Why go Stubborn?

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

Dice do happen....but is it going to happen often enough, and in combat, to make the crown a 1+ choice?  No.

Well, that's just a matter of opinion. Is 35 points too much to spend to essentially protect a 1000+ points unit from basically certain death? It might not happen every game but when it does, it's worth its weight in gold.

Then again, I'm a cautious sort of player. I don't like leaving things to chance any more than I have to. I have back-up plans for my back-up plans.

[Wildcard]

Fair enough .  I'm more "faint heart never won fair maid" myself. 

[Nihmwit]

All this talk of "My ironguts never lose" really confuses me.  Do you people just not play against competitive lists?  And flanks being guarded by gnoblars and kitties?  Those units vanish to a stiff fart, unless you're taking so many that they are no longer cost-effective. 

Nurgle chosen with a blessing or two wade through ogres with ease, and so do high elf great swords (whatever they're called).  Pheonix Guard will tarpit ironguts for the rest of the game.  Heck, one of the more amusing things to see is watch a similarly sized unit of regular bulls (but with great character support, given how much cheaper the bulls are) shred those much vaunted irongut units. 

Heavy armor is largely worthless compared to most of the enemies that are going to be thrown against ironguts.  The strength 6 can be very worthwhile, but the WS 3 and ASL are huge penalties as well.  Any army that can take the lore of beasts or shadow can overcome most of the ogre advantages.  I think most players are still just adjusting to fighting new ogres. 

Getting back on topic, I always take the crown of command, and I take it BEFORE assigning points to other units.  Whether I go with 2 or 3 units of bulls, or a horde of bulls, or a unit or horde of ironguts (yes, I DO use them too, I just recognize their equally huge failings), at least ONE unit is going to be a stubborn pain in the a$$, and is probably going to tarpit/march block/maneuver block the center of his army.

[Wildcard]

At what size do you see a unit of gnoblars not being cost effective? (just curious)

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

Fair enough .  I'm more "faint heart never won fair maid" myself.

Yeah but does it win a game of warhammer?  I'm not sure warhammer winning prowess ever impressed a fair maid... 

Well, I can say that the stubborn crown often goes unused if things go well, but last time I went to a GT not once but twice I had to rely on the stubborn crown to save my poor ikkle deathstar when it got tied up in the front and hit in the flank/rear by something nasty. Two games that I won handily that would have been abject losses had I not packed the Stubborn crown. Why not include it? What are you going to buy with those 35 points that's going to affect the game so much?

Now, I might temper this by saying I think the Crown of Command is the most broken item certainly in the rulebook and possibly the game. It's absurdly undercosted (it should be at least 55 points! Beastmen have a Stubborn gift and that's priced at 70 points and I think that's about right), and the only reason it doesn't have much of a reputation is because everyone has it so no one feels hard done by. Well, apart from daemons and dwarfs anyway. When most tournament players will include it as a 1+ item no matter what army they play (undead excepted), it probably is worth a lot more. I think the game is a lot more interesting without it, because you can't just boost up your main unit and make it stubborn. If I were running a tournament I'd ban the stubborn crown, because I think removing it encourages much more interesting play and discourages deathstars. It's a safety net and what's the fun in that?

[Darkminion]

All this talk of "My ironguts never lose" really confuses me.  Do you people just not play against competitive lists?  And flanks being guarded by gnoblars and kitties?  Those units vanish to a stiff fart, unless you're taking so many that they are no longer cost-effective. 

All this talk of not playing against good players or compettitive lists annoys me a little bit. I am sure it is not intended as a slight, but my list is build and intended to support my Irongut block so that it does not lose combat and I do see myself as a good and competitive player.

And yes those gnoblars and Sabretusks vanish to the units I put them in front, because that is what they are supposed to do. By sacrificing them I direct the movement phase. And I take 3 units of Gnoblars, one of 20 with trapper upgrade and two units of 10 run naked. I use the manditory 3 Sabretusks as well.

Nurgle chosen with a blessing or two wade through ogres with ease, and so do high elf great swords (whatever they're called).  Pheonix Guard will tarpit ironguts for the rest of the game.  Heck, one of the more amusing things to see is watch a similarly sized unit of regular bulls (but with great character support, given how much cheaper the bulls are) shred those much vaunted irongut units. 

