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.

Hello, Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening (delete as applicable) and indeed welcome, to the first of my 'Dealing With' Threads. I plan to run this as a sort of irregularly regular thing, with each thread focussing on a different challenge from the Fantasy Battlefield, and how the various armies, and units therein deal with that particular subject. Ideally, I'd prefer nothing but 'first hand' experience and extrapolation, but if you play the army, and have a suggested bit of Theoryhammer, that will be dandy as well. What I really wish to avoid though, is theory hammer involving an army you don't really play at the moment. Hope that's not too restrictive!

So as the title suggests, this first attempt is on Steadfast.

In hopefully what will become an established order, I shall focus on the problems that Steadfast presents. Feel free to add to this list as much as your solutions, as I doubt I'll completely nail everything in one fell swoop

Steadfast then....why is it a pain in the arse, and when is it at it's worst (in terms of being a pain in your arse!). The obvious bits first. Unit of cheapo troops, with a BSB nearby are suddenly stubborn with a re-roll for a while, not matter how hard you panel them in combat. Stick in the enemy general within range, and that unit isn't really going to go anywhere. Curses!

And if not being able to smoosh cheap stuff with evenb your stompiest unit wasn't bad enough, thanks to 'Dead or Fled' rules you won't be getting any VPs for your efforts.

Then of course comes the more practical application. Putting said Super Steadfast Block of Annoyance in such a position that it intercepts one of your key units, leaving it wide open for a counter charge.

Speaking of 'Dead or Fled' (just above...do you see?) this can also mean Heavy Infantry works nicely when playing the Steadfast game, as they simply deny VPs. Perhaps not the most efficient use, but with the relative ease of reforming these days, it's also worth considering how to circumvent.


N.B. to try to avoid too much derailing/non constructive debate, spirit of the thread is about giving food for thought to other players and yourself, and not about somebody 'being right'. Feel free to point out potential flaws by all means. Just be helpful with it.
And there we go. Bit of waffle, some facts, and certainly a start. I shall now hand over you Denziens of Dakka, to volunteer your tactics for dealing with units playing the Steadfast game!

I find disruption works quite well.

Yet disruption doesn't prevent Steadfast for having more ranks, it just means you don't get CR for the ranks, but you remain Steadfast.

I don't think that's right, Mr Mystery- if you get flank charged by a unit that can cause disruption (2 or more ranks) you no longer count as having more ranks than the opposing unit and lose your steadfast.

I could be wrong and I guess we could always start a YMDC thread about it rather than drag this off-topic, but it would definitely affect the premise of dealing with steadfast.

It's said directly in the Rulebook. Hold on, will get page ref!

Fantasy Rulebook wrote:Pp54, paragraph 1.

It should be noted that a unit does not lose its steadfast status for being disrupted. A flank charge might be able to disrupt a unit, but it can't prevent the warriors in the unit realising they outnumber the foe

Hey, rulebook reference ftw!

Yet another thing I and everyone I know are playing wrong!

To go back to the original question... I guess just killing power is needed. People are vaunting things like skaven slaves, but these only take a few turns (counting the top and bottom half as 1) to grind down with a combat unit like 6 treekin, or even dryads, to use my own army. And they're not going to always be passing that steadfast roll, especially if you can get the BSB into combat and designate some attacks to it.

But it's definitely a problem... I had a deep unit of marauders tie up 2 treemen for most of a game over the weekend, even after one squashed the BSB. He thought it was a waste of the unit since they obviously couldn't harm the treemen, but they tied up more than their points worth and left the treemen vulnerable when they finally failed a break test and ran, since he'd had so much time to position his other units advantageously...

When it comes to Wood Elves, I'd have thought the not terribly tactical application of Bowfire (i.e. shoot it 'til it's tiny) would be a fairly safe bet. Either that or bung a Great Eagle in the flank, in the hope that when it inevitably loses the combat, they likewise fail their restraint and naff off after it, exposing the flank.

