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.

So, I've not come up with a new rule for a while, but I feel this is a good idea.

So, I've won combat. but my enemy is steadfast, meaning he doesn't retreat.

I'm stuck in a combat I should've won, but now I'll loose.

a form of 'hit and run' should come into effect.

heres what I propose:
If you win combat, you can fall back 2D6" [3D6" for cavalry or fliers?] therefore removing you from combat.

however, your oponent, who's just regrouped, can either have a free reform [to show them regrouping] or can attempt to persue. this is always 2D6", even for cavalry, to represent them getting into charge formation.

if your flanked your oponent, he only gets D6"+D3", and if he was charged from the rear he only gets D6". if he catches you, he counts as automatically charging you. [bonuses counted.] remember, since you'd have turned tail, you will be charged in the rear.

if you manage to hit and run, you can try to charge next turn, against the same target in the same manner [an effective way that hit and run would work.]

hit and run and multiple units

two or more of your units against one of theirs

either...
all can hit and run, and your oponent can elect to charge one of them

some can charge, some don't. in this case the opponent cannot chase you.

two or more enemies end up in base contact

you can attempt a hit and run, but either unit can persue [roll seperately]

two or more on either side in combat

You can attempt to hit and run, and any unit not still in combat can attempt to persue.

additionally, if the unit is in combat, and a friendly unit is in combat with all units they're still engaged with, they may persue. as long as all engagements the unit was originally involved in are still fought. [for example, if I've a M@A unit, and it is attacked on one side by spearmen and another by greatswords, as long as both have somone else engaged in them, I can persue with the M@A]

Critique?

Too complicated, and lacks a restriction on needing to charge.
Did you want it to work as get hit and run?
I wouldn't want normal units to be able to just break off from combat at a whim, and I like that a chaos lord doesn't automatically auto-break 100 goblins.


I like the idea of hit and run, but I would limit it to skirmishers, who really could use a little more of boost in 8th. Also, light infantry running interference and falling back is what skirmishers should be doing.


I would also limit it to on the first round of combat.


Here's my version...
A unit with hit and run, may declare a hit and run in the first round of combat, before any other attacks, impact hits, or any other effect takes place.
Work out combat as normal.
If the hit and run unit wins combat, it falls back, and the enemy may not pursue, but may reform. The running unit automatically rally's after completing it's fall back.
If the hit and run unit loses combat, but does not break, it falls back, and the enemy may not pursue (but may reform); the falling back unit is broken.
In either case, if the hit and run unit is wiped out, ignore the hit and run effect (enemy may over-run by normal rules).

I like making a player commit to hit and run before combat is worked out, and not bypassing normal break checks.

-Matt

Hawaii.... What is the chance that skirmishers are gonna survive the combat, let alone win? [except for knights on pegasus]

also, I might actually want them to catch me. if I can lead a 40-strong unit of boyz or gitz with a 100 - pt [20] m@a, if I get caught, I've lead them astray. if they charge but fail, I've still lead them astray, but then I might be able to charge again for a similar effect.

I think it should also be noted a unit sent off the edge of the table is lost - as it should be.

However:

Persuing troops, instead of running off the table [wholly unfair - more fun if they stop at the edge.] take a leadership test. if they fail, they run off and run down the squad entirely.

If they pass, they can just regroup there, and move normally next turn, or even redirect charge [be a bit difficult from the table edge.]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
but, I do like the idea of forcing them to elect beforehand.

I personally think if your hint in the flank or rear by anything you should lose steadfast.

Historically, getting hit on the flank (or especially rear) was extremely terrifying for the troops. ESPECIALLY if cavalry hits you in the flank...

This would go great lengths to balancing steadfast, which for some army books is incredibly strong...

Oh I killed 20 models, you didnt kill a single one back, but you have 1 more rank then i do so your not running away... Historically, very unlikely...

Captain Solon wrote:Hawaii.... What is the chance that skirmishers are gonna survive the combat, let alone win? [except for knights on pegasus]

also, I might actually want them to catch me. if I can lead a 40-strong unit of boyz or gitz with a 100 - pt [20] m@a, if I get caught, I've lead them astray. if they charge but fail, I've still lead them astray, but then I might be able to charge again for a similar effect.

