Switch Theme:

Terror negates Steadfast  [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
Been Around the Block




The title pretty much sums it up. I think it might be good for Terror to negate steadfast for non-fear causing units. Terror is not at all common, only the biggest and most expensive units have it, and every army has access to it through a very expensive magic banner for those units that can take magic banners. It will prevent scenarios where 15 goblins are holding down a bloodthirster.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

No, this isn't a good idea.

A better idea is where Monsters count as having 2 ranks. Because otherwise we go back to 7th edition where a bloodthirster would win combat by 1 against 50 spearmen and autobreak them due to Fear.


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 ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, this isn't a good idea.

A better idea is where Monsters count as having 2 ranks. Because otherwise we go back to 7th edition where a bloodthirster would win combat by 1 against 50 spearmen and autobreak them due to Fear.


Fear only auto broke units if your fear causing unit outnumbered the opponents.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The only problem with monsters is they die a bit too easily for their cost. Being tarpitted is a legitimate counter. Especially since you're using usually at least 25% of the points of the monster itself and are slowly getting them killed and the monster is protected from most spells and war machines/shooting.

The 8th monsters are almost all very well balanced. An arachnarok or sphinx or soulgrinder is a decent use of points. If you change all monster rules, those guys become too good.

   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Which probably means all monsters are going to become bigger and tougher. More wounds, higher toughness, etc...

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





And a little less points. Beastmen monsters are too pricey. And I expect when they redo DoC(excited!) all those lords will get shaved 100pts or so. And then you're going to see scary.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





I just don't think there's any value in a rule that lets hammer units, like monsters, ignore the rule that makes anvil units actual anvils.

In general monsters could be tougher, or cheaper. Either option would make them more viable. But as small, mostly mobile generator of wounds/combat res, they're excellent, perfectly written for the role given. If you find them getting held up by masses of crap troops, then all I can say is that your opponent is outplaying you. Masses of crap troops are the counter to units like monsters, and you need to learn to avoid that combat, or give your monster proper support (your own mass of crap troops to deny the enemy steadfast and let the monster's combat res break them from combat).


That said, I do agree that they should count as one or two ranks, as Grey Templar suggested.

“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
Been Around the Block




I would agree with the 2 rank rule.

I'd also like to see flank charges negate steadfast.

And needing only 1 rank on the flank or rear to negate the combat res bonus for ranks.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Negate is way too strong. It only takes 1 lol-unit to negate a 200 unit tarpit. That's a bit silly. 90% of them wouldn't even be able to see it let alone be bothered by it. Armies with fast-moving single cheap units could negate every unit with their side-crashing.

   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




DukeRustfield wrote:
Negate is way too strong. It only takes 1 lol-unit to negate a 200 unit tarpit. That's a bit silly. 90% of them wouldn't even be able to see it let alone be bothered by it. Armies with fast-moving single cheap units could negate every unit with their side-crashing.


Serves that person right for bringing a 200 model unit. And that's exactly why I was thinking of something that negates steadfast, to prevent this kind of overboard silliness.

Having some restrictions on the types of unit that can break steadfast via flank charge would probably be good, like cavalry and not warbeasts. Throwing this out there.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

So why should a big mob of 200 guys suddenly lose all their courage because 5 dudes are tackling them from the side?

It should definitly be a more substantial threat to make them break.


I think it should be Monsters count as having 2 ranks at all times, and if a unit attacking the flank has 2 or more ranks then the unit they are currently flanking may not benifit from Steadfast. If the unit flanking the enemy is itself flanked then it will not negate Steadfast.

And then maybe have it be that if a unit is charged in the Rear it suffers -1 to its Ld for any break tests it is required to take.

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





Korpacz wrote:
Serves that person right for bringing a 200 model unit. And that's exactly why I was thinking of something that negates steadfast, to prevent this kind of overboard silliness.

