If there is a rule in 8th that I think was not well implemented, it is steadfast. I like the idea behind it.... it makes sense... if you outnumber your opponent, it seems that your morale would be better, so I have no problem with the concept of the rule, it is the actual implementation of it that fails i think. One thing that is a good fix to the problems of steadfast, IMO, and a "house" rule that I usually use is that a unit loses steadfast if it is flank/rear charged. With this rule in place, you can use cavalry as they are meant to be used, as flanking units to break up the ranks of the enemy... just an idea, let me know if ya'll like the idea, and feel free to try it out sometime and give me some feedback!

Brought up many many times.

One issue is that some armies have throwaway single fast units who could basically break steadfast whenever they choose. Ogre sabertusks come to mind.

If you have some ten thousand goblin army, one big cat attacking you from the side won't even be noticed by 99% of your unit. You need to make it more like steadfast itself in that if you're charging from the side you get, let's say, +2 ranks and in the rear +3 ranks equivalent.

I don't know, honestly, but you don't want it where a few units can totally disrupt a deathstar. For one, it makes no sense. For two, some armies can do that MUCH easier than others--and thus they become effectively immune to steadfast, which is really powerful.

I can see you point, and when I'm running a game, I kinda use common sense to determine if it would break "steadfast" or not.... One big cat, probably not, 10-12 dinos (cold ones), maybe, 40+ block of skaven/empire/elves.... yeah, that will disrupt the ranks in a hurry... at least for that first turn... after turn of the charge, I usually put steadfast back to indicate that the unit has reorganized itself to face the new threat....

As a reference, in WAB (Warhammer Ancient Battles), you lose rank bonuses due to side charges (and Stubborn on the units that happen to be) when you are charged by a formed unit (ie. not skirmishing) of at least 5 guys with at least one full rank (no conga-lining this)
Flank charges are devastating in WAB, but harder to achieve, you have to be behind the front line when you start the charge ("perpendicular" to the charged unit's flank, not just in the side arc)

Well, that is pretty nifty, And i think could be modified a bit to work for WHFB.... thanks!

 caledoneus wrote:
If there is a rule in 8th that I think was not well implemented, it is steadfast. I like the idea behind it.... it makes sense... if you outnumber your opponent, it seems that your morale would be better, so I have no problem with the concept of the rule, it is the actual implementation of it that fails i think. One thing that is a good fix to the problems of steadfast, IMO, and a "house" rule that I usually use is that a unit loses steadfast if it is flank/rear charged. With this rule in place, you can use cavalry as they are meant to be used, as flanking units to break up the ranks of the enemy... just an idea, let me know if ya'll like the idea, and feel free to try it out sometime and give me some feedback!

I actually brought up the same problem with the same exact change.

Of course i think we tried to figure out how to fix steadfast like you get steadfast but at a negative modifier for flank and rear charges or possibly with certain amounts of ranks when you flank or rear charge.

It's true what's said though. Usually steadfast is a problem but then you have to deal with magic that effects a whole unit like say 'dwellers below'. Ugh :(.

An important thing to note though is that super large units are actually not as good as you might think. They're good sure but they're really unwieldy and can't turn easily. Small units on the other hand are more disposable and they can run circles alongside rank-and-file esp. large steadfast units and often do. I did similar last game vs warriors of chaos with 20 or so clanrats as i knew i couldn't win a combat against even 7 or so of em with mark of khorne. I marched at super short range (after doing a leadership check) right outside his vision and then i shot into him.

Also once you've dealt with the super fast skink skirmisher, terradon and slann list you generally tend to stop thinking that big units are the best choice.

I guess it's true that at the end of the day magic spells that force a characteristic test on a unit or die tend to be the worst thing to face.

One idea I had was that a "disrupted" unit, that loses combat, only counts 1/2 its ranks for steadfast. This way a very large unit would still be steadfast versus a much smaller unit.

So for example:

A disrupted unit with say 6 ranks loses combat. Largest winning enemy unit would only need 3 ranks to break steadfast.


This way steadfast is reduced but not entirely eliminated. Just an idea.

I think steadfast should be broken if you take X number of casualties. Maybe 20% or something like that. Perhaps this number could be reduced if the attackers are fighting in the flank/rear.

After all, a more numerous unit is more likely to stand its ground, unless the guys in it can see that they're getting pulverised by whatever it is they're fighting.

It would make more sense then that Steadfast should have a fixed lower limit of bodies in the unit

Because I can totally see a 1000-strong Gobbo unit still being steadfast at 500-strong, while I don't think a 5-strong unit (from a starting point of 6) to be steadfast against a Dragon (they can clearly see him and nobody is pushing forward from the back)

Those examples are extreme of course, but you get the feeling

I think a better idea is the following.

Steadfast, exactly as it is now.

Flank Charge: Instead of +1 combat resolution, the unit that is flanked suffers a -1 Ld. Multiple Flank/Rear charges are not cumulative.

Rear Charge: Instead of +2 combat resolution, the unit that is rear charged suffers -2 Ld. Multiple Flank/Rear charges are not cumulative.


So they are still stubborn, but suffer a Ld penalty.

This way, the best a flanked unit can have for Ld is 9. 8 if they are flanked. That's if the General/units Ld is 10.



Monsters: Count as having 2 ranks for the purpose of determining if they or the enemy are Steadfast.

 The Shadow wrote:
I think steadfast should be broken if you take X number of casualties. Maybe 20% or something like that. Perhaps this number could be reduced if the attackers are fighting in the flank/rear.

I think you're going to want to see rules that are simple +1 +2 or 1/2 type deals. It might be the perfect rule is that the sum of all units attacking + 3x the square root of the flanks and 40.33% of the LD divided by the circumference of the belly of your largest model is the absolutely perfect formula for disruption, but no one is going to do that.

But that would be inordinately unfair to thinlings. Ogres would have an unfair advantage in the belly department.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think a better idea is the following.
Steadfast, exactly as it is now.
Flank Charge: Instead of +1 combat resolution, the unit that is flanked suffers a -1 Ld. Multiple Flank/Rear charges are not cumulative.
Rear Charge: Instead of +2 combat resolution, the unit that is rear charged suffers -2 Ld. Multiple Flank/Rear charges are not cumulative.



Monsters: Count as having 2 ranks for the purpose of determining if they or the enemy are Steadfast.

That steadfast modifier is actually pretty good. Simple and effective enough. Makes flanking more of a threat, which is should be.
I'd be happy with monsters counter as 1 full rank. 10 guys fight on, 9 guys are likely to flee. I think 15 being steadfast and 14 fleeing is a bit much. It would mean that monsters would tear apart elite infantry a little too well for my tastes (looking at you chaos warriors).
Option B, monsters of any type cause -1 Ld on any steadfast check.
So a dragon up the tail pipe forces a steadfast check at -3.

-Matt

Here is an Idea I have been working on for this, we are going to do some play testing soon to see how it works. If you are attacked from the front it works the same as it does now for the most part. Fighting a flank with multiple ranks sorks the same. Now the changes

If you fail a fear/terror test at the start of combat you can not be steadfast.

If you loose combat and are steadfast with a unit of 1 rank or less in your Flank. The difference in combat result is cut in half, rounding up. so you loose by 1 or 2 = -1LD for break test, 3 or 4 = -2 LD, loose by 9 or 10 = -5LD., so on. It is Harer to maintain order with units in the flank than front. but not nearly as had as the rear..

If you are fighting a unit in your rear, you can not be steadfast. The unit would be two busy trying to get into fighting position to maintain order. Models that can easily get to a rear, have their own issues, Either easy to kill or you have time to react. It is up yo you to protect your rear.

Monsters that cause more 2x as many wounds break steadfast. I am sorry but a giant beast eating your friends would cause people to Panic.

-1/2 to Ld for a flank/rear is still the best option, along with Monsters counting as at a rank(s).

Fail Fear = lose Steadfast is an interesting concept. But it doesn't really "fix" Steadfast so much as boosts Fear. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.

Ld - (1/2 what you lose by) doesn't really work. It's overly complicated, for one, and for the other, if a unit of, say, 5 Chaos Knights charges into 60 Goblins, Once you win by 10 or more (which is not hard, considering it'd usually be cavalry versus tar pits), you might as well be rolling normal break tests.

Loosing steadfast to rear charges: so...flying models get a huge boost?

Monsters causing 2X more wounds as...what, the unit does to them?

Panic and disorder in the ranks is one thing. But if your friends are being eaten by a giant bear, or are being cut down by enemies behind you, the fact is that you've still got a better chance holding your ground than running.

Thanks for the wordsmithing Warpsolution.
"Disorder in the Ranks" is a great name for the modifiers to steadfast rule.

-Matt

I still the cleanest system is to limit steadfast to just ignoring the negative modifier from casualties and overkill bonus from a challenge. All other modifiers (charging, if you have a banner and they don't*, flank/rear) will apply a modifier to the roll.




*To avoid confusion, the banner bonus would have to be re-written slightly - so that one side only got the +1 if they had a banner, while the other side did not.

a) No rank bonus = no Steadfast.

b) Monsters always count as having two ranks.

Fixed.

 Sigvatr wrote:
a) No rank bonus = no Steadfast.

b) Monsters always count as having two ranks.

Fixed.

Since you need more complete ranks, you're saying that 14 guys are never steadfast, and that's rough.

I really don't want a flying monster to only need 6 kills to run down a block of 20 guys.
Think Chimera into a flank. It's 7-9 attacks at S6, along with the D6 thunder stomp and a 1 use S4 breath.
On average it's going to get 6-7 kills without using the breathe weapon. On average, that's breaking a 20 strong unit.
Use of the breathe means on average it breaks a 25 strong unit.
Broken.

Have the monster count as 1 rank, and you're only units under 10 models are losing steadfast, That, I like a lot more.

Well, do you really think 14 guys would realistically stick around if facing something like what most monsters are?

I think 2 ranks is a decent cutoff point.

The number of 14 is arbitrary. You can have 14 super elite infantry about outcost the new 200ish point monsters.

14 gnoblars is nothing. 14 Phoenix Guard is 210 pts.

Yeah, but the benefit is those troops are less likely to lose in the first place. But those guys are still capable of breaking and running if they are losing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, but the benefit is those troops are less likely to lose in the first place. But those guys are still capable of breaking and running if they are losing.

Actually, gnoblars and chaos warriors have about the same chance to lose vs the flying monster. The attacks are wounding both on 2's, and killing without an armor save.
Warriors are hit on 4's, gnoblars are hit on 3's. The result is gnoblars take ~1 more wound; but with 6-7 wounds, a charge and a flank, it's unlikely that either will win.
5 warriors with halberds are going to average less than 1 wound. Gnoblars do worse.
Both are going to be taking break tests at minus 6.

The other problem with monsters always counting as two is is that they become steadfast themselves.
So now the vampire knights that charge into the hydra and do 3 wounds + standard don't break the hydray because it gets steadfast for free.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Since you need more complete ranks, you're saying that 14 guys are never steadfast, and that's rough.

I really don't want a flying monster to only need 6 kills to run down a block of 20 guys.
Think Chimera into a flank. It's 7-9 attacks at S6, along with the D6 thunder stomp and a 1 use S4 breath.
On average it's going to get 6-7 kills without using the breathe weapon. On average, that's breaking a 20 strong unit.
Use of the breathe means on average it breaks a 25 strong unit.
Broken.

That actually touches on the other problem with steadfast - the difference between having just enough extra models, and being one model short is massive. It's the difference between testing on an 8, 9 or 10, with reroll, and testing on a 2, rerollable. It turns too many leadership tests in to binary situations, got steadfast and will almost certainly stay in the fight, don't have steadfast and almost certainly won't.

It's another big reason to prefer a change of steadfast that doesn't change how hard/easy it is to claim it, but to change how powerful it's effect is when it is in place.

Agreed.
With -1 for flank, -2 for rear, -1 for monster, you're looking at a steadfast check you're not as likely to make, but it isn't near the auto-pass/auto-fail we have in the current system.

I find needing a 2, or needing a 10 or less, with re-rolls, fairly unexciting. I'd enjoy games more if I needed a 7 or 8 for steadfast.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Agreed.
With -1 for flank, -2 for rear, -1 for monster, you're looking at a steadfast check you're not as likely to make, but it isn't near the auto-pass/auto-fail we have in the current system.

I find needing a 2, or needing a 10 or less, with re-rolls, fairly unexciting. I'd enjoy games more if I needed a 7 or 8 for steadfast.

I take it the negatives are in addition to combat resolution? Then I like it. There should be a penalty for letting someone attack you in the flank or rear. Plus a bonus for monsters is needed. My BIG A$$ Monster goes trampling through your unit, and you just stand there and laugh? I don’t think so, adding a failed fear/Terror test also kills Steadfast, would make sense here. If you are already cowering in fear, and you just lost allot of friends; you would not all of a sudden get your lost courage back. But as it stands right now all you have to do to keep points on the table is make bigger units.

How about you put some strategy back into the game, and Protect your flanks. If you want to drop 500+ points into a unit be prepared for it to run away. If a unit was not meant to run, it would be stubborn, and then they would not care about ranks. Lots of people around you dying, should not make you a better fighter, it should actually make you more terrified than anything else. Basic troops do not become Elite because they watch people die. They become Elite because of the dead enemies that they buried.

Just a sidenote, you have to be very careful when it comes down to balance
Yes steadfast is powerful, but remember that it's the only thing that some armies have CC wise when they're facing WoC for instance
I'm a Skaven player, and I sure do need those sweet steadfast blocks (note that we usually follow COMP that give you nasty points if you go over 40 bodies/unit, already limiting its impact) because that's the only thing they'll do, hold for a few turns, they won't kill anyone

Oh and there's a very simple and easy "fix" when it comes down to defeating steadfast.
It's call "tag team", example:
Your Daemon Prince won't break this big slave block any soon because of steadfast
Your Marauders don't kill them fast enough
Double charge them (you only need to "sacrifice" a corner to fit the DP on the charge), and suddenly, poof no more slaves

"Crappy" armies need steadfast (crappy = lots of cheap bodies)
"Elite" armies need to play around/break steadfast

cawizkid wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Agreed.
With -1 for flank, -2 for rear, -1 for monster, you're looking at a steadfast check you're not as likely to make, but it isn't near the auto-pass/auto-fail we have in the current system.

I find needing a 2, or needing a 10 or less, with re-rolls, fairly unexciting. I'd enjoy games more if I needed a 7 or 8 for steadfast.

I take it the negatives are in addition to combat resolution? Then I like it.

I meant it as a cap to steadfast checks.
If you lose combat by 1, and are fighting to the side and rear, and one of them is a monster, you'd test at -1.
If you lose combat by 13, and are fighting monsters to the side and rear, you test at -4.

A giant costs as much as 25 orcs. It shouldn't totally erase any 200 point block it fights; it should be a close fight, or at least a little close.
Orcs are mid-value infantry, while giants are pretty much bottom of the monster food chain. Take any change you're thinking about and walk it through with a hydra, abomination, chimera and daemon prince.

I'm seeing enough monsters and monstrous cav in the game now where I don't think steadfast needs a huge gimp. Just something to encourage more movement.

-Matt

MC has nothing to do with monsters.

I mean in a sense you have to ask what monsters are used for. What is their purpose? They pretty much always have way less health than a corresponding core/special worth of points. Some monsters have horrible LD and survive based on never losing combat.

I kind of think of them as an ability to put a lot of points into a smaller area and get a lot of upfront elite hits, defense, and/or special abilities. Stuff like Arachnarok and Soulgrinder don't really fit that because they are gigantic models. But you can kind of send a monster off to go do monstery stuff moreso than you can send a corresponding # of points of Core and often Special away from your general/bsb. So they are like little independent armies. At least IMHO.

I don't mind them getting stuck on steadfast units. But it should also be hard for them to lose to sucky steadfast units.

@DukeRustfield: Well put. I completely agree.

@GreyTemplar: Monsters should not be steadfast on their own. That alone says they should count as 1 rank, and not 2.
14 guys might run, or they might not. If we played monsters purely according to what Warhammer tells us about them, they's all be T7 W15 things with S9 breath weapons they can use twice a turn.
I'd rather have a balanced game, with cheaper and weaker monsters (so I get to see more of them) than a more "realistic" one, with dragons costing 700pts and obliterating whole armies.

@Sigvatr: Steadfast needs some shifting this way and that. But to completely negate it if a unit gets on your flank? What about Glade Riders, or even Wolf Riders? Units that cost under 100pts shouldn't be taking out units of 40+ models, no matter how crappy those models may be.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
Agreed.
With -1 for flank, -2 for rear, -1 for monster, you're looking at a steadfast check you're not as likely to make, but it isn't near the auto-pass/auto-fail we have in the current system.

Yep.

I find needing a 2, or needing a 10 or less, with re-rolls, fairly unexciting. I'd enjoy games more if I needed a 7 or 8 for steadfast.

Absolutely. And it'd also mean the difference between human leadership and dwarven leadership would be a big deal again - the difference between 5 re-rollable and 7 re-rollable is huge.

As it stands leadership isn't a very useful stat. there's too many ways to make it so it never has any effect. I do not know how to fix this, maybe remove steadfast completely and keep step up so we don't have last edition's cav situation again.

Completely getting rid of Steadfast would change the game entirely.
I'd be back to running units of 20 Clanrats and Slaves in a heartbeat.

As said above, and in several threads before this: Steadfast shouldn't ignore all penalties to Ld for its break test. That way, you can still lose combat by a ton, and you're more likely to break, but you don't necessarily need snake eyes every time.

Warpsolution wrote:
Completely getting rid of Steadfast would change the game entirely.
I'd be back to running units of 20 Clanrats and Slaves in a heartbeat.

As said above, and in several threads before this: Steadfast shouldn't ignore all penalties to Ld for its break test. That way, you can still lose combat by a ton, and you're more likely to break, but you don't necessarily need snake eyes every time.

What if steadfast got worse every check?
First steadfast is unmodified. 2nd is at -1. 3rd is at -2. You'd have to place markers, but it could represent units getting worn out as they repeatedly lose combat.

A giant would tear a slave unit apart, he'd just do it in ~4 turns with a lot more death before they all ran.

-Matt

A giant shouldn't ever tear a slave unit apart and make them run. The slaves are a direct hard counter to giants. If a massive unit of slow (compared to nearly every monster) fodder gets stuck in vs. a monster with a much smaller footprint, you have lost the movement war.

It shouldn't be that you get to trundle up a monster blindly and it will eventually win vs. anything that can't kill it. Everyone would buy monsters.

DukeRustfield wrote:
A giant shouldn't ever tear a slave unit apart and make them run. The slaves are a direct hard counter to giants. If a massive unit of slow (compared to nearly every monster) fodder gets stuck in vs. a monster with a much smaller footprint, you have lost the movement war.

It shouldn't be that you get to trundle up a monster blindly and it will eventually win vs. anything that can't kill it. Everyone would buy monsters.

If those slaves are testing at LD10 with a re-roll, then 9, then 8, then 7, I'm likely to get 2 turns of movement, magic, shooting and combat before I take that Ld7 test.
It means you have to to deal with monsters, without the pinned for the whole game effect.

