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.

Hi guys,

So after coming on here and asking about when a unit loses steadfast when facing a skirmisher / monster / non-ranked unit, I was convinced that it was when they were down to 4 models- i.e. they don't even have a complete front "rank".

However, in ALL of my games since then, opponents have impressed upon me that it is actually 9 models (for a 5-wide unit)- i.e. when they've lost their first complete rank after the front.

So my question is- how are people ACTUALLY playing this rule? (Not what is RAW, or RAI, just what your experience has been of how people have played it out in actual games so far)

The rules are pretty clear and we haven't seen any reason to play differently. 1 rank is higher than no ranks!

Pretty damn clear - both in rules an play. You are steadfast as long as you have move ranks trhan an opponent. For a non-ranked opponent that is when you have 1 erank, which for normal infantry is 5 models.

Anything else is a houserule.

I think you're both right, I've just been suprised that I'm the only one around here that seems to think so!

nosferatu1001 wrote:Pretty damn clear - both in rules an play. You are steadfast as long as you have move ranks trhan an opponent. For a non-ranked opponent that is when you have 1 erank, which for normal infantry is 5 models.

Anything else is a houserule.

^This.

If someone has a problem with 5+ models being stubborn against their Hydra/Giant/HPA/Etc., then they need to wake out of their 7th edition stupor and smell the bacon that is 8th edition.

The days of monsters taking out huge blocks of infantry single-handed are gone. Move on.

Actually, it's been the opposite situation- my dryads (skirmishers) beat up on someone's block until they're down to 7 or 8 models, and I mention that they're still steadfast since they have their front rank intact and I have no ranks. They contradict me and tell me that they're not steadfast since they don't have a complete rank after the first.

I know it's not what's in the rules, but it keeps happening! It's in my favor, so it's hard to tie them down and say "No, we're playing it this way". I dunno why most people aren't playing it (in my area) as we are clearly reading it here? I guess the rules are still new and people will pick up on it soon. It also probably stems from the first rank not giving a "rank bonus" and people confusing the two.

I know that Skirmishers don't get rank bonuses, but don't they still count as having ranks(at least for figuring out steadfast)?

You'd think so, but the rules specifically say "[s]kirmishers always count as having zero ranks."

Skirmishers are instead stubborn in forests, where as forests disrupt steadfast. It's the trade off.

A lot of people get mixed up between Ranks and Rank bonuses, and believe that the two are the same.

Forests disrupt steadfast? I'll have to look that up later, that's really good to know!

RiTides wrote:Forests disrupt steadfast? I'll have to look that up later, that's really good to know!

Yup makes it viable for skirmishers to hide in them, since they can take charges and potentially win too, altho most such units are too small to inflict sufficent casualties.