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.

cowmonaut wrote:You are just plain wrong.

The Golden Throne Organizers agree with me. A GW sanctioned group agrees with me. Anyone who plays in the GT will not be able to overflow their challenge wounds. Who do you have on your side?

cowmonaut wrote:
As many like to tote, this is a permissive rule set. The rules for Wound Allocation force you to allocate any unsaved wounds on the next nearest model, with the defender picking the model in the event of a tie. You do not have to be in base contact with an enemy model to allocate a wound to them.

If there were anything stating that the Challenge was treated as a separate combat or that the Challenger/Challengee could only allocate wounds to one another I'd be in full agreement with you. The rules flat out don't do that though! Literally, the only restriction on allocating wounds is that models not directly involved in the Challenge are forbidden from allocating wounds onto the Challenger/Challengee.

You are just plain wrong.

Yes, permissive rule set. 429 "Once ALL models not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges". We are given permission to FINISH everything but morale issues for normal combat. We are given permission to do the challenge after normal combat. We are given permission to run the challenge in normal initiative. We are given permission to have them strike blows against each other. I cannot find anything that says to use normal wound allocation rules in the challenge rules. Only to have them strike and resolve and that you cannot try to allocate away with LOS!. Outside forces are given permission to allocate as normal (ignoring the challenge). We are simply told that the challenge participants are locked only with each other until the end of the phase (that would be the combat phase).

No permission to allocate anything anywhere other than striking each other for the challenge. They even took the time to make sure we knew the units could still allocate as normal, but very pointedly say nothing permitting that for the challenge. You can ASSUME that permission exists, but it doesn't. We are then given permission to use the morale impact of the challenge in the unit moral checks, but that is it.

We need permission to allocate out, we are never told so, only to strike


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Might I add, that in the same post you remind people of the YMDC RAW tennets, and then discount 429 as a mistake... instead of as written (that would be RAW)

The more I read these arguments the further I am driven into the overflow camp as their arguments are so much more persuasive IMO.

Anyone demanding to see the permission to use normal wound allocation needs to look at normal wound allocation and then point out where it says NOT to use it. We can't show you no unicorns, we can't show you the section where it says you can use power weapons in challenges either but you can because it's CC and in CC you can use power weapons (if you have them) unless stated otherwise and in CC you use normal wound allocation unless stated otherwise it's a total non argument.

Claiming "this organisation who is not GW plays it this way" is pretty meaningless to me, even TO's and Refs make incorrect calls. Until GW state it one way or the other I'll base it on what's actually in the rulebook (ofc in a tourney I'll play whichever way they've ruled it)

Having tried them, the rules on p429 concerning combat order actually work fine with overflow or without, it's odd that your I8 super toon strikes after the squad power fist but it appears to be done for dramatic effect - so this isn't really a problem, just odd, regardless of whether or not he can then kill the squad powerfist

People keep questioning "what is the point of challenges if wounds overflow" to which my first response is wtf? but my second response is there are many and varied reasons, both for the rule to exist and the varied implications of the rule, for example a nid HT charging a boyz mob can use the challenge to force the Nob to take his licks or skulk off and keep that fist to himself. One of the biggest impacts is to stop weak characters with powerful weapons from hiding inside a squad and using them as ablative wounds but there are many, many, many more possiblities than just that, it's cinematic hero on hero action is probably the main reason for the rule. If you think overflow makes challenges meaningless then you think the only purpose of challenges is to allow cheap characters to tarpit expensive characters, which just isn't the only reason for it.

I can't understand why people think these are in any way seperate combats - you're specifically forbidden from moving out of unit coherency, you share results for resolution, you do 1 sweeping advance, your still all part of the same unit, all part of the same combat, just unit no hitty people fighting in challenges, ok? and since it specifies unit no hitty challengers then it actually infers that challengers can hit unit, not the other way around as otherwise you would simply state it both ways.

I can't understand why people think precision strikes would not be allowed from challenge fighters to unit, as there are rules that do support this and no rules at all that forbid it

I was struggling with the "models in a challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other" line - that's I think the strongest argument against overflow because I think it can be interpretted that way, however I think it can just as easily be interpretted the other way too and still be correct, it is grammatically ambiguous and one way (overflow) allows it to merge naturally into the rules and all the other inferences and the other way you end up allocating wounds to a b2b model that has been dead for some time now as you beat on the corpse in a way completely without precidence in the rules.

I think I finally sold myself on it when I realised
"I get my eclairs only at Greggs the baker"
Do I have eclairs? No, but if I did they'd be from Greggs.
"models are considered in b2b contact only with each other"
Are they in b2b contact with a slain model? No, but they aren't in b2b contact with anyone else either until the end of that phase and if that model was still alive I would be.

I'm still happy to read any further arguments people may have but as long as these arguments and ones even less valid (like blah blah troll blah blah you just want your power character to tear through my blob blah blah assumptions about my motivations blah blah) than these are the ones being bandied around by the no overflow camp then I will happily be in the overflow camp.

Well put, max. I'd just like to throw my hat into the "in support of overflow" group. The arguments supporting overflow are much more solid, imho, since there is no mention in the rulebook not to follow standard wound allocation.

DeathReaper wrote:Please answer these questions:

1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

Yes. At the beginning of combat, we move the two models to be in base. If they can't (for some reason) be moved to be in base, we assume they are.

DeathReaper wrote:
2) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with anyone else?

nope. only with each other.

DeathReaper wrote:
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?

If both models remain on the board for the entire challenge, yes. If one is removed as a casualty, the model that remains is in base with nobody.

DeathReaper wrote:
4) When does the challenge end?

End of phase

DeathReaper wrote:
5) If one combatant is slain does the challenge continue?

Yup.

The argument you've been making tries to break wound allocation by asserting the 'only in base with eachother' clause somehow implies the two are assumed to be in base no matter what.
I'm saying, they're considered to be in base (only) with eachother, but they both need to be on the board for that to happen.

Your argument will be much more convincing if you can show
1. It's ok to be in base with a model that isn't on the board
or
2. the rules tell us to ignore normal wound allocation




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:You are just plain wrong.

The Golden Throne Organizers agree with me. A GW sanctioned group agrees with me. Anyone who plays in the GT will not be able to overflow their challenge wounds. Who do you have on your side?

You should encourage these people to post their reasoning. If it's not the same logic we've been circling around for a while now.

Flawed logic is a very hurtful term. I feel your logic is flawed but I don't say it out loud. Any conclusion that requires you to ignore a non-fluff part of the rulebook can't be correct. If your argument requires you to ignore a rule you have the wrong interpretation.

Captain Antivas wrote:Flawed logic is a very hurtful term. I feel your logic is flawed but I don't say it out loud. Any conclusion that requires you to ignore a non-fluff part of the rulebook can't be correct. If your argument requires you to ignore a rule you have the wrong interpretation.

Edited to remove 'flawed'.

I don't think anyone is ignoring a rule. We're disagreeing on the meaning of it.

Well, its like I said, my gaming group agrees with me, my local TO agrees with me, so we can all disagree all day long. I'm playing it as I see it makes sense and we will have to see where it goes with GW.

DeathReaper wrote:Please answer these questions:

1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?
2) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with anyone else?
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?
4) When does the challenge end?
5) If one combatant is slain does the challenge continue?

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Yes.
4) When a combatant is slain.
5) No.

You again are ignoring the main point: The basic rules for Wound Allocation do not require you to be in base contact with a model to allocate wounds to it.

You have not answered the crux of the argument, you have just ignored it. Read the rules for Wound Allocation again. If there is no enemy model in base contact you are forced to go to the next nearest enemy model to allocate the remaining wounds. That is how normal wound allocation works. There are no rules anywhere in the rule book that tell you to allocate wounds differently in a Challenge.

Lobukia wrote:Yes, permissive rule set. 429 "Once ALL models not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges". We are given permission to FINISH everything but morale issues for normal combat.

Your point? That's equivalent to saying Challenges fight at Initiative Step 0 with regards to the rest of the unit. Just because they strike after everyone else does not mean they can't strike someone else!

