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.

For the sake of putting down overflow, the definition and the usage of the word "only", isn't the only hurdle that one wanting overflow has to overcome.

One also needs to look at what happens to outside forces (according to the rules) during the phase that a challenge happens.

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

Here is the next big problem that those wanting overflow have to face (rules you need to convince us to read differently or, for whatever reason, ignore). Outside forces are told to go ahead and RESOLVE (that would be allocate, save, remove, repeat as needed) the would allocation process. This means that if you have a Character A (Init 3) with Unit A (Init 4) fighting Character B (Init 1) with Unit B (Init 2), that if character A kills character B with two wounds left over, there is no way for Character A to get those attacks in before Unit B can strike Unit A. Unit A and Unit B are told to finish the process without the Characters.

Even if they were, how would this work? Character B could have a completely different WS and T than Unit B. What wounded him may not have hit and may not have wounded unit B. So you have two issues here for overflow. Issue 1: When could this overflow happen when the Unit's combat is told to RESOLVE its hits and wounds without the Characters. Issue 2: Hits and wounds against a character can and will often have no correlation to the process as applied to a unit, the wounds themselves can't hop over (unless you think a challenge should involve majority WS and majority T, which is a huge addition to assertions already made without permission to do so, and I pity IC's running around with weak squads).

"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)

This removes the ambiguity. The arguements on what "only" means, the discussions on Forging a Narrative (side A: its says same initiative; side B: its saying same initiative within the Challeng Combat), all could be clarified if there was somewhere else that told us which way to take it. There is (429), and it plainly shows that Challenges are something aside and seperate, with only cheerleading and morale penalties affecting the larger combat (page 65). Yet we are told this is in the Appendix and isn't correct because of a single typo and people not understanding the setup of the unit tables. We are then told to ignore an entire, clear, deliberate, pointed direction on how to handle Challenges. (BTW: if we can't trust the Appendix, might my stormtalon have 4 HP?).

To support overflow, it seems like one needs to redifine simple words, ignore directions to outside forces, and discount specific instructions... all while trying to assert RAW... I will admit, its impressive that you've gotten this many pages out of the stunt. But I'll keep posting, to be sure that the less experianced and those looking for clarrification aren't lead astray and build lists based on errant assumptions and wishful thinking.

If we choose to ignore Lobukia's arguments (which seem very reasonable if not correct), then we are left with an ambiguous situation, since the two characters are in base contact only with each other meaning they are not in base with the enemy or their friends. We really do not know where they are in relation to the other models in the combat.

You could say that, we know the are in coherency with their unit, since that is a restriction to their movement. To that I would simply say that happens earlier in the challenge (if not before). Once they are finished moving to their respective positions they are only defined as being in base contact with each other. We are given no reason to believe that they are defined as being in a position to even strike at the other combatants.

BTW, that is my way of saying that I think Lobukia is right.

edit: fixed my miss placed only...you know, since it is important

Lobukla... you're taking part of a sentence and twisting its context.

The entire sentence is:
"Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there".

The paragraph then goes on to further clarify its point with the Demon Prince example.

All that line states (and clearly states at that) is that outside forces cannot hurt units in a challenge. In no way, shape, or form, does it limit challenge participants from hurting those outside forces.

You are making an assumption that because A implies B, B also implies A, which is false.

Hurdle overcame.

As for the second hurdle, why does that matter at all? It shows no such thing, you're interpreting the rules in the way you so desire. The rule on page 429 simply say to resolve challenges after a unit has fought. That does not limit wounds from being allocated to the unit - at all. On page 429 the NEXT step is determine the Assault Results! Add up the wounds caused by *each side* etc. - that rejects your notion that the challenge is a seperate thing. If it was, there would be a Assault Result section BEFORE challenges were resolved, and the challenge would have its own Assault Result step. Context matters. There is a single Assault Result step for units and challenges, the wounds the characters cause affect the larger combat as well. I am not sure what other points this reference could be making.

