons it would make sense for the necrons to not get run down. but IMO necrons should be fearless anyway. Theres also a big difference between models in 40k and ranks in fantasy. If GW ever decided to put steadfast into 40k it would be something like +1 to the Ld check for every 5 models more than the largest enemy unit in the combat (with negative modifiers from losing the combat by whatever number of wounds of course) up to a maximum of their normal Ld.

ColShaw
29-12-2010, 22:24
It doesn't make as much sense in 40K, since the whole point of fighting in close formation is for mutual support in melee. Troops who fight in loose skirmish order don't benefit from that in WFB, nor should they in 40K.

I don't see it as a serious balance issue anyway. The only really huge units in 40K, IG infantry and Ork Boyz, already are either Fearless or can easily get Stubborn (which renders Steadfast redundant).

Vaktathi
29-12-2010, 22:45
I think the bigger problem with 40k is the No Retreat thing. while on the one hand it does provide some balance factor with elite-ish Fearless units, it is obscenely punitive with horde fearless units (oh look, I lost 5 berzerkers, but killed 16 orks, take 11 no retreat wounds on a 6+ save on your 14 remaining dudes...), and particularly so in combats involving multiple units, and downright abuseable in some situations (oh look I killed 8 dire avengers, your avatar killed 3 CSM's, but your DA's didn't kill anything, your DA's break on anything higher than a 4 and your Avatar is taking 5 No-Retreat wounds now!)

Steadfast would make a lot of units simply too hard to break in CC methinks, or render many options pointless or hideously overcosted.

Sparowl
30-12-2010, 01:06
You want to take the worst written rule in fantasy and move it to 40k?

The above posters have done a good job of clarifying why it's a bad idea.

Grots would suddenly be the new skaven slaves of 40k.

solkan
30-12-2010, 04:31
The 4th edition morale modifiers for losing combat were effectively steadfast because almost all of them only applied if the loser was outnumbered.

Since there's no such thing as rear or side assaults for rank breaking, the O.P. is basically asking for the return of that section of the 4th edition rules.

zantis
30-12-2010, 06:18
... it is obscenely punitive with horde fearless units (oh look, I lost 5 berzerkers, but killed 16 orks, take 11 no retreat wounds on a 6+ save on your 14 remaining dudes...), and particularly so in combats involving multiple units, and downright abuseable in some situations (oh look I killed 8 dire avengers, your avatar killed 3 CSM's, but your DA's didn't kill anything, your DA's break on anything higher than a 4 and your Avatar is taking 5 No-Retreat wounds now!)


This. 110%. I had a game where a big unit of slaanesh fiends charged my 20 man squad of termagaunts and a carnifex(it was right after the new codex came out and i hadnt figured out they were ridiculously overcosted). All but one of the fiends attacked the termagaunts and killed about 14. the one on the carnifex did nothing. the gaunts then struck back and killed one fiend. the carnifex also killed one. this was the 14 wounds he did, vs the 4 I did. I had synapse nearby and needless to say the fex died from 10 saves. he had already taken a wound from a soulgrinder so, of course, i failed just enough for the fex to die.
It just seems absurd that GW let this rule get past the playtesting stage without major revison. Something like:
fearless units take no retreat wounds based on the number of wounds the fearless unit did to the enemy unit(s) and the number of wounds the enemy unit(s) did to the fealess unit in question
would really help fix this problem. If this revision was in effect in the situation i described, only the termagaunts wouldve taken no retreat wounds because the fiends only did wounds to them.

Krovin-Rezh
30-12-2010, 09:10
Two things I would do instead:

1. Each model may only kill one enemy model in sweeping advances (with swarms and MCs possibly getting a bonus). This way if you outnumber but lose, you know you can actually have something left of your unit (quite a lot if you outnumber them by a large margin).

2. Fearless units should always determine their own combat results in multiple combats. Only wounds done to those units and by those units count for No Retreat results.

Edit: haha, looks like we are on the same wavelength, zantis. I would have simply quoted your idea for #2 if I saw it before posting. :)

RobPro
30-12-2010, 11:22
Get rid of SA and make the penalty for losing CC what fearless has now and then give fearless units a lesser penalty if they lose (maybe half rounded down?). Most armies are immune to it anyways via fearless, stubborn, atsknf, etc. Sweeping advance is too harsh for the three or so armies that still have morale.

eyescrossed
30-12-2010, 11:32
I'd just like to point out that the Dire Avengers in the example above would be Fearless.

Sparowl
30-12-2010, 13:17
Get rid of SA and make the penalty for losing CC what fearless has now and then give fearless units a lesser penalty if they lose (maybe half rounded down?). Most armies are immune to it anyways via fearless, stubborn, atsknf, etc. Sweeping advance is too harsh for the three or so armies that still have morale.

Isn't that what space marines already have? We can't give rules that the space marines have to other races.

It works the other way around. Space marines get the cool **** other races have.

SPYDER68
30-12-2010, 14:05
To me no retreat is nice.

It keeps the combats from dragging out way to long.

IronNerd
30-12-2010, 14:22
This. 110%. I had a game where a big unit of slaanesh fiends charged my 20 man squad of termagaunts and a carnifex(it was right after the new codex came out and i hadnt figured out they were ridiculously overcosted). All but one of the fiends attacked the termagaunts and killed about 14. the one on the carnifex did nothing. the gaunts then struck back and killed one fiend. the carnifex also killed one. this was the 14 wounds he did, vs the 4 I did. I had synapse nearby and needless to say the fex died from 10 saves. he had already taken a wound from a soulgrinder so, of course, i failed just enough for the fex to die.
It just seems absurd that GW let this rule get past the playtesting stage without major revison. Something like:
fearless units take no retreat wounds based on the number of wounds the fearless unit did to the enemy unit(s) and the number of wounds the enemy unit(s) did to the fealess unit in question
would really help fix this problem. If this revision was in effect in the situation i described, only the termagaunts wouldve taken no retreat wounds because the fiends only did wounds to them.

I was going to disagree whole-heartedly, until you proposed a revision. I think "No Retreat!" is a very reasonable rule, except when used in a multiple combat like stated. It works very well in other areas, particularly against hordes IMO. Orks were *TOO* good under 4th with their current book. Even Berzerkers would get destroyed, and even on the charge. The same goes for gaunts (especially hormagaunts). If you make it too hard to thin out these units in combat, it starts to get ridiculous...

Honestly, 40k probably needs a lot of revisions concerning things like morale. A lot of people can completely ignore it, but considering how many ways there are to exploit it (IG Psyker Squads being the #1 offender in my book...), it's necessary to be able to ignore it...

Decided to edit to add my favorite "No Retreat!" moment... Unit of CSM get's assaulted by Nightbringer and 5 Scarab Swarm bases. I put all my attacks into the Scarabs, doing 12 wounds. Combined, the 'Crons killed 3 Marines. Nightbringer takes 9 saves and dies. Great success! :D