Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, so here's the situation;

A unit of Blood Knights charges a Greater Daemon of Slaanesh. A Blood Knight issues a challege, but the Daemon has "always strikes first", and so completely obliterates the knight in the challenge.

BUT

PG 77 of the rulebook states "If a character is killed in a challenge and it's mount (monster or chariot) still had no chance to attack in that turn, work out their attacks as part of the challenge. The challenge is then over."

So, this is how I'm reading it;

1) The Knights charge
2) The challenge is issued
3) The knight is killed
4) The challenge is over
5) the rest of the Blood Knights attack the daemon since she is no longer in the challenge.

I understand that most players assume that the challenge lasts the entire round of combat, regardless of whether or not a combatant is killed. But is this really the case?

You're extrapolating the "their attaks" out to mean the whole unit. It actually refers to the monster mount or chariot crew / beasts belonging to the (now dead) character in the challenge. His unit, if he has one, still just gets to watch.

- Salvage

I cannot find anything in the challenge rules that state that the challenge last the whole round or combat phase. The line I would read to support your argument is:

When combat it worked out they, these two will fight together. No other model can attack them or their mount [...]. (page 77 RB)

and

If a character is killed [...]. The challenge is then over. (page 77 RB)

So the challenge lasts as long as both the participants are alive. If one of them is not, the challenge is over and you may attack any one of them as you please.

Thats what I would expect anyway. Or do I falsely combine the character killing with the challenge ending?

Greets
Schepp himself

@ Boss_Savage, I'm not extrapolating anything about attacks at all. This is the ONLY definition that I can find that indicates when the challenge ends, and it's got the whole "on a mount" thing nestled into it, which makes it confusing. However the last paragraph can be correctly summed up to say "The challenge is over when a character is slain." This is supported by this quotation;

"Once a challenge is underway no further challenges may be issued in that combat until one character is slain or flees from combat.", and they make more clarification that only "one challenge can be issued in each combat that is being fought."

@Schepp himself, I believe that you've captured the entirety of the situation and summed it up nicely. I cannot see any other indication of when a challenge is "ended".

I can see an issue with this statement;

"When combat is worked out, these two will fight together. No other models may attack them or their mount, even if their bases are touching."

This could be construed to mean that the whole combat, or it could mean just during the challenge.

I'm now leaning toward no further attacks, because of the similarity of the language used to describe "the combat" meaning one close combat phase. Which is really too bad, because it would limit uber characters and "glass hammers".

The statements on the page (p.77) that would seem to be most salient to the issue;

"When combat is worked out, these two will fight together. No other models may attack them or their mount, even if their bases are touching." Further, "Note also that occasionally the presence of two characters engaged in a challenge may stop other models from fighting at all if the only model they are in base contact with is the character."

I quoted the whole section to point out (pace Schepp) that the limitations on attacks being directed to the challenge participants is not limited to the period of the challenge itself, but to the entire period that "combat is worked out".

However, the simplest answer (which reaffirms Boss) is that you are suggesting a scenario that turns the challenge into a mechanism that not only does not always protect characters, but virtually always makes them more vulnerable. It also has the added problem of interpreting the example given on page 77 of something positive as a distinctly negative tactical situation. For example;

1) High Elf lord on sun dragon charges a unit of skeletons with a unit champ and Konrad von Carstein.
2) HE lord issues a challenge, the VC player has the unit champ accept.
3) Unit champ is annihilated, giving the HE player a max CR of 6, and then...
4) Konrad carves the HE lord and his dragon into bloody chunks.

But consider if the HE player, realizing the above, opts not to issue a challenge, what then?
1) High Elf lord on sun dragon charges a unit of skeletons with a unit champ and Konrad von Carstein.
2) HE lord does not issue a challenge, VC player has his unit champ challenge.
3) Because the HE lord has no unit, he must accept the challenge.
4) Unit champ is annihilated, giving the HE player a max CR of 6, and then...
5) Konrad carves the HE lord and his dragon into bloody chunks.

As a simple matter, does it seem at all likely that the challenge rules are intended to be used as a way to sacrifice a unit champ to allow one character to sucker-punch another character?

As a simple matter, does it seem at all likely that the challenge rules are intended to be used as a way to sacrifice a unit champ to allow one character to sucker-punch another character?

I have to admit that this was the impetus into looking closely at the rules. One of our locals has a greater deamon that is for all intents and purposes invincible in HtH, plus has sirens song and a 20" charge/march. As an undead player, I'm trying to find a way (any way) of killing her. Shooting and magic seem the only option, and with Undead, shooting is not an option. That leaves trying to tie her up with zombies or wound her with a magic missile. I guess next time it'll be lore of light... <pathetic>

I really abhor uber characters, and any way of making characters less overwhelming is fine by me.

However, I agree with your interpretaion of the rule (as I stated previously) and also don't think that it's worth the arguments in a tournament situation since this is not the common interpretation

I’m 100% in agreement with Buzzsaw.

Really, I think VC are in one of the best positions to deal with Greater Daemons. All you need to do is tie it up with zombies or skeletons, and just keep raising into the block. It’s only got so many attacks, and the CR you have for ranks and outnumber (and standard, if present) offsets the damage it does. You might even get lucky and win a round of combat if the thing rolls badly for a round of attacks. 1s and 2s still miss. Daemon armies have very limited Dispel capacity unless they take a lot of Tzeentch, so you should be able to get the Raises and Invocations of Nehek through.

I'm a little confused by the HE vs VC example, if the Lord is fighting the skellie champ and slaughters him/it then how does Konrad get to attack? He wasn't part of the challenge and even after the champ is dead you cannot attack the survivor of the challenge until the next combat phase, at which time the HE can simply issue another challenge to keep himself safe, am I missing something here? I don't read the rules to say that the challenge ends as soon as one participant is dead, it lasts the entire CC phase. Can someone clarify

PapaSmurf

Oh, you're quite right.

It's just that someone WAS trying to make that case, and showed why it's a bad idea. Like many other things on this forum, it's just someone missing some wording.

no, they are not missing any wording, they are just intentionally misinterpreting the rule to give themselves an advantage.

Arion wrote:no, they are not missing any wording, they are just intentionally misinterpreting the rule to give themselves an advantage.

I was being optimistic. Serves me right.

I think that "for their advantage" is a little strong. I really hate over-powered characters, and having a mechanism for them to be beaten down by RnF after the challenge seems not only fluffy, but more fun to me.

Also, there have been PLENTY of rules that are interpreted one way by the majority of players that in the end are actually different, and it's best to cover that on the web rather than during a game. Don't you?

And they do have a mechanism: Combat Resolution (another superior feature to 40k, in my opinion). Sure, you can get overkill, but how often can a lone character actually win combat against a block of troops?

barontuman wrote:I think that "for their advantage" is a little strong. I really hate over-powered characters, and having a mechanism for them to be beaten down by RnF after the challenge seems not only fluffy, but more fun to me.

Also, there have been PLENTY of rules that are interpreted one way by the majority of players that in the end are actually different, and it's best to cover that on the web rather than during a game. Don't you?

If you hate "uber characters" then why do you play the most character-dependent army in the game?

dumbuket wrote:

barontuman wrote:I think that "for their advantage" is a little strong. I really hate over-powered characters, and having a mechanism for them to be beaten down by RnF after the challenge seems not only fluffy, but more fun to me.

Also, there have been PLENTY of rules that are interpreted one way by the majority of players that in the end are actually different, and it's best to cover that on the web rather than during a game. Don't you?

If you hate "uber characters" then why do you play the most character-dependent army in the game?

That doesn't mean he plays them for the uber characters.

You've got it exactly malfred, thank you! That, and it's what I started with.

If you play a casting lord, then you're relying on your troops to win the game, even if they are bolstered by magic.