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.

While losing steadfast as a whole just because a unit is disrupted would be excessive and lead to unrealistic situations where 10 men could remove steadfast from 100. A rule that reduces the effective ranks counted for steadfast could work.

THE PROPOSED RULE (House rule or rule for 9th edition).

A losing unit's effective ranks for counting steadfast is reduced if it is disrupted. (Rank bonus is all lost as the unit is disrupted).

-1 rank for flank disruption
-2 for rear disruption

The modifiers are additive (disrupted in both flanks -2, disrupted in a flank and rear -3, in both flanks and rear -4).



EXAMPLE 1

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on one flank - it counts as having only 3 ranks.

EXAMPLE 2

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on both flanks - it counts as having only 2 ranks.

EXAMPLE 3

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on one flank and disrupted in the rear - it counts as having only 1 rank.

Example 4

A unit has 4 ranks and is disrupted on both flanks and disrupted in the rear - it counts as having 0 ranks.

i like it, makes sense after all if you are "suprised" by a flank attack or rear you are less likely to be standing firm

I honestly think steadfast in its current implementation is incredibly strong, possibly bordering on broken. (I plat skaven and think this).

I think there should be a mass casualty rule, if you lose more then 20% of your starting number you lose steadfast (starting number determined at the beginning of combat).

This will prevent huge units from staying steadfast against elite units for 3-4 turns.

This could demonstrate that despite having numbers, if you get your ass handed to you you might still run.

Cheap 150 point blocks 50 strong being stubborn for 2-3 turns against a unit that cost, say, 400 points is just kind of dumb.

"Losing Steadfast"

A unit loses "Steadfast" if one of the following conditions are met;
- Engaged in the rear of the unit.
- Losing 30% of the unit's models in a single combat.
- Engaged in both flanks of the unit.

In addition, Steadfast units will take a -1 penalty to their leadership when charged in a single flank. Steadfast does not negate this penalty and if charged in both flanks, this penalty does not apply- instead the unit loses the Steadfast rule until it is not engaged in both flanks.
~~~

+ A rear charge is always devastating and disruptive- even units with lots of models should fear being engaged in its rear. Note: This only lasts while the unit counts as engaged in the rear, if it reforms facing it can regain steadfast because the rear would no longer be engaged.
+ Losing a large number in a single combat is pretty huge- 50 models would need to lose 15 models, 100 models would need to lose 30... Losing that much should negate enough ranks and if it somehow doesn't, then steadfast should be gone anyhow.
+ Both flanks is just as bad as the rear- the unit has been cornered and disrupted on multiple sides. Breaking steadfast makes sense.

+ Giving a flank charge a simple penalty makes sense and doesn't make units of 10 easily break 100 models...
~~~


Would like to note that I don't think Steadfast is overpowered or imbalanced... it perhaps needs tuning to prevent infantry from being too good or too bad-- since nerfing steadfast nerfs infantry.

Take a look at Skaven- weak infantry, potential Ld10 from ranks and general though.
50 clanrats with spears with Ld10 would give us 10 ranks of 5. That's a pretty sizeable unit...
... an elite unit of 20 Elves with spears gives us 4 ranks of 5, both would end up being fairly equal in cost I would think.
Both end up having the same armor save as well.

Elves striking first will have 4 ranks striking (21 attacks given champion), with the rats returning only 16 attacks in 3 ranks.
Higher WS gives 14 attacks hitting and 7 wounding, perhaps 4-5 rats dying from the Elves assault.
Rats return 8 hits, 4 wounds, 2-3 dead Elves.
--> Fairly equally matched units, with the rats eventually winning out because of attrition...
--> The point should be for the Elves to combine charges or add in chariots or eagles to add supporting volume of attacks to kill off more rats.
--> Two units of infantry, the larger block will always win out eventually in most cases.
--> Only through supporting infantry blocks with cavalry or monsters/chariots is how to break the bigger block of weak troops with elite units.

Now think of adding in a clause that severe casualties remove steadfast-- the unit suffers no penalties to Ld for combat resolution until it has last 20%...
A unit of 100 becomes engaged by multiple nasty things that dish out lots of wounds.
The big infantry block loses 20 models, it still has 80 models and 16 ranks! But now it loses steadfast and takes a -20 to it's Ld. Regardless of return attacks from that infantry block (because most infantry blocks are only returning 2-3 ranks of 1 attack per model), it becomes impossible to make up enough to have any passable Ld to check against.