As there is a single result step which explicitly includes the wounds caused by characters (page 65: Assault Result) and a single result list on 429 which agrees with that ruling, the combats are linked at least on some level.

Hurdle overcame.

Whether or not overflow exists is certainly not "put down" but the two lines you have taken out of context.

@Gee -> We do know where the models are - they are in coherency with their units. The second sentence under "Fighting a Challenge" clearly states the characters must remain in coherency, and then the next few lines provide exemptions to standard rules on how to move to ensure they are both in base contact and in coherency of their unit. All of that is relatively irrelevant though, as the wound allocation rules on page 25 simply state that if a model is not in base contact the wounds are allocated (by the "wounded" player) to the next closest model. The characters do not need to be in position to strike other combatants, they only need to strike the character they are in base with - if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

That is another assumption. As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

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

is NOT the same as

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

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

For what its worth, this exact point has been argued MANY times in this thread already. The previous examples were pretty clear, and I am unsure how to explain the grammar any more betterer .

The wheel goes round and round...

What about my paradox?

quiestdeus wrote:
@Gee -> We do know where the models are - they are in coherency with their units. The second sentence under "Fighting a Challenge" clearly states the characters must remain in coherency, and then the next few lines provide exemptions to standard rules on how to move to ensure they are both in base contact and in coherency of their unit.

I knew that would be brought up, and I already stated my answer to that. Simply that it happens before they are defined as being in base contact only w/ each other.

quiestdeus wrote:
All of that is relatively irrelevant though, as the wound allocation rules on page 25 simply state that if a model is not in base contact the wounds are allocated (by the "wounded" player) to the next closest model. The characters do not need to be in position to strike other combatants, they only need to strike the character they are in base with - if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

No matter where the character physically is on the board, they are defined as being in base contact only with each other, that is all we know. Given only this information, how do you know which is the next closest model??

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

That is another assumption. As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

Incorrect. The very first then you are told to do is put them into base to base contact. pg64. under the Fighting a challenge section."If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact "swap" the challenger to as close as possible to the challenge and ASSUME the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight"

There is no way around it . They are in fact in base to base contact , and if the pyhsical models are not you are told to assume they are.

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

is NOT the same as

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

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

No again , you are told to place them into base to base with each other and only each other . That does infact mean they are in base to base with each other. You at no time are given a option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base with the other model or assume you are in base to base with the other model

Captain Antivas wrote:What about my paradox?

You mean this?

Captain Antivas wrote: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!

There are 2 easy responses to this.

1) You believe the rules on page 429 are correct. Thus the challenge is resolved after the unit and the Captain has an I4 sub-phase after the unit's.
"Once all the models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges". There is no bringing anything back to life, the combat outside the challenge is explicitly resolved, and from the orks that are left, 2 now die. Ugly, but easy. In this example 3 Marines die, as well as 4 Orks and a Nob.

2) You believe the rules on 429 are a result of trying to simplify a complicated order of events, and believe the "Forging a Narrative" box in the upper right of 65 states that the models are fighting in initiative order both inside the challenge and outside it simultaneously. Thus as you resolve your combat, the marines kill orks, the Captain kills the Nob and more orks, and then whatever orks are left finally swing back after the marines and Captain (and everything else at I4) are done. Easy, just more time-consuming. In this example 4 Orks and the Nob die, and I do not know how many marines die because your example was following option 1.

Whether 1 or 2 is correct is NOT the debate here, wound overflow works in both cases. In 1 you resolve the unit, then resolve the challengers. In 2 you resolve everything at initiative order. At best you could use the example to make a case the rules on 429 are incorrect, and the "Forging the Narrative" on 65 is more clear.

The example does not refute wound overflow, however.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: if he dies and wounds are still in the pool, the overflow position is that those wounds are allocated to the rest of that character's squad, regardless of the placement.

