Switch Theme:

8th edition - what's the deal with Steadfast?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






So, I've been playing 8th edition again recently, and I have to ask - what's so terrible about steadfast?

All it does is give a unit Stubborn? And it's entirely unrelated to the Horde mechanic? What made it so game-breakingly OP/frustrating?

Me and my opponent, who remember all the kvetching back in the day, looked it up mid-game when he had to take a break test for his 50 men-at-arms and spent probably 20 minutes poring over the tome trying to figure out what we were missing.

Is this just similar to the "cavalry in 6th edition broke the game" idea that Just Tony often cheekily mentions in his battle reports (aka, often hyperbolized)?

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms






Chino Hills, CA

A unit of 50 skavenslaves within ld range of the general can be leadership 10, even if they suffer horrendous casualties. And you can take multiple blocks for next to no points.

Is it fundamentally ruining the game? Not in principle, but there are units in practice that mean that charging monsters, knights, etc. can suffer

Some people play to win, some people play for fun. Me? I play to kill toy soldiers.
DR:90S++GMB++IPwh40k206#+D++A++/hWD350R+++T(S)DM+

WHFB, AoS, 40k, WM/H, Starship Troopers Miniatures, FoW

 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Hm, right. I guess when you're paying 100 points for 50 Ld10 re-rolling models (if I remember the points costs correctly) it's a bit more disruptive to the game.

I've never faced a Skaven player, and we've been using the Warhammer Armies Project 8th books where Skavenslaves roll 3d6 and drop the lowest for Ld tests so even if it does come up the value is a bit less... you know, 4% chance of failure. Instead of 2%.

Thanks for enlightening me.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Early 9th Age has steadfast but also has maximum unit sizes for all units, not just Bret Knights. Infantry cap out at 50 for most and 60 for the very cheapest. Gnoblars have the absolute most at 65.

This way you cant outrank the elves for long if the elf player is determined to stop you, though they elves will have to pay a lot to match ranks for rats and goblins, and you still get the ten model cap advantage.

Now for 8th the counters to steadfast are flanking, big spells/artillery and being steadfast back. Every army can apply at least two of these strategies except for Dwarfs, but then Dwarfs don't care if you dont run away, they will get you eventually. Or so they say.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Orlanth wrote:
Early 9th Age has steadfast but also has maximum unit sizes for all units, not just Bret Knights. Infantry cap out at 50 for most and 60 for the very cheapest. Gnoblars have the absolute most at 65.

This way you cant outrank the elves for long if the elf player is determined to stop you, though they elves will have to pay a lot to match ranks for rats and goblins, and you still get the ten model cap advantage.

Now for 8th the counters to steadfast are flanking, big spells/artillery and being steadfast back. Every army can apply at least two of these strategies except for Dwarfs, but then Dwarfs don't care if you dont run away, they will get you eventually. Or so they say.


What I did was charge their 50 Men-at-arms with a Dread Saurian, and while they may have passed the Terror test, and the Fear test, they did not pass the resultant break test after I did 2d6 flaming impact hits, 6 attacks, and a d6 thunderstomp.
Then again, their general was off on the other flank trying to duel an oldblood, and there Battle Standard (if they had one, even) was probably also in that battle. So it was the unmodified... 5? I think? Of Bretonnian peasants. Without re-rolls.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Steadfast will not help you if the base Ld is low.

This is why slaves are a good example, as it is easy to make slaves ld10. Brets were thrown a bone in that they can take their Ld from a nearby knight unit.

I do approve of deep block Men At Arms, its cheap but throws in a lot of limitations sue to how a Bret army usually operates.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






Steadfast was a really important rule.

It helped blocks of infantry that weren't Stubborn or Unbreakable to actually function.

Nobody took basic blocks of infantry that weren't super elite prior to this rule, thats why I love steadfast.

That being said, there were issues with it like the Skaven Slaves being 2 points thing as an example, however Skaven never actually recieved an 8th edition book. So I think its unfair to judge Steadfast on that alone.

I don't understand why people say it removed all tactics from the game. No it didn't. You could easily throw another fully ranked unit into the front of the enemy unit you were trying to destroy, and flank it with a hard hitting unit. Your ranked unit eliminates the enemy steadfast, and the hammer in the flank causes the casualties to break them.

No, you can't just charge a unit of Knights into the front of a fully ranked infantry unit and expect them to break, just like in real life.

Steadfast would have been improved if Flanking removed it. This is a change I would be in support of, but ultimately it was a very good and necessary rule.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/22 00:01:08


Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Flanking does help a lot, the flanking unit can fight in extra ranks, the unit being flanked cannot. This permits a damage spike and whittles down the ranks of the target.

In early 9th Age flanking does remove steadfast, but the flanking unit must have at least two valid ranks

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Steadfast as a rule was pretty good. It made infantry viable again. 7th edition was CavHammer for a reason. At least in the tournament scene it was all cav all the time unless you played dwarves, and then you just had no cav so couldn't take it lol.

Steadfast in its execution is horrible. Because they did not cap unit sizes, and there is no way to tactically move around it. It basically turned the game into two players building mega blobbing units that belly smack in the middle of the table.

Flanks removing steadfast is to me the houserule that I used in my campaign for several years and had the most positive comments.

It moved people from building 60-80 model size units because if they got flanked, that big daddy with all their points was toast - so it encouraged moving into medium sized units as opposed to a couple massive blob units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/22 16:16:06


 
   
Made in us
Knight of the Inner Circle




Montreal, QC Canada

"Quantity has a quality all it's own." That saying is the basis of the steadfast rule. Cheap infantry was never really able to perform in a way that worked on the table top until the steadfast rule came about.