Heavy armor is largely worthless compared to most of the enemies that are going to be thrown against ironguts.  The strength 6 can be very worthwhile, but the WS 3 and ASL are huge penalties as well.  Any army that can take the lore of beasts or shadow can overcome most of the ogre advantages.  I think most players are still just adjusting to fighting new ogres. 

That is my point. Those Nurgle, Elf elites, or regular Ogres are not fighting my Ironguts, they are fighting my characters and champion, the Ironguts give str 6 support attacks and +1 LD to my general. Since my characters are fighting in the front and taking the hits, I do not care for ASL, nor for the flimsy 5+ AS of my guts.

Dice do happen....but is it going to happen often enough, and in combat, to make the crown a 1+ choice?  No.

Well, that's just a matter of opinion. Is 35 points too much to spend to essentially protect a 1000+ points unit from basically certain death? It might not happen every game but when it does, it's worth its weight in gold.

Then again, I'm a cautious sort of player. I don't like leaving things to chance any more than I have to. I have back-up plans for my back-up plans.

In my opinion and in the way I play my list, yes 35 points is too much, since my BsB is built to stay alive in the thick of battle (sword of striking, enchanted shield, talisman of endurance), my Slaughtermaster also as well as staying alive for risky casting (Fencers blades, Greedy fist, Earthing Rod) and my firebelly is not in the unit but supports my Leadbelchers (Ruby Ring, Dispel scroll). I have use of these items I give my characters in almost every game I play so I do not see the reason to switch those commenly needed items for an item I might have need for in an odd game now and then.

Part of player skill is having a backup plan when things go bad.

And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure so to speak.

I do not wholy agree. Player skill is creating a back up plan on the spot quickly enough to change the setting against you in your favor. And I do not consider having a stubborn character or unit a back up plan. If I would spend points on a stubborn unit, I would want to use that ability in my tactics and in every game I play. Such as the Maneater unit MaanNaam mentioned earlier in this discussion. Throw it in the enemies mids as soon as possible and keep them fighting and pinned up while I kill of the rest or hit his flanks or rear.

[Wildcard]

Yeah but does it win a game of warhammer?  I'm not sure warhammer winning prowess ever impressed a fair maid... 

One or two games, here and there.... . And no, playing with metal dollies is not going to make anyone a hit with the ladies

[rothgar13]

Of course not - they're metal. You should play with plastic. My experiences have shown that girls love the plastic.

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

In my experience the only things that comes close to working are, for some bizarre reason, squigs. Chicks dig squigs.

[grey templar]

^this is 100% true.

Must be for the same reason girls find Robert Pattinson attractive, or is that pity?

[Phazael]

There are too many things that can go wrong, both in terms of poor rolling and an ill timed magic phase where something like Mind Razor or Stoneskin +4 Toughness gets through where a stubborn unit can ride it out a turn.  I have won games entirely because a single Man Eater held and allowed me to countercharge with overwhelming force.  Also, knowing you are stubborn allows you to engage in certain tactically unusual manuevers, like exposing a flank late in the game when you are trying to run out the clock or simply setting up a countercharge.  Its something every army should have in a key unit, especially if that unit has limited static combat resolution, just to ride out a bad round of combat.  This is especially true of any unit containing the BSB, as he will simply die (and cough up 100 points on top of his value) if the unit flubs a break test.  The cost of the crown is incredibly low for how much disaster insurance it provides.

Imagine having a big multicharge going, but due to dice wiffage and odd placement, you end up losing combat badly.  Simply having one stubborn unit to hold the enemy means you get a crack at rallying those additional units.  If that scenario seems far fetched, its not.  I won a round 5 game (and GT) entirely because of that exact situation, where a single unit holding would have prevented what ended up being a 1500 point swing.  Stubborn is like jumper cables for your car.  Better to have and not need than need and not have.

[grey templar]

Yeah, I won a game today because of it.

I had some Mournfangs fighting a block of Daemonettes and they had some Letters clipping them on the side.

There was also the threat of a huge horde of Bloodletters hitting them in the flank.

So I cast Spinemarrow on them. Which combined with Trollguts and Toothcracker meant that if he charged them they basically would get mauled but would still hold. Then his massive hordee would get counter charged by a Guthorde.

