Topic: I hate Challenges in 8th Ed

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

(( Fidelis von Sigmaringen,

I think Necropolis Knight Captains might be able to do okay too... and Ushabti Ancients I think could do a challenge okay as well.

Sorry, couldn't resist.  ))

The difference is that Chaos/Ogres champions are fairly strong across the board, which is not the case for TK champions. In any case, none of this invalidates my point. And given our characters, we are more likely to benefit than suffer from the current system.

[emcdunna]

I just feel like challenges always end up happening between two champions.

Your deathstar hits mine, I don't want you challenging my character so I challenge with my champion first. You don't wanna accept with your killy lord so you accept with your champion.

Then proceed to pillow fight.

If challenges were like separate combats (move the characters out of the unit and place them next to each other) and they only happened between heroes/lords, I think it'd be a much more interesting mechanic.

I also think wizards should be better at challenges/close combat. Not the best, sure, but shouldn't the magic they use help them in some way? As of now, most wizards are S3 with 1 attack and no one's gonna waste points on a magic sword for them... but shouldn't they be able to throw some short ranged fireballs or do some force-pushes or something?

Idk. Just some thoughts.

[The Peacemaker]

 

I said "most champions (barring Chaos)," implying that there are some others. But very well: "most champions (barring Chaos and Ogres)."

It's more like a 50/50 split between the units and their champions.  Compound the fact that they all cost 10 points and you clearly get some winners.

[iatroblast]

...
I also think wizards should be better at challenges/close combat. Not the best, sure, but shouldn't the magic they use help them in some way? As of now, most wizards are S3 with 1 attack and no one's gonna waste points on a magic sword for them... but shouldn't they be able to throw some short ranged fireballs or do some force-pushes or something?

Idk. Just some thoughts.

Yes and no. It depends on how you imagine them. If you think of them like the Halliwell sisters they should be more than enough to deal with a warrior. If you think of them like Gandalf they'll have to rely on their improvised clubs
But eitherway it'd be nice if they had something up their sleeves for such occasions

[Shadow_Zero]

When did challenges get introduced?
My group of friends just find it too much of a hassle, so we skip challenges as a houserule. Does that unbalance the game?

[Syn Ace]

I started playing in 4th and there were challenges. Skipping it could potentially have a huge impact on a combat. And certain magic items (VHS) only work in a challenge.

[Shadow_Zero]

At least I don't have to take into account how to pimp my character, since the human race is puny in that regard (VHS seems almost compulsory then). But refresh my memory, if the champion takes the challenge instead of the character, did he go to the back? Or only when there's no champion and you refuse?
I don't recall challenges from 4th edition though... but maybe we didn't play it then either 

[Syn Ace]

I'm not 100% on the challenges -- I used to give a champion the Black Gem of Gnar to trap whatever nasty character attacked my Reiksguard footknights but I can't remember if I had to challenge or if it was jut in base contact -- that was ultimate cheese right there: cheap champion, cheap magic item, lock the enemy's Billy badass into stasis until a 6 was rolled to release him.

[emcdunna]

I think a simpler (and perhaps better) houserule than simply "we don't play with challenges" is to remove any negative impact of refusing a challenge.

That way, a challenge will happen only if both players want a challenge to happen.

This removes the cheap tactic sacrificing challenges to lock down the enemy's power character, without getting rid of cinematic challenge experiences or making some magic items/abilities utterly useless (like VHS).

[Gankom]

That just makes the whole thing rather pointless. I think it's a fair enough tactic to sacrifice a champion. Does it really break the game that much by tieing up a hero for a whole turn?

[jack]

 What about units that can spam multiple champions? grail knights have no designated champ ,but any model may issue/accept challenges.Do Dwarven slayers still have the ability to field multiple champs?

I charge in with  super killy dragon riding badass;he challenges with skellie champ.I kill the champ,but don't break unit. next turn vampire lord ressurects the champ and the dance continues for 1 more round.If I fluff the second round and don;t generate signifigant overkill,his static CR ;3 ranks,banner negate my lack of adding charge to my CR.

 The main problem with this scenario is the initiative step between the Lord and Dragon.The lord will in general ,have 4-5 atts at a high or ASF initiative. He will usually[always] strike down the challenger,denying his mount to add his high volume of atts[reg atts plus Tstomp].If the lord only just manages to kill the challenger[2-3 wounds ] he could potentially end up losing the the cbt.

[Gankom]

Why not accept with your champ and let your dragon rider rip some face?

And from what I can remember yes dwarf slayers can upgrade multiple champs, and I think dwarf hammerers can accept but not challenger with anyone if the generals in the regiment.

[jack]

 I'm talking about a scenario where the lord charges in unsupported.Telling me not to do that is silly.This discussion is about what we don't like about challenges.

 My other heart ache about challenges is placement of models, and entire files being blocked out of the cbt  by an ongoing challenge.I wish we could conduct the challenge  ethereally or set the models off to the side[but in a way that those models in the challenge don't influence the rest of the battlefield].

[Warlord]

If you remove challenges as a rule, then characters can still attack each other. You can still have those heroic moments to reminisce about.
Characters generally have a better save than a regular trooper, and better attacks. So it is an incentive to have characters attack each other as they are more likely to wound each other.
Sure, you can spam attacks from the regiment at the character, but then the enemy regiment is going to spam at your character, or attack your unit and wipe them.

It gets rid of silly concerns about 'overkill' and 'wasted potential because you can rip into either.

Champions stepping up against a character and dragon is gamey to me. In reality the whole unit would rally around and try to take out the threat, rather than watch one guy who is clearly out of his league shout "I've got this!"

[Ambrose]

What about a challenge 'sub-phase' where the heroes battle first, followed by the unit the champions are engaged in.  A hero may participate in its units combat phase if they are no longer in a challenge.  This would represent a mighty hero simply destroying those pesky champions and then going right into combat.

Seems to be the simplest rule to me.

[emcdunna]

I'm with warlord, simply make the "make way" move a little bit easier to get done, and you can just direct attacks.
Characters will rarely ever be killed by rank and file, you need other characters to counter them.

Champions can still be special, in fact you could even make champions more special by making them low level heroes (2 wounds, maybe a better weapon, etc.). They'd be dedicated to assisting the unit in battle against tough things.
For example: state troop Champs have a GW. That'd be pretty helpful from a 2 attack, 2 wound guy.

Having a hero sub-phase sounds OK, but challenges in general have always been gamey and mostly used to lock down characters.