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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pizzaguardian wrote:

Tangent wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then I make a challenge, you accept.

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Greg_Hager wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg_Hager wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@No one in particular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangent wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:@No one in particular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Lobukia,

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

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

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

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

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

pizzaguardian wrote:

Tangent wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:@No one in particular

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

Yeah.

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

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

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

Lobukia wrote:

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

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

This speaks to when to resolve, not how.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jcress410 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

It is that simple.

Also the rules work fine in this case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tangent wrote:

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

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

And "Knowledge is power, guard it well".

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

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

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

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

This of course is my interpretation of the rules.

@Lobukia


+1 internets

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