Why even bother making a rule to remove steadfast? Why not just say any unit loses 20% of it's number of models automatically breaks from "massive causalties" if it loses the combat?

The other issue is that with a block so large as 100 models (20 ranks), why was a flank or rear charge so difficult to pull off that you had to resort to massive casualties?

I think the current incarnation is not perfect, but neither is trying to put casualty caps on it.

I think flank/rear charges are appropriate to break steadfast, but perhaps a unit of 100 shouldn't be broken by a unit of 10... maybe require a number of ranks equal to 1/5th of the target unit in the flanking unit?
So the flanking cavalry needs 4 ranks to break a block of 100.

Likewise, add in the next clause;
Steadfast is lost if the total ranks of all enemy units engaged in this close combat equals or exceeds the steadfast unit's total ranks.

So the unit of 100 models has 20 ranks.
It gets engaged by a block of 40 Elves in the front, 15 cavalry in the flank, and 20 elite infantry in the other flank.
40 Elves = 8 ranks, 15 cavalry = 3 ranks, 20 infantry = 4 ranks.
Total = 15 ranks.
The big block keeps steadfast.

Then a unit of 25 more elves charge in... adds 5 more ranks.
The big block loses steadfast.

Basically means a big steadfast unit must outnumber as well as outrank to keep steadfast.

In_Theory wrote:Take a look at Skaven- weak infantry, potential Ld10 from ranks and general though.
50 clanrats with spears with Ld10 would give us 10 ranks of 5. That's a pretty sizeable unit...
... an elite unit of 20 Elves with spears gives us 4 ranks of 5, both would end up being fairly equal in cost I would think.
Both end up having the same armor save as well.

The clanrats in your example cost 305 points, the elves cost 190. An equal points value number of clanrats would be 30, with champ for 185.

Elves striking first will have 4 ranks striking (21 attacks given champion), with the rats returning only 16 attacks in 3 ranks.
Higher WS gives 14 attacks hitting and 7 wounding, perhaps 4-5 rats dying from the Elves assault.
Rats return 8 hits, 4 wounds, 2-3 dead Elves.

The elves will hit with around 18 or 19 attacks per turn, remember the reroll allowed by ASF. This will ultimately produce about six wounding hits per turn.

The skaven would return 2 or 3 wounds per turn, as you said. Only outnumbering the elves 3:2, this is a poor casualty ratio for the skaven.

--> Fairly equally matched units, with the rats eventually winning out because of attrition...

You're forgetting that steadfast doesn't stop you running away, it can still happen. Especially if the BSB is out of range or dead.

I think flank/rear charges are appropriate to break steadfast, but perhaps a unit of 100 shouldn't be broken by a unit of 10... maybe require a number of ranks equal to 1/5th of the target unit in the flanking unit?
So the flanking cavalry needs 4 ranks to break a block of 100.

Perhaps a flank charge can negate as many ranks for steadfast purposes as it has ranks of its own? So a flank charge by a unit 3 deep would cause the target's 7 ranks to be considered as only 4 ranks for the purpose of determining steadfast?

50 clanrats with spears is only 225 points...

4 points per rat, half point per spear.

ShivanAngel wrote:50 clanrats with spears is only 225 points...

4 points per rat, half point per spear.

Gyaargh! I was thinking of the points costs in the old codex - forget my point about the numbers available for equivalent points costs.

Yea... I was thinking I couldn't have messed up that badly!


While Steadfast doesn't guarantee no fleeing, it helps a lot.

I think big infantry blocks need steadfast in some form, but I also think that it shouldn't be impossible to strip off of horde armies.
Likewise, it also shouldn't be easily taken away by 10 guys hitting a flank of 100.


I think mass casualties is a good condition to remove it, but I just think at a certain point when you're taking enough casualties to remove steadfast, you've practically negated the unit's Ld, so they'll auto-break.


There maybe just needs to be an additional rule/clause stating that if you lose a close combat by double or more, you autobreak without a morale test.
Meaning the Elves cause 20 casualties (just for argument sake) and the rats cause 10.
They cap their rank bonus and have standards... all of that being equal-- the Elves beat the rats by double and the rats autobreak...


