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.

Lobukia wrote:Not that b2b matters, as all outside forces fully resolve (not hit, resolve) wounds, ignoring the characters. We are even told to pretend they are not there.

We are told this under 'Outside Forces' - which is to explain what outside forces can do. They ignore them. They cannot affect them.

There is no implication that what is under 'outside forces' apply to the character that are not 'outside forces' - that's bordering intellectual dishonesty here.

Right now, what you're doing is assigning an 'effect' to B2B that is not supported by any rule in the book. You can attack when not in B2B, it's as simple as that.

Tarkand wrote:

Lobukia wrote:But if your nob was STILL in b2b with someone, you can't allocate anywhere else. As you said this is not 5e. If a regular member of a unit hits twice, even he must allocate b2b first.

The rules still tell us that a character remains in b2b even if the other character is slain.

No, he's not.

MMMCMMMM
OOOOOOOO

Nob

M= Marine, C= Captain, O= ork, the space is 1 inch.

My nobz is not in B2B with anyone. He can still strike and he can still alocate his precision strike to any of the Marine, including the captain.

How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty?

Sigh, because you can't remove the b2b status by slaying my character. Page 64 tells us you count as being in b2b with me EVEN if and AFTER you slay me, until the end of the phase (which would be AFTER the wound allocation and resolution of the units is completed).

Lobukia wrote:

Tarkand wrote:

Lobukia wrote:But if your nob was STILL in b2b with someone, you can't allocate anywhere else. As you said this is not 5e. If a regular member of a unit hits twice, even he must allocate b2b first.

The rules still tell us that a character remains in b2b even if the other character is slain.

No, he's not.

MMMCMMMM
OOOOOOOO

Nob

M= Marine, C= Captain, O= ork, the space is 1 inch.

My nobz is not in B2B with anyone. He can still strike and he can still alocate his precision strike to any of the Marine, including the captain.

How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty?

Sigh, because you can't remove the b2b status by slaying my character. Page 64 tells us you count as being in b2b with me EVEN if and AFTER you slay me, until the end of the phase (which would be AFTER the wound allocation and resolution of the units is completed).

/sigh indeed.

I don't need to be b2b to attack you as I've demonstrated. I do not claim the the model is 'breaking out of it' - because he doesn't need to.

You are adding 'effects' to B2B that are not in the book to support your claim.

Once one of the challenge drop to 0 wound, he is remove from the table has a casualties (p.13) - you cannot be in B2B with someone who isn't there, that's patently absurd. The challenger is now in B2B with no one. And that's when engaged rules starts to kick in.

Why do you think they bother explaining where you need to put the duelist for over 5 lines in the 'fighting a challenge' sub-section? Because this make it damn near 100% guaranteed your guy will be engaged.

You're right, you don't need to be. But unless you roll a 6 to hit, you don't get to choose where your attacks go. Non-precision strikes get allocated per wound allocation rules. Those rules state that wounds MUST be allocated to models in b2b first, and can only be allocated elsewhere if there is no model in b2b. For the duration of the challenge, you are in base to base with my character. It's explicitly stated in the rules. So yes, even if you slay my character, he is in b2b with you.

Tarkand wrote:\How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty? And yes, when a model drops to 0 wound, you remove him as a casaulties (p. 15).

No one is disputing that he is removed as a casualty. But the rules say the surviving challenger remain effectively in base contact with him until the end of the phase, regardless of whether or not he is slain. Wounds must be allocated to models in base contact before they are allocated to models not in base contact, and the challenge rules say no other engaged models are in base contact during the challenge.

Eldarguy88 wrote:

Tarkand wrote:\How is this any different from being not in base to base because your challenger has been remove has a casualty? And yes, when a model drops to 0 wound, you remove him as a casaulties (p. 15).

No one is disputing that he is removed as a casualty. But the rules say the surviving challenger remain effectively in base contact with him until the end of the phase, regardless of whether or not he is slain. Wounds must be allocated to models in base contact before they are allocated to models not in base contact, and the challenge rules say no other engaged models are in base contact during the challenge.

And EVEN if the rules didn't (and they do), that unit's combat has already been RESOLVED (not started, not half done, resolved) as if those characters weren't there. Do you think we should undo the results for your overflow?

I'm going to start a thread called "If overflow is allowed" just to show how asinine the result would be (hint: Jain Zar and all those normal CC gods, get neutered big time by almost any squad with 2 characters).

okay... here is the next mind blower.

What says the Character has to allocate his wounds against the other challenged. At all ?