Lobukia wrote:I cannot find anything that says to use normal wound allocation rules in the challenge rules. Only to have them strike and resolve and that you cannot try to allocate away with LOS!. Outside forces are given permission to allocate as normal (ignoring the challenge).

Go to page 7 and read the rules regarding Basic versus Advanced. There is nothing in the rule book that tells you to ignore the basic rules for Wound Allocation.

Lobukia wrote:We are simply told that the challenge participants are locked only with each other until the end of the phase (that would be the combat phase).

No permission to allocate anything anywhere other than striking each other for the challenge. They even took the time to make sure we knew the units could still allocate as normal, but very pointedly say nothing permitting that for the challenge. You can ASSUME that permission exists, but it doesn't. We are then given permission to use the morale impact of the challenge in the unit moral checks, but that is it.

Not entirely true, you seem to be reading what you want in the rules instead of what they actually say. We are only told that the two combatants are in base contact with only one another during the Challenge and no one outside the Challenge can harm them for its duration. The rules do not restrict whom the combatants can strike beyond that, and per the basic rules for Wound Allocation we go to the next nearest.

Lobukia wrote:We need permission to allocate out, we are never told so, only to strike

The basic rules for Wound Allocation are what gives us permission. It isn't even technically an option, you have to allocate the wounds to the next nearest enemy model.

Lobukia wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Might I add, that in the same post you remind people of the YMDC RAW tennets, and then discount 429 as a mistake... instead of as written (that would be RAW)

I did not discount Page 429, I just pointed out that the reference pages in the back of the book potentially are unreliable and that has been a problem in the past. In that same post I then continue my argument using the added information from Page 429. Again, nothing on Page 429 changes how you allocate wounds.

maxcarrion wrote:Anyone demanding to see the permission to use normal wound allocation needs to look at normal wound allocation and then point out where it says NOT to use it. We can't show you no unicorns, we can't show you the section where it says you can use power weapons in challenges either but you can because it's CC and in CC you can use power weapons (if you have them) unless stated otherwise and in CC you use normal wound allocation unless stated otherwise it's a total non argument.

Exactly my point! Thank you maxcarrion. The Challenge is fought with the normal rules for close combat with a handful of restrictions. RAW, there is no restriction on who the Challenger or Challengee can strike.

maxcarrion wrote:Claiming "this organisation who is not GW plays it this way" is pretty meaningless to me, even TO's and Refs make incorrect calls. Until GW state it one way or the other I'll base it on what's actually in the rulebook (ofc in a tourney I'll play whichever way they've ruled it)

This. If a tournament is using different rules than the normal GW approved ones, more power to them. That doesn't impact the debate here as to what is RAW or not.

maxcarrion wrote:I can't understand why people think these are in any way seperate combats - you're specifically forbidden from moving out of unit coherency, you share results for resolution, you do 1 sweeping advance, your still all part of the same unit, all part of the same combat, just unit no hitty people fighting in challenges, ok?

Plus nothing in the rules tells us its separate from the combat. The rules only restrict who can strike a model taking part in a Challenge.

maxcarrion wrote:I can't understand why people think precision strikes would not be allowed from challenge fighters to unit, as there are rules that do support this and no rules at all that forbid it

Again you are on the money. It goes back to the Basic versus Advanced rules on Page 7. Characters are normally allowed Precision Strikes. A rule has to expressly forbid them from using them in a Challenge to prevent you from being able to take advantage of them.

maxcarrion wrote:I was struggling with the "models in a challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other" line - that's I think the strongest argument against overflow because I think it can be interpretted that way, however I think it can just as easily be interpretted the other way too and still be correct, it is grammatically ambiguous and one way (overflow) allows it to merge naturally into the rules and all the other inferences and the other way you end up allocating wounds to a b2b model that has been dead for some time now as you beat on the corpse in a way completely without precidence in the rules.

I disagree here that the sentence is grammatically ambiguous. It seems pretty straight forward to me. It clearly states that models in a Challenge are considered in base contact with only each other. It doesn't mean anything more than that. If it did, it would clearly be saying something else.

If my Grey Hunter with Mark of the Wulfen is in base contact with only one Termagaunt that does not mean his 7 attacks get eaten up by that one model. Following the basic rules for Wound Allocation, you then allocate to the next closest model.

Same thing with a Challenge because there are no rules in the rule book telling you to use anything other than the basic rules for wound allocation and there are no restrictions on who a Challenger or Challengee can allocate wounds to.

Captain Antivas wrote:Well, its like I said, my gaming group agrees with me, my local TO agrees with me, so we can all disagree all day long. I'm playing it as I see it makes sense and we will have to see where it goes with GW.

And again, HYWPI is fine and dandy but it doesn't resolve RAW and my arguments are solely based on RAW since that's how my FLGS and friends play.

Just remember that under your incorrect interpretation of RAW overflow is not limited to after the challenger is killed.

cowmonaut wrote:
.... long post ...

maxcarrion wrote:I was struggling with the "models in a challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other" line - that's I think the strongest argument against overflow because I think it can be interpretted that way, however I think it can just as easily be interpretted the other way too and still be correct, it is grammatically ambiguous and one way (overflow) allows it to merge naturally into the rules and all the other inferences and the other way you end up allocating wounds to a b2b model that has been dead for some time now as you beat on the corpse in a way completely without precidence in the rules.

I disagree here that the sentence is grammatically ambiguous. It seems pretty straight forward to me. It clearly states that models in a Challenge are considered in base contact with only each other. It doesn't mean anything more than that. If it did, it would clearly be saying something else.

.... long post ...

I completely agree. On its face, the sentence says exactly this. I don't know how to settle a dispute over RAW when people continually assert the rules say something else.

I'm willing to give a wide latitude, grammar and syntax vary widely across cultures and backgrounds. But, in this case we're presented with two readings of the rules. One is correct, the other is not.

All the other tangents aside, the disagreement really comes down to this singular issue, the reading of this one part of the challenge rules. The fluff box about rolling challenges at the end, the reference section, whatever, all red herrings.

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?

If both models remain on the board for the entire challenge, yes. If one is removed as a casualty, the model that remains is in base with nobody.

Going to need a page number for where the underlined is said.

If not, you have nothing.

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Please answer these questions:

4) When does the challenge end?

4) When a combatant is slain.

Now this answer is incorrect, please try again.

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?

If both models remain on the board for the entire challenge, yes. If one is removed as a casualty, the model that remains is in base with nobody.

Going to need a page number for where the underlined is said.

If not, you have nothing.

I'm going to need a page number for where it says you can be in base with a casualty.
If not, you have nothing. Troll.

jcress410 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:
.... long post ...

maxcarrion wrote:I was struggling with the "models in a challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other" line - that's I think the strongest argument against overflow because I think it can be interpretted that way, however I think it can just as easily be interpretted the other way too and still be correct, it is grammatically ambiguous and one way (overflow) allows it to merge naturally into the rules and all the other inferences and the other way you end up allocating wounds to a b2b model that has been dead for some time now as you beat on the corpse in a way completely without precidence in the rules.

I disagree here that the sentence is grammatically ambiguous. It seems pretty straight forward to me. It clearly states that models in a Challenge are considered in base contact with only each other. It doesn't mean anything more than that. If it did, it would clearly be saying something else.

.... long post ...

I completely agree. On its face, the sentence says exactly this. I don't know how to settle a dispute over RAW when people continually assert the rules say something else.

I'm willing to give a wide latitude, grammar and syntax vary widely across cultures and backgrounds. But, in this case we're presented with two readings of the rules. One is correct, the other is not.

All the other tangents aside, the disagreement really comes down to this singular issue, the reading of this one part of the challenge rules. The fluff box about rolling challenges at the end, the reference section, whatever, all red herrings.

You don't get to just ignore the reference section because it disagrees with your reading of the rule. The purpose of the reference section is to give clarity and context to an otherwise convoluted set of rules. Not to mention, although the Forging a Narrative is not rule, why would they add something in the Forging a Narrative that is contrary to their intended way of playing.

