PDA

View Full Version : The challenge mechanic: do you like it? If not, how would you change it?



Ludaman
20-02-2014, 22:11
Exactly what the topic says, as it is now, I'm not a huge fan of the challenge mechanic, I've had a couple ideas for house rules, but I'm curious how other people feel about it, and I'm very interested in what they have to say.

Althwen
20-02-2014, 23:05
Exactly what the topic says, as it is now, I'm not a huge fan of the challenge mechanic, I've had a couple ideas for house rules, but I'm curious how other people feel about it, and I'm very interested in what they have to say.

I find that it's OK, mostly because I wouldn't know how to begin changing it. (Luckily I'm not a game designer ;)

There's one thing that has always been bothering me though, and that's the absence of magic in duels. I've always thought it weird that there isn't a separate Mage Duel. Of course this would need another deck of spells from each lore just for challenges and it begs the question if mages would be able to use these same abilities when duelling a non-mage adversary? But there's some cool art on the subject since almost the beginning of Warhammer like this one for example: http://store.wargamingtrader.com/system/files/imagecache/product_full/Z259%20-%205th%20Edition%20Warhammer%20Arcane%20Magic%20Bo ok%20%20%20%20%2012-12-17.jpg


EDIT: Mmm, now that I ook at it, I realise those two don't have to be mages at all... I always thought of them that way, though :)

underscore
20-02-2014, 23:11
Stomps/Thunderstomps/Breath Weapons always go onto the unit, as per shooting.
One someone is dead, any attacks in the following Initiative steps can be assigned as normal.

WhispersofBlood
20-02-2014, 23:17
I find that it's OK, mostly because I wouldn't know how to begin changing it. (Luckily I'm not a game designer ;)

There's one thing that has always been bothering me though, and that's the absence of magic in duels. I've always thought it weird that there isn't a separate Mage Duel. Of course this would need another deck of spells from each lore just for challenges and it begs the question if mages would be able to use these same abilities when duelling a non-mage adversary? But there's some cool art on the subject since almost the beginning of Warhammer like this one for example: http://store.wargamingtrader.com/system/files/imagecache/product_full/Z259%20-%205th%20Edition%20Warhammer%20Arcane%20Magic%20Bo ok%20%20%20%20%2012-12-17.jpg


EDIT: Mmm, now that I ook at it, I realise those two don't have to be mages at all... I always thought of them that way, though :)

Yeah lol one of them is Volkmar the Grim an Archlector.

grumbaki
20-02-2014, 23:20
Well, you can use magic in duels. Just not any magic that can't be cast in hand to hand combat. Nothing to stop a mage from casting debuffs or buff spells. It's just that chaos/vampire/ogre casters will rip apart their opponents with ease by simply being combat beasts.

One thing that I'd like to see is an option to flee from a duel. If you are losing, instead of attacking you get to run into the back of your unit. Doing so is such a dishonor that your opponent gets VPs for that hero just as if though he died in combat. Skaven and goblins getting a pass from this...because they are Skaven and Goblins.


If you could imagine, you have two lords dueling. A Bretonnian Lord and a Grand Master of an Empire Order. The Bretonnian knocks two wounds off of the Grand Master. He realizes that the Bretonnian's Macguffin completely outclasses his, and that next turn he is going to die. So the Empire player has the Grand Master flee the challenge and hide behind his men. The political and social problems with fleeing discredit him enough that the damage done to the enemy army is the same as if though he died.

Just because you are brave at first doesn't mean that you'll stay that way...

yabbadabba
20-02-2014, 23:30
I am fairly happy with the challenge mechanism, there just needs to be a better way of resolving unused attacks in the event of one model dying, and a bigger penalty for champions getting canned in one turn of combat.

theunwantedbeing
21-02-2014, 00:06
The primary abuse with the challenge rules is that unit champions can declare them.
The secondary abuse is how as soon as that champion is dead, no more fighting happens and so unless the enemy was swinging a magical sword with a hefty wound multiplier, he is likely losing that combat.

So the obvious solutions are
1. Champions can no longer declare challenges, they may only accept them
2. Models are not removed when slain as part of a challenge until the end of the combat, they are however automatically hit from that point on.

And a third less needed but useful one (especially to make extra sure to remove the suicide champion tactic)
3. Any attack that distributes as shooting is not forced to strike only the enemy challenger.

grumbaki
21-02-2014, 00:12
I like that champions can challenge. It represents the heroic sacrifice. The blenderlord vampire is coming at your unit. Your mates are all going to die unless you can hold out until the knights arrive. So you step up and challenge the vampire, knowing that you are going to die, but deciding to make your sacrifice count. Or the vampire is coming after your liege, and you throw yourself in front in an attempt to save him. Even just jumping on the blade to drag it down until he can shake you off.

That, and sometimes you really just need to get that hero out of the way for a turn. When facing Archaon, blenderlords, etc...most units will just vanish. At least with champions you have a chance to hold for a little bit...

