Lobukia wrote:Not that b2b matters, as all outside forces fully resolve (not hit, resolve) wounds, ignoring the characters. We are even told to pretend they are not there.

We are told this under 'Outside Forces' - which is to explain what outside forces can do. They ignore them. They cannot affect them.

There is no implication that what is under 'outside forces' apply to the character that are not 'outside forces' - that's bordering intellectual dishonesty here.

Right now, what you're doing is assigning an 'effect' to B2B that is not supported by any rule in the book. You can attack when not in B2B, it's as simple as that.

Tarkand wrote:

Lobukia wrote:But if your nob was STILL in b2b with someone, you can't allocate anywhere else. As you said this is not 5e. If a regular member of a unit hits twice, even he must allocate b2b first.

The rules still tell us that a character remains in b2b even if the other character is slain.

No, he's not.

MMMCMMMM
OOOOOOOO

Nob

M= Marine, C= Captain, O= ork, the space is 1 inch.

My nobz is not in B2B with anyone. He can still strike and he can still alocate his precision strike to any of the Marine, including the captain.

How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty?

Sigh, because you can't remove the b2b status by slaying my character. Page 64 tells us you count as being in b2b with me EVEN if and AFTER you slay me, until the end of the phase (which would be AFTER the wound allocation and resolution of the units is completed).

Lobukia wrote:

Tarkand wrote:

Lobukia wrote:But if your nob was STILL in b2b with someone, you can't allocate anywhere else. As you said this is not 5e. If a regular member of a unit hits twice, even he must allocate b2b first.

The rules still tell us that a character remains in b2b even if the other character is slain.

No, he's not.

MMMCMMMM
OOOOOOOO

Nob

M= Marine, C= Captain, O= ork, the space is 1 inch.

My nobz is not in B2B with anyone. He can still strike and he can still alocate his precision strike to any of the Marine, including the captain.

How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty?

Sigh, because you can't remove the b2b status by slaying my character. Page 64 tells us you count as being in b2b with me EVEN if and AFTER you slay me, until the end of the phase (which would be AFTER the wound allocation and resolution of the units is completed).

/sigh indeed.

I don't need to be b2b to attack you as I've demonstrated. I do not claim the the model is 'breaking out of it' - because he doesn't need to.

You are adding 'effects' to B2B that are not in the book to support your claim.

Once one of the challenge drop to 0 wound, he is remove from the table has a casualties (p.13) - you cannot be in B2B with someone who isn't there, that's patently absurd. The challenger is now in B2B with no one. And that's when engaged rules starts to kick in.

Why do you think they bother explaining where you need to put the duelist for over 5 lines in the 'fighting a challenge' sub-section? Because this make it damn near 100% guaranteed your guy will be engaged.

You're right, you don't need to be. But unless you roll a 6 to hit, you don't get to choose where your attacks go. Non-precision strikes get allocated per wound allocation rules. Those rules state that wounds MUST be allocated to models in b2b first, and can only be allocated elsewhere if there is no model in b2b. For the duration of the challenge, you are in base to base with my character. It's explicitly stated in the rules. So yes, even if you slay my character, he is in b2b with you.

Tarkand wrote:\How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty? And yes, when a model drops to 0 wound, you remove him as a casaulties (p. 15).

No one is disputing that he is removed as a casualty. But the rules say the surviving challenger remain effectively in base contact with him until the end of the phase, regardless of whether or not he is slain. Wounds must be allocated to models in base contact before they are allocated to models not in base contact, and the challenge rules say no other engaged models are in base contact during the challenge.

Eldarguy88 wrote:

Tarkand wrote:\How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty? And yes, when a model drops to 0 wound, you remove him as a casaulties (p. 15).

No one is disputing that he is removed as a casualty. But the rules say the surviving challenger remain effectively in base contact with him until the end of the phase, regardless of whether or not he is slain. Wounds must be allocated to models in base contact before they are allocated to models not in base contact, and the challenge rules say no other engaged models are in base contact during the challenge.

And EVEN if the rules didn't (and they do), that unit's combat has already been RESOLVED (not started, not half done, resolved) as if those characters weren't there. Do you think we should undo the results for your overflow?

I'm going to start a thread called "If overflow is allowed" just to show how asinine the result would be (hint: Jain Zar and all those normal CC gods, get neutered big time by almost any squad with 2 characters).

okay... here is the next mind blower.

What says the Character has to allocate his wounds against the other challenged. At all ?

Since he's part of a unit, he can put it on any model that is in base with any model in his unit.

I might just be going crazy...

And you guys call the the 'for' camp rule lawyers?

You are now claiming that you can be in B2B with a model that isn't there anymore and that furthermore, you can put wounds on it. That is patently absurd as I've said before. And this is the only thing your entire argument is holding on?

This boggles the mind really.

A challenger who defeat his opponent is still in a challenge (and thus, cannot be attacked), but is in B2B with no one. That's the only explication that make sense 0_o. This rule is simply there to prevent a winning Challenger from getting snipped by a precision strike power klaw/power fist at Ini 1.

There is indeed no way to solve this argument, when you guys refuse to agree with what being 'base to base' mean. One would think this is a pretty simple concept.

Lobukia wrote:
And EVEN if the rules didn't (and they do), that unit's combat has already been RESOLVED (not started, not half done, resolved) as if those characters weren't there. Do you think we should undo the results for your overflow?

I'm going to start a thread called "If overflow is allowed" just to show how asinine the result would be (hint: Jain Zar and all those normal CC gods, get neutered big time by almost any squad with 2 characters).

This is another point you make which, because you are well spoken (well written?), you manage to make it sound like it's valid... when it really isn't.

Challenges happens at Ini Order. Baring the Forging the Narrative box, this is what the RULE says (not the cheat sheet, the actual rule).

Jin-Zar will kill whatever amount of people she needs to kill with 'overflow' at I7.

Than the rest of the combat continue on.

I don't really see how this change anything, unless of course you're using 'Forging the Narrative' (which itself says challenge occurs at init order, but that people prefer to do it after... just like it says some Tyranids players roar their challenge - that doesn't mean you can't issue a challenge as a nid player in good old plain english.... big hint here, but the people that care about 'forging the narrative' are the beer and pretzel gamers who don't really care about the accuracy of rules in the first place).

I guess the correct way to phrase it is that the challenge is considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase, therefore the two challengers are considered to be in base to base contact for that duration. Not saying that the dead model is still there. Just that it's considered to be. therefore, after he's dead, those excess wounds are lost.

If you add words that are not in the book, than yes, you are indeed correct

You cannot be in B2B with a model that is no longer there - that's pretty much as basic as a rule can get.

All the other rules still make sense regardless even if the models is removed and the winner is no in B2B with no one. This is the only one thing you guys have going, and it doesn't make sense - it breaks the rule and for a lack of better word, it breaks logic (being in B2B with something that isn't there has got to be some kind of Zen Koan).

Except I'm not adding words. Under combatant slain. Challenge is still considered to be ongoing. Ongoing means that the duration of the challenge has not expired. That meaning that you are still in b2b with the other challenger.


Seriously, I'm not sure if you are trolling or just not getting this.

I'm not trolling, I assure you.

I simply disagree with the possibility that you can be in base to base with something that is not there.

Base to base is not some kind of arcane concept... it means that the base of your model is in contact with the base of the other model. How can that be if said models is removed?
In order to be in base to base with anything, that thing must still be on the table. It's pretty cut and dry. W40K is a game that is grounded in some kind of basic physicality here and it's mind boggling that you guys are saying that this doesn't trump some poorly worded rule.

There is no 'considered' in the rule book. There is no 'you remain in B2B with the removed casualties'. All that the bit about being 'only in base to base with each other' is clearly in order to explain that the controlling player can only assign non-precision strike to the challengers.

Quinn wrote:okay... here is the next mind blower.

What says the Character has to allocate his wounds against the other challenged. At all ?

Since he's part of a unit, he can put it on any model that is in base with any model in his unit.

I might just be going crazy...

You are. In 6th ed you must start by allocating wounds to those in base contact before anyone else. As per the rules, challengers are considered in base contact only with each other. This effectively prohibits them from allocating wounds to anyone else in the combat, even when a challenger is killed.

Lobukia wrote:
"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other... the challenge is still considered to be on going [if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64

"If there is no enemy models in base contact with a model... the wound is allocated to the next closest model" page 25

"resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there" page 64

"once all models [not units, models] that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges" page 429 (that would be page 429 in the RULEbook)

As far as going after the Reference section because of the Stormraven... take a look, all vehicles that belong to more than one space marine codex are lumped in the "Space Marine Vehicles" section. that's why there are no duplicates between Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angles, they're all their together in the normal space marine section [/appendix bashing]

Tarkand wrote:

There is no 'considered' in the rule book.

Except there IS!!!! There are plenty of instances when you are "considering" models to be something or somewhere they physically are not. Including as Lobukia posted again in the section relevant to this.

Eldarguy88 wrote:
You are. In 6th ed you must start by allocating wounds to those in base contact before anyone else. As per the rules, challengers are considered in base contact only with each other. This effectively prohibits them from allocating wounds to anyone else in the combat, even when a challenger is killed.

Sir, it's allocated by the the models that are in base, based upon that initiative step. not specifically which model is based with whom. Just by the ones that attack at that time.

Tarkand wrote:If you add words that are not in the book, than yes, you are indeed correct

You cannot be in B2B with a model that is no longer there - that's pretty much as basic as a rule can get.

see below, or read the thread.

Eldarguy88 wrote:The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

To all these people saying "how can you magically be in base contact with a dead model?" You can because the rules are written in such a way that you are. Deal with it. Really, I don't see how it is so hard to imagine. Your model can be considered to be in base contact with another model that it is not physically in base contact with during a challenge. Your model can be considered not in base contact with models it is physically in base contact with during a challenge. But considered in base contact with a model that has zero wounds? Somehow that is too hard to accept, when the rules are right there on the page?

Find a post by Lobukia in this thread and filter posts to show just his. He put this argument to bed pages ago. It's just sad to see people still covering their ears and shouting that it's not possible to be in base contact with a casualty.
/quote]

Tarkand wrote:
We have an issue here of two section of the same book saying different things (.p63-64 vs p.429) - usually (when not being rule laweyered), the actual rule trump the cheat sheet.

Does it say this anywhere in the book?

Lobukia wrote:
If you don't read the rules, go away.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other" "When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain... the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase" page 64

Again thought, that is in the 'fighting a challenge' section of the book. Not under combatant slain.

Headers are there for a reason.

I guess we'll have to wait on a FAQ to see if your blatant disregard for the law of physic will fly with GW... knowing the way they handle things tho, it will most likely do.

Eldarguy88 wrote:Right, and the challenge rules tell us who is considered to be in base contact.

you just keep missing it
Yes, your character is the only one in base with the other character.. but That isn't what limits who you can hurt. If there is a same init somewhere else in base contact, it can be allocated that way.

*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

Quinn wrote:*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

That's pretty much the entire debate summed up thought.

Can you be in B2B with something that isn't there?

If yes, overflow doesn't work.

If not, it does.

For me, I don't really care what something in a previous header says, especially when it so clearly makes no sense. It's definitely not RAI and arguably not even RAW anyway (headers, again).

Still, I tip my hat to you sirs, we are obviously at a stalemates and neither of us will convince the other.

Quinn wrote:

Eldarguy88 wrote:Right, and the challenge rules tell us who is considered to be in base contact.

you just keep missing it
Yes, your character is the only one in base with the other character.. but That isn't what limits who you can hurt. If there is a same init somewhere else in base contact, it can be allocated that way.

*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

Valid.

A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model aftacking at that Initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. Roll the model's saving throw (tf it has one) and remove the casualty (if necessary).

The following incredibly poorly worded rule was probably meant to address that, forcing challengers to strike each other and no one else whilst excluding others from striking them. Whether it does can be debated, but I think the result would be ugly.

Whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another.

I think "only" works differently in Nottingham to the rest of the world...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tarkand wrote:

Quinn wrote:*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

That's pretty much the entire debate summed up thought.

Can you be in B2B with something that isn't there?

If yes, overflow doesn't work.

If not, it does.

The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

Your model can be considered to be in base contact with another model that it is not physically in base contact with during a challenge if they cannot physically be placed. Your model can be considered not in base contact with models it is physically in base contact with during a challenge. But considered in base contact with a model that has zero wounds? It's not such a stretch, and the rules are right there.

that is one of the primary things about the debate. Some (even me) have read it that, they are the only ones eligible to attack that character, not that the character is the only one he can attack.

By the way, I actually do wish this to get resolved in the Challenge happens separate to the unit assault. At this point i just cannot read it that way. I'm not normally this pushy with rules, this one just has me hook. Like a good debate kind of hook.

Eldarguy88 wrote:[
The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

Your model can be considered to be in base contact with another model that it is not physically in base contact with during a challenge if they cannot physically be placed. Your model can be considered not in base contact with models it is physically in base contact with during a challenge. But considered in base contact with a model that has zero wounds? It's not such a stretch, and the rules are right there.

You can give it a rest friend, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Keep arguing if you must, but don't do it on my account

When GW FAQs this, I will still find the rule incredibly silly if they do go against overflow... If nothing else, it totally break the precious 'narrative' they keep harping on about.

What make more sense?

After defeating the paltry Space Marine Sergeant with a single flick of his sword, the mighty bloodthirster turns to the bewildered Squad, slaying 4 of them with great ease, he then roar, unleashing all his rage and fury - WHO'S NEXT?

Or

After defeating the paltry Space Marine Sergeant with a single flick of his sword, the mighty bloodthirster, not knowing what to do with his pent up rage, shove a tumbs straight up his ass as he waits for round 2 of combat

Beyond the fact that it's totally ridiculous to have a 250+pts melee character be made all but obsolete for several turns by a 10 pts upgrade to an IG squad in a new edition of the game that already make CC a difficult proposition... it create a very ugly scenario:

If you want to get the most of him... your big bad ass of a CC beast will want to avoid squad with Sergeants as much as possible, preferably only attacking them if their sergeant has been killed off in shooting. Yes. Very dramatic. Very striking. Very inspiring.

Even if excess unsaved wounds can be counted against combat resolution (which is by no mean clear either)... with the change to regrouping rolls (and the effect it has on They Shall Know No Fear), the removal of Fearless wounds (and how damn common Fearless is) as well as the Stubborn rules will make this a non-factor in pretty much any situation where it actually matters.

The dynamic that strong melee characters are doing their best to avoid challenges, while weak melee characters are seeing this has the best use of their limited CC utility is downright wrong.

Or the big meaty guy is so focused on his prey he doesn't have time to hit the other guys?

What is your "fluff" reasoning for the rest of the squad's excess wounds (if there are any) not being able to be applied to a challenger?

Tarkand wrote:After defeating the paltry Space Marine Sergeant with a single flick of his sword, the mighty bloodthirster, not knowing what to do with his pent up rage, shove a tumbs straight up his ass as he waits for round 2 of combat

Beyond the fact that it's totally ridiculous to have a 250+pts melee character be made all but obsolete for several turns by a 10 pts upgrade to an IG squad in a new edition of the game that already make CC a difficult proposition... it create a very ugly scenario:

For a note about this. the Company Command Squad can use their Astropath, Master of Or, Officer of the fleet to challenge. If there is a regimental standard in the group, then the Company Command Squad could tie for at least 3 combat turns. Heck, they might even win if one of those fools does a wound on to the Thirster.

jms40k wrote:Or the big meaty guy is so focused on his prey he doesn't have time to hit the other guys?

What is your "fluff" reasoning for the rest of the squad's excess wounds (if there are any) not being able to be applied to a challenger?

I'm not sure how you can justify a Bloodthirster needing all his attention to take out say... a Runtherder >_>.

I've heard people say the winner is basically mutilating the body... this may work for a bloodthirster or a stupid nobz. May work. Hell, to be honest, it take a spectacular level of idiocy to be butchering a corpse when there's a fight going on around you - especially if your men are losing said fight.

But how do you account for say... Marneus Calgar pulping a defeated foe with 4 extra power fist when there's a battle around him? Master strategist right?


The 'fluff' reasoning is quite easy - the idea of a challenge is an epic duel between two champion, the idea being that the underlings do not interfere out of respect (or fear) for their champion.

SM/IG won't interfere out of respect for their leader. Ork won't interfere because they don't want the Nobz to punch them in the head for stealing their kill. CSM won't interfere because they actually are jealous and hate their aspring champion and they want him to die. Aside from Tyranids, it's extremely easy to come up with a suitable fluff reason for this.

While on the other hand, reason FOR this implies that people are freaking idiots or incompetents.

Yeah, this is the last post for me in this thread. I am amazed at the opposition's ability to ignore whatever arguments disagree with their opinion, ignore rules, and use fallacious arguments while refusing to see the forest for the trees. But hey, at least I don't have to play against you so you can torment the others all you want.

There are things you cannot explain that make no sense. Like how an ork that kills a Marine can then die from an attack made at an earlier initiative step before they even had a chance to attack. And how you essentially create an opportunity for a character to have free attacks without any hope of getting attacked back. I find it hard to believe that GW would create an opportunity for something to attack without risk of death themselves. And how you can say that a paragraph included in the Character's section of the rulebook has nothing to do with characters.

But fine, you want to claim that Outside Forces has nothing to do with characters then it is only applying to the rest of the units. If that is the case then that applies to wounds allocated to the rest of the unit, which includes wounds that you say should overflow. But since the rule says that you allocate wounds to the Outside Forces like the characters are not there then no wounds caused by characters can go to them because those wounds are caused by people who are not there. And I understand that the "Forging a Narrative" excerpts are just to help you craft a narrative but they would not suggest things that break the game. The Narratives may not be rules but they would not break the rules either.

No, you cannot take your Daemon Prince and tie up a Marine squad by challenging the Sergeant then ignoring him and wiping out the rest of the unit without them having an opportunity to strike back.

Tarkand wrote:A challenger who defeat his opponent is still in a challenge (and thus, cannot be attacked), but is in B2B with no one.

As for the underlined, he is physically not in B2B anymore, because you remove the dead model, but he is still considered to be in B2B with that model as per the challenge rules.

I think that is what you are missing.

I'm out on this, after 6 pages of going from 2 solid arguments against overflow to now 4+, quoting myself, and watching people bring up the same tired arguments, I'm done until Monday.

I really hope someone can post sanity at least x2 a day so it doesn't get buried by the wishers and the wanters who simply aren't readers.

I really really hope too many people don't read just a post or two and think they can pull off overflow from these rules.

