Grugknuckle wrote:Obviously, GW wasn't paying too much attention to the exact meaning of that sentence. Because if they were, they wouldn't have used the word "blows".

They could have been clearer, yes. But the problem is no one but they know what their intent was. Their intent could be for what the rules actually say to be true, in which case wound potentially can overflow.

cowmonaut wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:It's really unfortunate that GW always uses conversational English in the rules section instead of more precise language. What does it mean exactly when they write,

"...may only strike blows against each other." ?

The very next sentence tells you what this phrasing means. The very next sentence places no restrictions on the Challenger and Challengee, only the rest of the models involved in the combat.

Yes the very next sentence says that you perform wound allocation as if the characters were not there. Since the characters go at true initiative how does one allocate wounds to something that is not there? Wound allocation is done at each initiative step not once. So at each initiative step you resolve wound allocation as if the characters were not there. You can say that this places limitations on the outside forces only, and lets assume for a moment that is true, then the outside forces cannot have wounds allocated to them since the combatants are, what? Oh yeah, NOT THERE.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:We can look at what the developers intended. By reading the Forging a Narrative boxes they provide intel into what they think would make the game more awesome. AND, since these were written by the developers and are not rules they can provide context. Try again.

So you freely admit that there is not a single sentence in the entire 500 page rule book that tells you to allocate wounds differently?

Nope. There you go again taking things out of context. Naughty.

Edit: I should also point out that the "Forging the Narrative" box in the Challenges section only says some players resolve Challenges at the end of combat. That implies its an option, not a requirement, and that attacks resolve at the normal Initiative step. Now you have the "rules" (the Narrative box and the Reference page) contradicting one another.

But, there you go again taking them one at a time and not looking at the whole puzzle. Take that and couple it with page 429 and you have a more clear picture of the intent of the rules.

cowmonaut wrote:
For the millionth time: Page 25, Allocating Wounds, second bullet point.

The rule is right there. Stop arguing when you haven't apparently read the rules. The rules right there very clearly tell you to allocate wounds to the nearest engaged enemy model not in base to base. According to Page 7's Basic versus Advanced rule, you have to find something in the rule book that expressly tells you to ignore that part of the rule.

That only applies when there are no models in base contact. The contention is that, for the duration of the challenge the challenger and challengee remain in base contact with each other

Stop being insulting, as you seem to have missed that point. The second bullet point cannot apply if there is a model in base contact

Captain Antivas wrote:
Yes the very next sentence says that you perform wound allocation as if the characters were not there. Since the characters go at true initiative how does one allocate wounds to something that is not there? Wound allocation is done at each initiative step not once. So at each initiative step you resolve wound allocation as if the characters were not there. You can say that this places limitations on the outside forces only, and lets assume for a moment that is true, then the outside forces cannot have wounds allocated to them since the combatants are, what? Oh yeah, NOT THERE.

I'm not seeing your point here. The models not taking part of the Challenge can't allocate wounds to those combatants. They can only allocate wounds to combatants int he general melee. This has not been a point of debate.

There is no restriction on the Characters that prevents them from allocating wounds. Find the sentence that restricts the Characters.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:We can look at what the developers intended. By reading the Forging a Narrative boxes they provide intel into what they think would make the game more awesome. AND, since these were written by the developers and are not rules they can provide context. Try again.

So you freely admit that there is not a single sentence in the entire 500 page rule book that tells you to allocate wounds differently?

Nope. There you go again taking things out of context. Naughty.

It is entirely in context. It is entirely relevant. Its the crux of the whole issue!

Captain Antivas wrote:But, there you go again taking them one at a time and not looking at the whole puzzle. Take that and couple it with page 429 and you have a more clear picture of the intent of the rules.

No, you don't. You have two places in the rule book discussing the same thing. One is tell you that you and your opponent can choose to ignore the Challenge until later and the other is saying you have to. Most of my opponents have higher Initiative than me and would probably prefer to resolve the Challenge first, or at the proper Initiative step if given the option. Sometimes I would prefer to do the same, such as if I'm fighting Orks. Which one do I use? The one that gives me the biggest advantage?

But its a red herring in any event. It still doesn't affect the basic rules for wound allocation. So arguing about when a challenge occurs is a topic for another thread.

No one is going to change their mind until GW clarifies this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:
For the millionth time: Page 25, Allocating Wounds, second bullet point.

The rule is right there. Stop arguing when you haven't apparently read the rules. The rules right there very clearly tell you to allocate wounds to the nearest engaged enemy model not in base to base. According to Page 7's Basic versus Advanced rule, you have to find something in the rule book that expressly tells you to ignore that part of the rule.

That only applies when there are no models in base contact. The contention is that, for the duration of the challenge the challenger and challengee remain in base contact with each other

Stop being insulting, as you seem to have missed that point. The second bullet point cannot apply if there is a model in base contact

If you have slain the enemy combatant you can't be in base contact with him. The model is removed, meaning you are not in base contact with anyone.

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

As Captain Antivas likes to argue, context is important. The sentence is telling you that even if you are physically in base contact with other models you don't count as being in base contact with them. This forces your wounds to allocate first and foremost to the other combatant in the Challenge.

If you are arguing that the sentence means that you are in base contact with a model that is removed from the game as a casualty I think you are mistaken. Also please note that does not change the fact that Precision Strike could still allocate a wound to any enemy model in that unit the enemy combatant belongs to.

This is an argument that went 21 pages? Really, guys?

Yo, the two dudes fight. That's it. They are separate.

TheKbob wrote:This is an argument that went 21 pages? Really, guys?

Yo, the two dudes fight. That's it. They are separate.

They are part of the same overall combat. They just can only be attacked by one another. It says nothing about whom they can attack as far as I can tell.

cowmonaut wrote:
If you have slain the enemy combatant you can't be in base contact with him. The model is removed, meaning you are not in base contact with anyone.

You ARE considered to be, and for the duration of the challenge. Present tense. There is no possibility of you NOT being in base to base, and for the duration of the challenge

cowmonaut wrote:

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

As Captain Antivas likes to argue, context is important. The sentence is telling you that even if you are physically in base contact with other models you don't count as being in base contact with them. This forces your wounds to allocate first and foremost to the other combatant in the Challenge.

If you are arguing that the sentence means that you are in base contact with a model that is removed from the game as a casualty I think you are mistaken. Also please note that does not change the fact that Precision Strike could still allocate a wound to any enemy model in that unit the enemy combatant belongs to.

Noone has argued against Precision strike, at any point.

"are considered to be" allows no chance of you NOT being in base to base, and for the duration of the challenge this remains true. If you remain in base to base you cannot allocate wounds away

This has been the contention for the past 15 pages - one side reads "are considered to be" as hat it is - an absolute statement with no allowance for any chance of not being in base to base. Others dont.

21 pages and going.

Keep fishing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This has been the contention for the past 15 pages - one side reads "are considered to be" as hat it is - an absolute statement with no allowance for any chance of not being in base to base. Others dont.

That one sentence is the only thing that affects how wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee are allocated. It does not say you can only allocate to that model. It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

For those that love to argue intent, if GW wanted you to allocate wounds in the Challenge only to the enemy combatant they would have specifically told you to do so. It would have been very easy to just write "Combatants in a Challenge can only allocate wounds to one another". That is not what the rules actually say.

It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

Bolded and underlined. Thats precisely what this means.

cowmonaut wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This has been the contention for the past 15 pages - one side reads "are considered to be" as hat it is - an absolute statement with no allowance for any chance of not being in base to base. Others dont.

That one sentence is the only thing that affects how wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee are allocated. It does not say you can only allocate to that model. It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

By virtue of the allocation rules that is exactly what the result is - until models in btb are gone, you cannot allocate to models not in base to base.

"Are considered to be" is unambiguous. Present tense meaning they ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge

cowmonaut wrote:

For those that love to argue intent, if GW wanted you to allocate wounds in the Challenge only to the enemy combatant they would have specifically told you to do so. It would have been very easy to just write "Combatants in a Challenge can only allocate wounds to one another". That is not what the rules actually say.

That IS what the rules DO say, just in a much more long winded way.

Until and unless you can prove that "are considered to be" doesnt actually mean that, you still have no rules argument.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

This is the argument that was given on page 6.

Repeatedly given since then.

15 pages on and there is not a single argument that has held up to scrutiny since.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

Bolded and underlined. Thats precisely what this means.

Seriously, 21 pages with THIS as evidence?

Do people here actively want to cheat? Am I missing something?

So, do you have an actual argument, or just wanting to violate the rules of the forum?

<Simmer down, folks.>

Sadly, what was a farily engaging debate is starting to break down into frustrated name calling.

I just want to address some things here that haven't been brought up, as maybe some new ammo.

On Pg. 3 "Zero-Level Characteristics" it states "If at any point, a model's Strnegth, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty"

I can not say for sure one way or another if Overflow should occur or not at this point. But so far, the main argument that a dead model being in base to base contact with anything has any effect just seems to carry absolutely no weight in this argument. A dead model does not exist on the table, and there is no rule that allows you to count it as such. Because of this, the line that says they are considered to be in base to base only with eachother can only mean "for as long as they are both alive".

What seems to be in debate here is the first part of the same sentence: "For the duration of the challenge, ..."

I think this sentence is in conflict with itself. And while it may be clear to people arguing on both sides, I think we can all agree that it really isn't all that clear.

Personally, I believe that if they intended there to be NO OVERFLOW, then the challenge section would have been much easier to write, and much shorter of a rule to explain in the rulebook. I also believe that they wouldn't have bothered explaining how to refuse a challenge, since there would never be a good reason to refuse in this case. That said, I intend to play as if there is OVERFLOW, and I of course will make sure that my opponent agrees before we play. If not, then we can role the dice to decide how its played that day.

I agree with CanisLupus....I will clear it with my opponent to make sure but to me this whole issue doesn't really make sense. Whether you look at it in terms of RAW I don't really see the issue and if it is RAI, then challenges without rolloever wounds doesn't make any sense. What is cinematic about dealing out 6 wounds to a squad and a dinky sergeant soaking them all up...

I see it now, someone like swarmlord, Dante, or Ghaz rolls up to a squad and instead of finishing 5 guys in one swing decides to make a big deal out of killing sgt. Joe...Personally if this is ever FAQ'd to be different then I would be very surprised

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Please answer these questions:

1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?
2) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with anyone else?
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?
4) When does the challenge end?
5) If one combatant is slain does the challenge continue?

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Yes.
4) When a combatant is slain.
5) No.

Your answer to #4 and #5 are in direct contradiction to "Combatant Slain" page 64



Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

From page 5 of this thread... and then we had to redefine "only" ... and ran with that to page 20+


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Nos said it better here

It doesn't matter if the model is removed or not, as per the rules the model is STILL considered to be in base to base contact for the duration. Period.

Removing the model does not change the fact that the models are still considered to be base to base. They even go so far as to specify that if a character dies in challenge that the challenge continues.

On Pg. 3 "Zero-Level Characteristics" it states "If at any point, a model's Strnegth, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty"

I can not say for sure one way or another if Overflow should occur or not at this point. But so far, the main argument that a dead model being in base to base contact with anything has any effect just seems to carry absolutely no weight in this argument. A dead model does not exist on the table, and there is no rule that allows you to count it as such. Because of this, the line that says they are considered to be in base to base only with eachother can only mean "for as long as they are both alive".

Canis is this a basic or advanced rule? If it is a basic rule would not the challenge rules specifically override this example?

Furthermore let us look at the following assertion:

A dead model does not exist on the table, and there is no rule that allows you to count it as such.

The following excerpt:

"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

Would this not be precisely that, a rule contradicting your assertion?

cowmonaut wrote:

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

it is not compelling. that sentence does not read "for the duration of the challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact", and it doesn't mean that either.

It just means the two models are only considered to be in base with eachother. They can't be in base with anyone else.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

The more times I type this the less ambiguous the sentence seems...

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?

If both models remain on the board for the entire challenge, yes. If one is removed as a casualty, the model that remains is in base with nobody.

Still waiting on a Page number for where this is said in the rules.

If not, you have nothing.

P.S. P. 64 disagrees with you: "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"

jcress410 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

it is not compelling. that sentence does not read "for the duration of the challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact", and it doesn't mean that either.

It just means the two models are only considered to be in base with eachother. They can't be in base with anyone else.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

The more times I type this the less ambiguous the sentence seems...

Yup, but far too many posts and pages have been generated trying to explain grammar to folks who just do not want to hear it.

Grugknuckle wrote:No one is going to change their mind until GW clarifies this.

Requoting this ^ for truth.

So far the arguments against overflow are substantiated on a misinterpretation of one sentence as it is written and a belief that, because a contradiction exists in the book between rules and a suggestion from GW on how to make the game feel more cinematic, normal rules should be abandoned to the wind.

I would love to see the forging a narrative vs actual rules part of all this gain some traction, but the continual repetition of the misread base-to-base sentence is tiresome.

We posted our thoughts on the matter, they have posted theirs... is there a cap to how often a discussion can go in circles before a thread gets locked? Because this has transitioned from hilarious to downright depressing.

I'd like to hear cowmonauts take on it, as one of the more vocal points of opposition it seems like he may be shifting position. An important milestone for the debate really. It would only be polite to allow that person time to ponder and reply in a more in depth fashion after they have had some time to consider. Will opinions be swayed? Perhaps, perhaps not. However i feel that due discourse is its own reward regardless of outcome.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

Lets try a simple logic exercise.

Unit A is challenged to a duel.

Unit B accepts.

Base contact is made and according to page 64:

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

We've established that a slain model does not end the challenge via :

. the challenge is still considered to be on going [if one is slain] until the end of the phase"

So, two things.

First, we have a challenge that specifies that two units are in B2B, second we have a line stating that the challenge does not end if one of the challenge participants is slain.

If the unit removed as a casualty does not count as in B2B then both units can NOT be in base to base for the duration of the challenge as the rule explicitly requires.

As the slain status of a combatant does not end the challenge the only way to fulfill the prerequisite of the first portion namely B2B contact is if the model still counted as being there until such time as the phase ends. Your interpretation states that a slain model or casualty is removed.

If the casualty is removed and the victim no longer counts as B2B... do you feel this does this not DIRECTLY violate the first premise? Namely that during the duration the models are considered as B2B?


Lastly, Quiestdeus
Made in us :

Yup, but far too many posts and pages have been generated trying to explain grammar to folks who just do not want to hear it.

This, is not constructive. If you do not find value in the discourse others choose to engage in feel free to not take part. Comments like these are most often interpreted as snide and do not contribute to the conversation.

Your view of the discourse being futile is irrelevant so long as others continue to wish to discuss it.

jcress410 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

it is not compelling. that sentence does not read "for the duration of the challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact", and it doesn't mean that either.

It just means the two models are only considered to be in base with eachother. They can't be in base with anyone else.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

The more times I type this the less ambiguous the sentence seems...

The mere fact that they used the word considered is compelling. They don't say they are or they can be or anything definitive, they say considered to be. Meaning, by definition of the phrase considered to be, even if they aren't, they are. For all intents and purposes, regardless of actual location in relation to each other, they are in BTB with each other the entire phase, even if one dies and is removed as a casualty. That may not make sense to you but it is what it is.

What is most compelling, Captain, is the fact that you, and everyone else against wound overflow, wants us to ignore rules as written in favor of how you believe it should be played.

For all intents and purposes with the way it is written they are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other. Let me say that again, with only each other... The duration for this is until the end of the phase. So, they are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other, even if there are other models physically in base to base with the characters.

And Lt Soundwave, I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to conclude here. Yes the models are considered to be base to base with only each other for the entire phase. That's a known fact that no one has argued. That does not stop a model from being removed as a causality. It also does not restrict the character into being base to base for the entire phase; it removes their ability to be in base to base contact with anyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. The ability is still there to not be base to base with anything, but if you are in base to base, you can only be in base to base with the other character in the challenge. Simply stating that they are considered to be base to base with only each other until the end of the phase does not stop you from removing the slain model and continuing on with normal wound allocation. Even if the challenge is still considered ongoing, nothing states that you don't use normal wound allocation, nothing states that you have to remain in base to base with a slain model, but what is stated is that you have to remove a model with zero wounds and allocate the remaining wounds to viable models, starting with the closest first. This is after your model that you were in base to base contact with was slain and removed.

Now, with that said, I do believe that overflow was not intended. However, this is not a RAI argument. I'm going only by rules as written, and they support overflow.

No, you are the ones ignoring that "are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base. EVen if they are not physically, actually in base to base they are considered to be.

It restricts their ability to NOT be in base to base with eachother, and it does so while the challenge is ongoing - which is the entire phase

In short, you have added precisely nothing since page 6, as you still choose to misinterpret that sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you are the ones ignoring that "are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base.

Agreed.

I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

There is no wound overflow as the two characters are striking blows against each other and not the unit they belong to. RAW states to resolve the wound allocation as if the characters are not there. This is two fold in that wounds from the unit(s) cannot be placed on the characters nor can the wounds from the duel be placed on the unit(s).

Greg_Hager wrote:What is most compelling, Captain, is the fact that you, and everyone else against wound overflow, wants us to ignore rules as written in favor of how you believe it should be played.

I would absolutely love for you to point out a single rule I have used the word "ignore" with. I know already that you are going to reply with "normal wound allocation rules" and we are not suggesting you ignore them, simply use the modified and more specific challenge rules, which override the general wound allocation rules. I don't want you to ignore everything. It is your camp that tells us that Forging a Narrative should be ignored because it is just a guideline or suggestion, and to ignore the summary at the end of the rules because it is inconvenient and wrong. Again, if your conclusion is derived by ruling everything that opposes your argument as invalid is a fallacy. It takes a brilliant mind to claim victory after ignoring everything that refuted your argument.

For all intents and purposes with the way it is written they are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other. Let me say that again, with only each other... The duration for this is until the end of the phase. So, they are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other, even if there are other models physically in base to base with the characters.

And Lt Soundwave, I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to conclude here. Yes the models are considered to be base to base with only each other for the entire phase. That's a known fact that no one has argued. That does not stop a model from being removed as a causality. It also does not restrict the character into being base to base for the entire phase; it removes their ability to be in base to base contact with anyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. The ability is still there to not be base to base with anything, but if you are in base to base, you can only be in base to base with the other character in the challenge. Simply stating that they are considered to be base to base with only each other until the end of the phase does not stop you from removing the slain model and continuing on with normal wound allocation. Even if the challenge is still considered ongoing, nothing states that you don't use normal wound allocation, nothing states that you have to remain in base to base with a slain model, but what is stated is that you have to remove a model with zero wounds and allocate the remaining wounds to viable models, starting with the closest first. This is after your model that you were in base to base contact with was slain and removed.

Now, with that said, I do believe that overflow was not intended. However, this is not a RAI argument. I'm going only by rules as written, and they support overflow.

How did you come to the conclusion that overflow was not intended? How can you look me in the eye and say definitively that it was intended but was written differently? If, after reading the information, the only logical conclusion is that overflow is intended how do you then say it was not written that way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Greg_Hager wrote:I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

You are acting like that is the only sentence that makes us think what we do. All the sentences in context make us think that sentence means what it means. Context is everything.

* face palms *
Close this please - This is embarrassing .

Not that my opinion means anything, but the local TO opinion does.

So I talked to the TO and what I received was a very definite NO. Wounds from challenges DO NOT overflow into the rest of the combat.

So anyone playing at the Memphis Factory Store (ie. GW HQ) please keep this in mind, if you are planning on attending any official events held there.

Thanks and have a nice day.

question for you, when you guys talk to your TO's , are you bringing up points from both sides of the argument, or just leaving it one sided? Also, it seems without wound overflow characters (more specifically independent characters) are pretty useless in cc.
ie. cool i dealt four wounds and killed your sgt. that had one, now I'm going to throw out the unallocated wounds and hope you don't have another character for me to do deal...one... wound to.
that just seems pointless in its entirety.

Points don't matter. Everyone should know what is intended by the rules.

Second there is no such rules as over flow wounds. I looked in the whole book. Nothing listed and no rule called over flow wounds.

MJThurston wrote:Points don't matter. Everyone should know what is intended by the rules.

Second there is no such rules as over flow wounds. I looked in the whole book. Nothing listed and no rule called over flow wounds.

It doesn't need to exist, there's nothing saying that the normal close combat rules aren't used.

Ahhhhhhhhhh

If normal close combat rules were used then it wouldn't be called Challenges.

EAFChunk wrote:question for you, when you guys talk to your TO's , are you bringing up points from both sides of the argument, or just leaving it one sided? Also, it seems without wound overflow characters (more specifically independent characters) are pretty useless in cc.
ie. cool i dealt four wounds and killed your sgt. that had one, now I'm going to throw out the unallocated wounds and hope you don't have another character for me to do deal...one... wound to.
that just seems pointless in its entirety.

All I did was bring up the question about wound overflow. The TO informed me that it had been thoroughly discussed and that how the tourneys would be run was that there was no wound overflow until otherwise FAQ'ed.

Your TO might rule it differently , but I offered no suggestions either way. I just asked how it would be ruled.

MJThurston wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhh

If normal close combat rules were used then it wouldn't be called Challenges.

OK, guess you can't wound your opponent then, because it's a challenge, not close combat. Have fun!

"are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base.

Until this is refuted the overflow camp can not proceed further with its argument.

Its right there in the quotes posted repeatedly for the length of this thread.

Golden Throne ruled the same way. If it is so obvious that they overflow why do so many large event organizers rule against?

No such thing as over flow wounds.

Greg_Hager wrote:I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

Is English your first language, Greg? "ARE". The modifying statement "only with each other" does not change the word "are". Many posts have pointed this out and you've failed to comprehend them too.

Even if you read it as "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to not be in base contact with any other models" as you have been, the word "are" still makes their base contact mandatory.

If I say "Those two guys are wearing powered armour", then they are wearing at least power armour or else my statement is false.
If I say "Those two guys are wearing only power armour", They must still be wearing power armour or else my statement is false. If they are not wearing power armour my statement is false. If they are wearing more than power armour, my statement is false. If they are wearing power armour, and only power armour, my statement is true.

Got it yet?

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

"are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base.

Until this is refuted the overflow camp can not proceed further with its argument.

Its right there in the quotes posted repeatedly for the length of this thread.

Please review the posts from page 13 through page 16 (at least). This has been refuted thoroughly. To take a page from Captain Antivas, context is everything.

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

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

is NOT the same as

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

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

For the duration of the challenge, 1)these two models 2)are considered to be in base contact 3)only with each other
Is incorrect.

For the duration of the challenge, 1)these two models 2)are considered to be in base contact only with each other
is correct.

If the "with" came before the "only" you would have a case because you could drop the prepositional phrase "with only each other" from the sentence and achieve the meaning you desire (the models are ALWAYS in base contact). HOWEVER - that is not how it was written. Thus, you *HAVE* to interpret the sentence such that the models are simply never in base contact with any other model, not that they are always in base contact.

The characters in a challenge are in base contact with NO other models.

They are NOT always in base contact with each other.

There are another dozen+ posts on page 13-15 about this exact point. Please read them and explain what is unclear about this. You cannot focus on "are considered to be" because the sentence DOES NOT END THERE.

Repeating. The. Same. Exact. Point. Over. And. Over. Is. Not. Constructive.

quiestdeus,

Please answer these Questions:

1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?
2) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with anyone else?
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?
4) When does the challenge end?
5) If one combatant is slain does the challenge continue?

Captain Antivas wrote:

You are acting like that is the only sentence that makes us think what we do. All the sentences in context make us think that sentence means what it means. Context is everything.

Captain - forgive me if I missed something in the repetition of other points over the past few pages, but your point of view is that the contradictions between the "Forging the Narrative" section, and the rules on pages 64 and 65 about resolving wounds is the other piece that refutes overflow?

The problem that models have to allocate wounds in initiative order, but you have the option to resolve a challenge at the end of combat instead of at true initiative?

Just trying to get on the same page - I spent a little time trying to figure out the best way to resolve that and the thing that jumped out at me is the first "Forging the Narrative" box on page XV. It explicitly states that the content of these FtN boxes is "advice" to make your playing experience better. It also is placed outside of the "The Rules" section, which starts 6 pages later, which is interesting.

To me this indicates that the Forging the Narrative sections are not rules, but purely were included to provide suggestions on how players can make the game feel more like a movie (which GW has indicated is their intention in the past - I believe the term was "cinematic").

This would mean the rules are to allocate wounds in true initiative order, but players are welcome to tweak those rules if they do not want to (much like how nearly all tournaments tweak the rules on setting up terrain).

As such, I do not think the "when to allocate wounds time travel paradox" refutes wound overflow. I also acknowledge that this is definitely getting into an ambiguous gray area, but because actions such as 'not following the terrain placement rules' does not prevent players from placing fortifications... not following the optional order of events for wound allocation should not prevent players following the normal rules for wound allocation (which would support wound overflow *if* you agree the challenger and challengee are not always in base contact). It simply means that if the players choose to resolve the challenge at the end of combat, instead of in initiative order, they are allowing models, that may otherwise be killed, a chance to attack.

Thoughts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:quiestdeus,

Please answer these Questions:

1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?
2) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with anyone else?
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?
4) When does the challenge end?
5) If one combatant is slain does the challenge continue?

Happily.

The models are considered to be in base contact with no other model for the duration of the challenge, which lasts for as long as both combatants are alive and/or through the end of a phase during which one combatant has been slain.

So you are not going to answer the questions?

I just did? It appended my answer to the end of my attempt to start a conversation with Captain Antivas

No you did not. There are 5 questions there, and not 5 answers.

How about you answer this one question:
1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

DeathReaper wrote:No you did not. There are 5 questions there, and not 5 answers.

How about you answer this one question:
1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

Only if it is impossible to get the two combatants in base to base.

Edit: Sorry, I figured you couldn't see me jumping up in down in my seat with my hand raised. I'll be good.

For the duration that both are alive, both models are absolutely in base contact with each other as per the first sentence of the "Fighting a Challenge" section.

When one model is slain gameplay follows the rules on page 25 and the two combatants are no longer in base to base contact as further enforced by the sentence under the "Combatant Slain" section on page 64.

Yet they "are" considered to be in base to base, and are so for the duration of the challenge.

It is the "considered to be " that you are tripping up on; this is allowance for them to not really be in base to base, but as far as the rules are concerned they are.

Happyjew wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:No you did not. There are 5 questions there, and not 5 answers.

How about you answer this one question:
1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

Only if it is impossible to get the two combatants in base to base.

Okay so if we cant get them into base contact they are considered to be in base contact.

If we can get them into base contact then they are in base contact.

Good now we are getting somewhere.

Premise #1 So they are, or are considered to be in base contact.

Do we agree with Premise #1?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet they "are" considered to be in base to base, and are so for the duration of the challenge.

It is the "considered to be " that you are tripping up on; this is allowance for them to not really be in base to base, but as far as the rules are concerned they are.

Please see my post just above yours. Literally just 7 above yours...

It explains why reading "considered to be" in the way you imply is incorrect.

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

NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

"considered to be" --- "in base contact".

There *is* a difference and you cannot ignore the "only with each other" part or break the one sentence up into two separate considerations.

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

I completely understand what you are trying to say. I am arguing the sentence as written does not mean what you want it to mean.

Convince me that you can break the sentence up as you are attempting to do and I will be all over why your base-to-base assertion completely refutes wound allocation because the wounds go to a dead model. Repeating the same argument over and over again is fruitless and I will take a page out of your book and begin to just copy-paste this same reply clearly stating why I feel you are wrong.

One last try: the sentence is NOT:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact" -- "only with each other"

If it was, you could remove either the "in base contact" or the "only with each other" and have a sensible sentence.
Models are "considered to be"--- "only with each other" IS NOT A SENTENCE. The models have to BE something with each other. Thus you simply cannot ignore the "only with each other" portion and assert that the models are always in base to base contact with each other.

The sentence is:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact only with each other"
Meaning the models are considered to be only in base contact with each other. Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

Explain how "Models are considered to be -- only with each other" makes sense, because if you cannot then you cannot ignore "only with each other" and have the "Models are considered to be in base contact" sentence you keep claiming is in the book.

Edit: You can disagree with me if you like, but for the love of at least prove to me you are considering the situation rather than mindlessly copying and pasting your previous posts. Explain why you think you can break the sentence up into 3 parts instead of 2.

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

-Q

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

Eldarguy88 wrote:Is English your first language, Greg? "ARE". The modifying statement "only with each other" does not change the word "are". Many posts have pointed this out and you've failed to comprehend them too.

Even if you read it as "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to not be in base contact with any other models" as you have been, the word "are" still makes their base contact mandatory.

If I say "Those two guys are wearing powered armour", then they are wearing at least power armour or else my statement is false.
If I say "Those two guys are wearing only power armour", They must still be wearing power armour or else my statement is false. If they are not wearing power armour my statement is false. If they are wearing more than power armour, my statement is false. If they are wearing power armour, and only power armour, my statement is true.

Got it yet?

Yes, English is my first language. I was born and raised in the United States and the only reason my location says Japan is because the Marine Corps stationed me here. But this isn't about me so moving on...

Like quiestdeus has posted so many times, you can not take part of the sentence and use that, you have to use the sentence in it's entirety. We are refuting every argument with fact and everyone chooses to disagree. Nothing we can do will make you realize our stance is the correct one, however we will gladly keep trying.

quiestdeus wrote:The characters in a challenge are in base contact with NO other models.

They are NOT always in base contact with each other.

There are another dozen+ posts on page 13-15 about this exact point. Please read them and explain what is unclear about this. You cannot focus on "are considered to be" because the sentence DOES NOT END THERE.

Repeating. The. Same. Exact. Point. Over. And. Over. Is. Not. Constructive.

I totally agree...we are getting no where. The facts are right here, and in black and white in your rule book. You can't leave off the end of the sentence because that part explains the context in which to take the entire statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet they "are" considered to be in base to base, and are so for the duration of the challenge.

It is the "considered to be " that you are tripping up on; this is allowance for them to not really be in base to base, but as far as the rules are concerned they are.

Once again, see above. They are considered to be in base to base with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Meaning that they can't be in base to base with anyone else. No where is this making them remain in base to base after a model is slain and removed.

quiestdeus wrote:One last try: the sentence is NOT:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact" -- "only with each other"

If it was, you could remove either the "in base contact" or the "only with each other" and have a sensible sentence.
Models are "considered to be"--- "only with each other" IS NOT A SENTENCE. The models have to BE something with each other. Thus you simply cannot ignore the "only with each other" portion and assert that the models are always in base to base contact with each other.

The sentence is:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact only with each other"
Meaning the models are considered to be only in base contact with each other. Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

Quoted for truth...this is the best way I've saw my opinion expressed. You can NOT break down the sentence any other way.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

-Q

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

How is that so? He is stating the same thing I am stating. You are not looking at the same sentence I am if you believe he is agreeing with you.

Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

This is the crux of your misunderstanding.

For the duration of the challenge those two models ARE considered to be in B2B contact. That is RAW. The challenge explicitly states it.



page 64

The ability is still there to not be base to base with anything, but if you are in base to base, you can only be in base to base with the other character in the challenge. Simply stating that they are considered to be base to base with only each other until the end of the phase does not stop you from removing the slain model and continuing on with normal wound allocation.

"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

nothing states that you don't use normal wound allocation,

This boils down to basic vs advanced.

Your assertion is that a removed model does not count as base to base, a normal basic rule.

However, the challenge specifies that for its duration these models are considered in B2B only with eachother. This in turn overrides the basic rule. They go on further to say that if the model is slain the challenge continues until the end of the phase.

But, if you remove a model it is no longer in Base to base with anything (Basic rule) This conflicts with the above qouted line specifiying that the two models are considered to be B2B only with eachother for the duration of the challenge.

If my slain model counts as being removed he does not satisfy the challenge's statement of being considered in B2B with only each other.

You are fixating on the definition "only" which from your perspective shifts the entire meaning of the other lines.

So lets look at that:

on·ly (nl)
adj.
1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left.
2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence.
adv.
1. Without anyone or anything else; alone: room for only one passenger.
2.
a. At the very least: If you would only come home. The story was only too true.
b. And nothing else or more: I only work here.
3. Exclusively; solely: facts known only to us.
4.
a. In the last analysis or final outcome: actions that will only make things worse.
b. With the final result; nevertheless: received a raise only to be laid off.
5.
a. As recently as: called me only last month.
b. In the immediate past: only just saw them.
conj.
1. Were it not that; except.
2.
a. With the restriction that; but: You may go, only be careful.
b. However; and yet: The merchandise is well made, only we can't use it.

[Middle English, from Old English nlc : n, one; see one + -lc, having the form of; see -ly1.]

Usage Note: When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement follows.

As has been stated: "context, is everything."

-Lt. S

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

Edit - at least everything you said about the usage of "only". All of my previous points and description still stand to refute the beginning of your post about always being in base contact.

You agree. Your very own example points out that "The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report" does NOT mean the committee is always making a decision by every Friday, every week. A condition on the statement follows, and thus the statement MUST be read to include said condition. Models are NOT always in base contact with each other, they are only not in contact with any other model.

Do you disagree with your own chosen reference? Otherwise you agree with why the models are not always in base to base contact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

You are fixating on the definition "only" which from your perspective shifts the entire meaning of the other lines.

So lets look at that:


[Middle English, from Old English nlc : n, one; see one + -lc, having the form of; see -ly1.]

Usage Note: When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement follows.

As has been stated: "context, is everything."

FURTHERMORE (sorry for the repeated edits) you point out "Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits."

What word(s) does only adjoin? "base to base contact" and "with each other".

"Contact" and "With". You cannot split up the 2 statements, as I pointed out above, because "only" provides context as to the base to base contact.

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

Only modifies the words it is adjoined with, you have to read them with their modifier, models are not always in base contact they are only in base contact with no other models.

If that is still enough, more from your own statement:
"there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural,"
Earlier, not later. That is even more proof of how the sentence must be interpreted.

Moving "only" earlier in the sentence to make it feel more natural, results in: "For the duration of the challenge, only these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other."

Would you still argue that meant the models are ALWAYS in base contact with each other? Or ONLY in base contact with each other? I can see how you can misinterpret "always" from the current verbage, but how can you possibly swap one word for another entirely? If we are completely swapping words what stops English from breaking down into "banana kumquat Jose Canseco"? How do you banana kumquat Jose Canseco a challenge?

I remember when Dakka Dakka had higher standards for rules discussions.

Not just "it doesn't say I can't"

As stated, context my friend. You choose to ignore it

Lt.Soundwave wrote:As stated, context my friend. You choose to ignore it

This is the equivalent of saying "nu-uh!". Do you have anything constructive to add?

What context am I missing? Truthfully, all I see is you making my point for me.

Edit: Here, I'll even repost this in case you missed it.

quiestdeus wrote:-Lt. S

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

Edit - at least everything you said about the usage of "only". All of my previous points and description still stand to refute the beginning of your post about always being in base contact.

You agree. Your very own example points out that "The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report" does NOT mean the committee is always making a decision by every Friday, every week. A condition on the statement follows, and thus the statement MUST be read to include said condition. Models are NOT always in base contact with each other, they are only not in contact with any other model.

Do you disagree with your own chosen reference? Otherwise you agree with why the models are not always in base to base contact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

You are fixating on the definition "only" which from your perspective shifts the entire meaning of the other lines.

So lets look at that:


[Middle English, from Old English nlc : n, one; see one + -lc, having the form of; see -ly1.]

Usage Note: When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement follows.

As has been stated: "context, is everything."

FURTHERMORE (sorry for the repeated edits) you point out "Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits."

What word(s) does only adjoin? "base to base contact" and "with each other".

"Contact" and "With". You cannot split up the 2 statements, as I pointed out above, because "only" provides context as to the base to base contact.

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

Only modifies the words it is adjoined with, you have to read them with their modifier, models are not always in base contact they are only in base contact with no other models.

If that is still enough, more from your own statement:
"there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural,"
Earlier, not later. That is even more proof of how the sentence must be interpreted.

Moving "only" earlier in the sentence to make it feel more natural, results in: "For the duration of the challenge, only these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other."

Would you still argue that meant the models are ALWAYS in base contact with each other? Or ONLY in base contact with each other? I can see how you can misinterpret "always" from the current verbage, but how can you possibly swap one word for another entirely? If we are completely swapping words what stops English from breaking down into "banana kumquat Jose Canseco"? How do you banana kumquat Jose Canseco a challenge?

Are we back to arguing if being in b2b contact is a requirement for being in a challenge ?

There is no argument that models are in base to base contact at the start of a challenge. Folks are still trying to prove that models are always in base to base contact, which is incorrect.

We're at the selectively ignoring portions of an example portion.

quiestdeus wrote:There is no argument that models are in base to base contact at the start of a challenge. Folks are still trying to prove that models are always in base to base contact, which is incorrect.

If part of the requirement of being in a challenge is being in b2b and you are told , the challenge is still considered to be ongoing ....

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:There is no argument that models are in base to base contact at the start of a challenge. Folks are still trying to prove that models are always in base to base contact, which is incorrect.

If part of the requirement of being in a challenge is being in b2b and you are told , the challenge is still considered to be ongoing ....

considered to be ongoing as in the rules for outside forces still stands, ie. wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character. Not as in, you stay base to base with a model with zero wounds, which we are told to remove from play

EAFChunk wrote:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:There is no argument that models are in base to base contact at the start of a challenge. Folks are still trying to prove that models are always in base to base contact, which is incorrect.

If part of the requirement of being in a challenge is being in b2b and you are told , the challenge is still considered to be ongoing ....

considered to be ongoing as in the rules for outside forces still stands, ie. wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character. Not as in, you stay base to base with a model with zero wounds, which we are told to remove from play

why are you only doing part of the requirements - considered to be ongoing as in the rules for outside forces still stands, ie. wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - and not everything ?

Lt.Soundwave wrote:I'd like to hear cowmonauts take on it, as one of the more vocal points of opposition it seems like he may be shifting position. An important milestone for the debate really. It would only be polite to allow that person time to ponder and reply in a more in depth fashion after they have had some time to consider. Will opinions be swayed? Perhaps, perhaps not. However i feel that due discourse is its own reward regardless of outcome.

Thanks for that by the way. I definitely needed to step back for a bit to mull things over.

Greg_Hager wrote:I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

This touches smartly on the issue. The sentence this debate is hung up on is apparently a little ambiguous...

"For the duration of the challenge the combatants are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Without trying to be a braggart, I know I have a more than solid grasp of English. To me, this sentence does not, in of itself, exclude the possibility of the combatants not being in base contact with anyone. If it had said "only in base contact with" rather than "in base contact only with", or better still "with and only with", that would be a different story.

It is a very subtle difference, and one I had been taking for granted as obvious.

'What about the first part?' I here you ask. "For the duration of..." Well, that frankly doesn't change the meaning of the rest of the sentence. It tells us nothing more than it says, and given Challenges can last several turns, does not mean much.

There does not seem to be anything that explicitly overrules the Zero Level Characteristics rules. Given the relative even split of those for and against we will probably have to wait for an FAQ update. I myself still read the rules as written as wounds overflowing.

kambien wrote:why are you only doing part of the requirements - considered to be ongoing as in the rules for outside forces still stands, ie. wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - and not everything ?

We are fulfilling all requirements. To be in base to base contact for the entire phase (length of the challenge) is not a requirement. Only NOT being in base to base with anyone other than the other challenger is a requirement. This is the entire argument at this point.

EAFChunk wrote:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:There is no argument that models are in base to base contact at the start of a challenge. Folks are still trying to prove that models are always in base to base contact, which is incorrect.

If part of the requirement of being in a challenge is being in b2b and you are told , the challenge is still considered to be ongoing ....

considered to be ongoing as in the rules for outside forces still stands, ie. wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character. Not as in, you stay base to base with a model with zero wounds, which we are told to remove from play

Exactly. I do not see how you can think that you have to remain base to base. See above (and below).

Lt.Soundwave wrote:We're at the selectively ignoring portions of an example portion.

We're at people being extremely closed minded. That's what we're at.

quiestdeus wrote:There is no argument that models are in base to base contact at the start of a challenge. Folks are still trying to prove that models are always in base to base contact, which is incorrect.

And again, this is the argument. No where does it state that you remain in base to base contact for the entire phase...only that you can only be base to base with the other character in the challenge.

Haven't we said this a time or two? Round robin goes full circle...lol

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:why are you only doing part of the requirements - considered to be ongoing as in the rules for outside forces still stands, ie. wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - and not everything ?

We are fulfilling all requirements. To be in base to base contact for the entire phase (length of the challenge) is not a requirement. Only NOT being in base to base with anyone other than the other challenger is a requirement. This is the entire argument at this point.

so according to you i am allowed to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact because i don't feel like it , as long as i'm not in b2b with anyone else

kambien wrote:so according to you i am allowed to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact because i don't feel like it , as long as i'm not in b2b with anyone else

Pretty sure you're trolling at this point in time, but I'll bite anyway.

Not at all. You are required to move them into base to base contact, and if that is impossible, just consider them to be in base to base.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:so according to you i am allowed to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact because i don't feel like it , as long as i'm not in b2b with anyone else

Pretty sure you're trolling at this point in time, but I'll bite anyway.

Not at all. You are required to move them into base to base contact, and if that is impossible, just consider them to be in base to base.

so it is a requirement for the "challenge" . Then when it tells you to consider the challenges as ongoing , why are they no longer in b2b ?

kambien wrote:so it is a requirement for the "challenge" . Then when it tells you to consider the challenges as ongoing , why are they no longer in b2b ?

Negative sir. It is a requirement for all close combat, not a special challenge rule. Being in a challenge does not change this. It only changes the fact that you can not be in base to base contact with the other members of the character's squad. Hence why the rule states "considered to be in base to base contact with only each other." When a character is slain, that is how you are not longer in base to base. Not a single place in the rule set does it state you do not follow the basic rules.

kambien wrote:so it is a requirement for the "challenge" . Then when it tells you to consider the challenges as ongoing , why are they no longer in b2b ?

Because one is dead and removed from play. Please refer to my post about 5 replies ago, i believe you may have missed it.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:so it is a requirement for the "challenge" . Then when it tells you to consider the challenges as ongoing , why are they no longer in b2b ?

Negative sir. It is a requirement for all close combat, not a special challenge rule. Being in a challenge does not change this. It only changes the fact that you can not be in base to base contact with the other members of the character's squad. Hence why the rule states "considered to be in base to base contact with only each other." When a character is slain, that is how you are not longer in base to base. Not a single place in the rule set does it state you do not follow the basic rules.

Sorry a bit lost.
Are you saying that the paragraph of "fighting a challenge" are not special rules for challenges ?

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:so it is a requirement for the "challenge" . Then when it tells you to consider the challenges as ongoing , why are they no longer in b2b ?

Negative sir. It is a requirement for all close combat, not a special challenge rule. Being in a challenge does not change this. It only changes the fact that you can not be in base to base contact with the other members of the character's squad. Hence why the rule states "considered to be in base to base contact with only each other." When a character is slain, that is how you are not longer in base to base. Not a single place in the rule set does it state you do not follow the basic rules.

Sorry a bit lost.
Are you saying that the paragraph of "fighting a challenge" are not special rules for challenges ?

Yes they are. They are advanced rules to use in addition to the basic close combat rules.

How about premise #1?

During a Challenge one of the two combatants are moved:

If we can't get them into base contact they are considered to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight. (True or false?)

If we can get them into base contact then they are in base contact. (True or false?)

Premise #1 So they are, or are considered to be in base contact.

Do we agree with Premise #1?

Premise #2 the Challenge lasts until the end of the phase even if one is slain.

Do we agree with Premise #2?

Premise #3 for the duration of the challenge the Challenger is in base contact only with the Challengee and Vice Versa.

Do we agree with Premise #3?

DR seems to make my thoughts readable somehow.

DeathReaper wrote:How about premise #1?

During a Challenge one of the two combatants are moved:

If we can't get them into base contact they are considered to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight. (True or false?)

If we can get them into base contact then they are in base contact. (True or false?)

Premise #1 So they are, or are considered to be in base contact.

Do we agree with Premise #1?

Premise #2 the Challenge lasts until the end of the phase even if one is slain.

Do we agree with Premise #2?

Premise #3 for the duration of the challenge the Challenger is in base contact only with the Challengee and Vice Versa.

Do we agree with Premise #3?

1. Yes.
2. Yes, but it only ends at the end of the phase if one character is slain.
3. Yes.

And yet, you have not a single point that says they have to remain in base to base contact after a model is slain.

Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct? Now, the Space Marines squad totally obliterates the Ork squad, killing them all. They fail their moral test and flee combat. Is the Nob still "considered to be base to base" with the Sergeant since the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase a character is slain in? No. Why? Because of the normal close combat rules. Even though your precious quote you keep making says they have to be in base to base until the end of the phase, no matter if they are physically in base to base or not. Why is it okay for them to be out of base to base in this case when they're both alive and the challenge is still ongoing, but they can't be out of base to base when one is slain?

Okay now we are getting somewhere.

So Premise 1,2, and 3 are all agreed with. (With the caveat that if no one dies the challenge continues to the next phase).

"in base contact only with each other." can be written like this as well and it has the same meaning (in base contact with each other, and not anyone else).

If you agree to Premise 3, you will see why they are considered in B2B even if one is slain, since for the duration, the Challenger is in Base contact with the Challengee, and vice versa.

DeathReaper wrote:If you agree to Premise 3, you will see why they are considered in B2B even if one is slain, since for the duration, the Challenger is in Base contact with the Challengee, and vice versa.

Nope. Not at all. You are mistakenly taking the exact same saying and thinking it means something it doesn't. You can not believe that because they are not allowed to be in contact with anyone else for the duration of the challenge(phase) that they have to remain in contact with each other. Just because you can't do something doesn't mean you have to do the opposite of it...that's about the simplest way to break it down Barney style.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what about my question?

Greg_Hager wrote:And yet, you have not a single point that says they have to remain in base to base contact after a model is slain.

If you are required to be in base contact ( fighting a challenge) and then are told to ", the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase" yes you do . it's one of the requirements for a challenge.

Greg_Hager wrote: Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct?

Incorrect. The challenge can go to round two or the unit can break and flee or the challenge goes to round two and glorious intervention is used.

Greg_Hager wrote: Now, the Space Marines squad totally obliterates the Ork squad, killing them all. They fail their moral test and flee combat. Is the Nob still "considered to be base to base" with the Sergeant since the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase a character is slain in? No. Why?

Useing the challenge ends when one is slain is again a inccorect assumption. "Round two" pg 65 gives more exceptions. Also would this not be "end of phase" at this point ?

Greg_Hager wrote:Because of the normal close combat rules. Even though your precious quote you keep making says they have to be in base to base until the end of the phase, no matter if they are physically in base to base or not. Why is it okay for them to be out of base to base in this case when they're both alive and the challenge is still ongoing, but they can't be out of base to base when one is slain?

They are allowed to break combat and flee even if there was a challenge. "If both competitors survive a challenge, and neither side fled from the combat , then they continue to fight in the next round of close combat."

kambien wrote:If you are required to be in base contact ( fighting a challenge) and then are told to ", the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase" yes you do . it's one of the requirements for a challenge.

Negative. You are moved into base to base yes to signify the challenge, no where does it say you are to remain in base to base for the duration of the challenge. It states you are considered to be base to base with only each other for the duration of the challenge. IE: you are considered to be in base to base contact with no one else for the duration of the challenge

kambien wrote:Incorrect. The challenge can go to round two or the unit can break and flee or the challenge goes to round two and glorious intervention is used.

Ummm, re-read the challenge rules. Challenge is issued, and accepted. You move the combatants into base to base, or if this is impossible, as close as possible maintaining unit coherency and assume them to be in base to base contact. They're also considered to be base to base with no one else (IE: only with each other). Now, pg 65 'Round Two' states that if they survive the challenge, and neither side fled, they continue to fight in the next round. So, Glorious Intervention CAN be used to swap out your character in the challenge, but it's not necessary therefore does not have to be used. The challenge continues, you do not have the option to break from the challenge just because you want to for whatever reason, or because it is the end of the phase.

kambien wrote:Useing the challenge ends when one is slain is again a inccorect assumption. "Round two" pg 65 gives more exceptions. Also would this not be "end of phase" at this point ?

No, it is not an incorrect assumption. It is fact in the rule book. The challenge only ends at the end of a phase when a character in the challenge was slain, or the character's unit flees from combat. If a Sweeping Advance catches the fleeing unit with the special rule of 'And they shall know no fear,' then you have to reissue the challenge.

kambien wrote:They are allowed to break combat and flee even if there was a challenge. "If both competitors survive a challenge, and neither side fled from the combat , then they continue to fight in the next round of close combat."

But isn't that in direct violation of your "they have to be in base to base contact" rule? See my quote from you at the beginning of this post. If you state that once a challenge is issued and accepted, the models are to remain in base to base contact for the entire challenge, how can they not be in base to base contact and flee with their unit? I know they are allowed to break combat and flee because of the basic rules saying so.

Much like the basic rules state if at any point, a model's strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play as a casualty. And you can not be base to base with a model not in play. They also go on to state that once it is removed, to continue allocating unsaved Wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties. Since the rules restrict what models you can be in base to base contact with, not how long you will be in base to base with a model, normal wound allocation must be used.

Greg_Hager wrote:And yet, you have not a single point that says they have to remain in base to base contact after a model is slain.

kambien wrote:If you are required to be in base contact ( fighting a challenge) and then are told to ", the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase" yes you do . it's one of the requirements for a challenge.

Negative. You are moved into base to base yes to signify the challenge, no where does it say you are to remain in base to base for the duration of the challenge. It states you are considered to be base to base with only each other for the duration of the challenge. IE: you are considered to be in base to base contact with no one else for the duration of the challenge

Incorrect , you signify the start of the challenge by accepting it ( unless your a single char unit, no choice ) . You then follow the instructions for "fighting a challenge" aka moving the models into b2b or assume they are in b2b. You follow the rules for outside forces ect. That is the challenge , and that is what needs to be "considered to be ongoing"

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct?

kambien wrote:Incorrect. The challenge can go to round two or the unit can break and flee or the challenge goes to round two and glorious intervention is used.

Ummm, re-read the challenge rules. Challenge is issued, and accepted. You move the combatants into base to base, or if this is impossible, as close as possible maintaining unit coherency and assume them to be in base to base contact. They're also considered to be base to base with no one else (IE: only with each other). Now, pg 65 'Round Two' states that if they survive the challenge, and neither side fled, they continue to fight in the next round. So, Glorious Intervention CAN be used to swap out your character in the challenge, but it's not necessary therefore does not have to be used. The challenge continues, you do not have the option to break from the challenge just because you want to for whatever reason, or because it is the end of the phase.

