First of all, Im pretty certain I know how this work, this post is just to verify my understanding of the rule.

An ork warboss on a bike (toughness 6) in a large unit of grots (toughness 2) is in a challenge with, say, a cultist champion (strength 3).
Now because the majority toughness value in the warboss' unit is a puny 2, the warboss is wounded on 3+ by the strength 3 champion. Even though the champion, in no way, can even touch a grot, as he his in a duel with the boss.

I understand the reasoning by using majority toughness values, I just dont see it justified when in a challenge.
So Dakka, have I constantly missed the paragraph saying, a model uses its own toughness value in a challenge? or is it working as intended?

Oh yeah, what about a nurgle lord on a bike, in a group of cultists, getting boon of mutation and suffers a strength 4 hit? is he wounded on 3+ or 6 +?

During a challenge the two models involved in the challenge are considered in btb contact ONLY with each other. It's resolved separate from the remainder of the CC as well.

As such I am guessing (without having my BRB in front of me) that you use the stats of the models involved in the challenge only, not majority.

 Rorschach9 wrote:
During a challenge the two models involved in the challenge are considered in btb contact ONLY with each other. It's resolved separate from the remainder of the CC as well.

As such I am guessing (without having my BRB in front of me) that you use the stats of the models involved in the challenge only, not majority.

I feel that might me RAI, however they are still attached and in the squad.
I couldn't find anything to say that you would not use (Gross Avg) stats.

If someone sees what I blatantly missed, by all means show me where.

Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

Yeah it seems kinda broken that if you have a challange with two identical IC's that the one attacked to the crapper squad is going to go down easier due to the majority rules.

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

Agreed, like IC's swinging on each other in 5th ^^ with the exception the squad won't eat them.

How about page 24: "... each model rolls To Hit using its own Weapon Skill."? Page 25 seems to agree on Majority WRT toughness.

Homer

 Homer S wrote:
How about page 24: "... each model rolls To Hit using its own Weapon Skill."? Page 25 seems to agree on Majority WRT toughness.

Homer

Doesn't every model always roll to hit using it's own WS?

RAI you use the character's weapon skill and toughness.

This game sucks!

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This game sucks!

Thank you for your contribution. Do you have something worthwhile to add?

ok, its good to hear its not just me then
I'll try to convince my buddies to house rule this then, thank you for your replies

I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

 Shinkaze wrote:
I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

Which as I said is not RAW. RAW you hit using the characters WS vs the units majority WS, and Wound using the majority Toughness. Fluff-wise this makes no sense as you are not trying to hit the unit, but only a specific model. Also you are not trying to wound the unit, but only a single model. That is why I would play it differently. If my opponent is being that guy however, I will start going RAW against him as long as it benefits me.

Page 23: WHO CAN FIGHT?: 'A model is engaged in combat, and must fight if:

* During its Initiative step, it is in base contact with one or more enemy models.

*During its initiative step, it is within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.'

Page 25: Multiple Toughness Values: '[ ] a unit will contain models that have different Toughness characteristics. [ ], roll To Wound using the Toughness value of the majority of the engaged foe.'

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

The Multiple Toughness Values rule is only applied to the majority of ENGAGED models. Page 23 defines who is considered 'engaged', and page 64 further qualifies that the two models fighting a challenge are only engaged with each other, meaning that the To Hit and To Wound rolls are made against the two engaged models' profiles only.

Ive read those passages too, and I do believe that that is RAI. BUT Page 64: FIGHTING A CHALLENGE: 'For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.' Sadly does not mean they only are engaged with eachother, only that they are the only 2 in b2b.
Those lousy grots 2" away also counts as being engaged *During its initiative step, it is within 2" of a friendly model in base contact with one or more enemy models in the same combat.'
But, it looks like we all agree on how we would handle it

I would have to agree with you Ghenghis on this one.

Happyjew wrote:

 Bat Manuel wrote:
This game sucks!

Thank you for your contribution. Do you have something worthwhile to add?

After much deliberation. I thought my statement was well thought out, proofread and play tested. If that's not what you consider worthwhile....

Without a doubt, this is the worse case of RAW witnessed. I am usually all for RAW, but in this case, I would venture that 99.9% of gamers would agree that it is wrong.

Happyjew wrote:

 Shinkaze wrote:
I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

Which as I said is not RAW. RAW you hit using the characters WS vs the units majority WS, and Wound using the majority Toughness. Fluff-wise this makes no sense as you are not trying to hit the unit, but only a specific model. Also you are not trying to wound the unit, but only a single model. That is why I would play it differently. If my opponent is being that guy however, I will start going RAW against him as long as it benefits me.

So are the grots swinging the warboss' power klaw for him? That is what I want to really know. And please explain how the warboss suddenly gets so weak.

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This

 Dozer Blades wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

 Shinkaze wrote:
I do not tolerate lameness in my opponents. I do not go to tournaments with lame TOs. It is a the ICs Toughness value, not the squad. Common sense is amazing.

Which as I said is not RAW. RAW you hit using the characters WS vs the units majority WS, and Wound using the majority Toughness. Fluff-wise this makes no sense as you are not trying to hit the unit, but only a specific model. Also you are not trying to wound the unit, but only a single model. That is why I would play it differently. If my opponent is being that guy however, I will start going RAW against him as long as it benefits me.

So are the grots swinging the warboss' power klaw for him? That is what I want to really know. And please explain how the warboss suddenly gets so weak.

You are understanding this wrong. The model uses its WS and Strength to make the attack, but you use the average WS and toughness to receive the attack.

In RAW land using your example, when swinging the Warboss is a Warboss in all his glory. When taking a hit he temporarily turns into a grot with lots of wounds.

I am so glad you said that because it shows just how silly it is. So like I said the grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am so glad you said that because it shows just how silly it is. So like I said the grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Sense went out of the door a while ago.

Not for everyone.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I am so glad you said that because it shows just how silly it is. So like I said the grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss?? Doesn't make any sense at all.

That is how the rules work when not in a challenge as well.

The "grots are controlling the warboss when it defends itself and any wounds inflicted upon them magically are transferred to the boss" if you decide to take the wounds on the warboss before any of the grots.

You use the defending units "majority WS" when comparing the attackers WS to the opposing units majority WS. So the Warboss can not protect the grots with his higher WS.


Many rules do not "make any sense at all" in a real world environment.

But I guess that is because a fantasy world full of daemons, Psychic powers, and space Orks made from fungus should not make any sense in a real world environment.

You are trying to apply modern day real world logic to a rule set for a game that has nothing to do with modern day real life. Stop doing that.

The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

I think that a lot of times what people post here they wouldn't say in an actual game. This is a good example showing why it's not a good idea to blindly apply RAW all the time... If ever. There has to be some sense of a reality check at some point and we shouldn't place all the blame on the developers.

yea, im typically all for RAW to avoid any of that TFG moments, but this is, to be blunt, a slowed RAW and probably not intended but has not been FAQd for w/e reason unless I'm wrong....if im going to be playing friendly games im going with RAI. in tournies, unless the TO says otherwise...itll be RAW.

"Realism" is never a good excuse to deviate from RAW, because 40k is neither "realistic" nor internally consistent.

Also, one should always know what RAW is, even if one arguest that the game should play differently. Not trying to 'interpret' rules (basically discounting RAW) all the while claiming that the " my 'interpretation' is RAW".


This is another example of GW not taking Challenge into account at all in normal assault rules. You can find others at the FAQ. And enough people send message to GW about it, I'm 100% sure it will get FAQ'd.

The RAW is what it is, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's insane. I'll be very surprised if this doesn't get FAQed.

Luide wrote:
"Realism" is never a good excuse to deviate from RAW, because 40k is neither "realistic" nor internally consistent.

Also, one should always know what RAW is, even if one arguest that the game should play differently. Not trying to 'interpret' rules (basically discounting RAW) all the while claiming that the " my 'interpretation' is RAW".


This is another example of GW not taking Challenge into account at all in normal assault rules. You can find others at the FAQ. And enough people send message to GW about it, I'm 100% sure it will get FAQ'd.

Whilst I understand and agree with the sentiment of what you said, at least how I interpret what you said, I have to disagree with your stance on people interpreting rules. You have to interpret them, otherwise you are just staring at squiggles on a page, which doesn't get you anywhere. Sometimes peoples interpretations differ, whcih is where RAW conflicts come in. Thus whenever anyone claims that they are follwoing RAW, they are always, without exception, following their interpretation of RAW. Most of the time everyone hits the same pooint, sometimes they don't.

In the case of this thread I think everyone agrees that RAW and the way they would play it if their opponent agrees most of the time are different. Doesn't emant ehy ahve a different intepretation of RAW.

This is another example of GW not taking Challenge into account at all in normal assault rules. You can find others at the FAQ. And enough people send message to GW about it, I'm 100% sure it will get FAQ'd.

that is to say, they didn't intend for it to be this way in the first place; for whatever stupid reason they might have had.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Homer S wrote:
How about page 24: "... each model rolls To Hit using its own Weapon Skill."? Page 25 seems to agree on Majority WRT toughness.

Homer

Doesn't every model always roll to hit using it's own WS?

I was rebutting these quotes which were building:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

Agreed, like IC's swinging on each other in 5th ^^ with the exception the squad won't eat them.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

They all seem to think you use majority WS.

Homer

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

Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

Drager wrote:
In the case of this thread I think everyone agrees that RAW and the way they would play it if their opponent agrees most of the time are different.

Yes. But you can find people trying to argue that "use majority T and WS" isn't RAW, by either interpreting the rules extremely creatively or making up rules.

Drager wrote:
Doesn't emant ehy ahve a different intepretation of RAW.

Problem is that people often claim that how they want rules to work is RAW, when it obviously isn't. See pre-faq discussion about Grounded flyers not losing Hard to Hit.

6e has many instances where designers obviously didn't mean what they wrote. This is very much evident from the massive errata in FAQ if you compare it to 5e. But it is extremely important to keep RAW and HWIPI separate. For example, pre-faq our group ha a house-rule: Grounded FMC's lost Hard to Hit and couldn't by grounded again. We all knew that this was not RAW.. And if I played a pickup game, I brought it up with my opponent before game saying "RAW is this, but IMO RAI is this. Which way shall we play?" and abide by his decision.

That Luide is exactly what I meant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

It is treated as a separate combat - that is all you need to know.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

It is treated as a separate combat - that is all you need to know.

Except it is not, as the wounds caused in the challenge are a part of determining who won the combat.

Pro tip...

Don't mix apples and oranges... its not conducive to the discussion.

Theres also a problem with skills affecting stuff outside of the challenge that is really affected whether or not challengees are part of the other combat or not:

- Knight of the Flame activating Cleansing Flame while locked in a challenge

- Stern & Zone of banishment

- Typhus & Destroyer Hive (iirc the name of the ability)

How is this really a discussion? The challenge is considered separate from the rest of the CC, so the majority toughness is just the toughness of the character.

Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:


Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

I see you're new to YMDC

I wouldn't say it was RAW that you used majority toughness in a challenge. Since the rules don't explicitly state it, people are inferring it, and claiming it as RAW.

However I'm sure no-one would actually play like that.

Luide wrote:
6e has many instances where designers obviously didn't mean what they wrote.

Not really true. The problem is, there are 12 or so testers. They sit around and design the game and talk about how things should work. They know the context of every rule. The problem is the writing is a little ambiguous. However, those testers look at the writing and fill in the context that they already knew, so that it makes perfect sense to them.

Sad to say, I'm not new. That's my problem...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How is this really a discussion? The challenge is considered separate from the rest of the CC, so the majority toughness is just the toughness of the character.

Because that statement is wrong? The challenge isn't completely separate - the Characters are still members of their respective units.
The rules for combat say

Quite rarely, a unit will contain models that have different
Toughness characteristics. When this occurs, roll To Wound
using the Toughness value of the majority of the engaged foe.

The rule is unit based, not combat based, not "Who am I engaged in a challenge with" based... unit based.

So we know it's unit based, and we know that the character doesn't leave his unit temporarily, we must use the majority WS and Toughness of the unit - not the individual character's weapon skill.

Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

If you'd read the thread a lot of people agree as to what the rules say, but doubt they're intended that way and don't play it that way.

It's not your problem. Don't let it get you down.

What I'm hoping to see in the next FAQ...

Q. Are characters involved in a challenge engaged with any other models in the same combat for the duration of the challenge?

A. No

or an Errata entry...

p64, Change the last sentence to "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact, and engaged, only with each other."

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How is this really a discussion? The challenge is considered separate from the rest of the CC, so the majority toughness is just the toughness of the character.

You should really read the rules again. And this time pay attention what is actually written in the rules, instead of what you think the rules should be. Challenge is explicitly part of the combat, model in challenge is explicitly part of the unit. Challenge is not considered to be "separate" from the rest of the CC, except by few specific ways that are written in the rules and FAQs.RAW is 100% clear, use majority T and WS while in challenge.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

No. What you're missing is that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. You claim that Rules are X, when they're obviously Y. YMDC is explicitly about debating what are the actual rules.
I do agree that it is a stupid rule, and our group houseruled it. But the difference is that each and everyone in our group knows what the actual rule is.

BTW, bringing 'common sense' to Warhammer is extremely bad idea. Basically none of the rules make any sense. Take for example flyers: Their targeting systems work better while moving 18-36" prer turn than when moving 12". So when they slow down, instead of getting more accurate which is what you'd expect, they in fact lose accuracy. And Flyer in hover mode that moves 0.1" can somehow make extreme dodging manouvers without affecting it's accuracy at all, but while moving fast it cannot shoot straight anymore. Neither of these rules make any sense. Still, I don't go claiming that they aren't the rules.

I am going to use the FAQ regarding overflow wounds from the challenge not going into the unit as my argument that majority toughness does not apply to the challenge. YMMV.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

It is treated as a separate combat - that is all you need to know.

Ah, yet the rules are concerned with units, and not combats. You keep ignoring this.

RAW is actually clear on this. Its almost certainly wrong, but it is clear.

I stand by what I have said. It makes more sense than your position.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I stand by what I have said. It makes more sense than your position.

Your position makes no sense, as far as the actual rules are concerned.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I stand by what I have said. It makes more sense than your position.

Ah, sorry, thought we wree actually debating rules. Perhaps when giving your opinion on how it should work, instead of following the rules, you can preface it with such? Following the tenets of this forum, you know.

I've given my reason for my position and there are others here in agreement. You are not some magically enlightened entity that is always right - in truth your track record is not that good to be honest. If what you said tended to match the FAQs and erratas that would be another thing but it's not the case.

And reported. Please stop arguing the person, not the argument.

text removed.
Reds8n

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I've given my reason for my position and there are others here in agreement. You are not some magically enlightened entity that is always right - in truth your track record is not that good to be honest. If what you said tended to match the FAQs and erratas that would be another thing but it's not the case.

How about pre-faq/errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

<3 redundant off topic posts made my people with nothing better to do than harass someone else

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

Please show proof that a challenge is a separate combat.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

If it were a separate combat then the wounds caused in the challenge would have no bearing on combat resolution.

Ergo it is all one big combat.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

If it were a separate combat then the wounds caused in the challenge would have no bearing on combat resolution.

Ergo it is all one big combat.

If it was all one big combat, the wounds from the challenge would overflow into the unit....oh wait, nevermind.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

If it were a separate combat then the wounds caused in the challenge would have no bearing on combat resolution.

Ergo it is all one big combat.

If it was all one big combat, the wounds from the challenge would overflow into the unit....oh wait, nevermind.

Luckily the part about the two characters being only in B2B with each other for the duration of the combat, and the rules that say you must allocate wounds to those in base contact before allocating them to anyone else, cover us in that situation.

No issues there.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

Barbobot - totally, 100% helpful post

MR - so you have proof that it is a separate combat? Oh wait, it isnt ,because wounds from challenge count towards combat res in the wider combat involving the unit.

RAW you use majority toughness and WS. Is this unlikely to be corrrect? Of course. Now, can you stop with the insults and actually, you know, argue rules or at least point out where you are simply stating your opinion?

Who's insulting? There's always someone in YMDC that amuses themselves by arguing tortured rules interpretations for hours upon end. It's a simple fact, my friend.

Anyway, the only two models involved in the combat aspect of the challenge are the two characters. It's why you can't use "look out sir".

Yes, which has no relation to the rules which state you use the *units* majority WS / T. Have you got anything stating they are a separate unit, or that being a "separate combat" (which has no actual rules basis) has any effect on this rule?

Again: there is no tortured rules here. The rules for majority WS / T talk about the UNIT. Absolutely nothing whatsoever in the rules for challenges alters that in any way, shape or form.

NOS is 100% right on this. It's not HIWPI in a friendly game cos I think combat monster characters should still be monsters in a challange BUT that is not RAW.
You use majority ws/t to hit a unit the character is in the unit and there is nothing saying separate combat.

I don't even see a need for GW to address this... It's not even really an issue in my honest opinion.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I don't even see a need for GW to address this... It's not even really an issue in my honest opinion.

You are correct as the Rules are clear.

You use majority WS/T to hit a unit. The character is in the unit so he gets hit on WS/T and not his own stats.

Well at least you are half right...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well at least you are half right...

Quote rules for where I am incorrect. (But you can not as I am not incorrect).

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Well at least you are half right...