So, because they were Stubborn, my opponent didn't charge them in the flank and my Mournfangs were able to kill all the Daemonettes to win the game.

[Nihmwit]

For the record, I didn't mean to imply that people HERE are not competitive or good players.  But I refquently see veteran players (and some players who have just played for a long time but are NOT veteran  ) of other armies running "same-old-lists" which haven't been reconsidered in light of new army books or even in light of 8th edition rules.  These are frequently the first people to start throwing out the terms "cheesy," "beardy," and/or "over-powered."
In league play, I tailor my lists to both my opponent and his army when I have the option.  If I don't know anything about his army, I make an effort to learn about it before the game.  For tournament play, my list is tailored to my preferred tactics, with an effort to counter specific weaknesses of my army.  I try to stay away from using chaff units and trash drops but occasionally make use of redirectors.  My comments have a tendancy to 'disparage' the use of these since my preferred tactics and army builds are designed to counter such antics. 

Personally, I don't think the ability to make a single unit in an army "stubborn" is over-powered.  The benefit of this is much more apparent in an OK army, since we typically have much fewer units, so the drastic increase in survival potential is more visible.  But for Skaven?  Goblins?  It's only one unit out of a dozen.  For empire?  Heck, MOST of their army is stubborn now (at least it seems like it  ).  For Beastmen?  Well, they were probably steadfast anyways.  Lizardmen?  They're cold-blooded; who needs stubborn?

My point is that I think the crown is neither under-cost nor over-powered.  It's just a tool for players who are more defensive minded or conservative.

[sitaavanu]

I agree the crown is appropriately costed and is a viable pick.  I do feel that it is overhyped quite a bit though.  Some terms that have been used such as 'unlimited tactical flexibility' is kinda ... exaggerated.

It's good it's helpful if I had the pts/allotment on my characters I would take it but given my perefered load out it's hard to find it.

caster1/Butcher - scroll (25 pts, so no room for crown)
caster2/Firebelly - hellheart (50pts, no pts left)
BSB - Runemaw (magic banner, no magic item)
SM (gear can be flexible but overall I have better things to do with points, greedy fist and fencers for start, if I win the combat i don't need to be stubborn)

I've said many times, 8th edition is a game of rock paper siccors, anything that is going to blow through your main block (where the crown would be normally) is going to do so much damage that being stubborn only delays the inevitable.

[rothgar13]

It's not always about damage being dealt, though. You can lose a combat to a flank-charge, or to flubbed attack rolls. These things happen, and Stubborn is there to catch you when they do. What I opt for is to bring the Crown on the BSB, if I bring it - the only characters in my Gutstar are him and the Slaughtermaster (and I have a Dispel Scroll and a Hellheart doing rounds), so the Rune Maw isn't as necessary as it is for other lists.

[sitaavanu]

Magic is my least favorite phase of the game.  As far as I am concerned it is COMPLETELY random what will and will not happen.  I know you can gauge the phase preemptively you can count on having about 8 casting dice and you can count on your opponent having about 5 dispel dice.  You can count on casting a spell on a 2d6, 3d6 etc.  But what about when you roll spells and you get 1,3,4,6 and you really need 2 and 5? What about when you have 12 casting dice but flub your first spell? There is no way to really represent what can and will happen during the magic phase. 

As such I always load up on magic defense, it's far more important to me than a flank charge.  If I get flank charged, it's my fault I shouldn't have moved where I did, I should have had a redirector.  It pushes me to plan and position my army more appropriately.  If my opponent rolls 4 casting dice and 3 dispel dice and throws an IF PoS on my main block there is nothing I can do about it.  I can't just 'be in a better position to circumvent him from throwing that.  I can however force him to target something other than my main block.  I can pop HH and force him to loose those 4 dice.  And if he generates a ton of extra dice, I can use a dispel scroll to balance out his casting advantage.

(also why I favor deathfisting, removing my opponents magic phase means that I can further reduce this randomness)

[rothgar13]

The thing is, between Deathfist, a Dispel Scroll, and a Hellheart, you can shut most magic phases off without much of a hitch. The logical next base to cover is crazy stuff happening with dice rolls or fluky tactical situations. If you don't bring the Hellheart, I will concede the Rune Maw is a bit more necessary, but with it? Only the meanest magic engines will get spells off at all (the ones who can actually predict how their magic phase will pan out).

