First off, I decided to bring this up here because it discusses the
RAW and the
RAI of Challenges. Weird things are going on over in
YMDC that totally wreck the ideal of Challenges in 6th Ed. because of simple wording. The phrases 'in base contact with each other only', engaged in a combat, locked in combat, being a character single model unit in a multiple combat with another characterless unit on your side, majority characteristics, all of these rules have nuances that, combined, make for a very awkward situation that is supposed to be fun, intuitive, and fluid. The difficulty of talking about 'correcting' Challenges is that, other than
RAW, there has to be a consensus as to how it should be played.
It is easy to say that the two characters should strike and wound against against each others
WS and T, and not the majority
WS or T of their respective units, but how to word this in a consistent language that will carry over to the other rules without having to change multiple sections of the Rulebook? I suggest the Errata of simply substituting the phrase on page 64 'considered to be in base contact only with each other' with 'considered to be ENGAGED with each other only'. This will insulate them and their respective units from each other for the purposes of combat, but still leave them connected for special rules like the sharing of unit wide effects, like Feel No Pain, Banners, etc. This will also prevent the Challenging models from becoming a roadblock in the middle of the combat, denying models only within 2" of the engaged Challengers the chance to strike.
The second question of
this thread is dealing with the encumbrance of Heroic Stand. The scenario is that one side of the combat has a single character unit and a characterless unit against an opposing unit with a character. By
RAW, the single character unit cannot refuse the challenge even though he is not alone in the combat. The Challenges section was written, like most rules in the book, describing the interaction between two units. There is a multiple combats section, which is generally descriptive and not encyclopedic in nature. Before I say that the single character model should be allowed to refuse that challenge since 'he does have somewhere to hide' (I know, fluff only), should this be the case? I think so. If the consensus is so, then I suggest the Errata of substituting the word on page 64 of 'A
unit consisting only of a single character' to 'A
combat consisting only of a single character'.
Hopefully I have thought these out well enough that their implementation could streamline the process, and not encumber it more. Please, let me know what you think.