Thanks for fighting the good fight pro PvP supporters, thanks for a good debate you small minority of the pro-overflow side that read a little bit of the thread (or rulebook) and made reasonable-ish arguments.

See you all on the other side of the weekend!

To those who are surrendering under bad terms, have a drink and enjoy the game.

Should this come up with a game, which do you think I'd do? Not fight about it at the table. I'll side with my opponent. This is just to get the consensus of how it should be played.

The challenge option was poorly given. I'm fine with either decision even tho sacrificing my useless leader units is more in my favor on the field.

Mmmhm.. So basicly the strident 'For'-camp has now stopped debating the acctual RAW in the face of the glaring inconsistencies of their arguments for wound overflow and are now resorting to arguing that the background would not support NOT allowing wound overflow.

Oh well, this debate was over pages ago anyway.

Yep, it was dead page 6

You are considered to be in b2b for the entire phase, no matter what happens. The "overflow" camp can keep on ignoring those rules, but it slightly undermines their argument

Also, so what if your blob squad is tying up a thirster? WHats the rest of the daemon army doing, twiddling their thumbs? Daemonettes get to run in *with no overwatch* possible!

The daemon player has no reason to let the thirster, a flying MC, get into that combat unless he wants it to be there. Being fearless it really doesnt care if it loses combat, either.

But didn't you know? Games Workshop didn't make the Challenge rules so an awesome character could single handed kill the enemy character in front of the enemy characters minions - no, they were made for the awesome character to avoid being attacked by the enemy minions!

Seriously, Hollywood can come up with crazy alien creatures and technology, but if they want utter non human logic with completely non human reasoning and goals, they should read threads like these.

Lobukia wrote:I'm out on this, after 6 pages of going from 2 solid arguments against overflow to now 4+, quoting myself, and watching people bring up the same tired arguments, I'm done until Monday.

I really hope someone can post sanity at least x2 a day so it doesn't get buried by the wishers and the wanters who simply aren't readers.

I really really hope too many people don't read just a post or two and think they can pull off overflow from these rules.

Thanks for fighting the good fight pro PvP supporters, thanks for a good debate you small minority of the pro-overflow side that read a little bit of the thread (or rulebook) and made reasonable-ish arguments.

See you all on the other side of the weekend!

Chin up sir. You are correct. We have only 1 guy in our group of 13 players that believes overflow is even a remote possibility. It is nothing more than people trying to hold on to the last vestige of billy bad ass 5th characters. They will get over it.

Unlike a lot of rules, I don't have to justify this one to my group with "because this is how it works." These rules form a complete syllogism to show that there is no wound overflow.

It's not worth arguing about anymore.

I agree with tgf. At this point there is one person who is saying "no no no" and whatever be their motivation, they are alone now. If the OP is still reading, we have mostly come to the concensus that there isint overflow.

I just read all 12 pages. Wow. I came here hoping for some disambiguation. The only thing I'm absolutely clear about coming away from this is that my "house rule" is going to disallow challenges on my table until the rule is defined by GW errata.

That said, I'm heading to a FLGS Tourney this weekend. I can't wait to see what happens when this comes up. Whee.

Did you skip all the posts where it's conclusively shown with references that wounds can't overflow?

Or did you only read the posts where there were no, or faulty, references that said there is wound overflow?

The evidence is quite conclusive.

BRAIN EXPLOSION!!!! I literaly just yelled at my computer (no really I yelled, the coworkers looked at me funny!) Im not going to add anymore to this and will keep my "OPINIONS" to my self. I really wish a moderator had closed this back on page 6 but what ever. It has given me a good couple of hours of reading and a small modicum of entertainment.

DarknessEternal wrote:Did you skip all the posts where it's conclusively shown with references that wounds can't overflow?

Or did you only read the posts where there were no, or faulty, references that said there is wound overflow?

The evidence is quite conclusive.

I said I read all 12 pages. I get it, it's an assertion to claim overflow, I'm just avoiding discussion on it. I'd rather play and have fun, not grind away my game time because someone wants to pick apart the holes GW left regarding this rule. Evidence aside, logic be damned, it's not clear RAW and I'm not allowing it until it is.

"For the duration of the challenge,
these two models are considered to be
in base contact only with each other"

"For the duration of the weekend,
these two people are considered to be
in close contact only with each other."

"For the duration of the party,
these two glasses are considered to be
filled only with water."

Are the two people in close contact when one is in the bathroom? Is the empty glass filled with water? Or are these two people not in close contact with anyone else? Or are the glasses considered filled only with water when there is something in them?

Lobukia, your arguements about when the challenge takes place, you have agreed, are shakey based on contradicting information from 3 sources--summary, rules and narrative.

The issue, as I and others have stated, is that the ONLY modifies the '...are considered to be in base contact.'

Read this: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact."

Is that statement different from: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Obviously, the 2 statements say different things. The correct statement does not say they 'are in base contact' without qualifications.

It is the same as saying "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger is considered to be in base contact only with the Challengee, and the Challengee is considered to be in base contact only with the Challenger."

Only they took the shorter route to saying the above.

DeathReaper wrote:It is the same as saying "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger is considered to be in base contact only with the Challengee, and the Challengee is considered to be in base contact only with the Challenger."

Only they took the shorter route to saying the above.

Negative. If they wanted that to be the case it would have been worded more like: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered only to be in base contact with each other."
Or they would have left out the only. "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are in base contact with each other."

This is a way of rewriting the actual : "For the duration of the challenge, no other models may be considered to be base to base with these two models."

Greg_Hager wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is the same as saying "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger is considered to be in base contact only with the Challengee, and the Challengee is considered to be in base contact only with the Challenger."

Only they took the shorter route to saying the above.

Negative. If they wanted that to be the case it would have been worded more like: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered only to be in base contact with each other."
Or they would have left out the only. "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are in base contact with each other."

This is a way of rewriting the actual : "For the duration of the challenge, no other models may be considered to be base to base with these two models."

That is the same thing as I said...


"For the duration of the challenge, these two models (Replace with Challenger/Challengee) are considered to be in base contact only with each other(Replace with Challenger/Challengee)."

They are literally talking about the Challenger/Challengee. Because they reference these two moels and they are talking about the models fighting the Challenge.

The first two statements I typed are rewords of your statement. Hence why they are the same thing as you said.

The last one I typed is what the rule states. That they are considered to be base to base with only each other. Not that they are base to base with each other no matter what.

Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

Wow, Does it matter if you stay B2B during the whole challenge? No.

The rule pulls both opponents out of the fight and makes the rest of the squads watch. That's right squads.... Out of the fight. This doesn't make sense to me but the guys at GW want some "Troy fighting. You know Hector and the kid pretending to be Achilles." Yep they fought while 200+ men watched and didn't fight each other.

So your 10 man squad of SM vs a10 man squad of Noise Marines fight. A character challenge is made and while your characters are fighting, all the SM's and Noise marines are taking bets on who will win. They are not even fighting each other.

So why would wounds over flow? They don't and they can't. Because the rules tell you they are separated until no more challenges are called.

RAW doesn't support overflow. If it did it would say it in BLACK AND WHITE.

The spirit of the rule is out there and proud. Two fighters taking it on the chin to see who is the better.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

This is where we differ sir. The rules state that they cannot be in base to base contact with anyone other than each other for the entire phase that the challenge happened, not that the rules for base to base have been modified so that we are in base to base until the end of the challenge/phase. See what I mean?

MJThurston wrote:Wow, Does it matter if you stay B2B during the whole challenge? No.

The rule pulls both opponents out of the fight and makes the rest of the squads watch. That's right squads.... Out of the fight. This doesn't make sense to me but the guys at GW want some "Troy fighting. You know Hector and the kid pretending to be Achilles." Yep they fought while 200+ men watched and didn't fight each other.

So your 10 man squad of SM vs a10 man squad of Noise Marines fight. A character challenge is made and while your characters are fighting, all the SM's and Noise marines are taking bets on who will win. They are not even fighting each other.

So why would wounds over flow? They don't and they can't. Because the rules tell you they are separated until no more challenges are called.

RAW doesn't support overflow. If it did it would say it in BLACK AND WHITE.

The spirit of the rule is out there and proud. Two fighters taking it on the chin to see who is the better.

Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't. Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge. Even if you still consider him to be base to base, his wounds have been reduced to zero and that is a prerequisite to allocating wounds to the next eligible model...I.E. the next closest model in the same unit. By the way, you're stating that the challenge is separated, it is not. Under challenges it even states that the characters attack at their own initiative step. Forging a Narrative states that if you want to RP it up a little bit you could fight it at the end, or even the beginning, but this blatantly goes against rules as written, saying they attack at their own initiative step.

With all that said, I can agree that it's a possibility that GW doesn't want overflow and that is how they might have intended it...but they didn't do it. As the rules stand...wounds overflow due to normal wound allocation and nothing stating that you deviate from the standard rules.

Greg_Hager wrote:Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't.

You can keep calling the sky orange it doesn't change the fact that it is still blue.

Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge.

Wrong again. Under your interpretation of the rule any wounds from the challenger could be allocated to any other model that is in BTB with someone else at that initiative before the challenge is over. So a Captain could allocate his wounds to the Orks in BTB with his Marines, since they are all I4. The rule states that wounds are allocated to models in BTB with an attacker at that initiative step. Try reading the rules you are claiming are so clear.

Greg_Hager wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

This is where we differ sir. The rules state that they cannot be in base to base contact with anyone other than each other for the entire phase that the challenge happened, not that the rules for base to base have been modified so that we are in base to base until the end of the challenge/phase. See what I mean?

No, the rules do not say that. They state they are only in b2b with each other, and are coutned as such for the duration of the challenge.

If you disagree, some rules please.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't.

You can keep calling the sky orange it doesn't change the fact that it is still blue.

Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge.

Wrong again. Under your interpretation of the rule any wounds from the challenger could be allocated to any other model that is in BTB with someone else at that initiative before the challenge is over. So a Captain could allocate his wounds to the Orks in BTB with his Marines, since they are all I4. The rule states that wounds are allocated to models in BTB with an attacker at that initiative step. Try reading the rules you are claiming are so clear.

What you said, is correct if there wasn't a challenge going on. Since there is a challenge going on, and these characters are considered to be base to base with only each other, they have to be allocated to the character in the challenge before being allocated to the rest of the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

This is where we differ sir. The rules state that they cannot be in base to base contact with anyone other than each other for the entire phase that the challenge happened, not that the rules for base to base have been modified so that we are in base to base until the end of the challenge/phase. See what I mean?

No, the rules do not say that. They state they are only in b2b with each other, and are coutned as such for the duration of the challenge.

If you disagree, some rules please.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Page 64 wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

That is different from what you say the rules say. They are not *only* in base to base contact with each other. The rules state that they can be base to base *only* with each other. See the difference in what is thought the rules state and what they actually state?

Greg_Hager wrote:

Page 64 wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

That is different from what you say the rules say. They are not *only* in base to base contact with each other. The rules state that they can be base to base *only* with each other. See the difference in what is thought the rules state and what they actually state?

what is the difference may i ask ?

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

Page 64 wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

That is different from what you say the rules say. They are not *only* in base to base contact with each other. The rules state that they can be base to base *only* with each other. See the difference in what is thought the rules state and what they actually state?

what is the difference may i ask ?

If you say that they models can be base to base with only each other, the only modifier goes onto context of what models may be in base to base. Therefor, even if there are several models base to base with the characters involved in the challenge, they are considered to be base to base with only each other. Then when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.
If you say they can only be base to base with each other, then the only modifier goes upon to what the models may do...they can only be base to base with each other.

Greg_Hager wrote:...when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.

Except it is still considered to be in Base to base with the other combatant that took part in the challenge, that is what you are not understanding.

DeathReaper wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:...when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.

Except it is still considered to be in Base to base with the other combatant that took part in the challenge, that is what you are not understanding.

Negative sir. No where does it say that they are base to base no matter what. The rules state that they can be base to base with only each other. You are interpreting the grammar in the rule incorrectly, therefor coming up with the wrong conclusion.

Greg_Hager wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:...when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.

Except it is still considered to be in Base to base with the other combatant that took part in the challenge, that is what you are not understanding.

Negative sir. No where does it say that they are base to base no matter what. The rules state that they can be base to base with only each other. You are interpreting the grammar in the rule incorrectly, therefor coming up with the wrong conclusion.

Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?

kambien wrote:Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?

When the model having wounds allocated to it reaches zero wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Therefor you're not base to base with it, but due to the challenge rule stating that you can be base to base with only the other character in the challenge until the end of the phase, you can not pile in to base to base with another character.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?

When the model having wounds allocated to it reaches zero wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Therefor you're not base to base with it, but due to the challenge rule stating that you can be base to base with only the other character in the challenge until the end of the phase, you can not pile in to base to base with another character.

if the challenge is ongoing even after one is slain , and both the challenger and challengee must be in base to base contact to be in the challenge , how are you removing a model without breaking RAW ?

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."
These two models? What models?
A: The two models involved in the challenge.

what are they considered to be in Base contact with? Anyone, or only the other Challenger?
A: Only the other challenger.

"When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase."

For the duration of the challenge, which lasts until the end of the phase, The tow participants are in base contact only with each other.

they are not in base contact with no one, because they are always considered to be in base contact with the other participant, even if he is dead.

I think the clincher is the "considered to be" wording.

If they had said "These two models are in base to base contact only with each other" then there would be a rules break as you cannot be physically in base to base with a removed model.

HOWEVER, you CAN be "considered" to be in base to base with a removed model.

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?

When the model having wounds allocated to it reaches zero wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Therefor you're not base to base with it, but due to the challenge rule stating that you can be base to base with only the other character in the challenge until the end of the phase, you can not pile in to base to base with another character.

if the challenge is ongoing even after one is slain , and both the challenger and challengee must be in base to base contact to be in the challenge , how are you removing a model without breaking RAW ?

Ahh, but that's where you're wrong. The rules as written do not state that they must be in base to base contact for the challenge, they state that they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Do you see the difference?

DeathReaper wrote:"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."
These two models? What models?
A: The two models involved in the challenge.

what are they considered to be in Base contact with? Anyone, or only the other Challenger?
A: Only the other challenger.

"When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase."

For the duration of the challenge, which lasts until the end of the phase, The tow participants are in base contact only with each other.

they are not in base contact with no one, because they are always considered to be in base contact with the other participant, even if he is dead.

Your last sentence has no rules supporting it. Everything up until that point is absolutely correct. The rules state that the two models, for the duration of the challenge, are in base to base contact with only each other. So if there are other models piled in on the rest of the challenger/challengee's squads, you ignore them because the challenger/challengee are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other. This does not modify the length of time in which they are base to base, only who they can be base to base with until the end of the challenge.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:I think the clincher is the "considered to be" wording.

If they had said "These two models are in base to base contact only with each other" then there would be a rules break as you cannot be physically in base to base with a removed model.

HOWEVER, you CAN be "considered" to be in base to base with a removed model.

This is kinda the clincher, but not really in the way you stated it. I understand the whole "considered to be" wording, but what is actually the clincher is the position of the adverb 'only'. Where it is placed, it modifies the word 'be', saying who the models can be in base to base contact with for the duration of the challenge. With the deceased model removed because of wound allocation taking his wounds to zero, you move to the next model in their unit to allocate the remaining wounds to, if there is a valid recipient. "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to only be in base to base contact with each other" is another way of restating the rule as written. It is not written, "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base to base contact with each other."

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?

When the model having wounds allocated to it reaches zero wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Therefor you're not base to base with it, but due to the challenge rule stating that you can be base to base with only the other character in the challenge until the end of the phase, you can not pile in to base to base with another character.

if the challenge is ongoing even after one is slain , and both the challenger and challengee must be in base to base contact to be in the challenge , how are you removing a model without breaking RAW ?

Ahh, but that's where you're wrong. The rules as written do not state that they must be in base to base contact for the challenge, they state that they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Do you see the difference?

Ah but they do ! It's the very first thing you do after accepting

pg 64. Fighting a Challenge

If a challenge have been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. It goes further to tell you to swap friendly models or "If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact, "swap" the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base to base contact"

Greg_Hager wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:they are not in base contact with no one, because they are always considered to be in base contact with the other participant, even if he is dead.

Your last sentence has no rules supporting it.

Maybe P.64...

I will quote it again in case you missed it:

Rule #1 "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."
Rule #2 "When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase."

When are they considered to be in base contact?
A: For the duration of the challenge

How long does the challenge last?
A: until the end of the phase.

Even if one is dead?
A: Yes, as per Rule #2

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?

When the model having wounds allocated to it reaches zero wounds, it is removed as a casualty. Therefor you're not base to base with it, but due to the challenge rule stating that you can be base to base with only the other character in the challenge until the end of the phase, you can not pile in to base to base with another character.

if the challenge is ongoing even after one is slain , and both the challenger and challengee must be in base to base contact to be in the challenge , how are you removing a model without breaking RAW ?

Ahh, but that's where you're wrong. The rules as written do not state that they must be in base to base contact for the challenge, they state that they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Do you see the difference?

Do you?

"these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

They are, Not can be.

The ARE considered to be in base contact.

You are incorrect.

Greg_Hager wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't.

You can keep calling the sky orange it doesn't change the fact that it is still blue.

Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge.

Wrong again. Under your interpretation of the rule any wounds from the challenger could be allocated to any other model that is in BTB with someone else at that initiative before the challenge is over. So a Captain could allocate his wounds to the Orks in BTB with his Marines, since they are all I4. The rule states that wounds are allocated to models in BTB with an attacker at that initiative step. Try reading the rules you are claiming are so clear.

What you said, is correct if there wasn't a challenge going on. Since there is a challenge going on, and these characters are considered to be base to base with only each other, they have to be allocated to the character in the challenge before being allocated to the rest of the unit.

Yet again you are wrong. I find it amusing that you don't even know the rules you are trying to argue in favor of.

Read page 25 under Allocating Wounds. It says "A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step." Not the attacker, or the model in BTB, but any model who is attacking at that initiative step. According to your version of the rules where challenge wounds overflow it is possible, according to the wound allocation rule, for an opponent to allocate all challenge wounds to the squad effectively negating the purpose of the challenge.

But all of that was irrelevant because according to your arguments, specifically your response to me, you do not believe that wound overflow from a challenge is possible since, as you said, the models.in the challenge must allocate all wounds to each other while the challenge lasts, and the rules state that the challenge lasts the whole phase even if one of them die. Read it. I'll wait, go ahead. And, point, set, match.

13 pages and nobody has really articulated the major concern here.

The rulebook says that both models in the challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge. The question is, what happens when one model is killed? In my opinion, this is ambiguous. There are a couple camps here.

One camp believes that "considered to be in base to base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge" implies that even if a model is slain, it remains in base to base contact until the end of the challenge. If this is true, then overflow cannot happen. The other camp believes that the words "only with each other" imply that the meaning of the sentence is to prevent all other models from being in base to base contact with the two models in the challenge and not to keep the members of the challenge in base to base contact no matter what. If this is the case, and slain models are removed from base to base contact, then overflow clearly happens.

You guys aren't going to convince anybody by simply stating your side emphatically and declaring victory. You need to seriously examine both positions. I think that anybody who does this will see that both interpretations of this sentence can be supported, particularly since GW writes some pretty imprecise language.

I tend to side with the camp that believes that slain models are no longer in B2B. In my mind, the meaning of the sentence is only to restrict other models from attacking the members of the challenge. However, I can buy the other reading as well. The sentence is not precise, we can all agree on that. To claim that the way you parse that sentence is the only correct way is arrogant.

Pick a side with your play group and stick with it until an FAQ clarifies it. If going to a tournament, ask the TO before hand. Problem solved.

The trouble is its not that simple. There are other implications that come into effect once you let one thing go past.

"are considered to be" entirely overrides any chance of them NOT being in base to base, as far as wound allocation is concerned.
They ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge. Present tense. Not will be, not have been but can come otu of being base to base, but ARE in base to base.

kambien wrote:Ah but they do ! It's the very first thing you do after accepting

pg 64. Fighting a Challenge

If a challenge have been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. It goes further to tell you to swap friendly models or "If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact, "swap" the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base to base contact"

I appologize for not clearly stating what I meant. I was thinking faster than I was typing. I meant that the rules as written do not state that they must remain in base to base contact with each other for the duration of the challenge, it states that they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. My appologizes.

DeathReaper wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:Ahh, but that's where you're wrong. The rules as written do not state that they must be in base to base contact for the challenge, they state that they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Do you see the difference?

Do you?

"these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

They are, Not can be.

The ARE considered to be in base contact.

You are incorrect.

See above that I replied to kambien. I apologize for my error in what I meant to say.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:What you said, is correct if there wasn't a challenge going on. Since there is a challenge going on, and these characters are considered to be base to base with only each other, they have to be allocated to the character in the challenge before being allocated to the rest of the unit.

Yet again you are wrong. I find it amusing that you don't even know the rules you are trying to argue in favor of.

Read page 25 under Allocating Wounds. It says "A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step." Not the attacker, or the model in BTB, but any model who is attacking at that initiative step. According to your version of the rules where challenge wounds overflow it is possible, according to the wound allocation rule, for an opponent to allocate all challenge wounds to the squad effectively negating the purpose of the challenge.

But all of that was irrelevant because according to your arguments, specifically your response to me, you do not believe that wound overflow from a challenge is possible since, as you said, the models.in the challenge must allocate all wounds to each other while the challenge lasts, and the rules state that the challenge lasts the whole phase even if one of them die. Read it. I'll wait, go ahead. And, point, set, match.

I'm sorry you don't think I understand what I'm talking about. Now, starting with page 25...

Page 25 wrote:A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step.

That states that a wound coming from a model attacking at that Initiative step must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with it. So...I don't know how you twisted it to say everything else I quoted from you above. You roll a die for all the attackers that are base to base with their enemy. Since these two are considered to be base to base with only each other, you have to roll them separate. So since they're not base to base, you can't allocate their attacks to someone that they're not in base to base contact with. I see what you're saying, and if they were all base to base with each other it would work, but they're not.

UncleMeat wrote:13 pages and nobody has really articulated the major concern here.

The rulebook says that both models in the challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge. The question is, what happens when one model is killed? In my opinion, this is ambiguous. There are a couple camps here.

One camp believes that "considered to be in base to base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge" implies that even if a model is slain, it remains in base to base contact until the end of the challenge. If this is true, then overflow cannot happen. The other camp believes that the words "only with each other" imply that the meaning of the sentence is to prevent all other models from being in base to base contact with the two models in the challenge and not to keep the members of the challenge in base to base contact no matter what. If this is the case, and slain models are removed from base to base contact, then overflow clearly happens.

You guys aren't going to convince anybody by simply stating your side emphatically and declaring victory. You need to seriously examine both positions. I think that anybody who does this will see that both interpretations of this sentence can be supported, particularly since GW writes some pretty imprecise language.

I tend to side with the camp that believes that slain models are no longer in B2B. In my mind, the meaning of the sentence is only to restrict other models from attacking the members of the challenge. However, I can buy the other reading as well. The sentence is not precise, we can all agree on that. To claim that the way you parse that sentence is the only correct way is arrogant.

Pick a side with your play group and stick with it until an FAQ clarifies it. If going to a tournament, ask the TO before hand. Problem solved.

I totally agree with you here. I see both sides of the argument but the RAW favor wound overflow. The 6th Edition games I've played we've discussed this and we agree with overflow. No problems at all here.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"are considered to be" entirely overrides any chance of them NOT being in base to base, as far as wound allocation is concerned.
They ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge. Present tense. Not will be, not have been but can come otu of being base to base, but ARE in base to base.

If you quote only "are considered to be" then you can read it this way. You have to take the rule in it's entirety. They are considered to be base to base only with each other. Yes, presently they are considered to be base to base with only each other, no other models can be base to base with them for the duration of the challenge. It does not say that they are base to base only, it states that they are base to base with only each other. You're missing what the rule states and simplifying it to where it doesn't say the same thing.

And, again, that isnt what the rule says

The ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge, which lasts the entire phase

So they ARE in base to base for the entire phase

You can disagree all you want, but that IS what the rules parse to. No wound overflow is possible....

I just looked in the BRB and there is no entry for wound overflow. Matter of fact it says nothing about it in black and white.

So what is this wound overflow that people are talking about? It's not in the rules.....

It comes from some people being upset that thier uber HtH character can't wipe out an entire squad with no real threat of being wounded.

I've brought up the samething, there is no mention of overflow so there is no overflow. GW can be shady on rules, but this is a pretty big mechanic to just forget to mention or leave up to the statement of "follow normal wound allocation rules." with no guidence on how that statement interacts with this unique situation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again, that isnt what the rule says

The ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge, which lasts the entire phase

So they ARE in base to base for the entire phase

You can disagree all you want, but that IS what the rules parse to. No wound overflow is possible....

The rules state that they are in base to base only with each other. Not that they are in base to base period. It's only excluding everyone else from being base to base with them for the phase. That is all.

MJThurston wrote:I just looked in the BRB and there is no entry for wound overflow. Matter of fact it says nothing about it in black and white.

So what is this wound overflow that people are talking about? It's not in the rules.....

It comes from normal wound allocation after a character in a challenge is killed, removed as a causality, and there are still unsaved wounds to be allocated.

hisdudeness wrote:It comes from some people being upset that thier uber HtH character can't wipe out an entire squad with no real threat of being wounded.

I've brought up the samething, there is no mention of overflow so there is no overflow. GW can be shady on rules, but this is a pretty big mechanic to just forget to mention or leave up to the statement of "follow normal wound allocation rules." with no guidence on how that statement interacts with this unique situation.

I agree they can be shady, however normal wound allocation rules apply to the Assault phase. The only thing that a challenge changes is who can be base to base with the challengers for the duration of the challenge.

Greg_Hager wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again, that isnt what the rule says

The ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge, which lasts the entire phase

So they ARE in base to base for the entire phase

You can disagree all you want, but that IS what the rules parse to. No wound overflow is possible....

The rules state that they are in base to base only with each other. Not that they are in base to base period. It's only excluding everyone else from being base to base with them for the phase. That is all.

MJThurston wrote:I just looked in the BRB and there is no entry for wound overflow. Matter of fact it says nothing about it in black and white.

So what is this wound overflow that people are talking about? It's not in the rules.....

It comes from normal wound allocation after a character in a challenge is killed, removed as a causality, and there are still unsaved wounds to be allocated.

hisdudeness wrote:It comes from some people being upset that thier uber HtH character can't wipe out an entire squad with no real threat of being wounded.

I've brought up the samething, there is no mention of overflow so there is no overflow. GW can be shady on rules, but this is a pretty big mechanic to just forget to mention or leave up to the statement of "follow normal wound allocation rules." with no guidence on how that statement interacts with this unique situation.

I agree they can be shady, however normal wound allocation rules apply to the Assault phase. The only thing that a challenge changes is who can be base to base with the challengers for the duration of the challenge.

Greg, do you really think that there is supposed to be wound overflow? That when the FAQ is released, they'll be like, "Sorry guys, we just forgot to include specific rules for wound overflow."

Greg_Hager wrote:I appologize for not clearly stating what I meant. I was thinking faster than I was typing. I meant that the rules as written do not state that they must remain in base to base contact with each other for the duration of the challenge, it states that they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. My appologizes.

Again, It does not say this "they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge"

Is says this "they are in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge"

Greg_Hager wrote:The rules state that they are in base to base only with each other. Not that they are in base to base period. It's only excluding everyone else from being base to base with them for the phase. That is all.

Right they are in base to base only with the other person in the challenge for the entire phase even if one of them is killed.

So you can only put wounds on models in base to base, and the model in base contact is dead, so you loose the rest of the wounds, as RAW states.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."
In this sentence these two models are talking about the Challenger/Challengee, and each other refers to the Challengee/Challenger as well.

So we can say it like this and the meaning is the same:
"For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger/Challengee (these two models) are considered to be in base contact only with Challengee/Challenger (each other)."

"For the duration of the challenge, the Challenge is considered to be in base contact only with Challengee."

Even if one is slain

Seems pretty clear cut to me that excess wounds are allocated to the squad.

1. The rules for challenges state that "only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another," This is a restriction only on models that are not the challenger and challengee.

2. Wounds are allocated to enemy models in base contact first. Because the challenger and challengee are only considered to be in base contact with each other, the challenger must allocate wounds to the challengee. The rules ALSO state that if no enemy models are in base contact, the wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model. Therefore, once the challengee has been removed, wounds overflow to the closest enemy model.

There is nothing in the rules called "over flow wounds". It's something you are making up.

Did everyone here not read the part after Combatant Slain?

Combatant Slain
Once one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, no matter at what initiative, the challenge continues until the end of phase.

Outside forces
Only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against each other during a challenge!

Do I need to type more on this issue?

Nate668 wrote:

2. Wounds are allocated to enemy models in base contact first. Because the challenger and challengee are only considered to be in base contact with each other, the challenger must allocate wounds to the challengee. The rules ALSO state that if no enemy models are in base contact, the wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model. Therefore, once the challengee has been removed, wounds overflow to the closest enemy model.

and here is the issue. Even if you remove one of them , they are still considered in base to base contact , so you can't allocate anywhere else.

Page 25: Wounds are allocated and resolved with the closest model, just like in the Shooting Phase; The bullet points;

-A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step...Roll the model's saving throw (if it has one), and remove the casualty (if necessary);

-If there are no enemy models in base contact with a model attacking at that initiative step, the wound is allocated to the next closest enemy model...etc.

Per Wound allocation, the process of order is follows

Is there a model in Base Contact. If Yes, remove Model. Go to next wound to allocate
Is there a model in Base Contact. If No, remove next closest model.

So you are in a challenge. You do 3 wounds. Follow process of order;

Is there a model in Base Contact. Yes.
-Allocate wound and remove model. Go to next wound to allocate
Is there a model in Base Contact. Yes, by virtue of the rules in a challenge that state you are considered to be in base contact only with each other which persists through death until the end of the phase.
-Allocate wound and remove model. Go to next wound to allocate
Is there a model in Base Contact. Yes, by virtue of the rules in a challenge that state you are considered to be in base contact only with each other which persists through death until the end of the phase.
-Allocate wound and remove model. Go to next wound to allocate

That's how it works. That is RAW wound allocation. You cannot allocate an unsaved wound to the next closest model as long as you are in base contact with a model. Per the rules of the Challenge, you considered to only ever in base contact with challenger, and that consideration lasts until the end of the phase. The slain combatant is "still there" and is a 0 wound sponge until the Challenge is over, which is the end of the phase.

Running in circles here, the last 13 pages here have addressed that. The clincher is that they are considered to be in the challenge for the entire assault, and that while in a challenge only in base to base with each other. That means they aren't in base to base with anyone else.

Everyone will in the end see it their way, and dice it off. I say no overflow, but what can we do but bicker?

READ THE CHALLENGE RULES AGAIN

I showed you were to go. Page 64, last two entries. Clearly states how this works. There is no such thing as over flow wounds from or to a challenge.

@GREG: Just sneaking in to give you a break for 2 seconds amigo, and let you know that while you are not alone in the wound overflow camp, you are also never going to convince everyone

DeathReaper wrote:
Again, It does not say this "they can be in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge"

Is says this "they are in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge"
[

You are correct, it says they are in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. They are in base to base contact with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Not that they are in base to base contact for the duration of the challenge. The two clauses are not equivalent. The rule is written in such a state that the two characters cannot be in base contact with anything else, but they do not have to be in base with each other.

To word it differently, the rule states:

For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

If the rule was written:
For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact

You, and many others, would be correct. However, it does not end there. The rule has an additional phrase "only with each other" before the period. This qualifier results in a sentence that does not mean the two models are permanently in base contact. It only means that the models may not be in contact with any other model for the duration of the challenge.

The models do not need to be in base contact with each other, they simply cannot be in base contact with any other model. THAT is the fundamental difference between the two camps (at least those still attempting to sway the other side). That is what people are going to have a hard time agreeing upon, because they are interpreting the sentence fundamentally differently.

For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact is not the same as For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

This is a pretty classic case of misplaced modifier (the word only).

I tried making this point on page 6 i think, and was subsequently shouted down by the same people who post the same three sentences and insist the rules are clear as written.

A plain text reading of the sentence with careful attention to the modifier and some understanding of grammar bears out;
the rule does not prevent one member of the challenge from being "considered to be" in base with nobody.

If the rule read "are only considered to be.." then yeah, I might agree that they are in base the whole time, because the text says they can be "considered" "only" one way.

But it doesn't, it's just considered to be in base only with eachother.

Just like the mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty.
But the mug that can only be filled with beer may never be empty.

A mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty, because the requirement is just that "if the mug is filled, it must be with beer"
A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone. Just that "if the model is in base, it must be with the model required"

jcress410 wrote:Just like the mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty.
But the mug that can only be filled with beer may never be empty.

A mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty, because the requirement is just that "if the mug is filled, it must be with beer"
A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone. Just that "if the model is in base, it must be with the model required"

Even if it is empty it is considered to be filled with beer.

So we may not pour any other liquids in the mug, because it is considered to be filled with beer, even if all of the beer has been drunk.

"A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone" (This is incorrect)
It should read "A model that is considered to be in base only with one other model must be in base to base with that other model."

How do you not understand that?

Where does it say that when the challenger/challengee model model is slain, he is not removed as a casualty? It does state that while they are fighting they are in base to base only with each other. Once one those two models are slain, where is it written that the model isn't removed as a casualty like normal? The model that survived and hasnt been slain is in the challenge that is considered to be ongoing, the one that's slain is dead and removed as a casualty and is no longer in the challenge

EAFChunk wrote:Where does it say that when the challenger/challengee model model is slain, he is not removed as a casualty? It does state that while they are fighting they are in base to base only with each other. Once one those two models are slain, where is it written that the model isn't removed as a casualty like normal? The model that survived and hasnt been slain is in the challenge that is considered to be ongoing, the one that's slain is dead and removed as a casualty and is no longer in the challenge

You read the thread yes?

Let me sum up. The underlined is where you are incorrect. The one that is slain is dead and removed as a casualty but is still considered to be in the challenge.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other"
"When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain... the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase"
Both quotes from page 64

So the challenger/challengee are considered to be in base contact only with each other For the duration of the challenge which is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase even if one of the combatants in a challenge is slain.

I would like one of you in the Overflow is allowed camp to address the paradox I put forth that has been ignored, likely because it destroys your argument and makes your precious wound overflow disappear.

Can we stop talking about the base to base please. No matter which one of you are right the rule is still the same. Wounds must be allocated to a model in BTB contact with a model attacking at that initiative step. Meaning that since wounds are allocated by the controlling player if there are multiple models in base contact with someone at that initiative step including the challenger, since you say the part that tells you to ignore the challengers when allocating wounds doesn't apply to the challengers. So the player whose Captain scores 3 wounds against the Nob cannot say anything to the player who allocates the wounds to the Orks in BTB with his other Marines since they are attacking at the same initiative step. Read the rules guys this BTB argument is moot.

For the sake of putting down overflow, the definition and the usage of the word "only", isn't the only hurdle that one wanting overflow has to overcome.

One also needs to look at what happens to outside forces (according to the rules) during the phase that a challenge happens.

"resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there" page 64

Here is the next big problem that those wanting overflow have to face (rules you need to convince us to read differently or, for whatever reason, ignore). Outside forces are told to go ahead and RESOLVE (that would be allocate, save, remove, repeat as needed) the would allocation process. This means that if you have a Character A (Init 3) with Unit A (Init 4) fighting Character B (Init 1) with Unit B (Init 2), that if character A kills character B with two wounds left over, there is no way for Character A to get those attacks in before Unit B can strike Unit A. Unit A and Unit B are told to finish the process without the Characters.

Even if they were, how would this work? Character B could have a completely different WS and T than Unit B. What wounded him may not have hit and may not have wounded unit B. So you have two issues here for overflow. Issue 1: When could this overflow happen when the Unit's combat is told to RESOLVE its hits and wounds without the Characters. Issue 2: Hits and wounds against a character can and will often have no correlation to the process as applied to a unit, the wounds themselves can't hop over (unless you think a challenge should involve majority WS and majority T, which is a huge addition to assertions already made without permission to do so, and I pity IC's running around with weak squads).

"once all models [not units, models] that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges" page 429 (that would be page 429 in the RULEbook)

This removes the ambiguity. The arguements on what "only" means, the discussions on Forging a Narrative (side A: its says same initiative; side B: its saying same initiative within the Challeng Combat), all could be clarified if there was somewhere else that told us which way to take it. There is (429), and it plainly shows that Challenges are something aside and seperate, with only cheerleading and morale penalties affecting the larger combat (page 65). Yet we are told this is in the Appendix and isn't correct because of a single typo and people not understanding the setup of the unit tables. We are then told to ignore an entire, clear, deliberate, pointed direction on how to handle Challenges. (BTW: if we can't trust the Appendix, might my stormtalon have 4 HP?).

To support overflow, it seems like one needs to redifine simple words, ignore directions to outside forces, and discount specific instructions... all while trying to assert RAW... I will admit, its impressive that you've gotten this many pages out of the stunt. But I'll keep posting, to be sure that the less experianced and those looking for clarrification aren't lead astray and build lists based on errant assumptions and wishful thinking.

If we choose to ignore Lobukia's arguments (which seem very reasonable if not correct), then we are left with an ambiguous situation, since the two characters are in base contact only with each other meaning they are not in base with the enemy or their friends. We really do not know where they are in relation to the other models in the combat.

You could say that, we know the are in coherency with their unit, since that is a restriction to their movement. To that I would simply say that happens earlier in the challenge (if not before). Once they are finished moving to their respective positions they are only defined as being in base contact with each other. We are given no reason to believe that they are defined as being in a position to even strike at the other combatants.

BTW, that is my way of saying that I think Lobukia is right.

edit: fixed my miss placed only...you know, since it is important

Lobukla... you're taking part of a sentence and twisting its context.

The entire sentence is:
"Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there".

The paragraph then goes on to further clarify its point with the Demon Prince example.

All that line states (and clearly states at that) is that outside forces cannot hurt units in a challenge. In no way, shape, or form, does it limit challenge participants from hurting those outside forces.

You are making an assumption that because A implies B, B also implies A, which is false.

Hurdle overcame.

As for the second hurdle, why does that matter at all? It shows no such thing, you're interpreting the rules in the way you so desire. The rule on page 429 simply say to resolve challenges after a unit has fought. That does not limit wounds from being allocated to the unit - at all. On page 429 the NEXT step is determine the Assault Results! Add up the wounds caused by *each side* etc. - that rejects your notion that the challenge is a seperate thing. If it was, there would be a Assault Result section BEFORE challenges were resolved, and the challenge would have its own Assault Result step. Context matters. There is a single Assault Result step for units and challenges, the wounds the characters cause affect the larger combat as well. I am not sure what other points this reference could be making.

As there is a single result step which explicitly includes the wounds caused by characters (page 65: Assault Result) and a single result list on 429 which agrees with that ruling, the combats are linked at least on some level.

Hurdle overcame.

Whether or not overflow exists is certainly not "put down" but the two lines you have taken out of context.

@Gee -> We do know where the models are - they are in coherency with their units. The second sentence under "Fighting a Challenge" clearly states the characters must remain in coherency, and then the next few lines provide exemptions to standard rules on how to move to ensure they are both in base contact and in coherency of their unit. All of that is relatively irrelevant though, as the wound allocation rules on page 25 simply state that if a model is not in base contact the wounds are allocated (by the "wounded" player) to the next closest model. The characters do not need to be in position to strike other combatants, they only need to strike the character they are in base with - if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

That is another assumption. As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

is NOT the same as

For the duration of the challenge, these two models are always considered to be in base contact only with each other
or
For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

For what its worth, this exact point has been argued MANY times in this thread already. The previous examples were pretty clear, and I am unsure how to explain the grammar any more betterer .

The wheel goes round and round...

What about my paradox?

quiestdeus wrote:
@Gee -> We do know where the models are - they are in coherency with their units. The second sentence under "Fighting a Challenge" clearly states the characters must remain in coherency, and then the next few lines provide exemptions to standard rules on how to move to ensure they are both in base contact and in coherency of their unit.

I knew that would be brought up, and I already stated my answer to that. Simply that it happens before they are defined as being in base contact only w/ each other.

quiestdeus wrote:
All of that is relatively irrelevant though, as the wound allocation rules on page 25 simply state that if a model is not in base contact the wounds are allocated (by the "wounded" player) to the next closest model. The characters do not need to be in position to strike other combatants, they only need to strike the character they are in base with - if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

No matter where the character physically is on the board, they are defined as being in base contact only with each other, that is all we know. Given only this information, how do you know which is the next closest model??

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

That is another assumption. As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

Incorrect. The very first then you are told to do is put them into base to base contact. pg64. under the Fighting a challenge section."If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact "swap" the challenger to as close as possible to the challenge and ASSUME the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight"

There is no way around it . They are in fact in base to base contact , and if the pyhsical models are not you are told to assume they are.

quiestdeus wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

is NOT the same as

For the duration of the challenge, these two models are always considered to be in base contact only with each other
or
For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

No again , you are told to place them into base to base with each other and only each other . That does infact mean they are in base to base with each other. You at no time are given a option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base with the other model or assume you are in base to base with the other model

Captain Antivas wrote:What about my paradox?

You mean this?

Captain Antivas wrote:Which is still relevant. If a Captain and 5 Marines are in a fight with a Nob and 5 Orks and the Captain and Nob are in a challenge the battle goes like this:
Initiative 4: Marines attack and kill 2 Orks. Orks attack back and kill 3 Marines. Captain goes (since he has initiative in the challenge) and kills the Nob with 2 wounds to spare. Now in your interpretation of the rules those wounds then carry to the Orks. But which Orks do they carry to? Since the Captain has initiative 4, and the rules say that he is actually attacking at his initiative just separately, then those two wounds should have been allocated to the Orks BEFORE they attacked. So, the 3 Marines who died may not have died. Which Marine gets brought back to life? There is no way to tell. So the Ork player gets 3 wounds he may not have normally been able to get? Justify that. The bottom line is that overflow makes no sense since if the Captain is I4 and is able to overflow his wounds you cannot fight with him at the end of the combat because his wounds could change the course of the other initiative steps!

There are 2 easy responses to this.

1) You believe the rules on page 429 are correct. Thus the challenge is resolved after the unit and the Captain has an I4 sub-phase after the unit's.
"Once all the models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges". There is no bringing anything back to life, the combat outside the challenge is explicitly resolved, and from the orks that are left, 2 now die. Ugly, but easy. In this example 3 Marines die, as well as 4 Orks and a Nob.

2) You believe the rules on 429 are a result of trying to simplify a complicated order of events, and believe the "Forging a Narrative" box in the upper right of 65 states that the models are fighting in initiative order both inside the challenge and outside it simultaneously. Thus as you resolve your combat, the marines kill orks, the Captain kills the Nob and more orks, and then whatever orks are left finally swing back after the marines and Captain (and everything else at I4) are done. Easy, just more time-consuming. In this example 4 Orks and the Nob die, and I do not know how many marines die because your example was following option 1.

Whether 1 or 2 is correct is NOT the debate here, wound overflow works in both cases. In 1 you resolve the unit, then resolve the challengers. In 2 you resolve everything at initiative order. At best you could use the example to make a case the rules on 429 are incorrect, and the "Forging the Narrative" on 65 is more clear.

The example does not refute wound overflow, however.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

That is another assumption. As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

Incorrect. The very first then you are told to do is put them into base to base contact. pg64. under the Fighting a challenge section."If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact "swap" the challenger to as close as possible to the challenge and ASSUME the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight"

There is no way around it . They are in fact in base to base contact , and if the pyhsical models are not you are told to assume they are.

quiestdeus wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

is NOT the same as

For the duration of the challenge, these two models are always considered to be in base contact only with each other
or
For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

No again , you are told to place them into base to base with each other and only each other . That does infact mean they are in base to base with each other. You at no time are given a option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base with the other model or assume you are in base to base with the other model

Kam, in all of that, please highlight what part of the rule (please explicitly include the entire sentence) the place where it you believe it means they are always in base contact.

I am not arguing that they begin in base contact, I am arguing that once one combatant is slain they are still in base combat. Nothing you have said here refutes that.

I agree you place them in base to base, I agree that means they are in base to base, I disagree that they are always in base combat for the duration of the challenge if one of them is killed.

You are certainly given an option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact. The only restriction you have is you can not be in base to base with any other model.

Gee -> I am not sure why you are asserting that being only in base with each other means they have no relative position. The rules clearly state you move the character to be in that base to base state, thus it has an end location, like all other models. If you are going to swap models to get that base to base state than the model you swapped with had to have an initial location, thus providing you with all the information you need to decide what is closest to that model. Just because the models are in a challenge does not mean they are in a limbo off the board - where they are physically in relation to their squad and the other enemy models is where they are physically in relation to their squad and the other enemy models.

Edit - taking a break here gents, it is time for bed. I'll happily continue this dance tomorrow evening

quiestdeus wrote:Kam, in all of that, please highlight what part of the rule (please explicitly include the entire sentence) the place where it you believe it means they are always in base contact.

For the duration of this challenge these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

quiestdeus wrote:
You are certainly given an option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact. The only restriction you have is you can not be in base to base with any other model.

Please provide quote and rule page of being in a challenge and not being in base to base contact or assumed to be so.

Guys, I understand that there is nowhere in the book saying that the excess wounds dont overflow to the rest of the squad if the character is killed, but neither it says that they do. I dont think a legit solution can be found here by the RAW. I think the idea behind the challenges is that the characters only fight each other. If we allow the wounds to go to the rest of models after a combatant is killed, the challenges will brake. Consider an idea of single space marine character with a power fist, being in combat with a mob of nobs, and the ork player has accepted the challenge, the marine passed all its saves created from the the ork character, and it is now time to swing his powerfist which kills the challengee, and insa-kills two more nobs that have been standing there, not taking part in the fight. That would be very unfair and could brake the game. I dont think that is how challenges are meant to work.

pitfighter wrote:Guys, I understand that there is nowhere in the book saying that the excess wounds dont overflow to the rest of the squad if the character is killed, but neither it says that they do.

A basic understanding of how the rules are written is required to discuss said rules.

"The rules doesn't say that it doesn't happen" is simply not a valid counter-point to "The rules doesn't say that it happens".

Those two cannot be presented as cancelling each other out, or be presented as holding equal weight in an opposed situation.

Do People even read my posts....

Page 64. Combatant Slain and Outside Forces

After reading both you should understand that the challenge and the other squad members are separate. They can't effect wounds in or out of those combats. The only thing that a squad can do is cheer on their character.

To make this very clear. "Only the Challenger and Challengee can strike blows against each other." So no blows (wounds) can be sent out of the challenge.

That's it. End of Argument.

Again, if you'd read the initial pages that argument has been brought up and dismissed. You arent parsing that sentence with any accuracy

That sentence only states that the challenger and challengee can hit it eachother. It does NOT say that they cannot hit other models.

MJThurston wrote:Do People even read my posts....

Page 64. Combatant Slain and Outside Forces

After reading both you should understand that the challenge and the other squad members are separate. They can't effect wounds in or out of those combats. The only thing that a squad can do is cheer on their character.

To make this very clear. "Only the Challenger and Challengee can strike blows against each other." So know blows (wounds) can be sent out of the challenge.

That's it. End of Argument.

Do you even read others? That one was countered on page 1.
I'm on your side. I think it would be stupid if wounds flow over.

But the fact of the matter is that this is an incredibly vague rule that, AGAIN, GW have completely failed to specify. They're leaving it open to interpretation. That wouldn't be too bad if they cared enough to FAQ this stuff in a reasonable amount of time, but they don't.

I'm gonna roll this one off every time someone disagrees with me until GW gives enough of a sh*t to FAQ it.

It's not vague.

1. Only blows in challenges strike challengers/challengee's. Blows = wounds.

2. Squad fights and challenge fights are separate and last until the end of the assault phase.

3. The only thing that effects challenges is if you have a squad that is not fighting in the challenge and they can cheer on their character.

I do not see anything in these rules that suggest any type of wound overflow. And in the BRB there is no such animal.

So why does it take 14 pages over something that is in black and white? We can't have our cake and eat it to?

Your points 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with wound overflow, as they neither comment on it nor deny it. Hence pointing out that your argument was dismissed page 1, as the contention has moved to other areas.

You have general permission from the wound allocation rules to allocate out from the challenge. This is why it is important that you are only in btb with the counterparty to the challenge, and that you remain so during the whole phase. This, and this alone, prevents wounds from flowing out.

OK I will step into this lions den with a further alternative. I take the following points a) to c) to be established

a) Only a champion can allocate wounds to another champion

b) champions are in base to base contact for the entire round of assult

c) normal wound allocation rules otherwise apply.

My conclusion from these 3 points is that wounds can overflow from the champion combat, but only to models that are also in base to base contact with the relevant combatant.

Under normal wound allocation rules you can allocate to any model in base to base contact, but not any more distant models while there is a model in base to base. Since the combatants are stated as being in base to base until the end of the round, that means that no wounds may be allocated to models not in base to base, but as far as I can see there is nothing preventing other models in base to base being hit.

In practice most of the time this won't make much difference to the no overflow case, you may be able to clip one additional model at best, and if this interpretation is correct, then that one will likely be the first casualy in the main battle.

MJThurston wrote:So why does it take 14 pages over something that is in black and white? We can't have our cake and eat it to?

Because it's open to interpretation. It's vague. You saying it isn't doesn't make it clear.
I've read the whole thing and your points have been discredited so many times I really don't see the point of even starting to argue with you.

It's not open. It's only open because people are substituting their own ideas.

No such rule as wound over flow. Never once seen it in the BRB. So it does not exist.

Blows are = to wounds. So Blows (wounds) can only be given to a challenger/challengee

And, again, no. Read pages 1 and 2, where your point is thoroughly debunked.

Youre in the right camp, but without any actual rules backing.

MJThurston wrote:It's not open. It's only open because people are substituting their own ideas.

No such rule as wound over flow. Never once seen it in the BRB. So it does not exist.

Blows are = to wounds. So Blows (wounds) can only be given to a challenger/challengee

The rules say they can only hit eachother. It does NOT state that THEY cannot hit OTHERS. It ONLY states that OTHERS CAN'T HIT THEM.
The rules for normal close combat state that wounds transfer to the next character.

If you choose to read this as the rule to be used, which there is nothing to stop you from, then this means your point of view is wrong.

I repeat, YOU SAYING THAT IT IS CLEAR DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEAR.

Now go back and read the 14 pages, because what I just told you has been said a million times. And that's impressive on only 14 pages!

Let's review:

Phase - The Assault Phase is comprised of two sub-phases, Charge Sub-Phase and Fight Sub-Phase. Close combat and wound allocation occur in the Fight Sub-Phase, which is part of the over-arching Assault Phase.

"Fighting a Challenge", Page 64
If accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. ... If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves results in the two models being in base contact, 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight... Wounds allocated to a character in a challenge cannot be reallocated by the Look Out, Sir rule. For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

"Combatant Slain"
When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

"Outside Forces"
... -Simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there.

We establish that the challenger and challengee are in base contact with ONLY each other. We establish that it specifies they are in base contact with each other until the end of the phase, regardless of what initiative step it is. We establish that it specifies phase, not subphase, and as such, they are in the challenge until the end of the Assault Phase.

It also states in the Forging a Narrative that it's acceptable to resolve a challenge outside the normal initiative order. This strikes a blow against overflow on the basis that if overflow were part of the game, it would have to resolve as per initiative order - you would be able to allocate those wounds to the models around you, not just to whatever is left over after the fight taking place around the duel. It also states to resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though the duelists were not there. This should make clear that they are considered separate battles for the sake of the rules.

There is no overflow. There is nothing to support it, and much to support the argument against it. Saying "It's too vague" is not a valid argument.

TheHarleqwin wrote:Let's review:

Phase - The Assault Phase is comprised of two sub-phases, Charge Sub-Phase and Fight Sub-Phase. Close combat and wound allocation occur in the Fight Sub-Phase, which is part of the over-arching Assault Phase.

"Fighting a Challenge", Page 64
If accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. ... If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves results in the two models being in base contact, 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight... Wounds allocated to a character in a challenge cannot be reallocated by the Look Out, Sir rule. For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

"Combatant Slain"
When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

"Outside Forces"
... -Simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there.

We establish that the challenger and challengee are in base contact with ONLY each other. We establish that it specifies they are in base contact with each other until the end of the phase, regardless of what initiative step it is. We establish that it specifies phase, not subphase, and as such, they are in the challenge until the end of the Assault Phase.

It also states in the Forging a Narrative that it's acceptable to resolve a challenge outside the normal initiative order. This strikes a blow against overflow on the basis that if overflow were part of the game, it would have to resolve as per initiative order - you would be able to allocate those wounds to the models around you, not just to whatever is left over after the fight taking place around the duel. It also states to resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though the duelists were not there. This should make clear that they are considered separate battles for the sake of the rules.

There is no overflow. There is nothing to support it, and much to support the argument against it.

But irritatingly nothing to set it in stone. Only to support the claim. Or to draw logical conclusions. Which, to be honest, is not how a GW game works.

I see you edited in

Saying "It's too vague" is not a valid argument.

I'm not saying it's an argument for either side. It's my argument to roll it off when I face this situation because arguing a point that is not able to be firmly solved is not my idea of a fun game.
It being too vague is a perfectly good argument for saying it's too vague.

I don't think this is vague at all. It posits very clearly when you read through in its entirety. They are removed from the standard combat and placed with each other, it outlines restrictions in that they're in base contact only with each other, and that they remain in contact with each other whether or not either of them if alive, until the end of the assault phase. It states resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though they aren't there.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:Just like the mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty.
But the mug that can only be filled with beer may never be empty.

A mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty, because the requirement is just that "if the mug is filled, it must be with beer"
A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone. Just that "if the model is in base, it must be with the model required"

Even if it is empty it is considered to be filled with beer.

So we may not pour any other liquids in the mug, because it is considered to be filled with beer, even if all of the beer has been drunk.

I'm not sure why you're contorting grammar this way.
If the mug is empty, it is empty.
Reading is hard, I know.

"A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone" (This is incorrect)

Acutally it is. And that's the point about where the modifier "only" appears in the sentence.
"A model that can be in base only with one other model"
is different from
"A model that can only be in base with one other model"

The first one allows you to be in base with nobody.
The second does not.

In the rules, the modifier is placed as with the first example.

It should read "A model that is considered to be in base only with one other model must be in base to base with that other model."

And if that's what it read, you would be correct. That's not what it reads. Again, I know, reading is hard.

How do you not understand that?

If your posts were half as snarky and twice as thoughtful this thread might not have raged in to the troll fest it is.
Great example of how rule questions get decided by the neckbeard with the loudest voice and lowest threshold for rudeness.

Maybe "wound overflow" was not intended, maybe it was. I don't know, or care.

There's no RAW justification for allocating wounds to a model that's already been removed as a casualty. Many on this thread are insisting their reading of the rules says even after the model is dead it's still considered to be in base.

That's not how the rules are written.

You start the challenge in base with only one model. You allocate wounds to it until its dead. Then you use the normal wound allocation rules (which are nowhere contravened in the challenge rules) and continue to allocate to the squad.

First thing is this. The rule says blows.

Blows are wounds that have hit.

So you can only attack the challenger/challengee and only wounds can be given to them.

TheHarleqwin wrote:I don't think this is vague at all. It posits very clearly when you read through in its entirety. They are removed from the standard combat and placed with each other, it outlines restrictions in that they're in base contact only with each other, and that they remain in contact with each other whether or not either of them if alive, until the end of the assault phase. It states resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though they aren't there.

There are about as many on the other side of the fence saying it's crystal clear in their favour. How detached do you have to be from reality to not see that that means it's vague?
Remember, I'm on your side here for the rule, but you have to learn to look at things objectively.
This whole thread is proof that it is vague.

To use the counters that have already been in this thread against your point, the characters still have to stay in unit coherency. Meaning they are still right there.

Purifier wrote:
There are about as many on the other side of the fence saying it's crystal clear in their favour. How detached do you have to be from reality to not see that that means it's vague?
Remember, I'm on your side here for the rule, but you have to learn to look at things objectively.
This whole thread is proof that it is vague.

To use the counters that have already been in this thread against your point, the characters still have to stay in unit coherency. Meaning they are still right there.

Perhaps it would help if people would stop getting riled up and cut jabs at people like asking " How detached do you have to be from reality to not see that that means it's vague?"
Half the posts in this thread are thinly veiled insults if they aren't outright hostile.

I offer rules that support the argument that makes the most logical sense. I play Orks, I think it would be great to have Ghaz rip through an entire unit after inflicting ID on special character with his PK. Unfortunately, the way the rules are written, if followed to logical conclusion with all that support, shows that it isn't going to happen. You bring up that "There are about as many on the other side of the fence saying it's crystal clear in their favour". No, there aren't. Before I got fed up with the back and forth and offered my structured view, wording taken directly from the book, most of the arguments in favour for overflow had been debunked or were directly contradicted by rules present in the book.

This is not a "roll-off" for it situation. This is not WHFB. There is no rules layout explaining how to allocate for overflow, and there are many points that point out that it doesn't occur that way.

Quick edit - Coherency doesn't hold against my argument in any way. It's irrelevant, except that they're part of the squad. That has no bearing whatsoever on anything I stated.

I've made my statements and backed them with the BRB, and I'm going to leave it at that.

TheHarleqwin wrote:I've made my statements and backed them with the BRB, and I'm going to leave it at that.

So has the other side. And they are of the opinion that they have effectively debunked all your points.
I'm a GK. My Grand Master is a God damn meat grinder. I, like you, are still on the side that says wounds do not overflow.

But that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm saying that it's not clear, and the complete inability that both sides of the coin in this thread have to see anything but their own viewpoint is bordering on the religious.
It is vague. The only thing you and the other side can agree on is that it is not vague. It's perfectly clear to both of you.

Purifier wrote:
I'm a GK. My Grand Master is a God damn meat grinder. I, like you, are still on the side that says wounds do not overflow.

This made me laugh (in a good way! ) I play Sisters and my characters are the meat that you would like to grind, and I believe wounds do overflow. Isn't English a swell language?

Purifier wrote:But that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm saying that it's not clear, and the complete inability that both sides of the coin in this thread have to see anything but their own viewpoint is bordering on the religious.
It is vague. The only thing you and the other side can agree on is that it is not vague. It's perfectly clear to both of you.

This is spot on.

As fun as it is to argue in circles incessantly, the only real point to it (currently) is to make sure no one comes to this thread believing their question is going to be resolved with any authority.

quiestdeus wrote:Sisters and my characters are the meat that you would like to grind

Awwwww yeeeeeah. Ifyouknowwhatimean.

kambien wrote:For the duration of this challenge these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

For the duration of this challenge these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

I fear we're going to need to agree to disagree on this amigo, as (to me it seems) you are ignoring the entirety of how this sentence is written and focusing on what you want to interpret from it. I will give it one last go though.

This sentence has a clear who, a clear what is happening to them, and a clear duration.

The who and the duration I think we have no argument on:
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge

Agreed?

What the disagreement focuses on is the meaning of the what:
are considered to be in base contact only with each other

That does not read:
are always considered to be in base contact with each other
NOR
are considered to be in base contact.

Meaning aside, you agree that both of those phrases are NOT what is written in ink in the rulebook? The word always is not used, nor does the period appear after "contact".

I cannot see a way for you to disagree with anything up to this point, so I am going to continue based on the assumption you do agree. If you do not... see above: agree to disagree.

The only thing are considered to be in base contact only with each other means is that no other model is in base contact with either challenger. There is no qualifier in that sentence that states they are always in base contact with each other, if there was, the word always would appear. It does not. Because the sentence ends with only with each other means that they are only in contact with each other, not that they are ALWAYS in contact with each other.
So ->
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge
What: are considered to be in base contact only with each other

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
That is all that is written, anything else is assumption, and is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifier wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:Sisters and my characters are the meat that you would like to grind

Awwwww yeeeeeah. Ifyouknowwhatimean.

Ha, I made that too easy, eh?

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Ok, so the above statement from the book states that only the two models are in base to base. I agree that they can only strike blows on each other. I think the 4 million dollar question is:

When is the challenge considered over?

Is the challenge considered finished immediately after the model dies? Meaning that the extra wounds spill over.
or
Is the challenge considered over at the end of the assault phase that one of the models dies? Meaning that wounds cannot spill over.

I tend to believe it is the second of these two options but I can definitely see how some would think it is the first.

UrgThraka wrote:

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Ok, so the above statement from the book states that only the two models are in base to base. I agree that they can only strike blows on each other. I think the 4 million dollar question is:

When is the challenge considered over?

Is the challenge considered finished immediately after the model dies? Meaning that the extra wounds spill over.
or
Is the challenge considered over at the end of the assault phase that one of the models dies? Meaning that wounds cannot spill over.

I tend to believe it is the second of these two options but I can definitely see how some would think it is the first.

When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.
Some say you're still in base with the dead model. I don't think this is what the rule says. (See prior discussion about grammar and misplaced modifiers).
When one model dies, wound allocation proceeds as normal. Yes the challenge is still ongoing until the end of the phase, so other models can't attack the surviving model. They proceed as if the models in the challenge weren't there.

I think its telling that while models outside the challenge are told to allocate in a way different from normal wound allocation, there's no such rule for models in the challenge.
The entire "no wound overflow" argument hinges on misreading the "only in base" sentence to imply a divergence from normal wound allocation.

jcress410 wrote:

UrgThraka wrote:

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Ok, so the above statement from the book states that only the two models are in base to base. I agree that they can only strike blows on each other. I think the 4 million dollar question is:

When is the challenge considered over?

Is the challenge considered finished immediately after the model dies? Meaning that the extra wounds spill over.
or
Is the challenge considered over at the end of the assault phase that one of the models dies? Meaning that wounds cannot spill over.

I tend to believe it is the second of these two options but I can definitely see how some would think it is the first.

When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.
Some say you're still in base with the dead model. I don't think this is what the rule says. (See prior discussion about grammar and misplaced modifiers).
When one model dies, wound allocation proceeds as normal. Yes the challenge is still ongoing until the end of the phase, so other models can't attack the surviving model. They proceed as if the models in the challenge weren't there.

I think its telling that while models outside the challenge are told to allocate in a way different from normal wound allocation, there's no such rule for models in the challenge.
The current "no wound overflow" argument hinges on misreading the "only in base" sentence to imply a divergence from normal wound allocation.

My emphasis at the end there, but otherwise a spot on summary of the current wound overflow position.

quiestdeus wrote:Lobukla... you're taking part of a sentence and twisting its context.

The entire sentence is:
"Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there".

The paragraph then goes on to further clarify its point with the Demon Prince example.

All that line states (and clearly states at that) is that outside forces cannot hurt units in a challenge. In no way, shape, or form, does it limit challenge participants from hurting those outside forces.

If wound allocation is resolved like the characters are not there then how do the characters allocate wounds to the Outside Forces? Sure the first part of the sentence makes it clear that the other attackers cannot hurt the challengers but the second implies that neither can hurt each other. Either the characters are always not there or they are never not there. You cannot have the characters porting in and out of combat like two crazy people with malfunctioning teleport units.

You are making an assumption that because A implies B, B also implies A, which is false.

The problem here is that a does not imply b, a=b. All wounds allocated to attackers not involved with the challenge are allocated as if the characters were not there. Therefore, all wounds caused by a challenger are also allocated as if the characters were not there.

As for the second hurdle, why does that matter at all? It shows no such thing, you're interpreting the rules in the way you so desire. The rule on page 429 simply say to resolve challenges after a unit has fought. That does not limit wounds from being allocated to the unit - at all. On page 429 the NEXT step is determine the Assault Results! Add up the wounds caused by *each side* etc. - that rejects your notion that the challenge is a seperate thing. If it was, there would be a Assault Result section BEFORE challenges were resolved, and the challenge would have its own Assault Result step. Context matters. There is a single Assault Result step for units and challenges, the wounds the characters cause affect the larger combat as well. I am not sure what other points this reference could be making.

There is a section in Challenges about how the results of the challenge affect the combat as a whole. So your assertion that if wound overflow was not allowed then the challenge would have its own Assault Result step is true, but GW probably assumed people would know that so they didn't spell it out for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcress410 wrote:I think its telling that while models outside the challenge are told to allocate in a way different from normal wound allocation, there's no such rule for models in the challenge.
The entire "no wound overflow" argument hinges on misreading the "only in base" sentence to imply a divergence from normal wound allocation.

Except wounds don't have to be allocated to models in BTB with the attacker if there is someone else attacking at that initiative step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

quiestdeus wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:What about my paradox?

You mean this?

Captain Antivas wrote:Which is still relevant. If a Captain and 5 Marines are in a fight with a Nob and 5 Orks and the Captain and Nob are in a challenge the battle goes like this:
Initiative 4: Marines attack and kill 2 Orks. Orks attack back and kill 3 Marines. Captain goes (since he has initiative in the challenge) and kills the Nob with 2 wounds to spare. Now in your interpretation of the rules those wounds then carry to the Orks. But which Orks do they carry to? Since the Captain has initiative 4, and the rules say that he is actually attacking at his initiative just separately, then those two wounds should have been allocated to the Orks BEFORE they attacked. So, the 3 Marines who died may not have died. Which Marine gets brought back to life? There is no way to tell. So the Ork player gets 3 wounds he may not have normally been able to get? Justify that. The bottom line is that overflow makes no sense since if the Captain is I4 and is able to overflow his wounds you cannot fight with him at the end of the combat because his wounds could change the course of the other initiative steps!

There are 2 easy responses to this.

1) You believe the rules on page 429 are correct. Thus the challenge is resolved after the unit and the Captain has an I4 sub-phase after the unit's.
"Once all the models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges". There is no bringing anything back to life, the combat outside the challenge is explicitly resolved, and from the orks that are left, 2 now die. Ugly, but easy. In this example 3 Marines die, as well as 4 Orks and a Nob.

2) You believe the rules on 429 are a result of trying to simplify a complicated order of events, and believe the "Forging a Narrative" box in the upper right of 65 states that the models are fighting in initiative order both inside the challenge and outside it simultaneously. Thus as you resolve your combat, the marines kill orks, the Captain kills the Nob and more orks, and then whatever orks are left finally swing back after the marines and Captain (and everything else at I4) are done. Easy, just more time-consuming. In this example 4 Orks and the Nob die, and I do not know how many marines die because your example was following option 1.

Whether 1 or 2 is correct is NOT the debate here, wound overflow works in both cases. In 1 you resolve the unit, then resolve the challengers. In 2 you resolve everything at initiative order. At best you could use the example to make a case the rules on 429 are incorrect, and the "Forging the Narrative" on 65 is more clear.

The example does not refute wound overflow, however.

The problem with this assertion is that you don't get to pick and choose which section from which part of the rulebook you get to use. You can't just say that 1+2+3 does not equal 6 because 1 is in a different section so the answer is 5. But 2 applies only to something else so the answer is 4.

Antivas, that entire section seems to clearly be dealing only with the models outside the challenge. Seems irrelevant. It doesn't imply or even suggest you should resolve wounds from the challenge like the challengers weren't there.

Except wounds don't have to be allocated to models in BTB with the attacker if there is someone else attacking at that initiative step.

Why? The assault rules say allocate closest to furthest, starting with the models in base.

Captain Antivas wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:Lobukla... you're taking part of a sentence and twisting its context.

The entire sentence is:
"Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there".

The paragraph then goes on to further clarify its point with the Demon Prince example.

All that line states (and clearly states at that) is that outside forces cannot hurt units in a challenge. In no way, shape, or form, does it limit challenge participants from hurting those outside forces.

If wound allocation is resolved like the characters are not there then how do the characters allocate wounds to the Outside Forces? Sure the first part of the sentence makes it clear that the other attackers cannot hurt the challengers but the second implies that neither can hurt each other. Either the characters are always not there or they are never not there. You cannot have the characters porting in and out of combat like two crazy people with malfunctioning teleport units.

Antivas... you're taking part of a sentence and twisting its context

Would allocation FROM OUTSIDE FORCES is resolved as if the characters are not there. The entire "the second implies" part is just that, implication based on application of one rule where it does not apply.

Wound allocation FROM OUTSIDE FORCES resolving as if the characters are not there does not mean that wound allocation from characters is resolved as if the outside forces are not there. If that were true, it would be explicitly indicated... as the rules do for the other case.

A is NOT equal to B. We have rules for wound allocation. Those are the baseline. "A" provides exemption for part of those rules. Just because "A" is exempt via specific permissive rules, does NOT mean "B" is exempt. "B" would need its own explicit permission to be different. That permission does not exist, thus "B" follows the baseline ruleset.

With respect to my answers to your paradox... I provide two very valid replies. The fact that both legitimize wound overflow is not a "problem" with the assertions - in fact, it strengthens them because it shows viability under the already ambiguous multiple sets of circumstances the rulebook has allowed for. As I noted, debate on whether we should follow what is on page 64 or what is on page 429 does not belong here because it is irrelevant. What does matter is the fact that under EITHER set of circumstances wound overflow is possible, which again, makes the issue not nearly as clear cut as you have previously claimed.

jcress410 wrote:Antivas, that entire section seems to clearly be dealing only with the models outside the challenge. Seems irrelevant. It doesn't imply or even suggest you should resolve wounds from the challenge like the challengers weren't there.

Except that the section is included in the Character's section, specifically Challenges. It being in the Character's section is clearly irrelevant...but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right. Lets follow the logical flow:
Outside forces cannot hurt models in a challenge. (A)
The wound allocation step is resolved as if the characters are not there. (B)
All wounds caused by Outside Forces cannot be allocated to the challengers. (C)
Characters cause wounds at their normal Initiative step regardless of the challenge. (D)
Therefore, all wounds allocated to Outside Forces are allocated as if the challengers are not there. (E)

A+B=C

D+B=E

Except wounds don't have to be allocated to models in BTB with the attacker if there is someone else attacking at that initiative step.

Why? The assault rules say allocate closest to furthest, starting with the models in base.

jcress410 wrote:When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.

The same thing that happens when both are alive.

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

If one dies the challenge lasts til the end of the phase.

So: Until the end of the Assault Phase, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.

The same thing that happens when both are alive.

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

If one dies the challenge lasts til the end of the phase.

So: Until the end of the Assault Phase, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Exactly, they are considered to be in base contact only with each other. You say so yourself. That does not mean they are considered to be in base contact, just that they can not be in base contact with anyone else.

You do not need to agree, but do you see what we are arguing?

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.

The same thing that happens when both are alive.

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

If one dies the challenge lasts til the end of the phase.

So: Until the end of the Assault Phase, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

I'm tapping out on this.
Re-posting the same argument you've been making for 15 pages, declaring victory and then brow-beating anyone who disagrees without considering the content or nuance of their posts is flagrant trolling.

Anyone who wants to read the thread might pick up on the difference between

"only considered to be in base contact.."
and "considered to be in base contact only with.."

Yeah, grammar is tricky. Misplaced modifiers often cause confusion.

In this case, RAW requires us to continue allocating wounds as per the wound allocation rules after the other party to the challenge has died. Might not be what many of us think of when we consider the idea of a challenge, but it's what came with the new BRB.

It doesn't bother me when people disagree.

A couple places in this thread a lot of people steamroll over the conversation to declare consensus, or malign anyone with a contrary opinion.

So, you can win at internet.

I really don't care whether we allow wound overflow from challenges, I just hope INAT or GW deals with this and many other issues soon.

jcress410 wrote:
I really don't care whether we allow wound overflow from challenges, I just hope INAT or GW deals with this and many other issues soon.

There is another FAQ slated for August last I heard, we'll find out either way soon enough

I think the major disconnect here that people are missing is this:

It says they're in base to base.
They remain in base to base as per the rulebook specifically stating so when one of the characters dies.
The challenge lasts until the end of the assault phase.
At the end of the assault phase, anything that took place in that assault phase is over. Being locked in combat requires seeing whether combat continued from the previous turn, which means there has to be an enemy still alive and fighting.

The way the rules word it, it is a separate conflict within the conflict. As such, coming into the next turn's assault phase, you would see that there is no opponent character surviving from the previous. Your challenger is in coherency with the rest of their unit, and thus become part of that conflict once again.

Again, IMHO I thought this was obvious. I'm used to playing games where it specifically outlines that a condition occurring requires a check to see that prerequisites are met; ie., Does an assault/challenge continue? Yes> There are enemies still in base contact that meet the requirements for it to constitute an assault/challenge, or No> There are no enemies in base to base, thus your unit either takes normal action or the character "rejoins" his unit at the beginning of the turn and acts with them.

My only concession towards it not being clear is that it doesn't explicitly state yea or nay. It still stands that there is far more support from the rulebook for "no overflow VS "pro-overflow"

quiestdeus wrote:There is another FAQ slated for August last I heard, we'll find out either way soon enough

We can only hope it doesn't get pushed back or anything.

TheHarleqwin wrote:I think the major disconnect here that people are missing is this:

1) It says they're in base to base.
2) They remain in base to base as per the rulebook specifically stating so when one of the characters dies.
3) The challenge lasts until the end of the assault phase.
4) At the end of the assault phase, anything that took place in that assault phase is over. Being locked in combat requires seeing whether combat continued from the previous turn, which means there has to be an enemy still alive and fighting.

Absolute agree on where the disconnect is - specifically it lies with #2.

While I cannot speak for others, numbers 1, 3, and 4 I absolutely agree with. I just think the wording (hashed out over and over the past few pages) on considering the models in base to base is exclusive (restrictive, permissive, choose your adjective) and not absolute. Because of that, when one challenger dies the other does not need to be in base to base, and wounds can be allocated outside of the challenge. I wholeheartedly agree if the models are considered to "always" be in base contact wound overflow cannot occur (again, for all the reasons hashed out previously) - but based on how the sentence reads (to me, and others), that is not the current case.

From all the arguments, boiling it all down, it really is the grammar issue that is causing the rift. A man much less argumentative than I recently said: "After a few years on the [boards], one thing has become very, very clear to me. 40K rules do NOT stand-up to word-by-word analysis on any level: legal-style interpretations, precedents, grammar analysis, and at times logic seems to be given complete amiss."

My god, it says they "are considered to be in base contact only with each other". Shame on everyone supporting overflow who isn't ESL. Deathreaper you have the patience of a saint.

>are considered to be in base contact only with each other
>are considered
>are

There is nothing optional about the word "are".

They ARE in base contact (only with each other)
and they ARE in base contact for the duration of the challenge (which is the duration of the phase at least).

There is no choice, no option to not be in base contact, no glasses with one liquid or nothing, all of your analogies are worthless. There is not a shred of room or give in this statement for interpretation.

"Wound overflow" from challenges died 8 pages ago, but somehow I am still in contact with this ridiculous discussion. I thought you guys said dead things can't affect the game, this debate is sure trying its best.

Eldarguy88 wrote:My god, it says they "are considered to be in base contact only with each other". Shame on everyone supporting overflow who isn't ESL. Deathreaper you have the patience of a saint.

>are considered to be in base contact only with each other
>are considered
>are

There is nothing optional about the word "are".

They ARE in base contact (only with each other)
and they ARE in base contact for the duration of the challenge (which is the duration of the phase at least).

There is no choice, no option to not be in base contact, no glasses with one liquid or nothing, all of your analogies are worthless. There is not a shred of room or give in this statement for interpretation.

"Wound overflow" from challenges died 8 pages ago, but somehow I am still in contact with this ridiculous discussion. I thought you guys said dead things can't affect the game, this debate is sure trying its best.

Models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Eldarguy88 and Deathreaper are considered to be wrong only about wound spillover.

By your breakdown of the sentence you two are always wrong? You are parsing the sentence incorrectly.

Eldarguy88 and Deathreaper are considered to be wrong only about wound spillover.
>are considered to be wrong
>are wrong

That is *EXACTLY* what you just did. However, how can you possibly read "Eldarguy88 and Deathreaper are considered to be wrong only about wound spillover." and interpret that sentence to mean you are wrong about everything.

Models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
The models are only considered to be in base contact with no one else, not that they are always in base contact.

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote:For the duration of this challenge these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

For the duration of this challenge these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

I fear we're going to need to agree to disagree on this amigo, as (to me it seems) you are ignoring the entirety of how this sentence is written and focusing on what you want to interpret from it. I will give it one last go though.

This sentence has a clear who, a clear what is happening to them, and a clear duration.

The who and the duration I think we have no argument on:
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge

Agreed?

Agreed

quiestdeus wrote:What the disagreement focuses on is the meaning of the what:
are considered to be in base contact only with each other

That does not read:
are always considered to be in base contact with each other
NOR
are considered to be in base contact.

Meaning aside, you agree that both of those phrases are NOT what is written in ink in the rulebook? The word always is not used, nor does the period appear after "contact".

As pointed out in a few posts before this one you are forgetting the word Are and applying it.

quiestdeus wrote:I There is no qualifier in that sentence that states they are always in base contact with each other, if there was, the word always would appear. It does not. Because the sentence ends with only with each other means that they are only in contact with each other, not that they are ALWAYS in contact with each other.

Sure there is. You combine the duration ( duration of the challenge ) and are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other. You don't need to focus on only. That just excludes everyone else . The word are is your problem.

quiestdeus wrote:So ->
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge
What: are considered to be in base contact only with each other

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
That is all that is written, anything else is assumption, and is incorrect.

Correct
so by combine the who when and what you get 2 models , for the duration of the challenge, are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
as pointed out in previous posts they are indeed in base to base

kambien wrote: You don't need to focus on only. That just excludes everyone else . The word are is your problem.
...
are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

But what ARE the models? You say so yourself right there, they are (considered to be in base contact only with each other).

That is one complete piece. They are not (considered to be in base contact) and (only with each other). You cannot chop the sentence up like that - it does not make sense.

Models are considered to be in base contact.
Models are considered to be only with each other.

That does not work.

Considered to be in base contact only with each other is one entire piece and needs to be read as such.

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote: You don't need to focus on only. That just excludes everyone else . The word are is your problem.

...
are considered to be in base contact only with each other.


But what ARE the models?

The challenger and the challengee

quiestdeus wrote:You say so yourself right there, they are (considered to be in base contact only with each other).

No i said they are considered to be in base contact only with each other

quiestdeus wrote:That is one complete piece. They are not (considered to be in base contact) and (only with each other). You cannot chop the sentence up like that - it does not make sense.

Again they are ( considered to be in base contact ) not they are not (considered to be in base contact)
and the complete peice is
For the duraction of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

quiestdeus wrote:Models are considered to be in base contact.
Models are considered to be only with each other.

That does not work.
Considered to be in base contact only with each other is one entire piece and needs to be read as such.

again Are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Misplaced modifiers are confusing.

It's really easy to read the sentence incorrectly. That's why so many people are.

The fact that the syntactically correct reading of the rules diverges so wildly from the way a lot of people are reading it is frustrating.

At this point, trying to explain why the RAW and RAI are diverging is pointless.

A faq will resolve the issue. I would bet the faq will rule against overflow, so that's probably the way I'll play it.

jcress410 wrote:Misplaced modifiers are confusing.

It's really easy to read the sentence incorrectly. That's why so many people are.

The fact that the syntactically correct reading of the rules diverges so wildly from the way a lot of people are reading it is frustrating.

At this point, trying to explain why the RAW and RAI are diverging is pointless.

A faq will resolve the issue. I would bet the faq will rule against overflow, so that's probably the way I'll play it.

If you read this thread and still think RAW is no overflow, fine. Just do yourself a favor, take your BRB to whatever poorly funded high school you attend and demand your english teacher explain what a misplaced modifier is and how the sentence should be read. Ask him/her to diagram the sentence for you, or do it yourself for homework.

Then wait for the faq.

Then while I do that you go to your local university and take a class on logic then formulate an argument that doesn't ignore inconvenient truths to make your point.

And for the record I know what a misplaced modifier is. The modifier is irrelevant in the context of all the rules put together and not just one section at a time.

The good news is that I don't have to play with you. My gaming group already agrees that overflow is not possible so I will play it that way and be happy.

quiestdeus wrote:

Gee -> I am not sure why you are asserting that being only in base with each other means they have no relative position.

I would love to explain to you why I assert this.

quiestdeus wrote:
The rules clearly state you move the character to be in that base to base state, thus it has an end location, like all other models. If you are going to swap models to get that base to base state than the model you swapped with had to have an initial location, thus providing you with all the information you need to decide what is closest to that model.

This happens before their location is defined. They are moved, then we define their position.

quiestdeus wrote:
Just because the models are in a challenge does not mean they are in a limbo off the board - where they are physically in relation to their squad and the other enemy models is where they are physically in relation to their squad and the other enemy models.

Look, in the rulebook we are asked to assume that the two characters are only in base contact with each other, no matter what their physical position is on the board. They could be physically based with a million other models and 4 feet from each other, but that has no bearing on the position we are supposed to assume they are in.

Lets say C1 is at some physical position A; and he is in a challenge with C2 at some other position B. They are also physically based with many other models. According to the rule, we are to believe that C1 is in base contact only with C2 and C2 is in base contact only with C1. So you say to me look the next closest model is M1 who is physically based with C1 because he is at position A. That is not logically possible, because if C1 is in position A then he is in base contact with M1. But we know that C1 is not in base contact with M1 (because the BRB says so), so it is absolutely not possible for C1 to be in position A. Since he is not in position A we don't know where he is, only that he is based with C2. We can't even reliably say that our hand is 3 inches from C1's head, because if that was true then C1 would be based with M1, which is not true.

So the only possible explainable is that they are in fact some sort of limbo, and their comrades can only stand by and watch.

quiestdeus wrote:
Edit - taking a break here gents, it is time for bed. I'll happily continue this dance tomorrow evening

I didn't know we were dancing.

quiestdeus wrote:Lobukla... you're taking part of a sentence and twisting its context.

The entire sentence is:
"Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there".

The paragraph then goes on to further clarify its point with the Demon Prince example.

All that line states (and clearly states at that) is that outside forces cannot hurt units in a challenge. In no way, shape, or form, does it limit challenge participants from hurting those outside forces.

You are making an assumption that because A implies B, B also implies A, which is false.

Hurdle overcame.

Maybe you are misunderstanding what it means for them to resolved wound allocation. You can't resolved wound 2 until wound 1 has been allocated, saved, and any slain models removed. If they are to RESOLVE (finish) the wound allocation process, the have to march through it, with out any allowance for those characters (which would make no since IF wounds could suddenly come spilling over at any time). The two units are told to complete wound allocation as if the challenge characters aren't there... to me, that shows some seperation.

The Demon Prince is NOT an example to that process, it is an example as to how a unit can be affected/can affect combat if there is not a unit for them to combat.

I also note that you completely dodged how allocation could work if wounds scored against a character were to be applied to a unit (which is really tough if they aren't the same profile, which happens often which regular characters, let alone IC). You did not overcome a hurdle you just explained to me incorrectly where part of it is and ignored the part you can't overcome.

As for the second hurdle, why does that matter at all? It shows no such thing, you're interpreting the rules in the way you so desire. The rule on page 429 simply say to resolve challenges after a unit has fought. That does not limit wounds from being allocated to the unit - at all. On page 429 the NEXT step is determine the Assault Results! Add up the wounds caused by *each side* etc. - that rejects your notion that the challenge is a seperate thing. If it was, there would be a Assault Result section BEFORE challenges were resolved, and the challenge would have its own Assault Result step. Context matters. There is a single Assault Result step for units and challenges, the wounds the characters cause affect the larger combat as well. I am not sure what other points this reference could be making.

You need to read what I posted, in fact you even quoted me saying what you are accusing me of having overlooked (if you can't read my posts, at least read your own). I have consistantly and repeatedly stated that the only crossover between challenges and unit combat is morale and cheerleading. The rulebook spells out that crossover too. I wonder why if they authors made it crystal clear to cross over morale issues, they didn't describe overflow too?... oh wait... maybe that's not part of the game. Its pretty easy to shoot down someone's arguement when you don't even read or understand it

I can't believe this thread is still alive. 15 pages...whew!

The rule is pretty clear. There is no rule for wound overflow. Wound allocation in this can't jump from the challenge to the squad just like it can't jump from squad to the challenge.

Just ask yourself this simple question. Is it fair to say that 10 SM's jump a special character w/ one other model?

So the special character gets say 5 attacks at AP3. He hits 5 times and wounds 5 times. The SM squad was the charging unit and ends up doing 8 wounds.

So it's fair to kill the SM seargeant and then get 4 more kills from the so called wound overflow. But 7 wounds coming from the SM squad can't go into the special character?

So let me get this right. If I put a billy bad ass in a small squad, I can virtually make sure he wins every assault because he can't be hit in Challenges?

That is utterly stupid.

Agreed, this is stupid. People pick apart everything to try and exploit it. Assume you always can't do something! If it says you can do it, it will say you can do it.. otherwise you CAN'T!

decoste007xt wrote:Agreed, this is stupid. People pick apart everything to try and exploit it. Assume you always can't do something! If it says you can do it, it will say you can do it.. otherwise you CAN'T!

You mean like it says to allocate wounds in combat?

That might possibly be the reason this thread exists. Just saying.

MJThurston wrote:So let me get this right. If I put a billy bad ass in a small squad, I can virtually make sure he wins every assault because he can't be hit in Challenges?

That is utterly stupid.

Way to oversimplify. Are you saying you can always take a character that no other army can ever hope to match? If the other group has a better character than yours, you're stopped anyway.
And how is this different from just sitting there with your 2+ armour save and 2+ look out sir on your IC in a unit?

MJThurston wrote:The rule is pretty clear. There is no rule for wound overflow. Wound allocation in this can't jump from the challenge to the squad just like it can't jump from squad to the challenge.

Just ask yourself this simple question. Is it fair to say that 10 SM's jump a special character w/ one other model?

So the special character gets say 5 attacks at AP3. He hits 5 times and wounds 5 times. The SM squad was the charging unit and ends up doing 8 wounds.

So it's fair to kill the SM seargeant and then get 4 more kills from the so called wound overflow. But 7 wounds coming from the SM squad can't go into the special character?

So let me get this right. If I put a billy bad ass in a small squad, I can virtually make sure he wins every assault because he can't be hit in Challenges?

That is utterly stupid.

This is exactly what they want. They want their Daemon Prince (or suitable counterpart) to walk up to a squad and wipe them out while walking away unscathed. It's sickening.

It is stupid.

There is no wound overflow, no matter how much you wish there was.

I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

DarbNilbirts wrote:I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

Wounds cannot be allocated outside the challenge by LoS. (2nd to last sentence in the Fighting a Challenge section)

Since the wound allocation step is completed as if the challengers are not there Precision Strikes are out too.

Captain Antivas wrote:It's sickening.

Oh my, HARSH!

Show me the character that quiestdeus, the Sisters of Battle-player on the pro-overflow camp, is gonna use to swipe his way relentlessly through your troops, skewering your brave officers on her blades only to use them as hand warmers as they slide down the blade, while she is slicing in to the next in line!

SICKENING!

Purifier wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:It's sickening.

Oh my, HARSH!

Show me the character that quiestdeus, the Sisters of Battle-player on the pro-overflow camp, is gonna use to swipe his way relentlessly through your troops, skewering your brave officers on her blades only to use them as hand warmers as they slide down the blade, while she is slicing in to the next in line!

SICKENING!

I don't know enough about the SoB to answer that question. But clearly everyone wants it for the same reason and there is no other reason that people would want wound overflow. It couldn't possibly be an exaggeration to prove a point, no that is not possible...

DarbNilbirts wrote:I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

Yak made some excellent points in another thread regarding this. He basically stated that IF you believe there is not overflow, you can't have precision strikes leaving the challenge either (I agree). LOS! can't ever effect challenges either, and I don't think either "side" believes that (I really don't know, no one over there has explained to me how it would work, which to me is as big a problem as IF it can work. If what you're wanting breaks the rules once you start trying to use it, to fight to get to use it is pointless).

Lobukia wrote:

DarbNilbirts wrote:I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

Yak made some excellent points in another thread regarding this. He basically stated that IF you believe there is not overflow, you can't have precision strikes leaving the challenge either (I agree). LOS! can't ever effect challenges either, and I don't think either "side" believes that (I really don't know, no one over there has explained to me how it would work, which to me is as big a problem as IF it can work. If what you're wanting breaks the rules once you start trying to use it, to fight to get to use it is pointless).

I'm with Lobukia on this. The rules seem to have less complications when overflow is out, and neither LOS! nor precision strikes can get in or out of the challenge.

People have a hard time with the can only effect each other part. Its convoluded and not strait forward, tons of wiggle room.

Captain Antivas wrote:But clearly everyone wants it for the same reason and there is no other reason that people would want wound overflow.

And this is where you went wrong. You went and assumed things. A lot of people read the rules long and hard and decide upon what was meant because they want the game to be played in the right way. No matter if that is a boon for them or bad for them. Take me. I am against overflow, but it would be a great boon to me.

But you think people only read things in a different way than you do to gain boons. In Sweden there is a saying that goes "as you know yourself, you know others." think on it.

This is very awkward, I have to agree that it is ambiguous, the phrasing used can be interpreted either way and some of the adjacent rules are a bit clunky whichever interpretation you use. I think, having read this entire thread, that I'd come down on the side of wound overflow. I think it is less of a stretch of the wording of the rules. I think to get rid of overflow you have to stretch the wording a bit further

Basically the argument hinges on the “only” in the base to base contact part of the rules meaning that they continue to be in base to base contact even when one model dies. I can see the point but I just don't buy it – I think even GW would have spotted how flimsy that was if they'd intended it, considering how very very specific they were about who was in b2b, who couldn't hurt who (others cannot hurt challengers) where everyone stood, whether LOS could be used etc. Everything implies that this is a normal combat with these exceptions and if they had meant for wounds to forgo normal resolution and be allocated to a dead model, which is without precedence where non excluded targets exist (and they didn't specifically exclude any targets which they could have easily done), they would have based it on more than the placement of an “only” which could just as easily be interpreted as “in base to base contact with each other and not in base to base contact with any other model, even if they are touching, so normal wounds must be assigned to the opponent first and that tyrant guards lashwhip has no effect on you”.

So, without a challenge
A Hive Tyrant (HT) charges a boyz mob, taking 1 wound from overwatch he connects with the Nob – he is now in contact only with the nob. HT strikes first, HoW and 1st attack kills Nob, 4 more attacks kill the 3 nearest boyz. Boyz pile in and do 1 more wound in I 2 and the HT wins resolution. Fairly straight forward

Now with a challenge
Same HT charges the boyz, still taking 1 wound from OW, he aims differently and connects with a pair of boyz before issuing a challenge. The nob accepts and is swapped with boy 1, HT is now in contact only with the Nob, boy 2 does not count as in b2b despite being touching, again the HT deals 5 unsaved wounds, the nob is removed after 2 so the remaining 3 are assigned to the 3 nearest boyz again. The boyz pile in but never count as in b2b and cannot strike back that turn as the challenge has not yet expired, again losing on resolution but working out slightly better for the HT.

Some might say that this unfairly advantages power characters or some such and therefore it is not the correct interpretation – but who benefits from a rule is irrelevant in the interpretation of the rule, interpret first, then, if you want to be competitive, build the list to match the benefits – there's a reason no competitive nid player brought pyrovores, the rules weren't wrongly interpreted they just weren't as good within the rules as other units.

The main thing this rule seems to do is a hard nerf on hidden power fists. You hide your fist? Fine, challenge, I get to hit your fist guy or he doesn't get to hit me. Bit of a hit, especially for the orks, but fists had become compulsory in 5th simply because you could allocate away from them and they'd easily live till I 1, so maybe they deserved it.

