Rumor: Challenges from BoW

[Cheexsta]

Supposedly, if you refuse the challenge then your IC has to hide in the back and can't participate in the combat at all. So if you run up against Driago or Ghaz with like a standard Captain or something, you're screwed. You can't fight them because their HQ will slaughter yours, but you cant run away because your HQ won't be able to do anything at all. I'm not a fan, because I don't think this will improve the balance of the game overall. Dominating HQs just become even more dominating.

Not necessarily: if you accept that challenge, then it means their close combat beast of a character isn't killing your men. Not always useful, but may have its moments.

I also foresee people creating tough characters solely for the purpose of challenging enemies and stopping them from munching on your weaker buddies. Eternal Warrior and/or Storm Shields (or the like) would be very handy, for example. Especially running in pairs with your CC monster characters: let the monster slaughter enemy infantry, while the dedicated challenger ties up the enemy character.

[Defenestratus]

As an Eldar player with pathetically weak CC-oriented IC's, I'm crying on the inside.

Poor Autarchs and farseers

As a BA player, I'm kind of laughing a bit.

[Wildcard]

Mmm. how would IG command squads work?

A squad of five would challenge a single enemy model?

This would lean to the 'leaked 6th' version of character definition: In every squad there is one Character (usually sergeant or equivalent) that works like independet character in close combat --thats the relevant part of the ruling in the leaked..

[robrodgers46]

Mmm. how would IG command squads work?

A squad of five would challenge a single enemy model?

This would lean to the 'leaked 6th' version of character definition: In every squad there is one Character (usually sergeant or equivalent) that works like independet character in close combat --thats the relevant part of the ruling in the leaked..

They would have to do it that way.

That said, as a Guard player I can't imagine any version of this that works with the current codex.

r

[Cheexsta]

As an Eldar player with pathetically weak CC-oriented IC's, I'm crying on the inside.

Poor Autarchs and farseers

As a BA player, I'm kind of laughing a bit.

A Farseer might not actually be a bad idea, if you just want to keep a beastly enemy character out of combat with your more squishy troops. A rerollable 4+ invul isn't so bad.

Mmm. how would IG command squads work?

A squad of five would challenge a single enemy model?

This would lean to the 'leaked 6th' version of character definition: In every squad there is one Character (usually sergeant or equivalent) that works like independet character in close combat --thats the relevant part of the ruling in the leaked..

IG Commanders aren't characters.

From what I understand of this rumour, it's only for Independent Characters and models with the Character unit type (look at the more recent codices for examples). Company and Platoon Commanders are neither.

Edit: regarding the leak, it's been a while since I've read it but I don't think that's quite how it worked. Each unit had a Squad Leader, which was by default the relevant upgrade character or attached IC. It didn't necessarily make the Squad Leader into a Character, unless I'm misremembering it.

But then we really don't know the full context of this rule, and you may well be right. I strongly doubt that challenges will be available for every single upgrade character in the game - that just seems like way too much. More likely just for army leaders, IMHO.

[khsrio621]

This rumor, if taken to be true in conjunction with the wound allocation rumors, might yield some interesting results. This would mean that where you place your IC or upgrade character within a unit becomes important. For example, it you put it directly in the front, it will have a better chance of being able to challenge an enemy, but it suffers a higher chance of being allocated wounds from single high-strength shots.
Of course there are ways around this, but the overall a savvy commander would be able to position his assaults and shooting in order to influence the effectiveness of a challenge.
Of course, I've probably missed something, but I think at least that this combination of rumors makes for some interesting possibilities.

[Defenestratus]

A Farseer might not actually be a bad idea, if you just want to keep a beastly enemy character out of combat with your more squishy troops. A rerollable 4+ invul isn't so bad.

Yes but... sigh... T3

One powerfist gets through that 4+ save and its lights out for my farseer and the squad apparently.

[DarkLink]

Not necessarily: if you accept that challenge, then it means their close combat beast of a character isn't killing your men. Not always useful, but may have its moments.

Either way, it still simply makes dominating characters even more so.

[Alqualonde]

As an IG player I would only be happy with this change if I could respond like the Mongols did to the Samurai challenges - torrent of fire

[MajorWesJanson]

I'd like to see if as something halfway between current 40K assaults and fantasy.
Player 1 assaults, moves their first model in base to base. Makes a challenge, and moves the IC/champion up next. If defender accepts, they move their own IC/champion into Btb with the challenger. If not, they sit out the combat. Then rest of the attackers move, and defenders pile in, minus the cowardly IC/champion if that choice taken. No combat result shenanigans or anything else.