Why do champions still have the ability to start/accept a duel?

  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    polux wrote:

    Dude there is a HUGE difference in power-level between a M20 courtesan or a flying Bloodthirstier and a frenetic Auroch.
    Yeah, the Auroch is half the cost, cant be capped at 1 wound and has a higher max damage output.

    Are you serious? The question is not the maximum damage but the counter tactics. One chaff and an Auroch is stopped and sent away, you cannot chaff something flying. Auroch do not need to be managed by a champion you have chaff but a Bloodthirstier cannot be chaffed.

    polux wrote:

    Moreover you purposely excluded lords without mounts which often have 1+ 4++ and thus are much harder to kill than monsters. Monsters and characters are simply not the same types of units and have not the same counters usually.
    Since I was replying to you saying "there are no monsters harder to kill than three character-monsters" there was no reason for me to include non-monster types. But by all means move the goal-posts rather than explain why other much lower damage output things need to limited by duels while more dangerous and cheaper options do not.

    The challenge mechanic is there for beefy characters as well as characters on monsters. It seems to me that you conflate characters on monsters/Monsters characters with monsters when in fact they are closer to smaller characters than monsters.
    ......
    But nobody has answered the main Concern:

    Actually lords and monsters characters are played a lot. By this change you obviously improve them, why doing so if they are already very powerful? Or do you deny that Courtesan, Bloodthirstier, Vampire Counts etc... do see a lot of plays?

    It is totally possible to remove challenge but do you really think that a shift to a more character oriented meta is something healthy/needed? Especially considering some faction that you may not play and do not have such: Empire, SE.

    My point is that characters do not need a boost, many others deserve it before them. Just remember the ferox hunters or SA cowboy days, they were in every list and got toned down. Going back to it seem a stupid move.
    (\_/)
    (='.'=)
    ('')-('')
  • TofuD2 wrote:

    rule - 'puny mortal' : Gigantic characters can choose to ignore challenges from standard sized models
    I like playing dragons (even when they are not viable) and I know how to avoid being challenge-locked.

    A rule like the one you suggest would mean a justified price increase for all Gigantic characters, and frankly I'll be pretty pissed if I'm going to taxed because people don't know how to support their monstrous dudes
  • Dude, everyone knows how not to get challenge locked. That's not the point, try to see what people object to.
    Are Imperial dragons and forest dragons significantly played?
    SE certainly have the means to handle and kill Monster lords. The last iteration of the book even more so.

    EDiT: I just checked and I remember correctly. Only 1 list with a forest dragon at the english Championship and no dragons at the wtc. This despite the significant discount it recently got.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Vetril ().

  • Why not make challenging connected to charging. With the following description:

    The challenge must be declared before a charge reaction is chosen. If there was an eligible model to accept the challenge but it was refused then the defending unit may only declare hold as a charge reaction.

    The defending player may issue a challenge as a charge reaction. If there was an eligible model to accept the challenge but it was refused then the charging model does not receive the usual +1 agility and +1 combat res for charging.

    If a player accepts a challenge then the duelers are placed 1" in front of the defending unit with the charging unit being moved up to within 1" of the duelers.
    The duel then takes place with neither model in the duel counting as charging.


    In the event of one side being destroyed the duel ends, with the losers unit becoming shaken till the end of the next player turn.
    In the event neither side is destroyed the duel continues next round with both units still counting as being in combat, and are hence unable to move, shoot etc.

    Would love some thoughts, I like the ideas of challenges being part of the movement phase before a fight begins, since once a fight begins no one would care if a duel was issued. I'm still not 100% on where the 2 units should move to in the event of a challenge(1" apart or based on the units adv rates) or the penalties for refusing but I just picked some potential ideas.

    Pros:
    If your blender lord
    charges a unit of peons they can still challenge bait but have no chance
    of routing the lord with static combat res and they suffer a penalty for losing. But it doesn't completely let them off the hook.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • Vetril wrote:

    Dude, everyone knows how not to get challenge locked. That's not the point, try to see what people object to.


    If the "problem" is just supposed whether the mechanic is immersive or not (and not that it is an actual game problem) then I've lost interest. Plenty of rules aren't 100% immersive, and I see precious little very value in re-balancing the whole game to cater for one contested immersive issue.

    The raising issue have greater merit



    Are Imperial dragons and forest dragons significantly played?
    SE certainly have the means to handle and kill Monster lords. The last iteration of the book even more so.

    EDiT: I just checked and I remember correctly. Only 1 list with a forest dragon at the english Championship and no dragons at the wtc. This despite the significant discount it recently got.
    And you think the champion challenge mechanic is to blame for that?

    The bigger/more expensive a monster/character get the more RPS it is, and that's why such beasties are more prevalent in casual games than tournaments.

    I'm still completely unconvinced there even is a problem here, and frankly all I see here are people who wants:

    - Big characters being more expensive
    - Big characters having fewer counters

    And hence big characters being even more RPS than right now. There is exactly none of that, which I approve
  • Wesser wrote:

    The bigger/more expensive a monster/character get the more RPS it is, and that's why such beasties are more prevalent in casual games than tournaments.
    The rules are created with tournament games in mind. So we have created Fantasy Battles game in which big monsters are dead entries because using them is too high gamble with unpredictable results? Maybe it is time to redesign the monsters rather than accepting that central pieces of most armies will ever gather dust on shelves...
    stormrider.pl/
    facebook.com/StormRiderPL/
    _____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!
  • JimMorr wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    The bigger/more expensive a monster/character get the more RPS it is, and that's why such beasties are more prevalent in casual games than tournaments.
    The rules are created with tournament games in mind. So we have created Fantasy Battles game in which big monsters are dead entries because using them is too high gamble with unpredictable results? Maybe it is time to redesign the monsters rather than accepting that central pieces of most armies will ever gather dust on shelves...
    Dead entries is a bit harsh (they do get some play), but yea.

    And personally I'm a big fan of redesigning monsters and such. Specifically with more wounds, but easier to damage (aka either lower Resilience or saves on most beasties). If that happens and it gets more realistic for troops to at least damage a monster in CC, then the challenge mechanic is much less necessary as a counter
  • polux wrote:

    Are you serious? The question is not the maximum damage but the counter tactics. One chaff and an Auroch is stopped and sent away, you cannot chaff something flying. Auroch do not need to be managed by a champion you have chaff but a Bloodthirstier cannot be chaffed.
    The Steadfast rule exists to stop single models from beating armies by themselves.
    You might not be able to chaff flying troops but it's perfectly possible.

    The Chaff rules have their own issues as well but that's for a different discussion.

    polux wrote:

    It is totally possible to remove challenge but do you really think that a shift to a more character oriented meta is something healthy/needed? Especially considering some faction that you may not play and do not have such: Empire, SE.
    We're already pretty character heavy, since you need two of them to properly use the big expensive flying monster.

    All armies can deal with any big monster character without using the duel mechanic, they won't "deal with it" as easily but that doesn't mean they can't manage.

    polux wrote:

    My point is that characters do not need a boost, many others deserve it before them.
    Do not need a boost or you don't want them to get a boost because you struggle with facing them?
  • New

    theunwantedbeing wrote:


    All armies can deal with any big monster character without using the duel mechanic, they won't "deal with it" as easily but that doesn't mean they can't manage.
    Correction

    All armies will increasingly have to use hard counters to big monster characters (especially flyers) when you remove counterplay that doesn't directly involve killing the beastie.

    For armies without much anti-monster it means that for example SE Sentinels become mandatory in every list. Eventually we'll end up in the horrific state of 40k.
  • New

    DanT wrote:

    Current plan is a ~5yr core rule freeze, because so many communities have complained about the speed of rules changes.
    Freezing for this length of time hopefully allows for a full cycle of full army books as well.
    I think that, all told, this is the right thing to do.

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    ...that's a long time to still have to be dealing with having to babysit your 1000pt monster character with a duel accepter.
    Or any of the other rules annoyances that exist.
    Generally the core rules are in a decent position. There is still a lot of stuff that can be improved upon / changed for the better, I just feel that the army books are more important at the moment.

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    The Steadfast rule exists to stop single models from beating armies by themselves.
    Never a truer word was spoken. How often does your infantry run away from said enemy monster on their Discipline 9, re-rollable? Some of them will die, but that is what monsters do.

    Against flying monsters 5 infantry models are steadfast against 1 dragon. I don't believe that the dragon will kill off the other 35 (or more) models in one turn so the infantry unit will be steadfast for at least 2 rounds, probably longer.

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    All armies can deal with any big monster character without using the duel mechanic, they won't "deal with it" as easily but that doesn't mean they can't manage.
    This! Exactly this! It's not the monster's fault that you didn't take anything that's capable of countering them in your list.

    Thinking from a balance perspective, why should a 20 point champion (in an army with either raising or Druidism) be considered an acceptable counter to a 700+ point monster?
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • New

    Wesser wrote:

    For armies without much anti-monster it means that for example SE Sentinels become mandatory in every list. Eventually we'll end up in the horrific state of 40k.
    Don't SE have access to a dragon? So you could fight fire with fire. Also Briar Maidens have poisoned attacks so they could take down a monster, in theory.

    That's 3 potential counters without even considering spells like Swarm of Insects, Touch the Heart and Ice and Fire. I'll grant that they aren't all amazing at taking down monsters, but they can do it. Swarm of Insects averages 2.9167 wounds (before saves) against anything with toughness 3 or higher. Touch the Heart basically takes 1 wound of anything without a special save, Ice and Fire can force a reroll of a special save or armour save, although you only expect 1 wound.

    Essentially if Sentinels become mandatory because of this change, that's more of an internal balance issue for SE than a core rules mechanics problem. Internal balance is not a reason to keep the rules as they are (although it probably won't be done before the freeze).

    Don't get me wrong, there maybe a good reason not to make this change but "this messes with my internal balance" isn't it.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • New

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    For armies without much anti-monster it means that for example SE Sentinels become mandatory in every list. Eventually we'll end up in the horrific state of 40k.
    Don't SE have access to a dragon? So you could fight fire with fire. Also Briar Maidens have poisoned attacks so they could take down a monster, in theory.
    That's 3 potential counters without even considering spells like Swarm of Insects, Touch the Heart and Ice and Fire. I'll grant that they aren't all amazing at taking down monsters, but they can do it. Swarm of Insects averages 2.9167 wounds (before saves) against anything with toughness 3 or higher. Touch the Heart basically takes 1 wound of anything without a special save, Ice and Fire can force a reroll of a special save or armour save, although you only expect 1 wound.

    Essentially if Sentinels become mandatory because of this change, that's more of an internal balance issue for SE than a core rules mechanics problem. Internal balance is not a reason to keep the rules as they are (although it probably won't be done before the freeze).

    Don't get me wrong, there maybe a good reason not to make this change but "this messes with my internal balance" isn't it.
    Your "counters" is to hurl everything including the kitchen sink at a monster and hope it hurts? Anyway current internal balance of individual armies wasn't my point.

    The point is that if you make big character monsters stronger by weakening the potential for delaying them then there will be an increased need for dedicated anti-monster (and more whining about cannons I guess) as exactly those half measures will be less sufficient
  • New

    Wesser wrote:

    Your "counters" is to hurl everything including the kitchen sink at a monster and hope it hurts? Anyway current internal balance of individual armies wasn't my point.
    The point is that if you make big character monsters stronger by weakening the potential for delaying them then there will be an increased need for dedicated anti-monster (and more whining about cannons I guess) as exactly those half measures will be less sufficient
    Pretty much this. Anything that strengthens solo characters just makes stuff like cannons auto-include, and that means no one will play solo characters. You want to know why no one uses dragons? Cannons. Not challenges.

    I would much rather have challenge mechanics and thus be able to potentially fix things like cannons. Challenges are historical and the rules for them really aren't that bad as a simulation. They also have literary (Lord of the Rings: Eowyn vs. the Witchking) antecedents, which gives them a narrative gravitas possessed by absolutely nothing else in the game. The only real complaint is that they delay characters, which is of course precisely the point, and that adds tactical depth! That complaint is also basically I'm not good enough to use solo characters effectively. Your solo-character is not a fire-and-forget missile. That it requires some tactical skill to get the most out of your killy hero is a feature, not a bug.

    So stop trying to make the game more RPS and more tactically boring. Herohammer is boring. The centerpiece of your army should be your blocks of troops, not single-model units. And the game should be won by units, not characters.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • New

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    The centerpiece of your army should be your blocks of troops, not single-model units. And the game should be won by units, not characters.
    Is this game called 'fantasy battles' or 'historical battles in fancy outfits'? For me fantasy means 'dragons' & magic & heroes. The point is not to make hero hammer. The point is to make dragons (deamons, monstrous rats, etc.) competitive but not dominating. One way is what @Wesser proposed: make them easier to wound, but harder to kill. They will loose their unique character but it is their unique character that makes them difficult to balance. As a result they receive the same treatment VS random weapons do: they are priced in the base of their theoretical maximum damage output. Overpriced 'just in case' to eliminate them from tournament scene.
    stormrider.pl/
    facebook.com/StormRiderPL/
    _____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!
  • New

    No, the complain is that duel rules don't make sense.

    And please guys, get off your high horse. It doesn't take a tactical genius to send in the character together with one of your mobile troops with a champion to accept the duel. So maybe stop assuming that people object to the rules because they just don't know how to play.
    Doesn't change the fact that the duel rules make no sense at all, plz change.
  • New

    JimMorr wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    The centerpiece of your army should be your blocks of troops, not single-model units. And the game should be won by units, not characters.
    Is this game called 'fantasy battles' or 'historical battles in fancy outfits'? For me fantasy means 'dragons' & magic & heroes. The point is not to make hero hammer. The point is to make dragons (deamons, monstrous rats, etc.) competitive but not dominating. One way is what @Wesser proposed: make them easier to wound, but harder to kill. They will loose their unique character but it is their unique character that makes them difficult to balance. As a result they receive the same treatment VS random weapons do: they are priced in the base of their theoretical maximum damage output. Overpriced 'just in case' to eliminate them from tournament scene.
    It's not challenges that make dragons not competitive.

    And it's still a game about armies. You want a skirmish game about single monsters? There's literally dozens of options out there. Battles between armies is still perfectly fantasy for me - the genre-defining fiction (Tolkien) includes multiple battles between armies, few of which involve dragons (Smaug is killed in a skirmish, not a battle between armies. Only the Silmarillion features any battles that involves dragons, and those are described in mythic terms that include a flying ship which kills one before sailing off into outerspace), and little overt magic from spellcasting. I think few people would accept those battles are not fantasy. (Heroes? Sure. But not over-the-top 'i slay whole armies by myself' heroes. And the greatest acts of heroism in Tolkien are from Samwise and Meriadoc - heroism isn't about feats of strength, but feats of character.)


    Vetril wrote:

    No, the complain is that duel rules don't make sense.

    And please guys, get off your high horse. It doesn't take a tactical genius to send in the character together with one of your mobile troops with a champion to accept the duel. So maybe stop assuming that people object to the rules because they just don't know how to play.
    Doesn't change the fact that the duel rules make no sense at all, plz change.

    The duel mechanics make perfect sense.

    -Fiction. Exemplar: Eowyn vs. Witchking. (Let's not pretend Eowyn is anything more than a unit champion.)
    -Historical. Exemplar: Three Kingdoms period China. (The novelization Romance of the Three Kingdoms even glorifies such duels by heroes and even by unit champions, but the historical records it's based on also records such duels).

    1 on 1 combat is not some oddity with no precedent.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Squirrelloid ().

  • New

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    only real complaint is that they delay characters, which is of course precisely the point, and that adds tactical depth!
    It may add tactical depth but it isn't realistic. After wrecking the champions face with the first 2 attacks the monster and character would direct the rest of the attacks into the unit.

    At the moment there is no downside to losing a challenge but a big downside to refusing one. Even if we change to a small downside to refusing a challenge (like -1 Discipline) it would be a step in the right direction.

    Single combat between the lines was used as an early form of psychosocial warfare - the idea being that if our best guy can beat your best guy then our average guy can beat your average guy. It enthuses the winning side and demoralises the losing side. That is not represented in the rules.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    I would much rather have challenge mechanics and thus be able to potentially fix things like cannons.
    I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    That complaint is also basically I'm not good enough to use solo characters effectively. Your solo-character is not a fire-and-forget missile. That it requires some tactical skill to get the most out of your killy hero is a feature, not a bug.
    Funnily, I have actually worked out that you need to support solo characters. Thanks for insulting my intelligence though, I really felt it added to your point.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    So stop trying to make the game more RPS and more tactically boring. Herohammer is boring. The centerpiece of your army should be your blocks of troops, not single-model units. And the game should be won by units, not characters.
    It worries me that your definition of interesting tactics is challenge characters so they can't wreck face. How do you deal with a character that is supported by a unit with a champion? How would this be different if you lost the challenge option?

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    They also have literary (Lord of the Rings: Eowyn vs. the Witchking) antecedents, which gives them a narrative gravitas possessed by absolutely nothing else in the game.
    Ok lets examine this comment. Eowyn vs. the Witchking and other duels are duels between 2 heroes that, although they appeared to be unevenly matched, were both exceptional. And in that particular example, Eowyn cheated (in T9A rules terms) as Pippin interferes with the duel.

    So if you agree that this is the reason for the challenge mechanics then how can you argue that challenging a ridden monster with a champion is anything other than abusive? You are turning a rule that was designed for all the fluffy reasons you've explained above into a cheap underhand way of countering a character.

    The definition of abuse according to Bing - other search engines are available. I've put the relevant parts in bold so you can see them easily.

    Abuse
    VERB
    1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse
    2. treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly
    3. speak to (someone) in an insulting and offensive way
    NOUN
    1. the improper use of something.
    2. cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal
    3. insulting and offensive language
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.