If it's a flying monster (chimera/daemon prince/dragon) it gets into combat a turn earlier, but it doesn't change the ~2 game turns it will take to break back out.
Again, this approach is to make steadfast a stalling effect, not a 4 game turn lock down.
Also, this isn't just about monsters. Lots of units can get pinned down for the remainder of the game. With no half points, that's kind of boring.
I want to see battle lines breaking, maybe not on the charge, but at some point.

Hell, I'd be happy with a -1 turn 4, -2 turn 5, and -3 turn 6 modifier to steadfast.

-Matt

That's chaff's job. A monster's job is not to break steadfast and take out vast units of chaff. Steadfast exists partially for this exact reason. Cuz a jillion guys pushing forward to kill that big bad giant don't even see their friends getting smeared up front.

It's like (pre)teenage girls at a Justin Bieber concert. If there was a huge lawnmower at the front of the stage, all the girls would know is, "we're getting closer to him!" until it was too late, and then the crush of those behind would doom them.

Anything that makes monsters beat their direct counter I wouldn't be down for. Don't care what turn it's on. It doesn't get less boring or lame if you have a chance to win on turn 6, then it just becomes a random hope contest in a fight you should have never gotten in.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
As it stands leadership isn't a very useful stat. there's too many ways to make it so it never has any effect.

Leadership is useful. I mean sure, the leadership of the average trooper hardly ever gets used, with the leader's value coming in to play more often, but when an army's base leadership is only 7, then it's general is only Ld 9, and that's a big difference from races where the geneal can reach Ld 10.

As long as units are testing on their unmodified leadership, that is. Add in combat res and whether your base leadership is 10 or 8 doesn't matter, because you'll likely be testing on or near to snake eyes.

I do not know how to fix this, maybe remove steadfast completely and keep step up so we don't have last edition's cav situation again.

With two ranks fighting, the horde rule and step up, the number of casualties inflicted in many games now means the number of kills inflicted in combat make leadership something of a nonsense. For two evenly matched, large units it's common for each side to roll 30+ attacks, and the difference between a slightly lucky sets of rolls and slightly unlucky rolls can be 10 casualties versus 5. So even though step up might let you inflict a few casualties back, you'll still end up testing on 2 or 3 for your break test.

Steadfast, is some form or another, is basically the thing that makes basic, cheap troops a viable combat option. It has to continue in some form or another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
What if steadfast got worse every check?
First steadfast is unmodified. 2nd is at -1. 3rd is at -2. You'd have to place markers, but it could represent units getting worn out as they repeatedly lose combat.

Interesting idea. It'd add a bit more judgement before committing chaff units in to combat with elite units and monsters. I mean, you'd know that your greater numbers will eventually wear them down, but you'd have to assess whether the effect of losing multiple combats would mean you'd break before getting through them.

Might be worth playtesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:
A giant shouldn't ever tear a slave unit apart and make them run. The slaves are a direct hard counter to giants.

Well, they are a hard counter per the current rules. With the suggested change they'd be less of a hard counter. That's the point of talking about changing rules.

One on way, slave are the hard counter for just about anything.
The only thing that stops it from being as stupid as it can be is peoples like of desire to paint up 600 slaves.

-Matt

This isn't about slaves, it's about chaff. If you throw 250pts of 8th edition chaff vs. 250 pts of elite units, the elites will crush and break them. Monsters simply can't put out enough attacks fast enough, even with Tstomp. That's not their job.

I think all the races have some MC/MB that's capable of putting out 400-500% more attacks a round than their own best monster for the same cost. And yeah, they might not be the S6 T6, but they don't need to be. You just need a blender.

People hate rock scissors paper, but that's this game. You don't use chaff to take out war machines. They suck at it. But because they suck at it doesn't mean you force the game to make them better. If monsters were good at everything why have anything else?

I'm going to agree with Duke on this one.
I don't think monsters should break through big blocks of cheap units very easily. They excel at putting a handful of very potent attacks in a very small and/or specific place.

The penalty to Steadfast over time is interesting, but it seems more complicated than it needs to be.
I still think these options are the best so far:

- monsters count as 1 rank

- Steadfast does not ignore penalties to Ld based on ranks, standards, charge, flank, or rear
OR
- being charged in the flank levies a -1Ld penalty, per flank. The rear levies a -2.

Simple and subtle.

And Skavenslaves should be WS1 or S2.

DukeRustfield wrote:
This isn't about slaves, it's about chaff. If you throw 250pts of 8th edition chaff vs. 250 pts of elite units, the elites will crush and break them. Monsters simply can't put out enough attacks fast enough, even with Tstomp. That's not their job.

I think all the races have some MC/MB that's capable of putting out 400-500% more attacks a round than their own best monster for the same cost. And yeah, they might not be the S6 T6, but they don't need to be. You just need a blender.

People hate rock scissors paper, but that's this game. You don't use chaff to take out war machines. They suck at it. But because they suck at it doesn't mean you force the game to make them better. If monsters were good at everything why have anything else?

Elites actually won't crush 250 points of chaff, if that chaff is goblins, night goblins, gnoblars or slaves. You're looking at ~80 to 100 chaff going up against 12 chaos warriors. With 18 attacks hitting on 3's, wounding on 2's and parries on 6's, you're killing ~8 per turn. Slaves will tank that from turn 3 to the end of turn 6.
Night goblins only show up with 62 guys, but have 6+ and parry, and nets, and only lose ~6 to 7 per turn, they are still finishing a game steadfast.
Chaff in most cases wins, if you simply take a unit large enough that you won't run out of guys before the end of the game.
So chaff doesn't lose to an equal point value of elites, they lose to an unequal point value, or an unlucky re-rollable LD10.

IMO, monsters jobs should be killing infantry. It's fairly iconic and fluffy to have a monster wading into masses of infantry and smashing things up.
What is it that monsters are good at? Besides looking cool.

-Matt

Chaos Warriors are core. Obviously CW aren't designed for killing chaff because you're paying for WS/I/Armor that is totally wasted.

Do what I said and put them against Mournfang or Demigryphs or Beasts of Nurgle or Necropolis Knights. I'm pretty sure every army has the ability to put a frontage of attacks that will break them. The point is you want as many attacks in as small an area as possible, not spiffy armor saves which are useless against fodder. (Or massive T/S which is equally useless.)

I don't know every book and I'm not going to go through them all now, but even DoC has beasts or the crushers or the bug things I believe can do it. Beasts are like what, 5.5 attacks including stomp per 60-65 pts. You're putting a near equal amount of points together with almost no chance of winning as the chaff. That's a hard pill and I think it's balanced. Yes, if you maneuver them in front of a monster, who is smaller, faster, you've make a score assuming no other units come to assist.

I think the solution here is still some version of flank/rear, not making chaff useless again.

Let me start out by saying I just did a lot of math, and this is all a big surprise to me.

As it turns out, WS and Init isn't totally wasted. Neither is armor. Night Goblins win point for point against almost every hammer due to hitting on 4's, instead of 5's. Striking ahead of ogre units lets them drop a little over an ogre a turn, before the ogre swings. The lack of armor on ogres, and even the 3+ on necroknights (instead of 2+ or 1+) means they take significant losses (enough to swing the final outcome) by the end of the game.

Beast of Nurgle can't do it (4.5 poison attacks + stomp)
Mournfangs look like they can do it, until you factor in the chaff attacks.
Necroknights don't make it (only 20 attacks total, 8 at S4).
DemiGryph knights don't get it done.
Skullcrushers are the lone exception. The WS5 make the difference. They can get the night goblins (barely) but still can't whack equal points of slaves.

I've never really look at this before, but in general, an equal points of slaves or night goblins (with nets) will hold up just about anything I can find in the game, except for a single unit, for 8 turns (ie, likely the whole game).

Don't discount the chaff attacks either. It's the chaff attacks that make the difference in a few of the fights. In a grind vs 4 enemies on 50mm bases, the chaff should deploy wide, going into horde for the extra attacks (since you only need 15 models to be steadfast anyway). 30 attacks a turn, hitting on 4's and wounding on 5's adds up. Killing 2 mournfang during the game with the chaff easily puts the chaff over the mark on surviving.

Chaff is far from useless, it just needs to be much larger than people are normally fielding. If you want to stop monstrous cav, you want 60 to 90 guys. (that's equal points of night goblins with nets).
On paper, chaff beats the best hammers in the game point for point. So in theory, if you field a large enough chaff, All you have to do is protect it from nuke spells, and keep your general and BSB alive.
Chance of LD10 breaking is 3:36, with a re-roll that's 1:144
Taking 8 tests a game, it's only a 5% chance you'll see it break.

So what this tells us is that Steadfast is AWESOME, and we are doing it wrong. If you want to bank on steadfast, you need truly huge units.
If you want to break steadfast, don't do it with trying to kill the chaff, do it by killing the chaffs leadership. Assassinate his General and BSB (in that order).

-Matt

Fair enough, but I'd also point out that, with D6+4 pieces of terrain, more than one unit of 90 models is going to be an issue.

It's like the old WoC book; Khornate Marauders with great weapons were, point-for-point, the most efficient unit in the game.

But people who tried to run a whole army of them found out quick that they just couldn't bring enough of the units to bear.

Also, I still think the chaff is okay; a 300pt+ unit being able to kill 2 Mournfangs during the entire game isn't great. I mean, it's awesome for the defensive tar pit it is, but it's not great in terms of how it reflects on your final score at the end of the match.

I really don't want a flying monster to only need 6 kills to run down a block of 20 guys.

