Wanting to catch up on all the latest army gossip as it happens? Our Army Community Support team shares glimpses of the incoming army books!
I admit to not knowing all armies back to front, so I'll take your word for EoS' small damage output. If necessary the entire army could have a rule that gives them an edge when calculating combat result, while still feeling the same when played on the battlefield. That would still be more acceptable than a game-wide bandaid rule that often leads to very unimmersive situations.
In all honesty I'm not trying to fit my proposal into the current frame. I think a design proposal (especially a simple one) should not be shut down by a single inconvenience... You asking me to reconsider after pointing out one counterargument is like saying that I shouldn't have made that delicious pasta yesterday because I didn't have garlic in my kitchen.
I hope I didn't offend you with my newest food metaphor. I sometimes get the feeling people rather shut down ideas than to build on it or tinker with them to make them worthwile. Stop the negativity, be creative and happy!
I think it is the most attractive way to properly differentiate armies (or at least the core playstyle of armies) from one another. As we all know, a horde of rats rather swarms the enemy to incapacitate it compared to let's say elves who tend to defeat individual opponents. I'd be perfectly fine with the occasional steadfast unit, only if it is not being slaughtered (losing more than X number of wounds in a turn.)
Come to think of it, steadfast is a typical defensive rule, while most hordes are not supposed to be playing defensively. Winning a combat against a stronger opponent should work differently for them, which is why I'm in favour of giving typical horde units something like the 'insignificant' rule, which could work with combat result bonuses so that they're able to win a battle they're technically losing (looking from the casualties inflicted side of the battle).
Another case would be a general purpose infantry unit being charged by a single model, which has caused many rants on the fora already. If the leadership penalties only kick in after a percentage based amount of casualties have fallen, I doubt that many monsters will be able to force a leadership test with a huge number of penalties, and if they do, they probably deserved the win. (The stronger the monster, the more points went into fielding it, which should yield some bonuses.) People might conclude that taking more bodies for their units will result in higher casualty caps, which will yield almost the same result as the steadfast rule, except that you've had to take it into account while building the unit.
Case study: 25 WS4 T3 AS 5+ infantry against a single WS5 S6 thunderstomp model.
25 models means in order to impose a modified break test, 8 casualties should be made.
single model hits approximately 3.3 attacks, inflicts 2.7 wounds. Thunderstomp likely adds 3 or 4 wounds to that number, which leaves us with an approximate of 7 casualties inflicted. Only when rolling above average it has a chance to force the unit to take a break test with the combat result penalties included.
Writing this out I realize that if the penalties would then kick in, the difference in combat result will probably be massive. So I'd reduce the CR value of inflicting casualties to "+1 for having inflicted more casualties/wounds on your opponent" (or some other rule that elegantly caps generating CR).
Same scenario: bigger core unit (say 40 models)
Same casualty count, exept that the single model will need to make 10 casualties (much less likely) AND the unit will have more static CR afterwards. Plus, it has a decent chance of staying the next round as well. (starting at 30+ models).
Apologies for the wall of text
The post was edited 1 time, last by Sambazorcopter ().
As we all know, a horde of rats rather swarms the enemy to incapacitate it compared to let's say elves
Note also that steadfast horde denies steadfast to enemies. So it is offensive, not only defensive, allowing easier to break opponents.
Using infantry blocks to stop enemy powerful units is hardly an army specific rule - EoS, VS, KoE (yes KoE!), OG, VC... a third part of armies in game use this playstyle. OK VC are a bit specific. And again I am not great fan of today wording because in a combat of infantry blocks a single casualty may decide who is steadfast on a given turn. This is what I would change.⚔
Steadfast denying steadfast is another mechanical application of the rules that was implemented out of necessity, nothing more. It makes IMHO no sense to cancel out individual effects because your opponent follows the same rules. Again, I'm not the biggest rules knowall but I don't think there's another instance in the ruleset where a rule can nullify itself (except lightning reflexes, which is hotly debated as well, which only proves my point more).
I agree that certain measures and tactics need to have counters, so I understand why they made steadfast into what it is now. And yet I feel like there's plenty of room for improvement if you're looking for elegant (as opposed to something as cumbersome as steadfast) solutions to a problem.
You got me there, I hardly have a clue about how vermin swarms work. That put aside, as I explained before, Units that are unable to win through damage output could have some workaround which correctly illustrates their playstyle (ignoring their own casualties for example) if and only if they're supposed to be combat oriented. If today's players effectively run rats in MSU that's because the game design encourages them to do so. In that case I sure hope that MSU was an intended playstyle for rats, otherwise something, somewhere has gone wrong.
The example of the infantry block was implemented to counter the almost inevitable "You're propagating monster mash!" accusation. I think we're both agreeing that steadfast is too black or white at the moment, and I'm trying to address it with an elegant but solid base for a solution
Users Online 1