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.

Yeah, this is the last post for me in this thread. I am amazed at the opposition's ability to ignore whatever arguments disagree with their opinion, ignore rules, and use fallacious arguments while refusing to see the forest for the trees. But hey, at least I don't have to play against you so you can torment the others all you want.

There are things you cannot explain that make no sense. Like how an ork that kills a Marine can then die from an attack made at an earlier initiative step before they even had a chance to attack. And how you essentially create an opportunity for a character to have free attacks without any hope of getting attacked back. I find it hard to believe that GW would create an opportunity for something to attack without risk of death themselves. And how you can say that a paragraph included in the Character's section of the rulebook has nothing to do with characters.

But fine, you want to claim that Outside Forces has nothing to do with characters then it is only applying to the rest of the units. If that is the case then that applies to wounds allocated to the rest of the unit, which includes wounds that you say should overflow. But since the rule says that you allocate wounds to the Outside Forces like the characters are not there then no wounds caused by characters can go to them because those wounds are caused by people who are not there. And I understand that the "Forging a Narrative" excerpts are just to help you craft a narrative but they would not suggest things that break the game. The Narratives may not be rules but they would not break the rules either.

No, you cannot take your Daemon Prince and tie up a Marine squad by challenging the Sergeant then ignoring him and wiping out the rest of the unit without them having an opportunity to strike back.

Tarkand wrote:A challenger who defeat his opponent is still in a challenge (and thus, cannot be attacked), but is in B2B with no one.

As for the underlined, he is physically not in B2B anymore, because you remove the dead model, but he is still considered to be in B2B with that model as per the challenge rules.

I think that is what you are missing.

I'm out on this, after 6 pages of going from 2 solid arguments against overflow to now 4+, quoting myself, and watching people bring up the same tired arguments, I'm done until Monday.

I really hope someone can post sanity at least x2 a day so it doesn't get buried by the wishers and the wanters who simply aren't readers.

I really really hope too many people don't read just a post or two and think they can pull off overflow from these rules.

Thanks for fighting the good fight pro PvP supporters, thanks for a good debate you small minority of the pro-overflow side that read a little bit of the thread (or rulebook) and made reasonable-ish arguments.

See you all on the other side of the weekend!

To those who are surrendering under bad terms, have a drink and enjoy the game.

Should this come up with a game, which do you think I'd do? Not fight about it at the table. I'll side with my opponent. This is just to get the consensus of how it should be played.

The challenge option was poorly given. I'm fine with either decision even tho sacrificing my useless leader units is more in my favor on the field.

Mmmhm.. So basicly the strident 'For'-camp has now stopped debating the acctual RAW in the face of the glaring inconsistencies of their arguments for wound overflow and are now resorting to arguing that the background would not support NOT allowing wound overflow.

Oh well, this debate was over pages ago anyway.

Yep, it was dead page 6

You are considered to be in b2b for the entire phase, no matter what happens. The "overflow" camp can keep on ignoring those rules, but it slightly undermines their argument

Also, so what if your blob squad is tying up a thirster? WHats the rest of the daemon army doing, twiddling their thumbs? Daemonettes get to run in *with no overwatch* possible!

The daemon player has no reason to let the thirster, a flying MC, get into that combat unless he wants it to be there. Being fearless it really doesnt care if it loses combat, either.

But didn't you know? Games Workshop didn't make the Challenge rules so an awesome character could single handed kill the enemy character in front of the enemy characters minions - no, they were made for the awesome character to avoid being attacked by the enemy minions!

Seriously, Hollywood can come up with crazy alien creatures and technology, but if they want utter non human logic with completely non human reasoning and goals, they should read threads like these.

Lobukia wrote:I'm out on this, after 6 pages of going from 2 solid arguments against overflow to now 4+, quoting myself, and watching people bring up the same tired arguments, I'm done until Monday.

I really hope someone can post sanity at least x2 a day so it doesn't get buried by the wishers and the wanters who simply aren't readers.

I really really hope too many people don't read just a post or two and think they can pull off overflow from these rules.

Thanks for fighting the good fight pro PvP supporters, thanks for a good debate you small minority of the pro-overflow side that read a little bit of the thread (or rulebook) and made reasonable-ish arguments.

See you all on the other side of the weekend!

Chin up sir. You are correct. We have only 1 guy in our group of 13 players that believes overflow is even a remote possibility. It is nothing more than people trying to hold on to the last vestige of billy bad ass 5th characters. They will get over it.

Unlike a lot of rules, I don't have to justify this one to my group with "because this is how it works." These rules form a complete syllogism to show that there is no wound overflow.

It's not worth arguing about anymore.

I agree with tgf. At this point there is one person who is saying "no no no" and whatever be their motivation, they are alone now. If the OP is still reading, we have mostly come to the concensus that there isint overflow.

I just read all 12 pages. Wow. I came here hoping for some disambiguation. The only thing I'm absolutely clear about coming away from this is that my "house rule" is going to disallow challenges on my table until the rule is defined by GW errata.