Like i said incorrect. The only things the rulebook says can happen is , challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Now, the Space Marines squad totally obliterates the Ork squad, killing them all. They fail their moral test and flee combat. Is the Nob still "considered to be base to base" with the Sergeant since the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase a character is slain in[? No. Why?

kambien wrote:Useing the challenge ends when one is slain is again a inccorect assumption. "Round two" pg 65 gives more exceptions. Also would this not be "end of phase" at this point ?

No, it is not an incorrect assumption. It is fact in the rule book. The challenge only ends at the end of a phase when a character in the challenge was slain, or the character's unit flees from combat. If a Sweeping Advance catches the fleeing unit with the special rule of 'And they shall know no fear,' then you have to reissue the challenge.

You disagree with me then go on to prove my point that other things can happen .

Greg_Hager wrote:Because of the normal close combat rules. Even though your precious quote you keep making says they have to be in base to base until the end of the phase, no matter if they are physically in base to base or not. Why is it okay for them to be out of base to base in this case when they're both alive and the challenge is still ongoing, but they can't be out of base to base when one is slain?

kambien wrote:They are allowed to break combat and flee even if there was a challenge. "If both competitors survive a challenge, and neither side fled from the combat , then they continue to fight in the next round of close combat."

But isn't that in direct violation of your "they have to be in base to base contact" rule? See my quote from you at the beginning of this post. If you state that once a challenge is issued and accepted, the models are to remain in base to base contact for the entire challenge, how can they not be in base to base contact and flee with their unit? I know they are allowed to break combat and flee because of the basic rules saying so.

I never said the entire challenge , the rules says phase . When does the phase end ?

Greg_Hager wrote:Much like the basic rules state if at any point, a model's strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play as a casualty. And you can not be base to base with a model not in play. They also go on to state that once it is removed, to continue allocating unsaved Wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left, or the whole unit has been removed as casualties. Since the rules restrict what models you can be in base to base contact with, not how long you will be in base to base with a model, normal wound allocation must be used.

You are correct on most points however if the challenge is considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase and you had to be in b2b for the challenge , you are not following all the steps for being in a challenge

[

Please lock this threat.

No one argues that Squad wounds carry over to the challenge. Why would Challenge wounds carry over to the squads?

Because people are fishing. They know how this is supposed to work but they want to destroy a Seargeant with 1 wound and then kill more of the unit. And not have to worry about the rest of the unit doing damage to them.

It's really cowardly. I would think that people would want to have real fights. Not just try to abuse a rule so their IC can punk a 1 wound guy to kill an entire squad without the chance of being killed. Sad really!

Ahhh did your IC have to go through 2 rounds of CC instead of one?

I mean you do realize that if you kill the enemy on your charge you are out in the open on the opponents turn? Challenges just saved you from this.

kambien wrote:I never said the entire challenge , the rules says phase . When does the phase end ?

assuming that example assault that Greg made a few posts ago is the only assault ( that being that there are no other assaults currently going on). the assault phase would end after the victorious unit consolidates. So, again how would the unit flee combat if the character is suppose to remain in base contact with the other character, until the end of the phase, if the last part of the phase is the consolidation movement?

He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

OMG

So if your just considered you can make up rules.

Read the Slain part of the rules.

The considered part is because the other model is dead. They didn't want people to then put them into the squad fight.

If your Character had a I10 hit, say from a bike or jump pack and you kill the other Character, they didn't want your Init 4 attacks to go into the squad.

So this is why they used the word considered. So no matter when one Character is slain, for the rest of that CC he is considered locked in combat.

MJThurston wrote:No one argues that Squad wounds carry over to the challenge. Why would Challenge wounds carry over to the squads?

because it specifically states that "wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character". it does not say that wounds from either characters cannot be allocated against other attackers, this is why precision strikes can be placed on a unit outside a challenge from a model inside a challenge. This being said it would still have to follow normal wound allocation rules, starting with the model in base to base, and then moving to the next closest model once all wounds have been removed from the model in base to base.

MJThurston wrote:Because people are fishing. They know how this is supposed to work but they want to destroy a Seargeant with 1 wound and then kill more of the unit. And not have to worry about the rest of the unit doing damage to them.

I believe overflow is suppose to work, and even if you follow the summary in the back where the characters go last, the rest of the unit still gets to attack.

MJThurston wrote:It's really cowardly. I would think that people would want to have real fights. Not just try to abuse a rule so their IC can punk a 1 wound guy to kill an entire squad without the change of being killed. Sad really!

he still has the chance to miss on his attacks and wounds and the sgt living. Even then the IC could have an int. 1 weapon, where that Sgt. could punk the IC.

MJThurston wrote:Ahhh did your IC have to go through 2 rounds of CC instead of one?

thats a good portion of the game seeing as how its min. 5 rounds max 7 and two of those they are essentially rendered useless. that's 3 1/2 combats they can effectively engage in supposing the game goes 7 game turns.

MJThurston wrote:I mean you do realize that if you kill the enemy on your charge you are out in the open on the opponents turn? Challenges just saved you from this.

that is not entirely true, if the unit fails their morale test and flees, you are still left out in the open, challenges did not just save you from this.

Every game turn is 2 player turns. You realise tht right? So a combat taking 2 turns is 1 game turn. 7 combats possible.

Tactically you prefer a combat taking 2 combat rounds in any case, as this means you are safe from being shot at on your opponents turn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

ok, and yet again that still doesn't answer Greg's question.

Yes, it does. He is considered to be in b2b until the end of the phase, despite falling back.

Perhaps this is time for a lock? Overflow was conclusively dismissed 18 pages ago, since then we have had the same misunderstanding of "only" (and that sentence) going round and round and round and round with absolutely no give either way.

Nothing new has been said in 18 pages.

Rather than quoting you every time you said I was incorrect I will just reply instead of quoting.

If I am interpreting what you are saying at the end of the first phase...

kambien wrote: challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Now per the rules. The challenge is on going until the unit flees from combat, or once a character is slain it ends at the end of that phase. The challenge doesn't end at the end of the phase it was started like you said. You are contradicting yourself.

But, at this point we're going off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the point that we're making here.

Your unit failing a moral test gives you the permission to not be in base to base contact, so why wouldn't the other character being slain give you the permission? All the rules state is when the character is slain you remain in the challenge until the end of the phase, therefor you can't be in base to base contact with anyone else that phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, it does. He is considered to be in b2b until the end of the phase, despite falling back.

I disagree. They're not in base to base because they broke from the challenge. If the challenge is wanted to continue, it has to be reissued.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Perhaps this is time for a lock? Overflow was conclusively dismissed 18 pages ago, since then we have had the same misunderstanding of "only" (and that sentence) going round and round and round and round with absolutely no give either way.

Nothing new has been said in 18 pages.

There is no reason to lock a thread with an ongoing discussion/disagreement because some people within the thread want to make personal attacks. I am presenting a very valid side for discussion and refuting every disagreement that is presented to me with facts and quotes from the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Every game turn is 2 player turns. You realise tht right? So a combat taking 2 turns is 1 game turn. 7 combats possible.

Tactically you prefer a combat taking 2 combat rounds in any case, as this means you are safe from being shot at on your opponents turn.

oop my mistake, i was thinking in terms of game turn, and forgetting the player turn part on that. my bad

Greg_Hager wrote:Rather than quoting you every time you said I was incorrect I will just reply instead of quoting.

You should otherwise its hard for poeple to follow you exact line your rebuttle is for

Greg_Hager wrote:If I am interpreting what you are saying at the end of the first phase...

You interperting wrong
You said

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct? "

and i pointed out that , that line is incorrect/not 100% true . the other things that can happen are , see below

kambien wrote: challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Now per the rules. The challenge is on going until the unit flees from combat, or once a character is slain it ends at the end of that phase. The challenge doesn't end at the end of the phase it was started like you said. You are contradicting yourself.

where is the contradiction ?

Greg_Hager wrote:But, at this point we're going off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the point that we're making here.

Your unit failing a moral test gives you the permission to not be in base to base contact, so why wouldn't the other character being slain give you the permission? All the rules state is when the character is slain you remain in the challenge until the end of the phase, therefor you can't be in base to base contact with anyone else that phase.

Because it is implied " And neither side fled"

I tihnk a good question to get answered would be when does the end of the phase end . Is it resolution of the challenge? , the assault result ? or after sweeping advances/consolodations are done

It would have to be after you finish your movement for consolidation, because that the last step in the book for assault. Assuming there's no other combats or that's the last one.

I don't think I'm quite following you on this one, how can it be implied that they are not b2b when they flee, and also imply that if the character is slain and removed as a casualty it is still b2b? Could you go a little more in depth so I can understand you better

After a Slain Challenge/Challengee there is no consolidation. They are considered in Base to Base until the end of the phase. So no consolidation.

After the Assault Phase is when the character reverts back to the squad. So no consolidation.

It doesn't say fight sub-phase but phase.

So if you're saying there's no consolidation because they are considered to be b2b until the end of the phase, are you also saying that there is no sweeping advance, check morale, or determining assault results? So because they are considered b2b, they freeze in place and disregard the rest of the combat rules? If that is the case, then why would there be an assault result section, and why would round 2 even mention fleeing from combat if the characters are stuck in considered b2b and cant do anything else?
that would force both units to stay in combat for 2 player turns, 1 game turn.

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:Rather than quoting you every time you said I was incorrect I will just reply instead of quoting.

You should otherwise its hard for poeple to follow you exact line your rebuttle is for

Point taken.

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:If I am interpreting what you are saying at the end of the first phase...

You interperting wrong
You said

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct? "

and i pointed out that , that line is incorrect/not 100% true . the other things that can happen are , see below

kambien wrote: challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Now per the rules. The challenge is on going until the unit flees from combat, or once a character is slain it ends at the end of that phase. The challenge doesn't end at the end of the phase it was started like you said. You are contradicting yourself.

where is the contradiction ?

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

NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

"considered to be" --- "in base contact"
and
"considered to be" --- "only with each other"

There *is* a difference and you cannot ignore the "only with each other" part or break the one sentence up into two separate considerations.

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

I completely understand what you are trying to say. I am arguing the sentence as written does not mean what you want it to mean.

Convince me that you can break the sentence up as you are attempting to do and I will be completely against wound overflow as your base-to-base assertion completely refutes wound allocation because the wounds go to a dead model. Repeating the same argument over and over again however, is fruitless and I will take a page out of your book and begin to just copy-paste this same reply clearly stating why I feel you are wrong.

One last try: the sentence is NOT:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact" -- "only with each other"

If it was, you could remove either the "in base contact" or the "only with each other" and have a sensible sentence.
Models are "considered to be"--- "only with each other" IS NOT A SENTENCE. The models have to BE something with each other. Thus you simply cannot ignore the "only with each other" portion and assert that the models are always in base to base contact with each other.

The sentence is:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact only with each other"
Meaning the models are considered to be only in base contact with each other. Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

Explain how "Models are considered to be -- only with each other" makes sense, because if you cannot then you cannot ignore "only with each other" and have the "Models are considered to be in base contact" sentence you keep claiming is in the book.

Lt. Soundwave's own references actually strengthen it. The example points out that "The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report" does NOT mean the committee is always making a decision by every Friday, every week. It explains how "A condition on the statement follows, and thus the statement MUST be read to include said condition". Models are NOT always in base contact with each other, they are only not in contact with any other model because of the way they must be read to include such a conditional statement.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

You are fixating on the definition "only" which from your perspective shifts the entire meaning of the other lines.

So lets look at that:

[Middle English, from Old English nlc : n, one; see one + -lc, having the form of; see -ly1.]

Usage Note: When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement follows.

As has been stated: "context, is everything."

Further more, the reference (again, chosen by the "against overflow" position) points out "Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits."

What word(s) does only adjoin? "base to base contact" and "with each other".

"Contact" and "With". You cannot split up the 2 statements, as I pointed out above, because "only" provides context as to the base to base contact.

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

Only modifies the words it is adjoined with, you have to interpret those words with their modifier. Models are not always in base contact, they are only in base contact with no other models.

If that is still enough, more from your own reference:
"there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural,"
Earlier, not later. That is even more proof of how the sentence must be interpreted.

Moving "only" earlier in the sentence to make it feel more natural, results in: "For the duration of the challenge, only these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other."

Would you still argue that meant the models are ALWAYS in base contact with each other? Or ONLY in base contact with each other? I can see how you can misinterpret "always" from the current verbage, but how can you possibly swap one word for another entirely? If we are completely swapping words what stops English from breaking down into "banana kumquat Jose Canseco"? How do you banana kumquat Jose Canseco a challenge?

How about if we moved "only" earlier and the sentence read:
"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are only considered to be in base contact with each other."

Do you read to mean always in base to base contact as well? The only way to interpret "always in base to base contact" is by moving the word "only" AFTER the preposition "with" - WHICH YOU CANNOT DO.

You can disagree with me if you like, but for the love of at least prove you are considering the situation rather than mindlessly repeating your previous posts. Explain why you think you can break the sentence up into 3 parts instead of 2.

The pro-overflow position has been very accommodating of your examples, questions, premises, and at least tried to answer them. Please return the favor and explain why you believe you can break the sentence into 3 parts, as necessary to interpret it to mean models are always in base contact. Again, we understand what you are trying to say, please explain why you think you can interpret the sentence that way.

Once you do that there is no longer an argument against overflow, but as it stands now the models are no longer in base when one dies and wounds have to be allocated to the squad RAW.

quiestdeus wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

You are acting like that is the only sentence that makes us think what we do. All the sentences in context make us think that sentence means what it means. Context is everything.

Captain - forgive me if I missed something in the repetition of other points over the past few pages, but your point of view is that the contradictions between the "Forging the Narrative" section, and the rules on pages 64 and 65 about resolving wounds is the other piece that refutes overflow?

The problem that models have to allocate wounds in initiative order, but you have the option to resolve a challenge at the end of combat instead of at true initiative?

Just trying to get on the same page - I spent a little time trying to figure out the best way to resolve that and the thing that jumped out at me is the first "Forging the Narrative" box on page XV. It explicitly states that the content of these FtN boxes is "advice" to make your playing experience better. It also is placed outside of the "The Rules" section, which starts 6 pages later, which is interesting.

To me this indicates that the Forging the Narrative sections are not rules, but purely were included to provide suggestions on how players can make the game feel more like a movie (which GW has indicated is their intention in the past - I believe the term was "cinematic").

This would mean the rules are to allocate wounds in true initiative order, but players are welcome to tweak those rules if they do not want to (much like how nearly all tournaments tweak the rules on setting up terrain).

As such, I do not think the "when to allocate wounds time travel paradox" refutes wound overflow. I also acknowledge that this is definitely getting into an ambiguous gray area, but because actions such as 'not following the terrain placement rules' does not prevent players from placing fortifications... not following the optional order of events for wound allocation should not prevent players following the normal rules for wound allocation (which would support wound overflow *if* you agree the challenger and challengee are not always in base contact). It simply means that if the players choose to resolve the challenge at the end of combat, instead of in initiative order, they are allowing models, that may otherwise be killed, a chance to attack.

Thoughts?

I have many problems with challenge wounds overflowing. Let me show you what I mean when I say all the sentences. Here is a list of all the sentences that impact wound overflow: (I will not be doing direct quotes though since I think that has been done so many times I am pretty sure we all agree what is in there.)

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another.
Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge.
Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. (Yes I made this a separate sentence because it is. The use of the dash in mid sentence is the same as using a colon: it creates a completely different thought within the same sentence, albeit along the same lines as the rest of the sentence. But it is, for all intents and purposes, a separate sentence.)
Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges. (Page 429) (Very interesting that they said resolve any challenges, implying they want you to complete all challenges on the board at the same time.)
Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit.
Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.)
(Notice I didn't include the part about being in BTB with each other. This is because that doesn't matter, but I will go into that in more detail down the road.)

I think we can agree this is the group of rules that make up the wound overflow argument. So, since the characters strike at their true initiative you have a choice: either resolve the combats at the end, like the Summary says you have to do, or choose to ignore that and do it at the same time as the rest of the unit. Lets take both scenarios.

MMMMMSMMMM
OOOOONOOOO

M=Marine, S=Sergeant, O=Ork, N=Nob. Nob and Sergeant are in a challenge. Marines and Sergeant are all I4, Orks I2, Nob I1 (poweraxe).

Scenario 1 - Marines attack and kill 4 Orks. These are allocated to models in BTB with a model attacking at that initiative step. Ork player allocates them to the first 4, they fail their saves and are removed. Sergeant goes next, and causes 3 wounds. According to your rules we must follow normal wound allocation rules even with a challenge, so the Ork player allocates the 3 wounds to the 3 Orks on the end, saving one. The Nob remains and the last two Orks are removed. This is legal as, even if the challengers are in BTB with each other now it is irrelevant because wounds are allocated to a model in BTB with any attacker at the same initiative step. So the wounds flowed out of the challenge following the normal wound allocation rules, regardless of if the challengers are only in base contact with each other, or can be in base contact only with each other. However, outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge, simply resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. This says to me that each time the Wound Allocation step is resolved it is done like the challengers are not there. This means that the challengers have their wounds allocated from Never Never Land, but the Orks are not in Never Never Land. You can argue that the sentence only applies to the rest of the unit, but that goes both ways. If it applies to Wound Allocation step caused by them it applies to Wound Allocation put on them as well. So, since wound allocation is performed like the challengers were not there then the wounds are not allocated away from the Nob and he is killed, and the rest of the wounds disappear because they have nowhere else to go. You can't, at this point, have it both ways.

Scenario 2 - Marines attack and kill 4 Orks. These are allocated to models in BTB with a model attacking at that initiative step. Ork player allocates them to the first 4, they fail their saves and are removed. Orks go next and wound 6 Marines, 3 save, 3 are removed. Its now time to resolve the challenge so the Sergeant goes next and kills the Nob, then the wound allocation time paradox occurs. You say this is ok because the players chose to do this so they are ok with the wounds going to people who already fought. I don't see it as a choice because the rules in the Summary say you must do it this way, but lets assume it is not for this purpose. It is time to perform the rest of the Wound Allocation step, but, since the Wound Allocation step is completed as if the Challengers are not there, no Wounds go to the unit.

This is further supported by the blurb on how challenge results are calculated. Since the rules say that you count the wounds caused by the Challenge alongside the wounds caused by the rest of the unit it implies that the two are separate wound pools that are combined at the end to make a total. If wounds could overflow to the rest of the unit this distinction would not have to be made since it is obvious. Or, the flip side is, based on how it is written, only the unsaved wounds caused in the challenge count towards the combat results and not the overflowed wounds. "Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, (once the Nob is killed the wounds caused by the Sergeant are not part of the challenge even though the challenge is still ongoing to the end of the phase) alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters' units. (Caused by not allocated to, caused by) So, sadly if your Sergeant kills the Nob then another Ork you only get to count the Nob's wounds towards the combat total.

Thanks for that by the way. I definitely needed to step back for a bit to mull things over.

Dont mention it, simple courtesy when having a debate about a hobby that all taking part in enjoy. We might have different opinions but civility should be as much a part of our discussions as the discourse itself.

There does not seem to be anything that explicitly overrules the Zero Level Characteristics rules. Given the relative even split of those for and against we will probably have to wait for an FAQ update. I myself still read the rules as written as wounds overflowing.

This touches smartly on the issue. The sentence this debate is hung up on is apparently a little ambiguous...

"For the duration of the challenge the combatants are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Without trying to be a braggart, I know I have a more than solid grasp of English. To me, this sentence does not, in of itself, exclude the possibility of the combatants not being in base contact with anyone. If it had said "only in base contact with" rather than "in base contact only with", or better still "with and only with", that would be a different story.

It is a very subtle difference, and one I had been taking for granted as obvious.

I agree with the ambiguity, this sentence also appears to change the way wounds are normally allocated via disallowing certain models to take part. To myself and others who share the no overflow viewpoint this is a sword that cuts both ways. While I agree you've correctly nailed the source of the ambiguity spot on I must also point out that it does not also explicitly state you are allowed to use the default allocation method.

In fact read yet another way it was pointed out by Neorealist that:

"...'Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there..."

can also be read as removing the actions of two characters from the wound allocation step altogether; meaning they'd just flail ineffectually at each other as they'd be unable to allocate wounds to anything; having been summarily ignored during wound allocation.

He went on to say he doubted this interpretation which I think we can all agree would be silly. This would have been avoided if the writers had used Textbook english rather then conversational or "natural" english.

The two are vastly different and one of the reasons I posted the definition of "only" up.

(i) "Textbook English" and (ii) "Natural English". The textbook form of English is composed using proper English vocabulary, while strictly adhering to the rules of English grammar. The sentences in textbook English are necessarily grammatically correct and complete in all respects.

The natural form of English, on the other hand, allows liberal use of slang, jargon, phrases and idioms, lending a colorful hue to the language.

It also houses inflection, something that is near impossible to derive from text. Through inflection and context we derive actual meaning when discussing things with others. Without the reinforcement of those two things it is nigh impossible to determine the exact intent of the authors without their further clarification.

Confusion that could have easily been avoided. Context is king.

Regardless the ambiguity exists and we clearly have camps on both sides, how then to proceed?

Well, let us assume that no one will further change their position from debate at this point as the matter has been covered quite thoroughly.

Let us further assume that we can still engage in a productive discourse about the topic.

Now, I ask all of you: Given the two schools of thought on the matter we currently have, shall we move on to discussing the potential ramifications of each viewpoint? IE game mechanics as they would relate to each interpretation.

It would seem that moving our discussion in this direction may yet yield some useful dialogue or consensus.

So at last, assume both sides of the argument are correct: What does this mean for how we play the game and what are advantages and disadvantages for each?

Edit: Damn you type fast Antivas. An excellent summary.

One final thing: Thurston dial it down a notch eh?

Greg_Hager wrote:How is it incorrect?

You stated the only way a challenge ends is if a model is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Your unit failing a moral test gives you the permission to not be in base to base contact, so why wouldn't the other character being slain give you the permission? All the rules state is when the character is slain you remain in the challenge until the end of the phase, therefor you can't be in base to base contact with anyone else that phase.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:Because it is implied " And neither side fled"

Greg_Hager wrote:I'm confused sir, what is implied? That they didn't flee on a failed moral test?

It is implied they would flee on a failed moral test as per Round Two
The "and neither side fled: is the actual words from Round Two.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:I tihnk a good question to get answered would be when does the end of the phase end . Is it resolution of the challenge? , the assault result ? or after sweeping advances/consolodations are done

The answer is C. After Sweeping Advances/Consolidations of the rest of the squad are complete.

Unfortunetly there is no way to tell. IT could be C it could be something else . It could be the end of wound allocation , it could be after assault results , it could be like you said after advanced/consolidations.
It doesn't say Fight-sub phase , just phase.

Greg_Hager wrote:[The rest of the unit that the character is comprised of does do a pile in movement. The reason they can not do a pile in movement is because to do a pile in is to place units that are not in base to base contact with the enemy unit, but still in combat with them, back in to base to base. Because the Challenge rules state that the challenge characters can not be in base to base with anyone else (only with each other) it negates the ability to perform a pile in movement. A consolidation movement IS possible if all models in the unit were destroyed in that phase. Why wouldn't it be? But wait, if it's after the Assault Phase is when the character reverts back to his squad, how is it he is removed from the challenge and flees with his squad if they lose combat and fail a moral test? Doesn't this mean that he, in fact, never left and is still a member of the unit?

The models are assumed to be in b2b contact , actual physical location doesn't matter.

The player turn is broken down into phases. The assault phase is a phase unto itself which is broken down into different sub-phases. Since it does not say that the challenge is considered ongoing until the end of the fight sub-phase the phrase refers to the end of the phase, which is after everything is done. This is actually not ambiguous.

While I have nothing more to add to this debate, I do expect that the errata that this receives will come as adding "and vice versa" to the end of the sentence immediately after the bolded sentence in Outside Forces.

Again, a good debate folks. :3

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct?

Or one side flees, or Glorious intervention happens.


We are told to swap the challenger as close as possible and assume the two to be in base contact for the pulposes of the ensuing fight if they are not actually in Base contact.

The ensuing fight is the challenge, which lasts til the end of the phase.

You have no rules to back you up (Unless you posted page numbers). Premise 1,2, and 3 say it all.

MJThurston wrote:No one argues that Squad wounds carry over to the challenge. Why would Challenge wounds carry over to the squads?

This goes back to what I was saying when I first posted to this thread. Check out this website for a more in depth explanation, but the short hand is basically this: "All apple's are fruits, but not all fruits are apples."

In other words, the rules for models outside the Challenge are different than those inside the Challenge.

MJThurston wrote:Because people are fishing. They know how this is supposed to work but they want to destroy a Seargeant with 1 wound and then kill more of the unit. And not have to worry about the rest of the unit doing damage to them.

It's really cowardly. I would think that people would want to have real fights. Not just try to abuse a rule so their IC can punk a 1 wound guy to kill an entire squad without the chance of being killed. Sad really!

Why the cheap shot? Its really unnecessary. I'm arguing the RAW is for wound overflow, yet I'm more likely to be a victim of it than a benefactor. Your assertions here just serve to distract from the core of the argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

This is exactly my point. I feel I must have missed something in the posts previous to this comment nosferatu1001, since it contradicts every other post of yours in this thread.

MJThurston wrote:OMG

So if your just considered you can make up rules.

Read the Slain part of the rules.

The considered part is because the other model is dead. They didn't want people to then put them into the squad fight.

If your Character had a I10 hit, say from a bike or jump pack and you kill the other Character, they didn't want your Init 4 attacks to go into the squad.

So this is why they used the word considered. So no matter when one Character is slain, for the rest of that CC he is considered locked in combat.

Interesting. I honestly had not considered that factor. Your Character would still have to be within 2" of a friendly model that is in base contact with an enemy to be able to allocate attacks, but it seems reasonable to me.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

This touches smartly on the issue. The sentence this debate is hung up on is apparently a little ambiguous...

"For the duration of the challenge the combatants are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Without trying to be a braggart, I know I have a more than solid grasp of English. To me, this sentence does not, in of itself, exclude the possibility of the combatants not being in base contact with anyone. If it had said "only in base contact with" rather than "in base contact only with", or better still "with and only with", that would be a different story.

It is a very subtle difference, and one I had been taking for granted as obvious.

I agree with the ambiguity, this sentence also appears to change the way wounds are normally allocated via disallowing certain models to take part. To myself and others who share the no overflow viewpoint this is a sword that cuts both ways. While I agree you've correctly nailed the source of the ambiguity spot on I must also point out that it does not also explicitly state you are allowed to use the default allocation method.

At the same time though, you would need a rule explicitly saying not to use the normal allocation method. I don't see this key sentence as changing that myself. Boyo, is this a hazy one...

Lt.Soundwave wrote:In fact read yet another way it was pointed out by Neorealist that:

"...'Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there..."

can also be read as removing the actions of two characters from the wound allocation step altogether; meaning they'd just flail ineffectually at each other as they'd be unable to allocate wounds to anything; having been summarily ignored during wound allocation.

And here I disagree. It does not restrict the models participating in the Challenge. The only mention of those models is to tell you that every other model in the combat can't "see" them. For a bad analogy, think of a one way mirror. The Challenger/Challengee are on one side and are able to see through the window, while everyone else in melee just sees themselves. The only models that can actually "see" the Challenger/Challengee are those cheering them on and not participating in the general melee (the re-rolls from unengaged models).

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Now, I ask all of you: Given the two schools of thought on the matter we currently have, shall we move on to discussing the potential ramifications of each viewpoint? IE game mechanics as they would relate to each interpretation.

It would seem that moving our discussion in this direction may yet yield some useful dialogue or consensus.

So at last, assume both sides of the argument are correct: What does this mean for how we play the game and what are advantages and disadvantages for each?

Not a bad idea. I have serious doubts anyone will be swayed from their preferred camps so it can't hurt to give this a try. Where to begin?

No Wound Overflow
1) Hammer of Wrath: As brought up by MJThurston, you can potentially kill an enemy Character at the onset of the Challenge. Should that happen, your Character would not be able to make any further attacks that turn which means that there would be no additional wounds to go towards combat resolution.

2) Which brings us to my next concern: If you have 7 attacks on a 1 Wound model and 3 of them succeed, does that mean you only get the 1 Wound towards combat resolution? Or do the excess successes go towards the total? It seems the excess should count given it says any Unsaved Wounds, but is that true? If the model is just a generic Sergeant in Power Armor and gets hit by an AP3 Melee weapon, he dies once you allocate one unsaved Wound. Are the rest lost? Page 26 seems to make it so. If this is indeed the case then cheap Characters (such as IG Blob Sergeants) are going to be able to easily nullify any expensive close combat character.

3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

With Wound Overflow
1) A counter point to Hammer of Wrath's issues above. With Wound Overflow you would then be able to allocate attacks as normal to the squad. This will likely mean more Wounds for combat resolution. Oddly enough, this sort of makes sense from a "fluff" or "narrative" perspective (which seems to be GW's goal in 6th edition, to add more story to each game). A squad is far more likely to break quickly and badly if their fearless leader is cut down instantly in a duel. Unfortunately this argument isn't very persuasive on its own from a RAW perspective.

2) Again, more Wounds would be available towards combat resolution. I'm unsure that Page 65 overrides the rules on Page 26 regarding excess wounds. Yet again, without overflow this makes generic cheap Characters more powerful/useful than powerful Independent Characters and Monstrous Creatures, which makes no sense.

3) As mentioned before, Precision Strike seems to happen regardless. The difference is with Wound Overflow it makes more sense as your Character is already able to strike out of the Challenge. It, to me, makes things more consistent.

4) Model placement. With Wound Overflow this encourages you to put your Character at the forefront of every charge. You would actually want him to get to grips with the enemy, for if he is able to quickly dispatch the enemy Character he can then join the general melee and try to break the foe.

With or Without Wound Overflow
Some interesting observations regarding the rules regardless who is right:

1) Precision Strike. As I have said ad nauseum, this seems to happen regardless. The rules for Challenges do not explicitly say that the Characters involved are in a vacuum. Best case, you can argue its implied. But there is nothing there stopping Precision Strikes which is just contradictory to the arguments against Wound Overflow. It is more consistent if Wound Overflow exists. Again I just see the image seen in many a fantasy movie of an epic duel between good and evil and there being bystander casualties (Spaceballs comes to mind with the camera crew getting hit by Dark Helmet, for example).

2) To Hit and To Wound rolls. If the combatants were in a vacuum, why aren't the rules more explicit? As it stands, if you join a Farseer to a squad of Wraithguard he effectively will have Toughness 6 during the Challenge. At the same time, the higher Weapon Skill some models have is largely moot as it affords little protection. For example, a Wolf Lord (WS 6) joins a pack of Blood Claws (WS 3). A Chaos Lord would be hitting him on a 3+ instead of a 4+. None of this would be happening if the Challenge wasn't a part of the general combat.

3) When do the Challenge combatants strike? Page 65 very clearly says that they strike during their normal Initiative steps, and then gives you an option to resolve it after the normal fight. This seems odd in of itself. In the context of this argument I must confess this leads circumstantial evidence towards there being no overflow. If we have overflow then there are problems introduced with this, as models could conceivably be killed before they striked. If you had resolved the general combat first, this complicates things as you likely already had those models land some wounds.

cowmonaut wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

This is exactly my point. I feel I must have missed something in the posts previous to this comment nosferatu1001, since it contradicts every other post of yours in this thread.

So you agree that "He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base" yes?

If you agree with that you agree with no overflow, since we need to assign wounds to models that are in Base to base.

A model that is "considered to be" in base to base must be assigned wounds before any other models.

Basically instead of saying "considered to be" we could say we pretend they are even if they are not in base to base contact, and the meaning is the same.

DeathReaper wrote:If you agree with that you agree with no overflow, since we need to assign wounds to models that are in Base to base.

And this is where you are flat out wrong in my opinion. The rules for allocating wounds tell you what to do if no model is in base contact with your model. That's my entire point. The sentence at the center of all of this doesn't say you are always in base contact with the enemy combatant, just that you can only be in base contact with him. Nothing else is said about wound allocation other than to deny those outside of the Challenge from allocating to those inside.

cowmonaut wrote:The rules for allocating wounds tell you what to do if no model is in base contact with your model.

But the models ARE considered to be in base contact for the duration of the challenge.

Premise #3 for the duration of the challenge the Challenger is in base contact only with the Challengee and Vice Versa. Meaning they are considered to be in base contact with each other, and they are not in base contact with anyone else. (AKA They are in base contact with whom? (Only each other, no one else)).

Do we agree with Premise #3?

And the circle continues...

You either didn't read my post here or you didn't understand what I was saying. I don't know if I can make myself any more clear than that.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait for the FAQ update.

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you agree with that you agree with no overflow, since we need to assign wounds to models that are in Base to base.

And this is where you are flat out wrong in my opinion. The rules for allocating wounds tell you what to do if no model is in base contact with your model. That's my entire point. The sentence at the center of all of this doesn't say you are always in base contact with the enemy combatant, just that you can only be in base contact with him. Nothing else is said about wound allocation other than to deny those outside of the Challenge from allocating to those inside.

This argument is moot. I wish we could move on.

I don't see that point as moot. I see it as the problem.

Hell, I may actually just send a letter asking for clarification on the Design Studio Podcast. At this point I'm honestly curious if they are just that bad at writing plain English or if this was intentional.

Captain Antivas wrote:

...

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another.
Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge.
Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. (Yes I made this a separate sentence because it is. The use of the dash in mid sentence is the same as using a colon: it creates a completely different thought within the same sentence, albeit along the same lines as the rest of the sentence. But it is, for all intents and purposes, a separate sentence.)
Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges. (Page 429) (Very interesting that they said resolve any challenges, implying they want you to complete all challenges on the board at the same time.)
Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit.
Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.)
(Notice I didn't include the part about being in BTB with each other. This is because that doesn't matter, but I will go into that in more detail down the road.)

...

Shortened to show only the pertinent parts

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another. - actually no.
Only characters in a challenge can strike blows against one another - moving the only changes the whole sentence from they may not strike anyone else to no one else may strike them, they are still free to strike however normal wound allocation would allow so b2b then closest once b2b is slain plus precision strikes

Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge. - This does not restrict the characters in the challenge at all so has no bearing on overflow

Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there - the context of this sentence is in reference to "outside forces" not the challenger or challengee, it has no effect on how they allocate wounds, only on how the outside forces allocate wounds, actually the use of a dash specifies that it is a comment on the previous sub sentence - in this case a clarification of how to allocate the wounds since you are not allowed to allocate them to the challenge participants (they are allocated as if the characters are not there, in case there was ambiguity that if the closest model was a challenge participant then the wound could not be allocated there so would be lost, which they clarify is not what happens) - functionally much more similar to a comment in brackets then to a colon. If you want to say this applies to the models in the challenge too then they cannot allocate wounds to each other either...

Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges - interestingly challenges doesn't mean there could be 2 or more, it could just be a short way of saying its time to resolve the challenge if there is one. Challenge would be 1 and only 1, challenges could just imply 0 or 1, it in no way implies that challenges across the board are all held till the end. In fact since this section starts with "choose a combat to resolve" it is very clear that this whole section refers to a single combat and is then repeated all the way through for other combats, including resolving challenges and the combat resolution that comes after it each time.

Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit. - This makes no comment on overflow in any way, why is it included? It is a statement of clarification that shows the 2 subcombats are resolved together, not seperately. Just because something is obvious it doesn't mean they shouldn't state it as otherwise people might decide that these are seperate combats and that each is resolved seperately. They aren't, they're the same combat and resolved together QED thank you obvious statement

Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.) - What does that even mean? The whole section on pg 63 "forging a narrative" is making it pretty clear that the rules are, the characters should strike at initiative but it may be nice to resolve it at the end for dramatic effect - this is clearly worded as optional for drama and if you're concerned by that, just resolve the attacks at the normal initiative step which is the RAW. This is then reflected on the summary on pg 429 including the optional rule (which is sadly not clearly marked as optional, which it should be) to settle challenges after the rest of the unit. What isn't clear is what part of this optional dramatisation might affect overflow either way. Apart from the clunky way that it works differently depending on which way you play it - clunky, but still doesn't change the RAW. If you have a massive power character crushing a tiny squad leader and are expecting massive overflow by all means resolve it at initiative as RAW so that you don't get hit by the models you can take out with the overflow - as that's the RAW.


So none of those arguments mean anything to wound allocation from challenge participants to units. Nothing at all.

You did bring up a point that I haven't noticed before in this thread, that if the character during the challenge has the same I as some of the outside forces then his wounds can be allocated to outside forces by the defending player and yes, the rules totally support this. May seem counter intuitive but even the "considered in B2B only with each other" being interpretted as "being in B2B with slain model" that still doesn't stop wounds being allocated to other models in b2b with other models striking at same I.

cowmonaut wrote:I don't see that point as moot. I see it as the problem.

Hell, I may actually just send a letter asking for clarification on the Design Studio Podcast. At this point I'm honestly curious if they are just that bad at writing plain English or if this was intentional.

I would love it if you were to do this. Like you, I want to get it right, not be right. I'd much rather have it settled than get my way.

If I have time, I do want to address your large post up above. It might take me awhile (grad student with full time job) so it might be moved a page or two down.

Cowmonaut

You missed one very big issue. Since we can choose when to resolve challenges, what happens when a high Init character resolves after the squad? The challenge overflow wounds would have a large effect on the squad combat that would be near impossible to backtrack and account for.

With Wound Overflow

If challenge is resolved before or after squad combat the squad combat would have to be recorded by Init step so challenge overflow wounds can be applied at the correct Init step in relation to the squad combat. Then each squad Init steps would have to be checked to account for the possible change in squad members available to attack at each subsequent step.

Without Wound Overflow

No such record keeping required as wounds of each (challenge and squads) combat are not applied to each other.


This issue alone pushes me to no overflow as the backtracking of a resolved combat will just add so much room for disputes.

maxcarrion wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

...

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another.
Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge.
Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. (Yes I made this a separate sentence because it is. The use of the dash in mid sentence is the same as using a colon: it creates a completely different thought within the same sentence, albeit along the same lines as the rest of the sentence. But it is, for all intents and purposes, a separate sentence.)
Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges. (Page 429) (Very interesting that they said resolve any challenges, implying they want you to complete all challenges on the board at the same time.)
Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit.
Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.)
(Notice I didn't include the part about being in BTB with each other. This is because that doesn't matter, but I will go into that in more detail down the road.)

...

Shortened to show only the pertinent parts

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another. - actually no.
Only characters in a challenge can strike blows against one another - moving the only changes the whole sentence from they may not strike anyone else to no one else may strike them, they are still free to strike however normal wound allocation would allow so b2b then closest once b2b is slain plus precision strikes

Yes, I wrote that wrong. What you said is what I meant.

Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge. - This does not restrict the characters in the challenge at all so has no bearing on overflow

But it restricts wounds being allocated to the outside forces.

Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there - the context of this sentence is in reference to "outside forces" not the challenger or challengee, it has no effect on how they allocate wounds, only on how the outside forces allocate wounds, actually the use of a dash specifies that it is a comment on the previous sub sentence - in this case a clarification of how to allocate the wounds since you are not allowed to allocate them to the challenge participants (they are allocated as if the characters are not there, in case there was ambiguity that if the closest model was a challenge participant then the wound could not be allocated there so would be lost, which they clarify is not what happens) - functionally much more similar to a comment in brackets then to a colon. If you want to say this applies to the models in the challenge too then they cannot allocate wounds to each other either...

You can't have it both ways. Either that phrase refers only to the outside forces and the challengers can still hit each other only, or it refers to them too and wounds don't overflow. That and if it applies to the wounds they cause it must also refer to the wounds applied to them since the Wound Allocation phase includes everyone, including the challengers according to your own argument.

Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges - interestingly challenges doesn't mean there could be 2 or more, it could just be a short way of saying its time to resolve the challenge if there is one. Challenge would be 1 and only 1, challenges could just imply 0 or 1, it in no way implies that challenges across the board are all held till the end. In fact since this section starts with "choose a combat to resolve" it is very clear that this whole section refers to a single combat and is then repeated all the way through for other combats, including resolving challenges and the combat resolution that comes after it each time.

Probably. I was just pointing out how interesting it would be to do all challenges at the same time.

Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit. - This makes no comment on overflow in any way, why is it included? It is a statement of clarification that shows the 2 subcombats are resolved together, not seperately. Just because something is obvious it doesn't mean they shouldn't state it as otherwise people might decide that these are seperate combats and that each is resolved seperately. They aren't, they're the same combat and resolved together QED thank you obvious statement

But that's not what it says. It says specifically that only wounds caused within the challenge count towards the combat results. That is why it is important. If wounds overflow all wounds caused by the winner outside the challenge don't count for the assault result.

Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.) - What does that even mean? The whole section on pg 63 "forging a narrative" is making it pretty clear that the rules are, the characters should strike at initiative but it may be nice to resolve it at the end for dramatic effect - this is clearly worded as optional for drama and if you're concerned by that, just resolve the attacks at the normal initiative step which is the RAW. This is then reflected on the summary on pg 429 including the optional rule (which is sadly not clearly marked as optional, which it should be) to settle challenges after the rest of the unit. What isn't clear is what part of this optional dramatisation might affect overflow either way. Apart from the clunky way that it works differently depending on which way you play it - clunky, but still doesn't change the RAW. If you have a massive power character crushing a tiny squad leader and are expecting massive overflow by all means resolve it at initiative as RAW so that you don't get hit by the models you can take out with the overflow - as that's the RAW.

But it is not clearly marked as optional. Until it is RAW you can't claim it is optional. The only thing that says it is optional is the FaN which is not rules.

You did bring up a point that I haven't noticed before in this thread, that if the character during the challenge has the same I as some of the outside forces then his wounds can be allocated to outside forces by the defending player and yes, the rules totally support this. May seem counter intuitive but even the "considered in B2B only with each other" being interpretted as "being in B2B with slain model" that still doesn't stop wounds being allocated to other models in b2b with other models striking at same I.

I have said it a few times. It's why I say the only in BTB argument is moot since it has no bearing on anything important. You should read the blurb after this part though. It goes into a lot of detail about how these rules are relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:I don't see that point as moot. I see it as the problem.

Hell, I may actually just send a letter asking for clarification on the Design Studio Podcast. At this point I'm honestly curious if they are just that bad at writing plain English or if this was intentional.

Like I said in an earlier post since wounds are applied to a model in BTB with an attacker at the same initiative step being in BTB with only them or can be only them is moot if everyone is attacking at the same initiative step.

Its sad how the quotation marks always begin at "considered to be" and never at the "are". "Are" is the word that butchered the overflow argument and discarded the surplus wounds.

If they "are" considered to be in base contact, the rule can't be followed at any stage when they "are not" considered to be in base contact, which would have to be the case if wounds were allocated to others in the combat outside the challenge.

Im just thinking of it outside of a game, lets say there are a group of people fighting, you challenge someone to a fight you throw a punch and follow up with another but your first punch knocks him out, your other punch does nothing as you already beat your opponent, in 40k when two xenos or w.e are fighting theres a thing called overkill...

hisdudeness wrote:Cowmonaut

You missed one very big issue. Since we can choose when to resolve challenges, what happens when a high Init character resolves after the squad? The challenge overflow wounds would have a large effect on the squad combat that would be near impossible to backtrack and account for.

Actually I touched on that here.

cowmonaut wrote:3) When do the Challenge combatants strike? Page 65 very clearly says that they strike during their normal Initiative steps, and then gives you an option to resolve it after the normal fight. This seems odd in of itself. In the context of this argument I must confess this leads circumstantial evidence towards there being no overflow. If we have overflow then there are problems introduced with this, as models could conceivably be killed before they striked. If you had resolved the general combat first, this complicates things as you likely already had those models land some wounds.

Mind you, Forging the Narrative might not actually be "rules" per se. Most of the time it isn't it seems...

Lobukia wrote:If I have time, I do want to address your large post up above. It might take me awhile (grad student with full time job) so it might be moved a page or two down.

I hear you, and would love to hear what you have to say. I myself work full time and am working to join the Air National Guard, helping plan a wedding, and find time for this hobby! Sometimes I wish I didn't need sleep.

If I could live healthy without sleeping I would never sleep. Ever.

I know its been awhile since Ive posted in here, but I do have one more thing to add up here. And luckily, it supports my previous argument that the wounds still go to the dead model;

Outside Forces. The bolded section is the rules for allocating wounds during the challenge.

Captain Antivas wrote:If I could live healthy without sleeping I would never sleep. Ever.

Sleep replacement pill.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/darpa-develops.html

Old news but it was on the FDA's radar in 2010.

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Cowmonaut

You missed one very big issue. Since we can choose when to resolve challenges, what happens when a high Init character resolves after the squad? The challenge overflow wounds would have a large effect on the squad combat that would be near impossible to backtrack and account for.

Actually I touched on that here.

How did I miss that? But the question is still there with no response that I could find. In fact, I believe you are the first person on the "for" camp to even acknowledge this issue. This is the sole reason I need, there are no rules telling us how to resolve this issue. More so when one simple sentence would make overflow (and this entire thread) a moot point. GW can be bad at leaving holes in the rule but they are normally completely separate rules interacting with each other. This is a very simple find during playtesting in what are effectively interactions between sub rules of the same phase.

cowmonaut wrote:

It would seem that moving our discussion in this direction may yet yield some useful dialogue or consensus.

So at last, assume both sides of the argument are correct: What does this mean for how we play the game and what are advantages and disadvantages for each?
Not a bad idea. I have serious doubts anyone will be swayed from their preferred camps so it can't hurt to give this a try. Where to begin?

No Wound Overflow
1) Hammer of Wrath: As brought up by MJThurston, you can potentially kill an enemy Character at the onset of the Challenge. Should that happen, your Character would not be able to make any further attacks that turn which means that there would be no additional wounds to go towards combat resolution.

Agreed... but I'm fine with that

2) Which brings us to my next concern: If you have 7 attacks on a 1 Wound model and 3 of them succeed, does that mean you only get the 1 Wound towards combat resolution? Or do the excess successes go towards the total? It seems the excess should count given it says any Unsaved Wounds, but is that true? If the model is just a generic Sergeant in Power Armor and gets hit by an AP3 Melee weapon, he dies once you allocate one unsaved Wound. Are the rest lost? Page 26 seems to make it so. If this is indeed the case then cheap Characters (such as IG Blob Sergeants) are going to be able to easily nullify any expensive close combat character.

Agreed again, but if this is the rule (and everyone knows it), you take care of the problem before its realized. You can precision strike, have a light character of your own, paired with your heavy hitters, or deal with the horrible inconvenience of an extra turn of combat (in a game where there's two of those before you go again, that's actually a good thing... really good thing).

3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

IF we are right about overflow not existing and challenges being a combat set aside, I disagree on this one. Challenges, if separate, will be completely separate. The only way I can see GW letting PS jump out of challenges, is if they feel like they need to make a concession to the overflow crowd.

4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

I must be misreading/understanding what you are saying here. If you have a unit and so does he, there's no cheering. Character replace models to get into the challenge... they don't swap back after the challenge is over. I really am lost where you are going with this.

With Wound Overflow
1) A counter point to Hammer of Wrath's issues above. With Wound Overflow you would then be able to allocate attacks as normal to the squad. This will likely mean more Wounds for combat resolution. Oddly enough, this sort of makes sense from a "fluff" or "narrative" perspective (which seems to be GW's goal in 6th edition, to add more story to each game). A squad is far more likely to break quickly and badly if their fearless leader is cut down instantly in a duel. Unfortunately this argument isn't very persuasive on its own from a RAW perspective.

Agreed again. This makes challenges pretty pointless, and means the intent of GW making sergeants and such characters was a waste of ink (should have gone just the IC route).

2) Again, more Wounds would be available towards combat resolution. I'm unsure that Page 65 overrides the rules on Page 26 regarding excess wounds. Yet again, without overflow this makes generic cheap Characters more powerful/useful than powerful Independent Characters and Monstrous Creatures, which makes no sense.

I've never got this. Why are earth would someone run a Chaos Lord with a squad, without a Chaos champion in tow? Your "champ" blocks the opponent's "sarg", and the Lord butchers the unit. Fluffy, smart, and to the point. MC's, being more feral make sense being lured away from the unit, and again, a lone sarg dies in one phase, keeping that MC alive and engaged for your opponents shooting phase. That's, again, a good thing. A DP should be thrilled to have not cut through the platoon in one turn and then get shot by the LR. Instead, he should finish them off in time for his movement phase and will go nom on the next platoon.

3) As mentioned before, Precision Strike seems to happen regardless. The difference is with Wound Overflow it makes more sense as your Character is already able to strike out of the Challenge. It, to me, makes things more consistent.

Agreed, if somehow challenges allow overflow, PS should work

4) Model placement. With Wound Overflow this encourages you to put your Character at the forefront of every charge. You would actually want him to get to grips with the enemy, for if he is able to quickly dispatch the enemy Character he can then join the general melee and try to break the foe.

Again, he's there anyway, no matter how you think overflow works, the Characters are going to be base to base if their units are in combat more times than not.

With or Without Wound Overflow
Some interesting observations regarding the rules regardless who is right:

1) Precision Strike. As I have said ad nauseum, this seems to happen regardless. The rules for Challenges do not explicitly say that the Characters involved are in a vacuum. Best case, you can argue its implied. But there is nothing there stopping Precision Strikes which is just contradictory to the arguments against Wound Overflow. It is more consistent if Wound Overflow exists. Again I just see the image seen in many a fantasy movie of an epic duel between good and evil and there being bystander casualties (Spaceballs comes to mind with the camera crew getting hit by Dark Helmet, for example).

From a playability, help out the CC masters, point of view, I'm fine with PS leaving Challenges... from a wound and page 429 perspective I don't see it as RAW

2) To Hit and To Wound rolls. If the combatants were in a vacuum, why aren't the rules more explicit? As it stands, if you join a Farseer to a squad of Wraithguard he effectively will have Toughness 6 during the Challenge. At the same time, the higher Weapon Skill some models have is largely moot as it affords little protection. For example, a Wolf Lord (WS 6) joins a pack of Blood Claws (WS 3). A Chaos Lord would be hitting him on a 3+ instead of a 4+. None of this would be happening if the Challenge wasn't a part of the general combat.

I brought this up a while back, but it got buried. To me this is a strong point against overflow. If challenges are separate, this is all some much simpler.

3) When do the Challenge combatants strike? Page 65 very clearly says that they strike during their normal Initiative steps, and then gives you an option to resolve it after the normal fight. This seems odd in of itself. In the context of this argument I must confess this leads circumstantial evidence towards there being no overflow. If we have overflow then there are problems introduced with this, as models could conceivably be killed before they striked. If you had resolved the general combat first, this complicates things as you likely already had those models land some wounds.

I also see this merging very well with 429 as written. To me, when I read through the BRB the first time, I got the clear impression that challenges are separate, any doubts or ambiguity was gone when I looked at the summary page.

I hope you are starting to see that from a mechanics, big picture, perspective overflow is a nightmare. Because if you want it to work as part of the unit combat, majority T and WS is suddenly a factor, Forging the Narrative and 429 either need some clever rereading or have to be errors, and the end result really doesn't benefit CC masters. But without overflow we have some rules that, while lacking clarity, all work as written and are actually way more streamlined when thrown into play.

I see way too many people wanting it both ways. In the challenge the characters have just their stat-line, but once one dies, "only" gets redefined and suddenly the victor is getting to keep strikes on a different model, translate them to a unit, but the rules for WS and T in a mixed unit are completely ignored... which is a really tough argument and mechanic to actually use.

No Wound Overflow
1) Hammer of Wrath: As brought up by MJThurston, you can potentially kill an enemy Character at the onset of the Challenge. Should that happen, your Character would not be able to make any further attacks that turn which means that there would be no additional wounds to go towards combat resolution.

There are never any extra wounds to go to combat resolution, even if the character could then strike at the squad. Only unsaved wounds caused within the challenge count towards resolution.

2) Which brings us to my next concern: If you have 7 attacks on a 1 Wound model and 3 of them succeed, does that mean you only get the 1 Wound towards combat resolution? Or do the excess successes go towards the total? It seems the excess should count given it says any Unsaved Wounds, but is that true? If the model is just a generic Sergeant in Power Armor and gets hit by an AP3 Melee weapon, he dies once you allocate one unsaved Wound. Are the rest lost? Page 26 seems to make it so. If this is indeed the case then cheap Characters (such as IG Blob Sergeants) are going to be able to easily nullify any expensive close combat character.

This is quite unfortunate but the blob will only work for one round. The blob dies and the squad still has to pass a leadership test or run away, or next turn he eats the rest of the squad for lunch. Either way it hardly nullifies an expensive character. Lets say a Daemon Prince charges an IG squad and the sergeant issues a challenge. Daemon Prince kills the Sergeant with a sneeze and the squad fails their Leadership test and the Daemon Prince destroys them with a Sweeping Advance. Or, they pass their test and the Daemon Prince kills them the next round.

3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

Precision Strikes would not be able to overflow. All or nothing.

4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

Actual placement of the character is irrelevant, once you accept a challenge you move the challengers in BTB as close to each other as possible.

With Wound Overflow
1) A counter point to Hammer of Wrath's issues above. With Wound Overflow you would then be able to allocate attacks as normal to the squad. This will likely mean more Wounds for combat resolution. Oddly enough, this sort of makes sense from a "fluff" or "narrative" perspective (which seems to be GW's goal in 6th edition, to add more story to each game). A squad is far more likely to break quickly and badly if their fearless leader is cut down instantly in a duel. Unfortunately this argument isn't very persuasive on its own from a RAW perspective.

Again, the actual wording of the rules says that even if wounds overflowed they would not count for the combat resolution. This is a major problem for me. How can wounds overflow but not count for the combat resolution?

2) Again, more Wounds would be available towards combat resolution. I'm unsure that Page 65 overrides the rules on Page 26 regarding excess wounds. Yet again, without overflow this makes generic cheap Characters more powerful/useful than powerful Independent Characters and Monstrous Creatures, which makes no sense.

A powerful IC will be more likely to survive a combat so he is still more powerful than a generic Character.

3) As mentioned before, Precision Strike seems to happen regardless. The difference is with Wound Overflow it makes more sense as your Character is already able to strike out of the Challenge. It, to me, makes things more consistent.

With wound overflow Precision Strikes will work perfectly. Without, not so much.

4) Model placement. With Wound Overflow this encourages you to put your Character at the forefront of every charge. You would actually want him to get to grips with the enemy, for if he is able to quickly dispatch the enemy Character he can then join the general melee and try to break the foe.

Again, this is going to happen either way.

@Captain Antivas (posts are getting big don't want to quote it all)

Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge. - This does not restrict the characters in the challenge at all so has no bearing on overflow

But it restricts wounds being allocated to the outside forces.

No, no it doesn't, it ONLY restricts wounds being allocated to characters in a challenge by outside forces. There is no restriction here to wounds done by characters in a challenge or wounds done to the outside forces, it's VERY specific

You can't have it both ways. Either that phrase refers only to the outside forces and the challengers can still hit each other only, or it refers to them too and wounds don't overflow. That and if it applies to the wounds they cause it must also refer to the wounds applied to them since the Wound Allocation phase includes everyone, including the challengers according to your own argument

.

Not trying to have it both ways, I thought I was clear, this only applies to outside forces as, if it did apply to characters in a challenge, they would not be able to wound each other as they would have to treat each other as not being there. It definately does not say that characters in a challenge treat the unit as not being there.

But that's not what it says. It says specifically that only wounds caused within the challenge count towards the combat results. That is why it is important. If wounds overflow all wounds caused by the winner outside the challenge don't count for the assault result.

That's not the same as wounds caused to the challenge participants, it's the same as wounds caused by the challenge participants as they are within a challenge and causing wounds.

But it is not clearly marked as optional. Until it is RAW you can't claim it is optional. The only thing that says it is optional is the FaN which is not rules.

Except the FaN makes it entirely clear what is rules and what is optional - Although the characters strike at their initiative - which is clear that RAW is for characters to strike at their initiative - many players like to resolve these crucial battles after ... - suggesting that players may WANT to break the RAW for dramatic effect, it's completely clear what is RAW and what is added drama - that the summary includes this seperate challenge step shows that the summary is showing the optional FaN rules not the RAW as that distinction is clearly made in the FaN



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lobukia

Without Wound Overflow section

Ignoring points 1, 2 & 4 plus responses as they are about the consequences of overflow/no overflow or tangent points and do not reflect the rules either way

3 -

IF we are right about overflow not existing and challenges being a combat set aside, I disagree on this one. Challenges, if separate, will be completely separate. The only way I can see GW letting PS jump out of challenges, is if they feel like they need to make a concession to the overflow crowd.

Where is the argument that challenges are seperate? At best you're trying to assign wounds to a slain model to stop overflow, this does not make the challenge seperate and there are no rules to make the challenge seperate. So I have not seen any argument that would suggest PS is not allowed to jump out of challenges freely.

With Wound Overflow section

1)

Agreed again. This makes challenges pretty pointless, and means the intent of GW making sergeants and such characters was a waste of ink (should have gone just the IC route).

A thousand times no. Just because overflow would make them less obnoxious speed bumps for power characters does not make them pointless. I can give a dozen examples (I won't as this will just fill up pages) of useful minor characters with overflow - such as a cheap choppa Nob accepting the Alpha nids challenge and getting a boneswording along with some nearby boyz but leaving the warboss free to pk 3 or 4 nid warriors to death giving them an easy win..

2 & 4) effects on strategy, meaningless to interpretting RAW only for good implementation once you know what RAW is

3)

Agreed, if somehow challenges allow overflow, PS should work

And why wouldn't they, it's explicit that characters can PS and nothing in the challenge rules do anything to prevent them

With or Without section
1)

From a playability, help out the CC masters, point of view, I'm fine with PS leaving Challenges... from a wound and page 429 perspective I don't see it as RAW

You've seen the bit where it says characters can precision strike I take it? I have not seen anything that forbids them from doing so in a challenge

2)

I brought this up a while back, but it got buried. To me this is a strong point against overflow. If challenges are separate, this is all some much simpler.

Still simple, uses exactly the same rules as if there was no challenge because it doesn't seperate them. Isn't that simpler? Rather than having 1 rule for characters in a unit and another for characters in a unit in a challenge. Majority toughness and Majority WS for defence, it's the RAW. It doesn't say treat them differently so why are you trying to do so?

3)

I also see this merging very well with 429 as written. To me, when I read through the BRB the first time, I got the clear impression that challenges are separate, any doubts or ambiguity was gone when I looked at the summary page.

But this is clarified in the pg 65 FaN - the RAW is they strike on initiative but many players LIKE to hold the challenges to the end for dramatic effect - the summary just reflects that OPTIONAL dramatic pause, there is absolutely nothing in RAW to make the combats "seperate" and nothing to stop PS or overflow (now that the "only with" debacle has been solved)

I see way too many people wanting it both ways. In the challenge the characters have just their stat-line, but once one dies, "only" gets redefined and suddenly the victor is getting to keep strikes on a different model, translate them to a unit, but the rules for WS and T in a mixed unit are completely ignored... which is a really tough argument and mechanic to actually use.

What? Characters use their stat-line in combat just as if they were fighting with the squad as nothing tells us to do so otherwise, same unit based T and defensive WS. "only" gets no redefinition, it prevents outsiders striking challengers or from being considered in b2b with challengers but offers them no protection at all as explained very thoroughly in the last couple of pages, The victor gets to keep on striking as that's what the rules say (and maybe it's because it's so sudden that the outside forces take till the next combat round to react - speculation on reasoning feel free to ignore, but expect me to ignore your speculation on reasoning)

How many people want it one way or another is meaningless, there is what is in the book and that says PS is in, Overflow is in, T and defensive WS are unit majority, characters strike at initiative but can be resolved later to make the game more exciting. Challenges are part of the combat with multiple restrictions, especially on outside forces interfering, but overflow and PS are not among those restrictions

No such thing as wound overflow.

Challenger and Challengee are considered to be in base to base until the END OF PHASE.

So Character can't sweeping advance or consolidate.

Lobukia wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

IF we are right about overflow not existing and challenges being a combat set aside, I disagree on this one. Challenges, if separate, will be completely separate. The only way I can see GW letting PS jump out of challenges, is if they feel like they need to make a concession to the overflow crowd.

Well, you can't really disagree. Precision Strike lets you allocate wounds how you want rather than normally. There are no new rules in the Challenges section for wound allocation. The closest we get is that models outside the Challenge can't allocate to those inside (but not vice versa, per RAW) and that the models in a Challenge are only in base contact with one another (again, in my opinion, this does not mean they are always in base contact with one another).

Lobukia wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

I must be misreading/understanding what you are saying here. If you have a unit and so does he, there's no cheering. Character replace models to get into the challenge... they don't swap back after the challenge is over. I really am lost where you are going with this.

Perhaps this will be less of a problem now, but in 5th Edition multi unit combats (on both sides) were not a rarity. Particularly with Orks or Tyranids. So let me set up the fight for you:

Player 1 has units A and B. Player 2 has units C and D. Unit A is in base contact with units C and D. Unit B is in base contact with unit D. Player 2 issues a Challenge with the Character leading unit C. Player 1 accepts the Challenge with a Character from unit B. The problem? Player 1 cannot, in this case, maintain coherency with unit B and get into actual base contact with a model in unit C. This could be because of different base sizes, or how far apart models are.

It is conceivable to set up combats purposely so your preferred Challenger is unable to actually get into base contact with a model.

Better still, larger units charging into bottle necks leave you several models unable to engage the enemy. If they are surrounding your Character, even if he is only "counting" as in base contact versus actually in base contact, he can get re-rolls. This is next to impossible for a 10 man squad to do, but 30+ man squads (Blobs, Mobs, and other Hordes) can do this easily enough.

It just comes down to careful model placement and maneuvering.

Lobukia wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:2) Again, more Wounds would be available towards combat resolution. I'm unsure that Page 65 overrides the rules on Page 26 regarding excess wounds. Yet again, without overflow this makes generic cheap Characters more powerful/useful than powerful Independent Characters and Monstrous Creatures, which makes no sense.

I've never got this. Why are earth would someone run a Chaos Lord with a squad, without a Chaos champion in tow? Your "champ" blocks the opponent's "sarg", and the Lord butchers the unit. Fluffy, smart, and to the point. MC's, being more feral make sense being lured away from the unit, and again, a lone sarg dies in one phase, keeping that MC alive and engaged for your opponents shooting phase. That's, again, a good thing. A DP should be thrilled to have not cut through the platoon in one turn and then get shot by the LR. Instead, he should finish them off in time for his movement phase and will go nom on the next platoon.

To keep point costs down I would often not pay for Wolf Guard to lead my Grey Hunters. Many times I'd take the full 10 man squad and rely on Independent Characters and Lone Wolves to do what you normally use Sergeants for. As the rules have changed I may not be doing this anymore... Only having one Character in a combat seems to put you at a disadvantage a lot more now than it used to.

Lobukia wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:2) To Hit and To Wound rolls. If the combatants were in a vacuum, why aren't the rules more explicit? As it stands, if you join a Farseer to a squad of Wraithguard he effectively will have Toughness 6 during the Challenge. At the same time, the higher Weapon Skill some models have is largely moot as it affords little protection. For example, a Wolf Lord (WS 6) joins a pack of Blood Claws (WS 3). A Chaos Lord would be hitting him on a 3+ instead of a 4+. None of this would be happening if the Challenge wasn't a part of the general combat.

I brought this up a while back, but it got buried. To me this is a strong point against overflow. If challenges are separate, this is all some much simpler.

Agreed, but even with Challenges there is no rule explicitly calling them out as a separate combat. Point in fact, the rules support that they are part of the combat. I do not know why GW chose not to put a simple line stating the Characters strike each other and consider only their own WS and Toughness.

Lobukia wrote:I hope you are starting to see that from a mechanics, big picture, perspective overflow is a nightmare. Because if you want it to work as part of the unit combat, majority T and WS is suddenly a factor, Forging the Narrative and 429 either need some clever rereading or have to be errors, and the end result really doesn't benefit CC masters. But without overflow we have some rules that, while lacking clarity, all work as written and are actually way more streamlined when thrown into play.

I see way too many people wanting it both ways. In the challenge the characters have just their stat-line, but once one dies, "only" gets redefined and suddenly the victor is getting to keep strikes on a different model, translate them to a unit, but the rules for WS and T in a mixed unit are completely ignored... which is a really tough argument and mechanic to actually use.

RAW, if two Characters are in base contact and not in a Challenge they would strike at the "unit" the Character is attached to. There doesn't seem to be anything that changes that. There are only two rules for Challenges that have any impact on allocation:

1) Characters are considered in base contact
2) Models outside the Challenge can't strike those inside the Challenge

None of that changes how the rules for rolling to hit and to wound work.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:No Wound Overflow
1) Hammer of Wrath: As brought up by MJThurston, you can potentially kill an enemy Character at the onset of the Challenge. Should that happen, your Character would not be able to make any further attacks that turn which means that there would be no additional wounds to go towards combat resolution.

There are never any extra wounds to go to combat resolution, even if the character could then strike at the squad. Only unsaved wounds caused within the challenge count towards resolution.

Except that those extra wounds going at the squad are likely extra casualties, which would affect resolution.

Captain Antivas wrote:This is quite unfortunate but the blob will only work for one round. The blob dies and the squad still has to pass a leadership test or run away, or next turn he eats the rest of the squad for lunch. Either way it hardly nullifies an expensive character. Lets say a Daemon Prince charges an IG squad and the sergeant issues a challenge. Daemon Prince kills the Sergeant with a sneeze and the squad fails their Leadership test and the Daemon Prince destroys them with a Sweeping Advance. Or, they pass their test and the Daemon Prince kills them the next round.

Are you forgetting Stubborn courtesy of the Commissar, which you can keep safely unengaged at the rear of the Blob? Just need to pass the normal Leadership.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

Precision Strikes would not be able to overflow. All or nothing.

Prove it. The rules for Precision Strike are very clear and not in doubt: You ignore the normal rules for allocation and can allocate Precision Strikes to any model engaged in the combat. There is not a single rule that contradicts or counters this in the Challenges section. Only two rules have an impact on wuond allocation in Challenges:

1) Models in a Challenge are in base contact, which only means you have to allocate to them "first" (disregard the current debate for this comment; one side arguing if a model is in base contact while dead is moot for this reply)
2) Models outside of a Challenge cannot strike those inside a Challenge. The rules are very specific about this. They do not restrict the Challenge combatants.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

Actual placement of the character is irrelevant, once you accept a challenge you move the challengers in BTB as close to each other as possible.

See my reply to Lobukia earlier in this post.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:With Wound Overflow
1) A counter point to Hammer of Wrath's issues above. With Wound Overflow you would then be able to allocate attacks as normal to the squad. This will likely mean more Wounds for combat resolution. Oddly enough, this sort of makes sense from a "fluff" or "narrative" perspective (which seems to be GW's goal in 6th edition, to add more story to each game). A squad is far more likely to break quickly and badly if their fearless leader is cut down instantly in a duel. Unfortunately this argument isn't very persuasive on its own from a RAW perspective.

Again, the actual wording of the rules says that even if wounds overflowed they would not count for the combat resolution. This is a major problem for me. How can wounds overflow but not count for the combat resolution?

Assault Results on Page 65 seems to disagree with you unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:3) As mentioned before, Precision Strike seems to happen regardless. The difference is with Wound Overflow it makes more sense as your Character is already able to strike out of the Challenge. It, to me, makes things more consistent.

With wound overflow Precision Strikes will work perfectly. Without, not so much.

Yet it works regardless of overflow from a RAW perspective.

Can't respond to my post because you know it's true.

MJThurston wrote:No such thing as wound overflow.

Challenger and Challengee are considered to be in base to base until the END OF PHASE.

So Character can't sweeping advance or consolidate.

We've spent the last 24 pages covering this, it's been covered pretty well

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

Is not the same as

"are considered to be in base to base contact with each other and only each other"

Certainly is not the same as

"are considered to be in base to base contact"

I would say one accurate rewording would be

"Can only be considered in base to base contact with each other"
i.e.
"Cannot be considered to be in base to base contact with any other model"

Much in the same way that
"until proven otherwise, husbands are considered to be having intimate relations only with their wives"
does not mean
"all husbands are considered to be having intimate relations with their wives"
some may be having no intimate relations at all and will still be covered by this statement.

Of course there is also a statement earlier on that if the models cannot get into b2b contact they should be considered in b2b contact but that is not covered in the "for the duration of the challenge" rider so is moot.

Yes, it's not the clearest possible phrase but it is actually what it means and forcing it to mean something else breaks like 5 different rules including sweeping advances as pointed out and allocating wounds to slain models and all sorts of other sillyness.

And after pages and pages of careful explanations and dissections I'd hope for a little more than "no it's not" next time.

I'm not trying to argue either way. I'm now more itnerested in the discussion of situations that arise from either interpretation. I have an example below.
I'd also like to point out that this whole topic came up within my first 2 games of playing this edition... how many times did GW playtest this and not realize it was ambiguous?

Anyway,a real-life situation with no overflow:

I have a deamon prince(actually fate-weaver to make the cost differential worse) get assaulted by a unit of 4 necron lords (all of them are characters). He challenges me one at a time with 4 models. none of them can really hurt me, and I dont have a tough time killing each one individually. but because there are no wound overflows I have to kill 1 model a turn despite causing many times more wounds to the unit than would be necessary(2-3 wounds each round). even worse I roll poorly one round and dont kill the lord thus stretching this assault out over 3 game turns. That's 1/2 of the game! It was just plain annoying; not cinematic at all.

1) My local store has declared no overflow. Thus I have learned to keep my strongest close combat characters out of close combat.
2) I'm also probably not going to take any power fists or other upgrades for my sarges, because I need them to "cancel" opposing challenges should my close combat monsters accidently get into close combat.
3) Finally, I highly doubt any of my really valuable characters will ever issue challenges as this is just asking for them to be trapped (obviously my opponent will see the same benefits of taking naked seargents).
4) Instead, I have learned that the weakest seargent is the best choice for issuing challenges. In a cinematic way, challenges will be similar to chihuahuas barking at strangers.

1) Have a sarge in there to accept challenges
1b) Precision strike still works - you realise that, yes?
2) surely you mean "get into a challenge" by accident. Well thats a tactical consideration: tool up with a powerfist to do damage, or a powersword to help in a challenge. The pfist sarge is no longer the most obvious choice, its called tactics. In 3rd a pfist sarge wasnt always a good idea because an IC could just punk them directly, at least now its either a challenge, and not causing wounds to anyone else OR precision strikes, at best
3) You will know what your opponent is armed with, so issuing can make sense. Page 111 may also educate you into why issuing a challenge is a good thing, situationally
4) Again, not always.

Knee done jerking yet? Very first order analysis.

WITH overflow you have a character be entirely safe from being attacked by a unit while still able to kill 3 - 4 of them a turn.

good job wounds dont over flow.

Mark_Autarch wrote:I'm not trying to argue either way. I'm now more itnerested in the discussion of situations that arise from either interpretation. I have an example below.
I'd also like to point out that this whole topic came up within my first 2 games of playing this edition... how many times did GW playtest this and not realize it was ambiguous?

Anyway,a real-life situation with no overflow:

I have a deamon prince(actually fate-weaver to make the cost differential worse) get assaulted by a unit of 4 necron lords (all of them are characters). He challenges me one at a time with 4 models. none of them can really hurt me, and I dont have a tough time killing each one individually. but because there are no wound overflows I have to kill 1 model a turn despite causing many times more wounds to the unit than would be necessary(2-3 wounds each round). even worse I roll poorly one round and dont kill the lord thus stretching this assault out over 3 game turns. That's 1/2 of the game! It was just plain annoying; not cinematic at all.

1) My local store has declared no overflow. Thus I have learned to keep my strongest close combat characters out of close combat.
2) I'm also probably not going to take any power fists or other upgrades for my sarges, because I need them to "cancel" opposing challenges should my close combat monsters accidently get into close combat.
3) Finally, I highly doubt any of my really valuable characters will ever issue challenges as this is just asking for them to be trapped (obviously my opponent will see the same benefits of taking naked seargents).
4) Instead, I have learned that the weakest seargent is the best choice for issuing challenges. In a cinematic way, challenges will be similar to chihuahuas barking at strangers.

Not to be rude but this is a very extensive discussion of the RAW and whether overflow exists or not, could we please take implications of what would happen elsewhere, such as the tactics forum, try starting a thread called "How to play when my flgs house rules overflow away" and I'll happily come and comment on it but it is irrelevant to this thread which is already mucky enough with directly relevant discussion.

Problem being maxcarrion, implications of the rules do matter. In fact, Lt.soundwave and cowmonaut have suggested we change focus to this area as we are getting nowhere in the pure RAW area.

And the thread could just as easily be called, “How to play when my flgs house rules wound overflow.” Nothing has been solved and there is no consensus as to how to play. Making comments as to lead people to think there is one does not help this community in any way.

Implications of the rule matter when applying the rule makes the game much more complicated and does not address how the rule interacts with the rest of the game. As Mark_Autarch and others pointed out, this entire issue would be moot with the addition of a single sentence and clarification on conflicts. I find it hard to believe GW could miss something that would come up during the very first challenge resolution.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/461785.page

A discussion that didn't get very far, but is certainly relevant to where this thread is now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/460870.page

This one is on challenges and precision strikes. The conclusion is the same as the Golden Throne GT FAQ.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:If I could live healthy without sleeping I would never sleep. Ever.

Sleep replacement pill.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/darpa-develops.html

Old news but it was on the FDA's radar in 2010.

The NAZI's developed something like that for their soldiers. It's is now a popular (yet HIGHLY illegal and REALLY bad for you) recreational drug called methamphetamine.

cowmonaut wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

IF we are right about overflow not existing and challenges being a combat set aside, I disagree on this one. Challenges, if separate, will be completely separate. The only way I can see GW letting PS jump out of challenges, is if they feel like they need to make a concession to the overflow crowd.

Well, you can't really disagree. Precision Strike lets you allocate wounds how you want rather than normally. There are no new rules in the Challenges section for wound allocation. The closest we get is that models outside the Challenge can't allocate to those inside (but not vice versa, per RAW) and that the models in a Challenge are only in base contact with one another (again, in my opinion, this does not mean they are always in base contact with one another).

We sure can disagree with how you interpret an unclear rule. You keep saying RAW but the RAW are not clear. I have a perfectly logical argument that the limitation applies to both wounds caused by and applied to the outside forces being covered by the same sentence. If it applies to one it has to apply to the other.

Lobukia wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

I must be misreading/understanding what you are saying here. If you have a unit and so does he, there's no cheering. Character replace models to get into the challenge... they don't swap back after the challenge is over. I really am lost where you are going with this.

Perhaps this will be less of a problem now, but in 5th Edition multi unit combats (on both sides) were not a rarity. Particularly with Orks or Tyranids. So let me set up the fight for you:

Player 1 has units A and B. Player 2 has units C and D. Unit A is in base contact with units C and D. Unit B is in base contact with unit D. Player 2 issues a Challenge with the Character leading unit C. Player 1 accepts the Challenge with a Character from unit B. The problem? Player 1 cannot, in this case, maintain coherency with unit B and get into actual base contact with a model in unit C. This could be because of different base sizes, or how far apart models are.

It is conceivable to set up combats purposely so your preferred Challenger is unable to actually get into base contact with a model.

Better still, larger units charging into bottle necks leave you several models unable to engage the enemy. If they are surrounding your Character, even if he is only "counting" as in base contact versus actually in base contact, he can get re-rolls. This is next to impossible for a 10 man squad to do, but 30+ man squads (Blobs, Mobs, and other Hordes) can do this easily enough.

It just comes down to careful model placement and maneuvering.

Page 64:
"If a challenge has been accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. Note that these moves cannot be used to move a character out of unit coherency. If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact, 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight."

Even if it is not possible to move into actual BTB you assume that they are in BTB anyway.

Captain Antivas wrote:This is quite unfortunate but the blob will only work for one round. The blob dies and the squad still has to pass a leadership test or run away, or next turn he eats the rest of the squad for lunch. Either way it hardly nullifies an expensive character. Lets say a Daemon Prince charges an IG squad and the sergeant issues a challenge. Daemon Prince kills the Sergeant with a sneeze and the squad fails their Leadership test and the Daemon Prince destroys them with a Sweeping Advance. Or, they pass their test and the Daemon Prince kills them the next round.

Are you forgetting Stubborn courtesy of the Commissar, which you can keep safely unengaged at the rear of the Blob? Just need to pass the normal Leadership.

"The enemy has something to counter my otherwise completely OP ability/model" is not a valid argument against a rule. "The rule can't be that way because it provides a semblance of balance to an otherwise completely overwhelmingly unbalanced situation" is the worst argument I have heard since "The rules could have been written that way, and they should have been, and since it should have been it is."

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:With Wound Overflow
1) A counter point to Hammer of Wrath's issues above. With Wound Overflow you would then be able to allocate attacks as normal to the squad. This will likely mean more Wounds for combat resolution. Oddly enough, this sort of makes sense from a "fluff" or "narrative" perspective (which seems to be GW's goal in 6th edition, to add more story to each game). A squad is far more likely to break quickly and badly if their fearless leader is cut down instantly in a duel. Unfortunately this argument isn't very persuasive on its own from a RAW perspective.

Again, the actual wording of the rules says that even if wounds overflowed they would not count for the combat resolution. This is a major problem for me. How can wounds overflow but not count for the combat resolution?

Assault Results on Page 65 seems to disagree with you unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

Page 65 says that the only wounds that go towards combat resolution are the wounds caused in a challenge, which overflow wounds are specifically not part of the challenge anymore by your own logic and interpretation, and wounds caused by the rest of the characters' units, which the characters cannot be a part of the rest of their unit. It does not say wounds caused by the characters, but wounds caused in the challenge. Outside units are not part of the challenge.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:3) As mentioned before, Precision Strike seems to happen regardless. The difference is with Wound Overflow it makes more sense as your Character is already able to strike out of the Challenge. It, to me, makes things more consistent.

With wound overflow Precision Strikes will work perfectly. Without, not so much.

Yet it works regardless of overflow from a RAW perspective.

Precision strikes are allocated during Wound Allocation. If the combatants are not even there, as I see the rules being, then you cannot use Precision Strikes either. They are either separate combats or they are not. There is no "they are separate combats until my character rolls a 6."

Rule is very clear. People are just trying to make up their own rules.

Blows can only be struck against the Challenger/Challengee. If they are the only ones in B2B then they can only wound each other.

Outside Forces
Can not send wounds into challenges.

It is clear the Challenges and Squads fight their own fight BUT add their outcome to who won the full combat.

People who want to slaughter squads with their uber IC are the ones that want this so called over flow wounds.

Still waiting for anyone to show me where in the rule book it says "OVER FLOW WOUNDS". They can't and it's not a rule.

Okay so at this point

Battle bunker's say no wound overflow.
Golden Throne GT say no wound overflow.
Rules say no wound overflow.

Why cant people let this go

Perhaps you ought to read the entire thread?

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Perhaps you ought to read the entire thread?

I am the one that pointed out that they are in base to base tell end of combat on like page 3 no one has ended that just made up rules saying no they are removed from the board. Paid attetion to a lot of it but its getting to be pointless.

maxcarrion wrote:

Mark_Autarch wrote:I'm not trying to argue either way. I'm now more itnerested in the discussion of situations that arise from either interpretation. I have an example below.
I'd also like to point out that this whole topic came up within my first 2 games of playing this edition... how many times did GW playtest this and not realize it was ambiguous?

Anyway,a real-life situation with no overflow:

I have a deamon prince(actually fate-weaver to make the cost differential worse) get assaulted by a unit of 4 necron lords (all of them are characters). He challenges me one at a time with 4 models. none of them can really hurt me, and I dont have a tough time killing each one individually. but because there are no wound overflows I have to kill 1 model a turn despite causing many times more wounds to the unit than would be necessary(2-3 wounds each round). even worse I roll poorly one round and dont kill the lord thus stretching this assault out over 3 game turns. That's 1/2 of the game! It was just plain annoying; not cinematic at all.

1) My local store has declared no overflow. Thus I have learned to keep my strongest close combat characters out of close combat.
2) I'm also probably not going to take any power fists or other upgrades for my sarges, because I need them to "cancel" opposing challenges should my close combat monsters accidently get into close combat.
3) Finally, I highly doubt any of my really valuable characters will ever issue challenges as this is just asking for them to be trapped (obviously my opponent will see the same benefits of taking naked seargents).
4) Instead, I have learned that the weakest seargent is the best choice for issuing challenges. In a cinematic way, challenges will be similar to chihuahuas barking at strangers.

Not to be rude but this is a very extensive discussion of the RAW and whether overflow exists or not, could we please take implications of what would happen elsewhere, such as the tactics forum, try starting a thread called "How to play when my flgs house rules overflow away" and I'll happily come and comment on it but it is irrelevant to this thread which is already mucky enough with directly relevant discussion.

He could start the thread and call it "How to play when my flgs house rules overflow correctly!" Depending on how he feels it should work, and 25 pages of "I'm right and you're wrong" is hardly an extensive discussion of RAW. Why don't you you go down to your FLGS and ask the TO how they are going to rule on this and prepare to play according to that. It makes sense seeing as how that's how you'll have to play in any tournies that they run. If they allow overflow good for you. If not, tough luck and if it bothers you that bad quit playing. It's plastic toy soldiers! By the way, prefacing your comment with "Not to be rude" doesn't stop it from being so. Last I checked this thread wasn't exclusively yours and was open to all comments from everyone.

I kept up with thread until page 8 then had to get off the merry-go-round as I was getting dizzy and ran out of tickets. Is there anything new between page 9 and 25 that would warrant reading or just the same circular arguments from both sides?

Boss GreenNutz wrote:I kept up with thread until page 8 then had to get off the merry-go-round as I was getting dizzy and ran out of tickets. Is there anything new between page 9 and 25 that would warrant reading or just the same circular arguments from both sides?

Not really. I'm done as well. I talked to the local TO and he said "No wound overflow." Good enough for me. Ya'll play nice though and good luck at the tables.

bigbaboonass wrote:
He could start the thread and call it "How to play when my flgs house rules overflow correctly!" Depending on how he feels it should work, and 25 pages of "I'm right and you're wrong" is hardly an extensive discussion of RAW. Why don't you you go down to your FLGS and ask the TO how they are going to rule on this and prepare to play according to that. It makes sense seeing as how that's how you'll have to play in any tournies that they run. If they allow overflow good for you. If not, tough luck and if it bothers you that bad quit playing. It's plastic toy soldiers! By the way, prefacing your comment with "Not to be rude" doesn't stop it from being so. Last I checked this thread wasn't exclusively yours and was open to all comments from everyone.

OK, so if someone comes into the thread and says I've just made this great ork list "posts list" can I have some feedback on it? Oh and we're playing with overflow so will this work? That's fine? I have no problem at all discussing the what ifs of how these things will be effected by the various possible outcome of a YMDC but this thread is massive and unclear and half the people coming along aren't reading most of it and if they come along and the last page is all about how to build a list with a no overflow environment in mind they might, understandabley, think they're in a completely different thread. I'd quite like to stick to topic and I've never been in a forum where people aren't allowed to ask others to stick to topic when they post a vaguely related tangent that completely changes the topic. I have no problem with the question, only where the question is and if this wasn't already a massive discussion that I'm actually trying to read all the points in then I wouldn't even care but I am so I do. He can start the thread called "how to breed howler monkeys using cookies and marmite" for all I care but I'd appreciate it if he didn't do it in a fairly serious existing mega thread :p

Rereading it maybe the tone was a little harsher than it could of been, if I have offended Mark_Autarch then he has my apologies, I did not mean to get nasty with you in any way, however I'd still really appreciate it if people kept to the topic and if they want to go off on a tangent then start a new thread, even link to it in this thread saying "I've started a thread on what difference it makes to your tactics if you've decided RAW is no overflow compared to overflow, see it here [link[" (is that thread title more to your liking?) but if we've got one discussion going I think starting a different one over the top is inappropriate and I think saying so isn't - I will hold my hands up to not considering the wording as well as I might and using it to sneak a crafty jab at the no overflow camp though, my bad.

edit - Oh and for the purposes of this thread I don't care how a local TO or anyone else rules it - sure, if your TO rules against overflow you want to be in the thread I just suggested discussing how it affects your tactics, not wading through this 25 pages of gloop on what the RAW says and doesn't say and how that might be interrpretted, this is the thread the TO's should read before they decide how to rule it not the players who need to abide by that decision and plan accordingly and for people like me who like to look at the rulebook and consider the meaning of the things that have been written just for the fun of it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

captain-crud wrote:Okay so at this point

Battle bunker's say no wound overflow.
Golden Throne GT say no wound overflow.
Rules say no wound overflow.

Why cant people let this go

Because the 3rd point you've mentioned we've spent 25 pages discussing with arguments on both sides and while I'm now pretty well sold on RAW supporting overflow (see my many arguments) there are others who seem pretty convinced that RAW denies overflow (see their many arguments) - so we discuss it as that is, as I understand it, what this forum, in fact this very thread is for. While I am quite interested that BB and GT both ruled that way I would be much more interested if they came on this forum and posted their reasoning as I think they have ruled incorrectly (which I have backed up with arguments, not just said "Wounds overflow, the end") but I'm open to having people convince me with a cogent argument. In fact I had no opinion on it till I started reading this thread and the people arguing for overflow I thought had much more compelling and substantial arguments,

hisdudeness wrote:Cowmonaut,

You missed one very big issue. Since we can choose when to resolve challenges, what happens when a high Init character resolves after the squad? The challenge overflow wounds would have a large effect on the squad combat that would be near impossible to backtrack and account for.

With Wound Overflow

If challenge is resolved before or after squad combat the squad combat would have to be recorded by Init step so challenge overflow wounds can be applied at the correct Init step in relation to the squad combat. Then each squad Init steps would have to be checked to account for the possible change in squad members available to attack at each subsequent step.

Without Wound Overflow

No such record keeping required as wounds of each (challenge and squads) combat are not applied to each other.


This issue alone pushes me to no overflow as the backtracking of a resolved combat will just add so much room for disputes.

Since you have it worked out; maxcarrion, explain this please? Or for that matter, anyone that says that overflow is RAW. Tell us how to handle this issue, please?

No wound over flow.

Challengee and Challenger locked in combat until end of phase.

Surviving Character can't consolidate or sweeping advance because he is considered locked in combat until end of phase.

by popular request, for those looking for an offshoot of this discussion. This about the tactics of either ruling and how it will affect the game.

[How will yes/no wound overflow during challenges affect tactics and lists?]
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/464878.page

hisdudeness wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:Cowmonaut,

You missed one very big issue. Since we can choose when to resolve challenges, what happens when a high Init character resolves after the squad? The challenge overflow wounds would have a large effect on the squad combat that would be near impossible to backtrack and account for.

With Wound Overflow

If challenge is resolved before or after squad combat the squad combat would have to be recorded by Init step so challenge overflow wounds can be applied at the correct Init step in relation to the squad combat. Then each squad Init steps would have to be checked to account for the possible change in squad members available to attack at each subsequent step.

Without Wound Overflow

No such record keeping required as wounds of each (challenge and squads) combat are not applied to each other.


This issue alone pushes me to no overflow as the backtracking of a resolved combat will just add so much room for disputes.

Since you have it worked out; maxcarrion, explain this please? Or for that matter, anyone that says that overflow is RAW. Tell us how to handle this issue, please?

Well, since the RAW says they strike at init I would say if you're expecting enough overflow to cause problems then choose to resolve at initiative (like an HT killing a tac squad sarg - this is not a climactic battle but a road bump) but if the fight is reasonably even and you want to make it dramatic then (and you both agree), like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after. As far as I can tell that's what the RAW and FaN combined tell you to do and that's how I'm playing it. I expect in a Tourney, where people are being uber competitive, it'd be easier to just not bother with the dramatic pause and resolve it all at init as per straight up rules. That's a very reasonable explanation for why they made challenge resolution after unit resolution optional per FaN and not mandatory per RAW.

Hows that?

Me and my friends have a problem with the whole rule. I didn't read every post so i don't know if some one said this, but the reason we don't like it is some times its way to strong.
Just the other night a friend was playing Nids Vs my friends Orcs. The orcs charge a Swarmlord. Now the way the rules work is that swarm lord can Call out the nob every time and kill it as the other boyz just watch and cant even attack the swarmlord. and if he dosn't take the challenge the best hope the squad has to hurt it cant attack. and he can just do this every turn.

maxcarrion wrote:

Well, since the RAW says they strike at init I would say if you're expecting enough overflow to cause problems then choose to resolve at initiative (like an HT killing a tac squad sarg - this is not a climactic battle but a road bump) but if the fight is reasonably even and you want to make it dramatic then (and you both agree), like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after. As far as I can tell that's what the RAW and FaN combined tell you to do and that's how I'm playing it. I expect in a Tourney, where people are being uber competitive, it'd be easier to just not bother with the dramatic pause and resolve it all at init as per straight up rules. That's a very reasonable explanation for why they made challenge resolution after unit resolution optional per FaN and not mandatory per RAW.

Hows that?

So to solve the very obvious issue with overflow your answer is to not play ‘wound allocation as normal’ as per RAW?

While playing out the assault rules with and without overflow, it was one of the first issues that I found. This is not a loophole or two rules conflicting with each other, but a very visible inconsistency with overflow that any playtester would have found and addressed. A simple “resolve challenges at characters Init step” or not putting the FaN callout would easily solve this issue, yet we are told we can resolve challenges at any point during that unit’s assault. Overflow brings up more questions than it answers. With the absence of rules on how to handle overflow when challenges are resolved outside of squad assault I fail to see how it is part of the game. That is akin to leaving out the rules on running yet hint with vague grammar that a unit can run during shooting phase.

All said, when these debates break down to grammar arguments I have found that the version that causes the lease ripples is normally the correct one. In this case, the wound pool being emptied with that amount going towards overall unit assault result is the version that causes the least ripples and is easily supported by the rules (depending on your view of grammar).

Doesn't Outside forces say that the challenge models count as a separate combat?

Nope. That is one of the issues.

Thor626 wrote:Me and my friends have a problem with the whole rule. I didn't read every post so i don't know if some one said this, but the reason we don't like it is some times its way to strong.
Just the other night a friend was playing Nids Vs my friends Orcs. The orcs charge a Swarmlord. Now the way the rules work is that swarm lord can Call out the nob every time and kill it as the other boyz just watch and cant even attack the swarmlord. and if he dosn't take the challenge the best hope the squad has to hurt it cant attack. and he can just do this every turn.

That is not what is being discussed but with or without overflow this is essentially how the rule works. What this means is that the ork player in question is going to have to plan ahead little better. Its not that the rule is too strong you just have to rethink some of the ways you are used to doing things.

Really, in 5th edition the trynid player could of argued (and many did) that being able to hide the ~40pt power kalw so that it had a reasonable chance of killing the Swarm Lord was too powerful.

hisdudeness wrote:

maxcarrion wrote:

Well, since the RAW says they strike at init I would say if you're expecting enough overflow to cause problems then choose to resolve at initiative (like an HT killing a tac squad sarg - this is not a climactic battle but a road bump) but if the fight is reasonably even and you want to make it dramatic then (and you both agree), like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after. As far as I can tell that's what the RAW and FaN combined tell you to do and that's how I'm playing it. I expect in a Tourney, where people are being uber competitive, it'd be easier to just not bother with the dramatic pause and resolve it all at init as per straight up rules. That's a very reasonable explanation for why they made challenge resolution after unit resolution optional per FaN and not mandatory per RAW.

Hows that?

So to solve the very obvious issue with overflow your answer is to not play ‘wound allocation as normal’ as per RAW?

While playing out the assault rules with and without overflow, it was one of the first issues that I found. This is not a loophole or two rules conflicting with each other, but a very visible inconsistency with overflow that any playtester would have found and addressed. A simple “resolve challenges at characters Init step” or not putting the FaN callout would easily solve this issue, yet we are told we can resolve challenges at any point during that unit’s assault. Overflow brings up more questions than it answers. With the absence of rules on how to handle overflow when challenges are resolved outside of squad assault I fail to see how it is part of the game. That is akin to leaving out the rules on running yet hint with vague grammar that a unit can run during shooting phase.

All said, when these debates break down to grammar arguments I have found that the version that causes the lease ripples is normally the correct one. In this case, the wound pool being emptied with that amount going towards overall unit assault result is the version that causes the least ripples and is easily supported by the rules (depending on your view of grammar).

Except that not only do the RAW grammatically not exclude overflow they don't exclude precision strike or other effects like it, these cause exactly the same problem if you choose to resolve seperately using the FaN and either you accept that limitation for the sake of drama or you ignore the FaN for smooth play. The way the no overflow camp has it you are either assigning wounds to a slain model and using PS where you still have the problem, or treating it as a seperate combat which isn't supported by the rules even if you let it go much broader than a couple of grammatical nitpicks; and is changing the rules in a way that significantly affects game balance. I don't particularly care for challenges in general or overflow specifically but since none of the arguments based on the rules stop Precision Strike (sure the "it's seperate so no PS" does but that's not based on what's in the book) then this issue exists independant of overflow and since the effects of what is written in the book can significantly change the game then I'm all in favour of chewing over exactly what the book actually says to do, especially in a case like this where it effects every army and potentially every battle right down to the way you build your list.

While generating "lost" wounds and that amount going towards unit assault result might be a nice compromise and a nice house rule it certainly isn't the official rule, not least of which because the wounds counted for resolution are always the wounds actually done, see pg 26 "only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models count" (plenty more reasons but they're mostly covered in the thread already), it also does not address the exact same problems caused by Precision Strikes.

Geemoney wrote:Really, in 5th edition the trynid player could of argued (and many did) that being able to hide the ~40pt power kalw so that it had a reasonable chance of killing the Swarm Lord was too powerful.

This does nothing to balance that out.

Now you have a Power Klaw that is either dead because of the challenge, or not getting any attacks because he keeps refusing challenges and the Swarmlord fights through the unit without a scratch, after many turns of fighting, and goes on to do it to another unit, again without a scratch.

[sarcasm]Seems balanced to me [/sarcasm]

@ maxcarrion

Again with the grammar, I’ve stated my view on it. While a valid point, grammar debates normally are very thin arguments. To me it is akin to pulling out "Hitler" in a debate.

My main problem with your solution is that the entire ‘for’ overflow argument hinges on the idea of applying wounds as normal. Yet your answer to on how to resolve this game halting issue (try going back and reworking a 20+ model assault and tell me it doesn’t halt the game) when we use overflow is to ignore the very rule that is the foundation of overflow. Overflow not only changes game balance but greatly changes game flow. The entire rule system has been changed over the last few editions to speed up play. I find it hard to believe they would add in an option that not only slows the game down, but opens up to the possibility of stopping the game all together.

The idea of separate combats is supported just as much as the idea of wound overflow. Both are inferences in the absence of specific wording. In fact, nowhere on pages 64-65 are we told to ‘apply wounds as normal’. Just like we are never specifically told to treat challenges as a separate combat. How can you base your view on grammar interpretations yet in the same paragraph discount the view of separate combat on the grounds of grammar interpretations? What makes your interpretation of the grammar correct or any more valid than anyone else?

I view PS as a moot point; the combat is separate in every sense with the only interaction being that which we are specifically told happens in the challenge rules. More so when a simple mention either way would render this entire thread moot. The idea of the wound pool being lost is not crazy, it is used else were in the book.

Please don’t make claims of a view being a house rule or a compromise, nothing has been decided (or likely be). I don’t go around claiming you can play overflow as a nice house rule do I? No one is changing rules; we have a difference of option as to how to interpret the rules. I don’t go in to these debates with a want to win, but a want to put as much knowledge on each view as possible so others can make their own judgment on how to play absent a FAQ. In the end on these long drawn out debates that’s all we can do, but adding in jaded wording helps no one.

I’m not saying my (and others) solution does not have issues with implementing, but it does have the less issues and causes the least amount of ripples. I still believe this is a group of people that have counted on their uber assault character to lay waste to entire squads in previous editions and see a way for them to be immune to wounds while still doing so. The possible loss of a large wound pool is a down side to challenges. My solution to the entire problem Is to not use challenges until this resolved.

but the outside forces rule says;

"simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters weren't there"

which to me implies that it is two separate combats.

@Jacob29

And it will be pointed out that the quoted rule is under the "Outside Forces" heading and thus only restricts the unit wounding the characters.

And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

It seem's to be pretty clear though that the RAI is for there to be no overflowing, even if RAW its arguable.

Captain Antivas wrote:And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

I feel ya, Captain Antivas. IMO, overflow needlessly complicates the game with the only viable solution being to run challenges parallel to unit assaults which goes against other options for challenge resolution. Why allow for multiple options of resolution timing if some of those options do not allow for overflow and then not tell us how to handle this break down in wound allocation that overflow causes? This would be a pretty major missing section of the rules and is not a simple conflict in rules that we just find which one takes precedent. We as players would have to write rules to effectively come up with a solution that works in all possible instance of challenge resolution. This is a no/go.

I am of the option that if wounds left in the wound pool after a character is killed in a challenge were allowed to be applied to the unit as a whole then we would be told how to do this. Since we are not told the HOW then I am left to believe there is no CAN.

Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

Captain Antivas wrote:Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

Say that again?

Page 65 says any unsaved wounds in a Challenge count towards the overall combat resolution.

Without overflow, that's just however many wounds you took off the enemy model to kill it that round.

With overflow, un-allocated wounds would have to get allocated to other models, which means more casualties and more unsaved wounds so more points towards your combat resolution score.

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here since it doesn't seem to make any sense to either argument.

hisdudeness wrote:@ maxcarrion

Again with the grammar, I’ve stated my view on it. While a valid point, grammar debates normally are very thin arguments. To me it is akin to pulling out "Hitler" in a debate.

My main problem with your solution is that the entire ‘for’ overflow argument hinges on the idea of applying wounds as normal. Yet your answer to on how to resolve this game halting issue (try going back and reworking a 20+ model assault and tell me it doesn’t halt the game) when we use overflow is to ignore the very rule that is the foundation of overflow. Overflow not only changes game balance but greatly changes game flow. The entire rule system has been changed over the last few editions to speed up play. I find it hard to believe they would add in an option that not only slows the game down, but opens up to the possibility of stopping the game all together.

The idea of separate combats is supported just as much as the idea of wound overflow. Both are inferences in the absence of specific wording. In fact, nowhere on pages 64-65 are we told to ‘apply wounds as normal’. Just like we are never specifically told to treat challenges as a separate combat. How can you base your view on grammar interpretations yet in the same paragraph discount the view of separate combat on the grounds of grammar interpretations? What makes your interpretation of the grammar correct or any more valid than anyone else?

I view PS as a moot point; the combat is separate in every sense with the only interaction being that which we are specifically told happens in the challenge rules. More so when a simple mention either way would render this entire thread moot. The idea of the wound pool being lost is not crazy, it is used else were in the book.

Please don’t make claims of a view being a house rule or a compromise, nothing has been decided (or likely be). I don’t go around claiming you can play overflow as a nice house rule do I? No one is changing rules; we have a difference of option as to how to interpret the rules. I don’t go in to these debates with a want to win, but a want to put as much knowledge on each view as possible so others can make their own judgment on how to play absent a FAQ. In the end on these long drawn out debates that’s all we can do, but adding in jaded wording helps no one.

I’m not saying my (and others) solution does not have issues with implementing, but it does have the less issues and causes the least amount of ripples. I still believe this is a group of people that have counted on their uber assault character to lay waste to entire squads in previous editions and see a way for them to be immune to wounds while still doing so. The possible loss of a large wound pool is a down side to challenges. My solution to the entire problem Is to not use challenges until this resolved.

What? Lets just start with

I view PS as a moot point; the combat is separate in every sense

Please could you point out the rules basis for this? The combats are never ever ever refered to as seperate in the rules and great pains are gone to to define exactly the directions of interactions.
Now

Please don’t make claims of a view being a house rule or a compromise

You declared that challenges should be resolved seperately, which I've already queries, but you also stated that wounds that are being debated as overflow/not overflow should not overflow but should count towards resolution. That has already been mentioned in this thread as a possible house rule but as an actual rule it is explicitly and blatantly forbidden in the combat resolution section in bolded type. I assumed you were talking about house ruling it that way as it was expressley forbidden from being a "real" rule and previously mentioned as a possible house rule

Yet your answer to on how to resolve this game halting issue (try going back and reworking a 20+ model assault and tell me it doesn’t halt the game) when we use overflow is to ignore the very rule that is the foundation of overflow

Huh? The foundation of overflow is playing normal wound allocation step and it not being overridden by anything in the challenge rules. The rule I suggest ignoring is the FaN optional resolve challenges after other combats for dramatic purposes, or accept that your challengee will be striking after the unit. Neither of these are conditions or foundations of overflow and the first is strict RAW (as far as when the characters strike), the second is ambiguous in the rules but would only be with opponents consent anyway as would any part of fighting the challenge after the main combat, Please could you clarify your problem with this?

The idea of separate combats is supported just as much as the idea of wound overflow. Both are inferences in the absence of specific wording

Actually, overflow is an inference based on normal rules saying it one way and specific rules not forbidding it - seperate combats has no basis in the rules that I have seen or seen quoted, it's not even the arguement being made by most of the no overflow camp (which seems to be a grammatical argument that a specific sentance may forbid it, however I disagree with that assessment)

My solution to the entire problem Is to not use challenges until this resolved.

If you suggested that to me before a game I would agree, I don't like the challenge rules and the argument totally isn't worth the effort once you're actually at a table. One of the reasons it's worth having here



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

All wound allocation = N
Outside Forces allocation during a challenge = X
Therefore we infer that challengee allocation = Y?
I think I'll stick with challengee allocation = N

If the challengees had to allocate wounds as if they were not there then they could ONLY allocate to the outside forces and no model could ever die in a challenge.

If their wound allocation were restricted in a similar way that rule would not be specifically aimed at outside forces as it's placement and context blatently do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacob29 wrote:It seem's to be pretty clear though that the RAI is for there to be no overflowing, even if RAW its arguable.

I'd be interested to know the basis of this clarity as I believe the way it has been constructed shows that overflow is a far more likely RAI - as they go to the effort of constructing specific one way barriers (outside forces may not strike challenge participants, outside forces resolve as if challenge participants were not there etc,), ensure that unit coherency is maintained and add rules for striking out of challenges (like PS), Forbid unengaged characters from making or acceptiing challenges just 4 of a huge number of clues that imply overflow was RAI - although I'm not sure I'd go as far as clear, it's pretty murky even with all that to try and work out what they really intended.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

That's not what the rule says, it says wounds dealt in a challenge.
Example HT is in a challenge with a Nob
He deals 2 wounds to the Nob and overflows 3 more onto nearby boyz
He is in a challenge and dealt 5 wounds => 5 wounds dealt in a challenge.

So wounds from a challenge are counted on combat resolution, unless you play no overflow where the 250pt HT only deals 2 wounds and gets 2 towards combat resolution because of a 20pt Nob, in the meantime the nob squad has gutted the entire rest of his unit. Incidently the Nob squad has 6 Nobs in so the HT is stuck here for the rest of the game killing 1 Nob a turn.

While aware that individual codex FAQ's do not override RAW for the BRB in general, the DA FAQ lists an interesting FAQ that gives credence to the idea that wounds do not overflow.

Vexator Mask:

"Enemy units locked in close combat with the bearer must pass a Leadership test at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase after challenges have been issued and accepted or declined. If they fail they may not Attack the bearer in this Fight sub-phase, though they may attack other models as normal providing they are not involved in a challenge with the bearer"

While not rock solid, here's what I'm gathering from this:

Facing DA player and in base contact, not in a challenge. Fail my test, so any wounds caused go against everyone but the bearer as I cannot attack him.

Facing DA player, in a challenge. Fail my test, and am not allowed to attack the other members of the assault because I'm in a challenge, and must attack my opponent first.

Also, here's something I was looking for but couldn't find a page reference for clarity:

If we're to allow wounds to overflow from a challenge to the squad, it would have to mean the squad was apart of the challenge combat with the exception they cannot attack either of the two combatants. However, I have yet to find a passage that says you would use the individual stat lines of each model when determining what to roll, as they would be apart of a larger unit and would use the majority value of the unit when determining such things.

Meaning if I'm a Hive Tyrant fighting against a squad of 9 Wyches with Lelith (not ideal, but meh), I wouldn't roll against Leliths WS of 9, but the Wyches WS of 4 as they are the majority for the unit.

Yes/No?

Aipoch wrote:While aware that individual codex FAQ's do not override RAW for the BRB in general, the DA FAQ lists an interesting FAQ that gives credence to the idea that wounds do not overflow.

Vexator Mask:

"Enemy units locked in close combat with the bearer must pass a Leadership test at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase after challenges have been issued and accepted or declined. If they fail they may not Attack the bearer in this Fight sub-phase, though they may attack other models as normal providing they are not involved in a challenge with the bearer"

While not rock solid, here's what I'm gathering from this:

Facing DA player and in base contact, not in a challenge. Fail my test, so any wounds caused go against everyone but the bearer as I cannot attack him.

Facing DA player, in a challenge. Fail my test, and am not allowed to attack the other members of the assault because I'm in a challenge, and must attack my opponent first.

This could go either way, it could simply mean it's particularly effective in a challenge. It's circumstantial at best but interesting. To be fair it's lazily worded as you no longer attack specific models, instead you roll big piles of dice and the defender assigns wounds to models in b2b with models attacking in that I step (followed by nearby models) so if the model has a fairly common I step in the unit just resolving in a smart order almost entirely negates this item outside of challenges (as everyone else on that I step can wound that model as it is in b2b), so perhaps it needs that bonus in challenges to be worth a damn.

If we're to allow wounds to overflow from a challenge to the squad, it would have to mean the squad was apart of the challenge combat with the exception they cannot attack either of the two combatants. However, I have yet to find a passage that says you would use the individual stat lines of each model when determining what to roll, as they would be apart of a larger unit and would use the majority value of the unit when determining such things.

Meaning if I'm a Hive Tyrant fighting against a squad of 9 Wyches with Lelith (not ideal, but meh), I wouldn't roll against Leliths WS of 9, but the Wyches WS of 4 as they are the majority for the unit.

Yes/No?

Nothing I've found in the phrasing overrides majority, so HT attacking Lelith in a challenge is attacking WS 4, and attacking a Wraithguards Warlock is striking T6 - I can't quote a page as it's absence of anything overriding majority.

Aipoch wrote:While aware that individual codex FAQ's do not override RAW for the BRB in general, the DA FAQ lists an interesting FAQ that gives credence to the idea that wounds do not overflow.

Vexator Mask:

"Enemy units locked in close combat with the bearer must pass a Leadership test at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase after challenges have been issued and accepted or declined. If they fail they may not Attack the bearer in this Fight sub-phase, though they may attack other models as normal providing they are not involved in a challenge with the bearer

You are making a common and incorrect leap that has occurred several times this thread. A restriction on models outside a Challenge does not affect models inside a Challenge. The whole apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples thing. Its a common logical fallacy but its been beaten to death in this thread.

This rule for the Vexator Mask just keeps the wargear from breaking already established and accepted (by both sides of this argument) rules.

I need to find some time to pick up stamps... I'm really curious now.

cowmonaut wrote:You are making a common and incorrect leap that has occurred several times this thread. A restriction on models outside a Challenge does not affect models inside a Challenge.

This would be the "not rock solid" point mentioned. While you're point is true, the rule listed places an interesting restriction on a model INSIDE the challenge, not on those outside of it, which specifically forbids the model within the challenge from attacking anyone OUTSIDE the challenge.

It seems that the long and short of it is that there's a set of folks who consider a challenge to be a duel between two combatants, and those who consider it to simply be placing two combatants at the forefront of an assault that have agreed to wound each other to the death before wounding anyone else. The second seems to be more supported by the rules, specifically the absence of key points that would nip this thing in the butt cleanly and concisely.

Edited: Clarified difference.

Now you are trying to get back into RAW. There is no RAW solution to this debate. The wording of this section is ambiguous enough that both sides have valid points. You can claim your interpretation is correct for ‘X’ reason and I will come back with my interpretation is correct because of ‘Y’. This has resulted in a 25 page thread of “I’m right your wrong because my grammar is better.” We are making assumptions based on interpretations and as I doubt any of us work in the GW game studio all we can do is guess.

But since you want to get back on the marry-go-round, I will answer your points in order without quotes to shorten the wall of text:

1) The basis is due to my interpretations of the wording. I can list the wordings in question but I believe that has been done ad nauseam. Wounds are never referenced as being able to be applied to the unit either, nor are we told what to do with the wound pool once one member of the challenge is slain. You are correct, the challenge rules go through great pains to list what can be done…and overflow wounds are not mentioned. This idea comes from one interpretation of the wording. What is mentioned is that members of a challenge can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. Since the challenge lasts to the end of the phase, no wounds go to unit. BLAH, BLAH, considered, BLAH, SNARF.

2) No, the rulebook says challenges can be handled effectively at any point during the sub-phase. It is pretty much listed in three places. Checkout shooting and wound pool, you will see the basis for the wound pool being lost. That was my reference to this not being a new idea and can just as easily be inferred as the extra wounds in the pool go to the squad. Both are vaguely supported but never stated.

3) Yes and your answer to the timing issue of challenge wounds being applied outside of the unit assault Init steps is to ignore “normal wound allocation” rules. You claim the normal wound allocation is not affected by challenge rules…the against do. Again, interpretation on vague wording that I can see the merits of both. The foundation of the overflow is the line that states you apply wounds to BtB models first then remaining to the next closest. The sticking point is if the victorious model is still in BtB with the slain. At which point we move to arguing grammar interpretations. More BLAH, considered…only, BLAH.

4) I believe there is a specific rule forbidding it, the rule that they are still in BtB with each other and can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. But that is just one interpretation.

5) My answer to your “we are not forbidden” from applying overflow wounds to the squad so I must be able to is: “Nothing forbids me from lighting your models on fire and claiming victory because you have lumps of plastic on the table and not models , thus no models on table at end of phase equals a win for me.” This ruleset tells us what we can/cannot do…based on my interpretation I do not believe we are told we can apply overflow wounds to the unit. Or even how to handle the various situations that arise when challenges are resolved separately.

6) I Agree, I don’t like the challenge rules. They slow down assaults with and without overflow.


Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

hisdudeness wrote:
Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

Well, if you wish to resolve the challenge separately while still allowing overflow, there would be a tactical advantage depending on the unit composition. Resolving the challenge separately while allowing overflow would, effectively, allow you to negate initiative values in a big way.

As an example:

You have a Terminator Champion that's going at initiative 1 against an Archon at initiative 7. Let's say they're attached to a squad of 5 other assault termies and 6 incubi, respectively. You decide to do the challenge second. You let the Incubi smack some termies around, maybe they kill 1 or 2. 3 Termies hit back, wipe out the 6 incubi. You now have a squad of two termies and 0 incubi left, and proceed to do the challenge. Archon goes first, doesn't wound the Terminator Champion. Terminator Champion now strikes, causes 3 wounds. First save is failed by the Archon, which inflicts instant death, so 2 wounds overflow onto the squad, but there is no squad so they're effectively wasted.

Now, do the exact same scenario, but agree to allow the challenge to proceed first.

Archon strikes first, still can't get through that 2+ armor save. Terminator Champion strikes back, causes 4 wounds, first one manages to kill the archon once again, and he kills 3 other incubi as a result of the overflow, even though he goes at initiative 1. You now have 3 incubi against 5 assault termies. That's a pretty big advantage.

I have yet to find a rule that says both methods are not options available to players.

hisdudeness wrote:Now you are trying to get back into RAW. There is no RAW solution to this debate. The wording of this section is ambiguous enough that both sides have valid points. You can claim your interpretation is correct for ‘X’ reason and I will come back with my interpretation is correct because of ‘Y’. This has resulted in a 25 page thread of “I’m right your wrong because my grammar is better.” We are making assumptions based on interpretations and as I doubt any of us work in the GW game studio all we can do is guess.

But since you want to get back on the marry-go-round, I will answer your points in order without quotes to shorten the wall of text:

1) The basis is due to my interpretations of the wording. I can list the wordings in question but I believe that has been done ad nauseam. Wounds are never referenced as being able to be applied to the unit either, nor are we told what to do with the wound pool once one member of the challenge is slain. You are correct, the challenge rules go through great pains to list what can be done…and overflow wounds are not mentioned. This idea comes from one interpretation of the wording. What is mentioned is that members of a challenge can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. Since the challenge lasts to the end of the phase, no wounds go to unit. BLAH, BLAH, considered, BLAH, SNARF.

2) No, the rulebook says challenges can be handled effectively at any point during the sub-phase. It is pretty much listed in three places. Checkout shooting and wound pool, you will see the basis for the wound pool being lost. That was my reference to this not being a new idea and can just as easily be inferred as the extra wounds in the pool go to the squad. Both are vaguely supported but never stated.

3) Yes and your answer to the timing issue of challenge wounds being applied outside of the unit assault Init steps is to ignore “normal wound allocation” rules. You claim the normal wound allocation is not affected by challenge rules…the against do. Again, interpretation on vague wording that I can see the merits of both. The foundation of the overflow is the line that states you apply wounds to BtB models first then remaining to the next closest. The sticking point is if the victorious model is still in BtB with the slain. At which point we move to arguing grammar interpretations. More BLAH, considered…only, BLAH.

4) I believe there is a specific rule forbidding it, the rule that they are still in BtB with each other and can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. But that is just one interpretation.

5) My answer to your “we are not forbidden” from applying overflow wounds to the squad so I must be able to is: “Nothing forbids me from lighting your models on fire and claiming victory because you have lumps of plastic on the table and not models , thus no models on table at end of phase equals a win for me.” This ruleset tells us what we can/cannot do…based on my interpretation I do not believe we are told we can apply overflow wounds to the unit. Or even how to handle the various situations that arise when challenges are resolved separately.

6) I Agree, I don’t like the challenge rules. They slow down assaults with and without overflow.


Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

1) You could quote the wording except what you're saying is not based on any accurate wording, it never says challengees can only apply wounds to each other, it only says that only challengees can apply wounds to each other - the first means they cannot apply wounds elsewhere, the second means elsewhere cannot apply wounds to the challengees - it's a VERY significant difference.

2) Could you quote the wording on challenges can be handled effectively at any point? The wording I see is challengees strike at their I step but some players like to resolve at the end. That's the FaN I have no problem with the concept of losing the wound pool but there are no rules that specify you should in this instance. There are rules that specify they should be assigned to the closest models, they are the close combat wound allocation rules - they apply in CC until something else states they don't

3) Huh? I never suggest ignoring normal wound allocation rules. Slain models are removed and wounds allocated to the next closest model, that's "normal wound allocation" misinterpreting "considered in b2b contact only with" as "considered in b2b contact with" is the only thing you are suggesting that I am not doing. But yeah, that's easily one of the hardest arguments to overcome as the construction is overly complicated and at it took me quite a few readings to work out the exact meaning of that sentence

4) As I said, not what that sentence means and we've been over that, but I know the one you mean, not sure where you got the bit that challengees can only apply wounds to each other though. The rules never say that.

5) What we have is basic vs advanced, wound allocation says I can apply to others; challenge does not override that rule. So we are specifically told we can apply wounds elsewhere, that permission is given and then not rescinded, that's not the same as doing something with no original permission

We can go over the same ground I just answered again, sure, FaN is not rule, FaN is optional, sarg against sarg, go ahead and resolve at end, HT against HT, go ahead and resolve at end in the event you get overflow it will be minimal and won't be game breaking but should be dramatic. HT v Sarg the HT player has a real disadvantage resolving at the end as he will almost certainly allow members of the Sarg unit an opportunity to strike when he can probably kill them with PS and overflow, so he should probably insist on resolving at I as per RAW. If you really care just ignore the FaN entirely and resolve at I as per RAW.

Captain Antivas wrote:And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

and then another 775 posts and 26 pages later... we will still have no overflow.

maxcarrion wrote:1) You could quote the wording except what you're saying is not based on any accurate wording, it never says challengees can only apply wounds to each other, it only says that only challengees can apply wounds to each other - the first means they cannot apply wounds elsewhere, the second means elsewhere cannot apply wounds to the challengees - it's a VERY significant difference.

2) Could you quote the wording on challenges can be handled effectively at any point? The wording I see is challengees strike at their I step but some players like to resolve at the end. That's the FaN I have no problem with the concept of losing the wound pool but there are no rules that specify you should in this instance. There are rules that specify they should be assigned to the closest models, they are the close combat wound allocation rules - they apply in CC until something else states they don't

3) Huh? I never suggest ignoring normal wound allocation rules. Slain models are removed and wounds allocated to the next closest model, that's "normal wound allocation" misinterpreting "considered in b2b contact only with" as "considered in b2b contact with" is the only thing you are suggesting that I am not doing. But yeah, that's easily one of the hardest arguments to overcome as the construction is overly complicated and at it took me quite a few readings to work out the exact meaning of that sentence

4) As I said, not what that sentence means and we've been over that, but I know the one you mean, not sure where you got the bit that challengees can only apply wounds to each other though. The rules never say that.

5) What we have is basic vs advanced, wound allocation says I can apply to others; challenge does not override that rule. So we are specifically told we can apply wounds elsewhere, that permission is given and then not rescinded, that's not the same as doing something with no original permission

We can go over the same ground I just answered again, sure, FaN is not rule, FaN is optional, sarg against sarg, go ahead and resolve at end, HT against HT, go ahead and resolve at end in the event you get overflow it will be minimal and won't be game breaking but should be dramatic. HT v Sarg the HT player has a real disadvantage resolving at the end as he will almost certainly allow members of the Sarg unit an opportunity to strike when he can probably kill them with PS and overflow, so he should probably insist on resolving at I as per RAW. If you really care just ignore the FaN entirely and resolve at I as per RAW.

1) Yea, I forget that section is under “Outside Forces” which make for a weak argument. I call a redo!


2) FaN on page 65 and Page 429 tell us went we may resolve challenges. The only thing we have telling us we may resolve challenges during is when we are told they strike at Init step. Correct, we apply to closest model. Which in a challenge is the other model in the challenge and we are told they are in BtB for the duration of the challenge…which ends (together now!) at the end of the phase. Again, an interpretation.


3)

maxcarrion wrote:“…like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after.”

Or

maxcarrion wrote:“ HT v Sarg the HT player has a real disadvantage resolving at the end as he will almost certainly allow members of the Sarg unit an opportunity to strike when he can probably kill them with PS and overflow, so he should probably insist on resolving at I as per RAW. “

Sound familiar? Seems like ignoring “Dead Before Striking” on page 26 to me.

4) More interpretation that has been bounced back and forth. Will not be solved in this thread, so why keep bringing it up.

5) Again, interpretation. Tomato vs. Tomoto. Yes we are told we can, but the models in a challenge are only in BtB with each other for the duration of the challenge which is the end of the phase. Can we drop this one also?

No, I do not want to go over the same ground again, hence the reason to move to the ramifications of each view to see if there is anything to be found. And FaN is not the only thing that tells us we can resolve outside of normal Init step, see page 429.

Please explain to everyone how we resolve a challenge after the unit where one of the challenge models strikes at a higher Init then the enemy unit that does not ignore/break the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aipoch wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:
Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

Well, if you wish to resolve the challenge separately while still allowing overflow, there would be a tactical advantage depending on the unit composition. Resolving the challenge separately while allowing overflow would, effectively, allow you to negate initiative values in a big way.

As an example:

You have a Terminator Champion that's going at initiative 1 against an Archon at initiative 7. Let's say they're attached to a squad of 5 other assault termies and 6 incubi, respectively. You decide to do the challenge second. You let the Incubi smack some termies around, maybe they kill 1 or 2. 3 Termies hit back, wipe out the 6 incubi. You now have a squad of two termies and 0 incubi left, and proceed to do the challenge. Archon goes first, doesn't wound the Terminator Champion. Terminator Champion now strikes, causes 3 wounds. First save is failed by the Archon, which inflicts instant death, so 2 wounds overflow onto the squad, but there is no squad so they're effectively wasted.

Now, do the exact same scenario, but agree to allow the challenge to proceed first.

Archon strikes first, still can't get through that 2+ armor save. Terminator Champion strikes back, causes 4 wounds, first one manages to kill the archon once again, and he kills 3 other incubi as a result of the overflow, even though he goes at initiative 1. You now have 3 incubi against 5 assault termies. That's a pretty big advantage.

I have yet to find a rule that says both methods are not options available to players.

Problem: You cannot negate strikes at Init steps.

First example: No issue because all models resolved wounds at Init step.

Second example: Incorrect. The three incubi will still get all attacks as they would be killed at Init step 1 and are still alive during their Init step. This example breaks the rules. Where are we told you can stop a model from striking at Init step if it would still be alive?


Variation of first example: The real problem comes when the Archon kills the termie champion and has extra wounds. The assault termies and the incubi would resolve wounds and a various number of each is killed. Now, at the end we resolve the challenge and we apply the overflow wounds from the Archon to the termies (which have already stuck and killed some incubi). Now we have to go back and figure out which termie(s) die and which incubi are still alive do to wounds being applied at Init step. I hope you recorded which incubi death resulted from which wound from a termie.

To do otherwise is breaking the rule of “Dead Before Striking” on page 26, very first sentence. “If a model becomes a casualty before its Initiative step, it cannot strike back.” Since we are told challenge models strike at Init, saying that we can accept the idea that a model might get to strike even if it is slain before its Init step is expressly forbidden (as maxcarrion has stated in his solution).

So would it be more correct, then, to assume that if wounds overflow from a challenge (granted that's a huge assumption in itself), you must still resolve everything in initiative order? Meaning you cannot, as the book says, simply resolve a challenge separately from the rest of the assault?

cowmonaut wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

Say that again?

Page 65 says any unsaved wounds in a Challenge count towards the overall combat resolution.

Without overflow, that's just however many wounds you took off the enemy model to kill it that round.

With overflow, un-allocated wounds would have to get allocated to other models, which means more casualties and more unsaved wounds so more points towards your combat resolution score.

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here since it doesn't seem to make any sense to either argument.

A challenge is defined as 2 characters fighting each other. Once one character is slain the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase, wounds caused to someone who is part of the outside forces is by definition not part of the challenge.

That my friend, that is the point I am making. We are told we may resolve challenges outside normal Init step. Yet, overflow causes an issue that we are not told how to resolve in the rules.

I have asked for answers to this issue but those answers break the rules.

Youd think a paradox would have been caught during play testing.

OK to save mass quoting, we seem to currently mulling 2 main points.

1) You cannot strike anyone else because you are considered in b2b contact with other challenger till end of phase

2) You cannot resolve challenges with overflow after combat without violating "Dead Before Striking"

So - 1) The rule says
"Are considered to be in b2b contact only with each other"
This is being incorrectly interpretted as
"Are considered to be in b2b contact with each other and only each other"
Where it actually means
"Can only be considered in b2b contact with each other"
As in
"No other model may be considered in b2b contact with them"

Even if you were considered in b2b with a slain model you would still get wounds assigned to enemy models in b2b with friendlies striking in the same I phase and this does not prevent PS.

2) You die in the order you resolve combat, you resolve from I10 - I1; if you agree to resolve the challenge after I1 then it is resolved after I1 and other models have already resolved.

I'm pretty sure if you "resolve after" then you are not "resolving before"

maxcarrion wrote:OK to save mass quoting, we seem to currently mulling 2 main points.

1) You cannot strike anyone else because you are considered in b2b contact with other challenger till end of phase

2) You cannot resolve challenges with overflow after combat without violating "Dead Before Striking"

So - 1) The rule says
"Are considered to be in b2b contact only with each other"
This is being incorrectly interpretted as
"Are considered to be in b2b contact with each other and only each other"
Where it actually means
"Can only be considered in b2b contact with each other"
As in
"No other model may be considered in b2b contact with them"

Even if you were considered in b2b with a slain model you would still get wounds assigned to enemy models in b2b with friendlies striking in the same I phase and this does not prevent PS.

2) You die in the order you resolve combat, you resolve from I10 - I1; if you agree to resolve the challenge after I1 then it is resolved after I1 and other models have already resolved.

I'm pretty sure if you "resolve after" then you are not "resolving before"

And aside from these,

3) Outside forces have no mention of taking wounds, only rerolls from them affect challenges, they are told to resolve wounds without the characters, and only morale effect from the challenge affect them (that is it for permissive effects)

4) Forging the narrative lets us know that within the challenge I10 to I1 still go in order, but if we want to run it aside we can

5) page 429 shows challenges as a combat aside

6) Would allocation out of the challenge means that game affects like majority T and WS affect the challenge too, not just character stats

@ maxcarrion

1) That is your interpretation. And since neither side can prove which interpretation is the correct one we are at an impasse. For all purposes of the rules, regardless of actual status of model, the victorious model is in BtB contact and is treated as such. Everyone agrees the model is removed as a casualty, but as per the rules the other model is still in BtB (with what? Who cares, if it helps, it’s the slain models ghost.) You are completely ignoring the word ‘considered’. This word gives us permission to not break any of the fight sub-phase rules while still applying a status on a model. i.e., remove a model as a casualty and still have the victorious model be in BtB with all drawbacks and benefits.

2) Where are you getting this die in order of resolution? Last time I checked you die on the Init step the wound is applied. There is only one Init step track Since we are not told that character wounds are not resolved at So, do both characters resolve simultaneously after Init step 1? Did you just claim we ignore their Init value to resolve combat for models in a challenge? Got a rule to back these points up?


My point is there is a pretty good chance that any solution you present will require us to “make up a rule” to resolve in a way that does not break other rules. It comes down to the fact that we are not told we can apply extra (overflow) wounds to the rest of the unit. Nor are we told how to do such a thing even if it where some how possible. This is not a loophole or conflict in rules; this is a complete absence of rules. Which leads me to believe there is no overflow.

What seals it for me is “For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other.” And “…the challenge is...on going until the end of the phase.” No amount of grammar-fu will change those simple words. My view does not require any rewording to prove a point. It just asks questions of the rules and reads them as written, no assembly required.

Who? “…only with each other.” What action are they only with each other? “…considered to be in base to base…” How long? “For the duration of the challenge…” There is no need for ‘if you move this word to here’ or ‘insert this meaning there’ grammar-chops. I see a simple sentence that gives us all the information we need without substituting words or moving them around. I asked simple questions that needed an answer and found them.

hisdudeness wrote:@ maxcarrion

1) That is your interpretation. And since neither side can prove which interpretation is the correct one we are at an impasse. For all purposes of the rules, regardless of actual status of model, the victorious model is in BtB contact and is treated as such. Everyone agrees the model is removed as a casualty, but as per the rules the other model is still in BtB (with what? Who cares, if it helps, it’s the slain models ghost.) You are completely ignoring the word ‘considered’. This word gives us permission to not break any of the fight sub-phase rules while still applying a status on a model. i.e., remove a model as a casualty and still have the victorious model be in BtB with all drawbacks and benefits.

2) So, do both characters resolve simultaneously after Init step 1? Did you just claim we ignore their Init value to resolve combat for models in a challenge? Got a rule to back that up?


My point is there is a pretty good chance that any solution you present will require us to “make up a rule” to resolve in a way that does not break other rules. It comes down to the fact that we are not told we can apply extra (overflow) wounds to the rest of the unit. Nor are we told how to do such a thing even if it where some hoe possible. This is not a loophole or conflict in rules; this is a complete absence of rules.

What seals it for me is “For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other.” And “…the challenge is...on going until the end of the phase.” No amount of grammar-fu will change those simple words. My view does not require any rewording to prove a point. It just asks questions of the rules and read them as written, no assembly required.

Who? “…only with each other.” What action are they only with each other? “…considered to be in base to base…” How long? “For the duration of the challenge…” There is no need for ‘if you move this word to here’ or ‘insert this meaning there’ grammar-chops. I see a simple sentence that gives us all the information we need without substituting words or moving them around. I asked simple questions that needed an answer and found them.

Most people mess up the 'only with each other' and 'with only each other', but it is unfortunately a very large difference to someone who takes the sentence entirely out of context. As has been pointed out, every other statement about Challenges treats the situation as if the author wrote ''with only each other' by noting it can occur outside regular combat, that extra unsaved wounds count towards combat resolution (they wouldn't need to if they caused models to be removed now would they?), that it lasts to the end of the turn, etc.

Wound overflow is a case of players latching onto a common wording mistake and trying to apply computer logic to a single sentence instead of using context.

snooggums wrote:
(shortened quote)
Wound overflow is a case of players latching onto a common wording mistake and trying to apply computer logic to a single sentence instead of using context.

I don't think it's about using 'computer logic', but just doing what the rules say. One good use for YMDC is trying to parse out exactly what RAW implies.

I also don't think the context paints as clear a picture as some suggest. If challenges were "completely separate", you'd think the book would say that somewhere. It really doesn't. All the pieces of text people on this thread use to illustrate the separation are really tailored.

To me, the context reads like the authors did everything they could to include wound overflow.

The author did not write it to include wound over flow. If they had you'd see something that said wound over flow.

There is no mention in the BRB about wound over flow in any way.

The author paints a picture of the two combatants in the middle of the squads striking blows against each other.

Remember the movie Troy? When Hector thought he was fighting Achilles? Everyone watching as they fought. Cheering on their champion!

That is a challenge. No wound over flow. The fight rages on as one squad fights the other squad and the character fight each other. This is why the wording of a slain character reads that they stay in base to base until the end of phase. (Phase and not Sub-Phase). They didn't want a Init 10 killing blow to mean that the character can use the rest of their attacks on the squad.

Now lets go back to the rules.

It clearly says that squad wounds can not go into the challenge. Now let me get this straight. I have Kharn and 1 Berzerker left. I charge into you and your Seargeant and 9 sternguard w/ power weapons. So Kharn destroyes your seargeant and has 3 wounds remaining. Your squad does 4 wounds to my lone guy. I end up losing 1 guy and you end up losing 1 character. This should be a drawn combat. Instead you want to give 3 wounds to the sternguard and have them lose another 3 models. So know I've won combat by 3. Do you think this was the intent of the rule? Because the only leg that is holding this argument together is some so called intent to have over flow wounds.

jcress410 wrote:

To me, the context reads like the authors did everything they could to include wound overflow.

That's just plain incorrect, sir. If they did everything they could they would have told us what exactly what happens to extra wounds after the target model is slain. Even if by some yet to be found combination rules we determine overflow was a go, there is no hint as to how we handle it. As said before, this is like vague hints that a unit can ‘run’ during shooting phase yet never telling us how a unit ‘runs’. There is actually more context that points to the idea of separate combat then there is for overflow.

If there was overflow, you'd think the book would say that somewhere.

There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules. That is my challenge to this thread.

hisdudeness wrote:There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules.

Well I know I have several times in this thread already, but lets try one more time. You use the normal rules for wound allocation.

The biggest problem I have with the Challenge rules is that there is no restriction on who the challenge combatants can wound. This lets you Precision Strike out of a Challenge. To overflow it works very simply:

1.) Your Hive Tyrant causes 3 wounds.
2.) The enemy Sergeant who Challenged you is the only enemy in base contact, so you allocate one wound.
3.) The Sergeant has no Invulnerable Save so he dies.
4.) You have two wounds in your wound pool. The next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant) gets allocated the next wound and dies.
5.) Continue until you are out of wounds.

In the event the "next nearest" enemy models are physically in base contact, the enemy gets to pick which one to allocate to as per the normal rules.


The only thing that causes a problem with Challenges allowing Overflow is if you are handling them outside the normal Initiative step. Regardless of what you want to think, the rule book does not require you handle Challenges at the end of the rest of combat. The rule book flat out states that the Challenger/Challengee attacks happen during their normal Initiative Step. Its just a convenience thing to handle it separately.

This is why the argument will never end from a RAW standpoint, unless GW issues an FAQ update.

For the curious: I intend on playing without overflow unless my opponent really wants it. Its not that complicated to deal with, but it is more complicated than ignoring it. I also don't think it will make a massive difference for most armies. The Challenge system is cool but has problems, particularly when dealing with MCs that tend to be rather expensive and can be taken out of the bulk of the game if you are clever with Challenges.

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules.

Well I know I have several times in this thread already, but lets try one more time. You use the normal rules for wound allocation.

The biggest problem I have with the Challenge rules is that there is no restriction on who the challenge combatants can wound. This lets you Precision Strike out of a Challenge. To overflow it works very simply:

1.) Your Hive Tyrant causes 3 wounds.
2.) The enemy Sergeant who Challenged you is the only enemy in base contact, so you allocate one wound.
3.) The Sergeant has no Invulnerable Save so he dies.
4.) You have two wounds in your wound pool. The next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant) gets allocated the next wound and dies.
5.) Continue until you are out of wounds.

In the event the "next nearest" enemy models are physically in base contact, the enemy gets to pick which one to allocate to as per the normal rules.


The only thing that causes a problem with Challenges allowing Overflow is if you are handling them outside the normal Initiative step. Regardless of what you want to think, the rule book does not require you handle Challenges at the end of the rest of combat. The rule book flat out states that the Challenger/Challengee attacks happen during their normal Initiative Step. Its just a convenience thing to handle it separately.

This is why the argument will never end from a RAW standpoint, unless GW issues an FAQ update.

For the curious: I intend on playing without overflow unless my opponent really wants it. Its not that complicated to deal with, but it is more complicated than ignoring it. I also don't think it will make a massive difference for most armies. The Challenge system is cool but has problems, particularly when dealing with MCs that tend to be rather expensive and can be taken out of the bulk of the game if you are clever with Challenges.

I agree, we use normal wound allocation rules. I say the normal allocation rules do limit who the challenge combatants can wound.

The rules tell us how to play. It is implied we can resolve during normal Init steps as that is when we normally resolve assaults. We are also told we can resolve challenges after the normal unit Init steps. Now you claim we can overflow, yet cannot tell us how to overflow in all situations allowed by the rules that do not break a rule.

As far as your example, it is based on interpretations of the rules in question. At step 4, I say that the HT is still in BtB with the Sargent and thus cannot allocate wounds to the unit. As per wound pool rules, when you run out of targets the pool is emptied. Also in your example you fail to address the issue of what happens to any models that the “next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant)” killed in its’ Init step? Your simplicity just flew out the window. The HT killed a model at a Init step before it could take an action. Yet we already resolved the models attacks and it killed something. Do we roll back unit results? Or do we just accept that the model resolved attacks it would not normally get?

That is correct, we are not required to resolve at the end but we are given permission to do so. Yet there is not provisions for how to handle overflow in all situations allowed but the rules. Like I said and you quoted, this is a case of a missing set of rules on how to handle overflow when challenges are resolved at the end. Which points to no such thing as wound overflow.

The difference between our two interpretations is I don’t have to resort to grammar-fu and making up rules on how to handle challenges outside the normal Init steps. I have applied published rules and valid interpretations to find a solution.

My guess is you have not played out a 20+ model assault where the characters have a higher Init than the units, or else you would not be saying it’s not that complicated. But I guess if you ignore the Init step of the characters in a challenge it all works out.

jcress410 wrote:

snooggums wrote:
(shortened quote)
Wound overflow is a case of players latching onto a common wording mistake and trying to apply computer logic to a single sentence instead of using context.

I don't think it's about using 'computer logic', but just doing what the rules say. One good use for YMDC is trying to parse out exactly what RAW implies.

I also don't think the context paints as clear a picture as some suggest. If challenges were "completely separate", you'd think the book would say that somewhere. It really doesn't. All the pieces of text people on this thread use to illustrate the separation are really tailored.

To me, the context reads like the authors did everything they could to include wound overflow.

I took your advice and got a review on Misplaced Modifiers. And I have to say, you are wrong about this on many fronts. Now I know I have said that this is a moot point but I will indulge you crazy people so maybe, just maybe, we can move on to important stuff and stop worrying so much about irrelevant arguments.

A misplaced modifier is exactly what it sounds like it is: a modifier that is in the wrong place. A modifier is also exactly how it sounds: a word or phrase that modifies something else. So a misplaced modifier is a word or phrase that modifies a phrase it is not intended to modify. Problem #1: you are assuming the modifier is modifying a phrase other than the one intended. How do we know which phrase the word "only" is intended to modify? We can creatively interpret the sentence to mean what we want it to mean, but the bottom line is you cannot say without any doubt that the modifier "only" is misplaced.

Here is a proper misplaced modifier example:
I ate only vegetables. (I ate nothing but vegetables. No meat, no bread, no fruit, no dirt, no cheese, nothing but vegetables were consumed by me.)
I only ate vegetables. (I did nothing with the vegetables but eat them. I did not plant them, harvest them, wash them, prepare them, or crown them King of Scotland, I only ate them.)

Which of of those two sentences are correct? Can anyone actually determine based on the sentence alone tell me which of these are correct? Either one could be correct, but only one is correct and it depends on the context of the rest of the paragraph, what actually happened, and the intent of the writer. Another example is:

I failed almost all of my art classes in college. (I took 5 art classes and failed 4 of them)
I almost failed all of my art classes in college. (I took 5 art classes and got Ds in all 5 of them)

Again, which is correct? Without knowing the writer, knowing what classes he took and how he did in them, or context from the rest of the writing example we cannot possibly know. Again, you can creatively interpret which one of these is correct, but without evidence it is simply a false statement of fact. But, you cannot have a misplaced modifier argument if the other places you place the modifier doesn't change the meaning of the phrase being modified, or the sentence.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other." The two models are in base contact with each other and no one else. Not their squad, not the enemy squad, not Santa Claus, not the Tooth Fairy, only each other. We know that because it says it. "Only" modifies what is directly after it, and what is directly after it is "with each other". We know the two models are considered to be in base contact with someone, but who are the two models in base contact with? Each other, and only each other. When you say the phrase "with each other" without the "only" means they can also be in base contact with others you are forgetting that in a misplaced modifier argument you have to put the only back into the sentence and cannot just take the context of the phrase by itself.

Now lets assume we have a misplaced modifier. Where does the only go then?

"...these two models are considered to be in base contact with only each other." (Same sentence, same meaning. "Only" modifies each other. It is a little more clear without the with, but still the same concept, same meaning)
"...these two models are only considered to be in base contact with each other." (Even more clear, but in this sentence the phrase that is modified by "only" is expanded to "considered to be in base contact with each other)
"...these two models are considered only to be in base contact with each other." (Same as above, but without the "considered". Same meaning as the line directly above as the absence of "considered" does not alter the meaning of the phrase)
"...these two models are considered to be only in base contact with each other." (Same as above, removing "to be" doesn't alter the phrase at all.)
"...these two models are considered to be in base contact with each only other." (This just doesn't make any sense at all, so clearly this is not true.)
"...only these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other." (For the duration of the challenge what happens to the models? They are in base contact with each other and only each other. This is the most clear meaning of the two being in base contact with each other and no one else, but still draws the same conclusion.

So there you have it. I want you to prove to me that there is a misplaced modifier. And I need you to prove with evidence that the phrase modified by "only" is not the phrase they had intended to modify. Then, I want you to prove with evidence that the phrase you choose to modify is the one that GW had intended to modify. Then, I need you to prove that where you place "only" changes the meaning of the sentence. Any response without all three will be ignored and mocked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules.

Well I know I have several times in this thread already, but lets try one more time. You use the normal rules for wound allocation.

The biggest problem I have with the Challenge rules is that there is no restriction on who the challenge combatants can wound. This lets you Precision Strike out of a Challenge. To overflow it works very simply:

1.) Your Hive Tyrant causes 3 wounds.
2.) The enemy Sergeant who Challenged you is the only enemy in base contact, so you allocate one wound.
3.) The Sergeant has no Invulnerable Save so he dies.
4.) You have two wounds in your wound pool. The next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant) gets allocated the next wound and dies.
5.) Continue until you are out of wounds.

In the event the "next nearest" enemy models are physically in base contact, the enemy gets to pick which one to allocate to as per the normal rules.

Except you have failed repeatedly to justify how wounds are allocated to models if the rules say that the Wound Allocation step is done as if the combatants were not there. It doesn't say Wound Allocation for the Outside Forces, nor does it say Wound Allocation where Outside Forces are involved, but it simply states that all Wound Allocations are done as if the combatants are not there. How does a wound flow from a challenge to a model that is not there? You can even put one combatant in Never Never Land and the other in Timbuktu, since they are considered to be in base contact with each other the duration of the challenge they can still wound each other even if physically they are miles apart on the table. Wound Allocation step is completed at every initiative step, including the combatant's initiative step.

The only thing that causes a problem with Challenges allowing Overflow is if you are handling them outside the normal Initiative step. Regardless of what you want to think, the rule book does not require you handle Challenges at the end of the rest of combat. The rule book flat out states that the Challenger/Challengee attacks happen during their normal Initiative Step. Its just a convenience thing to handle it separately.

This is why the argument will never end from a RAW standpoint, unless GW issues an FAQ update.

Page 429 is pretty clear. After all other models have fought it is time to resolve the challenge. Initiative step is important for the challenge. Allowing wounds to overflow requires that we ignore page 429. How can you claim that a set of rules would require ignoring a part of that set of rules? How can you look me in the eye and tell me that your interpretation is correct when it involves ignoring rules?

For the curious: I intend on playing without overflow unless my opponent really wants it. Its not that complicated to deal with, but it is more complicated than ignoring it. I also don't think it will make a massive difference for most armies. The Challenge system is cool but has problems, particularly when dealing with MCs that tend to be rather expensive and can be taken out of the bulk of the game if you are clever with Challenges.

Then don't blindly send your MC into CC but use some, OMG such a foreign concept, strategy. The purpose of the changes to the rules is to avoid everyone going to the middle and assaulting the other to the death. With Overwatch, snap shots, and being able to fire on the move, even with heavy weapons, shooting armies are a lot more viable now. Use strategy and make sure your MC is not tied up in a challenge all battle. If the enemy is able to trick/lure you into the tarpit then they deserve to be able to do that since they used strategy and won. You cannot say a rule does not apply or is not a rule simply because your model can't blindly run into whatever is closest and hack away expecting to win automatically.

Captain Antivas wrote:Any response without all three will be ignored and mocked.

Let the mocking begin, I will go first!

You don't frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur King," you and all your silly English K-nig-hts. You don't frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry.

hisdudeness wrote:At step 4, I say that the HT is still in BtB with the Sargent and thus cannot allocate wounds to the unit.

Congratulations. Welcome to like 14 pages ago. This is a main point of contention with the rules. If a model is dead, its removed from play. If it is not in play, it is not in base contact. As has been pointed out numerous times but just gets outright ignored by yourself, Captain Antivas, and several others who like to just ignore arguments out of hand rather than try to see where others are coming from and why they think that, the RAW doesn't stipulate a clear exception for a dead model remaining in base contact with a live one.

"Can only be in base contact with" and "always in base contact with" are two different things. The difference is subtle, but that's language for you.

Captain Antivas wrote:Except you have failed repeatedly to justify how wounds are allocated to models if the rules say that the Wound Allocation step is done as if the combatants were not there. It doesn't say Wound Allocation for the Outside Forces, nor does it say Wound Allocation where Outside Forces are involved, but it simply states that all Wound Allocations are done as if the combatants are not there.

Oh my the hypocrisy... You yourself have argued repeatedly that context is king. The context of that entire section is with regards to models outside the challenge and their ability to affect those inside the challenge. The rules written down in that section do not clearly stipulate that they apply both ways. The way they are written specifically makes it one way. I'm not saying that is intentional, I'm not saying that is truly how we are supposed to do things. But that is exactly what is written down in the rule book.

Captain Antivas wrote:Page 429 is pretty clear. After all other models have fought it is time to resolve the challenge. Initiative step is important for the challenge. Allowing wounds to overflow requires that we ignore page 429. How can you claim that a set of rules would require ignoring a part of that set of rules? How can you look me in the eye and tell me that your interpretation is correct when it involves ignoring rules?

And Page 65 has a contradiction to page 429 as well. It tells you that combatants strike during normal Initiative but some players like to handle stuff after the rest of the combat is dealt with. At best, the outline on page 429 can be used to argue RAI but it can't be used to argue RAW since there is a direct contradiction in the rule book.

Captain Antivas wrote:Then don't blindly send your MC into CC but use some, OMG such a foreign concept, strategy. The purpose of the changes to the rules is to avoid everyone going to the middle and assaulting the other to the death. With Overwatch, snap shots, and being able to fire on the move, even with heavy weapons, shooting armies are a lot more viable now. Use strategy and make sure your MC is not tied up in a challenge all battle. If the enemy is able to trick/lure you into the tarpit then they deserve to be able to do that since they used strategy and won. You cannot say a rule does not apply or is not a rule simply because your model can't blindly run into whatever is closest and hack away expecting to win automatically.

And now you are making assumptions about someone you do not know. I realize you are a little frustrated because you don't fully understand one's side of an argument and you aren't explaining your side as others have, but try to be civil. Personally, I'm not one to just throw things away (for example: I'd never willingly charge an IG Blob with a Hive Tyrant unless it would win me the game to do so).

My point was not made very well with that example. What I meant was there are circumstances without overflow that lead to a slow down of the game. Given the rest of the changes actually speed up the game (from my bit of experience so far) it seemed counter intuitive.

Also, without overflow you still see some weird things with challenges thanks to RAW including:
1. The WS and Toughness of the majority is still used
2. Things that affect the whole unit (Wolf Standards, Preferred Enemy) still affect the combatants

A simple clause of "the challenge is treated as a separate combat for all purposes except combat resolution" or similar would be enough to hammer the nail in the overflow coffin. The RAW are ambiguous and as this 27/28 page saga has detailed, ultimately unresolvable without input from GW.

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:At step 4, I say that the HT is still in BtB with the Sargent and thus cannot allocate wounds to the unit.

Congratulations. Welcome to like 14 pages ago. This is a main point of contention with the rules. If a model is dead, its removed from play. If it is not in play, it is not in base contact. As has been pointed out numerous times but just gets outright ignored by yourself, Captain Antivas, and several others who like to just ignore arguments out of hand rather than try to see where others are coming from and why they think that, the RAW doesn't stipulate a clear exception for a dead model remaining in base contact with a live one.

"Can only be in base contact with" and "always in base contact with" are two different things. The difference is subtle, but that's language for you.

Refer to the first part of my post for why you are wrong about this. I like how that whole first part was ignored though, which is what we are apparently supposed to do. And actually it does give a clear exception. If the model is dead it is still "considered to be", which says we count it as they are still in base contact even if they are not. It is you who ignores our response then claims we ignore you. Its a bitter battle between people who pay attention, and those who just want to win the argument.

Captain Antivas wrote:Except you have failed repeatedly to justify how wounds are allocated to models if the rules say that the Wound Allocation step is done as if the combatants were not there. It doesn't say Wound Allocation for the Outside Forces, nor does it say Wound Allocation where Outside Forces are involved, but it simply states that all Wound Allocations are done as if the combatants are not there.

Oh my the hypocrisy... You yourself have argued repeatedly that context is king. The context of that entire section is with regards to models outside the challenge and their ability to affect those inside the challenge. The rules written down in that section do not clearly stipulate that they apply both ways. The way they are written specifically makes it one way. I'm not saying that is intentional, I'm not saying that is truly how we are supposed to do things. But that is exactly what is written down in the rule book.

I never said it applies both ways. This only applies to Outside Forces. What you fail to consider is that it is Wound Allocation from and to the Outside Forces. There is nothing that says that the sentence in question only applies to wounds caused by Outside Forces, just when you allocate wounds do it as if the Characters are not there. Even if this applies to only Outside Forces it must apply to wounds both to and from them.

Captain Antivas wrote:Page 429 is pretty clear. After all other models have fought it is time to resolve the challenge. Initiative step is important for the challenge. Allowing wounds to overflow requires that we ignore page 429. How can you claim that a set of rules would require ignoring a part of that set of rules? How can you look me in the eye and tell me that your interpretation is correct when it involves ignoring rules?

And Page 65 has a contradiction to page 429 as well. It tells you that combatants strike during normal Initiative but some players like to handle stuff after the rest of the combat is dealt with. At best, the outline on page 429 can be used to argue RAI but it can't be used to argue RAW since there is a direct contradiction in the rule book.

The Forging a Narrative box is not rules. Unless there is something else I am missing that is the only thing that says it is optional, but since FaN is not rules it is not a contradiction. Try again.

Captain Antivas wrote:Then don't blindly send your MC into CC but use some, OMG such a foreign concept, strategy. The purpose of the changes to the rules is to avoid everyone going to the middle and assaulting the other to the death. With Overwatch, snap shots, and being able to fire on the move, even with heavy weapons, shooting armies are a lot more viable now. Use strategy and make sure your MC is not tied up in a challenge all battle. If the enemy is able to trick/lure you into the tarpit then they deserve to be able to do that since they used strategy and won. You cannot say a rule does not apply or is not a rule simply because your model can't blindly run into whatever is closest and hack away expecting to win automatically.

And now you are making assumptions about someone you do not know. I realize you are a little frustrated because you don't fully understand one's side of an argument and you aren't explaining your side as others have, but try to be civil. Personally, I'm not one to just throw things away (for example: I'd never willingly charge an IG Blob with a Hive Tyrant unless it would win me the game to do so).

My point was not made very well with that example. What I meant was there are circumstances without overflow that lead to a slow down of the game. Given the rest of the changes actually speed up the game (from my bit of experience so far) it seemed counter intuitive.

Also, without overflow you still see some weird things with challenges thanks to RAW including:
1. The WS and Toughness of the majority is still used
2. Things that affect the whole unit (Wolf Standards, Preferred Enemy) still affect the combatants

A simple clause of "the challenge is treated as a separate combat for all purposes except combat resolution" or similar would be enough to hammer the nail in the overflow coffin. The RAW are ambiguous and as this 27/28 page saga has detailed, ultimately unresolvable without input from GW.

I see no insult towards you. I see no insult at all. You say this causes a problem, I say what you define as a problem is an evolution. I also want you to show me where it says that the WS and Toughness of the squad is used in a Challenge. Page number? The things that affect the whole squad affect them for different reasons. If I am resolving an attack against just one model I am using that model's stats, not the squads. Please show me with rules where it says otherwise.

Not to mention no overflow does not slow the game down, it speeds it up. Rather than trying to figure out which models are closest and how to blah blah blah once the challenge is done you resolve the challenge, count the unsaved wounds, add them together, and move on. Quick, easy, and actually less complicated.

And for the record I am not frustrated that my opinion differs from other people on the same side as me, I understand your points and simply disagree with them. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand them. The implication that I must be confused if I don't see things your way is insulting so I would council you to do the same. I am, however, sick of hearing people whining about how their uber unit is not so uber anymore, and these rules suck because I can't face roll to victory and have to actually think before I do stuff. This, however, also applies to more than just this discussion. I remain as civil as I always am, I just have no patience for whiners. I also have no patience for people who refuse to address a particular part of an argument simply because they cannot find anything to refute it.