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.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Because the sentiment behind the challenge system is to represent the desire to make games more fluffy and narrative. You already have precision strikes for the purpose of sniping characters. So for one duplicate rules that serve no purpose. It’s not in keeping with the sentiment behind the rules.

If you think the only purpose of the rule is to allow characters to be sniped well you’re admitting to just treating as a form of precision strike. It’s just gaming the system. There’s no actual challenge being issued or duel being fought.

Precision Strike allows you to choose whatever model you want to take the wounds from attacks. It is not a requirement to target Character models because they are not the only models you may want to kill e.g. a Terminator with a Power Sword is less of a threat than a Terminator with a Power Fist. Precision Strike is also a rule that is not given to every single Character or Chosen Warrior model.
You are working this based on the assumption that only models with Precision Strike are the ones in challenges which isn't even close to reality.
The purpose of a challenge is to have two Characters duel. Nowhere in the rules is it required for that duel to be a perfectly balanced fight. If you can't handle that, then as I have said a fair few times already, that is a "You Problem" not a "Game Problem".

I’d rather just be able to say, I don’t want a challenge and start rolling dice. Quicker, faster, less nonsense and challenges by your own admission have nothing to do with adding narrative so nothing of worth would be lost.

At no point did I say challenges are nothing to do with the narrative of a game. What I did say was that the narrative of a game is subjective and not set by your very specific standards.
My lowly Militia Sergeant killing a Centurion in a challenge because the Centurion whiffed his rolls, only for the Sergeant and his men to be slaughtered by vengeful Marines sounds pretty damn narrative to me.

They’re not very specific at all. You’re only issuing that challenge to snipe my power fist and reduce your casualties. I know that’s why you’re doing it and you know it too. Nothing narrative at all. Literally just time wasting. There’s nothing engaging about a random command squad guy removing your tactical squads leader and any damage they might inflict. A challenge should be your main characters and heroes fighting. Should have nothing to do with a one wound guy with a power fist. Yet they fight the vast majority of challenges. Sergeants aren’t characters.

Those random outcomes are flukes and the exception that proves the rule. Almost always your sergeant is going to get smushed. A player issuing a duel does so because they know they’re going to win; so it’s just a mechanic that works against the weaker opponent.

 Gert wrote:
That's not a solution because it adds more problems and solves nothing.
Firstly, many RoW make certain units Troops so another level of rules needs to be added to then account for the various RoW changes e.g. Veterans and Terminators in a Pride of the Legion detachment can't challenge the HQ of an opposing Sky Hunter Phalanx detachment because they are now Troops, not Elites. That's just added a bunch more needless rules bloat to then clarify if a unit retains its original Force Org designation.
Secondly, why are Heavy Support or Fast Attack units (many of which are not CQC oriented) getting challenge preferences over dedicated Troop CQC units like Assault Marines or Despoilers? Why would an Emperor's Children or White Scars Tactical Sergeant not challenge a strong opponent to which they could test their skills?
Thirdly, Apothecaries and Techmarines are Elites choices that get attached to other units. Do they still retain their Elite choice status if assigned to Troops unit? Again more needless bloat to clarify this situation.
Finally, why shouldn't a Despoiler Sergeant kitted out with heavy CQC gear be able to challenge a Chaplain or Praetor? HH is a dice based game and the Praetor could very well miss or do no damage to the Sergeant who could in turn kill the Praetor. You've removed the chance for genuine narrative moments where the underdog kills the strong enemy to solve a problem that is minute.

1. Why consider Rites, a Headhunter will remain a FA choice despite being moved in the plan, no need to make it overly complex.
2. Because the FA slot has more elite units than the troop choices for many factions.
3. See Nr 1
4. Because i realise that half the time neither a praetor nor a primarch would give a flying feth about the challanger, simply put challanges are tied to a code of honor, being so far out of your own league will get you turned down and has in the past aswell. Quite frankly a despoiler sargent is the equivalent of a medieval serf being called up to serve in a militia, challanging a primarch would be equivalent to the HRE emperor or pope.

And you still have the option with elites to challange HQ which is still underdog vs topdog.

Tactical sense and narrative inflection don't cancel each other out. My decision on whether or not to issue and accept challenges takes into account both instances. If I think I can keep the unit alive in order for better reinforcements to enter the combat then I might refuse the challenge. If my unit is conducting a desperate last stand then I'm doing every challenge I can to see how much damage I can do before my troops get wiped.

If you want to play a game as quickly as possible, maybe play something like Underworlds or Kill Team and not a game that is designed to last at least two hours at 2k points.

Nothing is guaranteed in a game with dice. Players will take risks based on statistics and a model's wargear but in the end, the dice have the final say. I don't care if 9/10 times the Sergeant dies in a challenge because that one instance where the model doesn't die and kills the enemy general will be a moment I'll talk about for ages with my friends or inform a narrative choice with the army.


1 - Because you have to as per game design. A Veteran Squad selected as part of the Pride of the Legion RoW can be both an Elite or Troops choice depending on which FoC slot it is taken. By your suggested rules, the Veterans taken as Troops cannot challenge an HQ but the Veterans taken as Elites can. RoW can change a unit's FoC designation at which point the rules effecting them also changes.
2 - In the Traitor book, three whole Legions have unique units that have the ability to challenge. Two are Heavy (Tyrants and Grave Wardens) and one is Fast (Headhunters) all are shooting units not CQC. The vast majority of Traitor units that are CQC dedicated are in the Elites section. In the generic Legion list, there are three total Fast choices and one Heavy, once again all focused on shooting rather than combat.
3 - See point one.
4 - Right so the other half of the time they do care.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Because you want to kill the unit. I don’t want to fight the sergeant. This isn’t me issuing challenges because I wouldn’t want that scenario to happen. It’s the opponent trying to use the challenge system to manipulate combat.

For example I charge Dorne and 8 terminators into a five unit terminator squad. Dorne will kill that squad. I am going for my dice pool to roll attacks. Iam not interested in going for his sergeant or challenges. Indeed I’d lose my reaping blow attacks. I want to target the unit specifically. The Night Lords player then issues their own challange. Now in the event I pushed my own sergeant forward and got a ton of grief from a spectator who insisted I should have accepted that challenge. You say there’s narrative reasons but when people spend ten minutes insisting otherwise I shouldn’t have to be putting up with that

You're looking at that from gamey, WAAAC perspective. In the books, most of the primarchs were pretty high on the whole martial hounour stuff and would put everything aside to duel opponent brave enough to not flinch and challenge them. Hell, Angron ruined the whole Istvaan plot because he thought gunning enemies down was cowardly and wanted to challenge them personally - I have no idea how you can look at dudes willing to tear up the whole huge battle plan just to give enemies glorious death and conclude doing just that in game is 'abuse'. If anything, HH should have went further and like old editions of 40K, give a lot of dudes forced challenge acceptance if they wanted to be true to fluff.

Now, a few primarchs who were more about practicality would refuse the challenge in some circumstances - but you might want to note that even the most underhanded and dishonorable primarch, Alpharius, meet his end in challenge. Twice, if we count the Omegon vs Rob fight in old lore So, yeah, if anything even these dudes should still be forced to accept, just in less cases than your regular primarch...

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
I think challenges should be mutual and you declare who wants to fight who before committing. Both players agree they want their character to fight as a roll of the dice to swing a combat. If you don’t want to fight that challenge then it becomes an ordinary fight. That’s how it should work.

That would be really gamey and unrealistic. Why would your Legion champion suddenly freeze and go 'oh well, I tried' because opponent is not feeling it today? What next, tanks not agreeing to being shot at unless you target the specific one opponent picked? Your units refusing to move if opponent doesn't agree they can move in this particular direction?

Not Online!!! wrote:
There is a simple solution to it.

Run a hierarchy and units can at maximum chalange one above their station whielst top down is always allowed.

f.e. Troops can challange Elite, FA and Heavy support champions.

Elite, Fa and Heavy support can challange up to HQ,

HQ can challange primarchs.

There.

Sooo, a devastator sergeant fresh out of legion academy has more authority than veteran tactical sergeant with 200+ years of service? Terminator squads that become troops due to rite are suddenly shy and don't want to bother anyone? Your assault terminator sergeant with 20x the service length and martial experience of your freshly promoted, green consul goes 'nah dude, I know I am your bodyguard and I have thunder hammer, 4A and terminator plate, but this big dude over there looks scary to me, go beat him up with your 3+ save and 2A combat knife, champ'?

In what bizarro universe does the above make even slightest sliver of sense to you?

 Gert wrote:


1 - Because you have to as per game design. A Veteran Squad selected as part of the Pride of the Legion RoW can be both an Elite or Troops choice depending on which FoC slot it is taken. By your suggested rules, the Veterans taken as Troops cannot challenge an HQ but the Veterans taken as Elites can. RoW can change a unit's FoC designation at which point the rules effecting them also changes.
2 - In the Traitor book, three whole Legions have unique units that have the ability to challenge. Two are Heavy (Tyrants and Grave Wardens) and one is Fast (Headhunters) all are shooting units not CQC. The vast majority of Traitor units that are CQC dedicated are in the Elites section. In the generic Legion list, there are three total Fast choices and one Heavy, once again all focused on shooting rather than combat.
3 - See point one.
4 - Right so the other half of the time they do care.

If you read what i wrote propperly you'd have realised that because the unit is under the category Elite, FA, and Heavy support that even if you manage to "count them as troops" via Rites is irrelevant. Ergo your repeated point one concern is none but a failure in reading on your part.

And same for Ibris, but then again it's Ibris.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you read what i wrote propperly you'd have realised that because the unit is under the category Elite, FA, and Heavy support that even if you manage to "count them as troops" via Rites is irrelevant. Ergo your repeated point one concern is none but a failure in reading on your part.

That's not how it works. RoW can change the Battlefield Role of a unit so that when it comes to the game if there are rules affecting units with specific Force Org slots, the units changed by the RoW will be affected or not affected. A Veteran Squad taken as a Troops choice in a Pride of the Legion list is not an Elites choice because its Battlefield Role has changed. You have to add clarification as to whether a unit is considered its original Battlefield Role or its updated version.
It's needless additional rules to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

 Gert wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
If you read what i wrote propperly you'd have realised that because the unit is under the category Elite, FA, and Heavy support that even if you manage to "count them as troops" via Rites is irrelevant. Ergo your repeated point one concern is none but a failure in reading on your part.

That's not how it works. RoW can change the Battlefield Role of a unit so that when it comes to the game if there are rules affecting units with specific Force Org slots, the units changed by the RoW will be affected or not affected. A Veteran Squad taken as a Troops choice in a Pride of the Legion list is not an Elites choice because its Battlefield Role has changed. You have to add clarification as to whether a unit is considered its original Battlefield Role or its updated version.
It's needless additional rules to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The unit entry is an ELITE choice, it is in the ELITE section. There, it is an elite unit. The rite get's regarded afterwards. That is literally 1 line.

And the challenge binding is very much a problem. It always was since GW does allow for all challanges pretty much without restriction.
for the worst case, i can present and point too is WHFB chaos warriors which were always forced to issue and accept challanges, making your HQ's completly impotent in many cases.

Right, so you have to add rules clarification instead of just not having the rule which makes no sense from a narrative or gameplay perspective.
Having just played 5 games over the weekend facing enemies with considerable character power alongside killy melee units, it absolutely is not an issue when it not only didn't crop up in any of my games but none of my 3 friends' games either.

Please stop applying actual game experience to your posts. 🙄 You'll be enjoying the game next. It's a slippery slope