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.

MJThurston wrote: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.

This is exactly what they want. They want their Daemon Prince (or suitable counterpart) to walk up to a squad and wipe them out while walking away unscathed. It's sickening.

It is stupid.

There is no wound overflow, no matter how much you wish there was.

I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

DarbNilbirts wrote:I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

Wounds cannot be allocated outside the challenge by LoS. (2nd to last sentence in the Fighting a Challenge section)

Since the wound allocation step is completed as if the challengers are not there Precision Strikes are out too.

Captain Antivas wrote:It's sickening.

Oh my, HARSH!

Show me the character that quiestdeus, the Sisters of Battle-player on the pro-overflow camp, is gonna use to swipe his way relentlessly through your troops, skewering your brave officers on her blades only to use them as hand warmers as they slide down the blade, while she is slicing in to the next in line!

SICKENING!

Purifier wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:It's sickening.

Oh my, HARSH!

Show me the character that quiestdeus, the Sisters of Battle-player on the pro-overflow camp, is gonna use to swipe his way relentlessly through your troops, skewering your brave officers on her blades only to use them as hand warmers as they slide down the blade, while she is slicing in to the next in line!

SICKENING!

I don't know enough about the SoB to answer that question. But clearly everyone wants it for the same reason and there is no other reason that people would want wound overflow. It couldn't possibly be an exaggeration to prove a point, no that is not possible...

DarbNilbirts wrote:I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

Yak made some excellent points in another thread regarding this. He basically stated that IF you believe there is not overflow, you can't have precision strikes leaving the challenge either (I agree). LOS! can't ever effect challenges either, and I don't think either "side" believes that (I really don't know, no one over there has explained to me how it would work, which to me is as big a problem as IF it can work. If what you're wanting breaks the rules once you start trying to use it, to fight to get to use it is pointless).

Lobukia wrote:

DarbNilbirts wrote:I have a quick question for those in the against overflow camp, just to clarify my case before I state it to my gamming group. Assuming no overflow, the only ways for combatants to kill outside of the challenge is look out sir and/or precision strike? Do either of those not work?

Yak made some excellent points in another thread regarding this. He basically stated that IF you believe there is not overflow, you can't have precision strikes leaving the challenge either (I agree). LOS! can't ever effect challenges either, and I don't think either "side" believes that (I really don't know, no one over there has explained to me how it would work, which to me is as big a problem as IF it can work. If what you're wanting breaks the rules once you start trying to use it, to fight to get to use it is pointless).

I'm with Lobukia on this. The rules seem to have less complications when overflow is out, and neither LOS! nor precision strikes can get in or out of the challenge.

People have a hard time with the can only effect each other part. Its convoluded and not strait forward, tons of wiggle room.

Captain Antivas wrote:But clearly everyone wants it for the same reason and there is no other reason that people would want wound overflow.

And this is where you went wrong. You went and assumed things. A lot of people read the rules long and hard and decide upon what was meant because they want the game to be played in the right way. No matter if that is a boon for them or bad for them. Take me. I am against overflow, but it would be a great boon to me.

But you think people only read things in a different way than you do to gain boons. In Sweden there is a saying that goes "as you know yourself, you know others." think on it.

This is very awkward, I have to agree that it is ambiguous, the phrasing used can be interpreted either way and some of the adjacent rules are a bit clunky whichever interpretation you use. I think, having read this entire thread, that I'd come down on the side of wound overflow. I think it is less of a stretch of the wording of the rules. I think to get rid of overflow you have to stretch the wording a bit further

Basically the argument hinges on the “only” in the base to base contact part of the rules meaning that they continue to be in base to base contact even when one model dies. I can see the point but I just don't buy it – I think even GW would have spotted how flimsy that was if they'd intended it, considering how very very specific they were about who was in b2b, who couldn't hurt who (others cannot hurt challengers) where everyone stood, whether LOS could be used etc. Everything implies that this is a normal combat with these exceptions and if they had meant for wounds to forgo normal resolution and be allocated to a dead model, which is without precedence where non excluded targets exist (and they didn't specifically exclude any targets which they could have easily done), they would have based it on more than the placement of an “only” which could just as easily be interpreted as “in base to base contact with each other and not in base to base contact with any other model, even if they are touching, so normal wounds must be assigned to the opponent first and that tyrant guards lashwhip has no effect on you”.

So, without a challenge
A Hive Tyrant (HT) charges a boyz mob, taking 1 wound from overwatch he connects with the Nob – he is now in contact only with the nob. HT strikes first, HoW and 1st attack kills Nob, 4 more attacks kill the 3 nearest boyz. Boyz pile in and do 1 more wound in I 2 and the HT wins resolution. Fairly straight forward

Now with a challenge
Same HT charges the boyz, still taking 1 wound from OW, he aims differently and connects with a pair of boyz before issuing a challenge. The nob accepts and is swapped with boy 1, HT is now in contact only with the Nob, boy 2 does not count as in b2b despite being touching, again the HT deals 5 unsaved wounds, the nob is removed after 2 so the remaining 3 are assigned to the 3 nearest boyz again. The boyz pile in but never count as in b2b and cannot strike back that turn as the challenge has not yet expired, again losing on resolution but working out slightly better for the HT.

Some might say that this unfairly advantages power characters or some such and therefore it is not the correct interpretation – but who benefits from a rule is irrelevant in the interpretation of the rule, interpret first, then, if you want to be competitive, build the list to match the benefits – there's a reason no competitive nid player brought pyrovores, the rules weren't wrongly interpreted they just weren't as good within the rules as other units.

The main thing this rule seems to do is a hard nerf on hidden power fists. You hide your fist? Fine, challenge, I get to hit your fist guy or he doesn't get to hit me. Bit of a hit, especially for the orks, but fists had become compulsory in 5th simply because you could allocate away from them and they'd easily live till I 1, so maybe they deserved it.

The “resolve challenges last” bit of from the summary/suggestion in the narrative box does rub badly against overflow though as it messes up initiative something terrible, it can still be played RAW, you just get to kill low I models with high I models after they have struck.... weird but playable. It's just about the only other subsection of rule that I'd view as strongly supporting the no overflow camp as it is just ugly with overflow. Won't be conclusive till we get the FAQ but that's the way I'm gonna view it and play it (probably clear this with my opponent first to head off any inevitable argument later on) and build my lists on until we get an answer from GW or someone comes up with more evidence.

Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

really needs to be faqed, arguments either way are semi valid but not supported as its not spelled out.

Purifier wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:But clearly everyone wants it for the same reason and there is no other reason that people would want wound overflow.

And this is where you went wrong. You went and assumed things. A lot of people read the rules long and hard and decide upon what was meant because they want the game to be played in the right way. No matter if that is a boon for them or bad for them. Take me. I am against overflow, but it would be a great boon to me.

But you think people only read things in a different way than you do to gain boons. In Sweden there is a saying that goes "as you know yourself, you know others." think on it.

Sarcasm friend, just a bit of sarcasm.

Purifier...



If you are ever in the States let me know, I would like to play a game of 40k with you.

Edit - Just to be clear, I do not intend to mean that you are always playing 40k with me. I do not want anyone to think that you are permanently playing 40k with me for the duration that you are ever in the States

blaktoof wrote:Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

really needs to be faqed, arguments either way are semi valid but not supported as its not spelled out.

The point of the thread is, you don't need something in the challenge section to say there *is* wound overflow, that's just normal wound allocation.

You need something in the challenge section to say there *isn't* wound overflow, to override the normal wound allocation.

So, normal wound allocation applies until there's a reason it doesn't.

Some people say the "in base only with eachother" part of the section is what overrides the normal wound allocation, because if you're in base with only one model you can't allocate to anyone else.
Many people disagree with the reading of that sentence.

Hence, a 16 page thread.

blaktoof wrote:Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

really needs to be faqed, arguments either way are semi valid but not supported as its not spelled out.

The normal rules on wound allocation state overflow, allocate to models in B2B first then closest. So the permission exists already and is not taken away for challenges.

The part that you are quoting is actually much more silly to see it as supporting no overflow. If they had intended no overflow it would have been easy to add in this very explicit statement that challengees could not allocate to the unit either, it doesn't say that, it specifically states unit cannot allocate to challengees, it would have been incredibley easy for them to explicitly dissallow overflow in that one sentance and it is worded as if they intentionally chose not to. I'd say that implies fairly strongly that wounds are supposed to overflow not the other way around.

and yeah, you could call it either way, but I see more to support overflow (such as that very statement you referenced) then I do to support no overflow (such as how clunky fighting challenges last and overflowing is)

I like the "it doesn't say I can't" argument, personally. The book also has no clause that specifically states I can't take a blowtorch to my opponents models to secure a contested objective either, but we're pretty sure you can't do that.

That being said, wound overflow is pretty much not there. It's poorly worded but the obvious intent was to have the two combatants float away to the magical Wardp Zone as I call it and exist only in the challenge away from the rules of all others while non combatants yell at them while they float on their translucent Wardian bubble above the field.

Also you can argue that intent means nothing, but in the end intent in this case is everything, as the same guys wrote Fantasy and were very specific about the fact that there was wound overflow in that system. The absence of such a clause in the 40k rules speaks volumes about the lack of overflow.

Mr.Church13 wrote:I like the "it doesn't say I can't" argument, personally.

But it does. CC works that way as it is clearly stated, and challengers have to stay in coherency. And it doesn't say they are excempt from this rule. I still believe GW meant for the wounds not to overflow. But it's not hard for me to understand the other side of it.

blaktoof wrote:
Theres nothing in the challenge section that says there is wound overflow, and honestly its silly to think that there is wound overflow from a challenge when the combat cant have wound overflow into the challenge.

"But I want wound overflow!"

"But the rules don't say wounds from challenges overflow."

"But I really want that wound overflow. Can I have it please.'

"No. The rules don't say that wounds from challenges overflow."

"But I really REALLY want the rules to say they do! Can we just agree that the rules say that?"

"No. The rules don't say that."

( Rinse / Repeat )

EDIT : We should really wait for a FAQ on this. 16 pages on YMDC without a consensus is probably enough, to justify a FAQ.

I want to smack my head against a wall.

WOUND OVERFLOW is not a term in 40K. Stop making up words and rules.

No where in the rules does it state to us normal wound allocation. Not once.

I personally don't see why people are even talking about this but I will once again try and fail to help.

Outside forces clearly tell you that both Challenge Fight and Squad Fight are separate. GW made the very nice fail on not using wound. Instead it used blows. Challenge fight can only strike blows against each other and Squads can only wound squads.

So what can we take from this? Intent is clear that both are separate. As for RAW.

Challengee and Challenger are base to base until the end of the assault phase.

Squads fight as if the Challengee and Challenger are not there.

So by RAW if the Squads fight as if they are not there, then by all rights they can't be wounded from Challenge Wounds. Because they (Challenge fighters) are simply not there.

So I can not see why this is still being debated.

MJThurston wrote:
So I can not see why this is still being debated.

Because some people want so bad for the rules to be different. If they want it bad enough, maybe their wish will come true ?

MJThurston wrote:
No where in the rules does it state to us normal wound allocation. Not once.

Yes it does. It is a close combat, therefore you use the wound allocation for close combat because that is the general rule.

Again: you have the right result, but dont seem to understand how rules are constructed.

MJThurston wrote:I want to smack my head against a wall.

WOUND OVERFLOW is not a term in 40K. Stop making up words and rules.

No where in the rules does it state to us normal wound allocation. Not once.

I personally don't see why people are even talking about this but I will once again try and fail to help.

Outside forces clearly tell you that both Challenge Fight and Squad Fight are separate. GW made the very nice fail on not using wound. Instead it used blows. Challenge fight can only strike blows against each other and Squads can only wound squads.

That's not what outside forces says. It says models not in the challenge can't hit the models who are in the challenge

So what can we take from this? Intent is clear that both are separate. As for RAW.

Challengee and Challenger are base to base until the end of the assault phase.

If this thread illustrates anything its that this statement is not unambiguously true. In lieu of rehashing the argument, I'll simply direct you to the relevant posts.

Squads fight as if the Challengee and Challenger are not there.

So by RAW if the Squads fight as if they are not there, then by all rights they can't be wounded from Challenge Wounds. Because they (Challenge fighters) are simply not there.

Except the text doesn't run in the opposite direction. It says outside forces fight as if the challenge models aren't there. It never says the challenge models fight like the rest of the rest of the models aren't there.

So I can not see why this is still being debated.

Because the rules aren't clear, and its worth talking about how to implement a new and important part of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:

MJThurston wrote:
So I can not see why this is still being debated.

Because some people want so bad for the rules to be different. If they want it bad enough, maybe their wish will come true ?

I just want a stable and predictable rule set. I don't think it's good to ascribe motivation to posts when it isn't provided by the author.

I think most people just badly want the rules to be clear.

It is not Close Combat. It's a Challenge and Challenges have different rules than close combat.

MJThurston wrote:It is not Close Combat. It's a Challenge and Challenges have different rules than close combat.

Then how do we know how to roll to hit? Or what weapons to use? Or how to roll to wound? Only the Close Combat rules tell us - I don't see anywhere in the Challenges section explaining it.

If a challenge isn't a close combat then the challenge system breaks.

jcress410

It does not say that in Outside forces.

It says WOUNDS can not be allocated to the Challenge. Not attacks.

Blows = Wounds

If GW put Challengee and Challenger can only wound each other this would not be an issue. They used BLOWS. So are blows attacks or are they wounds.

If you read the next sentence you'd see they used wounds from squads not going to the challenge. So what do you think blows mean now? Attacks or wounds.

No it says in the challenge part that wound allocation can not be used for Look Out Sir. So if a Model outside the challenge can't do this why would extra wounds just go outside of this challenge? They don't.

The rule is written in more ways than one that this so called wound overflow doesn't happen.

Lets be honest here. No Tourney is going to let you send wounds outside a challenge. It's just not going to happen. So why would you do this in your local store?

Seriously, this shouldn't even be an issue.

A guy challenges. lets say Mini Me flips off Conan... Conan will crush Mini Me in one step and cary on with crushing blows on and on, He would not just sit there while his squad was over run.

I play Chaos, and chaos is all about muli-attack leaders mixed with CC units. I would not play with the challenge rule if it meant ALL my primary CC power was going to get delay of game. Some HQs say they must go after other HQs in CC, why make a challenge rule for delay of game?

It is just deciding who attacks who first.

Without challenge, I can put a cheap group like lesser Daemons to CC with power heroes, and let my better fighters live longer and kill more. With it, a hero will fight a hero... Once the hero is dead the surviving hero will keep on fighting, his wounds will carry on to the rest of his victims.

Why yes he would just sit there while his squad is over run.

So lets do this the other way.

Your bad ass DP attacks my SM seargeant with a CCW. Does his 9 Brothers just sit there and watch you destroy him or jump in.

Challenges are separate fights. Trying to make them more than that is just not in the rules.

Read it over and over, the book has errors in it all over, it is new....

Make the call applying common sense, or sci fie movie ideas.... what not.

Movie villain cuts down good guys army, until he sees good guy hero... They go toe to toe until one dies.... Then what? does he sit around or go back into fighting???(movies like dialog and drama so this depends on which movie).

Likewise, a single man goes against a giant beast, Will the beast only kill the pest that is attacking him... No... he will eat the pest first and then continue to attack.

Fighting against a hero or with a hero, this rule would ruin the game. It would keep an expensive hero fighting one guy at a time. if a Bezerker can kill 3 guys a turn, and Kharn the betrayer only gets one at a time... Why even call Kharn a hero at all? Likewise with all heroes.... Why even add them to a list at that point?

MJThurston wrote:jcress410
If GW put Challengee and Challenger can only wound each other this would not be an issue. They used BLOWS. So are blows attacks or are they wounds.

If you read the next sentence you'd see they used wounds from squads not going to the challenge. So what do you think blows mean now? Attacks or wounds.

The rule doesn't say the challengee and challenger can only wound (or strike blows) against eachother. It says they are the only one's who can 'strike blows' against eachother. This is covered earlier in the thread.

The reason people think a character in a challenge can't allocate wounds outside it is because of the wound allocation rules. You always allocate to a model in base first. So, if the characters are 'considered to be' in base the entire phase, they can only allocate wounds to eachother.
If they are not so considered, after one model in the challenge is removed as a casualty, the wounds continue to be allocated.

Really, that's just a summary of the first 16 pages. I know it's long, but I'd encourage you to skim through it if you haven't already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MJThurston wrote:Why yes he would just sit there while his squad is over run.

So lets do this the other way.

Your bad ass DP attacks my SM seargeant with a CCW. Does his 9 Brothers just sit there and watch you destroy him or jump in.

Challenges are separate fights. Trying to make them more than that is just not in the rules.

"challenges are separate fights" isn't in the rules either. I kind of wish it was.