That said, I'm heading to a FLGS Tourney this weekend. I can't wait to see what happens when this comes up. Whee.

Did you skip all the posts where it's conclusively shown with references that wounds can't overflow?

Or did you only read the posts where there were no, or faulty, references that said there is wound overflow?

The evidence is quite conclusive.

BRAIN EXPLOSION!!!! I literaly just yelled at my computer (no really I yelled, the coworkers looked at me funny!) Im not going to add anymore to this and will keep my "OPINIONS" to my self. I really wish a moderator had closed this back on page 6 but what ever. It has given me a good couple of hours of reading and a small modicum of entertainment.

DarknessEternal wrote:Did you skip all the posts where it's conclusively shown with references that wounds can't overflow?

Or did you only read the posts where there were no, or faulty, references that said there is wound overflow?

The evidence is quite conclusive.

I said I read all 12 pages. I get it, it's an assertion to claim overflow, I'm just avoiding discussion on it. I'd rather play and have fun, not grind away my game time because someone wants to pick apart the holes GW left regarding this rule. Evidence aside, logic be damned, it's not clear RAW and I'm not allowing it until it is.

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

"For the duration of the weekend,
these two people are considered to be
in close contact only with each other."

"For the duration of the party,
these two glasses are considered to be
filled only with water."

Are the two people in close contact when one is in the bathroom? Is the empty glass filled with water? Or are these two people not in close contact with anyone else? Or are the glasses considered filled only with water when there is something in them?

Lobukia, your arguements about when the challenge takes place, you have agreed, are shakey based on contradicting information from 3 sources--summary, rules and narrative.

The issue, as I and others have stated, is that the ONLY modifies the '...are considered to be in base contact.'

Read this: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact."

Is that statement different from: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Obviously, the 2 statements say different things. The correct statement does not say they 'are in base contact' without qualifications.

It is the same as saying "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger is considered to be in base contact only with the Challengee, and the Challengee is considered to be in base contact only with the Challenger."

Only they took the shorter route to saying the above.

DeathReaper wrote:It is the same as saying "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger is considered to be in base contact only with the Challengee, and the Challengee is considered to be in base contact only with the Challenger."

Only they took the shorter route to saying the above.

Negative. If they wanted that to be the case it would have been worded more like: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered only to be in base contact with each other."
Or they would have left out the only. "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are in base contact with each other."

This is a way of rewriting the actual : "For the duration of the challenge, no other models may be considered to be base to base with these two models."

Greg_Hager wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It is the same as saying "For the duration of the challenge, the Challenger is considered to be in base contact only with the Challengee, and the Challengee is considered to be in base contact only with the Challenger."

Only they took the shorter route to saying the above.

Negative. If they wanted that to be the case it would have been worded more like: "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered only to be in base contact with each other."
Or they would have left out the only. "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are in base contact with each other."

This is a way of rewriting the actual : "For the duration of the challenge, no other models may be considered to be base to base with these two models."

That is the same thing as I said...


"For the duration of the challenge, these two models (Replace with Challenger/Challengee) are considered to be in base contact only with each other(Replace with Challenger/Challengee)."

They are literally talking about the Challenger/Challengee. Because they reference these two moels and they are talking about the models fighting the Challenge.

The first two statements I typed are rewords of your statement. Hence why they are the same thing as you said.

The last one I typed is what the rule states. That they are considered to be base to base with only each other. Not that they are base to base with each other no matter what.

Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

Wow, Does it matter if you stay B2B during the whole challenge? No.

The rule pulls both opponents out of the fight and makes the rest of the squads watch. That's right squads.... Out of the fight. This doesn't make sense to me but the guys at GW want some "Troy fighting. You know Hector and the kid pretending to be Achilles." Yep they fought while 200+ men watched and didn't fight each other.

So your 10 man squad of SM vs a10 man squad of Noise Marines fight. A character challenge is made and while your characters are fighting, all the SM's and Noise marines are taking bets on who will win. They are not even fighting each other.

So why would wounds over flow? They don't and they can't. Because the rules tell you they are separated until no more challenges are called.

RAW doesn't support overflow. If it did it would say it in BLACK AND WHITE.

The spirit of the rule is out there and proud. Two fighters taking it on the chin to see who is the better.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

This is where we differ sir. The rules state that they cannot be in base to base contact with anyone other than each other for the entire phase that the challenge happened, not that the rules for base to base have been modified so that we are in base to base until the end of the challenge/phase. See what I mean?

MJThurston wrote:Wow, Does it matter if you stay B2B during the whole challenge? No.

The rule pulls both opponents out of the fight and makes the rest of the squads watch. That's right squads.... Out of the fight. This doesn't make sense to me but the guys at GW want some "Troy fighting. You know Hector and the kid pretending to be Achilles." Yep they fought while 200+ men watched and didn't fight each other.

So your 10 man squad of SM vs a10 man squad of Noise Marines fight. A character challenge is made and while your characters are fighting, all the SM's and Noise marines are taking bets on who will win. They are not even fighting each other.

So why would wounds over flow? They don't and they can't. Because the rules tell you they are separated until no more challenges are called.