But speaking of flanks, what do you reckon to this? Enage in flank with a competent unit. When they turn to face, their rankage changes (possibly to Horde formation). Now I'd need to go over the rules, but if I'm right in thinking, during a combat reform, you can bring more models into the fight, but you cannot shrink your frontage? So say someone has 10 rank deep Slaves. Engaging them in the flank with the right sort of unit (perhaps Cavalry?) and aim to either win or lose (I know, sacrilege but bare with me!) by a narrow margin, having not killled enough to prevent the unit, when reformed to face, not gaining Horde status. This achieved, he CANNOT the reform to a narrower frontage, as doing so would take away his Horde status, thus reducing the number of models that can attack?

Assuming the above assumption is correct (and it may not be), which unit in your army would you use for the bait? Note that the flank charge stripping his ranks isn't as important as getting him to change facing and thus frontage...

Nope. Scratch that. As per Pp54, but this time Paragraph 8, it's a full on reform, and you're only not allowed to take a model out of BTB. Still....you know....with a unit wide enough in the flank, if he does reform, those ranks go bye-bye. So don't scratch it after all! And then of course you can jump what used to be his front but is now his flank with another unit, and give the git a good shoeing.

That would probably be a really nice trick to use Chaos knights for. Slam into the side of a large unit and grind up a few guys. If he doesn't reform he is only getting 1 rank of attacks (5-7, depending on how many ranks he has) because he can't get supporting attacks, and the knights will probably grind him down as they are dead tough. If he does combat reform to face you, his flank and rear are available to the rest of your army, able to be hit with a 2+ rank deep unit and thus being disrupted. Might be another really good trick to use knights for, assuming you can't smack a warmachine or something with them.

Dealing with steadfast is such an interesting booger.

The problem is my answer has to depend on the army I'm using in comparison to the army you're using.

It boils down to this:

If my army is cheaper than yours, you should never, or rarely have steadfast

If my army is more expensive than yours, you should always or very close to it, have steadfast.

The margin of steadfast, compared to how quickly I can equalize that is the first thing a competent general will consider.

Take the example of chaos versus high elf spearmen 12 chosen chaos warriors versus 21 high elf spearmen. Even though the spearmen have tons of attacks, just blindly pushing into the spearmen and using my force of superior attacks will eventually win the day because they are still just str 3 and I'll be able to weather that storm.

On the other hand, if it's my 12 chaos warriors versus 70 (5x14, clearly) clanrats, I would need something to mitigate that steadfast, or we'll be there all week! (or at least until rat ogres, or a doomwheel clean up)

Ogres have a really intersting mechanic, where they can trust Gnoblars to offset steadfast, while the ogres do the heavy lifting.

I'd be interested to see ogres using gnoblars for steadfast, have yet to see it (only seen ogres run... well, the big ogre-ish way ).

The problem with an eagle in the flank/rear, Mr Mystery, is that it dies rather easily and quickly to many things. I usually just try to hit things with more than one unit at a time, and hope that one of them will run the enemy down (usually a pretty good bet).

Interesting points about the reform...

Well it seems i goofed last night.
To be honest i deal with steadfast using salamanders, i suppose other armies would have simmilar ways to soften up such big blocks.

The first thing to remember with steadfast is that getting to test on your unmodified Leadership value doesn’t allow you to assume you’re going to pass. At Ld 7 a unit will still be failing 42% of the time, at Ld 8 it’s 28%. Now, you’re right that it’s rare that a big block of troops will be deployed outside of the support of the battle standard bearer and general. Thing is, even with the support of the best generals available, you’re still failing that Ld 10 test one time in six – ask an Orc player how much he likes to depend on relying on that.

Ah but with the BSB that changes to a 1/36 chance of failure… which is why you kill the BSB ASAP. The best way of sniping a character will depend on the army, some might have the gadgets or the spells to pick out a character, others might be able to send a single powerful character, others might rely on brute force and just smash that one specific enemy unit first… but the result is always the same - an army with large blocks of steadfast troops quickly looks a lot less determined when there’s no BSB. And if you’ve killed the general as well then you’ll most units running away each turn.