Even if he dies he is still considered in base to base until the challenge is over , You do not get permission anywhere to allocate outside of base to base when you are in base to base

That is another assumption. As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

Incorrect. The very first then you are told to do is put them into base to base contact. pg64. under the Fighting a challenge section."If neither of these moves would result in the two models being in base contact "swap" the challenger to as close as possible to the challenge and ASSUME the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight"

There is no way around it . They are in fact in base to base contact , and if the pyhsical models are not you are told to assume they are.

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

is NOT the same as

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

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

No again , you are told to place them into base to base with each other and only each other . That does infact mean they are in base to base with each other. You at no time are given a option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base with the other model or assume you are in base to base with the other model

Kam, in all of that, please highlight what part of the rule (please explicitly include the entire sentence) the place where it you believe it means they are always in base contact.

I am not arguing that they begin in base contact, I am arguing that once one combatant is slain they are still in base combat. Nothing you have said here refutes that.

I agree you place them in base to base, I agree that means they are in base to base, I disagree that they are always in base combat for the duration of the challenge if one of them is killed.

You are certainly given an option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact. The only restriction you have is you can not be in base to base with any other model.

Gee -> I am not sure why you are asserting that being only in base with each other means they have no relative position. The rules clearly state you move the character to be in that base to base state, thus it has an end location, like all other models. If you are going to swap models to get that base to base state than the model you swapped with had to have an initial location, thus providing you with all the information you need to decide what is closest to that model. Just because the models are in a challenge does not mean they are in a limbo off the board - where they are physically in relation to their squad and the other enemy models is where they are physically in relation to their squad and the other enemy models.

Edit - taking a break here gents, it is time for bed. I'll happily continue this dance tomorrow evening

quiestdeus wrote:Kam, in all of that, please highlight what part of the rule (please explicitly include the entire sentence) the place where it you believe it means they are always in base contact.

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

quiestdeus wrote:
You are certainly given an option to be in a challenge and not be in base to base contact. The only restriction you have is you can not be in base to base with any other model.

Please provide quote and rule page of being in a challenge and not being in base to base contact or assumed to be so.

Guys, I understand that there is nowhere in the book saying that the excess wounds dont overflow to the rest of the squad if the character is killed, but neither it says that they do. I dont think a legit solution can be found here by the RAW. I think the idea behind the challenges is that the characters only fight each other. If we allow the wounds to go to the rest of models after a combatant is killed, the challenges will brake. Consider an idea of single space marine character with a power fist, being in combat with a mob of nobs, and the ork player has accepted the challenge, the marine passed all its saves created from the the ork character, and it is now time to swing his powerfist which kills the challengee, and insa-kills two more nobs that have been standing there, not taking part in the fight. That would be very unfair and could brake the game. I dont think that is how challenges are meant to work.

pitfighter wrote:Guys, I understand that there is nowhere in the book saying that the excess wounds dont overflow to the rest of the squad if the character is killed, but neither it says that they do.

A basic understanding of how the rules are written is required to discuss said rules.

"The rules doesn't say that it doesn't happen" is simply not a valid counter-point to "The rules doesn't say that it happens".

Those two cannot be presented as cancelling each other out, or be presented as holding equal weight in an opposed situation.

Do People even read my posts....

Page 64. Combatant Slain and Outside Forces

After reading both you should understand that the challenge and the other squad members are separate. They can't effect wounds in or out of those combats. The only thing that a squad can do is cheer on their character.

To make this very clear. "Only the Challenger and Challengee can strike blows against each other." So no blows (wounds) can be sent out of the challenge.

That's it. End of Argument.

Again, if you'd read the initial pages that argument has been brought up and dismissed. You arent parsing that sentence with any accuracy

That sentence only states that the challenger and challengee can hit it eachother. It does NOT say that they cannot hit other models.

MJThurston wrote:Do People even read my posts....

Page 64. Combatant Slain and Outside Forces

After reading both you should understand that the challenge and the other squad members are separate. They can't effect wounds in or out of those combats. The only thing that a squad can do is cheer on their character.

To make this very clear. "Only the Challenger and Challengee can strike blows against each other." So know blows (wounds) can be sent out of the challenge.

That's it. End of Argument.

Do you even read others? That one was countered on page 1.
I'm on your side. I think it would be stupid if wounds flow over.

But the fact of the matter is that this is an incredibly vague rule that, AGAIN, GW have completely failed to specify. They're leaving it open to interpretation. That wouldn't be too bad if they cared enough to FAQ this stuff in a reasonable amount of time, but they don't.

I'm gonna roll this one off every time someone disagrees with me until GW gives enough of a sh*t to FAQ it.

It's not vague.

1. Only blows in challenges strike challengers/challengee's. Blows = wounds.

2. Squad fights and challenge fights are separate and last until the end of the assault phase.

3. The only thing that effects challenges is if you have a squad that is not fighting in the challenge and they can cheer on their character.

I do not see anything in these rules that suggest any type of wound overflow. And in the BRB there is no such animal.

So why does it take 14 pages over something that is in black and white? We can't have our cake and eat it to?

Your points 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with wound overflow, as they neither comment on it nor deny it. Hence pointing out that your argument was dismissed page 1, as the contention has moved to other areas.

You have general permission from the wound allocation rules to allocate out from the challenge. This is why it is important that you are only in btb with the counterparty to the challenge, and that you remain so during the whole phase. This, and this alone, prevents wounds from flowing out.

OK I will step into this lions den with a further alternative. I take the following points a) to c) to be established

a) Only a champion can allocate wounds to another champion

b) champions are in base to base contact for the entire round of assult

c) normal wound allocation rules otherwise apply.

My conclusion from these 3 points is that wounds can overflow from the champion combat, but only to models that are also in base to base contact with the relevant combatant.

Under normal wound allocation rules you can allocate to any model in base to base contact, but not any more distant models while there is a model in base to base. Since the combatants are stated as being in base to base until the end of the round, that means that no wounds may be allocated to models not in base to base, but as far as I can see there is nothing preventing other models in base to base being hit.

In practice most of the time this won't make much difference to the no overflow case, you may be able to clip one additional model at best, and if this interpretation is correct, then that one will likely be the first casualy in the main battle.

MJThurston wrote:So why does it take 14 pages over something that is in black and white? We can't have our cake and eat it to?

Because it's open to interpretation. It's vague. You saying it isn't doesn't make it clear.
I've read the whole thing and your points have been discredited so many times I really don't see the point of even starting to argue with you.

It's not open. It's only open because people are substituting their own ideas.

No such rule as wound over flow. Never once seen it in the BRB. So it does not exist.

Blows are = to wounds. So Blows (wounds) can only be given to a challenger/challengee

And, again, no. Read pages 1 and 2, where your point is thoroughly debunked.

Youre in the right camp, but without any actual rules backing.

MJThurston wrote:It's not open. It's only open because people are substituting their own ideas.

No such rule as wound over flow. Never once seen it in the BRB. So it does not exist.

Blows are = to wounds. So Blows (wounds) can only be given to a challenger/challengee

The rules say they can only hit eachother. It does NOT state that THEY cannot hit OTHERS. It ONLY states that OTHERS CAN'T HIT THEM.
The rules for normal close combat state that wounds transfer to the next character.

If you choose to read this as the rule to be used, which there is nothing to stop you from, then this means your point of view is wrong.

I repeat, YOU SAYING THAT IT IS CLEAR DOES NOT MAKE IT CLEAR.

Now go back and read the 14 pages, because what I just told you has been said a million times. And that's impressive on only 14 pages!

Let's review:

Phase - The Assault Phase is comprised of two sub-phases, Charge Sub-Phase and Fight Sub-Phase. Close combat and wound allocation occur in the Fight Sub-Phase, which is part of the over-arching Assault Phase.

