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.

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.