Since he's part of a unit, he can put it on any model that is in base with any model in his unit.

I might just be going crazy...

And you guys call the the 'for' camp rule lawyers?

You are now claiming that you can be in B2B with a model that isn't there anymore and that furthermore, you can put wounds on it. That is patently absurd as I've said before. And this is the only thing your entire argument is holding on?

This boggles the mind really.

A challenger who defeat his opponent is still in a challenge (and thus, cannot be attacked), but is in B2B with no one. That's the only explication that make sense 0_o. This rule is simply there to prevent a winning Challenger from getting snipped by a precision strike power klaw/power fist at Ini 1.

There is indeed no way to solve this argument, when you guys refuse to agree with what being 'base to base' mean. One would think this is a pretty simple concept.

Lobukia wrote:
And EVEN if the rules didn't (and they do), that unit's combat has already been RESOLVED (not started, not half done, resolved) as if those characters weren't there. Do you think we should undo the results for your overflow?

I'm going to start a thread called "If overflow is allowed" just to show how asinine the result would be (hint: Jain Zar and all those normal CC gods, get neutered big time by almost any squad with 2 characters).

This is another point you make which, because you are well spoken (well written?), you manage to make it sound like it's valid... when it really isn't.

Challenges happens at Ini Order. Baring the Forging the Narrative box, this is what the RULE says (not the cheat sheet, the actual rule).

Jin-Zar will kill whatever amount of people she needs to kill with 'overflow' at I7.

Than the rest of the combat continue on.

I don't really see how this change anything, unless of course you're using 'Forging the Narrative' (which itself says challenge occurs at init order, but that people prefer to do it after... just like it says some Tyranids players roar their challenge - that doesn't mean you can't issue a challenge as a nid player in good old plain english.... big hint here, but the people that care about 'forging the narrative' are the beer and pretzel gamers who don't really care about the accuracy of rules in the first place).

I guess the correct way to phrase it is that the challenge is considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase, therefore the two challengers are considered to be in base to base contact for that duration. Not saying that the dead model is still there. Just that it's considered to be. therefore, after he's dead, those excess wounds are lost.

If you add words that are not in the book, than yes, you are indeed correct

You cannot be in B2B with a model that is no longer there - that's pretty much as basic as a rule can get.

All the other rules still make sense regardless even if the models is removed and the winner is no in B2B with no one. This is the only one thing you guys have going, and it doesn't make sense - it breaks the rule and for a lack of better word, it breaks logic (being in B2B with something that isn't there has got to be some kind of Zen Koan).

Except I'm not adding words. Under combatant slain. Challenge is still considered to be ongoing. Ongoing means that the duration of the challenge has not expired. That meaning that you are still in b2b with the other challenger.


Seriously, I'm not sure if you are trolling or just not getting this.

I'm not trolling, I assure you.

I simply disagree with the possibility that you can be in base to base with something that is not there.

Base to base is not some kind of arcane concept... it means that the base of your model is in contact with the base of the other model. How can that be if said models is removed?
In order to be in base to base with anything, that thing must still be on the table. It's pretty cut and dry. W40K is a game that is grounded in some kind of basic physicality here and it's mind boggling that you guys are saying that this doesn't trump some poorly worded rule.

There is no 'considered' in the rule book. There is no 'you remain in B2B with the removed casualties'. All that the bit about being 'only in base to base with each other' is clearly in order to explain that the controlling player can only assign non-precision strike to the challengers.

Quinn wrote:okay... here is the next mind blower.

What says the Character has to allocate his wounds against the other challenged. At all ?

Since he's part of a unit, he can put it on any model that is in base with any model in his unit.

I might just be going crazy...

You are. In 6th ed you must start by allocating wounds to those in base contact before anyone else. As per the rules, challengers are considered in base contact only with each other. This effectively prohibits them from allocating wounds to anyone else in the combat, even when a challenger is killed.

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

"If there is no enemy models in base contact with a model... the wound is allocated to the next closest model" page 25

"resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there" page 64

"once all models [not units, models] that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges" page 429 (that would be page 429 in the RULEbook)

As far as going after the Reference section because of the Stormraven... take a look, all vehicles that belong to more than one space marine codex are lumped in the "Space Marine Vehicles" section. that's why there are no duplicates between Grey Knights, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angles, they're all their together in the normal space marine section [/appendix bashing]

Tarkand wrote:

There is no 'considered' in the rule book.

Except there IS!!!! There are plenty of instances when you are "considering" models to be something or somewhere they physically are not. Including as Lobukia posted again in the section relevant to this.

Eldarguy88 wrote:
You are. In 6th ed you must start by allocating wounds to those in base contact before anyone else. As per the rules, challengers are considered in base contact only with each other. This effectively prohibits them from allocating wounds to anyone else in the combat, even when a challenger is killed.

Sir, it's allocated by the the models that are in base, based upon that initiative step. not specifically which model is based with whom. Just by the ones that attack at that time.

Tarkand wrote:If you add words that are not in the book, than yes, you are indeed correct

You cannot be in B2B with a model that is no longer there - that's pretty much as basic as a rule can get.

see below, or read the thread.

Eldarguy88 wrote: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.
/quote]

"resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there" page 64

Yes - for the Outside Forces. They cannot hit or affect the characters. There is a very clear 'outside force' label on top of this. I can't use rules for Bikes on my Artillery models for the same reason.

The fact that my attacks happens before, at the same time, or after, changes nothing to the sequences of event - the units are acting as if they are not there because they cannot LOS, precision strike or allocated wound to them in anyway. This would only matter IF challenges were resolved at the end, which brings me to:

"once all models [not units, models] that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges" page 429 (that would be page 429 in the RULEbook)

We have an issue here of two section of the same book saying different things (.p63-64 vs p.429) - usually (when not being rule laweyered), the actual rule trump the cheat sheet.

The fact that you are using the appendix at end (which has errors to begin with - I sure would love a Storm Raven for my SM - yeah yeah, I know it's to avoid duplicates, but again, they did not say this anywhere beforehand and had to FAQ it, how many would be SM players got their hopes up?) and 'flavor box' to make your point oughta be all I need to say on the matter.

Quinn wrote:

Eldarguy88 wrote:
You are. In 6th ed you must start by allocating wounds to those in base contact before anyone else. As per the rules, challengers are considered in base contact only with each other. This effectively prohibits them from allocating wounds to anyone else in the combat, even when a challenger is killed.

Sir, it's allocated by the the models that are in base, based upon that initiative step. not specifically which model is based with whom. Just by the ones that attack at that time.

Right, and the challenge rules tell us who is considered to be in base contact.

]

Tarkand wrote:

There is no 'considered' in the rule book.

Tarkand wrote:
We have an issue here of two section of the same book saying different things (.p63-64 vs p.429) - usually (when not being rule laweyered), the actual rule trump the cheat sheet.

Does it say this anywhere in the book?

Lobukia wrote:
If you don't read the rules, go away.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other" "When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain... the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase" page 64

Again thought, that is in the 'fighting a challenge' section of the book. Not under combatant slain.

Headers are there for a reason.

I guess we'll have to wait on a FAQ to see if your blatant disregard for the law of physic will fly with GW... knowing the way they handle things tho, it will most likely do.

Eldarguy88 wrote:Right, and the challenge rules tell us who is considered to be in base contact.

you just keep missing it
Yes, your character is the only one in base with the other character.. but That isn't what limits who you can hurt. If there is a same init somewhere else in base contact, it can be allocated that way.

*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

Quinn wrote:*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

That's pretty much the entire debate summed up thought.

Can you be in B2B with something that isn't there?

If yes, overflow doesn't work.

If not, it does.

For me, I don't really care what something in a previous header says, especially when it so clearly makes no sense. It's definitely not RAI and arguably not even RAW anyway (headers, again).

Still, I tip my hat to you sirs, we are obviously at a stalemates and neither of us will convince the other.

Quinn wrote:

Eldarguy88 wrote:Right, and the challenge rules tell us who is considered to be in base contact.

you just keep missing it
Yes, your character is the only one in base with the other character.. but That isn't what limits who you can hurt. If there is a same init somewhere else in base contact, it can be allocated that way.

*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

Valid.

A Wound must be allocated to an enemy model in base contact with a model aftacking at that Initiative step. If there is more than one eligible candidate, the player controlling the models being attacked chooses which model it is allocated to. Roll the model's saving throw (tf it has one) and remove the casualty (if necessary).

The following incredibly poorly worded rule was probably meant to address that, forcing challengers to strike each other and no one else whilst excluding others from striking them. Whether it does can be debated, but I think the result would be ugly.

Whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another.

I think "only" works differently in Nottingham to the rest of the world...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tarkand wrote:

Quinn wrote:*Note this is just the normal rule. Think about it. Skip the challenges. This is the rule. This is the rule for models that ARE in base. Which should be harder evidence than something being 'considered' in base.

That's pretty much the entire debate summed up thought.

Can you be in B2B with something that isn't there?

If yes, overflow doesn't work.

If not, it does.

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

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 if they cannot physically be placed. 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? It's not such a stretch, and the rules are right there.

that is one of the primary things about the debate. Some (even me) have read it that, they are the only ones eligible to attack that character, not that the character is the only one he can attack.

By the way, I actually do wish this to get resolved in the Challenge happens separate to the unit assault. At this point i just cannot read it that way. I'm not normally this pushy with rules, this one just has me hook. Like a good debate kind of hook.

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

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 if they cannot physically be placed. 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? It's not such a stretch, and the rules are right there.

You can give it a rest friend, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Keep arguing if you must, but don't do it on my account

When GW FAQs this, I will still find the rule incredibly silly if they do go against overflow... If nothing else, it totally break the precious 'narrative' they keep harping on about.

What make more sense?

After defeating the paltry Space Marine Sergeant with a single flick of his sword, the mighty bloodthirster turns to the bewildered Squad, slaying 4 of them with great ease, he then roar, unleashing all his rage and fury - WHO'S NEXT?

Or

After defeating the paltry Space Marine Sergeant with a single flick of his sword, the mighty bloodthirster, not knowing what to do with his pent up rage, shove a tumbs straight up his ass as he waits for round 2 of combat

Beyond the fact that it's totally ridiculous to have a 250+pts melee character be made all but obsolete for several turns by a 10 pts upgrade to an IG squad in a new edition of the game that already make CC a difficult proposition... it create a very ugly scenario:

If you want to get the most of him... your big bad ass of a CC beast will want to avoid squad with Sergeants as much as possible, preferably only attacking them if their sergeant has been killed off in shooting. Yes. Very dramatic. Very striking. Very inspiring.

Even if excess unsaved wounds can be counted against combat resolution (which is by no mean clear either)... with the change to regrouping rolls (and the effect it has on They Shall Know No Fear), the removal of Fearless wounds (and how damn common Fearless is) as well as the Stubborn rules will make this a non-factor in pretty much any situation where it actually matters.

The dynamic that strong melee characters are doing their best to avoid challenges, while weak melee characters are seeing this has the best use of their limited CC utility is downright wrong.

Or the big meaty guy is so focused on his prey he doesn't have time to hit the other guys?

What is your "fluff" reasoning for the rest of the squad's excess wounds (if there are any) not being able to be applied to a challenger?

Tarkand wrote:After defeating the paltry Space Marine Sergeant with a single flick of his sword, the mighty bloodthirster, not knowing what to do with his pent up rage, shove a tumbs straight up his ass as he waits for round 2 of combat

Beyond the fact that it's totally ridiculous to have a 250+pts melee character be made all but obsolete for several turns by a 10 pts upgrade to an IG squad in a new edition of the game that already make CC a difficult proposition... it create a very ugly scenario:

For a note about this. the Company Command Squad can use their Astropath, Master of Or, Officer of the fleet to challenge. If there is a regimental standard in the group, then the Company Command Squad could tie for at least 3 combat turns. Heck, they might even win if one of those fools does a wound on to the Thirster.

jms40k wrote:Or the big meaty guy is so focused on his prey he doesn't have time to hit the other guys?

What is your "fluff" reasoning for the rest of the squad's excess wounds (if there are any) not being able to be applied to a challenger?

I'm not sure how you can justify a Bloodthirster needing all his attention to take out say... a Runtherder >_>.

I've heard people say the winner is basically mutilating the body... this may work for a bloodthirster or a stupid nobz. May work. Hell, to be honest, it take a spectacular level of idiocy to be butchering a corpse when there's a fight going on around you - especially if your men are losing said fight.

But how do you account for say... Marneus Calgar pulping a defeated foe with 4 extra power fist when there's a battle around him? Master strategist right?


The 'fluff' reasoning is quite easy - the idea of a challenge is an epic duel between two champion, the idea being that the underlings do not interfere out of respect (or fear) for their champion.

SM/IG won't interfere out of respect for their leader. Ork won't interfere because they don't want the Nobz to punch them in the head for stealing their kill. CSM won't interfere because they actually are jealous and hate their aspring champion and they want him to die. Aside from Tyranids, it's extremely easy to come up with a suitable fluff reason for this.

While on the other hand, reason FOR this implies that people are freaking idiots or incompetents.