[sitaavanu]

Only the meanest magic engines will get spells off at all (the ones who can actually predict how their magic phase will pan out).

And those are often the most terrifying opponents to me.  So shutting them down is of up most importance. 

I feel confident Ogres can crush their opponents in CC game, most opponents in movement (important when discussing flanks ect), and if we push for it we can actually outshoot a good chunk of our opponents.  IF i could bring a 5th character at any reasonable point level I would defiantly take the crown on him.  If I am not taking poison/sniper eaters it is usually stubborn/x eaters (because they are smaller units, thus my chance to flub is much higher).

[Phazael]

I play double scroll and scroll/hellheart armies all the time and regularly push spells through when I want to, usually without even having a level 4 in my army.  While I am not saying that taking all of the Ogre antimagic tools is not a viable choice, going into games thinking you are going to stuff someone completely in the magic phase is a recipe for disaster.  Its better to play the damage mitigation game, which is where the Crown really shines.  It does not require that my opponent not roll double 6 nor does it need me to roll higher than a 3 like the hellheart.  It also works more than once, unlike the scroll.  It is probably the single most reliable item in the entire game for defensive play.  You can assume things will go your way or you can plan for when they do not.  I know which camp I fall into.

Anyhow, I pretty much run the crown in every list I play with access to it.  Having unconditional stubborn just opens up too many tactical options to pass on it.  In my tourney Ogre army, I sport two firebellies, one with the Crown and Sceptre of Stability and the other with the Hellheart.  That pretty much tells you all you need to know about my opinion of the Crown when compared to the scroll.

[Frost Jotun]

I feel confident Ogres can crush their opponents in CC game, most opponents in movement (important when discussing flanks ect), and if we push for it we can actually outshoot a good chunk of our opponents.

I'd really like to read your battle reports!
I'm a newbie Ogre player so I'd love to see how you play. 

On topic:
I lost a game hard to Lizardmen (he brought a competetive list while I was rolling with TT and Stonehorn (no IBs, no ME)). In the end he charged everything into my "gutstar" and next thing I know my last hope was cut down as the few survivors ran from combat.
In the game before that I had MF's in the flank of Chaos Knights with a Chaos Lord (MF champ was in a challenge with him due to me being silly and accepting... Meaning the other Fangs couldn't attack).
I then charged in with my "Gutstar" (this time only being BSB + Firebelly general (1200pts)). I wiffed all attacks, and next thing I know they were running away and my BSB+Standard were gone. :\ MF's stayed on insane courage though, so they weren't all cut down. I rallied my next turn, only to be charged and slaughtered though...
In fact, everytime my "Gutstar" has fallen, it's due to losing combat and getting cut down.
So I think I'll be packing the crown soon enough.

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

I agree the crown is appropriately costed and is a viable pick.  I do feel that it is overhyped quite a bit though.  Some terms that have been used such as 'unlimited tactical flexibility' is kinda ... exaggerated.

I consider it broken because it allows you to ignore the basic tactics of warhammer. A unit pulverised from a rear charge and has less ranks than the enemy should really break. Stubborn crown - or indeed stubborn units in general - are a crutch, an exception that make all the basic rules of combat rather meaningless. Okay for the occasional elite unit, but stubborn has been getting more and more prevalent. Giving every army access to Stubborn that transfers to the whole unit, at a pretty much negligible 35 points, was not a good move for the game as a whole. Every competitive army in a tournament has the stubborn crown. In many ways, ogres need it less than others since they have easy access to stubborn via magic and their characters are so expensive it makes a pressure on magic item allowance, but even then I would consider it an absolute 1+ item. I cannot even imagine taking a list without it unless I was taking a complete soft army. For other armies, Orcs, auto-include, Brets completely an auto-include, Warriors yep (although they have multiple ways of accessing Stubborn), Skaven, yep (unless they're running a unbreakable-heavy army but even then it's usually worth it), Empire oh yes, I always have one. High Elves yep, Dark Elves always. Basically every army other than Vamps and TK (who can't use it), Dwarfs and Daemons (who can't take it), I see the stubborn crown as a 1+ item and I do see it in the majority of tournament lists these days, at least those at the top tables.

