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.

Simple question for you mates. How would you fix the steadfast rule so that it actually makes since and doesn't involve all of the shenanigans that many people are having with it? Though it was a good idea, I think they still need to tweak it as it's one thing many people at my store grumble about all of the time.

You can use your own unmodified LD or the Generals modified LD.

Standard troops under the BSB still hold regularly. Garbage troops are no longer guaranteed tarpits. Might see the return of fighting heroes to bolster low LD blocks.

Make steadfast broken by flank/rear charges. Hello, return ov cavalry.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Make steadfast broken by flank/rear charges. Hello, return ov cavalry.

Mostly applies to fast cav. Which I whole heatredly support, love those sneaky guys.

For me? Gve it a limit on how many times it works to relflect the horrible grind of a meele. For example, after 4 rounds of combat, steadfast starts to degrade or cease to function entirely. Thats 2 turns to flank the guys fighting your tarpit with something killier.

a) Steadfast units may not use the General's Inspiring Presence rule. (no more of this BS 50%+ of your entire army is Stubborn Ld10!)

b) Steadfast is lost when the unit is flanked by an enemy that has at least 1 rank after the first. (so you still need at least 10+ non-monstrous infantry/cav or 6+ of a monstrous unit - not going back to the clusterfeth that was 5 dudes on ponies wiping the floor with 50+ infantry!!)

c) Fast Cav, Skirmishers, Chariots & Monsters may not break Steadfast, even if they have multiple ranks - they simply don't have the proper weight of numbers or fight in a heavy/compact enough formation to truly disrupt an enemy formation.

Experiment 626 wrote:

c) Fast Cav, Skirmishers, Chariots & Monsters may not break Steadfast, even if they have multiple ranks - they simply don't have the proper weight of numbers or fight in a heavy/compact enough formation to truly disrupt an enemy formation.

Points a and b I can completely go along with. However Monsters should impact your leadership value fpr those hold test As they are generally massive creatures who have just torn into you battle line. This would not be followed by you standing there uncaring unless you were elite and battle hardened troops. Thing like skaven slaves, gnoblars and goblins should be running.

A few changes to other areas would fix the problem without even touching steadfast.


Monsters: count as having 2 ranks for the purposes of Steadfast and combat resolution.

Enemy unit with at least 1 rank is in the Flank : Imposes a -1 penalty to the Ld stat per unit in the flank.

Enemy unit with at least 1 rank is in the rear: Imposes a -2 penalty to the Ld stat per unit in the rear.

Steadfast remains the same.



So a unit with more ranks will still be stubborn, but will suffer a modifier to their Ld stat at all times while engaged to the rear or flank.

So a unit of Clanrats is being engaged in the Flank and Rear and has just lost combat by 10. They are using the general's Ld of 7, plus 3 for Strength in Numbers, which puts them at 10. Then they suffer a -3 modifier because of being enaged to the flank and rear. They take the test on Stubborn Ld7.

This puts more of an emphasis on flanking without being so powerful as to make Steadfast worthless. It should still be the same, but there should be more ways to get around it. Such as my propose Ld reduction for being flanked.


Any other proposed way I have seen thus far of weakening steadfast swings too much in the opposite direction.

Give heavy cavalry and the like a special rule allowing them to break steadfast on the charge if they cause more wounds than they take. In which case, the horde is insufficient at stopping their onslaught, and the cavalry "mow" through the unit, and are placed facing away from the unit on the opposite side 1 inch away. The unit takes D3 automatic hits at the attackers charge strength for every rank they charged through (if charged in the flank, ranks are measured from the side flank to flank, instead of from front to back).

Gives every army the tools required to break down the pesky hordes of trash keeps to the theme of how those units should be represented on the battlefield, and isn't absolutely game breaking.

If they heavy cavalry takes more wounds than they dish out, the enemy unit has successfully stalled the charge and the combat grinds on like normal. This keeps trash like skaven slaves from stopping bloodknights, but means even khorne juggernaughts might want to think twice before charging into white lions thinking they'll just pop out the other side.

I think jugers already avoid white lions. 4+ armor is not what 60+ point models want to be taking.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think jugers already avoid white lions. 4+ armor is not what 60+ point models want to be taking.

The DoC versions won't even get that since all they have is a 4+ to begin with... (and lower initiative than Skullcrushers to boot) At least the Skullcrushers get to swing simultaneously with the Lions, Bloodcrushers thanks to I4 just get mowed down blender-style.
While neither unit really wants to be charging WL's, at least with a flank hit, (and the option to not take magical attacks), the Skullcrushers would still stand a decent chance at winning that match-up.