...and it's not like its that abusable. Sure, heroes on dragons and daemon princes might be in trouble if they charge in alone and unsupported. But that just means that you use those big heroes in support of a unit that charges in two, so your champion can take the challenge. I don't see it as an abuse, but a design feature.

Kahadras
21-02-2014, 00:15
1. Champions can no longer declare challenges, they may only accept them

I certainly agree with this one.

Ramius4
21-02-2014, 06:25
I would only add one rule, and leave the rest of the challenge rules as is. Here's the rule...

"Only the character or champion with the highest Leadership may issue or accept a challenge. If one or more models have the same Leadership value, you may choose which one issues or accepts the challenge."

Urgat
21-02-2014, 06:27
I find that it's OK, mostly because I wouldn't know how to begin changing it. (Luckily I'm not a game designer ;)

There's one thing that has always been bothering me though, and that's the absence of magic in duels. I've always thought it weird that there isn't a separate Mage Duel. Of course this would need another deck of spells from each lore just for challenges and it begs the question if mages would be able to use these same abilities when duelling a non-mage adversary? But there's some cool art on the subject since almost the beginning of Warhammer like this one for example: http://store.wargamingtrader.com/system/files/imagecache/product_full/Z259%20-%205th%20Edition%20Warhammer%20Arcane%20Magic%20Bo ok%20%20%20%20%2012-12-17.jpg


EDIT: Mmm, now that I ook at it, I realise those two don't have to be mages at all... I always thought of them that way, though :)

There you go:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Q%2BzHngzFL._SL500_AA500_.jpg
:)

I don't like how challenge works, but IO have no idea how to change it.

ShivanAngel
21-02-2014, 06:43
Here is what I dont like about challenges....

Mr. unit champion squeeks a challenge at Mr. Bloodthirster....

Mr. Bloodthirster HAS to accept cause he is the only unit in base contact, beats said champion into a bloody pulp and loses combat to SCR....

Remove the overkill limit.

Or allow characters to ignore challenges from unit champions (a unit so puny isnt worth the time or effort)

Kayosiv
21-02-2014, 06:49
Challenges are really the only reason that unit champions are worth it. +1 attack to a unit for 10 points is rarely worth it. If champions couldn't participate in them, I would almost always rather just buy an other guy instead of a champion.

The changes I would like to see are overkill changes and what happens if a person refuses.

I think refusing a challenge should be a -1 combat resolution penalty.

I also think that if a model in a challenge dies, attacks can continue to be made at their corpse. It's called overkill for a reason. Having a carnosaur charge into combat and enter a challenge with a unit champion only to sit there and politely sip tea while the oldblood rips him to shreds destroys the cinematic nature of what challenges are "supposed" to do. The unit champion may have already died 3 times over to a high elf lord, but that doesn't mean his dragon shouldn't be able to rip him into shreads and stomp on his corpse, much to the terror of his unit.


Remove the overkill limit.

Or allow characters to ignore challenges from unit champions (a unit so puny isnt worth the time or effort)

I disagree at the removal of the overkill limit. It is specifically set at 5 because that is the maximum number of combat resolution can have under normal circumstances. The champion thing to keep super strong characters in check is also important. Now the Blood Thirster's inability to thunderstomp said dead unit champion at that initiative step, I think that should change.

WizzyWarlock
21-02-2014, 07:20
Stomps/Thunderstomps/Breath Weapons always go onto the unit, as per shooting.
One someone is dead, any attacks in the following Initiative steps can be assigned as normal.
Absolutely this. I'm so sick of charging in a 500+pt Lord on Dragon, only to have a unit Champion step up and make it completely pointless. If the Champion is dead after the Lords attacks, why the hell is the Dragon just standing there like a lemon when there's a whole unit still alive in front of him.. a unit that are adding on their ranks, standards and everything else bonus for a combat that it hasn't even been a part of?

Kahadras
21-02-2014, 08:19
Challenges are really the only reason that unit champions are worth it. +1 attack to a unit for 10 points is rarely worth it. If champions couldn't participate in them, I would almost always rather just buy an other guy instead of a champion.


Well I think the idea is that Champions would still be able to accept challenges he just wouldn't be able to issue them.

Maybe another way to fix things would be to say that characters on ridden monsters/monsters don't have to accept challenges.

Ludaman
21-02-2014, 08:43
Challenges are really the only reason that unit champions are worth it. +1 attack to a unit for 10 points is rarely worth it. If champions couldn't participate in them, I would almost always rather just buy an other guy instead of a champion.

The changes I would like to see are overkill changes and what happens if a person refuses.

I think refusing a challenge should be a -1 combat resolution penalty.

I also think that if a model in a challenge dies, attacks can continue to be made at their corpse. It's called overkill for a reason. Having a carnosaur charge into combat and enter a challenge with a unit champion only to sit there and politely sip tea while the oldblood rips him to shreds destroys the cinematic nature of what challenges are "supposed" to do. The unit champion may have already died 3 times over to a high elf lord, but that doesn't mean his dragon shouldn't be able to rip him into shreads and stomp on his corpse, much to the terror of his unit.


