Topic: I hate Challenges in 8th Ed

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

1 not having to accept challenges from lesser models;Lord can disregard hero and champion,hero can disregard  champion.with no repecussions.

Fluff-wise, it should be the other way around.

[emcdunna]

I really hate challenges too... whats a good way to fix it?

Honestly I might even try making champions unable to fight challenges... thats the annoying part:

"Hello mister chaos lord, heres a goblin champ who thinks he's hot stuff and is gonna make you unable to wreck my unit for a turn. Suck on that!"

[Ambrose]

I really hate challenges too... whats a good way to fix it?

Honestly I might even try making champions unable to fight challenges... thats the annoying part:

"Hello mister chaos lord, heres a goblin champ who thinks he's hot stuff and is gonna make you unable to wreck my unit for a turn. Suck on that!"

I think the ability to respond with your own champion fits this well. 

[emcdunna]

I hate that too, its just an unecessary pillowfight between 2 lame champs.

I just feel like challenges are so much work (to move models, resolve what happens, etc.)... if theres a challenge it should be between Archaon and Karl franz, not my sergeant and your Daemon prince.

There should just be less challenges. If you want to hit a character, do it.

In fact what if you had no challenges at all but you HAD TO target your attacks against the models that attacked you.

So this means whoever has the highest Initiative gets to decide who is fighting whom. If I am elves, my spearmen attack your ogre character. That character will probably live, but why can he just ignore their spear points and walk on over to my character and bash his face in?

And how come everyone fights with honor? Once you are in a challenge you can only direct your attacks at your partner... well why wouldnt you do some damage to other nearby guys if you felt like it? We already established that you can walk off some spearpoints and such and go attack whoever you want, so why not now?

Its just arbitrary and frustrating to me

[jack]

  I just hate how a monster mounted character is forced to accept a challenge from a unit champ[if he charges in unsupported or his supporting units champ is dead].With the lords attacks and his mounts attacks,breath and stomp,he could break  steadfast or cause undead crumbling.By accepting the challenge he is knowingly dooming himself to being flanked next turn.

[emcdunna]

Unit Champs fighting challenges just annoys me so much. Maybe chaos ones (they're practically hero status) but not all unit Champs.

Maybe they should need to take a leadership/discipline test before they can issue a challenge?

[iatroblast]

  I just hate how a monster mounted character is forced to accept a challenge from a unit champ...

reincarnates dragon. gets into fist fights. genius

though in all seriousness (fluffwise speaking), i don't see why anyone would provoke someone on a giant monster. Would you ever challenge an F-16?

[Baron von Klatz]

Are you sure it's a case of the champion stepping forward to face the dragon and not that the rest of the unit just took a step back?

[emcdunna]

If the model causes terror then unit Champs should just not be able to challenge. Or need to pass an insane courage test. I mean really people... why do goblin bosses lock down a fricken stardragon for a whole turn

[iatroblast]

Are you sure it's a case of the champion stepping forward to face the dragon and not that the rest of the unit just took a step back?

 

If the model causes terror then unit Champs should just not be able to challenge. Or need to pass an insane courage test. I mean really people... why do goblin bosses lock down a fricken stardragon for a whole turn

"Boss, we must stop godzilla stardragon but we ran out of fishes. all we have are goblins" wink wink nudge nudge

[emcdunna]

There's just too many shenanigans that happen because of challenges. I'd rather it be that challenges were not really a "thing", you just direct attacks against characters with your character, and that's it.

[Gankom]

I'll admit there are some problems with challenges, but some of my all time favorite moments are the challenges that happen in games. Of the brave white lion champion who killed two tomb king princes. Or Empire captain personally taking down any champion or hero who stood against him. It's some of the best fluff moments of the game. I myself would be pretty sad to see the whole mechanic go.

[Syn Ace]

And how come everyone fights with honor? Once you are in a challenge you can only direct your attacks at your partner... well why wouldnt you do some damage to other nearby guys if you felt like it? We already established that you can walk off some spearpoints and such and go attack whoever you want, so why not now?

Well, historically, a challenge usually happened before the two sides got stuck in and the combatants would fight between the armies. Our challenges seem a bit wonky since the actual fight between two formations is going on at the same time.  But supposedly, everyone respects it enough not to interfere (and vice versa).

As far as good sportsmanship, I remember reading a book that cited an account during the Jewish revolt. A Roman and an Israelite squared off while everyone else watched. The Roman was going to win, but tripped and fell and the other guy stabbed him, then stood over him and kind of did his version of a touchdown dance and mocked the Roman, which annoyed them to no end. So a Roman centurion (I think) borrowed a bow and shot him.

[emcdunna]

I actually had a scenario idea that may be a good alternative to WFB challenges.

My idea was thatt you pick a champion, hero, or lord to fight for your side (before the main battle begins).

Each side puts forth their champion, they fight up to 3 rounds of combat against each other, and whoever wins the challenge gains a bonus in the battle (getting the first turn perhaps) in addition to removing an enemy model.

Would that be a possible replacement for challenges?

Or what if you could engage in challenges outside of combat (like if you're within 12" of an enemy character, you can leave your unit and go fight a personal, separate combat?

[Deuce]

Balancing challenges between monsters and unit champions (or lesser heroes, for that matter) seems to have been one of the bigger problems with the game over the years, with heroes and monsters becoming either underpowered against chaff units or overpowered against the rest. The best solution is probably a capped Overkill, where wounds scored against the champion count against the unit for the purposes of a break test even if it's more wounds than the champion has - but with a reasonable upper limit. But this immediately breaks when it comes into contact with Steadfast.

In fact while I appreciate what Steadfast was trying to do, it does seem like it is causing a lot of the issues with 8th edition and it's usually one of the first things people look at for revision.

But challenges themselves also seem wonky, and iirc are basically a legacy rule from when the game was much more RP-oriented. While they're a nice fluff feature and for that reason I'd be sorry to see them go, I'm not sure how much of a place they really have in the modern ruleset.

[emcdunna]

Did someone say steadfast?

Haha. In my rules overhaul mod, I haven't gotten to the combat resolution stage yet.

I was thinking I might not need it, or steadfast. Instead, if the unit is below half strength, you have to take a courage test (like leadership). This means you're basically unbreakable until you lose 1/2 guys.

Then there'd be modifiers and flanking/rear charging would force a courage test too (even if above 1/2 strength)...

Basically, I wwant to make combat resolution:
1) simpler to calculate (less mistakes makes for a good game)
2) don't have to take a leadership test every round
3) have flanking or killing be the primary ways to break an enemy. Either you massacre them or you out manuevere them

Maybe challenges would be less of a deal then.

Or maybe if challenges would literally mean the difference between your unitt breaking or not (lose the challenge and you need tto passs a courage test) then that'd also fix the problem.

[Gneisenau]

reincarnates dragon. gets into fist fights. genius

[psychichobo]

Challenges are great when they're proper heroes squaring off. I've had some epic rivalries in my 8th ed games.

But I do wish Monster-mounted characters or Monster characters could refuse without penalty. It'd avoid the messed up combat resolution that inevitably happens.

[Rein]

Challenges are great when they're proper heroes squaring off. I've had some epic rivalries in my 8th ed games.

But I do wish Monster-mounted characters or Monster characters could refuse without penalty. It'd avoid the messed up combat resolution that inevitably happens.

This is a fluff wise discussion right?

Because purely based on game mechanics champions add dept to tactics. They are one of the few things that can stand up against these super-killer characters on massive mounts. Otherwise you have to give every army that cant field such a thing themselves a cannon, which results in a rock-paper-scissor outcome (more Canon-Mounted monster-Canon).

Also soaking up wounds is very tactical. If you remove the challenging part, why ever take a champion?

Another part: let's never take a banner because we are steadfast. Why are you taking a banner? You lose to powerhouses anyway.

I know, let's all just play 8th ED warriors of chaos. No we should not. So we need challenge rules or mechanics that bring dept to the game.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

This is a fluff wise discussion right?

Dont't be fooled by the first post, which was taken from another thread to start this one - and not by me.

[emcdunna]

It's about fluff, and rules simplicity. Tactically, challenges are a tool to beat your opponent. But the way they do that is somewhat annoying and un favorable to some of us.

[Warlord]

This is a fluff wise discussion right?

Dont't be fooled by the first post, which was taken from another thread to start this one - and not by me.

Correct.
I did it. I thought it was an interesting conversation and worthy of its own thread. It was from Chumley's 'if you could change 3 things' thread.

This can easily be a fluff or rules conversation. You can even answer both parts in the same post with two different paragraphs!

I'll admit there are some problems with challenges, but some of my all time favorite moments are the challenges that happen in games. Of the brave white lion champion who killed two tomb king princes. Or Empire captain personally taking down any champion or hero who stood against him. It's some of the best fluff moments of the game. I myself would be pretty sad to see the whole mechanic go.

That's an interesting point, and one I didn't consider. Often after the game, recalling the 'heroic' moments are fun.

[emcdunna]

Theres a lot of things to love about this game.

I think the entire way characters interact with units could be changed. Combat (simply by measuring base to base) causes a crud ton of issues. Sure its not as bad as literally measuring model to model, but characters definitely throw a wrench into the works.

Challenges are one thing, but character walls, conga lines, and all that crud make it even worse.

[Ondjage]

How about this: when fighting in a challenge you can divide your attacks between the challenger and his unit freely, but if you are unable to kill the challenger with the attacks so assigned, the rest og your attacks are lost.

[emcdunna]

Interesting thought.

It does seem to counter the champion challenge spam.

I was just hoping for something that fixed the problem while simultaneously making it easier/simpler as well.