Of course, the whole idea is kinda pointless, since I've yet to actually run across a unit of WL's that doesn't have BotWD and Skullcrushers seem to always take their Enscorcelled Weapons.

Experiment 626 wrote:
a) Steadfast units may not use the General's Inspiring Presence rule. (no more of this BS 50%+ of your entire army is Stubborn Ld10!)

b) Steadfast is lost when the unit is flanked by an enemy that has at least 1 rank after the first. (so you still need at least 10+ non-monstrous infantry/cav or 6+ of a monstrous unit - not going back to the clusterfeth that was 5 dudes on ponies wiping the floor with 50+ infantry!!)

c) Fast Cav, Skirmishers, Chariots & Monsters may not break Steadfast, even if they have multiple ranks - they simply don't have the proper weight of numbers or fight in a heavy/compact enough formation to truly disrupt an enemy formation.

So... how do ten goblins (weighing a mighty 80 lbs each, for a combined weight of less than a SINGLE warhorse) disrupt a formation when a ten-ton monster doesn't?

 Vulcan wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
a) Steadfast units may not use the General's Inspiring Presence rule. (no more of this BS 50%+ of your entire army is Stubborn Ld10!)

b) Steadfast is lost when the unit is flanked by an enemy that has at least 1 rank after the first. (so you still need at least 10+ non-monstrous infantry/cav or 6+ of a monstrous unit - not going back to the clusterfeth that was 5 dudes on ponies wiping the floor with 50+ infantry!!)

c) Fast Cav, Skirmishers, Chariots & Monsters may not break Steadfast, even if they have multiple ranks - they simply don't have the proper weight of numbers or fight in a heavy/compact enough formation to truly disrupt an enemy formation.

So... how do ten goblins (weighing a mighty 80 lbs each, for a combined weight of less than a SINGLE warhorse) disrupt a formation when a ten-ton monster doesn't?

Because monsters already have enough going for them. Do you REALLY want to give WoC players MORE reason to take 3 chimeras and a kitted out Nurgle Demon Prince?


When you make these changes you really have to think about how it affects ALL armies involved. Fixing fear doesn't just buff Tomb Kings, it also buffs Vampire Counts. Terror won't just give more reason to take their general on a cool dragon, but will also make Demon Princes even MORE overpowered.

Cavalry, though....they could use a fix. I'd just say that cavalry and MC ranks each count as two for the purposes of breaking steadfast. Gives them both a nice advantage, while making Cavalry comparatively cheaper for the same purpose.


I'd further say that penalties from flank and rear charges are an exception to the steadfast rule, so if you beat an opponent in combat by 5 and two of that is the result of a rear charge then you test at Steadfast - 1. More complicated than a straight penalty, but you shouldn't have to take -3 for flank and rear if you only lost combat by 1.

Yeah, MC don't need a fix any more than Monsters do. IMO, monstrous cavalry are the strongest unit type in the game. Every single one is pretty ridiculous to varying degrees. Skullcrushers, Mournfang, even Peg knights are good (though a little expensive) even though they perform a different role.

 spyguyyoda wrote:
Yeah, MC don't need a fix any more than Monsters do. IMO, monstrous cavalry are the strongest unit type in the game. Every single one is pretty ridiculous to varying degrees. Skullcrushers, Mournfang, even Peg knights are good (though a little expensive) even though they perform a different role.

I love that necroknights don't get a mention

Oh poor necroknights. I still love you!

I like what alot of people have said, an this has been brought up a number of times. A couple of things comee to my mind, If you sdo not have a unit champion or character in the unit you can not be steadfast. If a unit fails a fear check it can not be steadfast, If a unti is attacked on more than one side it can not be stead fast.. and i agree that flanks and rear should cause some kind of disorder in units.
-1 for flank, and -2 for rear seam about right for how the rules in this addition work.

If everyone is so apposed to monsters not being able to break steadfast, then all monsters should be at least stubborn, and unbreakable while n combat with non monsters. and a monster would not stop at the first rank and just stand there, it would trample into the heart of the unit is is fighting.

I don't want it completely gone however, I do not want to return to 7th edition's 'Take as little core as possible unless its cav', because it was so completely useless and run down so often that you were best just running as little as possible.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 spyguyyoda wrote:
Yeah, MC don't need a fix any more than Monsters do. IMO, monstrous cavalry are the strongest unit type in the game. Every single one is pretty ridiculous to varying degrees. Skullcrushers, Mournfang, even Peg knights are good (though a little expensive) even though they perform a different role.

I love that necroknights don't get a mention

Oh poor necroknights. I still love you!

Sorry, couldn't really think of any others...Obviously I don't play TK

I do think that Monsters should be stubborn. Heck, most of them are ld 7 or less. They're not going to go "oh, there's more of them than me...I don't care that they haven't even hurt me yet, they have a musician, so I should run away now."

