Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Rule disputes like this are killing 40k.

I agree with the two suggestions you made, it would clean things up nicely.

I'm aware of that thread, and I've been watching it for some time now. The longer it goes on, the worse it seems to get.

For me personally, I'm never going to let it come down to this. If my opponent issues a challenge, I accept it, because I'm a freaking hero, and then whichever character has the higher initiative is moved into btb with the other character for dramatic effect, and then we duke it out.

Even if this goes against the normal rules of playing, so be it. I'd rather fudge the rules slightly than spend all day arguing about how it's supposed to work. When it comes down to things of this nature, I see it like this...

If you attempt to gain an advantage by rules lawyering (trying to interpret different meaning on unclear rules, this doesn't apply to things such as showing your opponent the rule in the BRB when he makes a mistake, that's fine), even if you are right about it, then you're not in the spirit of the game. In times like these, when I'm unclear on a rule for one of my units, I always accept the ruling of whatever gives me the least advantage, as to always be fair to my opponent. If something seems cheesy, chance are it probably is. Then, in the future, if/when it gets FAQ'd, and it turns out that I should have gotten that extra boost, or perhaps I shouldn't, then my opponent doesn't feel like I cheated him out of a game, and then the next time I get ready to play, I'll have a nice little trick.

 UberhAxTHC wrote:
Rule disputes like this are killing 40k.

I agree with the two suggestions you made, it would clean things up nicely.

I'm aware of that thread, and I've been watching it for some time now. The longer it goes on, the worse it seems to get.

For me personally, I'm never going to let it come down to this. If my opponent issues a challenge, I accept it, because I'm a freaking hero, and then whichever character has the higher initiative is moved into btb with the other character for dramatic effect, and then we duke it out.

Even if this goes against the normal rules of playing, so be it. I'd rather fudge the rules slightly than spend all day arguing about how it's supposed to work. When it comes down to things of this nature, I see it like this...

If you attempt to gain an advantage by rules lawyering (trying to interpret different meaning on unclear rules, this doesn't apply to things such as showing your opponent the rule in the BRB when he makes a mistake, that's fine), even if you are right about it, then you're not in the spirit of the game. In times like these, when I'm unclear on a rule for one of my units, I always accept the ruling of whatever gives me the least advantage, as to always be fair to my opponent. If something seems cheesy, chance are it probably is. Then, in the future, if/when it gets FAQ'd, and it turns out that I should have gotten that extra boost, or perhaps I shouldn't, then my opponent doesn't feel like I cheated him out of a game, and then the next time I get ready to play, I'll have a nice little trick.

Don't listen to UberhAxTHC, they make people cry All joking aside, I must agree with UberhAxTHC, that is exactly how I play.