It takes a lot of dice or luck or both to actually get numbers that big, but it happens.
Though there are often combats that one side botches rolls and gets the base [ranks+standard] resolution against a handful of kills-- so maybe say;

[Demoralizing Defeat]: After combat resolution before break tests, if the losing side lost by an amount greater than the number of remaining ranks in the unit, it will automatically break from combat without a morale test.

i.e.
Rats kill no elves, elves kill 4. Rat resolution is a 4 and Elves have 8. Rats are steadfast and test against unmodified Ld.

Rats kill 6, elves kill 16. Rat resolution would be a 10 (6+3+1), Elves would have a 20 (16+3+1). Rats would autobreak because losing by 10 is greater than the remaining ranks in the 50-strong unit (now only 36-strong).



Ideally, the rule would only affect large units that are effectively steadfast to keep the big blocks from never fleeing even when being hammered by the opposition and losing large numbers.
But there also needs to be some way for a steadfast unit to not be negated by a 10-man flank charge...

In_Theory wrote:While Steadfast doesn't guarantee no fleeing, it helps a lot.

Absolutely, it's a huge benefit, it means a lot of situations where big blocks of infantry would have been very lucky to remain in the game in past editions are now very likely to stay in the game - especially if they get the reroll from being near the BSB.

It's just that people often look at steadfast and assume that means the big blocks will stay in the combat, slowly grinding down an elite opponent. In my experience that isn't something you can count on - even with LD9 you'll be failing 1 time in 6. That sounds alright until you consider that rolling again next turn means your average rate of failure is 1 time in 3, three turns makes it around half the time.

Now that changes dramatically if you're within range of the BSB - but that's why I think one of the major priorities of any army looking to break the enemy is to kill the BSB.

I think big infantry blocks need steadfast in some form, but I also think that it shouldn't be impossible to strip off of horde armies.
Likewise, it also shouldn't be easily taken away by 10 guys hitting a flank of 100.
I think mass casualties is a good condition to remove it, but I just think at a certain point when you're taking enough casualties to remove steadfast, you've practically negated the unit's Ld, so they'll auto-break.

True, I think the problem with massed casualties approach is that it undoes the entire reason for steadfast. The idea is that a poor but more numerous enemy can have a reasonable chance of staying in a combat - bring in a rule where massive casualties can force an autobreak and you're really back at square one.

I still prefer the idea that to disrupt the confidence of a large unit you need to hit the flanks. I agree that ten guys in the flank shouldn't be able to strip away steadfast entirely, but I think a rule that removed a streadfast rank for every rank of troops in the flank or rear of a unit might work. So if a unit is six ranks deep, but has a unit 3 deep in one flank and another 2 deep in the rear, it would only be considered 1 deep for the purposes of steadfast.

EDIT- although this might get very complicated in a multiple combat.

Actually that way could be added simply and easily... by changing the rules for disruption entirely.

[Disruption]:
When a unit is charged in the flank or rear, it counts as having 1 less rank for purposes of combat resolution and determining steadfast status for each additional rank any enemy unit has engaged in the flanks or rear.
In addition, being engaged in the rear gives an additional -1 to combat resolution.



Example:
Big block of clanrats (50 rats), 5x10 block.

#1:
Engaged in front by block of 20 Elven spearmen (5x4).
Clanrats gain steadfast and full rank bonus (+3).

#2:
Engaged in flank by 20 Elven spearment (5x4).
Clanrats count as having only 7 ranks total (-3 for the additional ranks of the Elves).
Clanrats maintain steadfast because they still have more ranks and still have enough ranks to gain full rank bonus to resolution.

#3:
Engaged in rear by 20 Elven spearmen (5x4).
Clanrats count as only having 7 ranks total and take an additional -1 to combat resolution.
Clanrats maintain steadfast because they still have more ranks. Still have +3 rank bonus for combat resolution, but total resolution will be at a -1.

#4:
Engaged in the front by 20 Elven spearmen (5x4) and also in the flank by 20 Elven spearmen (5x4).
Clanrats count as having 7 total ranks after the flank penalty.
Together, the Elves have 8 total ranks so the rats lose steadfast.
Rats can still get full rank bonus for combat resolution though.

#5:
Engaged in the front and both flanks by blocks of 20 Elven spearmen (5x4).
Rats count as having total of 4 ranks after taking -6 ranks total from both flanks getting charged.
Rats lose steadfast, Elven spearmen greatly outrank the rats (even though the Elves only outnumber by 10 models, they have many more ranks after disruption).
Rats maintain their full rank bonus to combat resolution- but casualties will quickly diminish that...