I disagree at the removal of the overkill limit. It is specifically set at 5 because that is the maximum number of combat resolution can have under normal circumstances. The champion thing to keep super strong characters in check is also important. Now the Blood Thirster's inability to thunderstomp said dead unit champion at that initiative step, I think that should change.

I like these ideas, they keep the same basic system, but help to remove some of the sillier problems.

Here's a second question: what if 9th edition is a giant, ground-up overhaul with the rules and every army book all simultaneously re-done. How would you design challenges? Would you keep them as-is where they are basically a way to mitigate a combat character's damage potential, or would you try to create rules that would promote cinematic-style showdowns between powerful characters on each side?

Alltaken
21-02-2014, 14:08
Challenges are really the only reason that unit champions are worth it. +1 attack to a unit for 10 points is rarely worth it. If champions couldn't participate in them, I would almost always rather just buy an other guy instead of a champion.

The changes I would like to see are overkill changes and what happens if a person refuses.

I think refusing a challenge should be a -1 combat resolution penalty.

I also think that if a model in a challenge dies, attacks can continue to be made at their corpse. It's called overkill for a reason. Having a carnosaur charge into combat and enter a challenge with a unit champion only to sit there and politely sip tea while the oldblood rips him to shreds destroys the cinematic nature of what challenges are "supposed" to do. The unit champion may have already died 3 times over to a high elf lord, but that doesn't mean his dragon shouldn't be able to rip him into shreads and stomp on his corpse, much to the terror of his unit.


I disagree at the removal of the overkill limit. It is specifically set at 5 because that is the maximum number of combat resolution can have under normal circumstances. The champion thing to keep super strong characters in check is also important. Now the Blood Thirster's inability to thunderstomp said dead unit champion at that initiative step, I think that should change.

I like unit champions mostly because on small units, or when your horde starts getting smaller its a constant extra attack.
Besides the never dying extra attack, they can decline or take challenges to save your characters.

I disagree on the - 1 ld, because its too exploitable, armies with better dueling lords get a free +1 combat res or more in the duel (baring bad combat rolls).

Giving too much ti duelers is dangerous

From my servoskull

Vipoid
21-02-2014, 14:12
Stomps/Thunderstomps/Breath Weapons always go onto the unit, as per shooting.

Agreed. If nothing else, having a dragon tap-dancing on a single model is ridiculous.


The primary abuse with the challenge rules is that unit champions can declare them.

What if champions could challenge, but Lords can refuse without penalty?

So, if a champion challenges and you refuse, you have to send a hero to the back of your squad (but not any lords).


Anyway, I think the other problem with challenges is that (outside of WoC) there's no penalty for winning one. I think that winning a challenge should grant some sort of bonus - either to the character/champion who won it (e.g. +1 WS or +1 A), or to the combat (e.g. -1 to enemy Ld, or additional +1 bonus to CR). It doesn't have to be a major bonus - but I think there should be *some* bonus for winning a challenge.

Alltaken
21-02-2014, 14:15
I like these ideas, they keep the same basic system, but help to remove some of the sillier problems.

Here's a second question: what if 9th edition is a giant, ground-up overhaul with the rules and every army book all simultaneously re-done. How would you design challenges? Would you keep them as-is where they are basically a way to mitigate a combat character's damage potential, or would you try to create rules that would promote cinematic-style showdowns between powerful characters on each side?

I would keep it similar.
Champions cant call out challenges (maybe certain elite units).
Remaining attacks of a Mount can attack the unit if his higer I rider kills the other dueler before he strikes.

From my servoskull

IcedCrow
21-02-2014, 14:17
Here is what I dont like about challenges....

Mr. unit champion squeeks a challenge at Mr. Bloodthirster....

Mr. Bloodthirster HAS to accept cause he is the only unit in base contact, beats said champion into a bloody pulp and loses combat to SCR....

Remove the overkill limit.

Or allow characters to ignore challenges from unit champions (a unit so puny isnt worth the time or effort)

The bloodthirster being able to hit the unit or the champion has little impact on the overall result EXCEPT that you don't get to remove a handful of enemy models, just the one. If he beats the unit champion into a bloody pulp but still loses due to static res, he would have lost combat anyway even if he was attacking the unit because he would have done four or less wounds total. (3 ranks, 1 standard typically is what you have to overcome)

The challenge does not change that, and the overkill mechanic means that the blood thirster can win the combat by maxing out his wounds on the champion via overkill.

The real problem most people have is that steadfast kicks in. The point of challenging a giant monster is to stay steadfast as long as possible. Bloodthirsters should have no problem winning combats, its that they cannot break units by themselves because of steadfast. This is a crux of the game. Editions past, the blood thirster could sweep the whole army by itself. Today - he cannot. That makes infantry more useful. Problem is a blood thirster costs over 500 points and can't run off units that are his cost or less, which indicates a balance issue.