I dont get this one.
Your talking about a 250 or so point monster, of course its going to smash a 20 strong unit apart in combat and it should make them run.

Steadfast just seems far too solid as a rule.
Every great rule allways has a slight downside to it, except this one. (frenzy is a good example)

There should be some way of removing it via a heavy flank/rear charge IMO.
Not too sure what to suggest though, because finding a happy medium that works well isnt an easy option as theres far too many variables in units.

20 guys can cost anywhere from 40pts to multi-hundreds. That number is irrelevant.

Don't use slaves as an example. We know slaves are undercosted. Yeah, they are here and they aren't going to change anytime soon, likely. But I bet a billion space bucks when the Skaven book comes out they are going to be more expensive.

Necro knights don't ever have 20 attacks. They have stomp. They also have poison/KB and WS4.

Goblins are never going to have LD 10. Further, I believe in the law of large players. We know skaven slaves are great because everyone uses them. They don't use masses of goblins, whether they like to paint them or not. They just aren't that good.

HawaiiMatt wrote:
If you want to break steadfast, don't do it with trying to kill the chaff, do it by killing the chaffs leadership. Assassinate his General and BSB (in that order).

I remember arguing that in the first few months of 8th ed's release...


That said, I also remember arguing that flanking still counted, because the flanking unit gets a second rank of attacks, while the flanked unit does not. My mistake being I thought that would make a bigger difference than it does. This is largely why I've changed my position on steadfast from 'its fine' to 'its fine overall, but it'd be good if there were some reward for flanking those units, just to make protection of your flanks important again'/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
Steadfast just seems far too solid as a rule.
Every great rule allways has a slight downside to it, except this one. (frenzy is a good example)

There are downsides. You need to buy very big units, which means its limited crud troops, or to building your army around a deathstar.

And it means in many cases you have to deploy very deep, giving up the benefits of overlapping the enemy, and possible horde benefits. It means spending a significant chunk of points on a unit that is defensive in nature.

There should be some way of removing it via a heavy flank/rear charge IMO.

Again though, people keep focussing on situations in which steadfast is removed as the only option. All that means is a continuation of the leadership tests on 9 or 10, or without steadfast on 2, which is too extreme, and makes leadership a non-factor.

If instead, as suggested a few times, the combat result for flanking & rear attacks wasn't ignored, then many steadfast units would change from being able to reliably stick around for several rounds of combat, to likely breaking when they suffer flank or rear attacks. It means steadfast units would still be powerful, but only if the flanks were protected. Which brings a great of imporance back to movement.

DukeRustfield wrote:
20 guys can cost anywhere from 40pts to multi-hundreds. That number is irrelevant.

Don't use slaves as an example. We know slaves are undercosted. Yeah, they are here and they aren't going to change anytime soon, likely. But I bet a billion space bucks when the Skaven book comes out they are going to be more expensive.

Necro knights don't ever have 20 attacks. They have stomp. They also have poison/KB and WS4.

Goblins are never going to have LD 10. Further, I believe in the law of large players. We know skaven slaves are great because everyone uses them. They don't use masses of goblins, whether they like to paint them or not. They just aren't that good.

115 point general with the banner of discipline says otherwise. If you're running steadfast tarpits, you take Ld10, or you're doing it wrong.
I used night goblins with nets as my benchmark. I factored in poison with the necro knights, and killing blow (which only ignores the 6+ armor, you still get parry).


-Matt

What goblin-general is Ld9?

I don't think a flank or rear should result in losing Steadfast entirely; otherwise, small units of cavalry will go back to being stupid-awesome once more. I don't care how powerful you are; you and four friends should not be able to ride down foes that outnumber you 10:1.

I believe its because you are taking an Blorc Boss as your general.

20 guys can cost anywhere from 40pts to multi-hundreds. That number is irrelevant.

Except i wasnt working on slaves as an average was i?
Because 20 slaves comes in at 210 points away from what i had said.
My whole point was that a massive creatures ranging from 200-300 points should be able to cause severe damage to a basic unit of rank and file.

And for what its worth, i was running with the idea of 20 saurus with full comm. to get my numbers, so a tad better than slaves.

It's nice that's not the number you had in your head, but it doesn't change the fact you said 20. 20 is 20, whether saurus, slaves, or anything else.

Again, that is not the job of monsters. If 200ish points of monsters (not much is 300pts unless it's an old edition) beats the crap out of 200ish points of infantry, you'd be really foolish to buy infantry which are worse in nearly every other way. A standard monster is going to put down 4-7 attacks + Tstomp at S5-6 every round, that is "severe damage."

DukeRustfield wrote:
It's nice that's not the number you had in your head, but it doesn't change the fact you said 20. 20 is 20, whether saurus, slaves, or anything else.

Again, that is not the job of monsters. If 200ish points of monsters (not much is 300pts unless it's an old edition) beats the crap out of 200ish points of infantry, you'd be really foolish to buy infantry which are worse in nearly every other way. A standard monster is going to put down 4-7 attacks + Tstomp at S5-6 every round, that is "severe damage."

Which is half hits on the attacks, ~3.5 hits average on the stomps, and 5/6ths wound. That's ~4 to 6 wounds against opponents with T3 and 5+ or worse armor, who can't parry.
You need 5 wounds to win combat, because I've got 3 ranks a standard and a musician (winning the tie).
And that's if my infantry don't do any wounds at all.

I don't generally call ~5 wounds "Severe Damage". I more of think of that as "Breaking Even Damage".

Old edition?
O&G spider is creeping the 300 mark pretty easily.
And that puts out plenty of attacks on its own, let alone the crew.

Even the old steggy is a nice example as the impact hits push up the damage rating even more.

And the number does mean alot actually.
20 saurus compared to 20 slaves is a rather huge gap.
Not only in points, but in combat ability aswell.

I would throw a steggy into combat with a slave unit on his own, as i know they wont be getting anywhere, and due to the lack of a banner, they wont start with so much of a combat res.

I wouldnt think of throwing a steggy against 20 saurus unless i had a 2nd one, or another unit ready to multi-assault said unit.



Big monsters get killed by big monsters, warmachines and hero's, not by rank and file.
I really dont see why 20 empire swordsmen should be able to beat a huge monster in combat and then run it down.


And for "Severe damage" you could throw a skink chief with warspear on a steggy, that might come a bit closer to your idea of severe as your then looking at 2D6 impact hits, monster and crew attacks then another D6 for thunderstomp.
That should be causing 10 unsaved wounds pretty easily.

I don't generally call ~5 wounds "Severe Damage". I more of think of that as "Breaking Even Damage".

You can call it what you like, their job isn't to fight chaff. A monster fighting slaves or zombies is absolutely foolish and trying to "fix" it is nothing that remotely needs to happen. They will perform almost exactly the same fighting 3pt infantry as fighting 15pt infantry. Which do you think it's wiser for monsters to try and do? Cannons suck butt shooting at single rows of chaff/redirectors too--so don't do it.

Arachnarok is godlike. It puts out 16 attacks + tstomp, half are S5 poison, one is D6. It has no problems at its cost.

Big monsters get killed by big monsters, warmachines and hero's, not by rank and file.

I really dont see why 20 empire swordsmen should be able to beat a huge monster in combat and then run it down.

Because you don't HAVE to take stuff in this game. If you don't want to take cannons and you got no monsters, or sucky ones (like Lizardmen) you should not have to bend over and take it from any lol-list that puts together 5 monsters because you now have nothing in your army that can stop them. Nothing works like that. Cavalry, big infantry blocks, heroes, war machines. This isn't Warhammer Godzilla Battles. And a hero is generally a bad choice to send against a monster unless it's a really fast hero you don't mind getting smushed and/or who is on some kind of mount.

Well, you can make some house rules that if 20 empire swordsmen see a monster they explode into confetti. For all the talk of cannons, cannons, not every army has them, and not every army should be forced to take them. You just dumb down the game if every 2500pt game is really 2300 + 2 mandatory cannons. Then why don't you just cut to the chase and take out both the cannons and monsters and play from there?

I love the way you say lizards have sucky monsters.

One causes D^ impact hits, then has 4 normal attacks, 5 crew attacks, then a thunderstomp. (and as mentioned, can have another D6 on the impact)

The other has 5 S7 attacks, that cause D3 wounds, making it a pretty damn good monster hunter.

And both have a 4+ as standard.


Every army has access to a warmachine of some form, be it a cannon or a bolt thrower.
But i love the way you changed that to just cannons, because they are the only warmachine in existance now

"For all the talk of cannons" was your phrase, and also contains the most, if not only talk of just cannons.

Hero's are bad monster hunters now?
That one fooled me, because its not hard to kit out a hero to do such a thing.

Also, you say people shouldnt have to take such units, but its pretty hard to find a list that actually plays well which does not include a monster or a warmachine of some type.
Both have been a key weapon in WHFB since it was created.

If you have access to them but dont want to take them, sure, go for it.
But you cant really complain that a sub par army is doing sub par in a game.


So taking 2 cannons in a 2,500 game is dumbing it down now?
I would call it common sense to take them as at that level your going to see targets that are more than viable to shoot at.
Hell, if i play empire or dwarf, im going to run alot more than just 2 cannons.

Even when i ran O&G i used more warmachines than that.

I have the book... Steggadons are sucky compared to modern monsters. I think you need to read your rules again, because it doesn't do what you said.

I mean the crew are skinks. Sure, arachnarok are goblins, but the rok has 8 attacks not 3 or 4 and 8 wounds not 5. As for monster hunting, the rok would totally lol at Steggadons. They could easily be dead before they got a chance to attack even once.

So taking 2 cannons in a 2,500 game is dumbing it down now?

Taking out hard counters while leaving out what it was countering is dumbing down the game. You're left with less options which funnels all armies to conform to closer and closer "templates." If you keep taking out hard counters, after a point every army looks fundamentally the same.

You mean compared to the 1 example you just posted right?
The spider is a beast, no one can deny that.
But why use the steg against it when just below that, i brought up about the carnosaur?
S7 kills off saves, then 5 attacks with D3 wounds.

Im pretty keen on its chances, and thats not including the rider either.



"Templates"
You mean like the large block of infantry for steadfast trend?
Its more of a case of using what works well.

The average cannon is 100 points, even if that fires twice, its going to do damage since every army you play against will have something worth firing it at.

Does not have to be a monster, it could even be another war machine.
The point is, cannons are effective in 99% of games.

But thats not the topic we are on as it stands.

Carnisaur isn't a monster. It's a mount. It isn't a Special/Rare it is a Lord. That is the only time you will see one as of now. I don't like testing things that have all that baggage. Kinda like not including a Wyvern as a monster, as you don't know what's sitting on it. If you want to start doing 350pts of monsters/heroes we can take the arachnarok and add, say a mangler a squig. Costs about the same.

It isn't a case of using what works, but using what works and not using what doesn't work with the list of the former being very narrow and the list of the latter being large. If an army has 10 units. Of those 3 are great. 2 are good. 5 are bad or terrible. So you know what 5 units will be there and likely in greater proportion to the 3 great ones. I've seen enough army builder hero loadouts to know templates when I see them. That is due to lack of items in army books and smaller number in BRB. Fencers Blades are part of a very common hero template. And yeah, that's dumbing down the game.

The point is, cannons are effective in 99% of games.

That is clearly false. Even mathematically false.

The Aracknarock is good, but it's only S5, and isn't super survivable (4+ armor, no ward/regen).

And what does that guy due to saurus? Hit on 3's, wound on 3's, they save on 6's, and parry on 6's. Stomps wound on 3's and parry on 6's. Goblin crew hit on 4's, wound on 5's, with saves on 4's and then 6's. With poison, it's 5.22 wounds.
Saurus are taking 18 attacks back, hitting on 4's, wounding on 6's and the spider saves on a 5 (which is 1 wound average).

290 points of saurus is 25 guys.
That leaves the saurus with 2 ranks, standard and wound vs the spiders 5.

Again, it's 5 kills, barely winning combat, and taking a wound in exchange. That's not serious damage.
S5 and S3 just doesn't do serious damage to mid-grade infantry, let alone elite infantry.

I'm still not seeing monsters tearing up infantry.

Just a sidenote, you can't parry a Stomp

Rok is T6 W8. All it has to do is not lose combat, and not die.

Saurus are 7th edition. I'm going to bet they won't cost 11 whatever they go to (get ready for it).

EIGHT S5 poison attacks, one D6, tstomp, is plenty. The poison, 8 chances at it, make up for S5.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Rok is T6 W8. All it has to do is not lose combat, and not die.

Saurus are 7th edition. I'm going to bet they won't cost 11 whatever they go to (get ready for it).

EIGHT S5 poison attacks, one D6, tstomp, is plenty. The poison, 8 chances at it, make up for S5.

It's 8 attacks, one of which does D6 wounds. 8 + D6 wounding attack would be 1 attack better.
S5 isn't good enough vs T4 anything. If you don't like 11 point saurus, pick any 8th edition T4 infantry.

Orcs with shields (block of 39 with standard and music). Orcs take 3.33 wounds from the spider, then 0.7 from the goblins.
Orcs swing with either 12 or 18 attacks (6 wide or horde). That nets 3/4th of a wound to 1 wound.
Spider then stomps for 2.33 kills.
That brings the spider to 6.33 wounds, and the orcs with ~.66 if in bus.
Orcs have 3 ranks and standard, and lose combat by ~1.

Ghouls: Spider does 4, ghoul horde gets 26 attacks back, scoring 2.88 unsaved wounds. Goblins and stomp kill 3.66 more. Ghouls lose by ~3 (thanks to the rank), but being undead can't break.
Without any summoning, it's a close fight. With any replacements at all, it's lights out for the Roc.

15 Sword and Board Tzeench Warriors: deal 1.11 wounds. Rok does 1.38 wounds, goblins do .19 wounds. Stomp does 1.29 wounds.
Warriors lose less then 3, deal 1, have rank and standard, win by musician.
14 Khorne Warriors with Halberds: 24 attacks, 18 hits, 5 unsaved wounds. Rok, gobs and stomp kill 4.98. Warriors win by standard. Round 2 the Rok dies before it swings.
15 Nurgle halberds likewise take out the spider on the 3rd wound of combat, without losing combat in the process.

What monsters are good at doing is sticking into a corner so that they aren't getting hit, and letting you put ~2x to 3x the number of points onto an enemy unit.
In equal fights, monsters are losing.

-Matt

You can bat this around all you want. If you say Arak sucks, I don't know what to say. Don't take it. I'm really confident it doesn't suck. So are quite a lot of other people, and I see it all the time despite it being a very cumbersome model. You don't see them much at competitive level (from lists I see) just because they are so big and expensive and everyone has some kinda D6 weapon(s). I don't know why you keep comparing them to units they aren't meant to fight. They totally suck at trying to be your army general too.

You can find/build/construct match-ups to "prove" anything doesn't work. The same Araknarok can wipe out infinite pts in heroes before they can sneeze and that "proves" it's some kind of awesomesauce. Or it just means we engineered a scenario of punching bag heroes to walk forward and die.

Monsters aren't good at fighting stuff in a corner, alley, hilltop, or anywhere else that they aren't supposed to fight. MC/MB and to a lesser extent MI has been to get mass hits in a small area. You don't need S6 and T6 for that. And those units have vastly greater surviveability. If a Thundertusk outdmgs Mourfang, costs less, and has a smaller footprint, why take Mournfang? There ARE some monsters that do that, but they are usually constructed differently.

DukeRustfield wrote:
You can bat this around all you want. If you say Arak sucks, I don't know what to say. Don't take it. I'm really confident it doesn't suck. So are quite a lot of other people, and I see it all the time despite it being a very cumbersome model. You don't see them much at competitive level (from lists I see) just because they are so big and expensive and everyone has some kinda D6 weapon(s). I don't know why you keep comparing them to units they aren't meant to fight. They totally suck at trying to be your army general too.

You said:

Arachnarok is godlike. It puts out 16 attacks + tstomp, half are S5 poison, one is D6. It has no problems at its cost.

I'm trying to find any way in which that is true. Stubborn 6 isn't enough to work on it's own, and it isn't likely to take on anything it's value.
You don't see it often in tournaments because it's a high risk with only mid-grade reward.
I've got one and love the model, but he doesn't show up unless it's a friendly game.

If monsters aren't meant to fight infantry, what are they meant to fight? As near as I can tell, the only monster that is going to reliably win combat are those with breathe weapons, and that's 1 use.

-Matt

Monsters were never meant to fight on their own, just like chariots they are here to provide a lot of hitting power along ranks bonuses from a friendly unit
If you send them headlong all by themselves against a big block, you're asking to get beaten

Each monster is a bit different. Some obviously can go solo. An unbreakable DP cares naught. A LD5 Chimera had BETTER be sure he wins all combat. Giants are notorious for wandering off and doing whatever and it's a crap shoot on the result.

Monsters were good at using terror on infantry and making it run away. But there's much choppier stuff around.

DukeRustfield wrote:
Each monster is a bit different. Some obviously can go solo. An unbreakable DP cares naught. A LD5 Chimera had BETTER be sure he wins all combat. Giants are notorious for wandering off and doing whatever and it's a crap shoot on the result.

Monsters were good at using terror on infantry and making it run away. But there's much choppier stuff around.

Daemon prince is a hands down, best monster in the game. Maybe because he's nearly the most expensive too?

Monsters were good back when terror was good (~4 years ago).

-Matt

Combat DP isn't that expensive. You don't have to buy 4 levels (or any). Or mutations or items. At ~300 pts he's still good. People just make him better.

Monsters weren't "good" at anything except being big terror factories running around going BOOO and chasing units off the table.

I mean you can re-evaluate what monsters should do but I think you'll run into issues where some monsters are quite good already. DP, Chimera, Rok, some TK stuff, HE stuff, etc, they're all quite solid. If you said Tstomp suddenly did 2d6 to try and give them more anti-infantry abilities, they would start smearing. If you made them all unbreakable, they would always make their points back against everything except stuff designed to kill them fast. Monster encompasses a lot of different models and they don't all have the same loadout or weaknesses.

DP is 330 with mark, wings, and 1+ save. I'd call that bare bones.
At 330, he's the more expensive than any none-lord monster.
And it's unbreakable that makes him good. More often than not, I find daemon princes losing combat.

Monsters used to be fantastic. And it wasn't the terror, it was the breaking ranks, Stripping Rank bonus, getting the flank and charge bonus, striking first on the charge, and not having steadfast slow their slaughter.

As for Solo monsters, you're looking at unbreakable and hard to kill monsters. IE, daemon prince.
Greater daemons suffer from challenges, you whack a unit champ, and you lose your thunderstomp, you get ~3 points of combat res and lose the round, and test for instability.
Rok lacks the damage output to beat static combat res of T4 or WS4 opponents.
Frost Phoenix is survivable, WS6 with 5+/5++ saves, T6 and -1 opponents strength; but with only 4 attacks is at great risk to breaking from static combat res.

Most monsters all do have the same weaknesses.
1) They dislike Cannons.
2) They can't go solo into a good sized block of infantry.