So, still no rules argument? RAW DR is 100% correct. If you disagree on the rules, please start following the tenets and back up your assertion with some actual argument

I have already stated my position several times. There is no need to repeat.

Yes, and your position lacks any form of rules backing, and therefore doesnt overturn a rules based argument.

If you read closely i wasnt asking you to repeat your position, but actually to, for once, support it from the rules. Given you are stating other people are wrong presumably you have some rules to back up your opinion?

It's kind of silly that you take into account majority WS and toughness in a challenge. While the RAW supports this claim, its unrealistic in the terms of an actual game.

When your in a challenge your allocating hits and wounds on one individual model and not the entire unit as a collective.

I think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

 sounddemon wrote:
pI think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

And if you read the thread most people have agreed with that.

 sounddemon wrote:
It's kind of silly that you take into account majority WS and toughness in a challenge. While the RAW supports this claim, its unrealistic in the terms of an actual game.

When your in a challenge your allocating hits and wounds on one individual model and not the entire unit as a collective.

I think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

You do realize there are a ton of "unrealistic" aspects to the rules, right?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 sounddemon wrote:
It's kind of silly that you take into account majority WS and toughness in a challenge. While the RAW supports this claim, its unrealistic in the terms of an actual game.

When your in a challenge your allocating hits and wounds on one individual model and not the entire unit as a collective.

I think this is one of those situations in which you play by RAI instead of RAW.

You do realize there are a ton of "unrealistic" aspects to the rules, right?

I'm fully aware of this fact. I'm considering calling this game sillyhammer or whackyhammer for all the dumb things that are "realistic' or seen as "stupid" for situations like this.

That,would,be a scenario where I would not want to issue a challenge. Keep the IC part of the unit in the hopes of having enough wounds that they carry over to him.

To my knowledge, and I have looked, every major GT has basically gone with challenges functioning as PvP combats with any supporting squads ignored, except in squad-wide bonuses.

Oh, theres no doubt about that - it seems barmy to play it otherwise. The rules do not support that, however, meaning it IS a houserule

 Monster Rain wrote:
[Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

Oh really? Why does the FAQ then state :

rulebook FAQ wrote: Q: Challenges are described in the rulebook as being resolved at the same time as the rest of the combat. However, in the summary on page 429 it implies that challenges are resolved separately from the rest of the combat. Which is it? (p64)
A: Challenges are fought at the same Initiative step as the rest of the combat they’re involved in, but make no Pile In moves as they are already in base contact with their opponent.

Challenges are explicitly part of the same combat. Even the FAQs go out and say it.

There is absolutely no rules support for claiming "Challenge is a separate combat". If there were, someone would have given rulebook or FAQ quote about it by now. Everyone who has argued about that point have provided no evidence for their viewpoint.

I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

In combat when you attack do you use each individual models Toughness or the majority for the unit?

Since a challenge is part of the combat, and the models involved are still part of their respective unit (as there is nothing saying that it is a separate combat or the the models leave their units), you follow the normal rules which means wounding against majority Toughness.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

Really? I've seen 3 pages worth of it.

I'm yet to see anything that, rules-wise and not RAI-Interpretation, refutes this.

Iranna.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

Apart from the rules quotes proving the case, for the last 3 pages?

Please, actually argue the case by pointing out WHY the rules written plain as day dont apply. You know, like the forum rules tell you to do while posting here.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I haven't see any real evidence to support majority is used in a challenge.

Even the post right above yours has pertinent information. The faq says they're the same combat. You have no permission to not use majority.

If the last three pages were brought down from the mountain by Moses that wouldn't make any difference it is said the same.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If the last three pages were brought down from the mountain by Moses that wouldn't make any difference it is said the same.

I am so confused...

Are you trying to say that you don't care that you're wrong?

Iranna.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If the last three pages were brought down from the mountain by Moses that wouldn't make any difference it is said the same.

Basically, you don't want to be wrong.
So therefore will not ever show rules to back your thought process, and will not accept that they use majority.

In this case it's better than Moses, as they're By GW, from GW.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If the last three pages were brought down from the mountain by Moses that wouldn't make any difference it is said the same.

So you're wrong, but dont want to have to admit you are wrong, so wont ever comply witht he forum rules and actually back upo your assretions?

Good to know how much weight to apply to your posts

Moses? Is he another primarch?

Snapshot wrote:
Moses? Is he another primarch?

I think he was the Primarch for one of the two censured legions. So the Emperor said we are not allowed to talk about him.