I have no problem with challenges. They are, however, one of the more gamed aspect of the game.

Vipoid
21-02-2014, 14:19
The bloodthirster being able to hit the unit or the champion has little impact on the overall result EXCEPT that you don't get to remove a handful of enemy models, just the one. If he beats the unit champion into a bloody pulp but still loses due to static res, he would have lost combat anyway even if he was attacking the unit because he would have done four or less wounds total.

That's not necessarily true.

Don't forget that if the Bloodthirster's initial attacks kill the challenger (more than likely), he loses his Thunderstomp.

IcedCrow
21-02-2014, 14:22
So then change it so all of his attacks can be done (minor tweak).

theunwantedbeing
21-02-2014, 14:43
What if champions could challenge, but Lords can refuse without penalty?

So, if a champion challenges and you refuse, you have to send a hero to the back of your squad (but not any lords).
That works but Lords aren't the only ones who can ride large monsters.
Allowing Characters to refuse challenges without issue from non-characters would make more sense.


Anyway, I think the other problem with challenges is that (outside of WoC) there's no penalty for winning one. I think that winning a challenge should grant some sort of bonus - either to the character/champion who won it (e.g. +1 WS or +1 A), or to the combat (e.g. -1 to enemy Ld, or additional +1 bonus to CR). It doesn't have to be a major bonus - but I think there should be *some* bonus for winning a challenge.
It's there in the overkill bonus I think, although currently that bonus is only really available to models wielding wound multiplier weapons (of which there are very few).
Allowing one side to keep striking his fallen opponent goes a long way to resolving the issue.

One thing I would however like to see is one side being able to take the magical sword or sheild of his opponent and use it himself after slaying his opponent.
That said, I can see the end result simply being nobody taking magical weapons for fear of theirs being taken and used against their own troops.

Vipoid
21-02-2014, 15:05
That works but Lords aren't the only ones who can ride large monsters.

I wasn't really thinking in terms of ridden monsters - more in terms of status.


Allowing Characters to refuse challenges without issue from non-characters would make more sense.

Perhaps, but it also makes it pointless for champions to be able to challenge at all - when anyone can (and almost certainly will) refuse their challenge with no penalty.

Not that that's necessarily a bad idea - just that there's no point beating about the bush when the effect will be the same.


It's there in the overkill bonus I think, although currently that bonus is only really available to models wielding wound multiplier weapons (of which there are very few).
Allowing one side to keep striking his fallen opponent goes a long way to resolving the issue.

I struggle to see Overkill as a bonus though - since you would have done that many wounds to the squad, had you not been in the challenge.

Basically, I'd like to see a bonus for winning a challenge - rather than just being allowed to keep most of the wounds you did.


One thing I would however like to see is one side being able to take the magical sword or sheild of his opponent and use it himself after slaying his opponent.
That said, I can see the end result simply being nobody taking magical weapons for fear of theirs being taken and used against their own troops.

I quite like the idea, but as you say I'm not sure it would work out quite as well in-game.

yabbadabba
21-02-2014, 16:03
I struggle to see Overkill as a bonus though - since you would have done that many wounds to the squad, had you not been in the challenge.

Basically, I'd like to see a bonus for winning a challenge - rather than just being allowed to keep most of the wounds you did. You could go for allowing all attacks to be resolved in the challenge, Overkill being limited to 5, and then if either side loses a character (including a unit champion), then that also counts as +1CR.

The result would be an effective -2 to the losing unit (Charging and losing challenging model) on it's Ld test.

IcedCrow
21-02-2014, 16:30
You could go for allowing all attacks to be resolved in the challenge, Overkill being limited to 5, and then if either side loses a character (including a unit champion), then that also counts as +1CR.

The result would be an effective -2 to the losing unit (Charging and losing challenging model) on it's Ld test.

Steadfast would still keep it so the unit doesn't break.

yabbadabba
21-02-2014, 16:34
Steadfast would still keep it so the unit doesn't break. That's only if you have Steadfast. Might as well criticise my idea because the unit might be unbreakable.

Besides if you are charging a Steadfast unit to the front with a character and monster, then either you are a genius in ways I can't imagine desperate, or a fool.

IcedCrow
21-02-2014, 16:35
That's only if you have Steadfast. Might as well criticise my idea because the unit might be unbreakable.

Besides if you are charging a Steadfast unit to the front with a character and monster, then either you are a genius in ways I can't imagine desperate, or a fool.

I'm just saying what people complain about all the time. Adding CR is not usually the issue. Things like Bloodthirsters don't usually lose combat, but people get angry when they "waste their wounds" and get tied up with a steadfast unit when that unit costs less than the bloodthirster and then bluster when their bloodthirster (or whatever) is challenged and they can only kill the one model (and then swear that challenges are broken) because they can't grind the lesser point costed unit down faster.

