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.

Proposal: Characters that decline a challenge do not grant the Fearless USR to their unit (the unit they are attached to).

Reason: Fearless blobs do not have an adequate (or any) balancing mechanism, as the character providing the USR can simply decline a challenge thereby guaranteeing that the blob continues to be Fearless (since he's at almost no risk of dying--poor positioning of the Fearless character notwithstanding). Units already do not benefit from the Leadership characteristic of a character that declined a challenge. If the unit can't benefit from the character's Leadership, allowing them to continue to benefit from being Fearless seems absurd, no?

Example: A Wraithknight (my Warlord and therefore a character) ended up into combat with a Fearless blob of conscripts on turn two and proceeded to challenge the Priest every turn, until the game ended, without ever getting free of the blob (there were around 15 models left of the original unit). Yay me!

For consideration: Hit-and-run vis a vis declining a challenge....

Does the fact that you can actually challenge a puny human with a 8-meter bone robot in the first place not bother you? And the fact that when a puny human says: "No, thanks - go challenge out imperial knights" he emidiately foregoes his strikes and falls in the eyes of his mates?

The balancing method to Fearless mobs is sniping out the character. Do so with shooting attacks before they get to tarpit your Knight or countercharge them with Scorpions or something else that can chew through numbers quickly. Tarpits are an effective stalling tactic against big MCs, but you should be able to counter them by actually supporting your big MCs instead of leaving them out front to try to win the war alone.

I'd change how fearless IC's affect non-fearless units. Instead of making the unit fearless, they only automatically pass morale checks to not fall back.

This way they can still be pinned and are affected by the Fear USR.

 J3f wrote:
I'd change how fearless IC's affect non-fearless units. Instead of making the unit fearless, they only automatically pass morale checks to not fall back.

This way they can still be pinned and are affected by the Fear USR.

That doesn't actually change the OPs problem with being tarpitted, you realize.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The balancing method to Fearless mobs is sniping out the character.

Are Precision Shots still a thing? Even with Barrage-Sniping (not really a thing, but you know what I mean), Look-out Sir is still a 2+. In a 30-man Conscript blob with a Priest, I don't think shooting it is a reasonable solution.

@Koooaei: Sure, it's silly! But when the character declines (and slinks away), why should the rest of the unit continue to benefit from his shining, Fearless, example of how to bravely run away?

I'm not arguing against making blobs fearless. I'm not arguing that tar-pitting should not be allowed, I'm arguing for making it so you can't 'hide' the source of that USR while continuing to benefit from it in the face of a challenge. A non-fearless blob could still make leadership, even if it loses combat. /shrug

DCannon4Life wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The balancing method to Fearless mobs is sniping out the character.

Are Precision Shots still a thing? Even with Barrage-Sniping (not really a thing, but you know what I mean), Look-out Sir is still a 2+. In a 30-man Conscript blob with a Priest, I don't think shooting it is a reasonable solution.

@Koooaei: Sure, it's silly! But when the character declines (and slinks away), why should the rest of the unit continue to benefit from his shining, Fearless, example of how to bravely run away?

I'm not arguing against making blobs fearless. I'm not arguing that tar-pitting should not be allowed, I'm arguing for making it so you can't 'hide' the source of that USR while continuing to benefit from it in the face of a challenge. A non-fearless blob could still make leadership, even if it loses combat. /shrug

But surely if someone else accepts the challenge on the Fearless character's behalf, it could be argued said other character is simply living up to the Fearless character's example?

mr. peasant wrote:
But surely if someone else accepts the challenge on the Fearless character's behalf, it could be argued said other character is simply living up to the Fearless character's example?

Ah, that might be a good point. An unanswered challenge then? In the original scenario, there are no characters in the conscript squad save for the lone Priest (providing the Fearless USR). Now, when I issue a challenge, it's non-specific (i.e. I can't call out a specific character). If you have two characters but decline the challenge, I get to choose which one 'turns away'. So, I could choose the Priest. Hmmmm.

I think it would be reasonable for a different character to step up (if there is one), get pasted, and THEN this proposed rule would come into effect, but if NO ONE accepts, and I choose the character with the Fearless USR, then the proposed rule would also come into effect.

The controlling player has the option to sacrifice a lesser (other) character for a (guaranteed) turn of Fearlessness, or the controlling player could decline the challenge and take his chances with the unit losing combat but still making its Leadership check.

Perhaps. But then, wouldn't it make more sense - for the sake of consistency at the very least - that a character who refuses a challenge should not confer any of its special rules (e.g. Zealot, Stubborn, etc) for the entirety of the phase?

mr. peasant wrote:
Perhaps. But then, wouldn't it make more sense - for the sake of consistency at the very least - that a character who refuses a challenge should not confer any of its special rules (e.g. Zealot, Stubborn, etc) for the entirety of the phase?

Well, now that you mention it, yes, I very much think a character that's declined a challenge should not confer its USRs. However, I believe in getting my foot in the door first.

There are certainly USRs that could (for the sake of consistency) be affected by whether or not a character declines a challenge. Of those, I think Fearless is the most important, so I'd like to take a crack at it first.

On the other hand, Challenges shouldn't mean a greater demon calls a lowly sarge a panzy, meaning that meltabomb doesn't really matter.

It is kinda wrong that fearless confers even when the one fearless model is cowering in the corner, but its not the only thing wrong with challenges. Still better than 6th, though.

Fearless can also mean that he and his squad are in such mental state that they simply don't get what's a challenge or not.

Your character stands out and issues a challenge. The crowd goes: "GRAAAAAAAAAAAAA" and smashes him anywayz. There are different sorts of fearless to begin with.

 koooaei wrote:
Fearless can also mean that he and his squad are in such mental state that they simply don't get what's a challenge or not.

Your character stands out and issues a challenge. The crowd goes: "GRAAAAAAAAAAAAA" and smashes him anywayz. There are different sorts of fearless to begin with.

While the crowd might go, "Graaaaaaaaa", the character (source of Fearlessness, as set out above), by virtue of declining the challenge, is removing himself from the combat. The fluffy description of why the unit cannot use his leadership is because he's too busy slinking around trying not to be seen. Hardly Fearless behavior on that account.

The guyz around him could not care less.

Challenges is the thing that needs to be taken out, not the ability to decline them. Not only is it silly to expect a mere man to face a Wraithlord (or Abaddon, or any other meatgrinder) but you can also screw over that same powerhouse with challenges.

Say a dreadnought manages to reach a fight where the fearsome enemy warlord is killing normal troopers, and the brave sarge takes this moment to challenge the THING that he has no chance of killing. And the warlord has to ignore the new arrival - that can actually splat him - in favor of fighting a puny being that can barely scratch his kneepads?

Personally, I disagree. Challenges allow characters to fight each other without the rest of the squad getting in the way.

If you don't have such a mechanic, then you go back to the days of hidden power fists and your expensive, heroic HQ character being nothing but target practice for the first squad sargeant to look in his direction (barring eternal warrior, which ended up being spammed to a ridiculous extent as a counterweight).

I do agree, though, that at the same time, a Knight Seneschal should not count as a character! Monstrous and Walker characters are very powerful for precisely this reason.

7th edition challenges are more sensible, anyway. The dreadnought (if he's a character) does need to fight the sergeant who's busy trying to protect the warlord first, but that will only occupy one blow, after which the sergeant will be an expanding cloud of reddish steam, and the remaining blows can pound into the squad and the warlord. Equally, the Warlord can attack the dreadnought if he wipes out the squad first - which shouldn't take him long!

locarno24 wrote:

7th edition challenges are more sensible, anyway. The dreadnought (if he's a character) does need to fight the sergeant who's busy trying to protect the warlord first, but that will only occupy one blow, after which the sergeant will be an expanding cloud of reddish steam, and the remaining blows can pound into the squad and the warlord. Equally, the Warlord can attack the dreadnought if he wipes out the squad first - which shouldn't take him long!

Ah, I see now that I wasn't quite clear. Regular non-character Dreadnought + squishy troops vs Meleeblender Warlord. Troop sarge challenges, warlord has to ignore the threat in that S10 AP2 dread for fighting a S3-S4 sarge that can probably not even hurt him. The dread gets a free round of smashing the Warlord flat because he's too proud to ignore the sarge.

Edit: For someone who never fields any big melee beatsticks challenges is just an unfair mechanic that lets powerful characters single out squad leaders and kill them. They'd probably kill them anyway but now they can remove the sarge's +1/2 extra Attacks over a normal trooper for free. Not to mention Necrons with MSS... And ofc, while it does away with "hidden powerfists" the mighty heroic warlord joined to a squad will happily hide behind a sarge himself when convenient, feeding that poor little guy to an enemy character. Say if he wants to rip apart normal troopers instead. It's not about heroic fights between heroes, it's about who can sacrifice more sergeants.

The idea of challenges is interesting/ But the mechanics are terrible making it just another annoying abusive aspect.

For example, as an ork player i'm building the list and moving models with "avoid challenges at all costs" in mind. I take cheap character meks so that they can die in challenges instead of nobz and bosses. In the movment phase i measure distance so that i won't get within striking range on the initial charge so that my important characters won't get challenged out; or simply don't charge at all cause i know i won't be able to hurt the target cause the only one who matters will get challenged out by a character, so i just wait to get charged cause it's easier to position the right way to both avoid a challenge and than pile in to strike at ini 1. Have to play out with pile in moves to avoid challenges too.

None of our characters have an invul (other than 1-use on Ghazzy and 5++ on Badrukk - but he has no mellee weapons).

See, it just doesn't add anything to the game other than a frustrating need to get avoided. At least for my army as orks can't take serious challenges and would probably prefer to avoid even lesser ones due to how pk nobz are important and vulnerable with just 6+ armor. Can't buy 4+ armor explictrly for nobz no more.

I don't mind Indep Character challenges. But when something like a knight or a swarmlord challenges out a sarge - it's just silly unfair.

Challenges is a cool fluff idea that should never have become a game mechanic.