I was going to propose something like a % point core max based on point total of the game. But then I realized a 200 model group of slaves isn't different than like 20 ogres or 40 bloodletters or 40 saurus warriors or 30 chaos warriors. It's still a ridiculous amount of points in one unit, that can all be spelled as one, buffed with heroes/items, etc. If anything, the megacrap unit is vastly more difficult to use or get much benefit from.

There's counters to tarpits too. There's probably less than just about most of the major types, but I don't think there's runaway Tarpit Doom taking over the competitive WHFB scene.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Korpacz wrote:
I would agree with the 2 rank rule.

I'd also like to see flank charges negate steadfast.


Agreed. I think it would work really well at bringing open field play back into the game - mid sized units of fast flanking units, plus units to counter them, and shooting units to bring them down would see a lot more play.

And needing only 1 rank on the flank or rear to negate the combat res bonus for ranks.


Two ranks means a unit has to be substantial to do it. Otherwise you get silly micro-units scooting about the outskirts. I mean, does anyone really want units of 5 archers lurking, ready to charge in and remove the enemy's steadfast and win a game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
And then maybe have it be that if a unit is charged in the Rear it suffers -1 to its Ld for any break tests it is required to take.


Yeah, that's a great idea. I think just that might be enough in itself, maybe you wouldn't need the negating of steadfast if that was a rule. Maybe -1 for the flank, and -2 for the rear as a mod to any break test. You could still be steadfast, but you'd be testing on a reduced Ld and fairly likely to break.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/12/05 07:57:37


“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 gb
Booming Thunderer







Terror causing monsters should count as at LEAST 1 rank, 1 rank of 5 men being steadfast against a monster is silly. Automatically breaking steadfast is obviously too much but I think that, for the purposes of determining enemy steadfast only, they should count as 2 ranks, base the ranks on their current wounds (eg divided by 2) or have a minimum unit size that may be steadfast vs a monster.

Perhaps a terror causing unit with at least one rank fighting in a flank should negate steadfast too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/05 16:02:13


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





This also hurts elite and MI/MC units disproportionately.

You're simply not going to have many ranks of Ogres even if it's a crapload of points.

   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

DukeRustfield wrote:
This also hurts elite and MI/MC units disproportionately.

You're simply not going to have many ranks of Ogres even if it's a crapload of points.


Well Ogres cause Fear so they would not be effected by this rule, as Terror is simply Fear to them.

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
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Steadfast is a fairly large part of 8th edition. I used to take units of 25 Clanrats, and of 20 Skavenslaves. Now, I take 40 and 50 respectively.
Bretonnia used to be an all-cavalry army, all the time. Now, a list without at least one block of 40+ Men-at-Arms and/or a large lance of knights is considered sub-optimal.

I'm all for coming up with new rules and changes to current ones, but including anything that negates such an iconic rule is going to have massive consequences, and many of them unintentional.

Fear used to be a very, very stupid rule; an enemy that outnumbers you by 1 and beats you by 1 forces you to make a Break test on a 2 instead of an 8. That was absurd. It's a much better rule, now.
Terror I feel is much the same. And while I see what we're driving at, I don't think a unit with the Terror Banner or a Hero with the Terrifying Mask of Eee! should do much of anything versus Steadfast.

Monsters should have an easier time, though. But like everyone's said, tar-pitting a monster is an okay way to deal with them, since you're still coming out behind on points, so negating Steadfast just isn't fair.

And flank/rear charges need to be better as well. While I find Sebster's argument for a more tactically diverse game, with more focus on multiple medium sized units, rather than on a few big ones to be sound, I'd still be hesitant to say that charging into a flank or rear would straight-up negate Steadfast.

I've played around with the rule that monsters count as one rank (so you only need to get the enemy down to nine models to make 'em run), and that charging units in the flank or rear count their ranks twice for the purposes of determining Steadfast. I feel that these rules are relatively minor, require the minimum amount of work to implement, and did more or less what they were intended to do.

A -1 to your Ld for being flanked could work too, though. It's an easier penalty to instill, and its effects are less drastic. That's the kind of ruling I like to see--ones that come up often and don't completely decide the tide of battle when they do--the only downside is that now you've got three separate rules for flank and rear charges, so I'd still consider just counting ranks as double, since it's a mite simpler.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Grey Templar wrote:
DukeRustfield wrote:
This also hurts elite and MI/MC units disproportionately.