If you want to get caught, don't hit and run.

As for the odds of winning...
Skirmishes in the woods are stubborn, skirmishers behind a river strip away enemy ranks and steadfast.
Open ground? Good luck.

-Matt

actually. I can see getting them to charge as being a useful tool.

See, if I draw that squad off open ground, and hold them for a turn extra at a more off-place location, I can charge at their rear or charge another unit that is now seperated from this big buffer unit [war machines, bowmen, light cavalry, exposed generals

This... is a decent idea for fast cav. For Bretonnian Knights? Absolutely not. It's horrific that a unit can potentially charge and charge again if the dice roll high enough. IMHO, if you want to solve the Steadfast problem, take a unit of Knights for flanking. With Bret speed, you should really be out-maneuvering your opponent.

ShivanAngel wrote:I personally think if your hint in the flank or rear by anything you should lose steadfast.

Historically, getting hit on the flank (or especially rear) was extremely terrifying for the troops. ESPECIALLY if cavalry hits you in the flank...

This would go great lengths to balancing steadfast, which for some army books is incredibly strong...

Oh I killed 20 models, you didnt kill a single one back, but you have 1 more rank then i do so your not running away... Historically, very unlikely...

I seem to remember a battle at Thermopylae. One side took very few losses, the other was steadfast.
I find it historically very unlikely for a chaos lord of khorne to break 30 dwarf iron breakers, just because he got a flank charge on his dragon.

Face it, steadfast helped to fix the hero/monster hammer. If all you needed was a flank to take away steadfast, the table would still be dominated by flying monsters.

-Matt

really, the whole steadfast thing isn't a problem for us; see, we count as having 5 ranks w/ 15 knights, meaning usually oponents who take six or more casualties [in a 50-man block] won't be steadfast

Captain Solon wrote:really, the whole steadfast thing isn't a problem for us; see, we count as having 5 ranks w/ 15 knights, meaning usually oponents who take six or more casualties [in a 50-man block] won't be steadfast

Knights are good enough without singling them out for an additional bonus. But I do like the idea.
How about: Unit in the flank counted as double ranks for steadfast, and units in the rear counted as triple ranks for steadfast.
So 10 knights in a flank count as 4 ranks for steadfast, and count as 6 ranks for steadfast in the rear.
A bloodthirster, dragon, slaanesh giant, and hydra still have no rank, and will have to grind through the enemy (which they can do, thanks to thunder stomp and general butt kicking ability).

That might be a good half measure to give flanking a solid edge without devaluing large blocks, or over valuing flying monsters.

-Matt

Flying monsters are usually OP. except pegasus knights. they're beautiful.

IMO it's the walking monsters that are OP...*Looks at hydra and abomb*

Oscarius wrote:IMO it's the walking monsters that are OP...*Looks at hydra and abomb*

Really?
Dragon gets 6 S6 attacks at WS6, better armor, better toughness, and in general, smokes the hydra.

Hydra/Abom have a lot harder time working into the flanks and rears than the flying guys do.

Hydra and Abom are underpriced, but for sheer killing power, the flying monsters do more.

-Matt

Yes, but you also factor in the price, one flying dragon guy can easily reach 600+ points. That is more than 2 abombs or 3 hydras...and that is horrible!
And if we only count the dragon they mostly cost as much as two hydras, while taking up lord points for that lv4 mage.

Also, most dragons have a 3+ armour save, hydras will pretty much always come out better.

Oscarius wrote:Yes, but you also factor in the price, one flying dragon guy can easily reach 600+ points. That is more than 2 abombs or 3 hydras...and that is horrible!
And if we only count the dragon they mostly cost as much as two hydras, while taking up lord points for that lv4 mage.

Also, most dragons have a 3+ armour save, hydras will pretty much always come out better.

Price isn't that critical. If you can't kill it, and it does a lot of damage, more points only mean more points your opponent isn't collecting.
T6 instead of T5 means the dragon takes half as many wounds (before saves) from S4 attacks.
The mobility of flying all also limit the damage flying monsters take; where as walking guys can get boxed in.

