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.

So I was looking over the challenge rules and I noticed that, critically they don't contain any wording restricting who the people in the challenge are allowed to attack, the only relevant information is "only the challenger and challengee make strike blows against one another" which only restricts who is allowed to attack them, not who they are allowed to attack, and then the fact that, after accepting the challenge, you treat the two models as only being in base to base contact with eachother, meaning their attacks in theory will have to go through the opposing member of the challenge first.

This would mean, as far as I can see, that you couldn't use a crappy sergeant to try and tie up a devastating master of close combat through a challenge; Because he would smack you aside easily and then the rest of his wounds will overflow to devastate the squad that he was trying to save (wounds defaulting as they do to the next closest model who is engaged in combat if nobody is in base to base).

I'm just curious to know if other people will generally share this view of how Challenges operate, or if there is perhaps something I have overlooked in my assessment.

I thought the challenger chooses the model to challenge (ie the challengee). Then that combat is resolved. If the sgt gets the smack down then challenge over. No more wound alloc.

Yeah i'm with the doctor on this one. on page 64 in fighting a challenge bottom of the first paragraph they are considered to be in base to base with only each other.

'Only the challenger and challengee make strike blows against one another'

this can be re-written as follows:

Only the challenger can strike blows against the challengee AND only the challengee make strike blows against the challenger.

So even if there are overflow wounds, they were only made against the character in the challenge and I assume the wounds would be lost instead of over flowing to the unit. Even though it says they are only in btb contact with each other and you could normally allocate more wounds if they found themselves in this position without a challenge. I think we can safely assume that it is a 1 on 1 until the end of the fight subphase and no outsiders(besides moral support) can affect or be affected.

doktor_g wrote:I thought the challenger chooses the model to challenge (ie the challengee). Then that combat is resolved. If the sgt gets the smack down then challenge over. No more wound alloc.

portugus wrote:Yeah i'm with the doctor on this one. on page 64 in fighting a challenge bottom of the first paragraph they are considered to be in base to base with only each other.

Yes, but even if you aren't in base to base you can still fight, and people up to 2 inches away from base to base contact can receive wounds as they are engaged in the combat.

dayio wrote:'Only the challenger and challengee make strike blows against one another'

this can be re-written as follows:

Only the challenger can strike blows against the challengee AND only the challengee make strike blows against the challenger.

So even if there are overflow wounds, they were only made against the character in the challenge and I assume the wounds would be lost instead of over flowing to the unit. Even though it says they are only in btb contact with each other and you could normally allocate more wounds if they found themselves in this position without a challenge. I think we can safely assume that it is a 1 on 1 until the end of the fight subphase and no outsiders(besides moral support) can affect or be affected.

Even with you rewriting it, it doesn't mean what you are claiming it does, "only the challenger can strike blows against the challengee" is not a restriction on who the challenger may attack, it is merely a restriction on who is eligible to attack the challengee, it only protects him from being attacked by other models in the challenger's unit. The people in the challenge in effect are not just attacking one another, they are attacking the whole enemy unit, but by virtue of only being in base to base contact with one another their wounds must be allocated to the enemy character first.

At first I couldn't quite believe it, but I re-read back through the whole Challenges section... and I have to agree with you, Drunkspleen. It looks like they quietly included the Overkill system from Fantasy (which makes sense, really - it's not very heroic to just hurl an unarmed sergeant at a Hive Tyrant to distract him and save the rest of your squad!). I actually like this; I think it'll help prevent people using weak characters for the sole purpose of essentially causing a 'delay of game'.

I'm IG all my characters are weak. Not a fan of this :p

This makes a lot of sense actually. The challenged model is the only on in base, making him first to die, but not the only one to die if many wounds are scored.

So no crappy nameless sarge preventing a bloodthirster from wrecking face... the sarge dies, and the Bloodthirster, done with him, immediately gets back to the buisness at hand of killing the squad. If he had to sit around and wait for a turn after only winning combat by 1 despite doing 5 wounds it would make less sense.

This has pushed some real controversy in my gaming group with people pushing both sides - Surprised it hasn't had more people commenting here, does everyone else think it's pretty much a given that overflow should happen?

I'm hoping so!

After reading the relevant sections I am inclined to agree with this.

would make sense for a unit sarge. what about an IC. I am not sure an IC's wounds would carry over.

DevianID wrote:This makes a lot of sense actually. The challenged model is the only on in base, making him first to die, but not the only one to die if many wounds are scored.

So no crappy nameless sarge preventing a bloodthirster from wrecking face... the sarge dies, and the Bloodthirster, done with him, immediately gets back to the buisness at hand of killing the squad. If he had to sit around and wait for a turn after only winning combat by 1 despite doing 5 wounds it would make less sense.

I agree that this makes a lot of sense, I really need to check this out in the rulebook when I go home.

If this rule isn't in place, a crummy character would be a good option against an uber-IC as a stall tactic.

That's why it's so important - I am definately concerned that a WAAC player could well try this.

Example I previous gave was Abaddon in a unit of Chaos Space Marines, he gets charged by a unit of Eldar Banshees and the Exarch Challenges him - He has to accept or not fight - He accepts, rolls high for his weapon and scores a huge amount of wounds - yet only one would do anything - the 'shees take down the marines and take few wounds in return making the unit fail combat, break and run to be chased down and eaten!

Would make me cry somewhat

I don't want to believe this is true. On the surface, challenges appeared to be about protecting a squad from something that vastly outclassed them. If this subtlety were reality, it makes challenges into character sniping.

However much I don't like it though, there don't appear to be any rules preventing those wounds from continuing like normal.

Following this logic....

The rules say only the challenger can strike the challengee. (and vice versa.) But it doesn't say the challenger can't strike anyone else. Thus once the challengee dies, any remaining wounds go to the next closest models.

Cool.

But then does the Challenger have to strike the challengee at all?? The rules say to allocate to any model in base contact with any model attacking at the same init step.
So if the Challenger is going at I4, and the rest of his unit is going at I4; what rule makes his attacks go to the challengee first??

Also, what Toughness do you use to resolve the hits? Group toughness, or challengee toughness?
Why?

Incurus wrote:That's why it's so important - I am definately concerned that a WAAC player could well try this.

Example I previous gave was Abaddon in a unit of Chaos Space Marines, he gets charged by a unit of Eldar Banshees and the Exarch Challenges him - He has to accept or not fight - He accepts, rolls high for his weapon and scores a huge amount of wounds - yet only one would do anything - the 'shees take down the marines and take few wounds in return making the unit fail combat, break and run to be chased down and eaten!

Would make me cry somewhat

Though I'm in agreement that Challenge wounds should carry over, if they don't, keep that in mind when deciding to purchase the 10 point champ upgrade on terminators, and then the exarch can just try to eat a terminator.

If you're only referring to standard marines, it really drives home the need for every squad to take a sarge, even if he doesn't buy any more upgrade gear.

I do not believe the wounds carry over. pg 64 under combatant slain "when one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which init step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase."

Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

So, if you go overboard and throw a marine sgt up against Abbadon or someone nasty like that, then based on how it is worded, all those extra wounds from the wounds pool are lost. Then at the end of combat, once the sgt was slain, Abbadon would make his end of combat pile-in move.

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

robzidious wrote:
Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

What you're saying does not make sense.

A and B are challengers, X and Y are their units. That line says only A can hit B and only B can hit A. X cannot hit B and Y cannot hit A. That is all it says. This line in the rules is preventing X and Y from hitting B and A respectively, not directing A and B.

You are interpreting it as "whilst the challenge is ongoing, the challenger and challengee can only strike blows against one another." Moving that "only" radically alters what that sentence means.

robzidious wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

There's a difference between 'Only the challenger can strike at the challengee' and 'The Challenger can only strike at the challengee'.

Basically:
* Only the challengee is considered in base contact with the challenger
* Hence the rest of the combatants are not in bas combat, but it says nothing about them being not involved in the combat at all
* Other combatants can not strike at the challenger/challengee, but nothing is said about the challengers striking others
* Normal wound allocation starts with the models in base contact, i.e. the challengee/closest
* When he's dead, normal wound allocation would proceed to others further away

Question is, does normal wound allocation apply here? The challenge rules say nothing about any changes to it, so I would say yes.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Perhaps I'm not understanding it then? If a challenge is ongoing only the challenger can strike at the challengee. Only the challengee can strike at the challenger. If they can ONLY strike at one another, it sounds clear to me that they can't strike any other models until the challenge is completed.

What you're saying does not make sense.

A and B are challengers, X and Y are their units. That line says only A can hit B and only B can hit A. X cannot hit B and Y cannot hit A. That is all it says. This line in the rules is preventing X and Y from hitting B and A respectively, not directing A and B.

You are interpreting it as "whilst the challenge is ongoing, the challenger and challengee can only strike blows against one another." Moving that "only" radically alters what that sentence means.

Yes, I understand now what you are saying. Really they don't cover it clearly in terms of wound carry over from a challenge.

DarknessEternal wrote:

robzidious wrote:
Next line: "whilst the challenge is ongoing, only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another."

That line supports the "carryover" actually.

It says only the challenger can hit the challengee, and only the challengee can hit the challenger. It does not say they can't hit anyone else, only that the people that can hit them are limited to each other.

Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

Crazyterran wrote:
Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It, in fact, spends a whole section about saying you not only can, but must. It's the generalized assault rules, subsection: wound allocation. It give you no permission to break those rules.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It, in fact, spends a whole section about saying you not only can, but must. It's the generalized assault rules, subsection: wound allocation. It give you no permission to break those rules.

Exactly, nothing about the challenge rule says the normal wound allocation rules don't apply.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Crazyterran wrote:
Permissive Ruleset, it doesn't say the wounds CAN carry over from a challenge, only that the challengees strike blows against each other.

I'm pretty sure it applies, but since it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It, in fact, spends a whole section about saying you not only can, but must. It's the generalized assault rules, subsection: wound allocation. It give you no permission to break those rules.

I'd argue about it, but it's going to go nowhere. It's going to be either die rolled off or house ruled for every store. I play at a GW store, so probably die rolled.

The games I've played so far, wound allocation hasn't carried over, and both players agreed on that. In fact, my opponents pointed it out, and they where using crazy awesome weapons that'd cleave through a squad of marines.

Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical fallacy for a reason. However many people have played it whatever way is irrelevant in deciding how it actually works.

Actually, the main part was "it's going to go nowhere, and either way you do it is going to lead to an argument / TO getting involved, and a Die Roll to resolve it."

It's an unclear rule.

I'd look up a fancy Latin term for "Ignoring half of a statement", but, that would involve being a dick.

Well, I think it is something that needs to be addressed by GW for sure. I do not think the wounds should carry over and based simply on the fact that regardless of init step, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing, meaning the rest of the unit couldn't strike at the victor on their init step if the challengee was slain makes it pretty clear that those wounds from the challenge shouldn't carry over.

I don't see how it is unclear. You _have_ to follow normal wound allocation, and the rule only mentions other combatants prohibited from hitting the challenger/challengee, not the other way around.