RAW doesn't support overflow. If it did it would say it in BLACK AND WHITE.

The spirit of the rule is out there and proud. Two fighters taking it on the chin to see who is the better.

Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't. Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge. Even if you still consider him to be base to base, his wounds have been reduced to zero and that is a prerequisite to allocating wounds to the next eligible model...I.E. the next closest model in the same unit. By the way, you're stating that the challenge is separated, it is not. Under challenges it even states that the characters attack at their own initiative step. Forging a Narrative states that if you want to RP it up a little bit you could fight it at the end, or even the beginning, but this blatantly goes against rules as written, saying they attack at their own initiative step.

With all that said, I can agree that it's a possibility that GW doesn't want overflow and that is how they might have intended it...but they didn't do it. As the rules stand...wounds overflow due to normal wound allocation and nothing stating that you deviate from the standard rules.

Greg_Hager wrote:Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't.

You can keep calling the sky orange it doesn't change the fact that it is still blue.

Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge.

Wrong again. Under your interpretation of the rule any wounds from the challenger could be allocated to any other model that is in BTB with someone else at that initiative before the challenge is over. So a Captain could allocate his wounds to the Orks in BTB with his Marines, since they are all I4. The rule states that wounds are allocated to models in BTB with an attacker at that initiative step. Try reading the rules you are claiming are so clear.

Greg_Hager wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

This is where we differ sir. The rules state that they cannot be in base to base contact with anyone other than each other for the entire phase that the challenge happened, not that the rules for base to base have been modified so that we are in base to base until the end of the challenge/phase. See what I mean?

No, the rules do not say that. They state they are only in b2b with each other, and are coutned as such for the duration of the challenge.

If you disagree, some rules please.

Captain Antivas wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:Rules as written DO support wound overflow...though I can see how RAI (rules as intended...lol) wouldn't.

You can keep calling the sky orange it doesn't change the fact that it is still blue.

Nothing stops normal wound allocation from happening after a character is slain from the challenge.

Wrong again. Under your interpretation of the rule any wounds from the challenger could be allocated to any other model that is in BTB with someone else at that initiative before the challenge is over. So a Captain could allocate his wounds to the Orks in BTB with his Marines, since they are all I4. The rule states that wounds are allocated to models in BTB with an attacker at that initiative step. Try reading the rules you are claiming are so clear.

What you said, is correct if there wasn't a challenge going on. Since there is a challenge going on, and these characters are considered to be base to base with only each other, they have to be allocated to the character in the challenge before being allocated to the rest of the unit.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Greg - no, they are in base to base for the duration of the challenge. Which lasts the entire phase. So, no matter what happens during the challenge, they remain in base to base

This is where we differ sir. The rules state that they cannot be in base to base contact with anyone other than each other for the entire phase that the challenge happened, not that the rules for base to base have been modified so that we are in base to base until the end of the challenge/phase. See what I mean?

No, the rules do not say that. They state they are only in b2b with each other, and are coutned as such for the duration of the challenge.

If you disagree, some rules please.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Page 64 wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

That is different from what you say the rules say. They are not *only* in base to base contact with each other. The rules state that they can be base to base *only* with each other. See the difference in what is thought the rules state and what they actually state?

Greg_Hager wrote:

Page 64 wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

That is different from what you say the rules say. They are not *only* in base to base contact with each other. The rules state that they can be base to base *only* with each other. See the difference in what is thought the rules state and what they actually state?

what is the difference may i ask ?

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:

Page 64 wrote:For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

That is different from what you say the rules say. They are not *only* in base to base contact with each other. The rules state that they can be base to base *only* with each other. See the difference in what is thought the rules state and what they actually state?

what is the difference may i ask ?

If you say that they models can be base to base with only each other, the only modifier goes onto context of what models may be in base to base. Therefor, even if there are several models base to base with the characters involved in the challenge, they are considered to be base to base with only each other. Then when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.
If you say they can only be base to base with each other, then the only modifier goes upon to what the models may do...they can only be base to base with each other.

Greg_Hager wrote:...when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.

Except it is still considered to be in Base to base with the other combatant that took part in the challenge, that is what you are not understanding.

DeathReaper wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:...when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.

Except it is still considered to be in Base to base with the other combatant that took part in the challenge, that is what you are not understanding.

Negative sir. No where does it say that they are base to base no matter what. The rules state that they can be base to base with only each other. You are interpreting the grammar in the rule incorrectly, therefor coming up with the wrong conclusion.

Greg_Hager wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:...when one model is removed as a causality then there isn't a model to be base to base contact with so until the end of the phase the only model that the character is allowed to be in base to base contact with is removed, so it can not be in base to base contact with anyone until the next phase.

Except it is still considered to be in Base to base with the other combatant that took part in the challenge, that is what you are not understanding.

Negative sir. No where does it say that they are base to base no matter what. The rules state that they can be base to base with only each other. You are interpreting the grammar in the rule incorrectly, therefor coming up with the wrong conclusion.

Where in the rules can you leave base to base ?