"Fighting a Challenge", Page 64
If accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. ... If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves results in the two models being in base contact, 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight... Wounds allocated to a character in a challenge cannot be reallocated by the Look Out, Sir rule. For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

"Combatant Slain"
When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

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

We establish that the challenger and challengee are in base contact with ONLY each other. We establish that it specifies they are in base contact with each other until the end of the phase, regardless of what initiative step it is. We establish that it specifies phase, not subphase, and as such, they are in the challenge until the end of the Assault Phase.

It also states in the Forging a Narrative that it's acceptable to resolve a challenge outside the normal initiative order. This strikes a blow against overflow on the basis that if overflow were part of the game, it would have to resolve as per initiative order - you would be able to allocate those wounds to the models around you, not just to whatever is left over after the fight taking place around the duel. It also states to resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though the duelists were not there. This should make clear that they are considered separate battles for the sake of the rules.

There is no overflow. There is nothing to support it, and much to support the argument against it. Saying "It's too vague" is not a valid argument.

TheHarleqwin wrote:Let's review:

Phase - The Assault Phase is comprised of two sub-phases, Charge Sub-Phase and Fight Sub-Phase. Close combat and wound allocation occur in the Fight Sub-Phase, which is part of the over-arching Assault Phase.

"Fighting a Challenge", Page 64
If accepted, it is time to move the two combatants into base contact with each other. ... If possible, swap the challenger for a friendly model in base contact with the challengee. If this cannot be done, swap the challengee for a friendly model in base contact with the challenger. If neither of these moves results in the two models being in base contact, 'swap' the challenger to as close as possible to the challengee and assume the two to be in base contact for the purposes of the ensuing fight... Wounds allocated to a character in a challenge cannot be reallocated by the Look Out, Sir rule. For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

"Combatant Slain"
When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

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

We establish that the challenger and challengee are in base contact with ONLY each other. We establish that it specifies they are in base contact with each other until the end of the phase, regardless of what initiative step it is. We establish that it specifies phase, not subphase, and as such, they are in the challenge until the end of the Assault Phase.

It also states in the Forging a Narrative that it's acceptable to resolve a challenge outside the normal initiative order. This strikes a blow against overflow on the basis that if overflow were part of the game, it would have to resolve as per initiative order - you would be able to allocate those wounds to the models around you, not just to whatever is left over after the fight taking place around the duel. It also states to resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though the duelists were not there. This should make clear that they are considered separate battles for the sake of the rules.

There is no overflow. There is nothing to support it, and much to support the argument against it.

But irritatingly nothing to set it in stone. Only to support the claim. Or to draw logical conclusions. Which, to be honest, is not how a GW game works.

I see you edited in

Saying "It's too vague" is not a valid argument.

I'm not saying it's an argument for either side. It's my argument to roll it off when I face this situation because arguing a point that is not able to be firmly solved is not my idea of a fun game.
It being too vague is a perfectly good argument for saying it's too vague.

I don't think this is vague at all. It posits very clearly when you read through in its entirety. They are removed from the standard combat and placed with each other, it outlines restrictions in that they're in base contact only with each other, and that they remain in contact with each other whether or not either of them if alive, until the end of the assault phase. It states resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though they aren't there.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:Just like the mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty.
But the mug that can only be filled with beer may never be empty.

A mug that can be filled only with beer may be empty, because the requirement is just that "if the mug is filled, it must be with beer"
A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone. Just that "if the model is in base, it must be with the model required"

Even if it is empty it is considered to be filled with beer.

So we may not pour any other liquids in the mug, because it is considered to be filled with beer, even if all of the beer has been drunk.

I'm not sure why you're contorting grammar this way.
If the mug is empty, it is empty.
Reading is hard, I know.

