WHFB - 7th Challenge Refusal vs War Altar.

[Kalandros]

So I've been pondering what people think of this tricksy scheme...

If a vampire on Nightmare and his unit charges a War Altar and along with that, another vampire charges the War Altar from another direction....

2 Vampires are now charging the War altar.

Vampire player doesn't call for a challenge, Empire player does.
Vampire player denies, forcing the Empire player to select the only character who can be moved back (the one in a unit), leaving the other charging vampire safe from the Speculum (stat-swap) to use his S7 against the War Altar itself.

Un-sportive?
And as far as I understood challenge rules, perfectly legal?

Its a lot of attention for that one model, but its also the Empire's General and without his Pope-mobile, doesn't stand much of a chance against outnumbering fear-causing units.

 

[Falahk]

If you for example charge the altar in the front with a vamp in a unit, and also charge a lone vampire into the altars flank....then the lone vampire cant refuse the challenge since he have no models to hide behind, just like the last paragraf in the refusing a challenge text tell us about singel charcters

however if you place both vamps in the front rank of a unit and refuse, then one of them will still be able spank the altar

 

[Ophidicus]

That isn't quite right, you can either accept a challenge with a particular character or refuse it altogether, so in this case Kalandros is correct, if the VC player refuses the challenge the Empire player must indeed choose the vampire in the unit to retire from combat *YAWWWN* which makes it on about the same grade of tricksiness as the Speculum itself. If you can get this charge off, good going, spike that pope, he deserves it.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think that as long as there is one model that could normally accept the challenge, that cannot hide then the challenge must be met! And since it is the Empire player that decides who is to hide, if he chooses the lone character then he cant refuse.

 

[Kalandros]

Thats the thing though, the opponent cannot choose to retire a model that cannot be retired, he has to choose one that can.
And before answering here, at least check the challenge rules and give a reference if you think I'm wrong.

 

[TMS]

Thread moved.

Thats the thing though, the opponent cannot choose to retire a model that cannot be retired, he has to choose one that can.

Where do you find this, Kalandros? Not saying that it's necessarily wrong but it sounds a bit off to me and I don't have the means to look it up at the moment.

 

[Nepenthe]

Quoting from the Big Red Book page 77: "If a challenge is refused, the declining player must retire one character nominated by his opponent. The retiring character is moved to a position in the unit where he is not in base contact with any enemy and replaced with a rank-and-file trooper. If this is not possible, as there are no positions in the unit where the character can avoid being in base contact with an enemy, the challenge cannot be refused and must be met

So I understand that your opponent gets to choose any character he likes, provided that he is in base to base contact. And after he chooses, if the character cannot hide, the challenge is met. So if he chooses your single character (and he can since he is in base to base contact) then you cannot retire him and the challenge must be met.

 

[Lord Fear]

Exactly. They'll both need to be in units with space to retire the character in order for you to refuse the challenge.

 

[Ophidicus]

But do they? It seems just as legitimate to me that a character who cannot be hidden cannot be chosen to retire from combat, and therefore the opponent must choose one who is able to be hidden.

"If a challenge is refused, the declining player must retire one charater nominated by his opponent. The retiring character is moved to a position in the unit whre he is not in contact with any enemy..." The opponenent cannot nominate a character to accept a challenge over one which is eligible to be retired, as this would not be within the rules stating that a character *must* be hidden in the unit, away from the enemy.

 

[TMS]

But where does it specifically say that the opponent cannot elect a character who cannot be retired? The way I read it is that the enemy can indeed nominate an un-retireable character, thus forcing said character into accepting the challenge.

 

[Ophidicus]

'Must' implies that a condition is to be satisfied, so by choosing a character ineligible for retirement they do not fulfil that condidtion, and so may not take that course of action.

 

[Kalandros]

"If this is not possible, as there are no positions in the unit where the character can avoid being in base contact with an enemy, the challenge cannot be refused and must be met"

But it is possible by nominating the other character, isn't it?

In my situation where there are 2 possible challenged models, the rule definitely states "Must retire one character".
Choosing a character that cannot be retired is going against that rule.

 

[doombunny666]

If he challenges the non unit vamp then you shouldnt be able to refuse...

pretty big loophole and to be honest for sake of common sense you should not refuse whats winnings worth anyway if you dont both have fun.

 

[Lord Fear]

Each time you post one line from the rule, you are taking it out of the whole context it was written in- which makes it impossible to discuss properly. It's very easy to get the rule confused that way. So let's take the WHOLE rule, line by line:

"If a challenge is refused, the declining player must retire one charater nominated by his opponent."
So, player 1 declares challenge. Player 2 refuses. Player 1 then get to nominate a character. There is no limitation on which character he can choose.

"The retiring character is moved to a position in the unit where he is not in base contact with any enemy and replaced with a rank-and-file trooper. If this is not possible, as there are no positions in the unit where the character can avoid being in base contact with an enemy, the challenge cannot be refused and must be met"
So, if player 2 has a lone character by himself, and that character is picked to be retired, he has nowhere to go, so the challenge cannot be refused and must be met. That is what the rule says. And, it's a fair rule, designed to stop people refusing some challenges. So, at this point, player 2 has got to put someone forwards for the challenge.

When it talks about "if this is not possible", it is saying "if there's nowhere to hide the declined character", it is NOT saying that the challenger must avoid this situation in the first place by not picking him! It does say he must retire a character of his choice- but it also says if the character chosen cannot be retired, then the challenge is met. So pick the loner, and the challenge must be met.

It's certainly not the best-written section in the book...

 

[Kalandros]

I agree, but thats how the entire book is really.
Silly badly written game system!

If he challenges the non unit vamp then you shouldnt be able to refuse...

pretty big loophole and to be honest for sake of common sense you should not refuse whats winnings worth anyway if you dont both have fun.

You never nominate a target when declaring to challenge, you only call a challenge, whoever answers it, as long as the model can, is up to the challenged player, not the challenger (unless its a specific rule like Wulfrik I think).
The only thing the challenger can do is nominate who is to be retired.

 

[MexiMan]

That is what I believe Count meant. The challenging player can choose to retire the lone character and because he cannot be retired then the challenge must be accepted.

 

[Lord Fear]

Yep, sounds like we're all on the same page now! Part of me kinda hopes that challenges are removed from the next edition...

 

[tex577]

What are you guys arguing about? Raise zombies, van hels in, invocate job done!! He he no more pope mobile for the rest of the game. Just stay out of range of cleansing flare. Or even better use ghouls as they can and often do bring down the pope himself with those delicious poisoned attacks!

Sorry just thought id lift the tone of the arguement.

I agree that to make the above thread work have 2 vamps w lances and gw's int he same unit and kerpow! bye bye