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. Here it goes. Been kind of arguing with another fellow player about a specification about Challenges, and the requirements needed to issue/accept a challenge. Below, I will give the 'case' and see if anyone's noticed this, or can simply give an answer to it. It is a crucial point in the games, so am looking to get it answered.


I read through the Rulebook the other day under Challenges, and noticed something interesting. I read through this because of the fact I get Challenge-mania whenever I hit a squad with a super-killy character/MC so my opponent can hold them up as long as possible. While reading, I looked over the specifications for Challenging under Pg 64 on the left side of the page and last paragraph, and the one before it under Accepting/Issuing Challenges. After seeing this, I got the impression we were doing Challenges wrong...

My notices:

Other than the fact Characters cannot strike if they simply cannot attack or strike blows, it also says in parenthesis: (Including those that are not engaged with an enemy model).

Now, this tells me the Character HAS to physically be in base contact with an enemy model they've charged/been charged by; any enemy model, as it doesn't say it has to be with another Character, just an enemy model. So, you charge/get charged, and issue the challenge now; according to that interpretation, you cannot issue/accept a Challenge if your Character(s) are not engaged with AN ENEMY MODEL. An ACTUAL enemy model. No 2" within stuff. If the Character(s) of either side are not engaged with en enemy model, then no Challenges can therefore be issued/accepted. And Challenges are done before Initiative step pile-ins too.

So, this means you can charge, and if you cannot make it into base contact with any enemy model with your sergeant, ID character, etc with your charge result, then you cannot challenge or accept one. Now, this won't always happen as you can get long charges and get into base contact with everyone, but if you have a big squad, then your Sergeant/etc likely will not be able to get into base contact with an enemy model. Also remember that a Character HAS to move first to get into base contact if at the same Initiative step of other friendly models in the contact, and hence done in the Initiative step pile-in phase; which is AFTER Challenges, so that is obsolete for those that will point that out.

Why the 2" doesn't work is because on page 23, at the bottom left, it says "Who Can Fight?" The following requirements are needed in order to strike in the Combat:

During the Initiative step pile-in, it is in base contact.

During the Initiative step pile-in, it is within 2" of a friendly model that is in base to base with enemy models.

Why is this significant...? Because my fellow player argued that 2" count, but it doesn't. It says it is engaged in the COMBAT, not with an enemy model; if it said with enemy models, then yes, it'd be correct. But it's not.

So, perhaps I've missed out on this and our group has been playing this wrong, but it seems to offer little wriggle room in its seemingly clear message and obviously says to me the Character has to be in base to base with any enemy model in order to issue/accept a Challenge. Which, is being engaged with an enemy model.

This is important, because it is annoying when my Bloodthirster or other killy monster is held up by Challenging-Sergeant mania.

Perhaps I'm missing something...?

CleverAntics wrote:
So, this means you can charge, and if you cannot make it into base contact with any enemy model with your sergeant, ID character, etc with your charge result, then you cannot challenge or accept one.

Close but not quite.

The Challenger and Challengee need to be engaged with the enemy.

A model is engaged in combat when: (P.23 left column, 2 bullet points cover this and give you your answer).

The problem with that is that is the requirements needed to fight in the COMBAT. 2" does not grant - anywhere from where I can see from pg 23 - the exception of counting in being engaged with an enemy model. It need only be that you're within 2" of a friendly model that is in base to base to be able to swing.

Here, it specifies under pg 64 of the Challenge rules that it has to be engaged with an enemy model; the above says its engaged in the combat if it is itself engaged - physically or base to base - with an enemy model...so that is correct, but 2" is a component that seems to allow them to swing even when not technically engaged with an enemy model.

A Challenge seems to be an exception, as it requires for the Character to be actually engaged with an enemy model, aka base to base with it. If 2" indeed worked, then I don't see the need for it to specify that the Character needs to be engaged with an enemy model...or for that matter, singling out for it to be an enemy model.

So, that is the problem still at hand; 2" says it's engaged in the COMBAT, while the Challenge rules on pg 64 requires for the Character to be engaged with an enemy model itself. 2" never says that it is engaged with a model...because you aren't, you're behind your friendly models and not physically base to base with the enemy.

Page 23 Explicitly tells you when a model is engaged.

Challenges require the challengee to be engaged with an enemy model.

a model is engaged with an enemy model as noted on P. 23

The first bullet is correct, yes, as that is being engaged with an enemy model as you're clearly in base to base and therefore is per the requirement of the Challenge rules; 2" is not, nor does it never mention it counting as being engaged with an enemy model. It simply specifies and singles out that it is for the purposes of being engaged in the combat, and hence is allowed to swing.

It never says 'the model counts as being engaged with an enemy model'. Because it isn't, ONLY the combat itself. This seems to be an instance of actual physical contact with the enemy model(s). 2" is just there to allow for those not physically engaged to attack, not to determine a Challenge as far as I can see.

Find rules for "counts as being engaged with an enemy model"

because I can not find them in the book.

If they are not there they are referring to models engaged in combat on P. 23

Remember P. 64 says "Characters that cannot fight or strike blows (including those that are not engaged with an enemy model) cannot accept challenges."

The parenthetical reminds you that if you are not engaged you "cannot fight or strike blows"

Hm. I dunno. Perhaps it were a result of my over-analytic insight that prompted this interpretation. I suppose they're assuming we're basing 'engaged with en enemy model' as being interchangeable with 'engaged in combat'. My problem is the Challenge rule seemed to indicate that in order to Challenge, you HAVE to be physically in base to base with an enemy model, as pg 23 simply says you're engaged in a combat, which 'engaged in a combat' never specifies that you count as being engaged with any enemy models(s). Only that 2" is there to allow models within that range to swing despite not being in base to base.

It's just the single keyword: Combat. If it said 'Enemy Model(s)' in place of Combat in the bold lettering on pg 23, I wouldn't have ever brought this up.

But, backtracking and I guess I get my answer on pg 21 on the last paragraph of the page at the right-hand bottom corner.

Still kinda bugs me, but meh.


While I'm at it...why not another? Well, more a 'question' than a posed controversy.

When a multiple combat is going on, so you have a line of Space Marine Bikers; a good sized squad, like 8 or so. They charged a unit, and in the next turn, charged by a second unit, then a third.

On one end I had a Bloodthirster that was in base to base with a bike or two. Now, on his pile-in at the end of combat, he PULLS these two bikes in base to base away despite being in base to base already, as there are still bikes not in base to base. Seeing as how there are 2 other units on the other end, he argues that he is trying to keep coherency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those 2 stay in base contact with the Bloodthirster, even if the others pile-in out of coherency? I thought it were possible to pile-in out of coherency, but try to regain it as soon as possible when out of the combat so these weird situations don't happen.

Which meant, my Bloodthirster was able to be shot on his upcoming turn.

I may be wrong, but I'm sure that isn't how it happens that you can't take away those in base to base just to 'stay in coherency'.

You cannot move out of base to base as part of a pile in. This is explicitly not allowed in the requierments for making a pile in move.

CleverAntics - you've been reading too much into the definition of "combat" as the English word. It's referred to in the rulebook as that specific Assault, in multiple places. So if a model is engaged in that combat, as per page 23, *a model is engaged in that combat*. They don't have to be in base contact, it's that simple.

Nos is *almost* correct about the pile-in, too. Rather than it being explicitly not allowed, it's more the case that you're only told to pile-in models that *aren't* in base contact already. Pages 23 and 27 for that one.

CleverAntics wrote:
The first bullet is correct

The first Bullet is always correct. Unless it misses.

He who is without rules lawyering, cast the first bullet.

I'm sorry. Two thoughts came to mind when I read this and I just had to share.

And as far as coherency, you're only required to maintain that during movement. Pile-ins aren't restricted like that.

CleverAntics wrote:
My problem is the Challenge rule seemed to indicate that in order to Challenge, you HAVE to be physically in base to base with an enemy model, as pg 23 simply says you're engaged in a combat, which 'engaged in a combat' never specifies that you count as being engaged with any enemy models(s). Only that 2" is there to allow models within that range to swing despite not being in base to base.

It's just the single keyword: Combat. If it said 'Enemy Model(s)' in place of Combat in the bold lettering on pg 23, I wouldn't have ever brought this up.

I guess you're over-analyzing it. I just keep thinking this:
If you are engaged "in combat".... who could you be engaged with, if not an enemy?

When a multiple combat is going on, so you have a line of Space Marine Bikers; a good sized squad, like 8 or so. They charged a unit, and in the next turn, charged by a second unit, then a third.

On one end I had a Bloodthirster that was in base to base with a bike or two. Now, on his pile-in at the end of combat, he PULLS these two bikes in base to base away despite being in base to base already, as there are still bikes not in base to base. Seeing as how there are 2 other units on the other end, he argues that he is trying to keep coherency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those 2 stay in base contact with the Bloodthirster, even if the others pile-in out of coherency? I thought it were possible to pile-in out of coherency, but try to regain it as soon as possible when out of the combat so these weird situations don't happen.

Which meant, my Bloodthirster was able to be shot on his upcoming turn.

I may be wrong, but I'm sure that isn't how it happens that you can't take away those in base to base just to 'stay in coherency'.

Iirc, you "try" and keep coherency when you are charging/piling in.
You pile in up to 3" to get as many model as you can btb with enemies, else to arrive within 2" of those who are, else yet as close as you can to try keeping coherency.
It is always a movement that pulls towards combat, not away from it (pile in, not pile out).
I take that models who are locked in combat don't care about "where they are" while the close combat is on; they will deal with coherency only after (all the "win/loss/fallback/regroup/sweep" thing)

Piling out sounds to me like: "oh sorry, I know you want to hit me with your power fist, mr dreadnought, but you see, my fellows brother are more than ten feet from me and I feel lonely..."... serious?

I wish to argue this point as well! If as you say is true then the Fighting A Chalenge paragraph should be removed from the book because there is no point. And the inclosed part of that sentence should also be removed (including those not engaged with (AN) enemy model). If you remove that line then the arguement is solved as well as removing the fighting a chalenge paragraph because there is no point in moving your model into base contact after a chalenge has been excepted!