I also do think it is undercosted. I would pay 70 points in a beastmen army to make a bestigor horde stubborn in case of unexpected flank charges or similar that prevent the bestigor bringing their 30 re-rolling S6 attacks to bear. At 70 points, the stubborn crown would still be taken, but much less than it is.

[Dave Grant]

As well as being a 'safety net', stubborn also allows for a number of different tactical options. Possibly involving lines, columns and occasionally a Tyrant.

Just remember crown doesn't have to be in gutstar, and units don't have to play in 'blocks'.

[sitaavanu]

Just because you commonly see an item doesn't mean that it is undercosted.  Nor does it mean that it is super effective.  You talk about elves taking it or O&G, all that means is you take different tactics for beating that one unit.  Such as dwellers, doom and darkness, etc etc.

Here is the catch with the crown.  Any unit big enough to have a hard time blocking its flank should have enough models to be stubborn, thus not needing the crown.  Any unit small enough to need the crown will loose so many models they will get mopped up in the next combat thus making the crown minimally effective.

Monsterous infantry is the one exception to this which kinda makes ogres stand out but having access to stubborn on our default spell from a lore we must take (unless you take fire only) minimizes the need to invest in it.

Yes certian combos exist in armies such as the unbreakable DE lord and that's obnoxious but outside of that it doesn't mean too much.

As I have seen it

Armies that do not invest in the crown
TK - unbreakable
Vamps - unbreakable
Daemons - unbreakable
Dwarfs - not available
Wood Elves - no unit worth putting it on

Armies that don't need it but may take it
Empire - priest can give unbreakable + tons of ranks, GS are naturally stubborn, and captians/generals give cold blooded
Skaven - almost always steadfast
Goblins - Almost always steadfast
Warriors - multiple means of being stubborn, rarely loose combats for reasons other than charging into a poor match up
Ogres - default spell of their base lore, win most combats that aren't poor match ups (ie don't charge 12 bulls into 30 witch elves) and those combats that are lost this way the crown will at best buy you 1 more turn of turtling in on yourself before dying
Dark Elves - Because the stubborn peg lord is so powerful there is practically no reason not to use him.  That said outside of that one character they don't need this item.
Lizards - hard to kill units especially with slann support means they don't often give up combat res and any minor loses are going to be of minimum effect due to cold blooded.  There is an arguement for it on a unit that can't be supported by magic or 'just in case' but it's far from needed.

Armies that need and make use of the crown universally
Orcs - different from goblins in that they will not always be steadfast
Beastmen - little/no armor means that faster races have a big advantage in tilting combat agaisnt them
Bretts - while they don't loose combat often and NEVER want to be stuck in, if they whiff their charge round they struggle to generate CR so may end up loosing due to large flanks and lack of attack power.
High Elves - not particularly good at CC and expensive troops means that they can always make good use out of the crown.

So 4 of the lowest tier armies (can't remember who posted the relative winnings of each army in tournamgnet but Orcs & goblins were actually last place in most major tournie scenese) actively need the crown.  The bulk of armies can and do take it but don't need it to be functional, most of these armies having alternate means of applying similiar effects or have the option naturally occuring due to steadfast/army specific rules.  4 armies that basically get no use out of it whatsoever don't take it.

I'd say thats appropriate for a 35 pt item.

Would you argue that the dispel scroll is OP because EVERY ARMY takes it?

[rothgar13]

Beastmen use the Crown because Bestigors are our answer to most things. As for tourney placement... Beastmen actually place higher than what the book would have you believe, in part because a lot of our tournament players take the top-of-the-line builds which can actually compete with anybody - we're right around the middle on a lot of rankings (though lower in some others). O&G is a mostly lousy tourney army, though - there's not much you can do about that. Also, Empire Priests don't give Unbreakable - the 3 prayers are re-rolls to wound, flaming, and a 5+ Ward save. WoC will feature the Crown on occasion, because they have a Chaos Lord that does with the DE Dreadlord does, only he's a bit more expensive but much better at fighting.

As for the topic being discussed, I think the Crown is a bit cheap for what it does, but not all that much so. I think I'd still take it if it was in the 45-50 range, but anything higher than that would see me skip it more often than not.

[grey templar]

The Crown might be undercosted, but I think the undercosted aspect of it is practically obliterated by everyone having access to it at the same price.

And there is a reason for Daemons to take the Crown, they won't suffer the Ld penelty when taking the Instability test.