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.

Precision strikes definitely do not help the debate. The big issue I think becomes Int Step. Doesn't the wound allocation rule state you must place the wound on an engaged (preference being to base to base models) that is also striking at the same int BEFORE you move on to other models?

So what if my Int 4 guy challenges a guard squad with a sergeant and some other int 4 HQ (if it even exists but just humor me) and they throw up the sergeant. If I choose to fight the challenge at regular Int...which I can do as a preference...then wouldn't my wounds caused be eligible to skip the challengee and go straight to the other IC if he happens to be base to base with any of my models?

Assuming that wound allocation follows the way Yak is saying. That just because the challenger is in B2B doesnt mean there aren't other enemies in base to base...

Don't have my rulebook handy (at work), but I really think that bit on page 64 about challenge models ONLY being in base contact with each other would preclude wounds from leaving the challenge. Unless of couse they did away with the character being seperate from the unit for assault purposes.

This is somewhat-kinda-sorta supported by the fact that If abbadon does 10 wounds to your poor seargent, only 1 wound is ever taken; the rest are lost and not counted against the unit.

Sigmundr wrote:Don't have my rulebook handy (at work), but I really think that bit on page 64 about challenge models ONLY being in base contact with each other would preclude wounds from leaving the challenge. Unless of couse they did away with the character being seperate from the unit for assault purposes.

This is somewhat-kinda-sorta supported by the fact that If abbadon does 10 wounds to your poor seargent, only 1 wound is ever taken; the rest are lost and not counted against the unit.

But it doesn't necessarily. The issue that arises is the wording for challenge is "strike" which isn't clear as to whether its just to hit or to hit and wound. Also states they are the only one who can wound each other but doesn't exclude they can wound outside units.Furthermore precision strikes just makes muddy water worse since you then get to allocated the wounds as you see fit according to normal assault allocation....because nothing under challenge says precision strikes no longer apply. Now any model that is base to base with your unit and is fighting at that int step is able to be allocated the first wounds.

Personally I think the intention was for like Fantasy, where they fight as their own combat, and unsaved wounds after the model dies count toward combat resolution. Which could be inferred from the very broad and simple statement under challenges and how they affect combat resolution in 6th.

yakface wrote:
Again that isn't accurate. Models in combat don't allocate wounds just to the enemy models they're in contact with, it can be on ANY model in the combat that is in contact with a friendly model from their unit that is also striking at the same I step as them. So long as that condition is met, there doesn't seem to be any rules preventing challenge wounds from being allocated onto non-challenge models.

Page 64, Under Challenges

"Outside Forces... simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there"

If we are doing something "as if they aren't there" that does seem to prevent challenge wounds from being allocated in. This is, in fact, exactly what that sentence says.

EDIT: and I still say that the last bullet on page 429 is the coup de gras to the overflow argument... it removes ambiguity and gives us clear separation as the intent

That's true, but the rule says that the wound allocation step is completed as if the models in the challenge were not there. Even though the section is talking about everyone else wounds get allocated like the challenge characters are not there. This has to apply to the wounds caused by the models in the challenge too since they would be participating in the allocating of wounds at their initiative step.

Captain Antivas wrote:That's true, but the rule says that the wound allocation step is completed as if the models in the challenge were not there. Even though the section is talking about everyone else wounds get allocated like the challenge characters are not there. This has to apply to the wounds caused by the models in the challenge too since they would be participating in the allocating of wounds at their initiative step.

Which I wholeheartedly agree is the RAI, but GW couldnt pay the extra 10 cents to add 1 sentence there. That line is under a section that pertains directly and ONLY to members of the units other than the challenger/challengee and how they (the two units) allocate their wounds.

And remember challenges can pretty much occur first, last, whenever you want. So you can get around the allocating at certain inits there.

And as lab said about 429 etc, its very obvious from the intents to create a separate feel for the challenge AND you can look at fantasy 7th/8th and how GW has brought some of the morale/psychic/CC ideas over. It is just a shame that in a permissive based ruleset....there seems to be more RAW supporting wounds leaking out with precision strikes in account especially, because they left all the rules that could EASILY solve this so ambiguous.

My only real point through this whole thread has been to point out that there is no difference between precision strikes and normal wounds caused by challenge fighters, when it comes to their ability to theoretically be allocated to other members of the unit(s).

Yes, Precision Strikes obviously don't have any requirements about being allocated to models in base contact, but regular wounds inflicted by challenge fighters can still be easily allocated to other memebers of the unit(s) providing their are other models striking at the same Initiative step that are part of the same unit as the characters in the challenge.


So personally I think the clear intent is to have challenge wounds stick solely to challenges and that is the way I'd advocte palying with my opponent. However, if you'e going to argue for 'RAW' then I don't think you can support that challenge-caused precision strikes are allowed to be allocated onto other models but regular wounds caused by them aren't (if the conditions are met to allow the wounds to be allocated elsewhere).

In other words, if you're going to argue for playing by the RAW in this case, then you have to go the full way and allow both types of wounds to be allocated onto other models, or you should make the assumption that challenges are supposed to be self-contained and keep all wounds inflicted in a challenge only on the opposing models...allowing precision strikes out, but not regular wounds should not be an option to consider (unless you just wanted to house rule it that way, of course).

Yakface,

What is your opinion (if you have one yet) about:

At I5, the IC is the only one attacking, and gets 6 unsaved wounds on the enemy character that only has 1 wound.

What is to be done with the remaining 5 unsaved wounds?
Are they lost?
Can they now be allocated to the 'nearest' enemy models?

I agree yak, I feel confident that I can argue no overflow of wounds to a stranger. But I cannot see anyway to argue that and then allow precision strikes to leave the challenge.

Due to page 64 telling us to allocate wounds as if the characters were not there, I cannot find a way around that.

No overflow
And (sigh) no precision strikes out of challenges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Might I add, personally, my forces would probably do better with overflow, and without that, I certainly would like precision strikes out of challenges. But my concern is not to create what I want, but to play 40k, RAW; and I certainly do not want this community and its influence to spread faulty rule interpretations.

My local meta is VERY HQ heavy (unfortunately) so I want to get this right from the beginning and not have my guys, who look to me for rulings, be blind sided at a GT because of some odd mistake on my part.

That is why I fight the good fight here on challenges.