Typically a monster is always fighting something that will be steadfast against it unless its fighting another monster.

sysy16
21-02-2014, 16:52
We play the following rule....

A straight monster profile, such as a bloodthrister can ignore a challenge from any inf or cav profiles

A character mounted on a monster or MC/MI can either accept the challenge mounted or get off the beast to allow it to attack the unit whilst he fights on foot. THis allows the monster to either be fighting the unit or taking part in the challenge.

It seems to work just fine for us and still makes it worth taking a unit champion.

A single guy on foot or horse should not be able to avoid a challenge and can do nothing about being surrounded and overwhelmed even if he kills the unit champ...

I just think when it gets to a great big Dragon or bloodthirster.... gets a bit daft hence our house rule.

As an added bonus, we see more folks willing to take lords instead of the standard level 4

ewar
21-02-2014, 16:52
Well I think the idea is that Champions would still be able to accept challenges he just wouldn't be able to issue them.

Maybe another way to fix things would be to say that characters on ridden monsters/monsters don't have to accept challenges.

But if that's the case then nobody would ever take a champion, as no Facesmashingmonster Lord (tm) ever issues a challenge as they're better off scything down rank and file. If ridden monster riders don't have to accept challenges then that has exactly the same effect of rendering unit champions completely moot. I'm not paying 10 points for a Skeleton Warrior champ so I can have 1 extra WS2 S3 attack... I'm paying it so that the turn Mr Bloodthirster arrives I can buy a round of combat.

I have never seen a Facesmashingmonster Lord (tm) run away from a unit, as they are almost guaranteed to get the maximum overkill bonus. Weak core units are already so far down the pecking order of power that taking away their champion defence is unnecessarily mean.

What I will agree with is when there are two combat lords in opposing blocks, leaving the champions to fight a duel so the Lords can kick the rank and file in the teeth. I can't think of a clean mechanic to get round this though - and is it barely ever happens I'm not sure it's worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater for...

yabbadabba
21-02-2014, 17:02
I'm just saying what people complain about all the time. Adding CR is not usually the issue. Things like Bloodthirsters don't usually lose combat, but people get angry when they "waste their wounds" and get tied up with a steadfast unit when that unit costs less than the bloodthirster and then bluster when their bloodthirster (or whatever) is challenged and they can only kill the one model (and then swear that challenges are broken) because they can't grind the lesser point costed unit down faster.

Typically a monster is always fighting something that will be steadfast against it unless its fighting another monster. Again, I think if you are fighting a steadfast unit solely with a monster, or character and monster, then you have done it wrong unless you have reduced that unit to a size where steadfast is no longer an issue after the monster attacks, or you have a unit that cancels the steadfast for you.

CountUlrich
21-02-2014, 17:21
Again, I think if you are fighting a steadfast unit solely with a monster, or character and monster, then you have done it wrong unless you have reduced that unit to a size where steadfast is no longer an issue after the monster attacks, or you have a unit that cancels the steadfast for you.

Agree totally. My uber super character whipes your army is a boring ass game. What is the point of painting these 100s of minis if that is what you plan to do? It negates tactics totally.

I do agree though that if the lord kills the challenger the mounts attacks should be able to be applied to the unit (or vice versa, guided by init).

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

Kahadras
21-02-2014, 17:24
But if that's the case then nobody would ever take a champion, as no Facesmashingmonster Lord (tm) ever issues a challenge as they're better off scything down rank and file. If ridden monster riders don't have to accept challenges then that has exactly the same effect of rendering unit champions completely moot. I'm not paying 10 points for a Skeleton Warrior champ so I can have 1 extra WS2 S3 attack... I'm paying it so that the turn Mr Bloodthirster arrives I can buy a round of combat.

Well paying 10 points for a mooted round of combat seems far too little IMHO. Especialy seen as the tactic only works against stuff that costs so much to take in the first place. It just feel horribly unbalanced. Things get even more stupid when you can potentialy resurrect champions via magic or get units in which multiple models can challenge.

Alltaken
21-02-2014, 17:38
The bloodthirster being able to hit the unit or the champion has little impact on the overall result EXCEPT that you don't get to remove a handful of enemy models, just the one. If he beats the unit champion into a bloody pulp but still loses due to static res, he would have lost combat anyway even if he was attacking the unit because he would have done four or less wounds total. (3 ranks, 1 standard typically is what you have to overcome)

The challenge does not change that, and the overkill mechanic means that the blood thirster can win the combat by maxing out his wounds on the champion via overkill.

The real problem most people have is that steadfast kicks in. The point of challenging a giant monster is to stay steadfast as long as possible. Bloodthirsters should have no problem winning combats, its that they cannot break units by themselves because of steadfast. This is a crux of the game. Editions past, the blood thirster could sweep the whole army by itself. Today - he cannot. That makes infantry more useful. Problem is a blood thirster costs over 500 points and can't run off units that are his cost or less, which indicates a balance issue.

I have no problem with challenges. They are, however, one of the more gamed aspect of the game.

Actually making non hordes units run with a blood thirster can happen, charge a flank or rear +2 / +3 instant res. Make some wounds 3 average. +5/+6 res, if you're not wounded its that vs: +3 tops from rank, +1std bearer. Lost combat for the unit, this is not a "happens all the time" scenario, but just meaning it can happen since rarelly your gona have a 3 res from rows.

And here is another problem, you sent your bloodthrister go alone in a fight were he had terrible odds against, that is more on the side of bad tactics /choices, than rules flaw really.

I dont want hero Hammer back personally, when dragons won by themselves, I like my infantry being important and usefull.

From my servoskull

Lord Solar Plexus
21-02-2014, 17:49
Challenges are completely fine (just like cannon, steadfast, horde, magic, combat, busses, hordes, steadfast, skirmishers, and cannon). ;) I love it when a Bloodthirster sticks itself fast into a unit and cannot kill 50 models.


Actually making non hordes units run with a blood thirster can happen, charge a flank or rear +2 / +3 instant res.


Not quite. He gets charge + flank, the unit gets ranks + standard. Unless with "non-horde" you mean Light Cavalry, skirmishers or greatly diminished units, the charger is still at -2 before wounds.

Zinch
21-02-2014, 17:53
I dont want hero Hammer back personally, when dragons won by themselves, I like my infantry being important and usefull.



This.

I don't see the problem with infantry having a response against uber-killy-machine-lords sent flying alone against them... The current champion issuing challenges is a game mechanic that encourages tactics IMO.

Having said that, I think an additional +1CR for the player winning the challenge and -1 CR if you refuse it are good additions to the current rule.

WhispersofBlood
21-02-2014, 18:05
There is a simple solution... You must be in the fighting "rank" to issue or accept challenges. Champions can't make way so they can never accept challenges to the flank or rear. If you get your flying monstrous character to the flank you are rewarded by having the opportunity to savage the unit with up to 15 attacks.

leopard
21-02-2014, 20:19
1. Champions cannot declare challenges, only accept them
2. any number of characters may declare a challenge, though a model may only accept a single challenge, once there are no enemy characters you may not declare more challenges (champions count for this)
3. as now anyone declining is moved out of combat and may not attack or make a supporting attack etc as now.
4. All attacks in close combat other than challenges are resolved as per shooting attacks (so no directing attacks to models in base contact)

Ludaman
21-02-2014, 21:36
Well these are all very nice ways to make challenges more balanced (most involve having challenges work pretty similar to how they did in 7th). For myself, I mainly game for fun and the narrative of the battle, and I hate the way challenges work. Right now they're all about tactical advantage: accept with a champion to stop a bloodthirster, challenge the other guy's blender with your un-killable lord to stall him and run him down with combat result, etc..

In my opinion challenges should be all about pride, it shouldn't be a punishment to have to accept one, or declare one. Make them fully optional.

Here's a suggestion (feel free to punch holes in it, this is the internet after all):

The player who's turn it is picks a character to declare a challenge with, the opposing player may choose a character to accept, if he declines, nothing happens, it's a battle after all, the battle continues. If he accepts, the two characters fight, and they are the only participants of that combat. Each character fights a full round of combat, if one or both characters are killed, the combat ends, if both survive, fight another round, continue to fight back and forth until one or both are dead. The wounds done in the challenge are the only factors used to calculate combat result. I.E. My high elf lord killed my opponent's dark elf lord by inflicting 3 wounds, the dark elf lord inflicted 1 on my lord in return. My opponent loses combat by 2. Steadfast and BSB rerolls are still allowed for break tests.

That's it, without penalties for declining it's purely about pride and an epic Cinematic showdown. Sure it makes whatever unit you're bunkering in completely useless :) but I still think I would have more fun this way, even if my lord ended up as paste on a thirster's axe.

Edit: I really didn't plan on posting my little idea here, because I'm not that satisfied with it, but since I started the topic mainly to hear about other people's fresh ideas on challenges and instead it became a discussion on how to tweak the current challenge rules, I thought I'd post up my silly challenge rule as a way to open up a broader discussion. Here's hoping that's what happens :)

Kayosiv
21-02-2014, 22:15
But if that's the case then nobody would ever take a champion, as no Facesmashingmonster Lord (tm) ever issues a challenge as they're better off scything down rank and file

I think that's one of the fundamental problems with the challenge system. There's absolutely no incentive to challenge if you think you can actually win the challenge. The" reward" for winning a challenge is often the penalty of less dead models in the enemy unit. Perhaps you wanted to prevent a strong character from attacking your unit by tying him up in a challenge fight, but even then that's just distracting him. Actually beating that character and winning doesn't actually have any reward whatsoever. Winning challenges should tip combat in some fashion, not just serve as a delay and distraction tactic.


1. Champions cannot declare challenges, only accept them


I see several people saying this and as the rules are now this would not work. There is no incentive for characters to challenge, so they won't. If unit champions can't challenge them, we'll just see the extinction of unit champions because they lack a role that is cost effective.

Sexiest_hero
21-02-2014, 22:19
1.A (Fighty lord) Refusing a challenge with a hero or lord costs you rank bonus as it's disheartening seeing your leader flee.
B (magic lord) Refusing a challenge with a hero or lord drains the mage of breath while he flees. He gets no bonus to casting next phase
2. breath stomp flame breath works as shooting.

3. Champs can challenge, but seeing their personal leader killed, shakes the other command models, banner and musician cease to function on the turn the champion is killed

easy peasy!

Vipoid
21-02-2014, 22:38
I see several people saying this and as the rules are now this would not work. There is no incentive for characters to challenge, so they won't. If unit champions can't challenge them, we'll just see the extinction of unit champions because they lack a role that is cost effective.

I know what you mean, but I think the current problem is that champions are too valuable.

Although, I'd be tempted to say the same applies to most command models. Considering the frequency with which full command is taken, it seems like they might as well just have them included automatically, and add their cost to a unit's starting cost.



Here's a suggestion (feel free to punch holes in it, this is the internet after all):

The player who's turn it is picks a character to declare a challenge with, the opposing player may choose a character to accept, if he declines, nothing happens, it's a battle after all, the battle continues. If he accepts, the two characters fight, and they are the only participants of that combat. Each character fights a full round of combat, if one or both characters are killed, the combat ends, if both survive, fight another round, continue to fight back and forth until one or both are dead. The wounds done in the challenge are the only factors used to calculate combat result. I.E. My high elf lord killed my opponent's dark elf lord by inflicting 3 wounds, the dark elf lord inflicted 1 on my lord in return. My opponent loses combat by 2. Steadfast and BSB rerolls are still allowed for break tests.

That's it, without penalties for declining it's purely about pride and an epic Cinematic showdown. Sure it makes whatever unit you're bunkering in completely useless :) but I still think I would have more fun this way, even if my lord ended up as paste on a thirster's axe.

It's an interesting idea, and might be more accurate in terms of how challenges would actually be fought.

However, the problem I see is that most people care less about "cinematic" battles and more about preserving their characters and gaining an advantage. To put it another way, I just don't see many circumstances where both players would willingly accept a challenge.

I mean, let's say you have a block of Empire halberdiers, led by an Arch Lector - which is then charged by a unit of Chaos Warriors, led by a Chaos Lord. The Chaos Lord challenges (as per his rules). But, why would the Empire player ever accept? An Arch Lector isn't a combat character - his purpose is to boost his squad. He'll get absolutely no benefit - just a dead lord and a lost combat (which can no longer be resolved using the Arch Lector's Ld).

Now, even if you consider that an extreme example, the point is that a player is only ever going to challenge if he thinks he can beat the enemy lord/hero. Likewise, unless he's pretty sure he'll win, the defender will never accept a challenge (since it will result in a dead lord/hero, and a lost combat which will only get worse next turn). So, the only time you'll even get a duel is in the unlikely event that both players are sure of winning combat. :shifty:


Thing is, I really do like the idea of the characters being the only ones fighting in the battle (not sure about them fighting infinite rounds though). I just don't think it would work in practice (with the current rules, anyway).

ewar
21-02-2014, 22:42
In my opinion challenges should be all about pride, it shouldn't be a punishment to have to accept one, or declare one. Make them fully optional.

What you suggest is a fun idea but I don't think it makes for a very satisfying game mechanic as the disparity in quality of fighters between armies is so great - no General of the Empire in his right mind would step into single combat with a Red Fury vampire! Maybe make a general 10pt enchanted item that prevents challenges being declined? The champ might bite it in round 1 but after that the other guys characters are fair game.


I think that's one of the fundamental problems with the challenge system. There's absolutely no incentive to challenge if you think you can actually win the challenge. The" reward" for winning a challenge is often the penalty of less dead models in the enemy unit. Perhaps you wanted to prevent a strong character from attacking your unit by tying him up in a challenge fight, but even then that's just distracting him. Actually beating that character and winning doesn't actually have any reward whatsoever. Winning challenges should tip combat in some fashion, not just serve as a delay and distraction tactic.

You make a good point and I agree with you to some extent - however if it's a 'fun' game between mates or gamers interested more in the narrative, then often the challenge mechanics work fine and 'as intended'. For more competitive play I find they make a decent counterbalance to very strong single models who would otherwise be almost completely immune to damage from rank and file units. Don't want your Bloodthirster fighting a skeleton warrior champ? Make good use of his incredible mobility and don't fly him into combat with that unit... It is only a small disincentive but at least it's something. 5th ed was a long time ago but I still shudder when I think of dragon riding level 4 chaos lords....

Kahadras
22-02-2014, 00:35
I find they make a decent counterbalance to very strong single models who would otherwise be almost completely immune to damage from rank and file units.

I though that was why GW introduces steadfast. The strong single model charges in, kills some stuff and then the unit counts as stubborn (meaning that the combat can go either way). The unit should hold but the strong single unit should cause plenty of damage thanks to its attacks and Thunderstomp.

kramplarv
22-02-2014, 03:30
I would like what someone suggested that if the champion/character dies attacks on another iniative-step could be used against the unit. And also I would say that only characters/champions in basecontact could issue/accept a challenge.

But my mainproblem with challenges is not killing the champion. It is that there is no bad effect happening for the character hiding... I would like that magicians/priests/etc were unable to use magic as long as the challenge is being fought. Because everyone is busy looking at the champion trying to dodge the dragon.

This would make it still a character protection, but it would limit the disadvantages of being a single ridden monster.

Also I want the losing side to suffer -1Ld because their champion/hero died.

Or maybe invent a magical item which somehow changes the rules. Like; Enchanted Item of Challenges: The wearer may issue a challenge to an enemy character or champion which may not be refused. One use only.

Avian
22-02-2014, 07:40
- Models in base contact with the challenger can't refuse (unless they have a rule saying they can always refuse, like champions).

- Specify how many attacks you are using in the challenge. If those attacks kill the opponent, the rest can be resolved against the unit. If you fail to kill him, they are wasted.

- Wounds done in challenges count double for CR. No overkill bonus.

mirloor
22-02-2014, 08:02
I will simply quote myself from another thread (example with dragon lord attacking 10 empire archers with wizard, champion, captain and warrior priest in it):

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?389921-Refusing-a-Challenge-8th-edition&p=7079745#post7079745


Yes sure as intended, if he has for example hellfire sword he kills with 1 hit second hit goes for overkill 4 are lost, next 6 attackts from dragon are lost, next 2d6 thunderstomps are lost. And all this attacks are lost from turn 2 ( lets say he engaged enemy on turn 2 lets be this nice for him) So dragon does not attack ANYONE for the whole battle and is in close combat from turn 2 ... SURE it works as intended it gives a HUGE bonus for the side winnig the duel... THATS the point it should give the bonus for the guy winnig not cripple him. And current system is not used to give you bonus for winnig challange current challange system is used to cripple enemy lords by sacrificing useless chars... it is exatly the OPPOSITE to what was intended.


Aha and if all of You guys are so aggainst major changes in challange system, then one simple change would fix it. Take challange out of Close Combat phase. Make it simply happen before Close combat.

So if challange lasts for longer than 1 turn then there is no change to the current system. BUT in the turn the challange ends, winning character should participate normally in close combat with all of his attacks. So if challanger was called out he stepped out from the ranks (everyone paused to look at him) and was killed with single blow in turn 1. Then the guy who killed him should normally go to Close Combat with all of his attacks (if he killed him in turn 3 then he goes to cc in turn 3 with all of his attacks - not like it is now next turn). This would fix challange system and changes to the current one really are minimal.

Maltor
22-02-2014, 08:37
Why not make it so ridden monster mounts are not part of the challenge? Now they are free to attack the unit and be attacked by the unit and thunder stomp makes sense targeting the unit. Monster characters have control over their own limbs so no thunder stomping units for them. Mounts immune from being harmed by units should not be able to cause casualties to units.

Ludaman
22-02-2014, 08:56
I will simply quote myself from another thread (example with dragon lord attacking 10 empire archers with wizard, champion, captain and warrior priest in it):

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?389921-Refusing-a-Challenge-8th-edition&p=7079745#post7079745

Thank god for you man! I love this idea.

yabbadabba
22-02-2014, 08:59
There is no need for all this complication, or for splitting attacks or anything else. It's called having your cake and eating it - or in this case solving it down in a single bite. I don't normally promote myself so blatantly but I prefer my idea for its simplicity and effect, so I will play test it next game I have.

SpanielBear
22-02-2014, 12:22
How about:

If a challenge is fought between a single character and a unit, static combat bonuses are not applied to the result of the combat. No other changes.

This means
A) the challenging character gets no bonuses for flank or rear charges. He has stopped to issue or accept a challenge, the force of a charge has been lost. He still gets bonuses to his stats e.g. furious charge.

B) The unit cannot overwhelm the character with combat resolution. It makes no sense for a hero to beat down a champion, then flee in terror from the rest of the unit because they have a rag on a stick.

C) The combat is decided by the challenge and only the challenge. If the character wins the single combat and inflicts overkill, that will have a massive demoralising effect on the unit due to its loss if rank bonuses etc. Equally, if the challenge is won with no attacks to spare, then next turn the character is free to go to town on the unit.

D) Finally, it means that unless a character loses a challenge outright, they will not run from the combat. A challenge where neither side inflicts any wounds becomes a draw.