Bah.

I think it's arleady been said that flanking should stop steadfast.

 sing your life wrote:
I think it's arleady been said that flanking should stop steadfast.

It has but it seems like the most simple way to do it. However, it depends on the unit who is flanking them and there size. If your getting hit by Fast Cav (usually 5x models) then I have a hard time seeing them breaking a flank, but if its a heavy cavalry regiment of around 10x models or an infantry regiment of at least 10x to 15x, then I could see that.

I really didn't think it was that broken. Everyone used to complain about their unit breaking because of hero heavy front rank now steadfast is too much? You can't have it both ways.

I have no problem with the steadfast rule and I don't play any armies that have cheap steadfast readily available.

You can't simply say being flanked takes away steadfast... And making exceptions just keeps complicating things.

So far the only things I could see making a solid argument for breaking steadfast is fear/terror failure (As steadfast is taking confidence in numbers.... Not much confidence can be found amongst the scared). Being attacked on multiple facings.

But again you will see problems with dual flying monster charges, a fast cav to flank. I think steadfast has to stay the way it is or else that section is going to be like five pages of clause and exception.

What about having units engaging others in the flank/rear count each rank as two for the purposes of breaking steadfast?

 spyguyyoda wrote:
Yeah, MC don't need a fix any more than Monsters do. IMO, monstrous cavalry are the strongest unit type in the game. Every single one is pretty ridiculous to varying degrees. Skullcrushers, Mournfang, even Peg knights are good (though a little expensive) even though they perform a different role.

Terradons and Ripperdactyls ain't ridiculous. Fun and useful? Ohh yeah. But ridiculous for a t3 5+ armor 2w or a t3 4+ 2w that wants to be in combat is not ridiculous..

 captain collius wrote:

 spyguyyoda wrote:
Yeah, MC don't need a fix any more than Monsters do. IMO, monstrous cavalry are the strongest unit type in the game. Every single one is pretty ridiculous to varying degrees. Skullcrushers, Mournfang, even Peg knights are good (though a little expensive) even though they perform a different role.

Terradons and Ripperdactyls ain't ridiculous. Fun and useful? Ohh yeah. But ridiculous for a t3 5+ armor 2w or a t3 4+ 2w that wants to be in combat is not ridiculous..

You'll notice I didn't mention them.

 spyguyyoda wrote:

 captain collius wrote:

 spyguyyoda wrote:
Yeah, MC don't need a fix any more than Monsters do. IMO, monstrous cavalry are the strongest unit type in the game. Every single one is pretty ridiculous to varying degrees. Skullcrushers, Mournfang, even Peg knights are good (though a little expensive) even though they perform a different role.

Terradons and Ripperdactyls ain't ridiculous. Fun and useful? Ohh yeah. But ridiculous for a t3 5+ armor 2w or a t3 4+ 2w that wants to be in combat is not ridiculous..

You'll notice I didn't mention them.

Your words are in bold.

I had a thought last night, and thought about it most of the day,

Steadfast, The problem with stead fast as it stands now, is the fact that it gives such a big advantage to cheap untrained and generally useless troops, and makes expensive well trained troops look stupid. Instead of automatically getting stubborn, which can be a little silly, when the defeated unit takes 10-20+ wounds, and the winning unit brushes off all the attacks, yet the loosing unit stands their and laughs in thier face. So I thought of this, First if you failed a fear check in CC for what aver reason, you can not be steadfast. your unit has already lost the will to fight. A defeated unit that has more ranks than the winning unit gains one point of leadership back for every rank that they have above the winner, up to the highest leadership of any model within the unit. , the defeated unit can not use the generals inspiring presence, unless he is in the unit. This still gives an advantage to having more ranks, but does not make it overly stupid, where one unit wipes out half the other, but because one more model did not die, that unit acts like nothing happened. So in other words. after the combat player A: High Elves spearman wins the Combat against Skaven Slaves. The Slaves loose by 5 combat res. How ever the High Elf player is down to 3 full ranks, while the Skaven player still has 5 full ranks. As such the Skaven play takes a break test at a -3.

This makes combat allot more balanced between high priced elite units, and stupidly cheap and unless units that are only fielded to be used to block the board for the entire game, it also makes Generals do there job, and manage the entire playing field. While not totally taking away the benefit of the super cheap units that you toss out there to do basically nothing, for the most part Steadfast would not change much in the first 1-2 rounds of combat. but as the unit starts to fall apart it takes into account that troop morale fades the longer you are in sustained combat, or the fact that a unit just saw a ton of their friend get hacked to pieces.