A simple fix to challenges (pos house rule)

[yabbadabba]

I think this also demonstrates the mentality of the community. I can see tournaments banning challenges not because they are broken, but to make the TOs lives easier vis a vis complaints and moans from some parts of the players.

Challenges are supposed to be a gamble. If they weren't, what would be the point? The only thinkg GW haven't done is make it any auto-tick for those players who do not want to adapt.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Meh, having had a chance to really test them out, the challenge rules are an annoyance. Unnecessary. Their only function is going to be to squirrel one side's attacks or the other's, just as in WFB. This isn't going to be limited to tournaments, it's just the same in friendly games. It is frustrating as a powerful lone character can charge a big unit of troopers and avoid their attacks and assassinate their character first, using the troopers as bullet shields next turn. The alternative is to refuse the challenge and send the guy with the power fist to the back.

The major issue to me seems to be the penalty of refusal is pretty big and lone characters can't refuse. If the mechanic is designed to allow mighty heroes to engage in single combat - great! But in inability to refuse or harsh penalty for doing so is what causes all the "tactics" of challenging, because you can be forced to accept.

Simplest fix? A challenge can be issued - but if it is not answered, there is no "refusing" character and the combat proceeds as normal, even with a unit consisting of a single character. Your champion can issue a challenge to a mighty hive tyrant but should the hive tyrant ignore him and charge into the squad, what is the champ going to do about it? Attack the beast!

That way the challenges can be issued, allowing mighty heroes to find each other in the swirling melee, but no real "gaming" to be had.

[yabbadabba]

Disagree. This is just arguing over who's tactics should trump who's.

What this is a case for is TOs to look at who they can use challenges to enhance their competitions. You could have a variety of interpretations such as unit leaders cannot accept challenges if there are other characters present; unit leaders may only issue/accept challanges vs other unit leaders if there are other characters present; each challenge which involves non-unit leader characters gains extra victory points for the winner etc etc. That's how this needs to be viewed.

[Lord Inquisitor]

That's pretty much my complaint. It isn't "tactical". What army trains it's commanding officers to issue challenges? More, why would they run and hide if a challenge were issued? The only description of warfare that works like this that I can think of is the Illiad. Sure there are in-game reasons for issuing or not issuing or refusing challenges but what is this rule for? Clearly it's not a real "tactic". Now if it isn't meant to be tactical in a real sense but a mechanism for mighty warriors to meet in the field of battle and get to each other in the melee - great. I'm okay with throwing real tactics out the window (this is 40k after all) ... But then is that what it does? Almost never.

So if it isn't realistic and it doesn't promote exciting or dramatic moments in the game, what is it for? Sure, it can take some skill to manipulate the challenge rules to your advantage but this is purely gaming the mechanics - mechanics that appear to have no other function than to be gamed.

[yabbadabba]

That's pretty much my complaint. It isn't "tactical".

Of course its tactical. Its an option available if you have the chance or the gumption to use it.

What army trains it's commanding officers to issue challenges? More, why would they run and hide if a challenge were issued? The only description of warfare that works like this that I can think of is the Illiad.

Not just the Illiad. The clash of champions has continued up until the democratisation of war and its move towards a "game for gentlemen" so almost with the advent of gunpowder, the decline of heavy personal armour and mass state subscription armies. Even then personal duels were knwon of on the battlefield in Napoleonic combats. In the Illiad it was the prime expression of war.

Sure there are in-game reasons for issuing or not issuing or refusing challenges but what is this rule for? Clearly it's not a real "tactic". Now if it isn't meant to be tactical in a real sense but a mechanism for mighty warriors to meet in the field of battle and get to each other in the melee - great. I'm okay with throwing real tactics out the window (this is 40k after all) ... But then is that what it does? Almost never.
So if it isn't realistic and it doesn't promote exciting or dramatic moments in the game, what is it for? Sure, it can take some skill to manipulate the challenge rules to your advantage but this is purely gaming the mechanics - mechanics that appear to have no other function than to be gamed.

Seems to me that your beef with it is that in your gaming environment this is a mechanism which fustrates you because its too easy, in your eyes, for others to counter your tactic. Theoretically, your tactic is to use your big combat character in its prime role, thereby either eating units on its own or taking out your opponents characters in h-t-h, but there are simple counter-tactics to this approach - why? Because its a straight forward tactic and easily sidestepped.
The tactic is there to force your opponent to step to your tune, either in the challenge or avoiding it, especially if they are not prepared for it. If they are, you simply don't use it as a tactic and waste their preparation, or you find away to sidestep their preparations and still use it. It also serves a cinematic purpose for those who enjoy that sort of thing. This weekend I had a nice duel going on between an Empire Captain and an Orc Big Boss. No need to do it, but it was nice to do it. Finally it has some justification in the background; Marine, Ork and Khornate champions would all accept challenges, some without thinking twice.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Of course its tactical. Its an option available if you have the chance or the gumption to use it.

I do not call it a tactic, it is a game ploy. It has nothing to do with real tactics and everything to do with game mechanics.

Seems to me that your beef with it is that in your gaming environment this is a mechanism which fustrates you because its too easy, in your eyes, for others to counter your tactic.

*Sigh*

This is a common and really annoying argument whenever a deficiency with the rules is discussed. "The mechanics are fine, you're just too stupid to understand how to use them, so you propose changes." I am frustrated with the rule because I cannot adapt and am being beaten with it. The worst is that this immediately is responded to as a personal attack on gaming skill, even though you'll of course act like it isn't your fault if people just don't get the game.

Come on, Yabba. You and I have discussed many things, I would hope you credit me with slightly more understanding of the games than that. I fully understand the ways to use and abuse the challenge mechanics in 40K and WFB. Just because something can be exploited that's no reason to like the mechanic. Just because the rule is great for my Daemon Princes as they can use wings to charge the enemy, then challenge to force the powerfist guy into combat or to sling his powerfist. It's great change for my army and it's been working very well.

But is this the intended use of the rule? I would argue not. It is for mighty heroes to meet across the field of war, not for me to be able to gimp my opponent out of a couple of power fist attacks.

It also serves a cinematic purpose for those who enjoy that sort of thing. This weekend I had a nice duel going on between an Empire Captain and an Orc Big Boss. No need to do it, but it was nice to do it. Finally it has some justification in the background; Marine, Ork and Khornate champions would all accept challenges, some without thinking twice.

The point remains that this cinematic purpose is almost never used. Even if you want to! I had a combat where my ogre Tyrant was involved in a combat with a Vampire Lord. Neither of us issued a challenge as our Lord would get stuck on a champion. Afterwards, in discussion we realised we both would have issued the challenge if we knew the other would accept with their Lord, not a champion! Even if both players want the fight, the challenge rules can get in the way.

If the rule is meant for these sorts of cool cinematic moments - which is exactly how it is presented in the rulebook - then it sucks at fulfilling its objective.

[yabbadabba]

I do not call it a tactic, it is a game ploy. It has nothing to do with real tactics and everything to do with game mechanics.

Well as you can see I think it does.

*Sigh*
This is a common and really annoying argument whenever a deficiency with the rules is discussed. "The mechanics are fine, you're just too stupid to understand how to use them, so you propose changes." I am frustrated with the rule because I cannot adapt and am being beaten with it. The worst is that this immediately is responded to as a personal attack on gaming skill, even though you'll of course act like it isn't your fault if people just don't get the game.
Come on, Yabba. You and I have discussed many things, I would hope you credit me with slightly more understanding of the games than that. I fully understand the ways to use and abuse the challenge mechanics in 40K and WFB. Just because something can be exploited that's no reason to like the mechanic. Just because the rule is great for my Daemon Princes as they can use wings to charge the enemy, then challenge to force the powerfist guy into combat or to sling his powerfist. It's great change for my army and it's been working very well.

This is exactly why I said the things I did mate. I know you, and if I want to insult you I'll come straight out with it - but you have never given me a reason to; but I know as well as anyone that sometimes you can get so caught up in what you are involved with that the wider picture often gets missed and opportunities go begging. Sometimes it needs an outsider to say "have you thought of this?"

But is this the intended use of the rule? I would argue not. It is for mighty heroes to meet across the field of war, not for me to be able to gimp my opponent out of a couple of power fist attacks.

That's down to the individuals. GW gives you the tools they want, its up to us to decide how to use them. In part its why I have given up tournaments. I don't want to get into that too far, but this seems to be a rule which allows both extremes of use, but maybe relies on some communication and agreement for a middle ground?

The point remains that this cinematic purpose is almost never used. Even if you want to! I had a combat where my ogre Tyrant was involved in a combat with a Vampire Lord. Neither of us issued a challenge as our Lord would get stuck on a champion. Afterwards, in discussion we realised we both would have issued the challenge if we knew the other would accept with their Lord, not a champion! Even if both players want the fight, the challenge rules can get in the way.

Then that's like being gazzumped - we know the rules of the game but it doesn't stop people exploiting those rules. The highly competitive nature of some people means that they cannot take the risk to embrace an aspect of the rules as they were intended because they know their reaction to a similar situation would be to exploit it. Game Theory?

If the rule is meant for these sorts of cool cinematic moments - which is exactly how it is presented in the rulebook - then it sucks at fulfilling its objective.

I find it works when I want it to, but my gaming environment is very old school.

[OgreBattle]

How about this:

"Characters (and unit leaders, and monstrous creatures too I guess. Maybe walkers also?) can direct their attacks in assault against any model in base to base contact with them. Allocate all of your attacks before you roll to hit" *or is that how all assaults work in 6e? haven't taken a good look at it.
"Wounds inflicted by a character/unit leader against another character/unit leader count as double for resolving who wins combat"

If you want to avoid a duel, move your guy behind some dudes.
If you want to duel, charge into that guy you want to kill.

A Bloodthrister can squish a commissar and then a half dozen guardsmen. Or the Comissar can hide behind a half dozen+1 guardsmen. Or 'look out sir' some guys.

but my gaming environment is very old school.

How did Challenges work in 2e, RT?

[Trasvi]

Perhaps I'm reading the rules wrong, but are overkill attacks against a model in a challenge wasted?

1) Wounds must be allocated to models in BTB first
2) Only models in a challenge with you can attack you
3) I can't see anything saying you can only attack models you're in a challenge with

Therefore, you can pwn a character in a challenge with a big nasty combat character, and then proceed to decimating his unit: his sacrifice is thus only worthwhile if he is more difficult to kill than the rest of his squad.

? Correct?

[Glabro]

The major issue to me seems to be the penalty of refusal is pretty big and lone characters can't refuse. If the mechanic is designed to allow mighty heroes to engage in single combat - great! But in inability to refuse or harsh penalty for doing so is what causes all the "tactics" of challenging, because you can be forced to accept.

Simplest fix? A challenge can be issued - but if it is not answered, there is no "refusing" character and the combat proceeds as normal, even with a unit consisting of a single character. Your champion can issue a challenge to a mighty hive tyrant but should the hive tyrant ignore him and charge into the squad, what is the champ going to do about it? Attack the beast!

That way the challenges can be issued, allowing mighty heroes to find each other in the swirling melee, but no real "gaming" to be had.

Agreed. However, I'd add a small penalty, and that'd be losing the leadership of the refusing character for any following morale tests - essentially refusing would "separate" ICs from the squad and they'd roll LD separately. In the case of unit champions, his LD couldn't be used unless he was the last man remaining.

[Bubble Ghost]

There has to be a penalty for refusal or there's no incentive to take part. You'd never, ever get challenges if there were no penalty, because no character is going to want to expose themselves to more powerful attacks without anything to be gained from doing so. "So, hang on, I can choose between inflicting fewer wounds and very probable death, or inflicting lots more casualties and surviving? Lemme think, UH NO." Challenges would become very situational things set up by quirks of the stat line and special rule interaction.

The way I see it, there doesn't need to a be a rules system that does nothing but let players decide to have their generals fight each other like in a movie. If it's your agenda to reduce challenges to that, a better house rule would be "no challenges."

There's no point making the penalty morale-related, either - because of 40K's nonsensical turn sequence, morale failure is often an advantage when it is your own turn next. People would simply abuse that "penalty" to engineer favourably cowardly results.

I think challenges serve a useful purpose in gameplay, and also I think the way they let weaker characters have some of the spotlight and achieve something meaningful with a heroic death is fun. But if you're determined that they're too harsh to powerful fighters or are otherwse a bit 'cheap', maybe you could just put the morale effect into the scoring system, rather than into the gameplay where it doesn't really fit. What about just an extra half VP for every character killed in a challenge? It's characterful, and it's enough to give pause to those inclined to issue challenges with Guard sergeants on reaction just for the look on Abaddon's face. Might also give Space Marine sergeants something shoot for, rather than being stuck in the middle ground between "too important to be expendable" and "too weak to kill anything significant."

[Glabro]

Yeah, another option is to give Preferred Enemy or some other bonus to the challenger whose challenge isn't accepted against the refusing character.