The biggest problem with the infantry is that most monsters are either winning, or losing combat by 1 point. Much of the combat res is the thunderstomp, which means that you have a pretty broad bell-curve.
Infantry with steadfast aren't likely to break on one end of the bell curve.
Monsters without steadfast, are likely to break on the other end of the curve.

You've still yet to say what monsters ARE good at.
Yeah, they are are different, so just pick any 3 and break them down for us.

And if you're just running monsters for support, shouldn't you be running chariots?
That's what I discovered with my dark elves. I dropped hydras for triple chariots, saved 50 points and never looked back.

I already said. Repeatedly.

Many monsters are good at operating independently from the BSB/general bubble. They have (generally) huge LD and/or decent defenses that allow them to take on different groups. So those are the T5+ LD8+ monsters. Giants. Dragons. Varghulf (no LD, but regen). Some TK stuff.

There are monsters who are good at wrecking faces and/or winning by doing a lot of dmg. Chimera. Terrorgheist.

There are monsters who are weirdo buff/debuff contraptions. Phoenix, Heirotitans, Thundertusk.

And then a whole bunch are some combination of those.

Chariots can't be compared to monsters any more than swarms can. Other than the silly Gorebeast they have very little in common. Monsters are probably the most diverse type next to Lords/Heroes, so it's hard to balance them strictly by unit type.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I already said. Repeatedly.

Many monsters are good at operating independently from the BSB/general bubble. They have (generally) huge LD and/or decent defenses that allow them to take on different groups. So those are the T5+ LD8+ monsters. Giants. Dragons. Varghulf (no LD, but regen). Some TK stuff.

There are monsters who are good at wrecking faces and/or winning by doing a lot of dmg. Chimera. Terrorgheist.

Chariots can't be compared to monsters any more than swarms can. Other than the silly Gorebeast they have very little in common. Monsters are probably the most diverse type next to Lords/Heroes, so it's hard to balance them strictly by unit type.

Dragons by and large only show up with the general sitting on top. Giants operating independently die stupidly fast because of the requirement to maximize on the charge, and them having no save.
Varghulf on his own suffers greatly from march blocking, and crumble. 5 S5 attacks doesn't win combat, and you can't regen crumble in 8th. As soon as he rolls a 1-2 for thunder stomp, he's in serious trouble.
Terrorgheists are VP Denial monsters. They wrack up 5 or 6 wounds a turn, but aren't ever at risk, using flight to avoid combat.
Chariots are monsters can be compared pretty well. They do decent damage, and don't last long in prolonged fights. Chariots front load damage better, and lose it on the back end.

I don't know what meta you play in, but outside of the daemon prince, I don't see monsters doing anything you're describing.
What I do see happening is Monsters Supporting infantry. Infantry strip your steadfast, a monsters hits a corner (minimizing the risk to the monster) and racks up the combat res.
Or the monsters hides behind infantry and supports (Heirotitan spell buffing, hellcannon/soul grinder shooting, or terrorgheist screaming).
Combat support monsters can be replaced with chariots, who fill the role of racking up combat res; where as the funky monsters do stuff nothing else in the army can do.

The new bigger bases makes the idea of monsters going alone even worse. 4 models + supporting attacks is bad enough on monsters. 6 + support is a death sentence (1+ save only hit me on 6's daemon prince exempt of course).

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:
I don't know what meta you play in, but outside of the daemon prince, I don't see monsters doing anything you're describing.

Then I encourage you to read battle reports in this forum. I just browsed them and I'd guess at least half had monsters on one or both sides. Maybe everyone in this forum sucks and doesn't understand how to use monsters, but I think you are math hammering and continue to make the most ideal (or unideal) situations for each monster and of course they fail. When you walk into a shop or home and set-up a game, people have what they have, and that's not HawaiiMatt's Perfect Counter For This Scenario™. People will shelve the models that consistently sucks, no matter how much they like them.

I'm not saying people don't take monsters, I'm saying they don't use them how your suggesting.

Here's the first 5 lists I looked at with pictures to see deployment. All had monsters, all deployed centrally and supported other units.
Maybe if I keep looking I'll find the mythical soloing monster.

2500 empire vs beasts, beast monsters deployed centrally supporting infantry blocks.
2500 beast vs lizards, monsters deployed centrally supporting minotaur block
2500 High elves vs dwarves, pair of phoenix next to the silver helm bus, in the center.
Wood Elves against Lizardmen: Engine of the Gods deployed between the two large lizard blocks.
High Elves vs Orcs and Goblins 2500, dragon and 2 phoenix deployed in the center behind the whole army.

So you're saying you haven't seen them used ONE of the ways I said they can be used in 5 threads? Okay.

Well, I admit a monster is still 250ish points. If it doesn't make its points back you might as well have taken something else. If you scoot it over on the very end flank, you've limited yourself since it's not going to attack your silverware and make any points.

But I saw numerous where they weren't in the center. 2K pts HE vs. Vamp. Tamurkhan campaign. 2K HE vs. empire.

Which are, coincidentally, the first 3 threads listed, which is as far as I looked. I'm guessing there will be many other instances. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, if anything. You clearly have the math hammer skills to know that a random pile of guys vs. a random monster isn't a foregone conclusion on who will win despite you seeming to say otherwise. The fact that you see the monsters at all seems to disagree with what you've been saying here in that they have no use at all.

DukeRustfield wrote:
So you're saying you haven't seen them used ONE of the ways I said they can be used in 5 threads? Okay.

Well, I admit a monster is still 250ish points. If it doesn't make its points back you might as well have taken something else. If you scoot it over on the very end flank, you've limited yourself since it's not going to attack your silverware and make any points.

But I saw numerous where they weren't in the center. 2K pts HE vs. Vamp. Tamurkhan campaign. 2K HE vs. empire.

Which are, coincidentally, the first 3 threads listed, which is as far as I looked. I'm guessing there will be many other instances. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, if anything. You clearly have the math hammer skills to know that a random pile of guys vs. a random monster isn't a foregone conclusion on who will win despite you seeming to say otherwise. The fact that you see the monsters at all seems to disagree with what you've been saying here in that they have no use at all.

Yeah, 2K HE vs Vamp:

Turn 4, the Phoenix turns and goes to where it should have started:
I turn my frost phoenix around so that it can see the rear of both the ghouls and the black knights. Finally, I move my Lions up to block the BK unit from flank charging my princes or from moving basically anywhere except in to the front of my lions.
Final Thoughts:
Frost Phoenix was pretty powerful, but I know I could have used it more efficiently in this game.

In the Tamurkhan game, the Phoenix killed a chariot, and the 430 point Dragon Mage was killed by a chariot that the dragon charged into.
Chaos lost ~120 points to the monsters and gained 430 points from them.
I'd say that's an example of why not to run monsters unsupported up the flanks.

What I've repeatedly said is a random pile of guys against just about any monster is far more risky for the monster than for the guys. Steadfast lets the infantry test on the generals unmodified leadership. The
The point of all this is linked to how you fix steadfast, or if steadfast needs fixing. Monsters don't get to hold on high leadership, and throwing any monster into any good sized pile of guys is a bad idea, due to steadfast.

No, what you've repeatedly said here is how to make monsters useless in these exact situations and therefore they can never be successful ever never nyah nyah. You're now trying to nitpick individual games as empirical proof and cherry pick further among them and throw out anything that doesn't match as if we don't notice. You've further changed the criteria of what you're looking for and holding that up as "proof" of something.

At this point, I just say, don't use monsters. You clearly think they are useless and thus you can crush your stupid opponents who dare to use them in any capacity. I'm not even exaggerating on that. You've stated, as far as I can see, they have no use whatsoever and thus should be removed from the game by all intelligent generals. So you go do that.

This Tread has gotten off Topic.

The Problem with Steadfast is it’s too strong. This game has turned into who can bring the bigger tar pit, and play points denial to win the game. Because you only need a capture a few points to win a game. So leave the Hammers. Bring a bunch of Anvils; kill off the Chaff (My Definition of Chaff Seems to be different than others.) and go home. Unless your Anvil can also be a hammer, then you walk over people.

Just to clarify IMHO Chaff is Minimal point units whose job is to run out, slow something down, or just basically just take up space for a turn maybe two, and give me a couple of drops to allow me to place the hammer and Anvil units where they will work best. Chaff dies in 90% of Games; Chaff to me is MSU of the stuff I do not care about. It is not a unit that is big and nearly impossible to kill.

Sure “The Movies” make it look like infantry units where always the best, always in control of their surroundings. If you have done any research you would know that this is not the case. Fights where chaotic, now I know that this cannot translate to a table top game completely, It can be cleaned up. The Math behind steadfast is nothing like what would happen in a battle. Guys 5 feet away from someone would not be able to hear commands. They would be fighting on instinct, and training. Once that was failing, they would turn tail and run. As Far as troops go cavalry and chariots would not only wreak havoc on Infantry, but for hundreds of years they owned the Battle Field. Basic infantry units (With few exceptions) actually would start running before they even got into combat with a unit of charging Knights little loan Chariots. Only the most trained/crazy units would charge or stay in combat with them for long periods of time. If they were being overwhelmed they would turn and run far more often than they would stay and fight to the last man.

And then the instant people developed formations designed to stop cavalry, infantry became the dominant force on the battlefield.

A trained unit of spearmen was something a cavalry unit would not be able to touch.



If anything, movies show cavalry being the best thing ever. When they were definitely not.

Cavalry are deadly as a flanking force and when charging infantry that don't have the discipline to hold firm. The horsemen can then run the enemy down, but if they stand firm, the cavalry will get pulled apart.

As above, this game is clashing eons. Bretonnian and Empire and TK are like thousands of years apart. We can't use historical context very well. This is about balance.