You're simply not going to have many ranks of Ogres even if it's a crapload of points.


Well Ogres cause Fear so they would not be effected by this rule, as Terror is simply Fear to them.

I meant for flank charges.

And it's not just Ogres. If you throw a sabertusk into the flanks of Saurus, they all of a sudden aren't steadfast? That's pretty rough. "AH, A CAT WORTH 1/20TH OUR POINTS, RUN!"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/05 20:00:43


   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

DukeRustfield wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
DukeRustfield wrote:
This also hurts elite and MI/MC units disproportionately.

You're simply not going to have many ranks of Ogres even if it's a crapload of points.


Well Ogres cause Fear so they would not be effected by this rule, as Terror is simply Fear to them.

I meant for flank charges.

And it's not just Ogres. If you throw a sabertusk into the flanks of Saurus, they all of a sudden aren't steadfast? That's pretty rough. "AH, A CAT WORTH 1/20TH OUR POINTS, RUN!"


But Fear is not negating Steadfast in the proposed rules, only Terror.

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
Evasive Eshin Assassin





It looks like DukeRustfield is responding to the idea that a flank charge should negate Steadfast, separate from the Terror negating Steadfast idea.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/05 22:37:11


 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Well either way its not going to work like that. Because the proposition is that you need ranks to break the Steadfast. Not simply the flank charge.

And Ogres do indeed have ranks. I usually run in units of 9-12 so I have 3 ranks.

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
Evasive Eshin Assassin





The original statement was "I'd also like to see flank charges negate steadfast". No ranks mentioned there. So, as you say, ranks should definitely be involved.

And while Ogres do indeed have ranks, they have 3, which I would not consider "many", as Duke said.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yah, that's what I was saying. I don't mind if you have to spend some points on a flank charge to negate steadfast. But some armies have sabertusk-like super cheap units that are also super fast and 1 rank.

   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Warpsolution wrote:
The original statement was "I'd also like to see flank charges negate steadfast". No ranks mentioned there. So, as you say, ranks should definitely be involved.

And while Ogres do indeed have ranks, they have 3, which I would not consider "many", as Duke said.


I'm not sure about ranks - I can see how something like 5 dogs hitting the flank to break steadfast is ridiculous, but 3 mournfang cavalry or skull crushers? or 5 chaos knights? I could see a unit like that break steadfast, or at least negate the rank bonus for combat. Getting a full 10 chaos knights into a flank is not easy, they get redirected and people just turn to face them, and 10 of them with upgrades usually run around 450pts and if you lose only 1 guy so you have 9 you don't get the bonus.
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Well, then the problem becomes a matter of points/combat effectiveness, and things get really sticky, really fast.
That's why 7th edition had Unit Strength. Without it, we're kind of stuck with number of models/ranks.

Still, you could always just charge into combat with those units, and use your less devastating ones as the flank chargers. In fact, if I get flank-charged by the above units, I'd wager that their side is already winning; I'll avoid such a situation at any cost, if I can (and I will be able to, in most cases).

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





In 8th it's hard to separate 5 mournfangs flanking 100 skaven slaves and 1 sabertusk flanking 12 ironguts.

If it was done by points, skave slaves would lose steadfast to nearly anything, and wouldn't be a very good tarpit. At least not for more than 1 round.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





The more I think about this, the more I like two of the ideas given in this thread as answers to just pulling back slightly on the power of steadfast, making flanking really matter again, and giving monsters a little more danger power.

1) Monsters count as two ranks (so they can reliably break smaller units as they should)
2) When attacked in the flank/rear by a unit with two or more ranks (so as per rule 1 monsters would now count) in addition to existing benefits to combat res, you test with a -1/-2 mod to your break test.

I think that's probably enough by itself, without worrying about toying around with the rules for terror.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/06 03:49:52


“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. 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: