So I was looking over the challenge rules and I noticed that, critically they don't contain any wording restricting who the people in the challenge are allowed to attack, the only relevant information is "only the challenger and challengee make strike blows against one another" which only restricts who is allowed to attack them, not who they are allowed to attack, and then the fact that, after accepting the challenge, you treat the two models as only being in base to base contact with eachother, meaning their attacks in theory will have to go through the opposing member of the challenge first.

This would mean, as far as I can see, that you couldn't use a crappy sergeant to try and tie up a devastating master of close combat through a challenge; Because he would smack you aside easily and then the rest of his wounds will overflow to devastate the squad that he was trying to save (wounds defaulting as they do to the next closest model who is engaged in combat if nobody is in base to base).

I'm just curious to know if other people will generally share this view of how Challenges operate, or if there is perhaps something I have overlooked in my assessment.

I thought the challenger chooses the model to challenge (ie the challengee). Then that combat is resolved. If the sgt gets the smack down then challenge over. No more wound alloc.

Yeah i'm with the doctor on this one. on page 64 in fighting a challenge bottom of the first paragraph they are considered to be in base to base with only each other.

'Only the challenger and challengee make strike blows against one another'

this can be re-written as follows:

Only the challenger can strike blows against the challengee AND only the challengee make strike blows against the challenger.

So even if there are overflow wounds, they were only made against the character in the challenge and I assume the wounds would be lost instead of over flowing to the unit. Even though it says they are only in btb contact with each other and you could normally allocate more wounds if they found themselves in this position without a challenge. I think we can safely assume that it is a 1 on 1 until the end of the fight subphase and no outsiders(besides moral support) can affect or be affected.

doktor_g wrote:I thought the challenger chooses the model to challenge (ie the challengee). Then that combat is resolved. If the sgt gets the smack down then challenge over. No more wound alloc.

portugus wrote:Yeah i'm with the doctor on this one. on page 64 in fighting a challenge bottom of the first paragraph they are considered to be in base to base with only each other.

Yes, but even if you aren't in base to base you can still fight, and people up to 2 inches away from base to base contact can receive wounds as they are engaged in the combat.

dayio wrote:'Only the challenger and challengee make strike blows against one another'

this can be re-written as follows:

Only the challenger can strike blows against the challengee AND only the challengee make strike blows against the challenger.

So even if there are overflow wounds, they were only made against the character in the challenge and I assume the wounds would be lost instead of over flowing to the unit. Even though it says they are only in btb contact with each other and you could normally allocate more wounds if they found themselves in this position without a challenge. I think we can safely assume that it is a 1 on 1 until the end of the fight subphase and no outsiders(besides moral support) can affect or be affected.

Even with you rewriting it, it doesn't mean what you are claiming it does, "only the challenger can strike blows against the challengee" is not a restriction on who the challenger may attack, it is merely a restriction on who is eligible to attack the challengee, it only protects him from being attacked by other models in the challenger's unit. The people in the challenge in effect are not just attacking one another, they are attacking the whole enemy unit, but by virtue of only being in base to base contact with one another their wounds must be allocated to the enemy character first.

At first I couldn't quite believe it, but I re-read back through the whole Challenges section... and I have to agree with you, Drunkspleen. It looks like they quietly included the Overkill system from Fantasy (which makes sense, really - it's not very heroic to just hurl an unarmed sergeant at a Hive Tyrant to distract him and save the rest of your squad!). I actually like this; I think it'll help prevent people using weak characters for the sole purpose of essentially causing a 'delay of game'.

I'm IG all my characters are weak. Not a fan of this :p

This makes a lot of sense actually. The challenged model is the only on in base, making him first to die, but not the only one to die if many wounds are scored.

So no crappy nameless sarge preventing a bloodthirster from wrecking face... the sarge dies, and the Bloodthirster, done with him, immediately gets back to the buisness at hand of killing the squad. If he had to sit around and wait for a turn after only winning combat by 1 despite doing 5 wounds it would make less sense.

This has pushed some real controversy in my gaming group with people pushing both sides - Surprised it hasn't had more people commenting here, does everyone else think it's pretty much a given that overflow should happen?

I'm hoping so!

After reading the relevant sections I am inclined to agree with this.

would make sense for a unit sarge. what about an IC. I am not sure an IC's wounds would carry over.

DevianID wrote:This makes a lot of sense actually. The challenged model is the only on in base, making him first to die, but not the only one to die if many wounds are scored.

So no crappy nameless sarge preventing a bloodthirster from wrecking face... the sarge dies, and the Bloodthirster, done with him, immediately gets back to the buisness at hand of killing the squad. If he had to sit around and wait for a turn after only winning combat by 1 despite doing 5 wounds it would make less sense.

I agree that this makes a lot of sense, I really need to check this out in the rulebook when I go home.

If this rule isn't in place, a crummy character would be a good option against an uber-IC as a stall tactic.

That's why it's so important - I am definately concerned that a WAAC player could well try this.

Example I previous gave was Abaddon in a unit of Chaos Space Marines, he gets charged by a unit of Eldar Banshees and the Exarch Challenges him - He has to accept or not fight - He accepts, rolls high for his weapon and scores a huge amount of wounds - yet only one would do anything - the 'shees take down the marines and take few wounds in return making the unit fail combat, break and run to be chased down and eaten!

Would make me cry somewhat

I don't want to believe this is true. On the surface, challenges appeared to be about protecting a squad from something that vastly outclassed them. If this subtlety were reality, it makes challenges into character sniping.

However much I don't like it though, there don't appear to be any rules preventing those wounds from continuing like normal.

Following this logic....

The rules say only the challenger can strike the challengee. (and vice versa.) But it doesn't say the challenger can't strike anyone else. Thus once the challengee dies, any remaining wounds go to the next closest models.

Cool.

But then does the Challenger have to strike the challengee at all?? The rules say to allocate to any model in base contact with any model attacking at the same init step.
So if the Challenger is going at I4, and the rest of his unit is going at I4; what rule makes his attacks go to the challengee first??

Also, what Toughness do you use to resolve the hits? Group toughness, or challengee toughness?
Why?

Incurus wrote:That's why it's so important - I am definately concerned that a WAAC player could well try this.

Example I previous gave was Abaddon in a unit of Chaos Space Marines, he gets charged by a unit of Eldar Banshees and the Exarch Challenges him - He has to accept or not fight - He accepts, rolls high for his weapon and scores a huge amount of wounds - yet only one would do anything - the 'shees take down the marines and take few wounds in return making the unit fail combat, break and run to be chased down and eaten!

Would make me cry somewhat

Though I'm in agreement that Challenge wounds should carry over, if they don't, keep that in mind when deciding to purchase the 10 point champ upgrade on terminators, and then the exarch can just try to eat a terminator.

If you're only referring to standard marines, it really drives home the need for every squad to take a sarge, even if he doesn't buy any more upgrade gear.

I do not believe the wounds carry over. pg 64 under combatant slain "when one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which init step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase."

Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

So, if you go overboard and throw a marine sgt up against Abbadon or someone nasty like that, then based on how it is worded, all those extra wounds from the wounds pool are lost. Then at the end of combat, once the sgt was slain, Abbadon would make his end of combat pile-in move.

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

robzidious wrote:
Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

What you're saying does not make sense.

A and B are challengers, X and Y are their units. That line says only A can hit B and only B can hit A. X cannot hit B and Y cannot hit A. That is all it says. This line in the rules is preventing X and Y from hitting B and A respectively, not directing A and B.

You are interpreting it as "whilst the challenge is ongoing, the challenger and challengee can only strike blows against one another." Moving that "only" radically alters what that sentence means.

robzidious wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

There's a difference between 'Only the challenger can strike at the challengee' and 'The Challenger can only strike at the challengee'.

Basically:
* Only the challengee is considered in base contact with the challenger
* Hence the rest of the combatants are not in bas combat, but it says nothing about them being not involved in the combat at all
* Other combatants can not strike at the challenger/challengee, but nothing is said about the challengers striking others
* Normal wound allocation starts with the models in base contact, i.e. the challengee/closest
* When he's dead, normal wound allocation would proceed to others further away

Question is, does normal wound allocation apply here? The challenge rules say nothing about any changes to it, so I would say yes.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

What you're saying does not make sense.

A and B are challengers, X and Y are their units. That line says only A can hit B and only B can hit A. X cannot hit B and Y cannot hit A. That is all it says. This line in the rules is preventing X and Y from hitting B and A respectively, not directing A and B.

You are interpreting it as "whilst the challenge is ongoing, the challenger and challengee can only strike blows against one another." Moving that "only" radically alters what that sentence means.

Yes, I understand now what you are saying. Really they don't cover it clearly in terms of wound carry over from a challenge.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

Crazyterran wrote:
Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It, in fact, spends a whole section about saying you not only can, but must. It's the generalized assault rules, subsection: wound allocation. It give you no permission to break those rules.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It, in fact, spends a whole section about saying you not only can, but must. It's the generalized assault rules, subsection: wound allocation. It give you no permission to break those rules.

Exactly, nothing about the challenge rule says the normal wound allocation rules don't apply.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It, in fact, spends a whole section about saying you not only can, but must. It's the generalized assault rules, subsection: wound allocation. It give you no permission to break those rules.

I'd argue about it, but it's going to go nowhere. It's going to be either die rolled off or house ruled for every store. I play at a GW store, so probably die rolled.

The games I've played so far, wound allocation hasn't carried over, and both players agreed on that. In fact, my opponents pointed it out, and they where using crazy awesome weapons that'd cleave through a squad of marines.

Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. However many people have played it whatever way is irrelevant in deciding how it actually works.

Actually, the main part was "it's going to go nowhere, and either way you do it is going to lead to an argument / TO getting involved, and a Die Roll to resolve it."

It's an unclear rule.

I'd look up a fancy Latin term for "Ignoring half of a statement", but, that would involve being a dick.

Well, I think it is something that needs to be addressed by GW for sure. I do not think the wounds should carry over and based simply on the fact that regardless of init step, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain makes it pretty clear that those wounds from the challenge shouldn't carry over.

I don't see how it is unclear. You _have_ to follow normal wound allocation, and the rule only mentions other combatants prohibited from hitting the challenger/challengee, not the other way around.

robzidious wrote:regardless of init step, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain makes it pretty clear that those wounds from the challenge shouldn't carry over.

That isn't what it says though. What you've just stated says that people not in the challenge can't strike people in the challenge. That's all it says.

You are adding things to it that are not stated. Try forgetting what you think it means, and read it again. Nothing in what you said "regardless of init step, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain" says anything about wounds caused by either party in the challenge.

Also, the fact that the wounds cannot be "Look Out, Sir"ed should be an indication of their line of thought that wounds do not carry over.

Also, the fact that they are considered to only be in base to base with each other.

And the fact that you can't strike blows into the combat if you are not a character participating.

You could, however, make a better argument for any unsaved blows counting towards combat resolution and the leadership check. Due to

"Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters unit."

However, for the argument for them to carry over in their entirely, you have:

"It doesn't say you can't in the challenge rules" and "another section entirely, before challenges are even brought up, says you have to spread the wounds around in their entirety!"w

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:regardless of init step, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain makes it pretty clear that those wounds from the challenge shouldn't carry over.

That isn't what it says though. What you've just stated says that people not in the challenge can't strike people in the challenge. That's all it says.

You are adding things to it that are not stated. Try forgetting what you think it means, and read it again. Nothing in what you said "regardless of init step, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain" says anything about wounds caused by either party in the challenge.

Obviously trying to have a civil conversation about rules and their meanings with you is out of the question. You're one of those guys.

Please keep it to the debate and don't get personal. That is against our rules. Thanks ~ Manchu

My point being, as long as the challenge was ongoing, (which is it through the duration of an assault phase even after one of the combatants is slain) no other attackers may strike at either of the characters in the challenge regardless of init step. So, why, in turn, should the characters blows carry over to the unit?

Let's say Abbadon smokes the sgt at his init step and 3 wounds carry over to a squad of 10 marines. That leaves 7 still alive. Well, according to RAW those 7 wouldn't be able to strike at Abbadon regardless of being alive or dead at their init of 4 because the challenge is still considered ongoing until that particular assault phase is over. So, how on earth could his blows carry over if they couldn't strike at him on their init step? Makes no sense.

robzidious wrote:
Let's say Abbadon smokes the sgt at his init step and 3 wounds carry over to a squad of 10 marines. That leaves 7 still alive. Well, according to RAW those 7 wouldn't be able to strike at Abbadon regardless of being alive or dead at their init of 4 because the challenge is still considered ongoing until that particular assault phase is over. So, how on earth could his blows carry over if they couldn't strike at him on their init step? Makes no sense.

Because that's what the rules say. They don't get to swing at him. The rules actually say that.

Find the rule that says Abaddon can't cause wounds to anyone else. There isn't one. There's only a rule that says no one can swing at him except the Sergeant who accepted his challenge.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Let's say Abbadon smokes the sgt at his init step and 3 wounds carry over to a squad of 10 marines. That leaves 7 still alive. Well, according to RAW those 7 wouldn't be able to strike at Abbadon regardless of being alive or dead at their init of 4 because the challenge is still considered ongoing until that particular assault phase is over. So, how on earth could his blows carry over if they couldn't strike at him on their init step? Makes no sense.

Because that's what the rules say. They don't get to swing at him. The rules actually say that.

Find the rule that says Abaddon can't cause wounds to anyone else. There isn't one. There's only a rule that says no one can swing at him except the Sergeant who accepted his challenge.

Well, sir, I respectfully disagree with you. And until they FAQ it or address it, my gaming group will not be using carry over.

And in my previous post I said RAW I meant RAW as you see it.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Let's say Abbadon smokes the sgt at his init step and 3 wounds carry over to a squad of 10 marines. That leaves 7 still alive. Well, according to RAW those 7 wouldn't be able to strike at Abbadon regardless of being alive or dead at their init of 4 because the challenge is still considered ongoing until that particular assault phase is over. So, how on earth could his blows carry over if they couldn't strike at him on their init step? Makes no sense.

Because that's what the rules say. They don't get to swing at him. The rules actually say that.

Find the rule that says Abaddon can't cause wounds to anyone else. There isn't one. There's only a rule that says no one can swing at him except the Sergeant who accepted his challenge.

There's no rules saying excess wounds carry over within the rules of Challenges.

There's no wounds, within Challenges, giving Abaddon permission to cause wounds to anyone but the person he is facing in the challenge.

Crazyterran wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Let's say Abbadon smokes the sgt at his init step and 3 wounds carry over to a squad of 10 marines. That leaves 7 still alive. Well, according to RAW those 7 wouldn't be able to strike at Abbadon regardless of being alive or dead at their init of 4 because the challenge is still considered ongoing until that particular assault phase is over. So, how on earth could his blows carry over if they couldn't strike at him on their init step? Makes no sense.

Because that's what the rules say. They don't get to swing at him. The rules actually say that.

Find the rule that says Abaddon can't cause wounds to anyone else. There isn't one. There's only a rule that says no one can swing at him except the Sergeant who accepted his challenge.

There's no rules saying excess wounds carry over within the rules of Challenges.

There's no wounds, within Challenges, giving Abaddon permission to cause wounds to anyone but the person he is facing in the challenge.

His argument is that you go to normal wound allocation for wounds dealt outside of the character in the challenge because they are still engaged being 2" away from another engaged model.

nvm... answered myself...

Crazyterran wrote:[
There's no rules saying excess wounds carry over within the rules of Challenges.

There's no wounds, within Challenges, giving Abaddon permission to cause wounds to anyone but the person he is facing in the challenge.

But the challenge is still part of the larger combat. Nothing stated has changed that. Nothing says it becomes its own, separate, combat.

Ignore the challenge for now. The rules state that if you are in a CC, wounds you inflict are allocated to the closest models first (in base) and once dead, to the next closest ones.

Those are the default rules that apply to all Close Combats. The Challenge is a close combat, so those are still the default rules.

Challenges also have their own, specific rules, that take precedence. You can't use LOS, no other models may attack the Challenger/gee, no one else is considered in base contact, etc. But if not specifically stated, all the default rules should still apply. The default rules say once the in-base model is dead, allocate to those nearest. What about the Challenge rules changes that??

nm...

EDIT: ninja'ed

Unless specifically stated you cannot do it. This is a game of permissable rules, if the rulebook or codex doesn't say you can do something you cannot do it.

CrashCanuck wrote:Unless specifically stated you cannot do it. This is a game of permissable rules, if the rulebook or codex doesn't say you can do something you cannot do it.

Right. And the rules describe wound allocation.
The only limitation a challenge puts out there is who can wound the characters involved.

Therefore leftover wounds are allocated.