I don't know if chaff is supposed to be killed any more than anything else is. That seems a pretty tough pill to say, "hey, elite MC, you WILL die no matter what you face."

If someone organizes the entire homeless population of Altdorf into a unit, you're not going to kill it in 6 turns. Just have guys running front to back saying free bread up front and they'll keep going.

Getting half points for half kills or something would radically change the game. One thing I'd hate to see is too much model-counting and keeping stuff at the side. How about this for a shot in the dark:

You get half points if you take off half models? If you kill 99% of the models, you still get half points of the entire unit. If you kill 50% you still get half points. I was going to say something like half ranks, but reforming weirds that all up. But next to each unit you got the points, and you probably already got the #. If there's 5 left and you started with 9, that's not toooo hard.

Though I don't know if that's so much a steadfast fix as a deathstar fix.

DukeRustfield wrote:
No, what you've repeatedly said here is how to make monsters useless in these exact situations and therefore they can never be successful ever never nyah nyah.

That's boarder line rude and incorrect.
I'll quote me, since you see to have trouble with what I'm saying.

What monsters are good at doing is sticking into a corner so that they aren't getting hit, and letting you put ~2x to 3x the number of points onto an enemy unit.
In equal fights, monsters are losing.

-Matt

You said check battle reports, so I pulled the five with pictures.
You said, no no no, check these two, so I read the two you posted, and pointed out where the players running them admitting to making mistakes.
The ideal spot for a monster is still combo charging into the corner(s).


It's steadfast that is forcing monsters into a support role.
I'm still liking the -1 for flank, -2 for rear, and -1 for monster as the steadfast solution.
A monster charging from the outside into the flank alone would force the steadfast at a -2 and have a chance.
A monster supporting in the front is only adding a -1, making position more important than it is now.

-Matt

I can propose another rule, which is directly taken from Warhammer Ancient battle and is called ... I don't remember the name It comes in handy when you lose the fight
Basically, if your Unit Power (remember older versions) is strictly more than twice the UP of the opponent (at the end of the combat phase, when checking morale), your troops gain this rule
If you pass your morale check, everything's fine
If you fail it, your troops do not break bu instead fall back d3+1 inches (I think) and the opponenet can choose to stay in contact by moving forward, counting as having charged again
If you are unable to fall back the rolled distance due to an intervening unit, impassable terrain or such, you break as usual

it serves to represent the fact that a large block can sustain charges of cavalry or such and don't break as long as there's enough pressure coming from the back (and in WAB, Lances are a big factor on cavalry, as the guys riding it are only WS4 S3 vs T3 mostly AS 4/5/6 at this time), but after a few charges, the block will eventually break
Remember than :
infantry = UP1
cavalry = UP2
Most big stuff UP = Wounds

So if we take this rule as is, an infantry unit would need 11 bodies left to be kind of steadfast against a monster (they'd still need enough room to be able to fall back)

What happens if the unit doesn't have enough space to get knocked back D3+1 inches?

I like the idea, but it makes chariots really, really good. Continuous impact hits as you slow drive a block off the table sounds a lot better than chariots are now. My steggadons and black coaches think it's awesome.

-Matt

If the unit is unable to fall back due to lack of room, it does break as usual
It's designed with few or light chariots (think Egyptian skirmishing chariots with bow & javelin) in mind, not crazied Gorebeast Killing Blowing chariots

I would like to chime in and note that I am of the opinion that Steadfast should be broken when ranks are disrupted.

This does NOT make steadfast useless. You would still get the full benefit when fighting from the front, and you would in fact still get the benefit when you are fighting in the Flank or Rear with anything that doesn't have at least 2 ranks.

To me personally it doesnt' make sense that if your ranks are disrupted you do not get to count them towards combat resolution but you still count them for determining steadfast. I feel like it should be all or nothing. Either you get them or you don't.

Also flank charges aren't exactly easy to get. Enemies tend to reform to guard their flanks, and it takes significant skill to get a flank charge off against competent opponents with a unit capable of disrupting ranks. That type of play should make flank charges significant and breaking apart steadfast is an excellent way to reward that. Think about it, Skrimmishers can still never disrupt ranks, Cav need to be at least 10 strong, and if they fall below 10 they can no longer disrupt ranks (except Lance Formation), and infantry squads can do it, but those are slow. Getting those units into a flank in sufficient strength should be rewarded, and breaking steadfast is a great way to do that.

There are very few units that can disrupt ranks from the front. I think the Beastmen Jabbersclyth can do it (but that unit is all kinds of terrible), and a 100 point magic banner for Bretonnia (which makes for a rediculously overcosted BSB who can get no better than a 3+ save.

 akaean wrote:
I would like to chime in and note that I am of the opinion that Steadfast should be broken when ranks are disrupted.

This does NOT make steadfast useless. You would still get the full benefit when fighting from the front, and you would in fact still get the benefit when you are fighting in the Flank or Rear with anything that doesn't have at least 2 ranks.

It doesn't make steadfast useless, but it does produce a situation where there's a massive jump in the break test you have to roll, for something that can be pretty trivial. I mean, a unit of 100 guys fighting 50 elite guys, and you see a final combat score of 19 to 9... they killed twice as many guys, and about a fifth of your unit, but that's okay because you're steadfast so you're testing on 9 rerollable... except there's also 11 guys on your flank so now you're testing on 2 rerollable. It's way, way too big a change for having some chaff in the flank.

As I've argued a few times in this thread and elsewhere, people seem stuck on only thinking about fixing steadfast by thinking of situations where it is removed. If instead they looked at how steadfast might be less powerful while it is in place, you start getting situations where flanking and the like might affect leadership, without being as severe as the above example. So instead, just make it so that steadfast allows you to negate the impact of casualties and nothing else. So flanking would produce a -1 to the test... the difference between testing on 8 rerollable and 9 rerollable is huge, and 7 compared to 8 is even bigger.

OK, How about your Steadfast Leadership is reduced by the number of complete ranks that are in your flank, and double for that of the ones that are in your Rear. So now if a unit of 10 2x5 hits you in the flank it is not that big of deal you are at -2 LD to Steadfast, If you allow it to hit your rear, you are at -4LD to Steadfast. Though I honestly feel you should never be Steadfast if you have a unit attacking you in the rear. If you allow a unit of 50 5x10 to flank you, you are toast and rightfully so. IMHO Monsters should count as 3 ranks for this purpose do to their size. Most monsters Bases take up this many ranks anyway, and the newer ones take up even more.

And having played a few games where Terror/Fear Check stops Stead fast has been very successful, all involved have agreed that it works for the positive.

That's way too much. Again, why does a 1000pt megastar care if 50 pts hits him from behind?

And fear is everywhere. On one hand it's like every unit in OK/VC/TK but some armies might have almost none. That's pretty arbitrary that VC are steadfast-destroyers.

DukeRustfield wrote:
That's way too much. Again, why does a 1000pt megastar care if 50 pts hits him from behind?

And fear is everywhere. On one hand it's like every unit in OK/VC/TK but some armies might have almost none. That's pretty arbitrary that VC are steadfast-destroyers.

Considering those MegaStar's are normally LD 9 if not 10, with a re-roll, the odds of them failing a fear/terror check is remote. It affect smaller unit far more than it will ever affect a Star. I am guessing that you are someone who relies on the Stars to win Games. And that is fine, I have used them with success myself. If you are going to drop 1k+ points on a unit you are going to protect it with everything you can, like a stubborn crown if the unit is not already Stubborn so steadfast really is a mute point on such a unit.

The point is to try and Balance it out for all other units. A 75-100 point block of Gnoblars/Slaves/Gobliins/ or and small unit for that matter, should not be able to be all brave and level headed when a 200+ Monster or Elite Unit who just kicked the living crap out of them. Just because they have one more rank. Which could come down to one model. This does not make sense. If stead fast was you have 2x as many ranks sure, because you have over whelming numbers, Or if ranks that where in Combat did not count toward steadfast this would make sense. Psychology on a Battle Field has a huge impact on how Willing troops are to stand and fight, ot run in fear for tier lives. Undead warriors rushing at you to eat your flesh would cause many a person Trained or not to turn tail and run for their lives. More often that not if a Unit fails its Check, (which is not very often) then it gets it but handed to them in CC. As they are already cowering for their lives this carries over to thier leadership roles.

Applying these changes to VC who already do Fear bombing, and Terror Screaming, is not like it will change that army very much. OK wouldcut back on their Stars as they would not need all the extra models in one unit. I do not play as or agains TK almost ever, but from the list i know about, It would not change that army very much ether.

This isn't about me. And you're changing the scenario of 75pt suck unit vs. 200+ monster. You said -2 per flank and -4 on rear. Nowhere does it say monster vs. fodder. It can be fodder in the rear vs. touched-by-gods-elite unit.

No one is fear bombing. Fear sucks. Terror screaming is actual terrorgheist or banshee scream, not terror.

cawizkid wrote:
OK, How about your Steadfast Leadership is reduced by the number of complete ranks that are in your flank, and double for that of the ones that are in your Rear. So now if a unit of 10 2x5 hits you in the flank it is not that big of deal you are at -2 LD to Steadfast, If you allow it to hit your rear, you are at -4LD to Steadfast.

Why? Why not just -1 in the flank, and -2 in the rear? It's simpler, consistent with currently existing rules, and already a substantial penalty.

And having played a few games where Terror/Fear Check stops Stead fast has been very successful, all involved have agreed that it works for the positive.

That rule just means large infantry blocks can no longer hold monsters in place and whittle them down over several turns. It basically works to say 'steadfast doesn't work against monsters, therefore monsters dominate and mediocre infantry return to the place it held in 7th - as a liability you only took because you had to fill out core'.

 sebster wrote:

 akaean wrote:
I would like to chime in and note that I am of the opinion that Steadfast should be broken when ranks are disrupted.

This does NOT make steadfast useless. You would still get the full benefit when fighting from the front, and you would in fact still get the benefit when you are fighting in the Flank or Rear with anything that doesn't have at least 2 ranks.

It doesn't make steadfast useless, but it does produce a situation where there's a massive jump in the break test you have to roll, for something that can be pretty trivial. I mean, a unit of 100 guys fighting 50 elite guys, and you see a final combat score of 19 to 9... they killed twice as many guys, and about a fifth of your unit, but that's okay because you're steadfast so you're testing on 9 rerollable... except there's also 11 guys on your flank so now you're testing on 2 rerollable. It's way, way too big a change for having some chaff in the flank.

As I've argued a few times in this thread and elsewhere, people seem stuck on only thinking about fixing steadfast by thinking of situations where it is removed. If instead they looked at how steadfast might be less powerful while it is in place, you start getting situations where flanking and the like might affect leadership, without being as severe as the above example. So instead, just make it so that steadfast allows you to negate the impact of casualties and nothing else. So flanking would produce a -1 to the test... the difference between testing on 8 rerollable and 9 rerollable is huge, and 7 compared to 8 is even bigger.

"some chaff" in the flank? This has to be chaff which is at least 10 models, getting into the flank, and keeping enough models to still break steadfast. Lets see here. 10 Empire Knights could do it, but if they lose even 1 man they can no longer deny steadfast, I suppose 15 Silver Helms or a Lance of Knights of the Realm would be a real threat to steadfast, but a Cav Charge in the Flank seems like something which should break steadfast. Also these units are hugely expensive, 12 Knights of the Realm is over 300 points, and 15 Silver Helms considerably more.

Many chaff units are skrimmishers and thus would never be able to deny steadfast. Many Chaff units have terribad armour, and are taken in small squads, meaning most deathstar's flanks can deal enough damage to deny them their steadfast breaking abilities. Besides, you have chaff of your own, shooting elements, and magic which can be used to deal with things fast enough to flank you, and still disrupt your ranks. There should be an impetus to protect your combat block's flanks, not just "whatever man, I've got a ton of dudes I can just outgrind my enemy no matter how badly I position it, or how surrounded my unit is!"

If somebody gets charged in the flank, by ranked up infantry with enough numbers to disrupt thier ranks, they have been severely outplayed and honestly that play should be rewarded.

Superior numbers should be able to fall, and they should be able to break. Being surrounded- ala having units to the flank and rear, could easily simulate this.

NOTE: I am not going to get into monsters, honestly they are a tricky situation, since many of them are so fast, and not all of the armies have cannons to quickly kill them.

 akaean wrote:
"some chaff" in the flank? This has to be chaff which is at least 10 models, getting into the flank, and keeping enough models to still break steadfast. Lets see here. 10 Empire Knights could do it, but if they lose even 1 man they can no longer deny steadfast, I suppose 15 Silver Helms or a Lance of Knights of the Realm would be a real threat to steadfast, but a Cav Charge in the Flank seems like something which should break steadfast. Also these units are hugely expensive, 12 Knights of the Realm is over 300 points, and 15 Silver Helms considerably more.

Many chaff units are skrimmishers and thus would never be able to deny steadfast. Many Chaff units have terribad armour, and are taken in small squads, meaning most deathstar's flanks can deal enough damage to deny them their steadfast breaking abilities. Besides, you have chaff of your own, shooting elements, and magic which can be used to deal with things fast enough to flank you, and still disrupt your ranks. There should be an impetus to protect your combat block's flanks, not just "whatever man, I've got a ton of dudes I can just outgrind my enemy no matter how badly I position it, or how surrounded my unit is!"

Yes, we can talk all day about the large units that might get in to the flank of enemy, but what does that prove? The issue is with small, nuisance units that can do it, and have a far bigger effect on a combat than they ought to. So instead you talk about a list with a bunch 15 or 20 strong goblin units, costing a handful of points each. Or talk instead about an Empire halberdier detachment, 15 strong for a whopping 90 points, who by their rules can put in a flanking counter charge.

And if one of those little throwaway units is in the flank, the break test changes from what was a 9 rerollable to a 2 rerollable. Such a massive swing in the break test is not good game design.

If somebody gets charged in the flank, by ranked up infantry with enough numbers to disrupt thier ranks, they have been severely outplayed and honestly that play should be rewarded.

Yes, but the question is how much reward there should be. Simply removing steadfast, so a unit goes from being almost certain to stay in combat by testing on un-modified, rerollable leadership, to almost certain to fail, is bad game design.

Instead look at reducing the power of steadfast, by removing the kinds of combat mods it can effect. So the reward isn't from removing steadfast entirely, but from having flank and rear modifiers still apply to the break test. So instead of testing on a 9 rerollable, its down to an 8 or a 7 rerollable. It's an important mod, but nowhere near as extreme as removing steadfast entirely.

A thought I had was to provide each unit a "value" and then say if the flanking unit's value is higher than the total for the defending unit, steadfast is broken.

would only use the models allowed to be involved in the fight...

say 20mm infantry = 1
25mm infantry= 1.5
40mm infantry= 2
normal cav= 2
monst cav= 3

would have to playtest the idea alittle and maybe tweak it, but i think it could provide steadfast with use without being completely broken, or making it useless... also would make little thowaway units have a hard time breaking full combat unit, and would make cav work as great flanking units again (which they should be)

 caledoneus wrote:
A thought I had was to provide each unit a "value" and then say if the flanking unit's value is higher than the total for the defending unit, steadfast is broken.

would only use the models allowed to be involved in the fight...

say 20mm infantry = 1
25mm infantry= 1.5
40mm infantry= 2
normal cav= 2
monst cav= 3

would have to playtest the idea alittle and maybe tweak it, but i think it could provide steadfast with use without being completely broken, or making it useless... also would make little thowaway units have a hard time breaking full combat unit, and would make cav work as great flanking units again (which they should be)

The value you are looking for is "Unit Strength", and it was around for quite a long time. Needing 25 cav to break 50 puds isn't really a fix. Needing 8 Cav to break 15 Godlings isn't ideal either.

-Matt

yeah.... Steadfast is a good idea, but it is way to tough to find a way to make it functional and not OP or useless.....

blah

Steadfast might for some not be perfect but it is very difficult to come up with a concept that remedies its supposed shortfalls, is practical and is fair for everyone.

 Grey Templar wrote:

So they are still stubborn, but suffer a Ld penalty.

This way, the best a flanked unit can have for Ld is 9. 8 if they are flanked. That's if the General/units Ld is 10.

Well, Ld 8 with a re-roll is a 92 something chance to pass. Since you swap this in for CR, it also becomes less likely to win to start with. That might not be a problem for Skullcrushers but it is for human knights and normal infantry.

cawizkid wrote:

If you loose combat and are steadfast with a unit of 1 rank or less in your Flank. The difference in combat result is cut in half

It makes little sense that especially small units should make SF less efficient. Less than 1 rank, what would that be? Skirmishers? Why would those reduce SF?

Models that can easily get to a rear, have their own issues, Either easy to kill or you have time to react. It is up yo you to protect your rear.

Did everyone get the necessary tools for his job? Because it does sound a bit like shedding responsibility for soem untested and unforeseen consequence. It's also hardly so that something like a Chimera has huge issues. I mean have you thought about how you are going to react? Turn around and present that rear to the rest of the enemy army?

Monsters that cause more 2x as many wounds break steadfast.

What does "more 2x as many" mean in earthling speak?

I am sorry but a giant beast eating your friends would cause people to Panic.

I'm sorry, they're not friends here...have seen it all...have trained for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HawaiiMatt wrote:
The Aracknarock is good, but it's only S5, and isn't super survivable (4+ armor, no ward/regen).
...
Again, it's 5 kills, barely winning combat, and taking a wound in exchange. That's not serious damage.
S5 and S3 just doesn't do serious damage to mid-grade infantry, let alone elite infantry.

I'm still not seeing monsters tearing up infantry.

Then you have never played with Spearmen against a HPA (which I know is unique, not a monster but hey). Even those Saurus *lose* in your example. I mean there's coldblooded so this is special but anyone testing on 7 or so is going to run sooner or later, and will be dead if not. Especially since the Suarus will not keep the rank bonus forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And then the instant people developed formations designed to stop cavalry, infantry became the dominant force on the battlefield.

A trained unit of spearmen was something a cavalry unit would not be able to touch.

I've often argued a similar view but it really isn't so clear cut. Even a full-blown tercio or infantry square was not immune to a cavalry charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:

Monsters weren't "good" at anything except being big terror factories running around going BOOO and chasing units off the table.

Isn't that a bit like saying they were only good at winning games?

This is a bit of a tangent for the topic here, but I have made a thread discussing terrain density which could prove a fix for steadfast's grip.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/537600.page

 Mike der Ritter wrote:
Well, Ld 8 with a re-roll is a 92 something chance to pass. Since you swap this in for CR, it also becomes less likely to win to start with. That might not be a problem for Skullcrushers but it is for human knights and normal infantry.

92%... to pass it once and hang around for a second round of combat. At the end of which they'll likely lose combat again and have to make another test to hang around for another round of combat. The odds of passing both tests is down to 85%. The odds of passing a third test drops to 79%.

And all of that is assuming you have access to leadership 9 and a BSB reroll that whole time. Take away either of those and the odds of a flanked unit surviving gets really bad, really quickly.