BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Default

    Get on it then! I'm interested to hear what they say.
    Chief Educator of the Horsemen of Derailment "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid." SOREN KIERKEGAARD

  2. #12

    Default

    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.

  3. #13

    Default

    "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.
    Armies - Skaven, Tomb Kings, Eldar, Iron Snakes, Dark Eldar, Retribution, & Legion
    Blog - http://chronowraith.blogspot.com

  4. #14

    Default

    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...
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  5. #15

    Default

    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.
    Armies - Skaven, Tomb Kings, Eldar, Iron Snakes, Dark Eldar, Retribution, & Legion
    Blog - http://chronowraith.blogspot.com

  6. #16

    Default

    Agreed. It balanced things nicely!
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  7. #17
    Brother-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Southampton, England
    Posts
    1,126

    Default

    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.

  8. #18

    Default

    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!
    Fed up for Scalpers? https://www.facebook.com/groups/1710575492567307/?ref=bookmarks

  9. #19

    Default

    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).
    Armies - Skaven, Tomb Kings, Eldar, Iron Snakes, Dark Eldar, Retribution, & Legion
    Blog - http://chronowraith.blogspot.com

  10. #20

    Default

    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!
    "Technically correct is the best kind of correct."
    WHFB: Dwarf - TK - Empire - Goblin 40k: SW - IG - Ork

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •