Custom House Rule - Challenges

[RuneBrush]

Heyho all   Yesterday myself and a couple of others managed to play the last battleplan from the Coalescence player pack purely as something a bit different to the plethora of Matched Play battleplans we seem to have been playing constantly - and we thoroughly enjoyed it.

One of the things that we really enjoyed was the ability for Heroes to issue challenges, especially as it influenced the end result of the game.  So after a bit of a discussion, we've knocked out what we think is a fun little house rule that we'll play with for putting challenges into our casual games of AoS.

Happy to take opinions and suggestions, I think it's clear enough to not raise too many questions, but equally short enough to not be a chore to play.

House Rule - Challenges.pdf

[KnightFire]

I think the coward rule is a little harsh. Remember that many armies have no real combat characters. Is it really cowardly for a necromancer to refuse to fight a ironjawz megaboss?

Perhaps a better coward rule would just prevent the model charging in its next combat phase, that way you can't completely neutralise a spellcaster or buff character by declaring a challenge against them.

[stato]

It does read heavilly weighted to the challenger.  You need to give some kind of bonus to the Hero who refuses. Maybe have it so the Hero can refuse if they have a friendly unit with 3", that unit can move to intercept the challenge and the hero can retreat, but not lose their hero ability.  So that player is getting to keep their Hero but likely sacraficing a unit (if you keep the +1 attack, bravery modifiers etc.)

[RuneBrush]

Can see entirely where you're both coming from on this.

When we originally came up with the idea, what we wanted to avoid is somebody refusing a combat (Necromancer is a good example) and then promptly arcane bolting the challenger off the next hero phase or getting his skeleton minions to stab the hero to death.  Not particularly heroic   Dropping the hero keyword means that they cannot participate in challenges for the rest of the game, although it has now occurred to me that you potentially neutralise some abilities such as the ones granted for units being within range of X Hero.

I shall have a think.  One thing that this house rule means is that if you have "soft" heroes you need to be much more switched on with where they're being placed in relation to your opponents heroes - you're going to be punished for leaving a hero out in the open or too close to the action - in a similar way to if you leave a hero visible to being shot.

A retreat move would be a nice option (possibly only if you have a 5+ or 6+ save) - but maybe an immediate battleshock test to all units within 3" that he passes on that move, adding his bravery (half of) or wounds characteristic to the result?

[KnightFire]

From the undead armys point of view, retreating and then arcane bolting off the charging megaboss is the definition of heroism. I think a challenge aught to have no consequence if rejected, but offer a buff to the winner if accepted.

 

You may also want to rethink the challenge range, 6" is probably enough. My megaboss can potentially move 4+2d6+2" (8-18") in the first turn, get a double turn, move d6+2 in the hero phase and then issue a challenge 12" away. 

That effectively gives him a challenge range of 38" that you need to be aware of on your first turn!

[stato]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

Can see entirely where you're both coming from on this.

When we originally came up with the idea, what we wanted to avoid is somebody refusing a combat (Necromancer is a good example) and then promptly arcane bolting the challenger off the next hero phase or getting his skeleton minions to stab the hero to death.  Not particularly heroic  

Problem is without the rule you would be in exactly the situation anyway, as you wouldnt be in combat with that Necromancer, so why would that player chose to use your optional rule?  Youve just invented a rule to help you with no possible benefit to him.

Giving the other person something out of having it as an option while also giving you something AND adding to the immersion of the game should be the aim, not creating a rule to help deal with difficult characters.  

Letting the Necromancer call in a screen, while giving you extra punch to remove it sounds very thematic, you could even say that if you clear the screen unit away you get to make an extra pile-in move to get to the Necromancer?

[stato]

How about this for a really basic rule. Keep it to models near each other but not within pile-in range and use normal sequences and movements, just remove influence of other models around them.

In combat phase when Player A is selecting a unit they may choose a hero to issue a challenge to a Player B hero that is within 6".

If Player B accepts they may immediately make a 6" pile in move and attack (even if they have already made their attack this phase), pile in move must be directly towards Player A's hero and ignores other Player A models for purposes of pile-in. All attacks by Player B hero must be directed towards Player A hero. 

If player B refuses they may not pile in and attack with that Hero this phase. Player A may still pile-in and attack with their hero as normal if there are enemy models within 3".

 

So what this gets you is a chance to attack an enemy hero you are not next to or cannot get at because you are in combat with something else.  But if you do make a challenge you better be sure you can take some hits, because they are going to come in and hit you hard for whatever insult you've thrown at them.  

So you get a bonus (attacking a hero you are not in combat with), and they get a bonus (attacking you first), and it looks cool.  

Possible disadvantage would be people miss-using it by having weaker heros challenging big enemy characters to stop them attacking whatever they want, i think this was a problem in 40k. So a final addition to the rule could be...

If a hero slays another hero in a challenge (either as challenger or defender) they may make an additional normal pile-in move and attack.

 

[RuneBrush]

I think a bit more thought is needed then   This house rule isn't meant to be balanced, it's to encourage heroes to lock horns and give each other a good shoeing!  This is one of the reasons the house rule is limited to the size page it is - anything longer bogs the game down.

6" for the challenge could be a reasonable shout though, especially with the ability to barge models aside.  Should probably reword to make it a type of Charge too - else there's nothing stopping a run & Challenge

Allowing a "look out sir" style support could work but would need some careful thought to prevent me throwing a unit of chaff in and then declaring my own challenge next.

3 minutes ago, stato said:

How about this for a really basic rule. Keep it to models near each other but not within pile-in range and use normal sequences and movements, just remove influence of other models around them.

In combat phase Player A issues challenge with Hero to player B hero that is within 6".

If Player B accepts they may immediately make a 6" pile in move and attack, pile in move must be directly towards player A's hero and ignores other player A models for purposes of pile-in. All attacks by Player B hero must be directed towards Player A hero, even if Player A hero is slain.

If player B refuses they may not pile in and attack with that Hero this phase. Player A may still pile-in and attack with their hero as normal if there are enemy models within 3".

It should always be the challenger (A) doing the move, as the defender may be "locked" (Bloodsecrator) and you could use it as a way of pulling your opponents formation apart (Stormcast).  The defender may not want to/be able to fight (hence his refusal), so not being able to pile in and attack this phase is irrelevant, but the Challenger is now suddenly vulnerable.

This is why we came up with the coward rule - without it, why would anybody ever accept a challenge?  A Bloodsecrator is a really good example of why there needs to be a penalty - if I refuse a challenge, I'm flagged a coward and I can't plant my banner in my next turn.  Another example is a Lord on Juggernaut - I'll refuse your challenge, put a unit of Bloodreavers/Blood Warriors in the way and in my next turn I'll challenge you - gaining my Murderous Charge ability.

[stato]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

It should always be the challenger (A) doing the move, as the defender may be "locked" (Bloodsecrator) and you could use it as a way of pulling your opponents formation apart (Stormcast).  The defender may not want to/be able to fight (hence his refusal), so not being able to pile in and attack this phase is irrelevant, but the Challenger is now suddenly vulnerable.

This is why we came up with the coward rule - without it, why would anybody ever accept a challenge?  A Bloodsecrator is a really good example of why there needs to be a penalty - if I refuse a challenge, I'm flagged a coward and I can't plant my banner in my next turn.  Another example is a Lord on Juggernaut - I'll refuse your challenge, put a unit of Bloodreavers/Blood Warriors in the way and in my next turn I'll challenge you - gaining my Murderous Charge ability.

Thats my point though, you want to get rid of the Bloodsecrator? Charge him.  Why would your opponent ok the use of the house rule when its entirely against him, what benefit are you giving him from playing the rule? Yes a penalty is right, but it should be proportional, the challenger should be at risk as much as the challenge. You dont want a challenge to be an auto choose every time its possible.

I disagree that the challenger should always be the one to move, ive watched enough films to know it always the Hero (apt) that call out the villan and they lose their cool and come running in to attack .

[RuneBrush]

Still thinking about evening this out a bit but maintaining a narrative "Heroes Must Clash" concept.  Having a very cursory look at warscrolls, most "soft" heroes have a 5+ or 6+ save and/or the Wizard/Priest keyword, so I think refinements on the challenge declaration could resolve a lot of the points raised

16 hours ago, stato said:

I disagree that the challenger should always be the one to move, ive watched enough films to know it always the Hero (apt) that call out the villan and they lose their cool and come running in to attack .

Completely agree on this and I'd love to see both heroes barge people out of the way.  Game mechanics such as Balewinds and Banners mean that we can't guarantee the enemy can move which means the rule could be exploited - that said, it's a house rule so can easily be tweaked to suit the game being played!