#6:
Engaged in the front, flank, and rear by blocks of 20 Elven spearmen (5x4).
Rats count as having 4 total ranks, -6 penalty total for the rear and flank engagements.
No steadfast for the rats, full rank bonus to resolution (before casualties), -1 to total combat resolution.



I think it works well...
It actually makes sense that a sizeable block of infantry will disrupt the enemy more than a small unit of light cavalry...

Perhaps something needs to be added to distinguish heavy cavalry from light cavalary in terms of combat resolution?
Perhaps:
[Thunderous Charge]: Heavy Cavalry (armor save of 3+ or better?) disrupt an additional rank of the enemy unit when they charge a flank or rear.


So in the above examples;

#1: 35 clanrats, 5x7 block.
Engaged in the front by block of spearmen (5x4) and then flanked by 10 light cavalry (5x2).
Rats maintain steadfast and full rank bonus. Only lose 1 rank from the disruption.

#2:
Engaged in front by 5x4 block of spearmen, then flanked by 5x2 heavy cavalry.
Rats lose steadfast due to -2 rank disruption from heavy cavalry.
Maintain full rank bonus to combat resolution.




Thoughts?
The heavy cavalry bonus could be upped a bit more too, but I think just a single additional disrupted rank is sufficient to distinguish heavy cav from light cav.

In_Theory wrote:Thoughts?
The heavy cavalry bonus could be upped a bit more too, but I think just a single additional disrupted rank is sufficient to distinguish heavy cav from light cav.

I like it a lot. I wasn't convinced with my original suggestion because I hadn't really thought it through completely, and thought it could get quite messy. You've followed the idea through to its logical conclusion where it cancels rank bonus and steadfast ranks equally, and it looks like a really clean solution.


Oh, and I think the boost needed for heavy cavalry would just be a +2 IN in addition to the +2 STR for lances on the charge. But that might be biased from my Empire perspective.

Well Bretonnians need something in a BIG way and having an added bonus to rank disruption would be ideal methinks.


So Cavalry with an armor save of 3+ or better cancel an additional '2' ranks when charging in the flank or rear in addition to their number of ranks?

So a 3x5 lance of Knights will cancel 7 ranks when charging in the flank or rear?
oooohhhh...... that's messy.

I think it's near to where it needs to be, but adding another 2 ranks to be canceled seems a bit rough when facing Brets, maybe keep with just an additional single rank disrupted (so in the above example they'd disrupt 6 ranks.



I don't think allowing Brets to disrupt that many ranks is imbalanced-- their lance's have a HUGE flank exposed and the whole point of the lance is that it is truly devastating... so a flank charge should fairly properly crush the unit they charged.

It'd also change Bret playstyle a fair bit-- you would have to rely on peasants to be anvils while the lances are hammers. Getting a front arc charge with knights isn't very effective, but hitting the flank with that lance is utterly crippling.
I think it would play out fairly well.


As for Empire, their knights are not trained in the same ways and thus they still get the +1 rank disruption as heavy cav, but don't get the lance... you don't need +2 rank disruption...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Had a bit of a realization-- we've been focusing on cavalry to a degree!

What about infantry and monstrous infantry and monsters charging flanks/rear?


Infantry: Disrupts ranks equal to total ranks in unit -or- disrupts ranks equal to half of total ranks in unit
>>> 20 Elves in 5x4 would disrupt either 3 ranks or 1.5 (2) ranks. 50 Clanrats in 5x10 would disrupt either 9 ranks or 4.5 (5) ranks.
>>> Big units would be a bit too good if it was straight based on ranks...
------ How about cap the disruption at 3 ranks for infantry units? Unlike cavalry charges, infantry don't trample through the enemy lines as well- so can't push as deep and disrupt as much.

Monstrous infantry: Disrupts ranks equal to total ranks of unit, +1 for Fear +2 for Terror.
>>> Rat Ogres in 3x2 formation would disrupt 1 rank of the unit and 1 additional rank because they cause fear.
>>> Bull Ogres in 3x5 formation would dirupt 4 ranks +1 rank disrupted for Fear.
------ I think this works pretty good, and scary enemies make sense that the flank would be more unsteady.


Monsters: Disrupt 1 rank automatically, +1 for Fear, +1 for Terror.
--------- Works well, gives monsters back a little teensy bit of their ability to disrupt a unit, but no more auto-break craziness...


Thoughts?