A simple fix to challenges (pos house rule)

[trigger]

There has been alot of worrying about the new challenge rules , with how the uber character will get tied up with the lowly throw away sgt.

So I had an idea

In the first round of combat , only the assaulter may issue challenges.

After that back to normal rules.

What you all think.

[xerxeshavelock]

I prefer that the assaulter adapts his tactics... sorry.

[nagash66]

I prefer that the assaulter adapts his tactics... sorry.

+1 vote .

[Veteran Sergeant]

I think eventually challenges will be like psykers in 2nd Edition. Something that tournaments opt not to allow, and something players decide not to allow in friendly games.

The rules are just shoddy and poorly written. It's a cool idea, for sure. I mean, epic duels between heroes as their troops swirl around? That's the **** that action movies are made of. The problem is, once the meta settles, that's not how it will work. We'll just see low points Turtle characters with storm shields or other such designed to tarpit expensive special characters and monstrous creatures.

[xerxeshavelock]

Btw as house rules go its not bad. I am enjoying the changes in tactics the new edition has brought and so won't be hring this.

[nagash66]

We'll just see low points Turtle characters with storm shields or other such designed to tarpit expensive special characters and monstrous creatures.

Yes heaven forbid people might actually have to think when using their 250+ point death machine, soon they will be trying to cram other crazy ideas like tactics down our throats .

[Reinholt]

I think eventually challenges will be like psykers in 2nd Edition. Something that tournaments opt not to allow, and something players decide not to allow in friendly games.

The rules are just shoddy and poorly written. It's a cool idea, for sure. I mean, epic duels between heroes as their troops swirl around? That's the **** that action movies are made of. The problem is, once the meta settles, that's not how it will work. We'll just see low points Turtle characters with storm shields or other such designed to tarpit expensive special characters and monstrous creatures.

I see your turtle character and raise you an unequipped space marine sergeant to soak challenges so my captain can butcher your normal joes.

[The Satyr]

I think the only change needed is the penalty for refusing, there shouldn't be one...

[vitch]

I think the only change needed is the penalty for refusing, there shouldn't be one...

My Shas'O agrees.

[Lord Inquisitor]

This is exactly the problem with challenges in WFB, which is that they're variously used for gimping one side or the other out of attacks. One of the biggest remaining issues with Warhammer mechanics and an area 8th just didn't fix at all, and now we have the same problem in 40k. It's meant to promote epic duels but it actually does the opposite. I was playing WFB yesterday and I had a Tyrant facing off against a Vampire Lord and neither of us wanted to issue the challenge for fear of being fed a champion but both of us would issue a challenge if we knew the other Lord would accept!

Challenges aren't a problem for the game, they're tactical enough from a "game" perspective but they just fail to achieve the desired effect of bringing mighty heroes together in epic combat! And now we have this very flawed system ported over to 40k with the same issues.

[Judment]

You can use the glorious intervention or what have you rule to get your special character out though

[t-tauri]

Moved to rules development. Please post in the appropriate area.

[Arnizipal]

This is exactly the problem with challenges in WFB, which is that they're variously used for gimping one side or the other out of attacks. One of the biggest remaining issues with Warhammer mechanics and an area 8th just didn't fix at all, and now we have the same problem in 40k. It's meant to promote epic duels but it actually does the opposite. I was playing WFB yesterday and I had a Tyrant facing off against a Vampire Lord and neither of us wanted to issue the challenge for fear of being fed a champion but both of us would issue a challenge if we knew the other Lord would accept!

Challenges aren't broken for Fantasy, thanks to the overkill rule.
Each wound done in addition to the wounds needed to slay your opponent in a challenge count for Combat Result (up to a maximum of +3).

Wouldn't that also fix the issue in 40K?

[Lord Inquisitor]

Well, I didn't say challenges are "broken" in WFB per se, they work alright from a game perspective.

In WFB the chief uses for challenges are as follows:

- Preventing a powerful character from attacking a unit by feeding them a champion.
- Allowing your character to avoid the attacks of an enemy character so your character can get on with whacking bozos

This isn't a real problem with the game ... except this really doesn't seem to be what challenges are intended for.

Now overkill does help in WFB, but in 40K there is typically no static combat res. No ranks, banners are rare, no bonus for charging or flanks or what have you. So the Overkill bonus isn't needed so much because if you kill your challenger you typically have done more wounds. I was pretty surprised there wasn't an Overkill rule all the same, but I can sort of see why it might not be a good idea.

I do really like the "cheering on" rule for challenges though. That's pretty cool and makes you feel less bad that 20 models are not fighting because of the challenge.

[yabbadabba]

While I would support your house rule for your games., I think this is part and parcel of the game. There needs to be more thinking when it comes to challenges so they they don't just become automatic actions for either side. No matter what rule change you come up with, it will have its exploitable problems.

Good luck.

[Arnizipal]

Now overkill does help in WFB, but in 40K there is typically no static combat res. No ranks, banners are rare, no bonus for charging or flanks or what have you. So the Overkill bonus isn't needed so much because if you kill your challenger you typically have done more wounds. I was pretty surprised there wasn't an Overkill rule all the same, but I can sort of see why it might not be a good idea.

I feel it would help, even if "static" combat res is less important in 40K.
It means your über character of death can still have a serious impact on the outcome of the fight by killing his puny opponent in a spectacular way, while the opponent's unit is safe from your character's onslaught and can bring its full numbers to bear to strike back.

Sounds like a fair trade-off, no?

[yabbadabba]

Just thinking you could add (as this is houserules) a unit losing a character in a challenege takes an immediate Ld test - if failed it suffers an additional -1Ld if it loses combat. Should sort the Nobs from the Grots.

[trigger]

I like it , too expand , if you challenge and lose the x happens to leadership ???

[Charistoph]

Just thinking you could add (as this is houserules) a unit losing a character in a challenege takes an immediate Ld test - if failed it suffers an additional -1Ld if it loses combat. Should sort the Nobs from the Grots.

A double test? A little too much I would think. A fixed -2 Ld would be enough (1 for the kill, 1 for lost Duel), I would think.

As for the refusal, they get -1 Ld for the round for a "lost duel" and can't use Character's Ld for resolving the combat. Some races would have a natural out for one reason or another on this (Tau and 'Nids, for example).

[Bubble Ghost]

Wounds inflicted in challenges before saves count for combat res, and count double...? That way the disposition of an ongoing challenge has an effect, potentially even between two one-wound characters. Incentive for both sides - Abaddon gets a point at least of his overkill, while the Guard sergeant up against the Space Marine has hope of heartening his men by appearing to have the upper hand for a moment.

But the problem is, what with 40K's stupid interaction between the morale rules and the turn sequence, half the time you don't even want to win a combat, and the challenge rules offer a way to 'take a dive' and make sure you stay locked in combat for your opponent's next shooting phase. So you end up wth the farcical situation where the big bad assaulting combat bastard issues a challenge because he wants to spend a turn handcuffed, while the defender refuses, not out of fear but because he actually wants his side to get butchered.

And as long as that remains the case, there's not a lot of point trying to make challenges more plausible, because combat itself isn't. I like them as what they are: a gameplay weakness for combat monsters, and a moment in the spotlight for characters.