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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precision strike is the only way round this.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Precision strike is the only way round this.

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

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

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

Tangent wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skriker

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

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

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

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

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

jcress410 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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