Another option to breaking steadfast is to bring more ranks than the other guy. Of course it isn’t practical to bring more ranks of WoC, but that why you team up a nice big unit of Marauders – the killing power of the quality troops will be enough to win the combat, while your big block of junk will deny the enemy steadfast.

The third option is to take really big unit of cheap troops, then buff it with spells until it might actually kill something.

I think you're mis-interpreting "unmodified" You get to count the Generals leadership and other bonus/negative impacts.

The only part of the leadership that's "unmodified" is the affect of CR on the modification

So skaven slaves within 12 inches of both a fighty lord and a BSB are at a re-rollable leadership of 10. If they take some sort of -2 to their leadership with some sort of spell, they are at a ld 8 re-rollable.

Ragnar4 wrote:I think you're mis-interpreting "unmodified" You get to count the Generals leadership and other bonus/negative impacts.

The only part of the leadership that's "unmodified" is the affect of CR on the modification

So skaven slaves within 12 inches of both a fighty lord and a BSB are at a re-rollable leadership of 10. If they take some sort of -2 to their leadership with some sort of spell, they are at a ld 8 re-rollable.

Umm, I think you misread my post or something. I know that you can use the General and BSB in addition to the unit’s steadfast, and I never suggested otherwise. I pointed out that a unit without the support of the General and the BSB is reasonably likely to run away, and that even with the General offering LD 10 the unit is still going to flee 1 time in 6. Planning on a big tarpit unit to beat an enemy through attrition by making a LD 10 roll every turn is a dangerous strategy.

The thing that makes a really big difference is the BSB, because then you’re looking at the unit running away one time in 36, and that’s something that can be relied on. Which is why I then went on to mention that one of the best means of defeating an army based on using steadfast to win a war of attrition is to kill the BSB.

Do you see what I’m saying now?


EDIT - Sorry, one time in 12 you'll fail a LD 10 check. You fail LD 9 one time in 9 - showing my Empire heritage there... Principle remains the same, though.

Yes, to deal with steadfast... you HAVE to kill the dam BSB . Priority target #1...

Thats when deamons still end up in the lead. Breaking steadfast using more ranks is almost impossible, but haveing them reduce the enemies leadership -2 from the BSB and -x from assorted other leadership reducing stuff makes anything run.

A mostly slannesh list is pretty nasty nowdays because of the leadership reducing stuff. Stubborn on ld 4 really isn't all that impressive.

One thing to remember as well is the Death spell (doom and darkness if I recall) that drops the Ld of a model/unit. Dropping it on the enemy general forces everyone to use his now lower leadership (as you don't have a choice but to use his Ld). Even a rerollable Ld 5 or 6 is going to make for rough going. The trick though is to make certain you are winning vs the block, as you would still have to get past their rank bonus for CR.

war is absolutely right

yes daemons got the nerfbat in a lot of ways but masque (-d3) plus our -2 ld BSb plus the relatively easy to cast slaanesh big spell (roll 3 dice take 2 highest) then the possibility of a MoS HoT - death lore and the spell from that lore that knocks leadership. then for extra ouch sophoric musk which makes your run even shorter.

yep,yep daemons eat steadfast units with ketchup, well assuming we win combat of course o wait thats what letters and demonettes are for

txscotch12 wrote:war is absolutely right

yes daemons got the nerfbat in a lot of ways but masque (-d3) plus our -2 ld BSb plus the relatively easy to cast slaanesh big spell (roll 3 dice take 2 highest) then the possibility of a MoS HoT - death lore and the spell from that lore that knocks leadership. then for extra ouch sophoric musk which makes your run even shorter.

yep,yep daemons eat steadfast units with ketchup, well assuming we win combat of course o wait thats what letters and demonettes are for

Interesting point there, the pair of you. Not terribly up on my Daemons, as I don't play them that often. Perhaps looking into other armies Ld nerfing is worthy of co-discussion, as a Steadfast made less relible, is a win in anyones book. Certainly Ogres have the Brahmir Statue which affects Chaos and Skaven. Pretty sure that affects Ld. I know it's not a universally useful toy but seeing as how Skaven can make serious use of Steadfast, well worth considering on a secondary character?

