When and how to Challenge (6th ed 40k Challenge Tactica)

[Sir_Prometheus]

From my Blog: http://prometheusatwar.com/2012/09/when-and-how-to-challenge-6th-ed-40k-challenge-tactica/

From a reader (yes, I have a reader....one, at least):

Prometheus,

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something new to 6th edition that I have been running into a lot. Challenges. It appears that every single close combat can be host to a Michael Jackson "Bad" knife fight if one or the other players issues the challenge. If you happen to be in a situation whereby your "character" will be hopelessly slaughtered, your only option is to deny the challenge and thus you loose your characters attacks. I'm not so sure I like this as the game seems to lose its feel of a battlefield and instead seems to feel like a bunch of gang fights whereby the leaders butcher eachother while everyone else pipe-fights. I may be mildly biased by having almost all of my justicars be hopelessly walked on by vastly superior characters, so I admit, I'm a little bitter. but it seems like a stupid mechanic that will get most squad leaders killed early and change the dynamic of close combat dramatically in ways that dont make sense (EG- My justicar had to accept an challenge from a wraithlord or I would lose my only chance to damage it with the demon hammer, but was crushed to death anyway before I could even swing. Or, a friend was hampered by a lowly guard sergeant because the sarg "nobly" challenged his brood lord to one on one combat... a combat where the BL most likely would have made huge piles of death happen to the whole squad, but instead could only kill the sarg? And why would a BL even know what a sarg said?

Maybe I am missing something, and if I am, please forgive my ignorance,

But it should would be nice to hear your thoughts on the concept & what you believe would be the best way for grey knights to kit their justicars to make the most of these challenges.

Thanks,
Mike


Well, challenges are a funny thing, they can cut both ways. and sometimes they're hard to judge who will win, and even knowing who will win, who that is best for!

There are fundamentally 3 types of challenge situations:

1) Single beat-stick against whole unit (can sometimes be a minor fighting IC in there). Usually the beat-stick is fast and very killy (such as Hive Tyrant, Mephiston, Ork SM characters on a Bike, jumping Dreadknight, etc) versus something that's more shooty with a more fighty upgrade character. (Space Marines with a powerfist Sargent is the classic example)

2) 1 unit, with an IC Beat-stick, versus another unit without one

3) 2 units, both with beat-sticks.

So when should you want to challenge? When should you avoid it? Statistically, the challenge should only either be good for you or your opponent. From a perfectly tactical standpoint, if you both were odds calculating machines, never should both of you want the challenge. Of course, if you just want to challenge because you think it's cool to see if your Justicar can take out the Bloodthirster (hint, he probably cannot) then go ahead and do that.

Let's look at it systematically:

The rest is on the blog, just easier to edit with bullet points, etc. http://prometheusatwar.com/2012/09/when-and-how-to-challenge-6th-ed-40k-challenge-tactica/

[MM3791]

This is a good article, however there a plenty of times when both players want the challenge, mostly when two fighty HQs go toe to toe!

[Sir_Prometheus]

If both players are disregarding coolness, and merely trying to win (so, I'm talking game theory, here), there should never be a time when both players want the challenge. 

[MM3791]

If both players are disregarding coolness, and merely trying to win (so, I'm talking game theory, here), there should never be a time when both players want the challenge.

Your saying that there are no two characters that have similiar or evenly matched fighting abilities? I find this "very difficult" to believe.

[the_trooper]

Sweeping generalizations based on assumptions are hard to believe.

[Moosifer]

I hear naked guard sgt vs naked guard sgt have very evenly matched abilities...

[Seth]

space marine captain vs wait for it... space marine captain.

[MM3791]

Even a Chaos Socerer vs Space Marine Librarian is a good (and fluffy) fight.

[Sir_Prometheus]

If both players are disregarding coolness, and merely trying to win (so, I'm talking game theory, here), there should never be a time when both players want the challenge.

Your saying that there are no two characters that have similiar or evenly matched fighting abilities? I find this "very difficult" to believe.

I'm saying that for any two non-identical stat lines, statistically, 1 of them will win on average.  Are people un-perfect, and can this be sometimes hard to judge?  yes.  Can it easily be close enough that the randomness of it all (we're only talking about a handful of attacks) can overwhelm that?  Yes.

[Bill]

This is true but I'm not sure that makes a case where challenging won't be advantageous or a good tactical move for both players. Challenges are a great defense mechanism and there are many players and situations that would rather have their character beat up on (even if it means certain death) to save an entire squad, maybe do some wounds and turns an un-winnable situation into at least a battle of attrition.

Just because my IC will get beat up on and certainly die doesn't mean I would rather have him sent to back and lose a bunch of guys, leaving the chance to be cut down and my IC die anyway. In the reverse role in that situation I would happy killing the IC or sending him to the back. This creates many situations where both people want a challenge. 

[Benjamin]

What exactly does the reader Mike have against pipe-fights?

[the_trooper]

I gather that he is worried that if you are fighting with pipe, you aren't laying it.

[Sir_Prometheus]

This is true but I'm not sure that makes a case where challenging won't be advantageous or a good tactical move for both players. Challenges are a great defense mechanism and there are many players and situations that would rather have their character beat up on (even if it means certain death) to save an entire squad, maybe do some wounds and turns an un-winnable situation into at least a battle of attrition.

Just because my IC will get beat up on and certainly die doesn't mean I would rather have him sent to back and lose a bunch of guys, leaving the chance to be cut down and my IC die anyway. In the reverse role in that situation I would happy killing the IC or sending him to the back. This creates many situations where both people want a challenge.

Right....so you want the challenge, and he doesn't, in that latter case. 

I certainly think that it can be advantageous to have a challenge, even if you think you'll lose it, and I said as much.  A sergeant getting pulped to save the unit is an extreme case, but the same could happen with ICs.  But the challenge itself, is always advantageous to one side, or the other. 

[Bill]

I think its funny you quote me than proceed to completely misinterpret my statement 

Why do you say that one would not want the challenge if they are happy with either outcome? Also saying the challenge is always advantageous to one side over the other is completely different than what you said originally (a challenge will never be wanted by both players). Always being advantageous to one player does not mean that both players won't want the challenge if that is the best possible outcome of the combat for one player and for the other the challenge or no challenge results in victory. Remember that damage control is tactics too not just smashing. With that being the case I will stop following this thread now. lol

[Sir_Prometheus]

I think its funny you quote me than proceed to completely misinterpret my statement 

Why do you say that one would not want the challenge if they are happy with either outcome? Also saying the challenge is always advantageous to one side over the other is completely different than what you said originally (a challenge will never be wanted by both players). Always being advantageous to one player does not mean that both players won't want the challenge if that is the best possible outcome of the combat for one player and for the other the challenge or no challenge results in victory. Remember that damage control is tactics too not just smashing. With that being the case I will stop following this thread now. lol

Uh....I don't think I misinterpreted you, I think you misinterpreted me.  Either way, I think we agree.

There is a combat with no sergeants, but two opposing ICs.  Party A would rather fight the unit than the other IC (there could be several reasons, maybe he will kill more guys).  Party B challenges, knowing this.  Party A accepts, because this is better than his IC lying idle. 

It was in Party A's interest to accept the challenge, however, the challenge was not in his interest.  It would have been better for him had Party B not challenged.

I think we agree on this, so........why are we arguing?