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.

A good buddy and I were chatting about Steadfast on the ye olde Facebook here the other day, and he and I both suggested relatively the same sentiment. I suggested that Steadfast is ineloquent, and game breaking, he suggested that it felt more like a "toy" than a legitimate rule. So we started spitballing about ways to make Steadfast matter, but also how to allow for there to be an elegant way to remove it.

I've been playing with this idea for a while: So I figured I would toss it to the wolves and see what you guys think about it.

In order for any unit to recieve steadfast, the unit must meet 3 seperate qualifiers:

1) The army general must be alive

2) The unit must be within 12 inches of the Battle Standard Bearer

3) The unit must have a standard and a musician (If the unit does not have a standard and musician available in their purchasing profile, it will NOT exclude them from being steadfast provided they meet the first 2 criteria, but if they have the option, they must make the purchase.)

Now. We've created an interesting mechanic within the game that causes tension between the 2 players. It gives both armies additional diametrically opposed goals, which is always a good thing. Losing steadfast puts you at a disadvantage, but it doesn't automatically lose you the game.

It also has the added advantage of creating a sort of mechanic where armies start off the battle organized and likely to follow their training, but as the day progresses, the likelyhood that they are going to break and run increases once things start going badly.

This creates an additional layer of tactics in which horde armies will be seeking to actively protect their general/bsb while elite armies will be searching for ways to eliminate the general/BSB.

Anyone willing to take the idea for a spin and post a Battle Report here?

Perhaps spitball about whether or not this is a good rule?

--edit: FYI, the current caveats for Steadfast would still apply, you would need to meet these new caveats also. That wasn't clear in the info.

Well... my first thought is that the bsb is already very critical to most armies. Both players should already be defending their BSBs extensively.

This mostly true for the general, as well. So saying that this makes those models important... well, they already are.

I also think that even isolated from the BSB, a unit should be able to retain steadfast. I recognize that it might be silly for a unit to test on an unmodified leadership because there are five of them left fighting against a Bloodthirster. But similarly, I don't think 5 knights should be able to easily disperse 80 infantry because the BSB was too far away.

I haven't found steadfast to be a huge problem, and it adds an interesting layer to ongoing combats- particularly those where each unit is hovering around the same number of ranks as the other.

I'm not saying its perfect, and I think your exercise holds merit, but I don't know if it's the right way to accomplish what you want...

I don't see any problem with the idea that if someone has an 80 man unit away from their battle-line, that it get broken and run down by a 5 man unit.

As long as they knew that might be a problem going into the battle.

Wouldn't your argument lend credence to the idea that Cavalry would become a unit worth taking again? Right now they are pretty much hosed. But if the flanks become a no-mans land when the 24 inch steadfast zone is involved... Where units like Cavalry and light cavalry, and chariots become effective again... I would see this as a good thing.

I've always believed that the way to solve steadfast is for each rank of calvary to count as 2 ranks, and for monsters to count as 3 ranks, or maybe 4.

I do like your idea, it certainly makes it interesting and it makes sense, but as Red_Zeke pointed out there are a few flaws.

If you aren't within 12" of the BSB, and the general is dead, is steadfast really a problem?

Seriously, are blocks of slaves/goblins passing that Ld5 test too often?

If you want to tone down steadfast try any of these:
A) You lose steadfast if your ranks are disrupted.
B) It can't be combined with inspiring presence. Test on your own Ld.
C) The re-rolls on a break test do not benefit from steadfast.

The other thing you can do, is just doom and darkness his general. According to inspiring presence, they MUST use his leadership. Doom him and you hit him and every unit within 12" with a -3Ld.

-Matt

Ragnar4 wrote:A good buddy and I were chatting about Steadfast on the ye olde Facebook here the other day, and he and I both suggested relatively the same sentiment. I suggested that Steadfast is ineloquent, and game breaking, he suggested that it felt more like a "toy" than a legitimate rule. So we started spitballing about ways to make Steadfast matter, but also how to allow for there to be an elegant way to remove it.

First up, you're using elegant incorrectly. A rule would be elegant if it adds a new tactical element to a game in simple language, and with few sentences. Your proposal is adding more and more text and conditions to the concept and more rules, it certainly isn't elegant.

I've been playing with this idea for a while: So I figured I would toss it to the wolves and see what you guys think about it.

In order for any unit to recieve steadfast, the unit must meet 3 seperate qualifiers:

1) The army general must be alive

2) The unit must be within 12 inches of the Battle Standard Bearer

3) The unit must have a standard and a musician (If the unit does not have a standard and musician available in their purchasing profile, it will NOT exclude them from being steadfast provided they meet the first 2 criteria, but if they have the option, they must make the purchase.)

Now. We've created an interesting mechanic within the game that causes tension between the 2 players. It gives both armies additional diametrically opposed goals, which is always a good thing. Losing steadfast puts you at a disadvantage, but it doesn't automatically lose you the game.

Actually, you've just taken a multiple state situation, taken out the interesting middle ground and left us with the two extremes. Your proposal would give us the unit testing on the general's LD, unmodified, with a reroll (assuming LD 9 it's a 2.7% chance of failure), or a unit testing on it's own LD, modified, with no reroll (assuming LD 7 and losing the combat by a couple, it's a 72% chance of failure). The variation in these two is ridiculous.

