Switch Theme:

Steadfast fix?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in ie
Sniping Hexa




Dublin

Just a sidenote, you can't parry a Stomp

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in ie
Sniping Hexa




Dublin

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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/24 21:38:27


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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.


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.


   
Made in us
Charging Bull




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.

2011 Throne of Skulls Champion (Lord of the Rings)
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/26 00:33:11


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in ie
Sniping Hexa




Dublin

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)

 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

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

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in ie
Sniping Hexa




Dublin

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

 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight






Yendor

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.

Xom finds this thread hilarious!

My 5th Edition Eldar Tactica (not updated for 6th, historical purposes only) Walking the Path of the Eldar 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 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.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Charging Bull




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.

2011 Throne of Skulls Champion (Lord of the Rings)
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

   
Made in us
Charging Bull




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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/06/30 20:51:38


2011 Throne of Skulls Champion (Lord of the Rings)
 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: