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.

Lets try a different tactic instead of beating the same horse over and over again. Wound allocation must be done randomly to the next closest models. So which models are the next closest, and how many are the next closest for random allocation?

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Lets try a different tactic instead of beating the same horse over and over again. Wound allocation must be done randomly to the next closest models. So which models are the next closest, and how many are the next closest for random allocation?

Models that are next closest are the ones next closest for random allocation. If there is a tie, roll a dice to randomly decide which one is the next closest and the next next closest models.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Lets try a different tactic instead of beating the same horse over and over again. Wound allocation must be done randomly to the next closest models. So which models are the next closest, and how many are the next closest for random allocation?

You can only do that once models arent in base contact with that model, and we know theyre in base contact until the end of the phase

I have to re-read the challenge section of the BRB again. I must be going insane b/c I thought for some reason you take the challenger and challenge and seperate them form the ongoing combat itself (like WHFB)

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I have to re-read the challenge section of the BRB again. I must be going insane b/c I thought for some reason you take the challenger and challenge and seperate them form the ongoing combat itself (like WHFB)

Effectively, as in using the end result as a comparison, yes you do.

The issues in this thread I think circle around getting to that point (And I have read every single post, first thought 'yes overflow', then 'definitely no').
It's very clear that they are locked in a separate single battle for their own phase, and extra wounds are essentially moral affecting curb stomps by the victor.

At least that's how it would be in the movies, which I think is what 6th Edition is going for (Exploding barrels, bring it!).

EDIT: For my .2c, this was decided many a post ago (Overspill no), its just semantics now for that critical 'moral victory'.

The problem with not having overflow is that it breaks the game.

If a model inflicts three wounds and the first one kills the other party to the challenge, we have two wounds left to allocate.

You can't allocate more wounds to a model that has already been removed as a casualty. (p 25)

So, if we said the models are "considered to be" in base, despite on of them already being back in the case it came in, then we are left with two wounds and nowhere to put them.

The game mechanics break.

jcress410 wrote:The problem with not having overflow is that it breaks the game.

If a model inflicts three wounds and the first one kills the other party to the challenge, we have two wounds left to allocate.

You can't allocate more wounds to a model that has already been removed as a casualty. (p 25)

So, if we said the models are "considered to be" in base, despite on of them already being back in the case it came in, then we are left with two wounds and nowhere to put them.

The game mechanics break.

Maybe something important to remember is that your wounds still count towards combat resolution at the end.

This is crucial, as it can trigger a sweeping advance and wholesale destruction, even if you're not killing actual models.

Having excess unsaved, un allocated wounds does not break the game. I shoot 40 shots at your Chaos Lord, he takes 35 hits and 15 wounds. he fails 5 saves. He dies, taking more wounds than his profile has. Does the game break? No. The excess is not allocated to another unit on the board, it is simply lost.

This is why I believe that they rollover, even though that I am kinda in agreement that they weren't meant to.

Allocating Wounds (pg 25)
"Wounds are allocated and resolved starting with the closes model, just like in the Shooting phase."

Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties (pg 15)
"...allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit...if the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."

Returning to Assaulting...
"A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base to base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step."
"Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty. Note that is is possible for all of the models in the target unit to be hit, wounded and killed, including those that are not engaged."

Which says what I agree with...because it says you _must_ remove it as a casualty and continue allocating wounds. Nothing in the challenge rules over turn this unless you stretch the base to base rule. It would have to mean that you have to continue allocating wounds to a enemy model that is
already at zero...only one problem to that...you can't do that. Once it hits zero it must be removed as a casualty and you move on to the next closest unit. It's also stated that:

Determine Assault Results (pg 26)
"Note that Wounds that have been negated by saving throws or special rules do not count towards determining who won the combat. Neither do Wounds in excess of a model's Wounds characteristic; only the Wounds actually suffered by enemy models count..."

Here is an idea to maybe help fix this. It is NOWHERE IN THE RULES AND HAS NO LEGAL STATING (why are we uesing the termm LEGAL in a game??) but here we go.

What I have noticed is people are getting hung up on the "BUT HE IS DEAD, remove him a s a casualty" part of this little thing. What I recomend is make a model of a dead character, (Vet Sarg, Sybarite, Nob etc) and when your Character dies in a challenge replace the model with the "dead" one until the END OF THE PHASE. This will help you remember that your character is infact DEAD (may he/she/it rest in pieces) and that the VICTOR is STILL IN BASE TO BASE with THAT MODEL.

Again there is no RULE for this but it could still help out.
[Edit, After thought]
Also something to point out. There is NO OVER KILL rule. If you SPLATTER a Vet Sgt who only has 1 wound but you inflict 4 to him, you will only affect the combat res by 1 NOT 4! I think this is why people are having a hard time swallowing this. Instead of their UBER CHARACTER wiping a squad that character can now be slowed down By a 1 wound character eating ALL of his attacks. Again in order to get AROUND this make sure your character has ANOTHER lower level character to accept challenges with.

Calgar in a Tactical squad charges Blob Guard. Guard play issues a challenge, THE VET SGT Accepts leaving Calgar free to ROFLSTOMP Guards men.

Dooley wrote:Here is an idea to maybe help fix this. It is NOWHERE IN THE RULES AND HAS NO LEGAL STATING (why are we uesing the termm LEGAL in a game??) but here we go.

What I have noticed is people are getting hung up on the "BUT HE IS DEAD, remove him a s a casualty" part of this little thing. What I recomend is make a model of a dead character, (Vet Sarg, Sybarite, Nob etc) and when your Character dies in a challenge replace the model with the "dead" one until the END OF THE PHASE. This will help you remember that your character is infact DEAD (may he/she/it rest in pieces) and that the VICTOR is STILL IN BASE TO BASE with THAT MODEL.

Again there is no RULE for this but it could still help out.

I was thinking about this while reading through here, but might it be easier to just lie the model down?
My friends and I do this when playing with Necrons to work out who is yet to take their roll.

Greg_Hager wrote:"A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base to base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step."
"Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty. Note that is is possible for all of the models in the target unit to be hit, wounded and killed, including those that are not engaged."

This
We are specifically told that he must have wounds allocated until he is removed as a casulty or the pool is empty. You dont remove him as a casulty until after the assault is over, which means the wounds pool empties, wether he can handle the excess or not. You cannot be removed as a casulty and still be in b2b contact. If he can, well then my Necron list just got lots better b/c all of my "dead" models have alot of b2b contact abilities.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:"A wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base to base contact with a model attacking at that Initiative step."
"Once a model has a Wound allocated to it, you must continue allocate Wounds to it until it is either removed as a casualty or the Wound pool is empty. Note that is is possible for all of the models in the target unit to be hit, wounded and killed, including those that are not engaged."

This
We are specifically told that he must have wounds allocated until he is removed as a casulty or the pool is empty. You dont remove him as a casulty until after the assault is over, which means the wounds pool empties, wether he can handle the excess or not. You cannot be removed as a casulty and still be in b2b contact. If he can, well then my Necron list just got lots better b/c all of my "dead" models have alot of b2b contact abilities.

But you totally didn't quote what I said right above this.
Allocate Unsaved Wounds & Remove Casualties (pg 15)
"...allocate an unsaved Wound to the enemy model closest to the firing unit...if the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty."
Therefore as soon as the enemy model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed. It does not say that it cannot be removed, only that the survivor can't be base to base with anyone outside the challenge until the end of the phase.

All of this is really mute, because as I quoted earlier, twice in the challenge section it makes a reference to fighting the actual combat as if the challengers weren't there. Once, in the wound allocation (Resolve the wound allocation step as if they aren't there), and once in the "forging a narrative" sidebox.

Honestly, if there was even the slightest inclination that GW wanted wound overflow, they would have made SOME reference to it, as they did in fantasy. 8th edition fantasy very clearly spells out wound overflow, and how to handle it. If they wanted it in, they could have copied that whole section verbatim and added it in. They didn't, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.

Nowhere in the challenge section does it give you permission to overflow extra wounds. Twice it makes a reference to the challenge being seperate from the combat until AFTER wounds are allocated and resolved.

I didn't quotte what you said above because we are in cc, not shooting. With the shooting example I was simply pointing out that a model can, in fact, take more wounds than it has if it is the only target.

Sigmundr wrote:All of this is really mute, because as I quoted earlier, twice in the challenge section it makes a reference to fighting the actual combat as if the challengers weren't there. Once, in the wound allocation (Resolve the wound allocation step as if they aren't there), and once in the "forging a narrative" sidebox.

Honestly, if there was even the slightest inclination that GW wanted wound overflow, they would have made SOME reference to it, as they did in fantasy. 8th edition fantasy very clearly spells out wound overflow, and how to handle it. If they wanted it in, they could have copied that whole section verbatim and added it in. They didn't, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.

Nowhere in the challenge section does it give you permission to overflow extra wounds. Twice it makes a reference to the challenge being seperate from the combat until AFTER wounds are allocated and resolved.

All this reinforces is that during wound allocation for the rest of the unit, they cannot allocate wounds onto the challenge that is in place. That's all.

Never played Fantasy and have no idea what the rules say, but it's not pertaining to this game...sorry I can't comment on that.

Nowhere in the challenge section does it give you permission to bypass normal wound allocation either. Twice there is a reference to removing a model from play as soon as it is at 0 Wounds and then reallocating to the next model unless otherwise stated...which is the only reason you can't allocate the wounds from the rest of the unit onto the challenge.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:I didn't quotte what you said above because we are in cc, not shooting. With the shooting example I was simply pointing out that a model can, in fact, take more wounds than it has if it is the only target.

You're wrong. It cannot take more Wounds then it has. If you deplete the Wounds to 0, then it is removed and the other Wounds are lost and don't count to points. Now if it is removed due to the Wounds being 0, and there is another model within range, the remaining wounds are allocated to the other model in the unit. True? And I quoted the shooting part because it is stated in the Assault Phase that wounds are allocated the same as in the Shooting Phase.

jcress410 wrote:The problem with not having overflow is that it breaks the game.

If a model inflicts three wounds and the first one kills the other party to the challenge, we have two wounds left to allocate.

You can't allocate more wounds to a model that has already been removed as a casualty. (p 25)

So, if we said the models are "considered to be" in base, despite on of them already being back in the case it came in, then we are left with two wounds and nowhere to put them.

The game mechanics break.

Tactic breaking maybe... game breaking is a bit harsh. Unallocatable (hah, new word!) wounds are lost. This is pretty explicitly stated in other wound allocation sections in the BRB.

Most people going for overflowing wounds are claiming that it breaks the game because the one super-melee character can no longer wipe an entire unit in one round due to the challenge mechanic. Has it occurred to anyone that this might actually be what GW was trying to do? The lone sergeant can "take-one-for-the-team" if you will.

Wound overflowing explicitly doesn't work going the other way (excess wounds from the little peons don't get placed on the challengers) so why should it work from a challenge?

Sigmundr wrote:All of this is really mute, because as I quoted earlier, twice in the challenge section it makes a reference to fighting the actual combat as if the challengers weren't there. Once, in the wound allocation (Resolve the wound allocation step as if they aren't there), and once in the "forging a narrative" sidebox.

Honestly, if there was even the slightest inclination that GW wanted wound overflow, they would have made SOME reference to it, as they did in fantasy. 8th edition fantasy very clearly spells out wound overflow, and how to handle it. If they wanted it in, they could have copied that whole section verbatim and added it in. They didn't, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.

I don't care what GW wanted or intended, what matters is what the text actually says.

The "forging a narrative" box talks about when to resolve, not how wounds are allocated.
The fight as if the challengers weren't there applies to the rest of the models in the unit, not the models in the challenge.

Nowhere in the challenge section does it give you permission to overflow extra wounds. Twice it makes a reference to the challenge being seperate from the combat until AFTER wounds are allocated and resolved.

Yeah, this thread illustrates how maddeningly sparse the challenge section is on wound allocation. Without any specific rules allowing or disallowing overflow, we're left trying to figure out how to apply the generic wound allocation rules to a challenge. Hence the debate about whether a model can be in base with a casualty.

jcress410 wrote:

Sigmundr wrote:All of this is really mute, because as I quoted earlier, twice in the challenge section it makes a reference to fighting the actual combat as if the challengers weren't there. Once, in the wound allocation (Resolve the wound allocation step as if they aren't there), and once in the "forging a narrative" sidebox.

Honestly, if there was even the slightest inclination that GW wanted wound overflow, they would have made SOME reference to it, as they did in fantasy. 8th edition fantasy very clearly spells out wound overflow, and how to handle it. If they wanted it in, they could have copied that whole section verbatim and added it in. They didn't, so I'm not sure where the confusion is.

I don't care what GW wanted or intended, what matters is what the text actually says.

It does matter when you claim that it breaks the game. It matters a lot...

Although we love RAW for obvious technical and consistency reasons, when the RAW arguments get you moving in circles, it might be time to think about RAI. If RAW is unclear then they will likely be FAQ'd to the RAI anyway. The last 7 pages have essentially been "You're wrong..." "No, you're wrong..." without getting anywhere.

What suggests wounds overflow, I have read challenge rules several times and there is nothing that suggests wounds overflow to normals, it suggests quite the opposite, the models are considered to be in B2B with only each other, that to me suggests that they would be incapable of wounding other models regardless of the reality of their position.

tgf wrote:What suggests wounds overflow, I have read challenge rules several times and there is nothing that suggests wounds overflow to normals, it suggests quite the opposite, the models are considered to be in B2B with only each other, that to me suggests that they would be incapable of wounding other models regardless of the reality of their position.

Here's the summary:

Wounds overflow because... there is nothing that says they don't so wound allocation follows normal assault allocation rules.


Wounds don't overflow because... there is nothing that says they do and the rulebook seems to treat the challenge as separate for almost all purposes.

Resolve wound allocation [for the units] as if the characters were not there. Page 64

Resolve challenges after all other combats. Page 429

If you want overflow, deal with those rules, because if the entire b2b thing is ignored, both of these still stop overflow.

The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

To all these people saying "how can you magically be in base contact with a dead model?" You can because the rules are written in such a way that you are. Deal with it. Really, I don't see how it is so hard to imagine. Your model can be considered to be in base contact with another model that it is not physically in base contact with during a challenge. Your model can be considered not in base contact with models it is physically in base contact with during a challenge. But considered in base contact with a model that has zero wounds? Somehow that is too hard to accept, when the rules are right there on the page?

Find a post by Lobukia in this thread and filter posts to show just his. He put this argument to bed pages ago. It's just sad to see people still covering their ears and shouting that it's not possible to be in base contact with a casualty.

(Oh look here he is now, how convenient)

Lobukia wrote:Resolve wound allocation [for the units] as if the characters were not there. Page 64

Resolve challenges after all other combats. Page 429

If you want overflow, deal with those rules, because if the entire b2b thing is ignored, both of these still stop overflow.

You aren't going to win a RAW argument because its not explicitly stated that it doesn't overflow; meanwhile, it does explicitly state that wounds from the main group of combatants do not overflow into the challengers. That's where your p64 reference comes from. You can still allocate wounds after all other models have gone (although this does admittedly change the way combat resolution works regarding who gets to attack). That takes care of p429. And the b2b argument is pretty asinine.

I'm firmly in the "Wounds do not overflow" camp. I'll admit that it's not going to be resolved in RAW though.

Only because it's not explicitly spelled out either way. I believe that wounds not overflowing is RAI, and until such a time as it's faq'd one way or another, it's probably gonna come down to a dice roll for that game which way we play it.

Oh well.

Eldarguy88 wrote:The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

I think part of the crux of the problem is that wound allocation like normal is supposed to be applied because the models still part of a unit and as a result because it is not a single model unit and still in coherency normal would allocation including overflow should apply.
However it is expressly stated that the challengers are the only models in base to base contact. Further they are in base to base contact until the end of the combat phase regardless of casualty.

Now, wound allocation requires you to remove any models whose wounds reach 0. If there are still models in the unit and wounds in the wound pool the next closest model starts to receive wounds. However because of the express statement that the challengers remain in base to base contact the closest model is the challenge opponent. Hence one has to ask, does one assign wounds to a model that has 0 wounds?

Specifically which rule takes precedence here?
1: removing models with 0 wounds as a casualty
or
2: challengers are in base to base contact for the entirety of the combat sub phase.

If its 1, you would do overflow. If its 2 you would be applying wounds to a model with 0 wounds, but no overflow.

SylvanaSekNadin wrote:

Eldarguy88 wrote:The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

I think part of the crux of the problem is that wound allocation like normal is supposed to be applied because the models still part of a unit and as a result because it is not a single model unit and still in coherency normal would allocation including overflow should apply.
However it is expressly stated that the challengers are the only models in base to base contact. Further they are in base to base contact until the end of the combat phase regardless of casualty.

Now, wound allocation requires you to remove any models whose wounds reach 0. If there are still models in the unit and wounds in the wound pool the next closest model starts to receive wounds. However because of the express statement that the challengers remain in base to base contact the closest model is the challenge opponent. Hence one has to ask, does one assign wounds to a model that has 0 wounds?

Specifically which rule takes precedence here?
1: removing models with 0 wounds as a casualty
or
2: challengers are in base to base contact for the entirety of the combat sub phase.

If its 1, you would do overflow. If its 2 you would be applying wounds to a model with 0 wounds, but no overflow.

Honestly, I don't understand why people insist that you are applying wounds to a model with 0 wounds left? Wounds unable to be allocated from a wound pool can be lost/discarded. There is precedent for that in other sections of the BRB. What there isn't precedent for is leaving a model in b2b even when it's dead. I believe wounds don't overflow because I believe that was the intent of the designers and because of wording that suggests to treat the challenge as an almost-entirely separate combat.

jms40k wrote:

SylvanaSekNadin wrote:

Eldarguy88 wrote:The challenge winner is still considered to be in base contact with the removed model because the challenge rules say he is.

I think part of the crux of the problem is that wound allocation like normal is supposed to be applied because the models still part of a unit and as a result because it is not a single model unit and still in coherency normal would allocation including overflow should apply.
However it is expressly stated that the challengers are the only models in base to base contact. Further they are in base to base contact until the end of the combat phase regardless of casualty.

Now, wound allocation requires you to remove any models whose wounds reach 0. If there are still models in the unit and wounds in the wound pool the next closest model starts to receive wounds. However because of the express statement that the challengers remain in base to base contact the closest model is the challenge opponent. Hence one has to ask, does one assign wounds to a model that has 0 wounds?

Specifically which rule takes precedence here?
1: removing models with 0 wounds as a casualty
or
2: challengers are in base to base contact for the entirety of the combat sub phase.

If its 1, you would do overflow. If its 2 you would be applying wounds to a model with 0 wounds, but no overflow.

Honestly, I don't understand why people insist that you are applying wounds to a model with 0 wounds left? Wounds unable to be allocated from a wound pool can be lost/discarded. There is precedent for that in other sections of the BRB. What there isn't precedent for is leaving a model in b2b even when it's dead. I believe wounds don't overflow because I believe that was the intent of the designers and because of wording that suggests to treat the challenge as an almost-entirely separate combat.

What you believe doesn't matter . What is written in the actual rulebook does matter . This forums is not how you would play it , its how it is written .
Your applying wounds to a modle with zero wounds left because there is no other choice . None , Zero . They can't go anywhere else cause it tells you they have to be allocated to b2b first , and even if the guy is slain he's still base to base.

jcress410 wrote:The "forging a narrative" box talks about when to resolve, not how wounds are allocated.

Which is still relevant. If a Captain and 5 Marines are in a fight with a Nob and 5 Orks and the Captain and Nob are in a challenge the battle goes like this:
Initiative 4: Marines attack and kill 2 Orks. Orks attack back and kill 3 Marines. Captain goes (since he has initiative in the challenge) and kills the Nob with 2 wounds to spare. Now in your interpretation of the rules those wounds then carry to the Orks. But which Orks do they carry to? Since the Captain has initiative 4, and the rules say that he is actually attacking at his initiative just separately, then those two wounds should have been allocated to the Orks BEFORE they attacked. So, the 3 Marines who died may not have died. Which Marine gets brought back to life? There is no way to tell. So the Ork player gets 3 wounds he may not have normally been able to get? Justify that. The bottom line is that overflow makes no sense since if the Captain is I4 and is able to overflow his wounds you cannot fight with him at the end of the combat because his wounds could change the course of the other initiative steps! And since the rules say you fight with him separately his wounds cannot overflow. Get it through your thick skull, take a moment to step back and see the forest for the trees. You are almost as bad as the blind men who tried to identify the elephant one piece at a time. You are going to the tail and saying it is a vine, then going to the leg and saying it is a tree, then going to the ear and saying it is a leaf, then going to the trunk and saying it is a snake, then walking away without putting the different pieces together.

The fight as if the challengers weren't there applies to the rest of the models in the unit, not the models in the challenge.

Just because it is in a section about the rest of the models does not mean it only applies to the rest of the models. By your logic the rule that only the characters involved in combat can hurt each other does not apply because it is in the same section that is specifically about the rest of the unit. Just because it is in a section that is titled "Outside Forces" does not mean it only applies to outside watchers. The paragraph is in the Challenges Part of the Characters Section. You cannot say that a section dedicated to characters has rules that don't apply to characters.

I don't care what GW wanted or intended, what matters is what the text actually says.

Let me just take a moment and tell you that this argument right here is quite possibly the worst argument I have ever seen. What the game developers wanted is ALL that matters since they wrote the rules and decided how it is to be played. To actually say that the people who decide how this game is to be played don't get a say in how it is played because they worded something in a way that you don't like or understand is just asinine. The rules exist to tell us how to play the game. The game and how it is played is determined by the game designers. The game designers wrote down how they wanted the game played in a way that made sense to them. I read the rules they wrote and say "Clearly the rule says this." You come in and say "No, clearly the rule says this." There is no argument about what the text says but what it means. You cannot examine what text means without examining what the intent was. You simply cannot separate the two. The purpose of the FAQ is to explain how the rules work, to give insight into what GW intended. If we can look at what GW intended and it is painfully obvious why do we have to wait until they say it before we act on it? Is this how you live your life normally? "I care not what you meant, you said you were cold and wanted to be warmed up so I lit you on fire."

What you believe doesn't matter . What is written in the actual rulebook does matter . This forums is not how you would play it , its how it is written .
Your applying wounds to a modle with zero wounds left because there is no other choice . None , Zero . They can't go anywhere else cause it tells you they have to be allocated to b2b first , and even if the guy is slain he's still base to base.

As I've stated previously, there is no RAW here that will work to convince 100%. If you want to play the game at all, you're going to have to resort to RAI in this regard.

I'm not applying wounds to a zero-wound model, because that is illegal.

p3:

If at any point, a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

What is not illegal is removing the model and discarding the rest of the wounds in the wound pool.