Just what is a rank?

[Mr Mystery]

How do!

Quick question based off what I consider to be a ropey ruling.

So, there were my Rhinox cavalry, merrily beating seven shades of snot out of my opponents main unit. Second round I stomp them good, reducing their second rank to 4 dudes. Hurrah I thought, they're no longer steadfast, and staring down a break test at -lots.

Then my opponent claims that on account I don't have a rank myself (third Rhinox literally fell foul of a pit of shades) but he still has has front rank, he remains steadfast, and would remain so until all but four of his dudes were splutchy little pancakes.

Rule book isn't clear on this, but a single rank, by the dictionary definition is in fact just a line. You need multiple lines to call them ranks.

Now as I said, rule book isn't clear, therefore both of us were being rules lawyers. I now want a consensus of opinion on the matter.

Can you really claim steadfast, based solely on your front rank or not?

[Wildeybeast]

Actually it is pretty clear. Page 5 refers to "one or more horizontal lines, called ranks". Furthermore, the combat res section on extra ranks (page 52) refers to the front rank as the 'fighting rank'. So it is very clear that even a single line of troops is a rank.

The Steadfast rules on p54 simply state that you need more ranks than the enemy. You have 1 rank (line of troops), he has 2. The steadfast rules work the same way as extra ranks combat res, in that you need at least 5 models to form a qualifying rank (3 in the case of monstrous inf/cav) for the steadfast rule to apply. Unlike the extra ranks rule, there is no 'after the first' condition for steadfast. So he has 1 qualifying rank, you have none for the purposes of steadfast, meaning he has more qualifying ranks than you. I'm afraid Mystery that he is entirely correct, it's all there in the rules.

Edit: Reading that back I'm worried it sounds a little patronising. It's not intended to be so, just trying to clearly take you through how it works!

[Mr Mystery]

Hmm. Still seems odd, and I'm fairly sure it's not the writers intent.

I mean 'bloody sarge! That Dragon just killed 12 of the men, there's only 5 of us left!'
'Don't worry Ned. Remember your training. We don't start to panic until Jim dies'
'Oh right. Look sarge, it just shoved Jim up it's unmentionable'
'Ah! Right, GENTLEMEN! We shall now panic in an orderly fashion!'

Think I'll email GW about this one.

[Wildeybeast]

I thought that when my mate pointed it out to me and we had the same conversation you had with your gaming partner. Though intent or not, it seems pretty clear according to the wording and I would have thought it would have been FAQed by now if it was a common issue. Let me know what they say if you get a response.

You could also pitch it as these are the guys stepping to replace those in the front and are going to be the first rank not to have someone behind them pushing them up into the fight.

[Mr Mystery]

Oh, and they're also claiming it when a chariot reduces them to just the front line..... Which again seems a bit bizarre.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm not sure I agree with it as a rule, but I get where they are coming from. Even if you have just seen most of your unit massacred by something or other, working out there are still more of you than them will do something for your confidence. Though if said thing is a dragon, it starts to get a bit silly. The old unit size rule did go some way to addressing this issue, but it was a bit too unwieldy and time consuming for most people's liking.

[Chronowraith]

As Wildey has pointed out, the front rank is still a rank. I've seen this question raised multiple times and every single time it has been resolved in the same way, steadfast until the front rank is no longer enough models to count as a rank.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from a real-world view, but then there are plenty of other things in tabletop wargames that really don't make sense either.

[pauljc]

Also, don't forget, that friend or not, the front rank is getting pushed into the enemy by those behind. No where for them to go except forward. Thus, steadfast.

[cerebros]

Unlike the extra ranks rule, there is no 'after the first' condition for steadfast.

I think this is the most important thing to bear in mind. It seems to be those players who've been playing a long time and are predominantly used to thinking of ranks in terms of combat resolution who have the most difficulty with the fact that the front rank is still a rank and there's no 'after the first' requirement

[Mr Mystery]

Still makes no sense.

Steadfast is described as one unit knowing it still significantly outnumbers the enemy.

Defo need to contact GW!

[Wildeybeast]

Get on it then! I'm interested to hear what they say.

[Nabterayl]

Well ... maybe it makes no sense from that point of view (a rank of three monstrous cavalry doesn't really outnumber a non-rank of four infantry), but I think the overall rule makes sense. A rank represents the minimum number of men necessary for the troops to feel like they still have a formation. So long as the dragon hasn't actually broken your unit's formation, yes, you take strength in the fact that you and your buddies are still doing your jobs. When it's down to a handful of you but you can still fight in your accustomed manner (e.g., a rank of five models), things may be dire but they haven't gone to hell in a hand basket yet. When there are so few of you that you can't even form up ... yeah, that would be a big psychological shift.

[Chronowraith]

"Significant" is a subjective term and defining that will never be easy. GW makes games and wants them to be accessible to the masses so chooses to keep things easy.

Why does it not make sense that 5 models outnumbering 4 keep steadfast but 35 models outnumbering 34 does? This happens all the time on the tabletop. Does it make sense? No. Is it a descent abstraction? Sure.

No system is perfect. Even in previous editions the unit outnumbering the other received a bonus in combat, in this edition it just happens to be rank-based.

Personally, I'd like to see 9th edition bring back large units that are able to break ranks/steadfast. Of course, I'm perfectly happy with GW delaying 9th edition for a longer than usual edition cycle. I'd like to see all the current range brought up to 8th edition standards before they press forward with a new edition. I also know that this is a pipe dream.

[Mr Mystery]

To be honest, whilst Steadfast is a very cool rule, and has made the game better, it does need tweaking.

For instance, as you might be able to tell, it annoys me when my massive, expensive dragon fails to break a unit, despite having comprehensively one the combat.

Slight tweak is all that's needed. Perhaps you can only count as steadfast if you manage to wound the enemy. It's hard to stay confident when your opponent is seemingly immune to your attacks. Or an alternative. If I win the combat by more than your rank bonus, your formation is broken, so no steadfast...

[Chronowraith]

I agree it needs tweaks. There is no reason why my completely psychotic Doomwheel and driver should be "stuck' in combat with 6 crossbowmen.

That being said, I'd rather have steadfast with the current problems then no steadfast at all.

[Mr Mystery]

Agreed. It balanced things nicely!

[Anggul]

I don't see how it makes any less sense than 15 of your guys vs 20 of theirs being fine, but as soon as you lose that one guy and go down to 14, you're suddenly a lot more scared. The same principle of 'doesn't really make sense' applies.

[Mr Mystery]

I know this is nit picky, but it's about how ranks actually worked.

Your front rank was you shield wall, and did relatively little actual fighting. The subsequent ranks were therefore protected. Second rank would bolster the first, to stop it breaking apart, and the third did most of the butchers work. Quite often the front rank would have short stabbing blades for opportunity strikes.

This doesn't translate terribly well into Fantasy of course!

[Chronowraith]

Depends on what era you are talking about, what formations were used, and what weapons they were equipped with. What you describe was common for Greek Phalanxes but does not apply to early Roman legions using maniples or any Imperial Roman combat formations.

The tactics you describe are common to primarily spear wielding infantry of most eras but don't apply to other weapon types or units that were armed with multiple weapons (such as Roman legionaries).

[Kaiserdean]

As a long-time player, I was confused by the "first rank" rule as well. I think that rule in particular has ruined a lot of fun for playing single monsters, but if a unit is down to just one rank, 5 to 10 troops, they are in trouble anyway.

You're likely to also cause fear with your monster/ous creatures, so make them make that leadership check every turn!