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.

Purifier wrote:
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.

This made me laugh (in a good way! ) I play Sisters and my characters are the meat that you would like to grind, and I believe wounds do overflow. Isn't English a swell language?

Purifier wrote: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.

This is spot on.

As fun as it is to argue in circles incessantly, the only real point to it (currently) is to make sure no one comes to this thread believing their question is going to be resolved with any authority.

quiestdeus wrote:Sisters and my characters are the meat that you would like to grind

Awwwww yeeeeeah. Ifyouknowwhatimean.

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

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

I fear we're going to need to agree to disagree on this amigo, as (to me it seems) you are ignoring the entirety of how this sentence is written and focusing on what you want to interpret from it. I will give it one last go though.

This sentence has a clear who, a clear what is happening to them, and a clear duration.

The who and the duration I think we have no argument on:
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge

Agreed?

What the disagreement focuses on is the meaning of the what:
are considered to be in base contact only with each other

That does not read:
are always considered to be in base contact with each other
NOR
are considered to be in base contact.

Meaning aside, you agree that both of those phrases are NOT what is written in ink in the rulebook? The word always is not used, nor does the period appear after "contact".

I cannot see a way for you to disagree with anything up to this point, so I am going to continue based on the assumption you do agree. If you do not... see above: agree to disagree.

The only thing are considered to be in base contact only with each other means is that no other model is in base contact with either challenger. There is no qualifier in that sentence that states they are always in base contact with each other, if there was, the word always would appear. It does not. Because the sentence ends with only with each other means that they are only in contact with each other, not that they are ALWAYS in contact with each other.
So ->
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge
What: are considered to be in base contact only with each other

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
That is all that is written, anything else is assumption, and is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifier wrote:

quiestdeus wrote:Sisters and my characters are the meat that you would like to grind

Awwwww yeeeeeah. Ifyouknowwhatimean.

Ha, I made that too easy, eh?

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

Ok, so the above statement from the book states that only the two models are in base to base. I agree that they can only strike blows on each other. I think the 4 million dollar question is:

When is the challenge considered over?

Is the challenge considered finished immediately after the model dies? Meaning that the extra wounds spill over.
or
Is the challenge considered over at the end of the assault phase that one of the models dies? Meaning that wounds cannot spill over.

I tend to believe it is the second of these two options but I can definitely see how some would think it is the first.

UrgThraka wrote:

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

Ok, so the above statement from the book states that only the two models are in base to base. I agree that they can only strike blows on each other. I think the 4 million dollar question is:

When is the challenge considered over?

Is the challenge considered finished immediately after the model dies? Meaning that the extra wounds spill over.
or
Is the challenge considered over at the end of the assault phase that one of the models dies? Meaning that wounds cannot spill over.

I tend to believe it is the second of these two options but I can definitely see how some would think it is the first.

When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.
Some say you're still in base with the dead model. I don't think this is what the rule says. (See prior discussion about grammar and misplaced modifiers).
When one model dies, wound allocation proceeds as normal. Yes the challenge is still ongoing until the end of the phase, so other models can't attack the surviving model. They proceed as if the models in the challenge weren't there.

I think its telling that while models outside the challenge are told to allocate in a way different from normal wound allocation, there's no such rule for models in the challenge.
The entire "no wound overflow" argument hinges on misreading the "only in base" sentence to imply a divergence from normal wound allocation.

jcress410 wrote:

UrgThraka wrote:

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

Ok, so the above statement from the book states that only the two models are in base to base. I agree that they can only strike blows on each other. I think the 4 million dollar question is:

When is the challenge considered over?

Is the challenge considered finished immediately after the model dies? Meaning that the extra wounds spill over.
or
Is the challenge considered over at the end of the assault phase that one of the models dies? Meaning that wounds cannot spill over.

I tend to believe it is the second of these two options but I can definitely see how some would think it is the first.

When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.
Some say you're still in base with the dead model. I don't think this is what the rule says. (See prior discussion about grammar and misplaced modifiers).
When one model dies, wound allocation proceeds as normal. Yes the challenge is still ongoing until the end of the phase, so other models can't attack the surviving model. They proceed as if the models in the challenge weren't there.

I think its telling that while models outside the challenge are told to allocate in a way different from normal wound allocation, there's no such rule for models in the challenge.
The current "no wound overflow" argument hinges on misreading the "only in base" sentence to imply a divergence from normal wound allocation.

My emphasis at the end there, but otherwise a spot on summary of the current wound overflow position.

quiestdeus wrote: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.

If wound allocation is resolved like the characters are not there then how do the characters allocate wounds to the Outside Forces? Sure the first part of the sentence makes it clear that the other attackers cannot hurt the challengers but the second implies that neither can hurt each other. Either the characters are always not there or they are never not there. You cannot have the characters porting in and out of combat like two crazy people with malfunctioning teleport units.

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

The problem here is that a does not imply b, a=b. All wounds allocated to attackers not involved with the challenge are allocated as if the characters were not there. Therefore, all wounds caused by a challenger are also allocated as if the characters were not there.

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.

There is a section in Challenges about how the results of the challenge affect the combat as a whole. So your assertion that if wound overflow was not allowed then the challenge would have its own Assault Result step is true, but GW probably assumed people would know that so they didn't spell it out for us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcress410 wrote:I think its telling that while models outside the challenge are told to allocate in a way different from normal wound allocation, there's no such rule for models in the challenge.
The entire "no wound overflow" argument hinges on misreading the "only in base" sentence to imply a divergence from normal wound allocation.

Except wounds don't have to be allocated to models in BTB with the attacker if there is someone else attacking at that initiative step.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

quiestdeus wrote:

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.

The problem with this assertion is that you don't get to pick and choose which section from which part of the rulebook you get to use. You can't just say that 1+2+3 does not equal 6 because 1 is in a different section so the answer is 5. But 2 applies only to something else so the answer is 4.

Antivas, that entire section seems to clearly be dealing only with the models outside the challenge. Seems irrelevant. It doesn't imply or even suggest you should resolve wounds from the challenge like the challengers weren't there.

Except wounds don't have to be allocated to models in BTB with the attacker if there is someone else attacking at that initiative step.

Why? The assault rules say allocate closest to furthest, starting with the models in base.

Captain Antivas wrote:

quiestdeus wrote: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.

If wound allocation is resolved like the characters are not there then how do the characters allocate wounds to the Outside Forces? Sure the first part of the sentence makes it clear that the other attackers cannot hurt the challengers but the second implies that neither can hurt each other. Either the characters are always not there or they are never not there. You cannot have the characters porting in and out of combat like two crazy people with malfunctioning teleport units.

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

Would allocation FROM OUTSIDE FORCES is resolved as if the characters are not there. The entire "the second implies" part is just that, implication based on application of one rule where it does not apply.

Wound allocation FROM OUTSIDE FORCES resolving as if the characters are not there does not mean that wound allocation from characters is resolved as if the outside forces are not there. If that were true, it would be explicitly indicated... as the rules do for the other case.

A is NOT equal to B. We have rules for wound allocation. Those are the baseline. "A" provides exemption for part of those rules. Just because "A" is exempt via specific permissive rules, does NOT mean "B" is exempt. "B" would need its own explicit permission to be different. That permission does not exist, thus "B" follows the baseline ruleset.

With respect to my answers to your paradox... I provide two very valid replies. The fact that both legitimize wound overflow is not a "problem" with the assertions - in fact, it strengthens them because it shows viability under the already ambiguous multiple sets of circumstances the rulebook has allowed for. As I noted, debate on whether we should follow what is on page 64 or what is on page 429 does not belong here because it is irrelevant. What does matter is the fact that under EITHER set of circumstances wound overflow is possible, which again, makes the issue not nearly as clear cut as you have previously claimed.

jcress410 wrote:Antivas, that entire section seems to clearly be dealing only with the models outside the challenge. Seems irrelevant. It doesn't imply or even suggest you should resolve wounds from the challenge like the challengers weren't there.

