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.

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.