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.

The RAW is what it is, but that doesn't alter the fact that it's insane. I'll be very surprised if this doesn't get FAQed.

Luide wrote:
"Realism" is never a good excuse to deviate from RAW, because 40k is neither "realistic" nor internally consistent.

Also, one should always know what RAW is, even if one arguest that the game should play differently. Not trying to 'interpret' rules (basically discounting RAW) all the while claiming that the " my 'interpretation' is RAW".


This is another example of GW not taking Challenge into account at all in normal assault rules. You can find others at the FAQ. And enough people send message to GW about it, I'm 100% sure it will get FAQ'd.

Whilst I understand and agree with the sentiment of what you said, at least how I interpret what you said, I have to disagree with your stance on people interpreting rules. You have to interpret them, otherwise you are just staring at squiggles on a page, which doesn't get you anywhere. Sometimes peoples interpretations differ, whcih is where RAW conflicts come in. Thus whenever anyone claims that they are follwoing RAW, they are always, without exception, following their interpretation of RAW. Most of the time everyone hits the same pooint, sometimes they don't.

In the case of this thread I think everyone agrees that RAW and the way they would play it if their opponent agrees most of the time are different. Doesn't emant ehy ahve a different intepretation of RAW.

This is another example of GW not taking Challenge into account at all in normal assault rules. You can find others at the FAQ. And enough people send message to GW about it, I'm 100% sure it will get FAQ'd.

that is to say, they didn't intend for it to be this way in the first place; for whatever stupid reason they might have had.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Homer S wrote:
How about page 24: "... each model rolls To Hit using its own Weapon Skill."? Page 25 seems to agree on Majority WRT toughness.

Homer

Doesn't every model always roll to hit using it's own WS?

I was rebutting these quotes which were building:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

Agreed, like IC's swinging on each other in 5th ^^ with the exception the squad won't eat them.

rigeld2 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

This.

Happyjew wrote:
Raw, majority Toughness and WS. HIWPI you use the models T and WS.

They all seem to think you use majority WS.

Homer

"for the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other." p.64

Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

Drager wrote:
In the case of this thread I think everyone agrees that RAW and the way they would play it if their opponent agrees most of the time are different.

Yes. But you can find people trying to argue that "use majority T and WS" isn't RAW, by either interpreting the rules extremely creatively or making up rules.

Drager wrote:
Doesn't emant ehy ahve a different intepretation of RAW.

Problem is that people often claim that how they want rules to work is RAW, when it obviously isn't. See pre-faq discussion about Grounded flyers not losing Hard to Hit.

6e has many instances where designers obviously didn't mean what they wrote. This is very much evident from the massive errata in FAQ if you compare it to 5e. But it is extremely important to keep RAW and HWIPI separate. For example, pre-faq our group ha a house-rule: Grounded FMC's lost Hard to Hit and couldn't by grounded again. We all knew that this was not RAW.. And if I played a pickup game, I brought it up with my opponent before game saying "RAW is this, but IMO RAI is this. Which way shall we play?" and abide by his decision.

That Luide is exactly what I meant.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

It is treated as a separate combat - that is all you need to know.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

It is treated as a separate combat - that is all you need to know.

Except it is not, as the wounds caused in the challenge are a part of determining who won the combat.

Pro tip...

Don't mix apples and oranges... its not conducive to the discussion.

Theres also a problem with skills affecting stuff outside of the challenge that is really affected whether or not challengees are part of the other combat or not:

- Knight of the Flame activating Cleansing Flame while locked in a challenge

- Stern & Zone of banishment

- Typhus & Destroyer Hive (iirc the name of the ability)

How is this really a discussion? The challenge is considered separate from the rest of the CC, so the majority toughness is just the toughness of the character.

Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:


Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

I see you're new to YMDC

I wouldn't say it was RAW that you used majority toughness in a challenge. Since the rules don't explicitly state it, people are inferring it, and claiming it as RAW.

However I'm sure no-one would actually play like that.

Luide wrote:
6e has many instances where designers obviously didn't mean what they wrote.

Not really true. The problem is, there are 12 or so testers. They sit around and design the game and talk about how things should work. They know the context of every rule. The problem is the writing is a little ambiguous. However, those testers look at the writing and fill in the context that they already knew, so that it makes perfect sense to them.

Sad to say, I'm not new. That's my problem...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How is this really a discussion? The challenge is considered separate from the rest of the CC, so the majority toughness is just the toughness of the character.

Because that statement is wrong? The challenge isn't completely separate - the Characters are still members of their respective units.
The rules for combat say

Quite rarely, a unit will contain models that have different
Toughness characteristics. When this occurs, roll To Wound
using the Toughness value of the majority of the engaged foe.

The rule is unit based, not combat based, not "Who am I engaged in a challenge with" based... unit based.

So we know it's unit based, and we know that the character doesn't leave his unit temporarily, we must use the majority WS and Toughness of the unit - not the individual character's weapon skill.

Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

If you'd read the thread a lot of people agree as to what the rules say, but doubt they're intended that way and don't play it that way.

It's not your problem. Don't let it get you down.

What I'm hoping to see in the next FAQ...

Q. Are characters involved in a challenge engaged with any other models in the same combat for the duration of the challenge?

A. No

or an Errata entry...

p64, Change the last sentence to "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact, and engaged, only with each other."

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
How is this really a discussion? The challenge is considered separate from the rest of the CC, so the majority toughness is just the toughness of the character.

You should really read the rules again. And this time pay attention what is actually written in the rules, instead of what you think the rules should be. Challenge is explicitly part of the combat, model in challenge is explicitly part of the unit. Challenge is not considered to be "separate" from the rest of the CC, except by few specific ways that are written in the rules and FAQs.RAW is 100% clear, use majority T and WS while in challenge.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Is it just me, or do most of these discussions boil down to competitive =\= common sense?

No. What you're missing is that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. You claim that Rules are X, when they're obviously Y. YMDC is explicitly about debating what are the actual rules.
I do agree that it is a stupid rule, and our group houseruled it. But the difference is that each and everyone in our group knows what the actual rule is.

BTW, bringing 'common sense' to Warhammer is extremely bad idea. Basically none of the rules make any sense. Take for example flyers: Their targeting systems work better while moving 18-36" prer turn than when moving 12". So when they slow down, instead of getting more accurate which is what you'd expect, they in fact lose accuracy. And Flyer in hover mode that moves 0.1" can somehow make extreme dodging manouvers without affecting it's accuracy at all, but while moving fast it cannot shoot straight anymore. Neither of these rules make any sense. Still, I don't go claiming that they aren't the rules.

I am going to use the FAQ regarding overflow wounds from the challenge not going into the unit as my argument that majority toughness does not apply to the challenge. YMMV.

 Dozer Blades wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yep. Has no effect on the rules for determining WS and T values to use for models in a unit.

Did you read the thread on this? Nowhere in your rules quote does it say they count as a separate unit, which is what would be required.

It is treated as a separate combat - that is all you need to know.

Ah, yet the rules are concerned with units, and not combats. You keep ignoring this.

RAW is actually clear on this. Its almost certainly wrong, but it is clear.

I stand by what I have said. It makes more sense than your position.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I stand by what I have said. It makes more sense than your position.

Your position makes no sense, as far as the actual rules are concerned.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I stand by what I have said. It makes more sense than your position.

Ah, sorry, thought we wree actually debating rules. Perhaps when giving your opinion on how it should work, instead of following the rules, you can preface it with such? Following the tenets of this forum, you know.

I've given my reason for my position and there are others here in agreement. You are not some magically enlightened entity that is always right - in truth your track record is not that good to be honest. If what you said tended to match the FAQs and erratas that would be another thing but it's not the case.

And reported. Please stop arguing the person, not the argument.

text removed.
Reds8n

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

There is always one in this forum.

When they get banned, another takes their place.

Though, he is right. You don't use majority toughness for Challenges, as it's a separate combat.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I've given my reason for my position and there are others here in agreement. You are not some magically enlightened entity that is always right - in truth your track record is not that good to be honest. If what you said tended to match the FAQs and erratas that would be another thing but it's not the case.

How about pre-faq/errata.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Ah classic nosfartu.... Baiting someone into responding to him only to pull the tenets card and reporting the post like a child tattling...

<3 redundant off topic posts made my people with nothing better to do than harass someone else