The “resolve challenges last” bit of from the summary/suggestion in the narrative box does rub badly against overflow though as it messes up initiative something terrible, it can still be played RAW, you just get to kill low I models with high I models after they have struck.... weird but playable. It's just about the only other subsection of rule that I'd view as strongly supporting the no overflow camp as it is just ugly with overflow. Won't be conclusive till we get the FAQ but that's the way I'm gonna view it and play it (probably clear this with my opponent first to head off any inevitable argument later on) and build my lists on until we get an answer from GW or someone comes up with more evidence.

Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

really needs to be faqed, arguments either way are semi valid but not supported as its not spelled out.

Purifier wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:But clearly everyone wants it for the same reason and there is no other reason that people would want wound overflow.

And this is where you went wrong. You went and assumed things. A lot of people read the rules long and hard and decide upon what was meant because they want the game to be played in the right way. No matter if that is a boon for them or bad for them. Take me. I am against overflow, but it would be a great boon to me.

But you think people only read things in a different way than you do to gain boons. In Sweden there is a saying that goes "as you know yourself, you know others." think on it.

Sarcasm friend, just a bit of sarcasm.

Purifier...



If you are ever in the States let me know, I would like to play a game of 40k with you.

Edit - Just to be clear, I do not intend to mean that you are always playing 40k with me. I do not want anyone to think that you are permanently playing 40k with me for the duration that you are ever in the States

blaktoof wrote:Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

really needs to be faqed, arguments either way are semi valid but not supported as its not spelled out.

The point of the thread is, you don't need something in the challenge section to say there *is* wound overflow, that's just normal wound allocation.

You need something in the challenge section to say there *isn't* wound overflow, to override the normal wound allocation.

So, normal wound allocation applies until there's a reason it doesn't.

Some people say the "in base only with eachother" part of the section is what overrides the normal wound allocation, because if you're in base with only one model you can't allocate to anyone else.
Many people disagree with the reading of that sentence.

Hence, a 16 page thread.

blaktoof wrote:Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

really needs to be faqed, arguments either way are semi valid but not supported as its not spelled out.

The normal rules on wound allocation state overflow, allocate to models in B2B first then closest. So the permission exists already and is not taken away for challenges.

The part that you are quoting is actually much more silly to see it as supporting no overflow. If they had intended no overflow it would have been easy to add in this very explicit statement that challengees could not allocate to the unit either, it doesn't say that, it specifically states unit cannot allocate to challengees, it would have been incredibley easy for them to explicitly dissallow overflow in that one sentance and it is worded as if they intentionally chose not to. I'd say that implies fairly strongly that wounds are supposed to overflow not the other way around.

and yeah, you could call it either way, but I see more to support overflow (such as that very statement you referenced) then I do to support no overflow (such as how clunky fighting challenges last and overflowing is)

I like the "it doesn't say I can't" argument, personally. The book also has no clause that specifically states I can't take a blowtorch to my opponents models to secure a contested objective either, but we're pretty sure you can't do that.

That being said, wound overflow is pretty much not there. It's poorly worded but the obvious intent was to have the two combatants float away to the magical Wardp Zone as I call it and exist only in the challenge away from the rules of all others while non combatants yell at them while they float on their translucent Wardian bubble above the field.

Also you can argue that intent means nothing, but in the end intent in this case is everything, as the same guys wrote Fantasy and were very specific about the fact that there was wound overflow in that system. The absence of such a clause in the 40k rules speaks volumes about the lack of overflow.

Mr.Church13 wrote:I like the "it doesn't say I can't" argument, personally.

But it does. CC works that way as it is clearly stated, and challengers have to stay in coherency. And it doesn't say they are excempt from this rule. I still believe GW meant for the wounds not to overflow. But it's not hard for me to understand the other side of it.

blaktoof wrote:
Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

"But I want wound overflow!"

"But the rules don't say wounds from challenges overflow."

"But I really want that wound overflow. Can I have it please.'

"No. The rules don't say that wounds from challenges overflow."

"But I really REALLY want the rules to say they do! Can we just agree that the rules say that?"

"No. The rules don't say that."

( Rinse / Repeat )

EDIT : We should really wait for a FAQ on this. 16 pages on YMDC without a consensus is probably enough, to justify a FAQ.

I want to smack my head against a wall.

WOUND OVERFLOW is not a term in 40K. Stop making up words and rules.

No where in the rules does it state to us normal wound allocation. Not once.

I personally don't see why people are even talking about this but I will once again try and fail to help.

Outside forces clearly tell you that both Challenge Fight and Squad Fight are separate. GW made the very nice fail on not using wound. Instead it used blows. Challenge fight can only strike blows against each other and Squads can only wound squads.

So what can we take from this? Intent is clear that both are separate. As for RAW.

Challengee and Challenger are base to base until the end of the assault phase.

Squads fight as if the Challengee and Challenger are not there.

So by RAW if the Squads fight as if they are not there, then by all rights they can't be wounded from Challenge Wounds. Because they (Challenge fighters) are simply not there.

So I can not see why this is still being debated.

MJThurston wrote:
So I can not see why this is still being debated.

Because some people want so bad for the rules to be different. If they want it bad enough, maybe their wish will come true ?

MJThurston wrote:
No where in the rules does it state to us normal wound allocation. Not once.

Yes it does. It is a close combat, therefore you use the wound allocation for close combat because that is the general rule.

Again: you have the right result, but dont seem to understand how rules are constructed.

MJThurston wrote:I want to smack my head against a wall.

WOUND OVERFLOW is not a term in 40K. Stop making up words and rules.

No where in the rules does it state to us normal wound allocation. Not once.

I personally don't see why people are even talking about this but I will once again try and fail to help.

Outside forces clearly tell you that both Challenge Fight and Squad Fight are separate. GW made the very nice fail on not using wound. Instead it used blows. Challenge fight can only strike blows against each other and Squads can only wound squads.

That's not what outside forces says. It says models not in the challenge can't hit the models who are in the challenge

So what can we take from this? Intent is clear that both are separate. As for RAW.

Challengee and Challenger are base to base until the end of the assault phase.

If this thread illustrates anything its that this statement is not unambiguously true. In lieu of rehashing the argument, I'll simply direct you to the relevant posts.

Squads fight as if the Challengee and Challenger are not there.

So by RAW if the Squads fight as if they are not there, then by all rights they can't be wounded from Challenge Wounds. Because they (Challenge fighters) are simply not there.

Except the text doesn't run in the opposite direction. It says outside forces fight as if the challenge models aren't there. It never says the challenge models fight like the rest of the rest of the models aren't there.

So I can not see why this is still being debated.

Because the rules aren't clear, and its worth talking about how to implement a new and important part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:

MJThurston wrote:
So I can not see why this is still being debated.

Because some people want so bad for the rules to be different. If they want it bad enough, maybe their wish will come true ?

I just want a stable and predictable rule set. I don't think it's good to ascribe motivation to posts when it isn't provided by the author.

I think most people just badly want the rules to be clear.

It is not Close Combat. It's a Challenge and Challenges have different rules than close combat.

MJThurston wrote:It is not Close Combat. It's a Challenge and Challenges have different rules than close combat.

Then how do we know how to roll to hit? Or what weapons to use? Or how to roll to wound? Only the Close Combat rules tell us - I don't see anywhere in the Challenges section explaining it.

If a challenge isn't a close combat then the challenge system breaks.

jcress410

It does not say that in Outside forces.

It says WOUNDS can not be allocated to the Challenge. Not attacks.

Blows = Wounds

If GW put Challengee and Challenger can only wound each other this would not be an issue. They used BLOWS. So are blows attacks or are they wounds.

If you read the next sentence you'd see they used wounds from squads not going to the challenge. So what do you think blows mean now? Attacks or wounds.

No it says in the challenge part that wound allocation can not be used for Look Out Sir. So if a Model outside the challenge can't do this why would extra wounds just go outside of this challenge? They don't.

The rule is written in more ways than one that this so called wound overflow doesn't happen.

Lets be honest here. No Tourney is going to let you send wounds outside a challenge. It's just not going to happen. So why would you do this in your local store?

Seriously, this shouldn't even be an issue.

A guy challenges. lets say Mini Me flips off Conan... Conan will crush Mini Me in one step and cary on with crushing blows on and on, He would not just sit there while his squad was over run.

I play Chaos, and chaos is all about muli-attack leaders mixed with CC units. I would not play with the challenge rule if it meant ALL my primary CC power was going to get delay of game. Some HQs say they must go after other HQs in CC, why make a challenge rule for delay of game?

It is just deciding who attacks who first.

Without challenge, I can put a cheap group like lesser Daemons to CC with power heroes, and let my better fighters live longer and kill more. With it, a hero will fight a hero... Once the hero is dead the surviving hero will keep on fighting, his wounds will carry on to the rest of his victims.

Why yes he would just sit there while his squad is over run.

So lets do this the other way.

Your bad ass DP attacks my SM seargeant with a CCW. Does his 9 Brothers just sit there and watch you destroy him or jump in.

Challenges are separate fights. Trying to make them more than that is just not in the rules.

Read it over and over, the book has errors in it all over, it is new....

Make the call applying common sense, or sci fie movie ideas.... what not.

Movie villain cuts down good guys army, until he sees good guy hero... They go toe to toe until one dies.... Then what? does he sit around or go back into fighting???(movies like dialog and drama so this depends on which movie).

Likewise, a single man goes against a giant beast, Will the beast only kill the pest that is attacking him... No... he will eat the pest first and then continue to attack.

Fighting against a hero or with a hero, this rule would ruin the game. It would keep an expensive hero fighting one guy at a time. if a Bezerker can kill 3 guys a turn, and Kharn the betrayer only gets one at a time... Why even call Kharn a hero at all? Likewise with all heroes.... Why even add them to a list at that point?

MJThurston wrote:jcress410
If GW put Challengee and Challenger can only wound each other this would not be an issue. They used BLOWS. So are blows attacks or are they wounds.

If you read the next sentence you'd see they used wounds from squads not going to the challenge. So what do you think blows mean now? Attacks or wounds.

The rule doesn't say the challengee and challenger can only wound (or strike blows) against eachother. It says they are the only one's who can 'strike blows' against eachother. This is covered earlier in the thread.

The reason people think a character in a challenge can't allocate wounds outside it is because of the wound allocation rules. You always allocate to a model in base first. So, if the characters are 'considered to be' in base the entire phase, they can only allocate wounds to eachother.
If they are not so considered, after one model in the challenge is removed as a casualty, the wounds continue to be allocated.

Really, that's just a summary of the first 16 pages. I know it's long, but I'd encourage you to skim through it if you haven't already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MJThurston wrote:Why yes he would just sit there while his squad is over run.

So lets do this the other way.

Your bad ass DP attacks my SM seargeant with a CCW. Does his 9 Brothers just sit there and watch you destroy him or jump in.

Challenges are separate fights. Trying to make them more than that is just not in the rules.

"challenges are separate fights" isn't in the rules either. I kind of wish it was.

MJThurston wrote:jcress410

It does not say that in Outside forces.

It says WOUNDS can not be allocated to the Challenge. Not attacks.

Blows = Wounds

If GW put Challengee and Challenger can only wound each other this would not be an issue. They used BLOWS. So are blows attacks or are they wounds.

If you read the next sentence you'd see they used wounds from squads not going to the challenge. So what do you think blows mean now? Attacks or wounds.

It has to be wounds because attacks are not allocated to enemy models, wounds are. Semantics be damned, but you cannot allocate an attack to a particular model. You allocate wounds.

No it says in the challenge part that wound allocation can not be used for Look Out Sir. So if a Model outside the challenge can't do this why would extra wounds just go outside of this challenge? They don't.

This. Just this. No one argues that if my honor guard kill all the Orks with 3 wounds to spare those wounds don't just disappear, but they can't possibly conceive of the Captain's wounds disappearing. It happens both ways.

The rule is written in more ways than one that this so called wound overflow doesn't happen.

They can't see the forest for the trees. They either want is so bad that they ignore everything to try to get it or they are looking too hard and over analyzing.

I'm going to drop my 2 cents for what it's worth...

Proper use of grammar in the rule book clearly should be read as "The participants in a challenge can only be wounded by eachother". It does not say anything about them not being able to wound other models.

However, there is a part of wound allocation in normal combat that I think may apply here, and that is that wounds should be allocated to models in the same initiative step. This essentially means that as long as there are regular marines in your squad (who should have all piled in on step 4) your power fist guy is not eligible to die (unless he's in a challenge) until after he piles in on step 1.

Basically it comes down to this, the pile-in rules result in a case where there MUST be models in the current initative step in base to base contact with eachother. Wounds can only be allocated to models that are not in B2B once any models in B2B are dead. It seems to me that GW was very careful in their wording for this purpose. The stipulation that Challenge participants are considered to be only in base contact with eachother is intended to prevent wound allocation away from the challenge while either participant is still alive. This is in direct accordance with normal combat wound allocation rules, and the Challenge section of the rulebook doesn't actually say anything that would override those rules. The only modification they make to normal combat rules is the removal of LoS, and the prevention of wounds from outside the challenge, and they do this explicitly. So you end up with three mandates for challenges:

1) Challange Participants are considered to be in B2B only with eachother, this results in wounds that MUST be allocated to the participants AS LONG AS THEY ARE ALIVE
2) LoS rolls are not allowed to allocate wounds out of the challenge, of course by design this stipulation only applies if both challengers are ALIVE, since you couldn't roll LoS for a dead character
3) Outside participants are not allowed to direct wounds into the challenge
4) Otherwise, normal combat rules apply... (which means wound allocation to the rest of the unit if a challenge participant dies, however, these wounds should be allocated first to models in the same initiative step, and those models should still be allowed to act in their initiative step before they die)

to me the conclusion here is that wound overflow does indeed happen, and there really is no mess or cimplication for how to resolve it. Otherwise GW could very easily have made the challenge rules say something like "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger and Challengee are considered to be in their own separate combat". This is essentially what those who disagree with overflow are saying. The rulemakers seem to have gone out of their way to NOT say that.

MJThurston wrote:It is not Close Combat. It's a Challenge and Challenges have different rules than close combat.

Wrong. Please cite some rules, for once, to back this up or retract it

Given they occur in the Fight! sub pjhase and all, claiming it isnt a close combat will be rather difficult for you.

jcress410 wrote:
The reason people think a character in a challenge can't allocate wounds outside it is because of the wound allocation rules. You always allocate to a model in base first. So, if the characters are 'considered to be' in base the entire phase, they can only allocate wounds to eachother.
If they are not so considered, after one model in the challenge is removed as a casualty, the wounds continue to be allocated.

Please don't over simplify. This is one argument that has been presented and I have specifically refuted this argument. This is hardly the only reason we think wound overflow is a myth.

MJThurston wrote:Why yes he would just sit there while his squad is over run.

So lets do this the other way.

Your bad ass DP attacks my SM seargeant with a CCW. Does his 9 Brothers just sit there and watch you destroy him or jump in.

Challenges are separate fights. Trying to make them more than that is just not in the rules.

"challenges are separate fights" isn't in the rules either. I kind of wish it was.

It is, you just refuse to see it. Forest for the trees.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

.....

to me the conclusion here is that wound overflow does indeed happen, and there really is no mess or cimplication for how to resolve it. Otherwise GW could very easily have made the challenge rules say something like "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger and Challengee are considered to be in their own separate combat". This is essentially what those who disagree with overflow are saying. The rulemakers seem to have gone out of their way to NOT say that.

Good summary. And it is odd the rules just didn't come out and say "resolve separately" or something.

It's also strange the rules didn't just include a "here's how to handle extra wounds from a challenge" sentence.

jcress410 wrote:It's also strange the rules didn't just include a "here's how to handle extra wounds from a challenge" sentence.

Because you would allocate them just like you would any other time...so why go out of your way to tell someone to do something they're supposed to do anyway?

Just IMO of course.

So basically one billy bad ass should be able to continually charge into close combat alone, just to win every combat and then sweeping advance?

So here is the new winning tactic.

Put two billy bad asses into a squad. During the movement phase send one IC to the right and one to the Left. Do a charge with 3 separate units and then challenge all of the fights.

Now your two billy bad asses can punk a seargeant, send wounds into the squads, win buy 4+ and then sweeping advance the rest.

So with only 12 models you can pretty much kill 3 separate squads.

Yep this is what GW wanted to happen.

MJ:
I agree. But, also think about the reverse.
If you can only allocate to the character, "billy bad ass" can easily fall in a tar pit.

There are a lot of units (i.e. ork boyz) that really rely on their I1 attacks to keep from losing combat. If the character can be neutralized via challenge (contributing only 1 wound to the result), it really nerfs characters and their upgrades.

Either way, the game changes.
Both situations have balance implications, I don't see any reason why the scenario you describe is any better/worse than the alternative.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Greg_Hager wrote:

jcress410 wrote:It's also strange the rules didn't just include a "here's how to handle extra wounds from a challenge" sentence.

Because you would allocate them just like you would any other time...so why go out of your way to tell someone to do something they're supposed to do anyway?

Just IMO of course.

Because apparently they didn't know they were supposed to do it. My observation is just, the way outside combatants interact with a challenge is explicitly defined. The way a challenge interacts with outside combatants is not.

Adrian Fue Fue wrote:
Fighting against a hero or with a hero, this rule would ruin the game. It would keep an expensive hero fighting one guy at a time.

No. There is only one challenge per close combat. That's on the first page top left of the challenge section. After Kharn lays waste to his challengee, then he is allowed to attack the rest of the squad in the next round of combat. It's just that the EXTRA wounds that he did to his challengee do not go over to the squad during the first round of combat.

jcress410 wrote:MJ:

Because apparently they didn't know they were supposed to do it. My observation is just, the way outside combatants interact with a challenge is explicitly defined. The way a challenge interacts with outside combatants is not.

The way a challenge interacts with outside combatants is explicitly defined albeit in a few different places in the rules. It is not contained within one sentence.

They are "in base contact only with each other."

They are not in base contact with anyone else, and they are considered to be in base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge.

Doesn't the whole wounds carry on argument fall apart when it says that even if one of them are dead they are still only in BtB with each other, and only each other, until the end of the phase.

Basically it's a combat within a combat that's outside the combat untill the end of that combat.

Gentlemen, page 65, fourth paragraph "Assault result".

Thats what happens with your additional wounds. Nothing more.

DeathReaper wrote:
The way a challenge interacts with outside combatants is explicitly defined albeit in a few different places in the rules. It is not contained within one sentence.

They are "in base contact only with each other."

