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.

'If an independant character issues a challenge in the 'Fight' sub-phase, it MUST be answered by an opposing independant character. If no independant character is present to accept the challenge, or he refuses (boo, hiss), the challenge can then be answered by any available character model instead, assuming all the relevant requirements are met'

What do we reckon? IMO this pretty much resolves any problems people may be having with assaults and challenges.

L. Wrex

Better solution to challenges: a player may accept the challenge with any number of models in the combat. Don't try to duel in a war unless you want to get stabbed in the back the moment you turn your back on the rest of the unit.

You want a quick and good fix? NO penalties for refusing challenges.
They are still there so if you and your opponent want "epicTM" you have all the tools you need.
Free refusal means absolutely no jerk moves, strange situations and honorable Tyranids / Dark Eldar.

I don't think that a free refusal is the best fix, as it means that challenges will only ever occur when both players think that it is tactically advantageous for whatever reason, which is rarely. I personally think that challenges add an interesting dimension in combat, but there should be less of a punishment for refusing the challenge. Maybe make it:

"If you choose to deny a challenge, the enemy nominates one character in your unit. Then both players roll 2D6 and add the leadership value of the character involved in the challenge. If the challenging player rolls a higher result, the challenged model may not make any attacks this turn. Otherwise, the combat continues as normal. If one side of the combat consists of only a single model, challenges can not be issued. "

This adds a bit more depth to challenges while also reducing the penalty for refusing. For example, if the challenged player declines, the challenger has to make a decision between choosing the low-leadership sergeant who is more likely to fail the challenge, or the higher leadership IC who would be more devastating in the combat.

I would also add a couple of challenge specific USRs for characters:

Cool-Headed: This character is known for his calm demeanor even in the heat of battle. As a result, they suffer no penalty for refusing a challenge. If an IC with this rule joins a squad without this rule, the squad gains Cool-Headed. However, an IC does not gain this rule if they join a squad with this rule.

Hot-Headed: This character is known for either their martial pride, and will never back down when somebody challenges their honour. A IC with this rule must accept challenges whenever possible. If there are multiple characters with this rule, you must choose one of them to accept the challenge.

 Macok wrote:
You want a quick and good fix? NO penalties for refusing challenges.
They are still there so if you and your opponent want "epicTM" you have all the tools you need.
Free refusal means absolutely no jerk moves, strange situations and honorable Tyranids / Dark Eldar.

That pretty much sums it up.

Though perhaps instead make the challengee automatically pass LoS rolls when the challenger strikes the challengee but have the challengers unit strike him normally (IE no auto LoS, just normal rolls). And have the challengee unable to strike the challenger at all but still able to fight the challengers unit. Self limiting and thematic, the challengees unit would be moving forward to slow the challenger down or be pushed onto the challengers 'sword' by the challengee as they escape. Eventually they will run out of bodys to hide behind or throw at the challenger and have to face the music.

So that way there's still a little negative, but your still able to fight. Though I think Nids shouldn't have participate in any challenge, seeing as they are pretty much excluded from the other two new shiney's 6th brought to the table (Allies and fortifications) I don't see why they should be forced to participate in something that does not fit their style. Though it should be an all or nothing affair, if they choose not to then they can't issue a challenge mid game when it suits them. No DE should not be excluded as well, they do have some martial honour, not all of them and not all the time but when it suits them they do.

The penalty should be the challenger gets +1 to the score of combat resolution (or +2, whatever works for balance). That way there's still a penalty, but it's not back breaking.

How about this?

For every unsaved wound caused in a Challenge, the winner gains a +1 bonus to their Combat Resolution.

Yes, unsaved wound, not casualty suffered. That way, if you DO accept the Chaos Lord's challenge with your lowly Sergeant, when he takes his head off with the Axe of Blind Fury and inflicts 8 Wounds, even though the poor Sergeant only has 1 wound to lose the unit still suffers a -8 penalty to their Leadership when they inevitably fail to cause enough casualties to win it and runs away, meaning that you really do have to decide - accept with a Sarge and let your shiny hero slaughter the squad, but risk breaking and being caught and killed, or refuse outright and lose the chance to attack but at least not face the insane Combat Res penalty.

RegalPhantom wrote:
I don't think that a free refusal is the best fix, as it means that challenges will only ever occur when both players think that it is tactically advantageous for whatever reason, which is rarely.

To those of you in the military and have experienced combat, just sit back and imagine. Imagine when you were in combat, listening to the gunfire coming from the enemy. Did you ever think to draw a knife, step out into the open and shout "Hey! You that's shooting at us! Come out and knife-fight me one-on-one, if you're not afraid!"
A random one-on-one duel between two combatants in the middle of a battle is not real tactics, it is a gentleman's agreement, which you probably wouldn't make unless you thought you cold win or it was tactically advantageous. I don't have a problem with challenges but the selective issuing of challenges should not be a tactic that is every bit as practical as taking cover when getting shot at.
There should be no penalty in declining a challenge. It makes no sense.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How about this?

For every unsaved wound caused in a Challenge, the winner gains a +1 bonus to their Combat Resolution.

Yes, unsaved wound, not casualty suffered. That way, if you DO accept the Chaos Lord's challenge with your lowly Sergeant, when he takes his head off with the Axe of Blind Fury and inflicts 8 Wounds, even though the poor Sergeant only has 1 wound to lose the unit still suffers a -8 penalty to their Leadership when they inevitably fail to cause enough casualties to win it and runs away, meaning that you really do have to decide - accept with a Sarge and let your shiny hero slaughter the squad, but risk breaking and being caught and killed, or refuse outright and lose the chance to attack but at least not face the insane Combat Res penalty.

I like this one a lot.

Seeing your sarge take a sword to the heart and fall over dead? Yeah, that's going to make you a bit nervous. Seeing him hacked into a bloody mess by an enraged Chaos Lord/Dreadknight/Tyranid? That'll send you running.

stubborn.... the guard squad STILL doesnt care. Same with fearless. Should be a combat bonus instead. +1A on the whole squad for one assault phase winning a challenge. Plus any successive challenger from the losing squad must make a leadership test at -1 to be able to accept a challenge or counts as refusing (hes frozen in fear).

Also, lone characters should be able to refuse with no penalties. fething stupid when a 200+ point combat beast runs into combat and has to fight one guy. Especially when its someone like yriel, Typhus, or the Doom who have AoE effects that sort of break challenges anyways.



On another note, insane heroism should really confer a bonus when rolled on morale checks. +1 str or +1a and stubborn for a round would do. Its rare enough it should be profound when it does happen.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
How about this?

For every unsaved wound caused in a Challenge, the winner gains a +1 bonus to their Combat Resolution.

Yes, unsaved wound, not casualty suffered. That way, if you DO accept the Chaos Lord's challenge with your lowly Sergeant, when he takes his head off with the Axe of Blind Fury and inflicts 8 Wounds, even though the poor Sergeant only has 1 wound to lose the unit still suffers a -8 penalty to their Leadership when they inevitably fail to cause enough casualties to win it and runs away, meaning that you really do have to decide - accept with a Sarge and let your shiny hero slaughter the squad, but risk breaking and being caught and killed, or refuse outright and lose the chance to attack but at least not face the insane Combat Res penalty.

+1

Seeing a squad leader get absolutely pulverized would damage morale considerably, even if only one guy died other damage has been done.