Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
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.
That is not dead which may eternal lie,
for in strange aeons even death may die.
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)
Check out ==My== blog: www.bnhblog.blogspot.com
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.
"This sure ain't no pansy Eldar Armor, Son"
185th Cadian Armored Div.
"One Shot, One Kill"
Western Border Patrol of Athel Loren
==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
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! (
ninjabackhand: point and click, again, really? even after i give you an military term "shock tactic" you still call it point and click.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014
I'm all about the champion. I take one in almost all of my rank and file units