And now further to the comments about just how big some Steadfast unit can be (notably the Slavepit deployed 5x14...) is this something other armies can exploit? A block that big, no matter what it's made up from is unwieldy to say the least, plus a random panic test early on is guaranteed to see it off the board (given standard 12" deployment.) Staying with my current experience, kicking out a sneaky 'Brain Gobbler' in the first turn as seen a couple of enemy units leg it against my Ogres. Hardly reliable, but anything which causes easy Panic tests offers an incredibly attractive way of seeing off the Steadfast block, without ever having to truly engage them fully. Once again, another win in anyones book!

Wehrkind wrote:One thing to remember as well is the Death spell (doom and darkness if I recall) that drops the Ld of a model/unit. Dropping it on the enemy general forces everyone to use his now lower leadership (as you don't have a choice but to use his Ld).

In 7th edition I know you could choose to use your own leadership or the general's (you even had to for stubborn units, since the general's leadership couldn't be extended to them while using their stubborn ability). Did that change?

Dammit. Anytime I need to check my rulebook, it's always in the next room! (sad thing is, I've had 5 so far! One freebie for being staff, one Collectors, One Gamers, and 2 from IoB. Only have IoB one and Collectors now. The others were gifted to good homes. And no I am no longer an employee!)

You, Wehrkind, get extra special bonus points for a frankly FANTASTIC spot!

Fantasy Rulebook, Pp107, Paragraph 3 wrote:Providing that the General is not fleeing, all friendly units within 12" use his Leadership instead of their own

Now that opens up several possibilties, no?

Lore of Fire spell Piercing Bolts of Burning which basically amounts to 2 x No. of Ranks S4 Hits. That thins out the unit a little. Soften it up first with a fireball and then you get the Kindleflame bonus too.

I'm guessing that'd be 18" for large target generals (like treemen ancients). Yikes . Could ve very sneaky with that one!

Although Flashman has a good idea for a more direct approach

Why not combine both

Brought it up on another Forum, and have now checked the Ld section of the rulebook (says highest Ld in the unit goes) and the FAQ (which said nowt).

Would appear the General very much overrules with his Ld for good or for ill. Yay!

Yea, my 40k days paid off well on that one No option to use, so you are stuck with it. I had thought one could make a fun Ld attacking army with Doom and Darkness, the -1 Ld Banner from WoC and then a Slaaneshi Level 4 with the Panic causing Shriek and Daemonic Glory (-1 Ld vs its abilities). Perhaps it wouldn't make for good games though, dropping first turn Panic tests on a huge block of the enemy to be tested at -4-5 Ld...

My solution is spells that hit an entire unit. Dwellers is fantastic! Final transmutation also good, as well as curse of years. 70 skaven 5x14 is a real slog, but dwellers cuts that 70 to 35 with one spell!

In general, though, 8th seems more about raw killing power than anything else. Having lots of raw killing power with some cheap steadfast at the same time means you can tarpit and nuke, depending on your opponent.

Case in point, take a theoretical uber steadfast army. This army trades killing power for VP denial... the units are massive, the dont break, and unless you kill everything you get nothing.

Compare this to the theoretical uber agro army. This army trades VP denial for raw killing power. The units are min maxed, they outfight/outshoot/out magic the enemy, and even though they lose vps along the way they kill more than they lose.

In the two uber armies, the one with VP denial, when facing its twin, draws. When facing agro, either it doesnt lose anything at all thus winning by a small margin, or it loses a unit and thus loses the game.

Meanwhile, the all agro army, when facing its equal, will win or lose depending on luck and tactics. If facing VP denial, either it has enough agro to kill a unit and win, or it cant kill a unit and loses, but only by a little bit.

Thus, the agro army, in a tourney setting that values massacre results over straight wins, is the superior army to take--it is designed to kill enemies first, and killing enemies earns points, and the one with the most points takes first. VP denial may not have lost a single game, but 3 minor wins is less than 2 massacres and any loss.

In summary... you deal with steadfast by killing them to a man with uber min-maxed units.