So here it is, then:

The basic assault rules give the character permission to allocate his wounds all over the enemy unit, starting with the closest model, and be allocated wounds in return.

The challenge rules only remove the second half of the rule: the character cannot be allocated wounds in return (except, as per challenges, the enemy character).

The challenge rules do NOT revoke the aforementioned permission a character has to damage the rest of the unit.

Ugh, the rules lawyers are going to be EXTREMELY annoying for the next few months aren't they?

maaksel wrote:Ugh, the rules lawyers are going to be EXTREMELY annoying for the next few months aren't they?

Care to say why you felt the need to post that offensive remark?
Or what you feel is "lawyering"?

maaksel wrote:Ugh, the rules lawyers are going to be EXTREMELY annoying for the next few months aren't they?

I guess nobody's stopping you from playing a version of the game where the rules are sort "whatever feels right" or "we'll figure it out as we go along" where the rules are whatever the loudest dude in the room says they are.

Some people would rather know what the rules are in advance.

Honestly, this makes sense to me - if I butcher your sergeant and still have some fight left in me, I'm not going to sit around twiddling my thumbs! I'm going to charge into the guys behind him and tear them apart. Furthermore, of course the rest of the unit still can't hit me back until the next phase - they're still shaken from watching me rip their leader to shreds!

Seriously, though, without this overflow rule, IG platoons could tarpit a Bloodthirster for half the game for a fraction of his points cost, and there's nothing that the Daemon player can do about it. That's just silly, from both a fluff and a mechanical standpoint. It's just not good gameplay.

It makes sense. wounds caused by a challenger and chalengee should overflow because of the wound allocation rules. Further, unless they kill their direct challenge opponent no wounds will be overflowing because of the way wound allocation rules work. They have to start with the models in base to base contact.

One interesting sub point though is say a warbos and a pack of gretchen attack say khorn bezerkers. The challenge gets issued and the warbos and sergeant face off. Of course the warbos tears him a new one and the wounds roll over to the rest of the squad. Fair enough that is what has been largely discussed at this point. The question is, what about the overflow wounds caused to the gretchen? Would they overflow onto the warbos? Would the immunity from blows caused by challengers prevent those overflow wounds from affecting the challenger from receiving them, causing those overflow wounds to disappear?

No. The challenge is in effect until the end of the phase, and the challenge rules say no one else can allocate wounds to the challenger/gee

I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

coredump wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:[
There's no rules saying excess wounds carry over within the rules of Challenges.

There's no wounds, within Challenges, giving Abaddon permission to cause wounds to anyone but the person he is facing in the challenge.

But the challenge is still part of the larger combat. Nothing stated has changed that. Nothing says it becomes its own, separate, combat.

Ignore the challenge for now. The rules state that if you are in a CC, wounds you inflict are allocated to the closest models first (in base) and once dead, to the next closest ones.

Those are the default rules that apply to all Close Combats. The Challenge is a close combat, so those are still the default rules.

Challenges also have their own, specific rules, that take precedence. You can't use LOS, no other models may attack the Challenger/gee, no one else is considered in base contact, etc. But if not specifically stated, all the default rules should still apply. The default rules say once the in-base model is dead, allocate to those nearest. What about the Challenge rules changes that??

I suppose. I don't see a TO or whatever taking that view, but I suppose, for now, that's how it is.

I can see this being FAQ'd to disallow it, however, but for now...

I have to wonder if this falls under the things they forgot, or figured nobody would use this kind of loophole. They should know better in either case.

I imagine the RAI is for it to be a one on one, and wounds allocated only go to each other, even overflow. But I'll guess we'll see in a month or so. (or the INAT one.)

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

robzidious wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

Where does it say this?

Normal wound allocation applies, which continues with the closest target after any in base contact are dead. (pg. 25)

Shandara wrote:

robzidious wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

Where does it say this?

Normal wound allocation applies, which continues with the closest target after any in base contact are dead.

I have a feeling this will be argued either way for the rest of eternity. (or until GW FAQs it.)

Shandara wrote:

robzidious wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

Where does it say this?

Normal wound allocation applies, which continues with the closest target after any in base contact are dead. (pg. 25)

Show me in the rules where it says normal wound allocation applies. You guys keep bringing this argument up saying normal wound allocation applies when in the rules it says no such thing. Many have also brought up fantasy in the equation, but as was explained to me, the wounds don't carry over even in fantasy they simply apply to combat resolution. You all that think the wounds overflow are reaching and when they FAQ it (which they will) you'll see that the wounds don't overflow. I brought this up to every person in my FLGS tonight because it was 40k night and not a single person agreed that the wounds overflow. You guys play it with your groups as you want, but until they FAQ it, in my group wounds from a challenge don't overflow.

Having reread the challenge section, I can say I firmly believe that GW did not intend for overflow wounds to be allowed from a challenge and likely thought "only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another" was enough to convey this.

My reasons are simple, almost every other rule mentioned in the challenge deals with specifically separating the two characters as a contained sub-combat from the whole. You cannot strike blows against someone within a challenge, including on the same turn in which one of the members is killed and you cannot "Look out, sir!" any wounds. Furthermore, GW specifically states that unsaved wounds issued as part of the challenge are reflected in combat resolution. Why would they feel this necessary to include if they thought their goal of separating the combatants wasn't otherwise clear? I'll likely discuss it with my gaming group and play it as wounds don't overflow unless something more definitive comes out of GW.

Before I post the response to this, I should clarify that I personally feel that the intent is that wounds should not carry over for allocation; however, my interpretation of intent and the written rules are two completely different matters.

As such, I will suggest in my games that wounds cannot overflow, but if the opponent disagrees I will happily go along with this. I hope that this gets addressed in the first FAQ for the rulebook, regardless of the result.

robzidious wrote:

Shandara wrote:

robzidious wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

Where does it say this?

Normal wound allocation applies, which continues with the closest target after any in base contact are dead. (pg. 25)

Show me in the rules where it says normal wound allocation applies. You guys keep bringing this argument up saying normal wound allocation applies when in the rules it says no such thing. Many have also brought up fantasy in the equation, but as was explained to me, the wounds don't carry over even in fantasy they simply apply to combat resolution. You all that think the wounds overflow are reaching and when they FAQ it (which they will) you'll see that the wounds don't overflow. I brought this up to every person in my FLGS tonight because it was 40k night and not a single person agreed that the wounds overflow. You guys play it with your groups as you want, but until they FAQ it, in my group wounds from a challenge don't overflow.

Page 25, upper-right paragraph, explains wound allocation in combat. Nowhere in the Challenge rules does it state that this does not apply, nor does it give alternative methods for allocation. As such, if you feel that they should not apply, the onus would be on you to provide evidence to that effect.

The main problem with saying "show me where it says normal allocation applies" is that the same argument can be used for other mechanics. Show me in the rules where it says the normal To Hit rules apply. Or the normal To Wound rules. Or the normal Weapon rules. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the standard rules apply - and the only changes to normal combat rules inside a challenge are:

- Models outside of the challenge may not allocate wounds to models inside the challenge.
- "Look Out Sir" may not be used to reallocate these wounds.
- The two challengers are considered to be in base-to-base contact only with each other.
- If the rest of a unit is unable to strike, it provides a certain number of re-rolls.

There are a few extra rules covering the challenge process and the option to refuse, but once the challenge has started, these are (as far as I can see) the only exceptions to the normal rules - and none of these prevent characters in the challenge allocating to other models after killing their immediate foe.

For those with access to the fantasy rulebook, is the overkill system spelled out in those rules? Or is it implicitly defined, as asserted in this thread about 40K?

I don't really have a preference either way... In my circle this could either help or hinder me.

That said, I think (on my subjective interpretation) from a RAW perspective, the rules indicate that there is spillover.

However, from a RAI perspective, I could see it going either way. On the one hand, I can see Imotekh and Halbrecht meeting in the field, fighting a noble battle to conclusion with no spillover. On the other hand, Imotekh can stand in front of a hive tyrant and issue a challenge all he wants. And the tyrant will have to kill Immy first, since he's in the way. But the tyrant won't pause, he'll just keep tearing until the Great Devourer has all the biomass.

In conclusion, I could see GW ruling either way.

robzidious wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

You really didn't understand my post very well did you?

I agree with you that it probably was not intended for wounds to overflow, atm the rules don't mention it so we use the regular close combat allocation rules. And yes as i stated if/when the rulebook faq addresses it , it will probably change.

The "Outside Forces" paragraph tells exactly what to do about assigning wounds to the characters involved from the non-challenge folks.

It says exactly nothing about what to do with the wounds caused by the challenge folks. If the argument is that we don't use the regular assault rules for assigning wounds caused by them, then they can't even hurt each other, since there's no rules listed for it. The only way they can actually do wounds to each other is if they use the regular assault rules. If they use the regular assault rules, their wound spill over onto the unit.

Has any one even considered it was designed with wound overflow in mind so you cannot tarpit hard hitting single model characters.

It will stop you tarpitting. Challenging abbadon with a Srg will result in your Srg dying and under the currently FAQ free ruling the rest of your squad getting hurt, via wound overflow, without any come back as you cannot hit him as he is still considered to be in a challange.

The above said, it is still open to abuse. Abbandon challanges Srg and either gets the protection that offers or the Srg declines and then cannot fight and the marines cannot use his leadership.

Currently, in an effort to be fair, I think if you play wounds overflow then you 'allow' your character to be hit by any surviving squad members who's init step is after the challangee is dead. If you don't play wound overflow then perhaps the winning character should be protected for the duration of the round.

Good read.

Yes, it seems another WHFB carry-over.

combat resolution is based on the number of unsaved wounds caused right. Where does it say if I do 5 unsaved wounds to a 1 wound model that that only counts as 1 unsaved wound? Because last I checked, 5 was 5.

Combat resolution is based on wounds lost. Anything carrying above what model could lose as wounds is lost.
it's also why if you cause 1 wound with a weapon that causes instead death on a multi wound model, you get the full wounds lost in your combat resolution rather than only 1.

Doomaflatchi wrote:Seriously, though, without this overflow rule, IG platoons could tarpit a Bloodthirster for half the game for a fraction of his points cost, and there's nothing that the Daemon player can do about it. That's just silly, from both a fluff and a mechanical standpoint. It's just not good gameplay.

This is why I want there to be overflow. Some beast of an IC, who could kill 6+ guys a turn, can't do so, because the defending unit has a couple of wimpy characters who can issue challenges. Instead the beast of an IC can only kill one character a turn. Two turns of combat, where the IC could have killed a dozen plus guys, but instead, he only takes out two guys.

Joe Mama wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:Seriously, though, without this overflow rule, IG platoons could tarpit a Bloodthirster for half the game for a fraction of his points cost, and there's nothing that the Daemon player can do about it. That's just silly, from both a fluff and a mechanical standpoint. It's just not good gameplay.

This is why I want there to be overflow. Some beast of an IC, who could kill 6+ guys a turn, can't do so, because the defending unit has a couple of wimpy characters who can issue challenges. Instead the beast of an IC can only kill one character a turn. Two turns of combat, where the IC could have killed a dozen plus guys, but instead, he only takes out two guys.

I agree with your sentiment. But, flip that coin over. That same beast of an IC can take out those 6+ guys a turn without having to worry about being swung back at by issuing a challenge.

I.e. 30 orks get charged by some big IC. The IC challenges. The nob can either accept, die, not swing or not swing and the orks get to swing.
In either case the mob of orks is at a disadvantage relative to where they were in 5th.

The reading of the rules advocated here (allowing overflow wounds) seems to be RAW, but it's a pretty clear buff to indpendent characters. The net effect is, they don't die in the first round of combat but their killy has not been significantly reduced.

Especially because, RAW, nothing requires the IC to put any attacks against the character it challenges. It just says the IC is the only one who *can* put attacks against the characters it challenges. The rules tell us to move the models to be in base. The IC issuing the challenge can (will probably) be in base with other models too. It can attack them, they can't attack it.

As for challenges, they are launched at the beginning of the combat sub-phase.

They bring in restrictions but otherwise do not invalidate what happens or how the combat phase proceeds.

Correct me if I am wrong, but after reading the rules again.

Assault begins. Abaddon and a squad of CSM charges an IG platoon.
3 guardsman are in b2b with Abaddon and he issues a challenge.
1 of the sergeant accepts and replaces a guardsman in b2b

Abaddon is now in b2b with 2 guards and 1 sergeant.

Since wounds are allocated from closest to furthest, nothing indicates here that Abaddon kills the Sergeant first. The 2 guardsman in b2b could technically take the first 2 wounds and then the sergeant would bite it.

dammit dakka I was so confident in my understanding of this rule but now my whole world has been turned upside down.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voldrak wrote:As for challenges, they are launched at the beginning of the combat sub-phase.

They bring in restrictions but otherwise do not invalidate what happens or how the combat phase proceeds.

Correct me if I am wrong, but after reading the rules again.

Assault begins. Abaddon and a squad of CSM charges an IG platoon.
3 guardsman are in b2b with Abaddon and he issues a challenge.
1 of the sergeant accepts and replaces a guardsman in b2b

Abaddon is now in b2b with 2 guards and 1 sergeant.

Since wounds are allocated from closest to furthest, nothing indicates here that Abaddon kills the Sergeant first. The 2 guardsman in b2b could technically take the first 2 wounds and then the sergeant would bite it.

The rules do say that during the challenge the challenger and challengee are only in base contact with each other and no one else.

Tangent wrote:For those with access to the fantasy rulebook, is the overkill system spelled out in those rules? Or is it implicitly defined, as asserted in this thread about 40K?

There's a rule called Overkill that specifically handles it. But using rules from another system, no matter how similar, to justify rules judgements in another isn't going to fly.

Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

htj wrote:

Tangent wrote:For those with access to the fantasy rulebook, is the overkill system spelled out in those rules? Or is it implicitly defined, as asserted in this thread about 40K?

There's a rule called Overkill that specifically handles it. But using rules from another system, no matter how similar, to justify rules judgements in another isn't going to fly.

Oh, I know. What I'm getting at is... if GW intended for Overkill to be present in 40K in the same way that it is present in Fantasy, then you'd think they would give the 40K rulebook the same treatment as the Fantasy rulebook, especially considering the fantasy rulebook came out a long time ago. I say this mainly for the people who have been making RAI arguments instead of RAW.

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

Tangent wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

When the fight happens has no bearing on how the wounds are allocated, just which models are on the board when it occurs.

jcress410 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

When the fight happens has no bearing on how the wounds are allocated, just which models are on the board when it occurs.

You don't think that this entry gives insight into GW's intention on this particular issue?

Maybe. I don't think the intent matters as much.

The point of hashing the text of the rules is to create a predictable, consistent way to play the game. Relying on what we think the GW intent was hinders that goal, as there are many possible interpretations that are all valid.

I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

When real lawyers talk about the intent of legislation they found their arguments in the public writings/speeches of lawmakers. Until there's a FAQ Rules Lawyers have no such documentation.

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

When the fight happens has no bearing on how the wounds are allocated, just which models are on the board when it occurs.

You don't think that this entry gives insight into GW's intention on this particular issue?

As i said on the topic before, I think that the rule was intended for to overflow to not happen.

But as long as the wording stays like this i agree that wounds should overflow.

Although the challenge rules indicate that we can do the challenge before everybody else or after or at when the fighting goes on. (the summary tells us to do it last but the main rules section indicates it is optional). So this creates the issue of how casualty removal issue. If we do the challenge before the main combat , we might get the power fist sergeant killed but if we do it after the main combat the power fist sergeant will strike and probably will change the outcome of the combat.

htj wrote:

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

Precision Strike does indeed apply to assaults. Precision shots apply to shooting.

Interestingly: "Wounds from precision strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound Allocation". Is there anything in the Challenge rules that overrides this?
Edit: [Page 63 BRB]

Bannzai wrote:

htj wrote:

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

Precision Strike does indeed apply to assaults. Precision shots apply to shooting.

Interestingly: "Wounds from precision strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound Allocation". Is there anything in the Challenge rules that overrides this?
Edit: [Page 63 BRB]

Not that I can find. It appears that to-wound rolls of 6's in a Challenge can be assigned to any model within 2" of the Challenger/gee. Then again, if you can afford to spend attacks not hitting the character you're engaged in a challenge with, and can still trounce him despite it, more power to you! Your character is obviously badass enough that the opposing unit simply can't stop his rampage.

pizzaguardian wrote:As i said on the topic before, I think that the rule was intended for to overflow to not happen.

But as long as the wording stays like this i agree that wounds should overflow.

Although the challenge rules indicate that we can do the challenge before everybody else or after or at when the fighting goes on. (the summary tells us to do it last but the main rules section indicates it is optional). So this creates the issue of how casualty removal issue. If we do the challenge before the main combat , we might get the power fist sergeant killed but if we do it after the main combat the power fist sergeant will strike and probably will change the outcome of the combat.

I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time reading the rules on this an I think I have found the reason for the way the rules are written.

As the rules state you issue the challange and the 2 models are placed BtB. Now look at the next rule...

Challanges happen AFTER normal combat. In effect the two units are fighting in a phase that happens AFTER powerfist attacks.

So if there is a challange the people that the more powerful char. would have killed STILL get to make thier attacks before the the wound allocation of the challenge kills them.

So under 5th Ed. rules SL and his TG charge into a unit. SL probably goes first and kills 4-5 guys. Then the rest of combat happens with the TG and the opposing side.

With challanges SL runs in and gets chalanged by some Sgt or commisar. They are moved into BtB and wait. Now those 4-5 guys that SL would have killed BEFORE they got thier attacks are still in combat and can do some damage. Then the challange goes off and the sgt dies a horrible death and the extra wounds kill 3-4 others.

So the advantage for the weaker char. is to buy enough time for his full squad to do some damage before the CC monster rips through the squad.

So RAW is good. Challange. Regular combat with wound allocation that avoids the chalangers. Then chalange with normal wound allocation.

Makes perfect sense.

Read more: http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=39374&page=2#ixzz1zs1SB37M

Crazyterran wrote:
I suppose. I don't see a TO or whatever taking that view, but I suppose, for now, that's how it is.

I can see this being FAQ'd to disallow it, however, but for now...

I have to wonder if this falls under the things they forgot, or figured nobody would use this kind of loophole. They should know better in either case.

I imagine the RAI is for it to be a one on one, and wounds allocated only go to each other, even overflow. But I'll guess we'll see in a month or so. (or the INAT one.)

I understand your sentiment, because I feel that way about a lot of things. But over the years it has become apparent that either they *did* mean those things, or they just didn't care.

Did they really mean to allow such wound allocation games in 5E? Do they really mean to allow wound allocation games in 6E?

How about that 'glitch' in the assault rules that you so elegantly argued. I am sure there are a number of people that feel that is a loophole that GW forgot about, and will get 'fixed' in an upcoming FAQ.

In this case, I think it is a mistake to allow a string of peon 'characters' hold up the Bloodthirster for 3 turns; but as you say.... we will see....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gloomfang wrote:
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time reading the rules on this an I think I have found the reason for the way the rules are written.

As the rules state you issue the challange and the 2 models are placed BtB. Now look at the next rule...

Challanges happen AFTER normal combat.

Gloomfang: You are confusing rules and fluff: You are taking a bit from a "Forging the Narrative" and applying that as an actual rule.

The one above that says that the Nid player should make a "bowels loosening" roar when making a challenge. Do you really think that is part of the rules??

coredump wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time reading the rules on this an I think I have found the reason for the way the rules are written.

As the rules state you issue the challange and the 2 models are placed BtB. Now look at the next rule...

Challanges happen AFTER normal combat.

Gloomfang: You are confusing rules and fluff: You are taking a bit from a "Forging the Narrative" and applying that as an actual rule.

The one above that says that the Nid player should make a "bowels loosening" roar when making a challenge. Do you really think that is part of the rules??

check the summary section of the rulebook please. There it says challenges happen after regular combat.

Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

is there a reason your arn't doing the challenge after all other attacks and in inti order ?

im just curious about the fact that in a challenge you might be attacking completely different WS, T and SV throws from the rest of the unit. doesnt this kind of make wounds bleeding into the unit wrong?

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

The box-out is the only thing that you shouldn't take seriously. Since it tells us that tyranid players have to make gurgling roar on page ago.

And how is adding up unsaved wounds is false? I thought that was the way we are supposed to do that

usernamesareannoying has made a great point here. should we take the unit's stats or the challenger's ?

Atm i think we should use the challenger's statline and overflow the wounds.

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

pizzaguardian wrote:
The box-out is the only thing that you shouldn't take seriously. Since it tells us that tyranid players have to make gurgling roar on page ago.

Only if you completely ignore context.

The box out says you will find it 'more satisfying' for Nids to roar. It never treats it as a rule.
The box out says 'many players like to resolve challenges at the end', it never treats it as a rule

But the box out says "Though the characters in a challenge strike during their normal Initiative steps", it *does* treat that as a rule.

And how is adding up unsaved wounds is false? I thought that was the way we are supposed to do that

Not at all. Once you leave the 'summary' and read the rules in the appropriate location you find
Unsaved wounds negated by saves, don't count
Unsaved wounds negated by FnP, don't count
Unsaved wounds beyond the number in the unit, don't count.
Conversely,
A single Unsaved Wound, if ID causing, could count for as many as 6 towards combat resolution.

The summary is a quick and dirty reminder of the actual rules, it is *not* a replacement for them.



And again, the entire premise of the box out of p.65 is that the RULE is that challenges happen during their init steps, but they propose an ALTERNATIVE method of doing it after everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

is there a reason your arn't doing the challenge after all other attacks and in inti order ?

Because there is nothing in the rules to indicate there is supposed to be two separate combats, or two different sets of initiative steps.

pizzaguardian wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

The box-out is the only thing that you shouldn't take seriously. Since it tells us that tyranid players have to make gurgling roar on page ago.

I had to reverse my opinion because of that boxed text.

If you can move the challenge to the end of combat OR do it in initiative order it means that the challenge is completely separate from the main combat. If it wasn't then the order would matter drastically. If you do it in initiative order and wounds could be assigned outside of the challenge a lot of models could be dead that would be able to fight when you move the challenge to after the end of regular combat.

So no would allocation out of the challenge.

coredump wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

is there a reason your arn't doing the challenge after all other attacks and in inti order ?

Because there is nothing in the rules to indicate there is supposed to be two separate combats, or two different sets of initiative steps.

page 429 2nd to last bullet.
Once all models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges,

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

The issue with this argument is that Overkill in Fantasy does something entirely different than what we're talking about here (in addition to being a different game) - Fantasy Overkill specifically adds the extra wounds to the combat result only to represent you tearing their champion to bloody pieces, then jumping up and down on those pieces and hurling bits of them around the battlefield, thus weakening the enemy's morale. However, Fantasy also has fewer models eligible for challenges in their units, which is important because it negates the threat of peon sergeants tying up a Bloodthirster that was previously mentioned. I think that in the absence of a specific ruling on what to do with extra wounds, we must go back to the basic rules for what to do with wounds, which is that they spill over into the rest of the unit.

coredump wrote:

Not at all. Once you leave the 'summary' and read the rules in the appropriate location you find
Unsaved wounds negated by saves, don't count
Unsaved wounds negated by FnP, don't count
Unsaved wounds beyond the number in the unit, don't count.
Conversely,
A single Unsaved Wound, if ID causing, could count for as many as 6 towards combat resolution.

The summary is a quick and dirty reminder of the actual rules, it is *not* a replacement for them.



And again, the entire premise of the box out of p.65 is that the RULE is that challenges happen during their init steps, but they propose an ALTERNATIVE method of doing it after everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

You seem to have understand the unsaved wound wrong, of course you are supposed to count them as like that. For example a wound which was negated by a save is not an unsaved wound is it?

I agree that the summary is a reminder, but you ask us to ignore it completely as it was false .

coredump wrote:

Only if you completely ignore context.

The box out says you will find it 'more satisfying' for Nids to roar. It never treats it as a rule.
The box out says 'many players like to resolve challenges at the end', it never treats it as a rule

But the box out says "Though the characters in a challenge strike during their normal Initiative steps", it *does* treat that as a rule.

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

The issue with this argument is that Overkill in Fantasy does something entirely different than what we're talking about here (in addition to being a different game) - Fantasy Overkill specifically adds the extra wounds to the combat result only to represent you tearing their champion to bloody pieces, then jumping up and down on those pieces and hurling bits of them around the battlefield, thus weakening the enemy's morale. However, Fantasy also has fewer models eligible for challenges in their units, which is important because it negates the threat of peon sergeants tying up a Bloodthirster that was previously mentioned. I think that in the absence of a specific ruling on what to do with extra wounds, we must go back to the basic rules for what to do with wounds, which is that they spill over into the rest of the unit.

Yeah, I hear you.

But how does your interpretation jive with the fact that the rulebook specifically allows you to resolve the challenge AFTER all other blows from both units have been struck? This is a crucial point that, in my opinion, MUST be taken into account when debating this. The rulebook states that it does not matter when the challenge is resolved - before other models strike, after other models strike, in the middle of some models striking before others... it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then how would wound overflow work?

Bannzai wrote:

htj wrote:

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

Precision Strike does indeed apply to assaults. Precision shots apply to shooting.

Interestingly: "Wounds from precision strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound Allocation". Is there anything in the Challenge rules that overrides this?
Edit: [Page 63 BRB]

Well I'll be, totally missed that. Apologies,dayio!

Tangent wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

The issue with this argument is that Overkill in Fantasy does something entirely different than what we're talking about here (in addition to being a different game) - Fantasy Overkill specifically adds the extra wounds to the combat result only to represent you tearing their champion to bloody pieces, then jumping up and down on those pieces and hurling bits of them around the battlefield, thus weakening the enemy's morale. However, Fantasy also has fewer models eligible for challenges in their units, which is important because it negates the threat of peon sergeants tying up a Bloodthirster that was previously mentioned. I think that in the absence of a specific ruling on what to do with extra wounds, we must go back to the basic rules for what to do with wounds, which is that they spill over into the rest of the unit.

Yeah, I hear you.

But how does your interpretation jive with the fact that the rulebook specifically allows you to resolve the challenge AFTER all other blows from both units have been struck? This is a crucial point that, in my opinion, MUST be taken into account when debating this. The rulebook states that it does not matter when the challenge is resolved - before other models strike, after other models strike, in the middle of some models striking before others... it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't matter, then how would wound overflow work?

This is a really good point, and I actually have no idea how these two points are supposed to work together! I think the statement that it doesn't matter when wounds are resolved shows, with arguable clarity, that wound overflow wasn't specifically intended, but... BUT, I also don't think that display of 'possible intention' is solid enough to allow us to create a new wound allocation rule where none exists. Thus, I think we still have to allow wound overflow for the time being. It seems to be here until it gets FAQ'ed, if it ever does.

Personally, I'd suggest with my opponent that we always resolve challenge wounds after combat, as that just feels most balanced to me; I don't think it really matters too much one way or the other, as long as you and your opponent are consistent about it from game to game.

I'm with you up until the balanced part. If wound overflow does not exist, then why pay hundreds of points for a melee-focused character? The weak IG squad leader (or whatever) with 1 wound challenges him, removing his ability to exercise that melee prowess, and because wounds can't overflow the most that he can contribute to combat resolution is 1 wound.

Alternatively, if wound overflow DOES exist, then you're not grossly overpaying for melee-focused characters.

Tangent wrote:I'm with you up until the balanced part. If wound overflow does not exist, then why pay hundreds of points for a melee-focused character? The weak IG squad leader (or whatever) with 1 wound challenges him, removing his ability to exercise that melee prowess, and because wounds can't overflow the most that he can contribute to combat resolution is 1 wound.

Alternatively, if wound overflow DOES exist, then you're not grossly overpaying for melee-focused characters.

it says the wounds still count to see who won the combat though so the characters wounds still matter.

id like to ask my earlier question again since no one seems to have mentioned it, what about the fact that in a challenge you might be attacking completely different WS, T and SV throws from the rest of the unit. doesnt this kind of make wounds bleeding into the unit wrong?

usernamesareannoying wrote:

Tangent wrote:I'm with you up until the balanced part. If wound overflow does not exist, then why pay hundreds of points for a melee-focused character? The weak IG squad leader (or whatever) with 1 wound challenges him, removing his ability to exercise that melee prowess, and because wounds can't overflow the most that he can contribute to combat resolution is 1 wound.

Alternatively, if wound overflow DOES exist, then you're not grossly overpaying for melee-focused characters.

it says the wounds still count to see who won the combat though so the characters wounds still matter.

id like to ask my earlier question again since no one seems to have mentioned it, what about the fact that in a challenge you might be attacking completely different WS, T and SV throws from the rest of the unit. doesnt this kind of make wounds bleeding into the unit wrong?

This is an extremely valid point and one that brings me to the conclussion, after having read the challenge rules for the hundreth time. The wound overflow isn't supposed to be.

I believe that the two characters fight, wounds are directed toward each other, and any unsaved wounds are counted toward the combat resolution.

Here's an example that makes sense to me:

A chaos lord charges an IG squad.
The IG sgt. then challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The IG sgt cannot save against any of the 5 wounds due to them being AP3.
The IG sgt dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -5 for losing combat.
The IG squads break and is susequently run down while being caught in a sweeping advance.

In the example given it's pretty straight forward how this works. Now let's do another:

A chaos lord charges an space wolf squad with a wolf guard in TDA with a power fist.
The wolf guard challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The wolf guard saves 3 wounds but fails 2 due to a bad roll.
The wolf gaurd dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -2 for losing combat.
The space wolf squad pass their morale check and continues to fight the next turn.

If there had been a squad of chaos marines involved in either of these combats they would have had a chance to be involved in an assault with the other members of the opponents squad, and any results would have modified the combat resolution results either up or down respectively.

This is just my interpertation of the rules, but it seems logical to me.

bigbaboonass wrote:This is an extremely valid point and one that brings me to the conclussion, after having read the challenge rules for the hundreth time. The wound overflow isn't supposed to be.

I believe that the two characters fight, wounds are directed toward each other, and any unsaved wounds are counted toward the combat resolution.

Here's an example that makes sense to me:

A chaos lord charges an IG squad.
The IG sgt. then challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The IG sgt cannot save against any of the 5 wounds due to them being AP3.
The IG sgt dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -5 for losing combat.
The IG squads break and is susequently run down while being caught in a sweeping advance.

In the example given it's pretty straight forward how this works. Now let's do another:

A chaos lord charges an space wolf squad with a wolf guard in TDA with a power fist.
The wolf guard challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The wolf guard saves 3 wounds but fails 2 due to a bad roll.
The wolf gaurd dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -2 for losing combat.
The space wolf squad pass their morale check and continues to fight the next turn.

If there had been a squad of chaos marines involved in either of these combats they would have had a chance to be involved in an assault with the other members of the opponents squad, and any results would have modified the combat resolution results either up or down respectively.

This is just my interpertation of the rules, but it seems logical to me.

Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic do not count for determining assault results. See page 26 of the Rulebook. So your examples cannot be RAW. RAI? Maybe, but it seems just as easy to continue to follow the rules for Allocating Wounds as already described in the Assault Phase rules. Which means the wounds spill over to the next closest model.

ToBeWilly wrote:

bigbaboonass wrote:This is an extremely valid point and one that brings me to the conclussion, after having read the challenge rules for the hundreth time. The wound overflow isn't supposed to be.

I believe that the two characters fight, wounds are directed toward each other, and any unsaved wounds are counted toward the combat resolution.

Here's an example that makes sense to me:

A chaos lord charges an IG squad.
The IG sgt. then challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The IG sgt cannot save against any of the 5 wounds due to them being AP3.
The IG sgt dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -5 for losing combat.
The IG squads break and is susequently run down while being caught in a sweeping advance.

In the example given it's pretty straight forward how this works. Now let's do another:

A chaos lord charges an space wolf squad with a wolf guard in TDA with a power fist.
The wolf guard challenges the chaos lord.
The chaos lord does 5 wounds.
The wolf guard saves 3 wounds but fails 2 due to a bad roll.
The wolf gaurd dies before he gets to swing because he is a lower Int than the chaos lord.
The chaos lord survives the challenge unhurt.
The remaining squad cannot swing on the chaos lord due to not having been part of the challenge and must now take a break test at a -2 for losing combat.
The space wolf squad pass their morale check and continues to fight the next turn.

If there had been a squad of chaos marines involved in either of these combats they would have had a chance to be involved in an assault with the other members of the opponents squad, and any results would have modified the combat resolution results either up or down respectively.

This is just my interpertation of the rules, but it seems logical to me.

Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic do not count for determining assault results. See page 26 of the Rulebook. So your examples cannot be RAW. RAI? Maybe, but it seems just as easy to continue to follow the rules for Allocating Wounds as already described in the Assault Phase rules. Which means the wounds spill over to the next closest model.

Yeah. Sorry. Got hung up reading and re-reading the rules for challenges that I convinced myself that was how it was supposed to work without re-reading the basic rules for assaults. As you said maybe RAI, but hat wouldn't hold water in a tourney. This being the case, wounds spill over into the rest of the squad seems reasonable enough. Single model units / IC with a high Int definitely gain an advantage then.

Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic do not count for determining assault results


This right here should tell you they don't carry over to other models. For simple reason they say there can be wounds in excess to the model's Wounds characteristic

IF you read spill over into the rules, can you please explain the entire 'Assault Result" section on page 65? I'm not being snarky, I just see that as a huge hurdle to the spillover camp, and if you can resolved that with "Forging a Narrative" and with page 429, I'm in. But, to me, both RAI and RAW back up wounds not spilling over, due to those two entrees. It seems like you've acknowledged those hurdles, but have kinda just wrote them off, instead of making your case against them.

I really will be thrilled with either point of view on this, I just need to be able to defend my position, as I am the "tie breaker" in all club rule disputes and I have 2 super rule lawyers who book mark their books with color coded tabs and have prewritten arguments for their positions, and I have to take a stand and prove it to them (preferably the first time), and for the younger gamers, I need to get these things right.

this simple go to page 64 read last setences in fighting a challenge.

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


if you read how they are placed they may not even be in base to base so it doesn't matter if they are with in 2 inches of another models they only count as base to base with each other says nothing about being close to any other model. there for even if character is touching a sergent in challenge and a tac marine he only counts as being base to base with sergent there for he cant hit the tac becues he doesnt count in base to base with him. and you cant follow normall wound allocation in the first place.

Isn't there an official battle rep or AAR in a WD or something that deals with this? That would at least shead some light on all of this. And yes, I know that an AAR even from GW is still not rules.

i thought the wd battle reports were untrustworthy and usually had mistakes in it ?

pizzaguardian wrote:i thought the wd battle reports were untrustworthy and usually had mistakes in it ?

True, but if one did have wounds being allocated to a squad after a challenge, I would say its quite telling.

okay another easy one for you guys for more proof

We can also look at it this way page 65 Moral Support
first setence "your units are reduced to bystanders"

what is a bystander "one present but not taking part in a situation or event"
if there not taking part in the event in a table top manner they are not making saves that would be taking part in the challenge.

and before someone says the challege is over when the character dies read page 64 Combatant slain.

And some one going say wait a bystander can got shot in real life and yes they can but we don't figure that in table top or missles from orks be blowing every thing up on the table.

captain-crud wrote:okay another easy one for you guys for more proof

We can also look at it this way page 65 Moral Support
first setence "your units are reduced to bystanders"

what is a bystander "one present but not taking part in a situation or event"
if there not taking part in the event in a table top manner they are not making saves that would be taking part in the challenge.

and before someone says the challege is over when the character dies read page 64 Combatant slain.

And some one going say wait a bystander can got shot in real life and yes they can but we don't figure that in table top or missles from orks be blowing every thing up on the table.

This is an odd contortion of the text.

The restrictions imposed on an assault by a challenge are clear.

Nothing about being in a challenge keeps an independent character from allocating wounds normally.

Sure it's not what we would expect a challenge to be. We may have ideas for how the rules 'should' work, or what might have been intended by the authors... but that all seems trumped by a plain text reading of the rules.

One last thing

If the Challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase, that means the "winning" character is still counted as being base to base with another model. Wounds can't be allocated away from that model until it is removed. Only when the model in base to base is killed can those wounds overflow (page 25 second bullet, right column). It doesn't die until the end of the phase (page 64). Allocation, resolution, and removal of casualties have already ended for all combat by then and the extra wounds are vapor.

"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

IF I had to make an arguement against overflow, this would be my lead and I must say, it is very strong and certainly explains the need to state that the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase, followed by the summary in the back (429).

Your argument strongly states that challenges are on going until the end of the phase. But this still is imo intentional interpretations of the rule.

And it doesn't say the challenger doesn't die until the end of the phase . It says we count the challenge is still ongoing. This is a small but important difference between what you say and the quote in the rulebook. (Assuming you were talking about the Combatant Slain rule).

I really would like to have not overflowing wounds but your argument actually just proves what is in the book that the challengers won't be hit by anyone else. It only intends we should not overflow. Which be interpreted as we should overflow and the mechanic was added to buff the stronger model ( monstrous creatures, bigass strong characters)

No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

Lobukia wrote:No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

You can allocate to targets outside of base to base contact once there are none left in b2b. See page 25 left side, 2nd bullet.

The challenge rule only says anything about who is considered in base to base contact, it says nothing about the other combatants being not there.

It is clear that the combat and wound results are entirely between the models involved in the challenge.
Page 25 would not apply.

Shandara wrote:

Lobukia wrote:No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

You can allocate to targets outside of base to base contact once there are none left in b2b. See page 25 left side, 2nd bullet.

The challenge rule only says anything about who is considered in base to base contact, it says nothing about the other combatants being not there.

You're missing the point. You cannot allocate wounds outside b2b until you are no longer in b2b by virtue of having killed those in b2b. But the BRB has removed that option by stating that challenge combats can't shake b2b restrictions until the phase is over.

Option 1) b2b, allocate wounds there
Option 2) No longer b2b, allocate to other models

But it is clearly stated that the challenge lasts the entire phase and that for the entire phase the challenge combatants are considered in b2b. It's impossible to use option 2 if option 1 still applies.

Man assaulting and CC is so jacked in 6e.

60mm wrote:Man assaulting and CC is so jacked in 6e.

It's not, people are just struggling combining rules on separate pages and shaking 5e baggage (present company included)... Which is normal during a rules change

Incurus wrote:That's why it's so important - I am definately concerned that a WAAC player could well try this.

Example I previous gave was Abaddon in a unit of Chaos Space Marines, he gets charged by a unit of Eldar Banshees and the Exarch Challenges him - He has to accept or not fight - He accepts, rolls high for his weapon and scores a huge amount of wounds - yet only one would do anything - the 'shees take down the marines and take few wounds in return making the unit fail combat, break and run to be chased down and eaten!

Would make me cry somewhat

Models in terminator armor cannot sweeping advance


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well what about in 5th edition, in cc if a ic attacks another ic did the wounds overflow?

Lobukia wrote:

Shandara wrote:

Lobukia wrote:No my arguement is that the book states that that both combatants are in base to base until the end of the phase (because that is what it says). The wound allocation rules are also clear that you cannot allocate to anyone else while still in base to base. There is no way to allocate outside the challenge (with the possible exception of precision strikes) unless you choose to ignore some part of the rules.

This discussion has now flipped. RAW is clear, no overflow. You'll have to head to RAI to justify overflow.

You can allocate to targets outside of base to base contact once there are none left in b2b. See page 25 left side, 2nd bullet.

The challenge rule only says anything about who is considered in base to base contact, it says nothing about the other combatants being not there.

You're missing the point. You cannot allocate wounds outside b2b until you are no longer in b2b by virtue of having killed those in b2b. But the BRB has removed that option by stating that challenge combats can't shake b2b restrictions until the phase is over.

Option 1) b2b, allocate wounds there
Option 2) No longer b2b, allocate to other models

But it is clearly stated that the challenge lasts the entire phase and that for the entire phase the challenge combatants are considered in b2b. It's impossible to use option 2 if option 1 still applies.

Wrong, it states the challenge is ongoing regardless of which initiative step, not that b2b is retained. This prevents outsiders from attacking the challenger/challengee. You are suggesting that the model is killed but left in b2b until the end of the phase so left over wounds have no choice but be stacked on the victim which is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ub3rb3n wrote:
Well what about in 5th edition, in cc if a ic attacks another ic did the wounds overflow?

No and with IC they still would not as they are considered their own unit. The overkill literally only prevents an 18pt character from tarpiting a much more expensive character as a unit character is much different then an IC.

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

What happens when a model loses is last wound? It is removed as a casualty. This happens as soon as that last wound is gone. If the model is removed, it can no longer be in base contact with anything.

Hell, the challenge rules state no prohibition against the challengers striking blows against the rest of the squad. It only says that the rest of the squad cannot strike blows against those engaged in challenges.

Martymunster wrote:It states "for the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact with only each other."

Which only means that once it comes to wound allocation, you start with the challengee. It does not mean the rest of combatants are not involved in the combat at large. In fact GW feels they specifically need to forbid the combatants from hitting the challenger/challengee.

Martymunster wrote:It states "for the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact with only each other."

Yes, but when I allocate enough Wounds to a model to kill it, it is removed from play. I can't be in base to base with a model that's not in play. You're acting like the challenge prevents me from killing the enemy, which is just not so.

I'm just quoting the rule, the one directly below that one states that the challenge last until the end of the phase. As long as they are in that phase, they count as being B2B apparently

Martymunster wrote:I'm just quoting the rule, the one directly below that one states that the challenge last until the end of the phase. As long as they are in that phase, they count as being B2B apparently

Um... no. The Challenge counts as ongoing until the end of the phase, certainly, but the rule that they count as being in base-to-base for the duration of the challenge is predicated upon there being a "they" to be in base-to-base with each other. When one of them dies, there is no longer a "they" - just a survivor. Thus, the 'count as being in base-to-base' rule no longer applies, because it's prerequisite situation is no longer in play. Try not to overcomplicate things, please.

Rito . Just sayin


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just sayin counts as b2B. not that it actually is

Martymunster wrote:Just sayin counts as b2B. not that it actually is

Ah, gotcha - but that's the point, see? Units counting as in base-to-base with one model, killing it, and then killing the guys behind it is how assaults normally work, which (as I understand it) is the argument here.

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

While in a challenge, you are in base to base

the challenge continues until the end of phase

They say it in plain english

You do count as being in b2b until the end of phase, if you disagree, you have to ignore rules

Your right, but I don't know that there is a precedent for models that count as b2b until the end of a phase. I don't mind if I'm wrong here, I play daemons after all. But as I read it you have to wound b2b models, and as long as your in a challenge, your only b2b model is the other champion. According to the rules. Even if you kill him you technically remain b2b with that champion until the end of that phase. I hope I'm horribly wrong. But as long as your in that challenge your technically only b2b with the other guy, and the challenge ends at the end of the phase

1) You count as in btb for the duration of the challenge
2) Even if one model (or both) is slain, you are still in the challenge until the end of the phase
3) You cannot allocate wounds to models not in b2b with you, until there are no models in btb with you left

1 - 3 result in wounds not overflowing. You have a non-existant model in b2b with you, and ONLY with you, until the end of the [hase. You are prohibited, by the rules, from allocating to other models until that model is no longer in b2b - which is at the end of the phase.

ninja'd

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You count as in btb for the duration of the challenge
2) Even if one model (or both) is slain, you are still in the challenge until the end of the phase
3) You cannot allocate wounds to models not in b2b with you, until there are no models in btb with you left

1 - 3 result in wounds not overflowing. You have a non-existant model in b2b with you, and ONLY with you, until the end of the [hase. You are prohibited, by the rules, from allocating to other models until that model is no longer in b2b - which is at the end of the phase.

100% agree (and I posted it three times above already)

Dang it Nos, why do we always need someone like you to say things before people listen?

To be fair lobukia your the one that changed my mind about the extra wounds

I admit it sounds solid... but..

What happens to the overflow wounds then?

Because the rules say you must allocate wounds to the closest model .. until the wound pool is empty or all models in the unit have been removed as casualties. (page 15), 2nd to last paragraph).

(and before you ask, page 25. says wounds are allocated just like shooting, with some extra rules as follows after).

I know you stated it, just figured it was worth restating

nosferatu1001 wrote:I know you stated it, just figured it was worth restating

Seriously, you do it very well, in a concise and authoritative matter

Shandara wrote:I admit it sounds solid... but..

What happens to the overflow wounds then?

Doesn't exist

Because the rules say you must allocate wounds to the closest model .. until the wound pool is empty or all models in the unit have been removed as casualties. (page 15), 2nd to last paragraph).

Just like if you kill a unit with wounds left to roll, they are unused, and the process ends with all possible paths exhausted. All other combat is resolved and over, and the phase has ended. Sometimes overkill is just overkill

(and before you ask, page 25. says wounds are allocated just like shooting, with some extra rules as follows after).

Lobukia wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I know you stated it, just figured it was worth restating

Seriously, you do it very well, in a concise and authoritative matter

Shandara wrote:I admit it sounds solid... but..

What happens to the overflow wounds then?

Doesn't exist

Excess wounds then..

Because the rules say you must allocate wounds to the closest model .. until the wound pool is empty or all models in the unit have been removed as casualties. (page 15), 2nd to last paragraph).

Just like if you kill a unit with wounds left to roll, they are unused, and the process ends with all possible paths exhausted. All other combat is resolved and over, and the phase has ended. Sometimes overkill is just overkill

(and before you ask, page 25. says wounds are allocated just like shooting, with some extra rules as follows after).

Yes, but the unit is not dead. And the rules don't say anything about paths being exhausted (they say all models in the unit can be hit, even those not engaged), but say you _must_ allocate the wounds to the closest model, which in your and nos' interpetration is dead/non-existant. Does the game break then?

Lobukia wrote:

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

While in a challenge, you are in base to base

the challenge continues until the end of phase

They say it in plain english

You do count as being in b2b until the end of phase, if you disagree, you have to ignore rules

While your logic is sound, I would disagree with one of your core assumptions - when one model in the challenge dies, it is removed from play, so there is no more "these two models", which is both a logical and grammatical prerequisite for the following dependent clause. The surviving model still cannot be in B2B with anyone else, because engaged models are determined at the start of the initiative step before his attacks are thrown - but he also cannot be classed as "base to base" with a model that is not in play. If a model is not in play, it has no effect on the game (hence the phrase "in play"). However, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, so no wounds may be struck against him by the opposing unit. /rules interpretation

Even if you read the rules differently (which is fine - these were not written by lawyers, after all; room for interpretation does exist in some places), consider this as a practical issue - without overflow, a squad with cheap characters (like an IG platoon, for example) can proceed to tarpit a Bloothirster for three or four rounds, never ever losing more than one wound each round, and the Daemon player has no, repeat NO recourse for this. It's impossible to counter, risk-free, and will actively hurt the quality of gameplay.

Except, by the written rules, you *count as* being in Base to Base for the duration of the challenge. Even the dead model is in base to base

The daemon player hsa plenty of recourse

1) Dont charge into the blob squad
2) Move away fromt eh blob squad so it cannot be charged
3) send in cheap, voluminous attacks units like daemonettes while the blob squad, which is not THAT cheap (200 points plus upgrades - its not going to be bare, after all), sits there doing nothing.

@Shandra

I don't think anything breaks. In a challenge, two characters leave the normal unit vs unit matrix and become a PvP fight. We are told that they cannot be attacked, and besides precision strikes there is no way for units continually locked in b2b to allocate away from each other (as per wound allocation rules). Whether one is slain or not, for the duration of the first turn of combat, these two are considered locked in b2b with each other (which is a completely different mechanic than normal close combat, and therefore creates some new outcomes). This status only disappears at the end of the phase (after all other combat and there resolution has been completed). The only thing that can transfer to the larger unit vs unit combat is the wounds inflicted and their affect on moral checks (and we are explicitly told this). All rules are followed, and everything is honored and explained.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

but he also cannot be classed as "base to base" with a model that is not in play. If a model is not in play, it has no effect on the game (hence the phrase "in play").

Except we are clearly told that it IS counted as b2b until the end of the phase. There is no clever turn of phrase or rule of grammar. Two consecutive sentences clearly define this status. The only way you can argue that it doesn't mean that is that there is a typo or a mistake and that intent is not reflected as written.

"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

What part of the above quote leaves any room for them to not be counted as in base to base with a slain model?

you can fight the challenge after the unit fights... how can you do this and still bleed wounds into the unit?
if you dont resolve the challenge in initiative order you can potentially throw of the entire mechanic of CC.
how can you bleed over when the challenge is also being fought with different WS, T and probably SV from the rest of the unit?
true it is unclear but i honestly think that challenges are meant to be self contained.

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You count as in btb for the duration of the challenge
2) Even if one model (or both) is slain, you are still in the challenge until the end of the phase
3) You cannot allocate wounds to models not in b2b with you, until there are no models in btb with you left

1 - 3 result in wounds not overflowing. You have a non-existant model in b2b with you, and ONLY with you, until the end of the [hase. You are prohibited, by the rules, from allocating to other models until that model is no longer in b2b - which is at the end of the phase.

You have it right for IC but not unit characters, consider:

1. IC is its own unit, so while in b2b you only direct hits to that unit ie. the IC.

2. Unit characters b2b is the SAME as the units b2b, after all this isn't fourth where you can't kill what isn't in b2b. In a challenge or outside a challenge blows to the unit character count towards that unit just as if there were multiple units in combat and over flow can't jump from one unit to another.

So with that considered I would be inclined to say no overflow through IC in challenges but yes through unit characters as , again, their base IS the units base.

Food for thought.

1) Is incorrect. That was a 5th ed rule. Not 6th ed
2) This is no such rule. Please reread the rules on wound allocation and note that, while the model in b2b with you is alive you are unable to allocate elsewhere.

@red corsair

You're bring a lot of 5e into this. Read through the pages on challenges and on allocation. Nothing relevant to this discussion actually in the 6e rules is any different for a sergeant than it is for Calgar.

Can't leave b2b in any way during a round that you were in a challenge, therefore wound allocation cannot leave either character (except maybe via precision strike, but I've not had time to pick through all relevant rules in detail yet).

1) You count as in btb for the duration of the challenge
2) Even if one model (or both) is slain, you are still in the challenge until the end of the phase
3) You cannot allocate wounds to models not in b2b with you, until there are no models in btb with you left

I disagree with point 1.
I don't see how you can read that out of this text.

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

This does not imply that after one of the models is removed, the remaining model is still considered to be in base contact with it (or any fuzzy 'non-existant' model for that matter).

To put it another way, it says that the two models can only ever be in base contact with each other, but does not rule out them failing to be in base contact with anything.


If it said 'For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other', then you might have a case.

Huh?

"base contact only with eachother" == noone else is in base contact with them, and this is true for the duration of the challenge.

When combined with the requirement that the challenge lasts the duration of the phase this means they are *only* in base contact with each other, and that is true for the entire phase. Even if one model is removed they are still both only in base contact with eachother.

But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

Lobukia wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

Seems to me the question is whether you can be in base with a model which has already been removed as a casualty.

I.e. you allocate wounds into the other member of the challenge until its dead.
Then, one reading of the rule above says you're still in base with the dead model so the wounds don't allocate into the other models (closest first).

That reading seems odd. You can't be in base with something that isn't there.

jcress410 wrote:
......
That reading seems odd. You can't be in base with something that isn't there.

No, but you can be "considered to be" in base contact with something that isn't there.

Allow me to offer the same alternative that I have every time this discussion comes up. Until the FAQ comes out with a decision, play it like WHFB. Wounds will not overflow from the challenge, however, excess wounds will count for combat resolution. It keeps the spirit of the challenge while ensuring that a unit with an unlimited number of characters cant tarpit a powerhouse single model.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Allow me to offer the same alternative that I have every time this discussion comes up. Until the FAQ comes out with a decision, play it like WHFB. Wounds will not overflow from the challenge, however, excess wounds will count for combat resolution. It keeps the spirit of the challenge while ensuring that a unit with an unlimited number of characters cant tarpit a powerhouse single model.

Big problem with that, although I like the idea, is the existence of the Stubborn rule, which the big tarpit that this whole discussion is about, IG blobs, can easily get.

If you examine the blob method though, you will likely be tied up for just as long (the sheer number of models in the unit).

But after we spend 3 combats killing sergeants, it will be the same as 5th. So we are looking at an average of 6-7 combats (3 with challenges and 4 just chopping regular guardsmen).

The rules definitely seem to indicate that wounds don't overflow.

thats what I'm saying. The stubborn commisar regulates moral due to wound loss wether the wounds overflow or just count for combat rez. you may get out of cc a turn or 2 earlier but that still means its likely turn 4 anyway (which leaves you with almost nothing to do with whatever just got free)

Lobukia wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

I have to agree with Arson's point here - there is a distinct difference between not being able to be in b2b with anyone else, and being in b2b with something that's not there. I think the "only" in the rules indicates the former.

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

I have to agree with Arson's point here - there is a distinct difference between not being able to be in b2b with anyone else, and being in b2b with something that's not there. I think the "only" in the rules indicates the former.

I'm sorry, but why does it then say they are considered in b2b with each other for the duration of the challenge, AND then makes sure you know the challenge can't end until the phase is over? What other reason could they have for the second part other then it means what it says and it avoid overflow out of the challenge?! If you want to ignore or alter their words, then you need to assign them a new meaning. Even though it's GW, words have to mean what they say.

Lobukia wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

I have to agree with Arson's point here - there is a distinct difference between not being able to be in b2b with anyone else, and being in b2b with something that's not there. I think the "only" in the rules indicates the former.

I'm sorry, but why does it then say they are considered in b2b with each other for the duration of the challenge, AND then makes sure you know the challenge can't end until the phase is over? What other reason could they have for the second part other then it means what it says and it avoid overflow out of the challenge?! If you want to ignore or alter their words, then you need to assign them a new meaning. Even though it's GW, words have to mean what they say.

Ah, I think I see where we're missing each other here - they key phrase we seem to be interpreting differently is "only with each other". If I understand your point correctly, you seem to be reading this as a positive statement assigning the modifier "base contact" to both models. However, I believe that the use of the word "only" in this sentence actually makes it a restrictive statement, not a positive one, limiting the models that could have the "base contact" modifier assigned to them to only the two models involved in the challenge, but not necessarily ascribing it to them. Thus, when one dies, the other is no longer in base contact with that model, but by the same token may also not come into base contact with any other model until the challenge is finished (but the key point here is that that would not prevent them from allocating wounds to the rest of the unit).

I'll freely admit, it's a bit of touchy wording here, and I don't think either interpretation is, strictly speaking, wrong (I just find one grammatically more correct than the other). This is certainly a rule that leaves some wiggle room, which is to be expected in a game this complicated seeing as the BRB wasn't written by lawyers! I'd say that both readings are justifiable, and you really just need to talk with your opponent or local gaming group and see which one makes the most sense to you, and which one produces games that are the most fun.

Well I will heartily concur that this should have been written more clearly. They didn't even bother to give us a full example. To me, reading of "only" aside, page 429 and all descriptions in the book provide the clarity to see which meanings ambiguous phrases have. Challenges are CvC combats, outside the unit v unit dynamic, and the rules do not have permissive ground work for overflow (unless you want your opponent allocating wounds for you).

Lobukia wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

I have to agree with Arson's point here - there is a distinct difference between not being able to be in b2b with anyone else, and being in b2b with something that's not there. I think the "only" in the rules indicates the former.

I'm sorry, but why does it then say they are considered in b2b with each other for the duration of the challenge, AND then makes sure you know the challenge can't end until the phase is over? What other reason could they have for the second part other then it means what it says and it avoid overflow out of the challenge?!

Preventing that one Power Fist guy from smashing your Chaos Lord's face in at I1 just because the Lord killed off a Captain at I5?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Arson Fire wrote:But being only in base contact with each other does not mean they are always in base contact with each other. It only means they can't be in base contact with anyone else.

"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 [even if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64


So again, it says that they count as being in b2b, with each other, even if one is slain, until the end of the phase.

Where are you getting that they are NOT counted as being b2b until the end of the challenge?

I have to agree with Arson's point here - there is a distinct difference between not being able to be in b2b with anyone else, and being in b2b with something that's not there. I think the "only" in the rules indicates the former.

I'm sorry, but why does it then say they are considered in b2b with each other for the duration of the challenge, AND then makes sure you know the challenge can't end until the phase is over? What other reason could they have for the second part other then it means what it says and it avoid overflow out of the challenge?!

Preventing that one Power Fist guy from smashing your Chaos Lord's face in at I1 just because the Lord killed off a Captain at I5?

Already covered in the no one can strike members of the Challenge (outside forces, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sentences)

Might I add, that "simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there", page 64, is also an argument against overflow.

Lobukia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Already covered in the no one can strike members of the Challenge (outside forces, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sentences)

Might I add, that "simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there", page 64, is also an argument against overflow.

An argument for the intention of the challenge rules for sure.

Simply clarifies the fact that people outside the challenge can't hurt the models participating in it.

jcress410 wrote:Simply clarifies the fact that people outside the challenge can't hurt the models participating in it.

That could be true, but how could you allocate wounds in the normal way (as if the two characters aren't there) when at any step one of them suddenly reenters the fray with overflow wounds?

Frankly, after reading 6 pages I have yet to see someone point out a key element of 40k rules...Where are we TOLD wounds carry? It is really a simple line to include in the rules if it was meant to be.

We can "read into" and "imply" all we want, but the rules don't tell us to carry over so we don't carry over.

Lobukia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Preventing that one Power Fist guy from smashing your Chaos Lord's face in at I1 just because the Lord killed off a Captain at I5?

Already covered in the no one can strike members of the Challenge (outside forces, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd sentences)

...which is why they state that the challenge doesn't end just because one of the participants gets punked. If that wasn't there the challenge would end as soon as one of the two challenge-participants dies, letting the Power Fist Sergeant in the example swing against the Lord.

hisdudeness wrote:Frankly, after reading 6 pages I have yet to see someone point out a key element of 40k rules...Where are we TOLD wounds carry? It is really a simple line to include in the rules if it was meant to be.

We can "read into" and "imply" all we want, but the rules don't tell us to carry over so we don't carry over.

The normal wound allocation rules tell us to allocate wounds starting with the closest model. Nothing in the challenge rules overrule this. It's been brought up several times in this very thread.

AW - except the challenge rules, which require you to only be in BTB with the participant in the challenge, prohibits you from allocating woudns anywhere else

Precision strike is the only way round this.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
The normal wound allocation rules tell us to allocate wounds starting with the closest model. Nothing in the challenge rules overrule this. It's been brought up several times in this very thread.

Except that closest model isn't out of your way until the end of the phase (I've quoted it enough, I'm not doing it again, page 64) and the summary on 429 plainly tells us to resolve the challenge after all other combats (it just does folks).

Yes, we are told to apply wounds to the closest but we are not told to carry over any wounds in the wound pool to the rest of the unit.

Do we roll challenge to wounds rolls at the same time as the normal to wound rolls? I don't believe we do, so they are separte wound pools that don't interact with each other (otherwise I believe there would be a comment on the order the pools are applied).

hisdudeness wrote:Yes, we are told to apply wounds to the closest but we are not told to carry over any wounds in the wound pool to the rest of the unit.

Where are you told to stop using the wound allocation rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:AW - except the challenge rules, which require you to only be in BTB with the participant in the challenge, prohibits you from allocating woudns anywhere else

Precision strike is the only way round this.

Models wound models they aren't in base contact with as a general part of the wounding rules for assault. Else you'd be doing assaults model versus model like in 2nd edition instead of unit versus unit.

Lobukia wrote:all descriptions in the book provide the clarity to see which meanings ambiguous phrases have.

This. This forever. I feel like this is the most important point and everyone is just ignoring it to argue semantics. NONE of the examples or descriptions given in the book even hint that wound overflow would be possible. If all we had to go on were these descriptions, not a single person would advocate for wound overflow. Interestingly, even WITH the actual rules, these descriptions still must be accounted for and the way that you play the game must be in concordance with them. How you could play with overflow and still be in concordance with these descriptions is beyond me, and no one has yet to offer up an argument that lines up with them.

Tangent wrote:

Lobukia wrote:all descriptions in the book provide the clarity to see which meanings ambiguous phrases have.

This. This forever. I feel like this is the most important point and everyone is just ignoring it to argue semantics. NONE of the examples or descriptions given in the book even hint that wound overflow would be possible. If all we had to go on were these descriptions, not a single person would advocate for wound overflow. Interestingly, even WITH the actual rules, these descriptions still must be accounted for and the way that you play the game must be in concordance with them. How you could play with overflow and still be in concordance with these descriptions is beyond me, and no one has yet to offer up an argument that lines up with them.

There are good points made through out this topic for both sides. Your blunt attempt to ignore them and bully your way of thinking without any addition to the argument itself is annoying. (See how i made a post without any positive intent? That's how your post is read by me)

On Topic:
I am actually convinced by lobukia's point of view . The duration of the challenge actually provides some info on the subject as well. Although there is obviously some poor wording on the subject and makes me wonder why doesn't games workshop makes some lengthy video battle reports so we don't need to argue on the subject and just see how everything should work.

Shandara wrote:I don't see how it is unclear. You _have_ to follow normal wound allocation, and the rule only mentions other combatants prohibited from hitting the challenger/challengee, not the other way around.

IMNSHO this is all just silly semantics over the placement of the word "only" in a sentence and includes just as much assumption for wound bleed through as not. Neither side is clearly and obviously right in this discussion. You only think it is clear because you like your interpretation. Meanwhile it is clear that others in the thread disagree with that interpretation. Thus it is clear as mud and obviously a poorly written rule that will lead to arguments around the table unless people spell it out before the game begins. Wound bleed pretty much makes it pointless for lesser characters/leaders to bother to try and challange melee combat gods, yet the combat god can walk up challange the little guy and still wipe everyone out. Yeah that is cool and fun.

Skriker

robzidious wrote: meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain makes it pretty clear that those wounds from the challenge shouldn't carry over.

Why does the first part of this sentence make the second part pretty clear?

I mean, I doubt this thread is going to settle the issue. I think the normal wound allocation applies until something specifically overrides it, but, whatever.

Unfortunately, if wounds do not carry to other models, there's never a reason for a weaker character not to challenge just to tie up a stronger one for a round of combat.

Wouldn't the hekatrix in my unit of wyches always issue a challenge? Even if the 'trix fails all her invulns, best case for my opponent is her one wound to the combat resolution, but I tied up a fist or whatever for a turn.

jcress410 wrote:

robzidious wrote: meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain makes it pretty clear that those wounds from the challenge shouldn't carry over.

Why does the first part of this sentence make the second part pretty clear?

I mean, I doubt this thread is going to settle the issue. I think the normal wound allocation applies until something specifically overrides it, but, whatever.

Unfortunately, if wounds do not carry to other models, there's never a reason for a weaker character not to challenge just to tie up a stronger one for a round of combat.

Wouldn't the hekatrix in my unit of wyches always issue a challenge? Even if the 'trix fails all her invulns, best case for my opponent is her one wound to the combat resolution, but I tied up a fist or whatever for a turn.

I think you're seeing this backwards. Now combat gods can take a medium foe and annihilate them. Precision strikes can be allocated at anyone in the unit you want (that other power fist or other character). I can't see too many awesome combat characters being very slowed down at all (unless you run them with an IG platoon or something).

DarknessEternal: We are not (and I never claimed so), but we are told to resolve challenges after the normal assault. If wounds carried over why would the rules just not let character challenges be resolved during normal assault init? Seems a simpler way of going about resolving assaults. Again, there is no need to make assumptions in the rules. If the wounds carried over the rules would say so, seems pretty simple to me.

If we are going to infer rules, then I infer that a challenge assault is completely separate from the rest of the unit assaults as evidenced by the fact that challenges are resolved after normal assaults. The exceptions are clearly stated: unsaved wounds count in unit assault results, the Moral Support rerolls, and Glorious Intervention rules. There are no other instances mentioned in the rules where the two assaults affect each other.

Where does it say that challenges always happen after the combat again? I see page 64 saying we can resolve the units wound allocation as if the characters are not there, but I don't see the reverse, which is the entire point of the thread.

To clarify, I feel there are 3 interpretations of the rules with challenges still (overflow kills the squad, overflow only counts for resolution, overflow lost completely), but RAW is that wounds are not lost and they go onto the unit. To be fair, my RAW interpretation does not make that rule the correct one, and I dont care which interpretation we use (they all have pro's and con's in equal measure) I just want us all playing the same game.

Yes, a character is counted in base contact with the challenger only, but the ONLY I read as a restrictive statement to clarify the very common occurrence where a character is in base contact with many models at once. In this case the only means that, while the character is ACTUALLY in base contact with, say, 7 models, you can only count as being in base combat with your challenged model.

Thus, models that might get bonus attacks for each model in base, only ever count as being in base with a max of 1 model.

This means that if the challenged model is slain, you are now in base contact with zero models, despite there being 6 other models your base is in contact with.

If you get rid of the ONLY, the rule reads "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other." If the rule read that way, then overkill could only happen if other models were also in base contact with the character, as they are still considered in base contact if the model dies.

If you move the ONLY, the rule reads "For the duration of the challenge, ONLY these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other." Now the rule would read that, even if killed, the challenger is still in base contact, and only the challenger is in base even though there may be 6 other models touching the character.

Thus, the ONLY really does support overkill per RAW, BUT again, as I mention above, this does not mean GW wants us to play this way, NOR is it more or less beneficial for this interpretation to be used--All interpretations can be gamed equally, its just a matter of knowing how everyone wants to play it.

PS, the fact that regardless of which interpretation you go with Precision strikes still happen means (if I read this right) that even the staunchest advocate against overkill will still be able to inflict wounds on the squad in excess of the challenged models wound total by rolling a 6 to-hit. So worst case scenario still includes some limited overkill until a FAQ, and if you include the possibility for some overkill then the idea of allowing overkill in general is more palatable to me.

DevianID wrote:Where does it say that challenges always happen after the combat again? I see page 64 saying we can resolve the units wound allocation as if the characters are not there, but I don't see the reverse, which is the entire point of the thread.

429, second column, second to last bullet... did you read any of the prior posts, even on this page?, its about half way up by your's truly.

Lobukia, I thought that 429, as a summary, was already discarded as summaries usually don't contain any new rules nor does the referenced page 64 work that way. I did mention that all I found on page 64 was that the unit cant attack the challenger.

But to be fair to your point in case it wasn't addressed, 429 says challenges are resolved after the initiative steps. And while 429 says challenges happen outside of the initiative steps, page 64 states they happen INSIDE of the initiative steps, per the combatant slain section. It cant be both, and as a summary versus the actual rules, this is where I thought we arrived at the conclusion that the summaries are borked. Its not the first time summaries are wrong, it wont be the last time either.

DevianID wrote:Lobukia, I thought that 429, as a summary, was already discarded as summaries usually don't contain any new rules nor does the referenced page 64 work that way. I did mention that all I found on page 64 was that the unit cant attack the challenger.

But to be fair to your point in case it wasn't addressed, 429 says challenges are resolved after the initiative steps. And while 429 says challenges happen outside of the initiative steps, page 64 states they happen INSIDE of the initiative steps, per the combatant slain section. It cant be both, and as a summary versus the actual rules, this is where I thought we arrived at the conclusion that the summaries are borked. Its not the first time summaries are wrong, it wont be the last time either.

Forging the Narrative, which for its sillines has to rank under everything else, is the only reference to them happening possibly at the same time.

We have seen minor typos and grammatical errors in the reference section, and yes, we let the specific rule trump them.

But 429, shows an entire process' sequence, described in great detail (actually more detail at some level than the "rules"), and clearly stated directions on handling Challenges and their place in the phase. Now we can believe that the entire bullet point is a typo, but to me that is ludicrous. IF you believe that Challenges are locked (no overflow), then every rule stated makes good sense, and the summary jives with it. If you don't, then directions on ignoring characters during wound allocation, keeping units in base to base until the end of the phase, and the clear direction to handle challenges after regular combat all have to be explained away.

Look, I know GW has made a mess of this sub-section of combat. But we are left with either:

Option A: There is overflow, but it somehow only uses part of the second bullet point in would allocation and ignores the opponent's choice to allocate. The direction to allocate wound as if the characters aren't there, doesn't actually mean that. The clearly stated status of the challenge characters counting as b2b until the end of the turn must be fudged, and the summary page on 429 is all some big misunderstanding. And finally put one's head in the sand as to the incredibly strong intent that challenges were supposed to be a PvP closed fight.

or

Option B: Challenges are locked, there is no overflow, and rules should have been a little bit more self contained and a better explanation given, and the Forging a Narrative section is poorly worded

I can't guarantee that Option A is wrong, but it blows my mind how many will embrace it and then argue that RAW supports it and not B, when Option A's strongest foundation is that the rules aren't as written. And if anyone truly believes option A is RAI, I would have to question their reading comprehension and critical thinking skills.

I will be very surprised if any major tournament takes Option A up in their FAQ, and will apologize to everyone on YMDC for wasting their time, if the GW FAQ that will hopefully someday come doesn't fully back my position (which I am supremely confident it will), if they even see if worth addressing, as their rules (once muddled through) are sufficient to have it work as intended.

Lobukia wrote:
But 429, shows an entire process' sequence, described in great detail (actually more detail at some level than the "rules"), and clearly stated directions on handling Challenges and their place in the phase. Now we can believe that the entire bullet point is a typo, but to me that is ludicrous. IF you believe that Challenges are locked (no overflow), then every rule stated makes good sense, and the summary jives with it. If you don't, then directions on ignoring characters during wound allocation, keeping units in base to base until the end of the phase, and the clear direction to handle challenges after regular combat all have to be explained away.

If you use the bullet point on page 429 all that happens is that the order of events changes. The rest of the unit fights first in normal initiative order. Then it gets the to challenge which is at that point essentially initiative -1 and initiative -2. The fight involving the challenge is still part of the same combat sub phase, and is not a separate combat which is why wounds caused by the challenge is counted towards combat resolution.

As a result this would still allow the winner of the challenge to have the wounds they cause to flow over onto the rest of the unit as per normal wound allocation. The difference between accepting the summary and not accepting the summary is when the blows of the challenge are struck. Even if they are struck after the rest of the unit, both units are still considered locked in combat and engaged at that point. Hence the application of normal wound allocation.

I understand that the intent of the rule is to make the challenge a separate combat entity on its own. However, the RAW does not sufficiently support that. Further, following the current interpretation of RAI, close combat challenges will be abused and cause combat characters to become largely meaningless. Using the current RAW allows for the most effective game-play currently as it mitigates abuse to a degree.

pizzaguardian wrote:

Tangent wrote:

Lobukia wrote:all descriptions in the book provide the clarity to see which meanings ambiguous phrases have.

This. This forever. I feel like this is the most important point and everyone is just ignoring it to argue semantics. NONE of the examples or descriptions given in the book even hint that wound overflow would be possible. If all we had to go on were these descriptions, not a single person would advocate for wound overflow. Interestingly, even WITH the actual rules, these descriptions still must be accounted for and the way that you play the game must be in concordance with them. How you could play with overflow and still be in concordance with these descriptions is beyond me, and no one has yet to offer up an argument that lines up with them.

There are good points made through out this topic for both sides. Your blunt attempt to ignore them and bully your way of thinking without any addition to the argument itself is annoying. (See how i made a post without any positive intent? That's how your post is read by me)

On Topic:
I am actually convinced by lobukia's point of view . The duration of the challenge actually provides some info on the subject as well. Although there is obviously some poor wording on the subject and makes me wonder why doesn't games workshop makes some lengthy video battle reports so we don't need to argue on the subject and just see how everything should work.

Man, this is a really, really irritating post. I HAVE made other posts and arguments previously within this thread, which you apparently haven't read for whatever reason. Further, my post which you highlight here is full of points - additions to the argument that you so desire. Not only did you criticize, but you didn't address these very same points. Next time, read before criticizing.

For those of you who actually have something valuable to say, please answer the following question:

How does wound overflow work if the challenge happens AFTER everything else in the combat, which is a way that we are given permission to organize things?

This is a good example of why I find the 40k ruleset to be alienating at times. They go into detail on specific aspects of how to "roleplay" the situation, but then leave holes in terms of defining gameplay.

Those who seek consistency and a need to be correct in your decisions, which is human nature, well the rules don't deny your lust for obliteration. But it does come off as my mini is powerful and the rules allow me to maximize its destructive power, even in a situation that for the most part defines it as taking place in a bubble. I only say "bubble" because they want you to work out the allocation of wounds as if the two models in the challenge weren't there and drive the fact home in the narrative box. I don't think the Emperor would want victory on the basis of a technicality!

If overflow wounds from a challenge could be issued to a corresponding unit, why use the mechanic in the first place? And if we're assuming that since there is no rule stating the wounds do not carry over, thus fallow normal rules, shouldn't we assume that all wounds caused in the fight sub-phase count towards the assault total? From there, why make a separate distinction of unsaved wounds from the separate engagements of unit and challenger/challengee when calculating the result?

Enough rambling, time for some fun...enjoy!

Gronk's boys entered the fray, spitting forth with choppas in hand, to meet the Space Marines. Blue and green quickly became only a red whirlwind which consumed the scrum. Many honored the Emperor with their broken, lifeless bodies, however even more of Gronk's ornery orks lay in tatters. Both sides began to measure the line in the hot stillness of the ending assault. As brother glanced at brother and each ork made sure each blade tightly gripped, a robust marine stepped forward, glittered relics abound, and proclaimed, "Hark foul cretin, this day is your undoing."

Tangent wrote:....For those of you who actually have something valuable to say, please answer the following question:

How does wound overflow work if the challenge happens AFTER everything else in the combat, which is a way that we are given permission to organize things?

Why wouldn't it work as normal? If it's taking place after the normal combat (which isn't *actually* what's going on) then the unsaved wounds still have permission to roll over onto what's left of the rest of the victims squad. Just because this challenge is going on doesn't mean the character with the empty wound pool is out of his/her respective unit. When their wound pool reaches zero, they're removed from play and the remaining wounds should be allocated to the next closest model. I don't see where there is any rule stopping this from happening. Even if the characters are still in base to base contact (as per the challenge rules), with an empty wound pool you would have to continue allocating unsaved wounds until there are none left.

Except while you are in base to base with a model you have no permission to flow wounds elsewhere.

SImple Greg_Hager, because we are not told they carry over. If the rest of the unit and challengers assaults do effect each other then why state that unsaved wounds count in assault results? This should be a given with no need to be stated if everything happens as normal.

I am not seeing this permission everyone claims. I see a lack of restriction, but not permission. This a drawback of challenges just like loss of the wound pool is to Focus Fire.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except while you are in base to base with a model you have no permission to flow wounds elsewhere.

But once they're slain, aka Wound Pool emptied, the enemy model is removed from play. Also, if the wound pool on the model that you are in base to base contact with is depleted, then the wounds have to be allocated to the next closest model...even thought you are still in base to base contact with the first model.

If that's confusing here's how I'm seeing it...RAW. Challenger deals two wounds to challengee, with challengee only having one wound remaining in his wound pool. Challengee fails both save rolls. One wound is allocated to the challengee, and there for his Wound Pool is depleted, and because of this he is removed from play. One wound is then allocated to a valid recipient. The rules state that the challenger/challengee can't be base to base with any other character until the end of the challenge, so no follow on pile in moves, but this does not alter in any way the wound allocations.

If I may throw in, it is a common thought process that the Challenge should be treated as a seprate combat all togeather. I feel like thats what this thread is really about. The real question to solve is, is it a seprate combat? Ohterwise there is no rule that prevents wound overflow.

hisdudeness wrote:SImple Greg_Hager, because we are not told they carry over. If the rest of the unit and challengers assaults do effect each other then why state that unsaved wounds count in assault results? This should be a given with no need to be stated if everything happens as normal.

I am not seeing this permission everyone claims. I see a lack of restriction, but not permission. This a drawback of challenges just like loss of the wound pool is to Focus Fire.

Let's step back to a normal assault with no challenges.

Then I make a challenge, you accept.

The only thing that changes is the fact that no other units may be in contact with the two units involved in a challenge until the next turn, and outside units can not intervene into the challenge (aka Look Out, Sir!).

Why would anything else change? It is not stated anywhere that there any rules that are overridden other than restriction on base to base contact and wound allocation into the challenge but not out of the challenge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:If I may throw in, it is a common thought process that the Challenge should be treated as a seprate combat all togeather. I feel like thats what this thread is really about. The real question to solve is, is it a seprate combat? Ohterwise there is no rule that prevents wound overflow.

Even if it is a separate combat all together...the character is not removed from their parent unit just to be placed in the challenge. Therefor shouldn't the rest of the unsaved wounds still be allocated to a valid recipient in the character's unit?

Greg_Hager wrote:

Tangent wrote:....For those of you who actually have something valuable to say, please answer the following question:

How does wound overflow work if the challenge happens AFTER everything else in the combat, which is a way that we are given permission to organize things?

Why wouldn't it work as normal? If it's taking place after the normal combat (which isn't *actually* what's going on) then the unsaved wounds still have permission to roll over onto what's left of the rest of the victims squad. Just because this challenge is going on doesn't mean the character with the empty wound pool is out of his/her respective unit. When their wound pool reaches zero, they're removed from play and the remaining wounds should be allocated to the next closest model. I don't see where there is any rule stopping this from happening. Even if the characters are still in base to base contact (as per the challenge rules), with an empty wound pool you would have to continue allocating unsaved wounds until there are none left.

The point is that wound overflow that does NOT happen in initiative order lacks aspects of "normal" combat, such that it is drawn into question whether or not wound overflow was intended within challenges. Basically, it doesn't make sense to have wound overflow if the timing of the challenge is not controlled by the rules (which it isn't). Example:

One unit of CSM with a Lord is in combat with one unit of Space Marines with a Champion. A challenge between the Lord and Champion has been issued and accepted.

The Lord has the higher initiative, and strikes first in his challenge. However, we are allowed to resolve the challenge at the end of the combat, and we choose to do so.

The CSM have higher initiative than the Space Marines. They cause 3 unsaved wounds. The Space Marines then strike back, causing 1 unsaved wound.

Then, we resolve the challenge, even though both models have higher initiative than the normal troops who just fought. The CSM Lord strikes first and causes 5 unsaved wounds. The Champion only has 1 wound and is killed.

There are 4 unsaved wounds remaining. With wound overflow, these wounds would be allocated to the Space Marines who already fought at a LOWER initiative and killed a CSM. So, the impact of the overflow wounds is lessened purely by the fact that we decided to resolve the challenge last.

What if we resolved it first, before the other normal troopers can fight? Those 4 overflow wounds would kill 4 Space Marines before they had a chance to hit the CSM. And if the Space Marines have a higher initiative than the CSM, this is an even bigger problem.

The whole point is that the rules give you the freedom to resolve the challenge whenever you want. This freedom suggests that the result of the challenge (number of wounds caused) is IRRELEVANT to the rest of the combat with normal troops as a whole. If wound overflow is supposed to take place, then the timing of the challenge is RELEVANT. Looking in the book, we see NO mention of wound overflow within the challenge rules while we DO see SPECIFIC mention as to how the timing of the challenge is up to the players - that the result is irrelevant to the rest of the combat. This is highly, highly suggestive of a lack of wound overflow.

Greg_Hager wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except while you are in base to base with a model you have no permission to flow wounds elsewhere.

But once they're slain, aka Wound Pool emptied, the enemy model is removed from play. Also, if the wound pool on the model that you are in base to base contact with is depleted, then the wounds have to be allocated to the next closest model...even thought you are still in base to base contact with the first model.

The model is removed, but you are in base to base with that model until the end of the phase. You are forced to allocate any and all wounds only to that model in base.

This is RAW. Until you can find a way that the challenger is no longer in base BEFORE the end of the phase - directly contradicting the rules - there is no way to overflow wounds. None.

That is intresting...
You have to allocate wounds to models in bc before you allocate them anywhere else....
And you arent removed from bc until the end of the phase anyway.......

Exactly. In a challenge you are "treated" as being in base contact for the duration of the phase. So even if no model is actually there it is still in base.

@No one in particular

I wish there was some rule that said you to at least read 15 posts back before you could add onto a thread. People keep coming up with the same challenges and clearly have not read much (if any of the thread). I understand not reading an entire thread, but at least read one page's worth, please.

Page 25: Wound allocation, must be done base to base first, only after base to base first is done, and the model is no longer in base to base can you allocate elsewhere

Page 64: "For the duration of the challenge [which is until the end of the phase, which is after EVERYTHING ELSE in combat is done, included causalities and initiative removal] the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other [even if the opponent is slain]"

Page 64: What about those outside forces, we are told "simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there", resolve, running your initiative from 10 to 1, removing causalities, the whole 9 yards.

Well, this is unclear (not really), what about normal initiative in "Forging a Narrative"? Ok, the only thing that actually states Initiative steps. People are seeing something that isn't there. They want you to know, that the characters DON'T drop to initiative -1,-2, etc. But that the reason we treat it as separate, is because it is separate, but they really are still going at Init 10 to 1 with in that challenge, they even given you permission to just wait and do it later (and point for US not the overflow desirers).

Page 65: They even tell us what connection the outside units DO have with the Challenge: "Moral Support" if unengaged they can cheerlead, and "Assault Result" the wounds carry over to morale checks for the unit(s)

Well, you could read this either way you say. Okay, I really don't think so, I see people worried about their pet CC monsters and mistakenly worried that challenges nerf them, but I'll bite. Let's say I grant all those little twists of grammar and denial of what the above pages are saying. We need a tie breaker then. Something that clearly shows intent and order.

Looky there! Page 429. Which has a clear set of instructions telling us that we do Challenges as a separate combat and, just like all the pages above, says nothing about wounds needing to be retroactively applied to units or the like (and why would it, since it never allowed it before). So now you need to explain to me that 429 doesn't really exist or matter (I don't know how you convinced people to only read parts of the rulebook that COULD support your argument, but then ignore anything that doesn't at not really being part of the rules, but you did, congrats)

If you want there to be overflow, you need to refute pages 64, 65, and 429. You need to make them all not mean there is a separate challenge resolution, you need to twist the grammar so that they aren't RAW and somehow have them to be written as something else.

...or you can do what about 1/2 of you are doing. Ignore all posts that shoot down what you WANT the rule to be, and cherry pick only the most recent post or two and then try to put the burden of proof on those reading the rules as written to prove that some special application that isn't there doesn't exist. That's not how our rules work in 40k, and most of you know that.

Go ahead and play overflow, just be prepared to reap the whirlwind after all those gullible young players see that you created a rule to your advantage that didn't exist when they either play at a GT or the FAQ highlights it.

Tangent wrote:

For those of you who actually have something valuable to say, please answer the following question:

How does wound overflow work if the challenge happens AFTER everything else in the combat, which is a way that we are given permission to organize things?

My post was intended to be irritating since your post was irritating as well.

As your question i would like to counter with this. Maybe we are allowed to do challenges any time in the combat ? After all the other blows or before everyone else. When i think about what writes in the summary this of course sounds stupid. But i can reason with the a scene where a chaos lord destroys a sergeant in a challenge at the start of the combat and just swings his blade to a few tactical marines at the back. Although i find this kind of thinking is wrong.

And the more i read lobukia's post the more i agree. We are supposed treat it with no overflow.

Lobukia wrote:@No one in particular

I wish there was some rule that said you to at least read 15 posts back before you could add onto a thread. People keep coming up with the same challenges and clearly have not read much (if any of the thread). I understand not reading an entire thread, but at least read one page's worth, please.

Page 25: Wound allocation, must be done base to base first, only after base to base first is done, and the model is no longer in base to base can you allocate elsewhere

Page 64: "For the duration of the challenge [which is until the end of the phase, which is after EVERYTHING ELSE in combat is done, included causalities and initiative removal] the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other [even if the opponent is slain]"

Page 64: What about those outside forces, we are told "simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there", resolve, running your initiative from 10 to 1, removing causalities, the whole 9 yards.

Well, this is unclear (not really), what about normal initiative in "Forging a Narrative"? Ok, the only thing that actually states Initiative steps. People are seeing something that isn't there. They want you to know, that the characters DON'T drop to initiative -1,-2, etc. But that the reason we treat it as separate, is because it is separate, but they really are still going at Init 10 to 1 with in that challenge, they even given you permission to just wait and do it later (and point for US not the overflow desirers).

Page 65: They even tell us what connection the outside units DO have with the Challenge: "Moral Support" if unengaged they can cheerlead, and "Assault Result" the wounds carry over to morale checks for the unit(s)

Well, you could read this either way you say. Okay, I really don't think so, I see people worried about their pet CC monsters and mistakenly worried that challenges nerf them, but I'll bite. Let's say I grant all those little twists of grammar and denial of what the above pages are saying. We need a tie breaker then. Something that clearly shows intent and order.

Looky there! Page 429. Which has a clear set of instructions telling us that we do Challenges as a separate combat and, just like all the pages above, says nothing about wounds needing to be retroactively applied to units or the like (and why would it, since it never allowed it before). So now you need to explain to me that 429 doesn't really exist or matter (I don't know how you convinced people to only read parts of the rulebook that COULD support your argument, but then ignore anything that doesn't at not really being part of the rules, but you did, congrats)

If you want there to be overflow, you need to refute pages 64, 65, and 429. You need to make them all not mean there is a separate challenge resolution, you need to twist the grammar so that they aren't RAW and somehow have them to be written as something else.

...or you can do what about 1/2 of you are doing. Ignore all posts that shoot down what you WANT the rule to be, and cherry pick only the most recent post or two and then try to put the burden of proof on those reading the rules as written to prove that some special application that isn't there doesn't exist. That's not how our rules work in 40k, and most of you know that.

Go ahead and play overflow, just be prepared to reap the whirlwind after all those gullible young players see that you created a rule to your advantage that didn't exist when they either play at a GT or the FAQ highlights it.

Mr Lobukia,

Having read through ALL 7 PAGES of this post I would like to congratulate you on WINNING THIS "ARGUMENT". Your logic is inteligible and follows a conices path of understanding. If this EVER comes up in a game I am playing I will be sure to utilize your argument as I feel it 100% clarifies what happens. Allow me to sumerize for my own understanding:

1. Chalngers/Chalengees are locked in BSB with ONLY themselves until the end of the phase
2. Wounds (in close combat) can only be spread out to models NOT in B2B only once NO OTHER models are in B2B (the challengers are STILL in BSB, even if one of them is dead!)
3. Excess wounds are LOST after the model takes its last wound
4. Combat res multiplyers will ONLY be equal to the number of wounds lost during the combat.

To those fearing their UBER COMBAT MONSTER has now been reduced to tarpit bait, may I recomend CHANGING YOUR TACTICS!!! Will it slow down the choppyness of YOUR unit, yes but it will also slow down the choppyness of the Tarpit unit. Most will only have 1 or two characters that can challenge and thus will only slow you down for a turn. With the blob gaurd example you have now successefully TARPITED THEM! Now that 60 man squad is stuck FEEDING your UBER BEAST characters and EVENTUALLY THIS will COST THEM (in ld and wargear options).

Again, you have demonstrated, useing valid citation of the RULES AS WRITEN, to argue your point and in my opinion have "WON" the argument.

The rest of the unit sits back and cheers their CH on during the challenge thus giving a reroll for every 5 models... This tells me they are not fighting but watching the challenge. I am inclined to say that only the people in the challenge can hurt those in the challenge. Having woulda overflow onto the squad defeats the entire purpose of a challenge.

pizzaguardian wrote:

Tangent wrote:

For those of you who actually have something valuable to say, please answer the following question:

How does wound overflow work if the challenge happens AFTER everything else in the combat, which is a way that we are given permission to organize things?

My post was intended to be irritating since your post was irritating as well.

As your question i would like to counter with this. Maybe we are allowed to do challenges any time in the combat ? After all the other blows or before everyone else. When i think about what writes in the summary this of course sounds stupid. But i can reason with the a scene where a chaos lord destroys a sergeant in a challenge at the start of the combat and just swings his blade to a few tactical marines at the back. Although i find this kind of thinking is wrong.

And the more i read lobukia's post the more i agree. We are supposed treat it with no overflow.

Your scene-example is irrelevant, which is my point exactly. The point is that if it doesn't matter when the challenge takes place then wound overflow clearly was not intended, as the impact of overflowing wounds changes depending upon when we arbitrarily choose to resolve the challenge. I say arbitrarily because there is no system in place for determining when, relative to the rest of the combat, the challenge takes place, though some of the options are clearly better for one side or the other if wound overflow exists. For instance, the player with the CC powerhouse would want the challenge to take place at the start of the combat so that the wounds his character causes will overflow into the rank and file troops, removing the ability of some of those troops to strike at all due to being removed as casualties before their "turn" comes up. The player with the weak IG sergeant would obviously want the opposite. How do we choose? The rules only tell us that we can choose whatever we want, and while I realize that this doesn't specifically prove that wound overflow does not exist, it DOES suggest that wound overflow was not intended to begin with.

Lobukia wrote:@No one in particular

I wish there was some rule that said you to at least read 15 posts back before you could add onto a thread. People keep coming up with the same challenges and clearly have not read much (if any of the thread). I understand not reading an entire thread, but at least read one page's worth, please.

Yeah.

Lobukia wrote:
Page 25: Wound allocation, must be done base to base first, only after base to base first is done, and the model is no longer in base to base can you allocate elsewhere

Page 64: "For the duration of the challenge [which is until the end of the phase, which is after EVERYTHING ELSE in combat is done, included causalities and initiative removal] the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other [even if the opponent is slain]"

Your interpretation "even if the opponent is slain" is where I jump off. I still don't think you can be in base with a model that has been removed as a casualty. Once the other party to the challenge is dead, wound allocation proceeds as normal.

Lobukia wrote:

Page 64: What about those outside forces, we are told "simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there", resolve, running your initiative from 10 to 1, removing causalities, the whole 9 yards.

Well, this is unclear (not really), what about normal initiative in "Forging a Narrative"? Ok, the only thing that actually states Initiative steps. People are seeing something that isn't there. They want you to know, that the characters DON'T drop to initiative -1,-2, etc. But that the reason we treat it as separate, is because it is separate, but they really are still going at Init 10 to 1 with in that challenge, they even given you permission to just wait and do it later (and point for US not the overflow desirers).

This speaks to when to resolve, not how.

Lobukia wrote:
Page 65: They even tell us what connection the outside units DO have with the Challenge: "Moral Support" if unengaged they can cheerlead, and "Assault Result" the wounds carry over to morale checks for the unit(s)

Well, you could read this either way you say. Okay, I really don't think so, I see people worried about their pet CC monsters and mistakenly worried that challenges nerf them, but I'll bite. Let's say I grant all those little twists of grammar and denial of what the above pages are saying. We need a tie breaker then. Something that clearly shows intent and order.

Looky there! Page 429. Which has a clear set of instructions telling us that we do Challenges as a separate combat and, just like all the pages above, says nothing about wounds needing to be retroactively applied to units or the like (and why would it, since it never allowed it before). So now you need to explain to me that 429 doesn't really exist or matter (I don't know how you convinced people to only read parts of the rulebook that COULD support your argument, but then ignore anything that doesn't at not really being part of the rules, but you did, congrats)

If you want there to be overflow, you need to refute pages 64, 65, and 429. You need to make them all not mean there is a separate challenge resolution, you need to twist the grammar so that they aren't RAW and somehow have them to be written as something else.

...or you can do what about 1/2 of you are doing. Ignore all posts that shoot down what you WANT the rule to be, and cherry pick only the most recent post or two and then try to put the burden of proof on those reading the rules as written to prove that some special application that isn't there doesn't exist. That's not how our rules work in 40k, and most of you know that.

Go ahead and play overflow, just be prepared to reap the whirlwind after all those gullible young players see that you created a rule to your advantage that didn't exist when they either play at a GT or the FAQ highlights it.

Thanks for the great summary. Personally, I couldn't care whether wounds overflow or not. It will have an influence on certain units/lists, and will have balance implications.

I honestly think RAW is wounds get allocated as normal. I don't think it makes much sense, I probably prefer the "no overflow" interpretation just for sanity and game mechanic sake.

Until there's a FAQ, I'll probably play like wounds do not overflow, just because that's where the majority opinion is and I'd rather play the game than parse text.

There are a few fairly big questions about 6e that need to be resolved, hopefully that'll happen sooner than later.

jcress410 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:
Page 25: Wound allocation, must be done base to base first, only after base to base first is done, and the model is no longer in base to base can you allocate elsewhere

Page 64: "For the duration of the challenge [which is until the end of the phase, which is after EVERYTHING ELSE in combat is done, included causalities and initiative removal] the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other [even if the opponent is slain]"

Your interpretation "even if the opponent is slain" is where I jump off. I still don't think you can be in base with a model that has been removed as a casualty. Once the other party to the challenge is dead, wound allocation proceeds as normal.

The models are considered to be in B2B until the challenge ends at the end of the phase.

You can not allocate to models not in B2B with you, if there is a model that is considered to be in B2B with you.

It is that simple.

Also the rules work fine in this case.

Shandara wrote:I don't see how it is unclear. You _have_ to follow normal wound allocation, and the rule only mentions other combatants prohibited from hitting the challenger/challengee, not the other way around.

Yes, but Page 64 under Outside Forces it says "-simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there." I would say that sentence applies to the characters Wound allocation as well as that is part of the Wound allocation step.

Base Contact is irrelevant. Models cause wounds to models not in base contact with them normally in assault.

DarknessEternal wrote:Base Contact is irrelevant. Models cause wounds to models not in base contact with them normally in assault.

But only when there are no more models in base contact.

Which is clearly not the case here since you still have a model considered to be in base contact, all wounds must go to that model until it is not considered to be in base contact.

P.25 proves this "A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model aftacking at that Initiative step."

It's pretty clear to me that the RAW provides no mechanic to allow wounds to overflow from a challenge. It is also clear to me that the intent of the rules was to have the two characters fight only each other and not the squads.

Also, if I was to argue in favor of wounds overflowing, then I would need to resolve when to apply overflow and which models to apply them to. The rules don't do any of those things though.

So my vote - is that what we're doing? voting? or are we just seeing who can type the loudest? My vote is that wounds DO NOT overflow.

DarknessEternal wrote:Base Contact is irrelevant. Models cause wounds to models not in base contact with them normally in assault.

I guess you havent read this thread, nor the 6th ed rulebook. Base contact is critical to this edition.

If you have models in base contact with you, you cannot allocate wounds to models not in base contact with you. You are in base contact with the other challenge model until the end of the phase, making it impossible to allocate wounds outside of the challenge *except* through precision strike.

Tangent wrote:

Your scene-example is irrelevant, which is my point exactly. The point is that if it doesn't matter when the challenge takes place then wound overflow clearly was not intended, as the impact of overflowing wounds changes depending upon when we arbitrarily choose to resolve the challenge. I say arbitrarily because there is no system in place for determining when, relative to the rest of the combat, the challenge takes place, though some of the options are clearly better for one side or the other if wound overflow exists. For instance, the player with the CC powerhouse would want the challenge to take place at the start of the combat so that the wounds his character causes will overflow into the rank and file troops, removing the ability of some of those troops to strike at all due to being removed as casualties before their "turn" comes up. The player with the weak IG sergeant would obviously want the opposite. How do we choose? The rules only tell us that we can choose whatever we want, and while I realize that this doesn't specifically prove that wound overflow does not exist, it DOES suggest that wound overflow was not intended to begin with.

I agree with not overflowing and i think it was not intended as well, but i am just trying to ask questions and have them answered so we can be absolutely sure. It is simply a quest for knowledge

And "Knowledge is power, guard it well".

One of the main concerns people who support the overflow rule seem to express is the seemingly broken ability of curtain units to lock more powerful units in combat. There are two perspectives I want to comment on in relation to this topic.

First though it is important for me to say I'm assuming that there is no wound overflow

1:From the perspective of the big guys, wounds don't disapear if the guy is still in base to base contact. If you deal 5 unsaved wounds it would only make sense for those wounds to count towards combat resolution because if the unit still counts as being in base to base why shouldn't you be able to stack on the wounds. The real question I is if they are forced to remain in B2B contact does that mean that even if a unit is dead would he then be able to hit back.

2: form the perspective of the little guys this doesn't mean that the unit with weaker charactors gets a raw deal because units outside the battle may be spectators but they also root the IC on giving them a much better chance to take on the much greater foe.

This of course is my interpretation of the rules.

@Lobukia


+1 internets

Look I pointed out the base to base problem back on page 4 3 days ago it really is that simple guys your in base to base tell end of phase. For this overflow thing to go any farther someone find a rule says you can stop counting as in btb with challenger if then statemnet otherwise there really is no need to keep adding to this.

I'm in with the "no" crowd.

Fighting a Challenge, p64 BRB wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with other.

Combined with

Outside Forces, p64 BRB wrote:Whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and the challengee can strike blows against one another.

plus

Combatant Slain, p64 BRB wrote:When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, ...the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

I read this as;
You are in b2b with the opponent, and only the opponent, until the challenge is over.
You must attack the opponent, and only the opponent, until the challenge is over.
You remain in the challenge with the opponent, and only the opponent, even if he is killed.

The remaining wounds are you kicking the downed foe.

If, You are ongoing in the challenge ---> all attacks must be directed at the challengee. You are ongoing in the challenge ---> even if he dies, until the end of phase.
reads
All attacks must be directed at the challengee, even if he dies, until the end of phase.

DeathReaper wrote:
It is that simple.

Also the rules work fine in this case.

It's not "that simple"

DeathReaper wrote:
The models are considered to be in B2B until the challenge ends at the end of the phase.

Is an assertion you are making.
The rules do not say they're in base for the entire combat. It says they're in base only with each other.
You're saying the rules require you to treat a model as in base contact with a casualty.

Apparently you missed the quotes showing that the challenge lasts the entire phase

Meaning you are in btb for the entire phase

It isnt an assertion, it is solid, simple fact.

Not if one of the models dies.

The rules actually specify that the challenge is ongoing even if one of the combatants in a challenge is slain.

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

and

"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." Also P.64

So Challenges go until the end of the phase even if one combatant is dead, and these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Put that together and you can see it is not an assertion I am making. That is RAW.

The rules do require you to treat a model as in base contact with a casualty.

How do you not understand that?

DeathReaper wrote:The rules actually specify that the challenge is ongoing even if one of the combatants in a challenge is slain.

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

and

"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." Also P.64

So Challenges go until the end of the phase even if one combatant is dead, and these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Put that together and you can see it is not an assertion I am making. That is RAW.

"only with each other" means not with anyone else. that doesn't imply they're "always in base contact no matter what".

"You may only have grape soda" means you can't have root beer, not that you must always drink grape soda under every circumstance. If there's no grape soda, you're not drinking anything.

DeathReaper wrote: How do you not understand that?

Stop being snarky. I obviously understand and disagree with your point.

jcress410 wrote:"only with each other" means not with anyone else. that doesn't imply they're "always in base contact no matter what".

This is how I read it too.

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:The rules actually specify that the challenge is ongoing even if one of the combatants in a challenge is slain.

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

and

"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." Also P.64

So Challenges go until the end of the phase even if one combatant is dead, and these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Put that together and you can see it is not an assertion I am making. That is RAW.

"only with each other" means not with anyone else. that doesn't imply they're "always in base contact no matter what".

For the duration[i][u] of the challenge these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
so yes it does mean they are in base 2 base no matter what , unless a more specific rule comes into play.

jcress410 wrote:"You may only have grape soda" means you can't have root beer, not that you must always drink grape soda under every circumstance. If there's no grape soda, you're not drinking anything.

useless quote filled with logical fallacy

kambien wrote:
useless quote filled with logical fallacy

Which fallacy do you think that is? And do you really think being dismissive and snide makes your argument more palatable?

you can bold whichever word you want in the sentence. You're reading it like the word "only" isn't there. You're insisting it reads

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

but it really reads

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

Which means if you put three models in b2b with a nob, and the nob is in a challenge with one of them, he's only considered to be in b2b with one model.

Now, if that model is removed as a casualty, there are two models physically in b2b with the nob but he is "considered to be" in base with nobody

jcress410 wrote:"only with each other" means not with anyone else.

Okay so you do understand.

jcress410 wrote:that doesn't imply they're "always in base contact no matter what".

That is correct again, that does not imply it, but the other part says it explicitly:

"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." Also P.64

So for the duration of the challenge, which is considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase even when one combatant is slain, they are considered to be in base contact only with each other. So they can not be in base with anyone else and can not wound anyone else, as they are in base to base with the other participant in the challenge until the end of the phase.

This is indisputable evidence that they are in base contact only with each other (Which means not with anyone else.)

jcress410 wrote:Now, if that model is removed as a casualty, there are two models physically in b2b with the nob but he is "considered to be" in base with nobody

See this is where you are incorrect. The rules say he is considered to be in base contact only with the other participant in the challenge, even if that guy is dead.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:"only with each other" means not with anyone else.

Okay so you do understand.

jcress410 wrote:that doesn't imply they're "always in base contact no matter what".

That is correct again, that does not imply it, but the other part says it explicitly:

"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." Also P.64

So for the duration of the challenge, which is considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase even when one combatant is slain, they are considered to be in base contact only with each other. So they can not be in base with anyone else and can not wound anyone else, as they are in base to base with the other participant in the challenge until the end of the phase.

This doesn't say they are in base until the end of the phase. It just says the only model it can be in base with is the other participant in the challenge

This is indisputable evidence that they are in base contact only with each other (Which means not with anyone else.)

jcress410 wrote:Now, if that model is removed as a casualty, there are two models physically in b2b with the nob but he is "considered to be" in base with nobody

See this is where you are incorrect. The rules say he is considered to be in base contact only with the other participant in the challenge, even if that guy is dead.

Even if that guy is dead? Where does it say that?
You're insisting the challenge continuing implies the status "base to base" continues, but the rules don't say that. They don't even imply it.
The challenge lasts the entire combat. At initiative one, the nob attacks the character who challenged him. Wounds three times. Allocate the first wound to the character, it fails its save and is removed as a casualty.

Wound allocation rules require us to move on to the next closest model

You're insisting, at this point, the nob is "considered" to be in base with a model no longer on the table.
And, I think, you're saying you continue to allocate wounds to a model that is no longer on the table.

Which wound allocation rules out by saying (p25)

once a model has a wound allocated to it, you must continue to allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the wound pool is empty.

I don't know. I think you're leaning on that sentence to say something it doesn't.

jcress410 wrote: This doesn't say they are in base until the end of the phase. It just says the only model it can be in base with is the other participant in the challenge

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

This establishes that for the duration of the challenge they are... considered to be in base contact only with each other

They can only be in base contact with the other participant in the challenge for the DURATION of the challenge.

How long does the challenge last?

jcress410 wrote:Even if that guy is dead? Where does it say that?
You're insisting the challenge continuing implies the status "base to base" continues, but the rules don't say that.

Actually the ruled do say that, the challenge continues until the end of the phase, and when in a challenge they are considered to be only in B2B with each other.

"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." P.64

The challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase even when one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, until the end of the phase.

Please re-read the rules, I have posted them verbatim from the rule book, you still seem to not be understanding them.

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, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
pg 64

A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step.

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.
pg 25

Well, that seals the deal. There's no wound carryover in challenges. You guys, and the rules, have convinced me.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote: This doesn't say they are in base until the end of the phase. It just says the only model it can be in base with is the other participant in the challenge

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

This establishes that for the duration of the challenge they are... considered to be in base contact only with each other

They can only be in base contact with the other participant in the challenge for the DURATION of the challenge.

How long does the challenge last?

jcress410 wrote:Even if that guy is dead? Where does it say that?
You're insisting the challenge continuing implies the status "base to base" continues, but the rules don't say that.

Actually the ruled do say that, the challenge continues until the end of the phase, and when in a challenge they are considered to be only in B2B with each other.

"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." P.64

The challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase even when one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, until the end of the phase.

Please re-read the rules, I have posted them verbatim from the rule book, you still seem to not be understanding them.

You've eloquently restated your argument without explaining why the surviving character can't be in base with nobody. Which seems to be the situation after the other half of the challenge has been removed as a casualty.

only with eachother means not with anyone else. that doesn't mean they're always counted as being in base for the entire combat. If one of them is removed as a casualty, the remaining model is in base with nobody and wounds allocate to the next closest model.

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote: This doesn't say they are in base until the end of the phase. It just says the only model it can be in base with is the other participant in the challenge

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

This establishes that for the duration of the challenge they are... considered to be in base contact only with each other

They can only be in base contact with the other participant in the challenge for the DURATION of the challenge.

How long does the challenge last?

jcress410 wrote:Even if that guy is dead? Where does it say that?
You're insisting the challenge continuing implies the status "base to base" continues, but the rules don't say that.

Actually the ruled do say that, the challenge continues until the end of the phase, and when in a challenge they are considered to be only in B2B with each other.

"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." P.64

The challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase even when one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, until the end of the phase.

Please re-read the rules, I have posted them verbatim from the rule book, you still seem to not be understanding them.

You've eloquently restated your argument without explaining why the surviving character can't be in base with nobody. Which seems to be the situation after the other half of the challenge has been removed as a casualty.

only with eachother means not with anyone else. that doesn't mean they're always counted as being in base for the entire combat. If one of them is removed as a casualty, the remaining model is in base with nobody and wounds allocate to the next closest model.

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." P.64
that disagrees with you

jcress410 wrote:You've eloquently restated your argument without explaining why the surviving character can't be in base with nobody. Which seems to be the situation after the other half of the challenge has been removed as a casualty.

He can't be in base with nobody because the rules do not allow him to leave base contact with the other challenger, even if he is slain, as he is still considered to be in Base contact with the dead guy.

jcress410 wrote:only with eachother means not with anyone else. that doesn't mean they're always counted as being in base for the entire combat. If one of them is removed as a casualty, the remaining model is in base with nobody and wounds allocate to the next closest model.

The underlined is where you are incorrect. The remaining model is considered to be in base contact with the dead guy.

Q: Till when?
A: for the duration of the challenge.

Q: When does the challenge end?
A: The end of the phase.

You guys just keep saying "he's still considered to be in base", without a single warrant.

The challenge doesn't end until the end of the phase. Right. I get it.
That doesn't imply they're in base the whole time.

THey can only be in base with eachother. But that doesn't mean they have to be in base with anyone at all.

jcress410 wrote:

THey can only be in base with eachother. But that doesn't mean they have to be in base with anyone at all.

this statement contradicts itself

jcress410 wrote:You guys just keep saying "he's still considered to be in base", without a single warrant.

See the underlined where it tells you this is true.

Facts:

The challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase. P.64

and

For the duration of the challenge they are considered to be in base contact only with each other. P.64

Therefore the conclusion is: Until the end of the phase they are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

This lasts until the end of the phase even if one model is slain. it says that on P.64

Does this clear it up?

kambien wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

THey can only be in base with eachother. But that doesn't mean they have to be in base with anyone at all.

this statement contradicts itself

I don't think it does. "This glass can be filled only with wine" does not mean that you store the glass with wine in it. Similarly, saying that the models are considered in base to base only with each other does not imply that they must be considered in base to base at all times - merely that, when they are considered so, it is only with each other. And for those who have asked "Then why is the challenge considered to be ongoing?", it's because this restriction on base to base contact is not the only effect of a challenge that is affecting the model.

As I've stated before, I think both are legitimate ways of reading that sentence. At this point, we're starting to devolve into "I'm right, you're wrong!" shouting matches, and I don't think anything new has been added to the discussion in pages. Please, do us a favor and refrain both from reposting your previous idea and from posting something "new" without reading the thread. It'll make this go a lot smoother, and a lot less heated.

You are all forgetting the most important rule:resolve the wound allocating step as if the challenge combatants are not there. Here is an example.

A Space Marine Sergeant with 5 Marines charges an Ork squad with a Nob and 5 Boyz. The initiative order would be:
Initiative 4 - Sergeant challenges Nob, who accepts. Sergeant makes his attacks and causes 2 wounds. The Marines make their attacks and get 4 wounds. When it comes time to allocate wounds you start with the models in btb with an attacker at that initiative step, but you also allocate wounds as if the Nob and Sergeant were not there. So the Sergeant's attacks get allocated to the Nob, since he is the only model in btb with an attacker at that initiative step since he is not part of the other combat. The Marine attacks get allocated to the Orks only for that reason and the rules say that only the combatants can hurt each other.

Doomaflatchi wrote:

kambien wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

THey can only be in base with eachother. But that doesn't mean they have to be in base with anyone at all.

this statement contradicts itself

I don't think it does. "This glass can be filled only with wine" does not mean that you store the glass with wine in it. Similarly, saying that the models are considered in base to base only with each other does not imply that they must be considered in base to base at all times - merely that, when they are considered so, it is only with each other. And for those who have asked "Then why is the challenge considered to be ongoing?", it's because this restriction on base to base contact is not the only effect of a challenge that is affecting the model.

As I've stated before, I think both are legitimate ways of reading that sentence. At this point, we're starting to devolve into "I'm right, you're wrong!" shouting matches, and I don't think anything new has been added to the discussion in pages. Please, do us a favor and refrain both from reposting your previous idea and from posting something "new" without reading the thread. It'll make this go a lot smoother, and a lot less heated.

he didn't read the very first paragraph for challenges which tells you to put them directly into base to base contact or a bunch of other things i'm not going to write out

Jsenth and Kirsanth agree with what I said about 'ONLY.' Doomaflatchi also gets it.

Kambien, if 7 models are in actual base contact with a character, and you issue a challenge, you still have 7 model touching the base. But 'ONLY' the character can count as being in base. The other 6 DO NOT. Even if the character is killed. To say we have not read the argument is to miss the point we are trying to make.

Lobukia, I respect your argument, but I hate that you said I did not read your argument--I obviously responded directly to you with evidence of a rule and a quandary of how you would resolve it with said presented evidence as it contradicts your statement. I asked you the question because I value your input, NOT because I was ignoring you hehe.)

Lobukia and Nos, you have never addressed this point, which I have put to you. You continue to go back to your explanation of 'ONLY' yet that has been shown to be incorrect.

As said already, 'Only in base contact with each other' does not preclude not being in base contact.

If you are permitted to 'Only fill a Stein with Beer' or 'Only fill a Glass with wine' the condition that the Stein or Glass is NOT filled is still a possibility. That is how the 'ONLY' in the base to base rule works. I posted earlier that, were the 'ONLY' either stricken or moved in the sentence it would change the sentence's meaning... obviously different word combinations change the meaning. But the combination we DO have in the rules says that you can only be in base contact with the challenger assuming they are both alive.

Except that the rules clearly state the opposite, DevianID. "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"

Note, it says phase. Not Sub-Phase.

Lets go up the page exactly one sentence:

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

What isn't clear about that? I desperately want it to be so that when I roll up 10 attacks with abaddon or 12 or 14 with my Khorne daemonweapon lord, those extra wounds carry over. But that's not the way it works.

Next page, Forging a narrative: " Many players like to resolve this crucial battle after all other models have struck their blows-"

How could they encourage this if there is the possibility that some of those models that struck blows might have died at earlier Initiative steps?

Back a page: Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the two characters were not there. Seems pretty simple.

@DevianID:

First of all, I was not calling you out, just all the 1 sentences posters who hadn't read anything (on either side). I really cannot disagree more with your reading of the entire "only" thing. If I tell you that you can ONLY fill a Stein with Beer, and if you drink that Beer, it is still considered to be full until the end of meal, then you are looking at the scenario in the rule book. But, let's say I concede the point, and let's at least put it aside.

What then does 64 mean about "resolve wound allocation as if the two characters were not there"? This point alone closes the door on allocation, which is the only way into the overflow room.

Then look at Forging the Narrative, which gives us choice on when to resolve the challenge

Then look at 429, which directly tells us it is separate

Then look at the things it tells us outside forces CAN do, and being wounded or taking saves certainly isn't one of them

Then look at the result section, which DOES tell us how the challenge results affect the larger combat

There are 6 points here that, as written, either frame the poorly worded rules, or flat out tell us how to handle them. I don't need all of them to make my case, I only need 2 or 3 (though all 6 being there gives me complete confidence in RAW not supporting overflow). The reason I have not touched much on the whole 'only' thing, is that it really doesn't matter that much, nor is it the lynch pin to my case. Its just one piece of a puzzle, and with out it, I still think the picture is clear.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."
I'm at a loss as to how people, after having this exact quote from the book posted ad nauseum, are still reading it as "For the duration of the challenge, these two models may be considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Doomaflatchi wrote:
I don't think it does. "This glass can be filled only with wine" does not mean that you store the glass with wine in it. Similarly, saying that the models are considered in base to base only with each other does not imply that they must be considered in base to base at all times - merely that, when they are considered so, it is only with each other. And for those who have asked "Then why is the challenge considered to be ongoing?", it's because this restriction on base to base contact is not the only effect of a challenge that is affecting the model.

It says are in base contact only with each other.
are - A third-person plural simple present tense of be.

To use your example, the statement in questions says "The glasses are filled only with wine". Not "This glasses can be filled only with wine". There is a massive difference between "can" and "are". There is no reference to possibility, potential or the future. The statement forces the wine right into that damn glass.

Lobukia wrote:Then look at 429, which directly tells us it is separate

I completely missed that. This right here makes me more convinced that I got it right.

Devian - no, it is not incorrect. *are* in base contact with each other means they *are*, not *can be* in base contct with each other

The present tense meaning they remain in base contact with each other for the duration of the phase, as that is the duration of the challenge.

There is no rules support for wound overflow. None.

"You are only permitted to date that girl" leaves the possibility open for not dating anyone at all. Being allowed to do something (and only one thing) does not mean that you MUST do it, and so I agree with the wound overflow proponents that this is the literal reading of this statement. If it matters, the opposite is actually, "You are permitted only to date that girl." In this statement, the only thing that you are allowed to do is date that girl - the allowance to NOT date ANYONE at all is removed, and so this wording of the statement is identical to, "You MUST date that girl."

However, I don't agree that this interpretation of the statement leads to the allowance of wound overflow. It is SO CLEAR that wound overflow was not intended that I have trouble understanding why anyone would try to argue otherwise. Common usage of the statements quoted above and how the word "only" is used within the rules (and within common usage) do not preclude the introduction of wound overflow - common usage suggests the opposite.

Tangent wrote:"You are only permitted to date that girl" leaves the possibility open for not dating anyone at all. Being allowed to do something (and only one thing) does not mean that you MUST do it, and so I agree with the wound overflow proponents that this is the literal reading of this statement. If it matters, the opposite is actually, "You are permitted only to date that girl." In this statement, the only thing that you are allowed to do is date that girl - the allowance to NOT date ANYONE at all is removed, and so this wording of the statement is identical to, "You MUST date that girl."

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

or to use your own example:

"For the duration of your relationship, you are dating only that girl."

There is no reference to imperative, possibility, choice, potential or the future. It declares the state that the challengers exist in. "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other". Not " For the duration of the challenge, these two models can only considered to be in base contact only with each other".

The difference is MASSIVE.

Lets try a different tactic instead of beating the same horse over and over again. Wound allocation must be done randomly to the next closest models. So which models are the next closest, and how many are the next closest for random allocation?

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Lets try a different tactic instead of beating the same horse over and over again. Wound allocation must be done randomly to the next closest models. So which models are the next closest, and how many are the next closest for random allocation?

Models that are next closest are the ones next closest for random allocation. If there is a tie, roll a dice to randomly decide which one is the next closest and the next next closest models.