A lord + dragon doesn't equal 3 hydras, because more often than not, you are limited to 2.

It almost sounds like you're saying a lord is a bad thing to have in the fight with the dragon. I know if I could put a lord in with my hydra/giant/abomination I would.

-Matt

Of course I'm not saying that a lord + a dragon is BAD, it's just a minor tvtropes reference. (Even though I even failed at that, should have been "terrible"...)
Flying monsters ARE more mobile and often more protected. They take half the amount of wounds from s4 attacks, bu they take as many, if not more wounds from s8+ attacks. (Stone throwers, Cannons, High rolling doomwheels)

Anyway, the thing that is my major gripe with dragons and such is that they take up lord points. lv4 + General is pretty standard over here, and failing that only a lv4. This leaves very little points for a dragon of any sort. And many (including I) see them as vurnable from the massed magic/shooting that everyone loves so much...
However, this might be my very baised view.

And I would also love to put a hero/lord on a hydra or abomb, who wouldn't?

ShivanAngel wrote:I personally think if your hint in the flank or rear by anything you should lose steadfast.

Historically, getting hit on the flank (or especially rear) was extremely terrifying for the troops. ESPECIALLY if cavalry hits you in the flank...

This would go great lengths to balancing steadfast, which for some army books is incredibly strong...

Except this lends itself to large blocks of troops being made useless when weak units hit their flanks. I agree that there should be ways to reduce steadfast, but simply taking it away entirely when 5 or 10 models hit the flank is too much.

Oh I killed 20 models, you didnt kill a single one back, but you have 1 more rank then i do so your not running away... Historically, very unlikely...

If you're killing 20 models to none, and they have just one more rank than you then they will break in the next combat, so that really, really isn't a problem.

If you provide a less extreme example, you consider a small, elite unit winning combat convincingly, but taking some casualties in exchange, and looking like they'll be overwhelmed in the long run. Which, really, is exactly what's supposed to happen and what makes for an exciting game.

Also, people really need to stop assuming steadfast means 'doesn't run away' when it means 'tests at unmodified leadership' which is something that is still failed, and failed often.

First assuming the general and bsb are in range its a rerollable 9/10 which is very unlikely to fail.

Heres your less extreme example.

Bloodthirster charges a unit of saurus warriors, kills 16 between attacks and thunderstomp. Doesnt take a wound in return. Saurus unit has 9 models left giving it a single rank making it steadfast, they hold on a rerollable 9 cause the slann is nearby.

almost 2/3 of the unit was wiped out and it is considered steadfast...

And yes, that has happened to me.

I know they want to get away from monster hammer, and i completely agree that its not a bad thing they are trying to reduce the effect of a single monster panicking units. But thats a bit extreme imo.

ShivanAngel wrote:First assuming the general and bsb are in range its a rerollable 9/10 which is very unlikely to fail.

Smashing into big blocks of troops all in a neat bubble around the general and BSB, then worrying that nothing ever breaks is a big mistake. When someone depends on the general and BSB to give themselves an army that won't break as it grinds down it's opposition... then you focus on killing the general and the BSB.

Heres your less extreme example.

Bloodthirster charges a unit of saurus warriors, kills 16 between attacks and thunderstomp. Doesnt take a wound in return. Saurus unit has 9 models left giving it a single rank making it steadfast, they hold on a rerollable 9 cause the slann is nearby.

almost 2/3 of the unit was wiped out and it is considered steadfast...

That's still an extreme example. In the next turn most of the unit will killed, and will have held the bloodthirster up for no more than its own movement phase.

I know they want to get away from monster hammer, and i completely agree that its not a bad thing they are trying to reduce the effect of a single monster panicking units. But thats a bit extreme imo.

Yeah, I agree that there's a weirdness as single monsters have no ranks, so an enemy with a single rank is steadfast, but once an enemy gets to that point it's only going to last a single turn anyway.

I've played another game system where they make it pretty simple... if you break from combat, then the opposing force get to take a free attack on you, but you simply move back and move on

thread necromancy mate... is that by chance heroscape?

arcane legions i think...