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.

Okay, so having just picked up the 8th Edition Island of blood set, Steadfast confused and annoyed me somewhat.

The last edition i played was 6th, and while i was very good at it, i'm having to relearn all the little changes they made with 8th, and got to the Steadfast part.

Since 'Outnumber' is gone, and replaced with this, it doesnt seem to be as well thought out, or explained.

Okay, so you have to have more ranks than the enemy? What about a draw, which isnt explained? But, okay, this works fine if everyone only ever went in ranks of 5. But what about say, Skaven? Or anyone else who decides to go with say, a rank of 10 (For horde bonus)? Surely 4 ranks of 10 models would trump 4 ranks of 5?

Or even, you have 3 ranks of 10, and they have 4 ranks of 5. You have 33% more in unit strength than they do, but they are steadfast? uh?

This makes very little sense to me, and surely something like plain old unit strength would be better to decide steadfast. Or even, "If you out number the enemy by 5 or more, you are steadfast"

Thoughts and opinions, please. For now, i'll be using Unit strength to decide, i think.

Thanks.

Go ahead and use unit streinght, just don't be surprised if people that arent old gaming buds refuse to play you.

Edit: Besides horde formation has an advantage, and as such its only natural it has a drawback too.

There is really no unit strength anymore so 40 in a 4x10 formation will not be steadfast against a 25 in 5x5 its all about complete ranks of at least 5+ now.

I think its quite good and its easily worked out it was harder to work out unit strength of multi wound monsters after youve taken wounds off them etc.

Also i never liked the fact that your big block of soldiers would run from almost anything flanking them.

I think this is the typical new ed whine, so the whole thread is a waste of cyberspace.

Also you are only steadfast if you have more ranks then the person that won the cc. If you are equal or less then you are not steadfast. It is clear as day in the rule book. You calculate each combatants number of ranks the same way you would for combat rez if you lost have +1 more rank then you are steadfast it is that simple.

Except that you don't count the ranks the same way as combat resolution. Combat resolution counts every rank after the first. Steadfast counts every rank including the first and you just have to have more than any single unit on the opposing side involved in the combat. The relation steadfast has to combat resolution when it comes to ranks is that they each have to have at least 5 models in the rank, for it to count.

Yup so a unit of five mooks is still stadfast versus that dragon that's alone

How can "you need to have more RANKS than your opponent" be explained any more clearly, even if you have the same?

Do you have MORE? Yes? Then you are steadfast?
No? Then you are not.

Easy.

All it cares about is ranks - the number of people making up each rank is irrelevant

Unless the rank is 4 models or less at which point it isn't a complete rank.

Where does it say you count the first rank. All I see is it says calculate the extra ranks as you would for combat rez. Please let me know the page or more specific reference to counting the first rank, because I don't know anyone that does it that way. Or are we some how reading that wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mind I found it thanks.

Ranks /= Rank Bonus.

BRB, pg.60, Steadfast, par.1, "Any unit on the losing side can use its unmodified leadership for break tests so long as its number of ranks is higher than that of any of the enemy units in the close combat--compare the unit's ranks to the enemy unit with the most ranks in the combat. If even one enemy unit has an equal or higher number of ranks, then the unit must test using its modified ld."

BRB, pg.60, Steadfast, par.2, "Units that have more ranks than any of the enemy units are steadfast; units that do not, are not."

BRB, pg.54, Steadfast, par.1, "If a defeated unit has more ranks than its enemy, it takes its break test on its unmodified leadership."

BRB, pg.54, Steadfast, par.2, "Simply put, a unit is considered to be steadfast if it has more ranks than its enemy. As with calculating extra ranks for the purposes of combat resolution, the ranks have to be five or more models wide for the unit to be treated as being steadfast. The rank doesn't have to be complete, bust must have at least five models."

The part most people are confusing with combat resolution is the last statement I quoted. It is not saying that you calculate your ranks exactly like combat resolution, it's saying, like combat resolution, to count a rank it must have at least 5 models. No where does it say that you only count the ranks after the first rank. It repeatedly states that you just count the number of ranks.

For example, a block of infantry that is 5x4 would have a combat res bonus for extra ranks of +3 because it has 3 ranks beyond the first rank, however, for steadfast, the same block of 5X4 has 4 ranks, thus you would consider that against the enemy's troops. If the enemy had 3 ranks or less, your block would be steadfast, if the enemy block had 4 or more ranks, you would not be steadfast.

DarkAngelHopeful