All you've done is taken out the interesting middle ground, where a unit can have steadfast but not be able to use the general's leadership or the BSB's reroll. Then the unit is typically testing on 7s or 8s, and can be expected to succeed but not relied upon to do so, and can only be expected to succeed for a turn or two, before help will have to be brought in.

This creates an additional layer of tactics in which horde armies will be seeking to actively protect their general/bsb while elite armies will be searching for ways to eliminate the general/BSB.

This is largely how it works with steadfast based armies now. Their plan to win through attrition becomes very dubious if their LD 9/10 with reroll becomes Ld 8 with no reroll, because you've killed the General and BSB. The only difference is that the plan doesn't completely fall apart, as it would under your scheme...

Ragnar4 wrote:I don't see any problem with the idea that if someone has an 80 man unit away from their battle-line, that it get broken and run down by a 5 man unit.

As long as they knew that might be a problem going into the battle.

No, the problem is that it is a ludicrous result. Small numbers of cavalry did not charge headlong into combat with large blocks of half decent infantry, because their initial casualties would be absorbed with little chance they'd break the enemy. Before steadfast large blocks of troops could lose the first round of combat by two or three and be very likely to run away.

Wouldn't your argument lend credence to the idea that Cavalry would become a unit worth taking again? Right now they are pretty much hosed. But if the flanks become a no-mans land when the 24 inch steadfast zone is involved... Where units like Cavalry and light cavalry, and chariots become effective again... I would see this as a good thing.

The role of cavalry is now very close to it's actual, real world use. When a unit is committed in it's front by an equal number of infantry, you charge the flank with cavalry, with the timing of the cavalry charge being the all important element.

I like Hawaii Matt's suggestions as something you could playtest to check out unintended consequences and such.

I haven't found cavalry to be trash- just not the auto-choice it once was. With march blocking avoidable with a leadership test, I've had trouble with knights swinging around and past my charge arcs.

taken out the interesting middle ground

Well put sebster. I would point out that Ragnar's first criterion is that the general merely be alive- not necessarily in range.

I'm not a big fan of steadfast as is, i think it was a great idea to stop the above ridiculousness of 80 men running from 5 horses, but i think it could have been better executed. I think the biggest thing is that steadfast is basically impossible to stop unless both you and your opponent run very similar sized units. Therefore i thought up the idea that amount of Combat rez that winner won by minus double the ending ranks of a unit is the number on which the unit must take its test.

Therefore: 12 brett knights in lance charge a 50 man slave unit in horde formation and do 9 wounds and take none back. the knights have a CR of 14 (9 wounds, charge, banner, 3 ranks) the rats have a CR of 4 (banner, 3 ranks). so the rats lose combat by 10. the rats have 4 ranks remaining so they double that and subtract from 10. The rats must take their break test on -2 Ld.

Basically, this means that a bloodthirster doesn't hit 10 peasants and get tied up for a turn or two because they technically have 1 rank sot heir steadfast and essentially unbreakable.

Also i think this keeps the main idea of steadfast without making it impossible to overcome. If i put 20 wounds up on a unit i don't want them to just shrug and take their stubborn 9 roll, i want them to break and flee, and realistically if i win combat by that much i think they should.

bleedge wrote:I'm not a big fan of steadfast as is, i think it was a great idea to stop the above ridiculousness of 80 men running from 5 horses, but i think it could have been better executed. I think the biggest thing is that steadfast is basically impossible to stop unless both you and your opponent run very similar sized units. Therefore i thought up the idea that amount of Combat rez that winner won by minus double the ending ranks of a unit is the number on which the unit must take its test.

Therefore: 12 brett knights in lance charge a 50 man slave unit in horde formation and do 9 wounds and take none back. the knights have a CR of 14 (9 wounds, charge, banner, 3 ranks) the rats have a CR of 4 (banner, 3 ranks). so the rats lose combat by 10. the rats have 4 ranks remaining so they double that and subtract from 10. The rats must take their break test on -2 Ld.

Basically, this means that a bloodthirster doesn't hit 10 peasants and get tied up for a turn or two because they technically have 1 rank sot heir steadfast and essentially unbreakable.

Also i think this keeps the main idea of steadfast without making it impossible to overcome. If i put 20 wounds up on a unit i don't want them to just shrug and take their stubborn 9 roll, i want them to break and flee, and realistically if i win combat by that much i think they should.

Units with a decent sized number of ranks wouldn't ever suffer the modifier unless they're suffering horrendous losses. It wouldn't even matter if the enemy had more ranks than you, if you had five of your own you could test unmodified even if you were losing combat by 10.

Thing about steadfast is that people don't realise that in and of itself it really, really isn't that wonderful. A mass of average troops gets to make a LD 7 check without a modifier... big deal. This is how the majority of 40K LD checks are resolved and any experience with that game shows you units fail these rolls all the time. Steadfast only becomes really effective when it's coupled with the general's LD and a BSB reroll. This means that deep formations, near the general and BSB are extremely tough to route quickly, and this is a good thing.

It means if you're facing large number of moderate quality infantry, the only way to make them unreliable is to kill the general and BSB. This is a good thing.

HawaiiMatt wrote:C) The re-rolls on a break test do not benefit from steadfast.-Matt

I like this, it makes sense. If a unit is scared of it's enemy and wants to run away and save themselves, then a big banner isn't going to be much consolation.