They are not in base contact with anyone else, and they are considered to be in base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge.

At the risk of rehashing the entire thread,

They are not considered in base if one of them is dead.

Insisting they are requires misreading the "only with each other" sentence.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr.Church13 wrote:Doesn't the whole wounds carry on argument fall apart when it says that even if one of them are dead they are still only in BtB with each other, and only each other, until the end of the phase.

Basically it's a combat within a combat that's outside the combat untill the end of that combat.

church, your description of the rules is one way to read them. In my view, it's not the correct way. (already explained why earlier in the thread, I have no desire to quote myself)

If your seargent is that week, then dont accept the challenge. Sure he wont be able to act, but youll still get normal wound allocation, though I don't see what the difference would be in the result.

jcress410 wrote:They are not considered in base if one of them is dead.

Insisting they are requires misreading the "only with each other" sentence.

Not a misread, Maybe we need to brush up on our British English.

But if the challenge is considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase then no matter how you read it they are in base to base with the dead guy as all the challenge rules are still in effect.

Definitely not a misread in the UK, and continually asserting otherwise gets a tad annoying.

DeathReaper wrote:
They are not in base contact with anyone else, and they are considered to be in base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge.

It's important to remember that under normal wound allocation rules, just because a model is not in base contact with another model doesnt mean a wound can't be allocated to it. As long as a model is engaged (within 2" of a model that is in BTB) it can have a wound allocated. Since a unit will be engaged with the other unit outisde the challenge, any model in base contact with the winning characters unit, or within 2" is elegible to receive any unallocated wounds from a challenge where one participant dies. This allocation must be done according to normal allocation rules.

There is no wording in the Challenge rules that states that is a separate and self contained combat. The wording for such would be much simpler to write than what is in the rule book. The wording that is there prevents outside influence on an ongoing challenge, but does not prevent wounds from being allocated to the unit in the case a challenger dies.

CanisLupus518 wrote:There is no wording in the Challenge rules that states that is a separate and self contained combat. The wording for such would be much simpler to write than what is in the rule book. The wording that is there prevents outside influence on an ongoing challenge, but does not prevent wounds from being allocated to the unit in the case a challenger dies.

Incorrect good sir.

Ive referenced the page and paragraph (which is ironically on the next page) as to what happens to additional wounds caused by the Challenge. Just incase folks dont have their BRB nearby, it goes like this;

Page 65 wrote:Assault Result
Unsaved Wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters' units.

Underlined dictates where your extra unsaved wounds go towards.
Long thread here, drinks anyone?

Except the models in a challenge remain IN the challenge UNTIL the end of the phase. And while in a challenge each model are considered in base to base with eachother

CanisLupus518 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
They are not in base contact with anyone else, and they are considered to be in base contact only with each other for the duration of the challenge.

It's important to remember that under normal wound allocation rules, just because a model is not in base contact with another model doesnt mean a wound can't be allocated to it. As long as a model is engaged (within 2" of a model that is in BTB) it can have a wound allocated. Since a unit will be engaged with the other unit outisde the challenge, any model in base contact with the winning characters unit, or within 2" is elegible to receive any unallocated wounds from a challenge where one participant dies. This allocation must be done according to normal allocation rules.

There is no wording in the Challenge rules that states that is a separate and self contained combat. The wording for such would be much simpler to write than what is in the rule book. The wording that is there prevents outside influence on an ongoing challenge, but does not prevent wounds from being allocated to the unit in the case a challenger dies.

Incorrect. They are considered to be in base contact even if one character in the challenge dies.

So if there are models in Base contact you must allocate to those models first. and since the guy in base contact is dead, but still in base contact, the wounds can go nowhere else.

Xzerios wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:There is no wording in the Challenge rules that states that is a separate and self contained combat. The wording for such would be much simpler to write than what is in the rule book. The wording that is there prevents outside influence on an ongoing challenge, but does not prevent wounds from being allocated to the unit in the case a challenger dies.

Incorrect good sir.

Ive referenced the page and paragraph (which is ironically on the next page) as to what happens to additional wounds caused by the Challenge. Just incase folks dont have their BRB nearby, it goes like this;

Page 65 wrote:Assault Result
Unsaved Wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters' units.

Underlined dictates where your extra unsaved wounds go towards.
Long thread here, drinks anyone?

Right, but just like in 5e, you still only count wounds actually inflicted. So 4 wounds on a 1 wound model only contributes 1 to the result, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:They are not considered in base if one of them is dead.

Insisting they are requires misreading the "only with each other" sentence.

Not a misread, Maybe we need to brush up on our British English.

Do you really think there's a difference between american / british english on the syntax of "only"

"He only gets drunk in pubs"
or
"he gets drunk only in pubs"

the second is correct in both countries, i assume.

I don't know much about the difference between american/british english.

Do they still call cigarettes fags in the UK?

Occasionally.

The Wounds are unsaved, no?

You cause four wounds on a one wound model. He saves the first one but fails the second. Two more unsaved wounds remain in the pool as the defending model is unable to save the rest, your additional wounds now carry to the assault result instead of being lost.

Xzerios wrote:

Incorrect good sir.

Ive referenced the page and paragraph (which is ironically on the next page) as to what happens to additional wounds caused by the Challenge. Just incase folks dont have their BRB nearby, it goes like this;

Page 65 wrote:Assault Result
Unsaved Wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters' units.

Underlined dictates where your extra unsaved wounds go towards.
Long thread here, drinks anyone?

You actually are incorrect. As the Assault Result section says nothing about unallocated wounds, only unsaved wounds. This section tells you that even if a challenge participant doesnt die, any wounds caused inside the challenge count towards the overal assault result. There is nothing in this statement that directly addresses the issue of unalloacted wounds after one challege participant has died.

Also, I whleheartedly reject the idea that even when dead the model is still there, as this seems like stretching the word "only" quite a bit. There are no rules anywhere in any WH40k book that state that wounds are absorbed by a dead model that happens to be in BTB contact.

Xzerios wrote:The Wounds are unsaved, no?

You cause four wounds on a one wound model. He saves the first one but fails the second. Two more unsaved wounds remain in the pool as the defending model is unable to save the rest, your additional wounds now carry to the assault result instead of being lost.

They cannot, as you are still in b2b and cannot therefore allocte any wounds away

We're 11 pages after wound overflow was shown not to work now...

Xzerios wrote:The Wounds are unsaved, no?

You cause four wounds on a one wound model. He saves the first one but fails the second. Two more unsaved wounds remain in the pool as the defending model is unable to save the rest, your additional wounds now carry to the assault result instead of being lost.

This would be a change from 5e. I'm going to start a separate thread, because I'm not sure what's going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They cannot, as you are still in b2b and cannot therefore allocte any wounds away

We're 11 pages after wound overflow was shown not to work now...

I don't think we are.

I still haven't seen a convincing argument that you can be in b2b with a model that has been removed as a casualty.

The one part of the rules people crutch on to support that view has been parsed repeatedly on this thread, and though i think my reading is correct, a lot of people read it differently.

I think we're far from "showing" anything.

It'll get resolved in a faq. Rumor is august, no?

CanisLupus518 wrote:
You actually are incorrect. As the Assault Result section says nothing about unallocated wounds, only unsaved wounds. This section tells you that even if a challenge participant doesnt die, any wounds caused inside the challenge count towards the overal assault result. There is nothing in this statement that directly addresses the issue of unalloacted wounds after one challege participant has died.

Also, I whleheartedly reject the idea that even when dead the model is still there, as this seems like stretching the word "only" quite a bit. There are no rules anywhere in any WH40k book that state that wounds are absorbed by a dead model that happens to be in BTB contact.

An unallocated wound is still an unsaved wound that remains in your pool. Reguardless of where you in this case 'can't' allocate it to. Following the rules for Challenges, your wounds may only be assigned to the challenged model. You may not assign your extra wounds else where, thats been established by the first sentence of Outside Forces on page 64.

I really don't think it will get FAQed as its pretty clear that it doesn't work.

Mr.Church13 wrote:I really don't think it will get FAQed as its pretty clear that it doesn't work.

I hope like heck it does get faq'd because it's pretty clear nothing's pretty clear.

Xzerios wrote:The Wounds are unsaved, no?

You cause four wounds on a one wound model. He saves the first one but fails the second. Two more unsaved wounds remain in the pool as the defending model is unable to save the rest, your additional wounds now carry to the assault result instead of being lost.

This is how I'm going to play it.

The whole point of considering the two models to be in B2B with only each other is to force wound allocation to kill off the challengee/challenger before it kills off anyone else. Mephiston challenges a Hekatrix in a unit of Wyches who accepts. Mephiston rolls his 6 attacks against the majority weapon skill of the engaged models (engaged in this case would be the Hekatrix plus all friendlies within 2"), hits with 6, rolls against the majority toughness of the engaged models, and wounds 6 times. Also, the entire Wych unit has the same saving throw so you can roll all 6 saves at once. Let's say she fails all 6. Keeping in mind how to allocate wounds in assault (pg.25 - which is the only way to allocate wounds) which says you start with the closest model and work your way out, the Hekatrix model is the first to die because of how wound allocation works. Wound allocation tells us to keep allocating unsaved wounds to the closest model until it dies. The Hekatrix only has 1 wound so that's easy. Then the next step is to allocate the next unsaved wound to the next closest model until it dies and so on. Ultimately, the 5 closest Wyches to Mephiston also die. In this example, it's possible for the Hekatrix to make all 6 saves thereby saving herself and all of the other Wyches.

You can't look at the challenge section of this book in isolation. You need the rest of the book to figure out what to do.

It's still pretty clear. It's like my kindergarten teacher said "Sometimes people can shove the square peg in the circle hole if they hit it hard enough with a hammer, but that still don't make it right."

And trust me when I tell you that if you keep hitting things with a hammer they will take you out of the fifth grade.

Gus,

I completely agree. Good summary.

Mr.Church13 wrote:It's still pretty clear. It's like my kindergarten teacher said "Sometimes people can shove the square peg in the circle hole if they hit it hard enough with a hammer, but that still don't make it right."

And trust me when I tell you that if you keep hitting things with a hammer they will take you out of the fifth grade.

I find it odd someone is willing to sit at the end of an 18 page thread and insist "it's pretty clear".

I think "it's pretty clear" the rules require normal wound allocation as gus wrote, but at this point I wouldn't insist it's clear and accuse people who disagree of contorting the rules to fit a position.

Those who think normal wound allocation apply have spent 18 pages providing (often reasonable) reasons why they believe so.
Those who think the challenge is an isolated combat with no effect on surrounding units have done the same.

A consensus has not been reached. It is not 'pretty simple'. And I'll continue to post as much until the thread is locked, dies or GW/INAT weighs in.
The last thing we should want is someone coming to a thread, reading the first and last couple pages and find a bunch of people declaring victory on an issue that reasonable people continue to disagree on.

@Marshal_Gus

But what happens if the 5 wyches have already completed normal assault combat and applied wounds to the unit that accompanies the character (not a single model IC)? In this instance (which is very likely), the character has a higher Init then the wyches and would normally attack before the wyches if not in a challenge.

jcress410 wrote:Gus,

I completely agree. Good summary.

Mr.Church13 wrote:It's still pretty clear. It's like my kindergarten teacher said "Sometimes people can shove the square peg in the circle hole if they hit it hard enough with a hammer, but that still don't make it right."

And trust me when I tell you that if you keep hitting things with a hammer they will take you out of the fifth grade.

I find it odd someone is willing to sit at the end of an 18 page thread and insist "it's pretty clear".

I think "it's pretty clear" the rules require normal wound allocation as gus wrote, but at this point I wouldn't insist it's clear and accuse people who disagree of contorting the rules to fit a position.

Those who think normal wound allocation apply have spent 18 pages providing (often reasonable) reasons why they believe so.
Those who think the challenge is an isolated combat with no effect on surrounding units have done the same.

A consensus has not been reached. It is not 'pretty simple'. And I'll continue to post as much until the thread is locked, dies or GW/INAT weighs in.
The last thing we should want is someone coming to a thread, reading the first and last couple pages and find a bunch of people declaring victory on an issue that reasonable people continue to disagree on.

Well of course people argue to fit their own agenda. If they all had the same interpretation the world would be a boring place. All I'm saying is that it's a simple matter that the same people wrote the fantasy brb and put in very specific language concerning wounds carrying into a unit. In the 40k brb they didn't mention it at all. Leads me to believe that it's a simple case of copy/paste if they wanted wounds to carry on.

I wanted to chime in that I made a call to GW support. I know that is about as useful as a fart in an AC duct but without re-hashing everything. It is discussed in this thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/463582.page

that thread has nothing to do with what we are talking about

terminalmonky wrote:I wanted to chime in that I made a call to GW support. I know that is about as useful as a fart in an AC duct but without re-hashing everything. It is discussed in this thread.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/463582.page

You have to be trolling...

Xzerios wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
You actually are incorrect. As the Assault Result section says nothing about unallocated wounds, only unsaved wounds. This section tells you that even if a challenge participant doesnt die, any wounds caused inside the challenge count towards the overal assault result. There is nothing in this statement that directly addresses the issue of unalloacted wounds after one challege participant has died.

Also, I whleheartedly reject the idea that even when dead the model is still there, as this seems like stretching the word "only" quite a bit. There are no rules anywhere in any WH40k book that state that wounds are absorbed by a dead model that happens to be in BTB contact.

An unallocated wound is still an unsaved wound that remains in your pool. Reguardless of where you in this case 'can't' allocate it to. Following the rules for Challenges, your wounds may only be assigned to the challenged model. You may not assign your extra wounds else where, thats been established by the first sentence of Outside Forces on page 64.

A wound is not an unsaved wound until saves have been atempted and failed. If this were not the case, that would change everything we accept about other rules like FnP and Force Weapons. The first sentence in the Outside Forces section on Page 64 only establishes that models not participating in the challenge can not allocate wounds on models that are. It does not actually say the opposite.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
You actually are incorrect. As the Assault Result section says nothing about unallocated wounds, only unsaved wounds. This section tells you that even if a challenge participant doesnt die, any wounds caused inside the challenge count towards the overal assault result. There is nothing in this statement that directly addresses the issue of unalloacted wounds after one challege participant has died.

Also, I whleheartedly reject the idea that even when dead the model is still there, as this seems like stretching the word "only" quite a bit. There are no rules anywhere in any WH40k book that state that wounds are absorbed by a dead model that happens to be in BTB contact.

An unallocated wound is still an unsaved wound that remains in your pool. Reguardless of where you in this case 'can't' allocate it to. Following the rules for Challenges, your wounds may only be assigned to the challenged model. You may not assign your extra wounds else where, thats been established by the first sentence of Outside Forces on page 64.

A wound is not an unsaved wound until saves have been atempted and failed. If this were not the case, that would change everything we accept about other rules like FnP and Force Weapons. The first sentence in the Outside Forces section on Page 64 only establishes that models not participating in the challenge can not allocate wounds on models that are. It does not actually say the opposite.

Kinda does. If you resolve (that's 40k for finish) the wound allocation process, that means you march from I10 wound 1 to I1 wound 35. If you are instructed to do this ignoring the characters, there is no oppurtunity for those challenge wounds to allocate in. That is why things like "forging the narrative" and the turn summary on 429 work. You CAN have the Challenge run along side the unit combat, or you can do it seperate. Because there is no allowance for wounds to cross (other than morale effects, which we are specifically told to combine).

Look we've got two ways of reading rules.

One way, we have to redefine and split hairs on the word "only" (which sadly, I brought into this thread on page 6, sorry all), we have to claim that forging the narrative was written by the summer intern and isn't done correctly, and we have to attack the turn summary in the back of the book as being a drug trip that was typed out.

Because....

If we read it the other way, everything means what it says, all the rules from page 25 to 429 work as written. What gets me, is that to argue RAW (you know what that stands for overflow guys?) for overflow, you have to argue that two parts of the rulebook don't apply... as written. And then you need to attack the arguement that says to simply read and follow all rules, wait for it... as written.

I'm curious, if overflow were to exist, what would be the point of challenges? With pile in at initiative, its pretty easy to move a character after another character without a challenge. And if challenges aren't seperate and insulated (as ruled on already by the first major GT FAQ), why would they even exist?

CanisLupus518 wrote:

Xzerios wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:
You actually are incorrect. As the Assault Result section says nothing about unallocated wounds, only unsaved wounds. This section tells you that even if a challenge participant doesnt die, any wounds caused inside the challenge count towards the overal assault result. There is nothing in this statement that directly addresses the issue of unalloacted wounds after one challege participant has died.

Also, I whleheartedly reject the idea that even when dead the model is still there, as this seems like stretching the word "only" quite a bit. There are no rules anywhere in any WH40k book that state that wounds are absorbed by a dead model that happens to be in BTB contact.

An unallocated wound is still an unsaved wound that remains in your pool. Reguardless of where you in this case 'can't' allocate it to. Following the rules for Challenges, your wounds may only be assigned to the challenged model. You may not assign your extra wounds else where, thats been established by the first sentence of Outside Forces on page 64.

A wound is not an unsaved wound until saves have been atempted and failed. If this were not the case, that would change everything we accept about other rules like FnP and Force Weapons. The first sentence in the Outside Forces section on Page 64 only establishes that models not participating in the challenge can not allocate wounds on models that are. It does not actually say the opposite.

If you can't allocate wounds from them how do you allocate wounds to them? Why is it that the character is protected from being hurt but the squad is not? Why do you refuse to accept that excess wounds from the winner of a challenge can't just be thrown away but you are more than willing to accept that excess wounds caused by the rest of the squad disappear into thin air?

Captain Antivas wrote:Why do you refuse to accept that excess wounds from the winner of a challenge can't just be thrown away but you are more than willing to accept that excess wounds caused by the rest of the squad disappear into thin air?

Because the rules specifically state that they can not be allocated inside the challenge. Black and white.

Greg_Hager wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Why do you refuse to accept that excess wounds from the winner of a challenge can't just be thrown away but you are more than willing to accept that excess wounds caused by the rest of the squad disappear into thin air?

Because the rules specifically state that they can not be allocated inside the challenge. Black and white.

And the mechanism by which the rules specifically prevent striking outside a challenge has been posted dozens of times in this very thread. White and black.

If this was 18 pages of back and forth to find an answer, that'd be fine. But these are the same three posts over and over.

Give it up. It isn't clear.

At this point I'm worried that people will do the following.

Doc give FNP to the squad. Boss is in a challenge. Because the squad fights as if the Boss isn't there, then he doesn't get the FNP from the Doc.