The main issue with steadfast in 8th is that flanking a unit and taking it's rank bonus didn't also remove steadfast. That tends to be the main sticking point on why people disliked it.

Commodus Leitdorf Paints all of the Things!!
The Breaking of the Averholme: An AoS Adventure
"We have clearly reached the point where only rampant and unchecked stabbing can save us." -Black Mage 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

I agree that it's a good idea that wasn't quite executed as well as it should have been (a regular occurrence in GW rules)

I really like the idea of a flanking unit of reasonable power either # of ranks or a return of a unit strength threshold negating it though.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






It seems to me that flanking a unit to remove Steadfast would make it almost trivial to remove, at least for armies with fast cavalry or giant eagles (or similar unit)

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

Rihgu wrote:
It seems to me that flanking a unit to remove Steadfast would make it almost trivial to remove, at least for armies with fast cavalry or giant eagles (or similar unit)

I think so too. That's why I like the minimum threshold to remove Steadfast. It needs to be a substantial threat not just 5 hounds, eagle etc.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/22 19:52:37


 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

How I would fix:

1. A rear charge by a unit with one or more full ranks negates steadfast.

2. A flank charge by a unit with three or more full ranks negates steadfast.

3. Lance armed cavalry negate steadfast on the charge turn.
To quality the unit must have at least one full rank of lance armed models.

4. Terror causing negate steadfast against units in base contact. If any model in the target unit is uneffected by or downgrades terror steadfast is not negated.
- Outnumbering a Bloodthirster is not much of an encouragement.

5. Horde formations with a minimum of three ranks negate steadfast against any opponent not also in horde formation.

A unit which has had steadfast negated by any of the above means reduce the break test modifier to half the normal amount, rounding fractions up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/22 20:34:12


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




We didn't find it trivial unless people just threw their blocks out without any thought to their facing or protecting their flanks. There should also be a min size requirement or unit strength requirement.

What I had to deal with often were things like two mega blobs of skaven slaves trucking at leadership 10 stubborn and 200 models a pop, which was also not a game that was enjoyable.

I'd say most of the mega blob units were leadership 9 or 10 stubborn until steadfast was removed. I watched so many players not care about their flank anymore so long as they had more models that it kind of sucked...
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 Eldarain wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
It seems to me that flanking a unit to remove Steadfast would make it almost trivial to remove, at least for armies with fast cavalry or giant eagles (or similar unit)

I think so too. That's why I like the minimum threshold to remove Steadfast. It needs to be a substantial threat not just 5 hounds, eagle etc.


This is what early 9th Age does.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 Orlanth wrote:
How I would fix:

4. Terror causing negate steadfast against units in base contact. If any model in the target unit is uneffected by or downgrades terror steadfast is not negated.
- Outnumbering a Bloodthirster is not much of an encouragement.


This one I'm the most wary of among all of them, because Terror's chance of breaking units is represented by the Terror test anyways.

What I had to deal with often were things like two mega blobs of skaven slaves trucking at leadership 10 stubborn and 200 models a pop, which was also not a game that was enjoyable.

I'm mostly just amazed that anybody had 400 models to populate 800 points of their list! That's dedication to what ultimately seems like a meme to me.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

 Orlanth wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
It seems to me that flanking a unit to remove Steadfast would make it almost trivial to remove, at least for armies with fast cavalry or giant eagles (or similar unit)

I think so too. That's why I like the minimum threshold to remove Steadfast. It needs to be a substantial threat not just 5 hounds, eagle etc.


This is what early 9th Age does.
By early 9th age you're implying it has since been altered? In what way and did they explain what changed their minds?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Rihgu wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
How I would fix:

4. Terror causing negate steadfast against units in base contact. If any model in the target unit is uneffected by or downgrades terror steadfast is not negated.
- Outnumbering a Bloodthirster is not much of an encouragement.


This one I'm the most wary of among all of them, because Terror's chance of breaking units is represented by the Terror test anyways.

What I had to deal with often were things like two mega blobs of skaven slaves trucking at leadership 10 stubborn and 200 models a pop, which was also not a game that was enjoyable.

I'm mostly just amazed that anybody had 400 models to populate 800 points of their list! That's dedication to what ultimately seems like a meme to me.


It wrecked a couple of my early 8th campaigns. The player in question had a lot of skaven "butts". Skaven legs glued onto bases.
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Rihgu wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:
How I would fix:

4. Terror causing negate steadfast against units in base contact. If any model in the target unit is uneffected by or downgrades terror steadfast is not negated.
- Outnumbering a Bloodthirster is not much of an encouragement.


This one I'm the most wary of among all of them, because Terror's chance of breaking units is represented by the Terror test anyways.


That isn't a solution, the terror test is statistically indistinguishable from a break test under steadfast.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Prosecutor





USA

[quote=auticus 799849 11180233
It wrecked a couple of my early 8th campaigns. The player in question had a lot of skaven "butts". Skaven legs glued onto bases.


This kind of stuff always got on my nerves. Eventually you just have to say you're not going to play those kinds of people.


To the OP, I never found Steadfast to be that game breaking. Like with magic in 8th, most of the complaining you read online is internet hyperbole where people exaggerate the most extreme situations.

Steadfast can be a pain with Skaven slaves but it's not insurmountable.

It's time to go full Skeletor  
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Steadfast by itself was responsible for 8th turning into armies that were 2-3 massive sized units.

If you liked that kind of thing you wouldn't mind it.

The massive sized units helped contribute to a lot of folks not wanting to play whfb anymore and... well... AOS showing up shortly after....
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: