Reworking Steadfast

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!

  • Reworking Steadfast

    hi guys,

    I have been giving Steadfast mechanic a lot of thought and decided that at its current iteration it might not represent a properly balanced mechanic, and put cavalry based armies at a serious disadvantage.

    My suggestion to steadfast rework would be this

    " if your ranks is greater than your opponent, +3 to your leadership during break test "

    This imo might help solve the current problems with it.

    Eg: Your band of halberds are charged by demigryph knights, and lost by 8, normally your halberds would auto break but with +3 to the LD, those halberds now have a LD of 10! And have a chance ( small chance) to survive.

    This is fluffy too as troops tend to have better morale when they outnumber their opponents! This also ensures that a bunch of weaker infantry would not hold up a powerful unit forever till the last men via steadfast.

    Anyway do let me know what you think, and if you disagree, feel free to discuss and let us know what would be a better rework to the current steadfast mechanic.
  • Markus loveheart wrote:

    hi guys,

    I have been giving Steadfast mechanic a lot of thought and decided that at its current iteration it might not represent a properly balanced mechanic, and put cavalry based armies at a serious disadvantage.

    My suggestion to steadfast rework would be this

    " if your ranks is greater than your opponent, +3 to your leadership during break test "

    This imo might help solve the current problems with it.

    Eg: Your band of halberds are charged by demigryph knights, and lost by 8, normally your halberds would auto break but with +3 to the LD, those halberds now have a LD of 10! And have a chance ( small chance) to survive.

    This is fluffy too as troops tend to have better morale when they outnumber their opponents! This also ensures that a bunch of weaker infantry would not hold up a powerful unit forever till the last men via steadfast.

    Anyway do let me know what you think, and if you disagree, feel free to discuss and let us know what would be a better rework to the current steadfast mechanic.
    Lets math this

    KoE since they are really the only Knight base army....all armies are an off-shoot / secondary consideration
    12 KotR = almost 600 points (no FCG no upgrades)
    45-46 Heavy Inf w Halberd (no FCG)
    Likely scenario KotR will get the charge off
    Both same I so lets say KotR goes first
    Round 1
    KotR-Rider: 12 attacks, 8 hits, 7 wounds into the Halberd
    KotR-Horse: 3 attacks, 2 hits, 1 wound, 1 saved
    HI: 15 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds, 2 saved
    Combat Resolution
    KotR: 7w, charge, 2 ranks = 10
    HI: 1w, 3 ranks = 4

    Current rules: HI roll 7 (or high if within general ld)
    Proposed rules: 4 (with base Ld)

    Great change for KoE
    Sux for anyone else as it pretty much tips the favour of combat into anything highly mobile and anyway from infantry.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns

    The post was edited 1 time, last by pk-ng ().

  • actually no, high elves lost by 6, with the proposed change yo stead fast, their LD goes from 7 to 10 with the plus 3. So the high-elves need to roll 4 or below to hold and even better if their.general is around.

    This imo looks quite feasible and, wont give too much power to normal crappy infantry. Currently with the steadfast rule, the balanced is tipped way too much to the favour of bigger infantry blobs.
  • Markus loveheart wrote:

    actually no, high elves lost by 6, with the proposed change yo stead fast, their LD goes from 7 to 10 with the plus 3. So the high-elves need to roll 4 or below to hold and even better if their.general is around.

    This imo looks quite feasible and, wont give too much power to normal crappy infantry. Currently with the steadfast rule, the balanced is tipped way too much to the favour of bigger infantry blobs.
    Yup miscalculation there but doesn't change the facts
    It still sux for infantry.
    Mobility, high armour save, hitting hard on the charge (which they will major get over infantry)
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • Proposals like this just skew the game back in favour of MSU infantry and raise the spectre of 6th ed cavalry armies smashing everyone aside. The answer is not to make infantry worse but to make cavalry better at grinding. Unless the cavalry smashes into the flank of an infantry unit it shouldn't be automatically destroying the unit on the charge. A horde of infantry should have a good chance to hold off a cavalry charge and survive. If it can't do this then infantry has no place but for fluff or as an elite unit.

    Changes to the way Str and AP work should largely help cavalry survive longer and grind better in protracted combats.

    Just my opinion of course but I don't want to see the game go the way of I charge, I win, You break, and then mix and repeat. It's boring and not fun at all.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Nongor ().

  • Markus loveheart wrote:



    I have been giving Steadfast mechanic a lot of thought and decided that at its current iteration it might not represent a properly balanced mechanic, and put cavalry based armies at a serious disadvantage.

    Whats your opinion on this @DanT
    My honest answer is that I have no issues with steadfast. I like the mechanic and have done since it was first introduced. This doesn't mean I think the mechanic is perfect, but it is far from the first thing I would change about the game.

    I also don't believe that cavalry is in that bad a place, I think the situation is far more nuanced than that.

    Small units of cavalry are common in good lists.
    The problem, if there is one, is armies that really on cavalry as their main combat units.
    However, I remember going to an ETC where cavalry buses were really prevalent, and it was dull as hell. I don't wish to return to those days.

    I think some cavalry needs a boost, but I think changing steadfast is the wrong solution, as this will also have an effect on infantry vs infantry, infantry vs monstrous infantry, etc.

    Hope that makes some sense, I could write pages on this topic but I have to do some work occasionally ;)

    Balancing team

    EoS Community Support

  • Big infantry blocks are already a rare sight when playing competitive, making Steadfast worse will make them obsolete.
    Also Rat at Arms within general is already LD10 so the proposed change gives them nothing.
    If Steadfast is to be changed it should be a buffed version to promote bigger units again.
    I do agree though that cavalry is not in a good spot at the moment and need some help, but not by nerfing Steadfast.
  • In my opinion such a change could only work, when the damage output is also decreased by a lot.

    Just had a game yesterday, where a unit of warriors of the wastes dished out 24 attacks, hitting on 2 and wounding on 2 to my 5 wide halbard block, I took 19 wounds. So no matter what the "bonus" is. It is completely of no power when such damage runs around on the table. And as mentioned, it was a wide halbard unit of 30 models loosing 19 models in first round (and that is only a little bit over average)

    Without steadfast there would absolutely be no reason to ever field any "weak" unit in larger numbers...or even field them at all.


    Steadfast is a rule that is fine. It is a bit stupid, that those BIG units have to be in a totally unintuitive column formation instead of beeing in a horde formation to realy benefit as long as possible from steadfast. I would rather propose a change to horde formation and keep steadfast as it is. Horde....a special rule for dedicatet mass units...each model in first rank without base contact with an enemy adds static CR +1 up to a max of 3. Add this to the max. 3 additional ranks and the banner and those weak mass combat units have some more static bonus, and this helps them to close up with elite units a bit. In addition the bonus fight in extra rank for horde formation is taken away.
  • Markus loveheart wrote:

    Hmmm thats true, was wondering what you guys think about this rule though, since qe arw supposed to be THE rank and file army.

    Whats your opinion on this @DanT @Herminard?

    I am heavily burdened - could you please gimme a quick digest?
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse - Prophet of Lòki - Propagandist of Emperor TVI - Scourge Slayer.

    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Simplify! Always! Everywhere!
    Exceptions in Tactics and Bed!

    For questions of curiosity, Step in to the Cave of the Savage Sage
    For questions of tactics, The Savage Arts of Playtrolling
  • I like the steadfast rule, what sometimes sucks is the LD10-bubble most generals can project in conjunction with BSB's "hold your ground".
    I think it would be nice if the units LD was more important, and LD of characters wouldn't be used the way it is now.

    How about this:
    LD tests are always made with the LD of the unit testing, ignoring any higher LD from attached characters. A characters LD is only used if he is alone.
    Certain characters (mainly fighting characters like captains, dread princes, dukes, warlords) get a +1 modifier with their LD. That means any unit they join can raise their LD value by 1.
    Mages, engeneers, priests, models with "not a leader" do not get this modifier (unless fluffwise expected, so for example a slann would get it).
    "inspiring presence" is changed to: modifies units LD by +1 in 12'', and LD of a unit joined by +2.
    The maximum a LD value can achieve is '10', or the value of the providing characters LD, whichever is lower. The modifiers are not cummulative.
    That way, steadfast wouldn't be as bad as it is now, since a lot more tests would be rolled at LD 7 or 8 instead of 9 or 10.
    Additionally, there are some possibilities to show how important and inspiring a character is, and the LD value of a LD5 unit wouldn't jump to 10 making them as disciplined as LD 9 units under the eyes of a general. Unrula units might get somewhat more disciplined by being watched by a leader, but they don't get elite troops in a few minutes.
    There might be need to raise the LD of trolls by 1 or 2, or give a special rule to a "trainer" type character model.
  • berti wrote:

    It is a bit stupid, that those BIG units have to be in a totally unintuitive column formation instead of beeing in a horde formation to realy benefit as long as possible from steadfast.
    I too strongly dislike the unintuitive formations. IMO, you shouldn't be able to benefit from more ranks than you have files. I'm sure there's a better way to word that but I think that is the direction to go.
    I also dislike the binary nature of 10 wide for horde. There should be a place for all unit widths. atm, the rules want you to go 5 wide or 10 wide and anything else is gimping yourself. There have been plenty of other discussions around horde though so no need to rehash things here.
  • Steadfast does 2 important things that I wouldn't want to see lost in any rework of the rules.

    1) It promotes diversity. Now if you want to break units you actually have to use the right tool for the job and more importantly you (usually) need a diverse range of units to deliver it. Yes you can build an all cavalry army but you will have a disadvantage if you don't take the other unit types to support.

    2) It helps prevent Uber units. So thankfully we don't have units that can just charge in and with high probability break another unit whilst at the same time having a 2+ armour save to make them nearly invulnerable to a lot of other units. Such units suck the fun out of the game and the game is better off without them.

    3) Steadfast balances horde armies and elite armies - and not just the cavalry. With all the usual caveats about what different units specialise in - we want equal points of horde units to roughly have as much chance of winning a grind as the same points of elite units - taking into account the probabilities of each breaking each turn.

    I am not sure that the OP suggestion manages to achieve these things.