"A model that can be in base only with one other model may not be in base with anyone" (This is incorrect)

Acutally it is. And that's the point about where the modifier "only" appears in the sentence.
"A model that can be in base only with one other model"
is different from
"A model that can only be in base with one other model"

The first one allows you to be in base with nobody.
The second does not.

In the rules, the modifier is placed as with the first example.

It should read "A model that is considered to be in base only with one other model must be in base to base with that other model."

And if that's what it read, you would be correct. That's not what it reads. Again, I know, reading is hard.

How do you not understand that?

If your posts were half as snarky and twice as thoughtful this thread might not have raged in to the troll fest it is.
Great example of how rule questions get decided by the neckbeard with the loudest voice and lowest threshold for rudeness.

Maybe "wound overflow" was not intended, maybe it was. I don't know, or care.

There's no RAW justification for allocating wounds to a model that's already been removed as a casualty. Many on this thread are insisting their reading of the rules says even after the model is dead it's still considered to be in base.

That's not how the rules are written.

You start the challenge in base with only one model. You allocate wounds to it until its dead. Then you use the normal wound allocation rules (which are nowhere contravened in the challenge rules) and continue to allocate to the squad.

First thing is this. The rule says blows.

Blows are wounds that have hit.

So you can only attack the challenger/challengee and only wounds can be given to them.

TheHarleqwin wrote:I don't think this is vague at all. It posits very clearly when you read through in its entirety. They are removed from the standard combat and placed with each other, it outlines restrictions in that they're in base contact only with each other, and that they remain in contact with each other whether or not either of them if alive, until the end of the assault phase. It states resolve wound allocation for the outside forces as though they aren't there.

There are about as many on the other side of the fence saying it's crystal clear in their favour. How detached do you have to be from reality to not see that that means it's vague?
Remember, I'm on your side here for the rule, but you have to learn to look at things objectively.
This whole thread is proof that it is vague.

To use the counters that have already been in this thread against your point, the characters still have to stay in unit coherency. Meaning they are still right there.

Purifier wrote:
There are about as many on the other side of the fence saying it's crystal clear in their favour. How detached do you have to be from reality to not see that that means it's vague?
Remember, I'm on your side here for the rule, but you have to learn to look at things objectively.
This whole thread is proof that it is vague.

To use the counters that have already been in this thread against your point, the characters still have to stay in unit coherency. Meaning they are still right there.

Perhaps it would help if people would stop getting riled up and cut jabs at people like asking " How detached do you have to be from reality to not see that that means it's vague?"
Half the posts in this thread are thinly veiled insults if they aren't outright hostile.

I offer rules that support the argument that makes the most logical sense. I play Orks, I think it would be great to have Ghaz rip through an entire unit after inflicting ID on special character with his PK. Unfortunately, the way the rules are written, if followed to logical conclusion with all that support, shows that it isn't going to happen. You bring up that "There are about as many on the other side of the fence saying it's crystal clear in their favour". No, there aren't. Before I got fed up with the back and forth and offered my structured view, wording taken directly from the book, most of the arguments in favour for overflow had been debunked or were directly contradicted by rules present in the book.

This is not a "roll-off" for it situation. This is not WHFB. There is no rules layout explaining how to allocate for overflow, and there are many points that point out that it doesn't occur that way.

Quick edit - Coherency doesn't hold against my argument in any way. It's irrelevant, except that they're part of the squad. That has no bearing whatsoever on anything I stated.

I've made my statements and backed them with the BRB, and I'm going to leave it at that.

TheHarleqwin wrote:I've made my statements and backed them with the BRB, and I'm going to leave it at that.

So has the other side. And they are of the opinion that they have effectively debunked all your points.
I'm a GK. My Grand Master is a God damn meat grinder. I, like you, are still on the side that says wounds do not overflow.

But that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm saying that it's not clear, and the complete inability that both sides of the coin in this thread have to see anything but their own viewpoint is bordering on the religious.
It is vague. The only thing you and the other side can agree on is that it is not vague. It's perfectly clear to both of you.