Is taking a champion worth it in a unit. Not sure if this is where to put this thread, but there is no general warhammer fantasy forrum.

I think it is. Extra attack, you can challenge and you always have someone to strike back if the rest of the front rank is butchered.
Champions in shooting units ain't as good though.

I always take a Campion in ==My== Skaven army to run with the General. That way if I refuse a challenge ==My== sneaky git of a Chieftain can still fight while the Champ sits on his paws:yes:

Also useful for ==My== Dwarfs, the extra attack never hurts (especially with great weapons)

personally i dont find a point to in my skaven army, as the only hero i have which will be accepting challenges/fighting on the front rank is my assassin, and when you compare +1 attack to +2 models, the numbers is a safer option (you can shoot them more, you can survive longer)..

with other armies however, i find their worth the points, as the extra attack helps alot in combat resolution..

The extra attacks do help sometimes, but having a unit champion also means some vulnerability to challenges from enemy characters. Since most opposing characters will chew your champion up, your options are to lose the champ on the challenge, or refuse the challenge - either way you lose the extra attack.

To me, it all depends on the purpose and strength of the unit in question. Sometimes a champion is a given, and sometimes it is better left out.

To be honest, i always take a champion in a close combat type unit. THey benifet from a extra attack, and then also have the oppertunity to accept/decline challenges that could harm more vulnerable characters like wizards and such. The only time i dont take cahmpions are in shooting units, because they are not supposed to be in combat anyways. This is especially true for glade guard, who i think are hindered by having a full command group.

==Me==: you do realise that if you decline a challenge, you opponant decides which model declines and is moved to the back rank.

As for me, i never bother with champions in any of my tomb king units. However in my beasts army all herds have Foe-renders, the bonuses are far better.

I voted yes, but I think there is always a case to be made. It always depends on what army you are playing (point cost, abilities) and what you are trying to do with the unit. Fast cav rarely need a champion imo.
Beastmen herds always need a champion (upgrade in attacks, strength and leadership) though the point cost is quite a bit different, the job for the unit can be different or the same.
In large, ranked up units - I would say always, as well as generally speaking, but there probably are always going to be exceptions

==Me==: you do realise that if you decline a challenge, you opponant decides which model declines and is moved to the back rank.
Skaven are special that way. We have the "Lead from the back" army special rule, which modifies what happens when a challenge is refused.

Like others said, I always take the champion. I want to ensure I get in at least a couple of licks in close combat, even if the rank would normally be wiped out. As I play against a lot of elves, it has meant all the difference. Bloody pansies are faster than my rats! :((

I'm all about the champion. I take one in almost all of my rank and file units:)

I vote yarrr for champions, i take them basically all the time the extra attack is help if your lacking in modals for troops.

I'd say yes. I always take them in my dwarf armies, the extra attack can make a difference for my low initiative units. Also, the two attacks you always get in return can be a world of difference in combat - especially when they're S5. =D

But I'll admit, for some units they're pointless. Missile units or ones that'll never see combat or much too weak in combat I would avoid giving them champions.

KU

I'd say yes. I always take them in my dwarf armies, the extra attack can make a difference for my low initiative units. Also, the two attacks you always get in return can be a world of difference in combat - especially when they're S5. =D

But I'll admit, for some units they're pointless. Missile units or ones that'll never see combat or much too weak in combat I would avoid giving them champions.

KU

Im in agreement with Kuffy here- in CC units for most armies they should always be taken, but for missile troops they are rarely needed.

Personally almost all of my units have full command- but its often just for the aesthetics of having champions (which i take more time over when painting) and banners all down my battle line!

Champions really shine in Lizardmen Saurus warriors, as they already have the same amount of attacks as other armies champions, and that extra shiny dude has made a big difference in my combats and ensures there will always be a painful punch and bite when one of my combat units is wiped out, which is common for me.

But for Skinks, I only take a Brave if theres nothing else to be spending points on

I seem to agree with most of the posters. I would nearly always take champions (full command actually) in my main combat blocks of infantry, but they are much less useful in missile units or fast cavlry and other similar, smaller units. I would usually just give such units a musician, and not bother with the champion or standard.

I dislike champions on regular troops with weak-ish attacks. I only take them on my Core elves if there is a character joining the unit, so they can accept challenges. The cheaper Core troops rely more on static CR, rather than kills (which they dont get many of, regardless of whether they have 10 or 11 measly S3 attacks).

The Elite troops are another story however. They are too expensive points-wise to take large units & get good static CR bonuses, the way the core troops do. So basically, they rely on their killing power (which is MUCH better) to win fights. So I'll take a smaller unit, with a wider frontage & a champion, to maximise attacks.

So for example:

CORE:
25 Spearmen (5x5)
Standard bearer, musician
Shields

SPECIAL:
14 Witch Elves (7x2)
Full command

Cheers

I dislike champions on regular troops with weak-ish attacks. I only take them on my Core elves if there is a character joining the unit, so they can accept challenges. The cheaper Core troops rely more on static CR, rather than kills (which they dont get many of, regardless of whether they have 10 or 11 measly S3 attacks).

The Elite troops are another story however. They are too expensive points-wise to take large units & get good static CR bonuses, the way the core troops do. So basically, they rely on their killing power (which is MUCH better) to win fights. So I'll take a smaller unit, with a wider frontage & a champion, to maximise attacks.



Thats actually a very interesting way of looking at it...Ive never thought about it that way, more in line with the Elite troops...I think that would be a viable option from now on, except for the fact my fantasy armies dont really have any "elite" troops that fit the bill.