Except that the section is included in the Character's section, specifically Challenges. It being in the Character's section is clearly irrelevant...but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right. Lets follow the logical flow:
Outside forces cannot hurt models in a challenge. (A)
The wound allocation step is resolved as if the characters are not there. (B)
All wounds caused by Outside Forces cannot be allocated to the challengers. (C)
Characters cause wounds at their normal Initiative step regardless of the challenge. (D)
Therefore, all wounds allocated to Outside Forces are allocated as if the challengers are not there. (E)

A+B=C

D+B=E

Except wounds don't have to be allocated to models in BTB with the attacker if there is someone else attacking at that initiative step.

Why? The assault rules say allocate closest to furthest, starting with the models in base.

jcress410 wrote:When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.

The same thing that happens when both are alive.

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

If one dies the challenge lasts til the end of the phase.

So: Until the end of the Assault Phase, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.

The same thing that happens when both are alive.

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

If one dies the challenge lasts til the end of the phase.

So: Until the end of the Assault Phase, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Exactly, they are considered to be in base contact only with each other. You say so yourself. That does not mean they are considered to be in base contact, just that they can not be in base contact with anyone else.

You do not need to agree, but do you see what we are arguing?

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:When the challenge ends is largely irrelevant. The question hinges on what happens if one of the combatants in the challenge is dead.

The same thing that happens when both are alive.

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

If one dies the challenge lasts til the end of the phase.

So: Until the end of the Assault Phase, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

I'm tapping out on this.
Re-posting the same argument you've been making for 15 pages, declaring victory and then brow-beating anyone who disagrees without considering the content or nuance of their posts is flagrant trolling.

Anyone who wants to read the thread might pick up on the difference between

"only considered to be in base contact.."
and "considered to be in base contact only with.."

Yeah, grammar is tricky. Misplaced modifiers often cause confusion.

In this case, RAW requires us to continue allocating wounds as per the wound allocation rules after the other party to the challenge has died. Might not be what many of us think of when we consider the idea of a challenge, but it's what came with the new BRB.

It doesn't bother me when people disagree.

A couple places in this thread a lot of people steamroll over the conversation to declare consensus, or malign anyone with a contrary opinion.

So, you can win at internet.

I really don't care whether we allow wound overflow from challenges, I just hope INAT or GW deals with this and many other issues soon.

jcress410 wrote:
I really don't care whether we allow wound overflow from challenges, I just hope INAT or GW deals with this and many other issues soon.

There is another FAQ slated for August last I heard, we'll find out either way soon enough

I think the major disconnect here that people are missing is this:

It says they're in base to base.
They remain in base to base as per the rulebook specifically stating so when one of the characters dies.
The challenge lasts until the end of the assault phase.
At the end of the assault phase, anything that took place in that assault phase is over. Being locked in combat requires seeing whether combat continued from the previous turn, which means there has to be an enemy still alive and fighting.

The way the rules word it, it is a separate conflict within the conflict. As such, coming into the next turn's assault phase, you would see that there is no opponent character surviving from the previous. Your challenger is in coherency with the rest of their unit, and thus become part of that conflict once again.

Again, IMHO I thought this was obvious. I'm used to playing games where it specifically outlines that a condition occurring requires a check to see that prerequisites are met; ie., Does an assault/challenge continue? Yes> There are enemies still in base contact that meet the requirements for it to constitute an assault/challenge, or No> There are no enemies in base to base, thus your unit either takes normal action or the character "rejoins" his unit at the beginning of the turn and acts with them.

My only concession towards it not being clear is that it doesn't explicitly state yea or nay. It still stands that there is far more support from the rulebook for "no overflow VS "pro-overflow"

quiestdeus wrote:There is another FAQ slated for August last I heard, we'll find out either way soon enough

We can only hope it doesn't get pushed back or anything.

TheHarleqwin wrote:I think the major disconnect here that people are missing is this:

1) It says they're in base to base.
2) They remain in base to base as per the rulebook specifically stating so when one of the characters dies.
3) The challenge lasts until the end of the assault phase.
4) At the end of the assault phase, anything that took place in that assault phase is over. Being locked in combat requires seeing whether combat continued from the previous turn, which means there has to be an enemy still alive and fighting.

Absolute agree on where the disconnect is - specifically it lies with #2.

While I cannot speak for others, numbers 1, 3, and 4 I absolutely agree with. I just think the wording (hashed out over and over the past few pages) on considering the models in base to base is exclusive (restrictive, permissive, choose your adjective) and not absolute. Because of that, when one challenger dies the other does not need to be in base to base, and wounds can be allocated outside of the challenge. I wholeheartedly agree if the models are considered to "always" be in base contact wound overflow cannot occur (again, for all the reasons hashed out previously) - but based on how the sentence reads (to me, and others), that is not the current case.

From all the arguments, boiling it all down, it really is the grammar issue that is causing the rift. A man much less argumentative than I recently said: "After a few years on the [boards], one thing has become very, very clear to me. 40K rules do NOT stand-up to word-by-word analysis on any level: legal-style interpretations, precedents, grammar analysis, and at times logic seems to be given complete amiss."

My god, it says they "are considered to be in base contact only with each other". Shame on everyone supporting overflow who isn't ESL. Deathreaper you have the patience of a saint.

>are considered to be in base contact only with each other
>are considered
>are

There is nothing optional about the word "are".

They ARE in base contact (only with each other)
and they ARE in base contact for the duration of the challenge (which is the duration of the phase at least).

There is no choice, no option to not be in base contact, no glasses with one liquid or nothing, all of your analogies are worthless. There is not a shred of room or give in this statement for interpretation.

"Wound overflow" from challenges died 8 pages ago, but somehow I am still in contact with this ridiculous discussion. I thought you guys said dead things can't affect the game, this debate is sure trying its best.

Eldarguy88 wrote:My god, it says they "are considered to be in base contact only with each other". Shame on everyone supporting overflow who isn't ESL. Deathreaper you have the patience of a saint.

>are considered to be in base contact only with each other
>are considered
>are

There is nothing optional about the word "are".

They ARE in base contact (only with each other)
and they ARE in base contact for the duration of the challenge (which is the duration of the phase at least).

There is no choice, no option to not be in base contact, no glasses with one liquid or nothing, all of your analogies are worthless. There is not a shred of room or give in this statement for interpretation.

"Wound overflow" from challenges died 8 pages ago, but somehow I am still in contact with this ridiculous discussion. I thought you guys said dead things can't affect the game, this debate is sure trying its best.

Models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Eldarguy88 and Deathreaper are considered to be wrong only about wound spillover.

By your breakdown of the sentence you two are always wrong? You are parsing the sentence incorrectly.

Eldarguy88 and Deathreaper are considered to be wrong only about wound spillover.
>are considered to be wrong
>are wrong

That is *EXACTLY* what you just did. However, how can you possibly read "Eldarguy88 and Deathreaper are considered to be wrong only about wound spillover." and interpret that sentence to mean you are wrong about everything.

Models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
The models are only considered to be in base contact with no one else, not that they are always in base contact.

quiestdeus wrote:

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

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

I fear we're going to need to agree to disagree on this amigo, as (to me it seems) you are ignoring the entirety of how this sentence is written and focusing on what you want to interpret from it. I will give it one last go though.

This sentence has a clear who, a clear what is happening to them, and a clear duration.

The who and the duration I think we have no argument on:
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge

Agreed?

Agreed

quiestdeus wrote:What the disagreement focuses on is the meaning of the what:
are considered to be in base contact only with each other

That does not read:
are always considered to be in base contact with each other
NOR
are considered to be in base contact.

Meaning aside, you agree that both of those phrases are NOT what is written in ink in the rulebook? The word always is not used, nor does the period appear after "contact".

As pointed out in a few posts before this one you are forgetting the word Are and applying it.

quiestdeus wrote:I There is no qualifier in that sentence that states they are always in base contact with each other, if there was, the word always would appear. It does not. Because the sentence ends with only with each other means that they are only in contact with each other, not that they are ALWAYS in contact with each other.

Sure there is. You combine the duration ( duration of the challenge ) and are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other. You don't need to focus on only. That just excludes everyone else . The word are is your problem.

quiestdeus wrote:So ->
Who: these two models
When: For the duration of this challenge
What: are considered to be in base contact only with each other

For the duration of a challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
That is all that is written, anything else is assumption, and is incorrect.

Correct
so by combine the who when and what you get 2 models , for the duration of the challenge, are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
as pointed out in previous posts they are indeed in base to base

kambien wrote: You don't need to focus on only. That just excludes everyone else . The word are is your problem.
...
are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

But what ARE the models? You say so yourself right there, they are (considered to be in base contact only with each other).

That is one complete piece. They are not (considered to be in base contact) and (only with each other). You cannot chop the sentence up like that - it does not make sense.

Models are considered to be in base contact.
Models are considered to be only with each other.

That does not work.

Considered to be in base contact only with each other is one entire piece and needs to be read as such.

quiestdeus wrote:

kambien wrote: You don't need to focus on only. That just excludes everyone else . The word are is your problem.

...
are considered to be in base contact only with each other.


But what ARE the models?

The challenger and the challengee

quiestdeus wrote:You say so yourself right there, they are (considered to be in base contact only with each other).

No i said they are considered to be in base contact only with each other

quiestdeus wrote:That is one complete piece. They are not (considered to be in base contact) and (only with each other). You cannot chop the sentence up like that - it does not make sense.

Again they are ( considered to be in base contact ) not they are not (considered to be in base contact)
and the complete peice is
For the duraction of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other

quiestdeus wrote:Models are considered to be in base contact.
Models are considered to be only with each other.

That does not work.
Considered to be in base contact only with each other is one entire piece and needs to be read as such.

again Are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

Misplaced modifiers are confusing.

It's really easy to read the sentence incorrectly. That's why so many people are.

The fact that the syntactically correct reading of the rules diverges so wildly from the way a lot of people are reading it is frustrating.

At this point, trying to explain why the RAW and RAI are diverging is pointless.

A faq will resolve the issue. I would bet the faq will rule against overflow, so that's probably the way I'll play it.

jcress410 wrote:Misplaced modifiers are confusing.

It's really easy to read the sentence incorrectly. That's why so many people are.

The fact that the syntactically correct reading of the rules diverges so wildly from the way a lot of people are reading it is frustrating.

At this point, trying to explain why the RAW and RAI are diverging is pointless.

A faq will resolve the issue. I would bet the faq will rule against overflow, so that's probably the way I'll play it.

If you read this thread and still think RAW is no overflow, fine. Just do yourself a favor, take your BRB to whatever poorly funded high school you attend and demand your english teacher explain what a misplaced modifier is and how the sentence should be read. Ask him/her to diagram the sentence for you, or do it yourself for homework.

Then wait for the faq.

Then while I do that you go to your local university and take a class on logic then formulate an argument that doesn't ignore inconvenient truths to make your point.

And for the record I know what a misplaced modifier is. The modifier is irrelevant in the context of all the rules put together and not just one section at a time.

The good news is that I don't have to play with you. My gaming group already agrees that overflow is not possible so I will play it that way and be happy.

quiestdeus wrote:

Gee -> I am not sure why you are asserting that being only in base with each other means they have no relative position.

I would love to explain to you why I assert this.

quiestdeus wrote:
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.

This happens before their location is defined. They are moved, then we define their position.

quiestdeus wrote:
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.

Look, in the rulebook we are asked to assume that the two characters are only in base contact with each other, no matter what their physical position is on the board. They could be physically based with a million other models and 4 feet from each other, but that has no bearing on the position we are supposed to assume they are in.

Lets say C1 is at some physical position A; and he is in a challenge with C2 at some other position B. They are also physically based with many other models. According to the rule, we are to believe that C1 is in base contact only with C2 and C2 is in base contact only with C1. So you say to me look the next closest model is M1 who is physically based with C1 because he is at position A. That is not logically possible, because if C1 is in position A then he is in base contact with M1. But we know that C1 is not in base contact with M1 (because the BRB says so), so it is absolutely not possible for C1 to be in position A. Since he is not in position A we don't know where he is, only that he is based with C2. We can't even reliably say that our hand is 3 inches from C1's head, because if that was true then C1 would be based with M1, which is not true.

So the only possible explainable is that they are in fact some sort of limbo, and their comrades can only stand by and watch.

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

I didn't know we were dancing.

quiestdeus wrote: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.

Maybe you are misunderstanding what it means for them to resolved wound allocation. You can't resolved wound 2 until wound 1 has been allocated, saved, and any slain models removed. If they are to RESOLVE (finish) the wound allocation process, the have to march through it, with out any allowance for those characters (which would make no since IF wounds could suddenly come spilling over at any time). The two units are told to complete wound allocation as if the challenge characters aren't there... to me, that shows some seperation.

The Demon Prince is NOT an example to that process, it is an example as to how a unit can be affected/can affect combat if there is not a unit for them to combat.

I also note that you completely dodged how allocation could work if wounds scored against a character were to be applied to a unit (which is really tough if they aren't the same profile, which happens often which regular characters, let alone IC). You did not overcome a hurdle you just explained to me incorrectly where part of it is and ignored the part you can't overcome.

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.

You need to read what I posted, in fact you even quoted me saying what you are accusing me of having overlooked (if you can't read my posts, at least read your own). I have consistantly and repeatedly stated that the only crossover between challenges and unit combat is morale and cheerleading. The rulebook spells out that crossover too. I wonder why if they authors made it crystal clear to cross over morale issues, they didn't describe overflow too?... oh wait... maybe that's not part of the game. Its pretty easy to shoot down someone's arguement when you don't even read or understand it

I can't believe this thread is still alive. 15 pages...whew!

The rule is pretty clear. There is no rule for wound overflow. Wound allocation in this can't jump from the challenge to the squad just like it can't jump from squad to the challenge.

Just ask yourself this simple question. Is it fair to say that 10 SM's jump a special character w/ one other model?

So the special character gets say 5 attacks at AP3. He hits 5 times and wounds 5 times. The SM squad was the charging unit and ends up doing 8 wounds.

So it's fair to kill the SM seargeant and then get 4 more kills from the so called wound overflow. But 7 wounds coming from the SM squad can't go into the special character?

So let me get this right. If I put a billy bad ass in a small squad, I can virtually make sure he wins every assault because he can't be hit in Challenges?

That is utterly stupid.

Agreed, this is stupid. People pick apart everything to try and exploit it. Assume you always can't do something! If it says you can do it, it will say you can do it.. otherwise you CAN'T!

decoste007xt wrote:Agreed, this is stupid. People pick apart everything to try and exploit it. Assume you always can't do something! If it says you can do it, it will say you can do it.. otherwise you CAN'T!

You mean like it says to allocate wounds in combat?

That might possibly be the reason this thread exists. Just saying.

MJThurston wrote:So let me get this right. If I put a billy bad ass in a small squad, I can virtually make sure he wins every assault because he can't be hit in Challenges?

That is utterly stupid.

Way to oversimplify. Are you saying you can always take a character that no other army can ever hope to match? If the other group has a better character than yours, you're stopped anyway.
And how is this different from just sitting there with your 2+ armour save and 2+ look out sir on your IC in a unit?