And please no one make a comment about intent not being important. It is very important, and possible to do without talking to the writers. Judges, lawyers, and even I do it daily. Context is everything. You don't get to ignore context and summaries because you interpret the same words differently.

Starting to get flammy nice... at least we had a bunch of pages before that happened...

P.64 "models in a challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other"

this lasts for the duration of the challenge, which lasts til the end of the phase.

Where is your rules allowing then to not be in base contact?

DeathReaper wrote:
4) When a combatant is slain.
Now this answer is incorrect, please try again.

Ack! When combat ends.

That still doesn't change the rest of my post however. You are still ignoring the actual crux of the problem in your argument. Address it if you can and I'd gladly say you are right. But you can't.

Why?

Because the rules do not tell you to allocate wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee in a different manner than the basic rules for wound allocation.

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
4) When a combatant is slain.

Now this answer is incorrect, please try again.

Ack! When combat ends.

That still doesn't change the rest of my post however. You are still ignoring the actual crux of the problem in your argument. Address it if you can and I'd gladly say you are right. But you can't.

Why?

Because the rules do not tell you to allocate wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee in a different manner than the basic rules for wound allocation.

The reference section and the forging a narrative box are irrelevant because they don't speak to how to resolve the combat, they just say you could do it at the end if you wanted to.

Maybe it seems odd to some people to resolve at the end if there is overflow, but I don't see why that changes the RAW.

Also, neither of these sections are rules.

Right, but when judges/lawyers look at context/intent they go to primary sources. They look at the federalist papers, or public speeches, et cetera, et cetera.

My point is, we don't have access to any materials that define an intent for this issue. Everything mentioned previously in the thread might suggest one position or another, but there's no way to know.

I'm not going to overturn a plain text reading of RAW because some people think the authors left clues in the book. 40k =\= nancy drew.

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
3) Does this last for the duration of the challenge?

If both models remain on the board for the entire challenge, yes. If one is removed as a casualty, the model that remains is in base with nobody.

Going to need a page number for where the underlined is said.

If not, you have nothing.

I'm going to need a page number for where it says you can be in base with a casualty.
If not, you have nothing. Troll.

You can't. However, following logical deduction we can conclude that it is irrelevant.

Premise A - For the duration of the Challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.
Premise B - When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.
Conclusion C - The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

No logical jumps or skips, just combining two thoughts into one. I think we can all agree this is correct.

Premise D - You resolve the challenge at the end of the phase.
Conclusion E - At the end of the challenge the phase is over.

Since the challenge is over at the end of the phase a combatant is slain and is no longer in BTB with anyone.

DeathReaper wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:
4) When a combatant is slain.

Now this answer is incorrect, please try again.

Ack! When combat ends.

That still doesn't change the rest of my post however. You are still ignoring the actual crux of the problem in your argument. Address it if you can and I'd gladly say you are right. But you can't.

Why?

Because the rules do not tell you to allocate wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee in a different manner than the basic rules for wound allocation.

Right we have to allocate them to people in Base contact first, which the models in the challenge are considered to be in base contact until the end of the phase

This is why I think you're trolling. The rules just don't say that. There have been a number of posts by myself and others explaining why this is the case. Every time you post this nonsense we go through the same charade.

you: "the models are in base even if one dies"
other people: "why? rule?"
you: "considered to be in base contact only with eachother!"
other people: "That's not what that means, reading, grammar, reading"
you: "the models are in base even if one dies, troll, troll, troll"
other people: "why? rule?"
... rinse... wash... repeat.

Captain Antivas wrote:You don't get to just ignore the reference section because it disagrees with your reading of the rule. The purpose of the reference section is to give clarity and context to an otherwise convoluted set of rules. Not to mention, although the Forging a Narrative is not rule, why would they add something in the Forging a Narrative that is contrary to their intended way of playing.

You apparently didn't read what I said. I'm not discounting it. There is also nothing on Page 429 that counters my argument. Point out the exact sentence that tells you to allocate wounds differently. By all means! That is all you have to do to prove you are correct.

Captain Antivas wrote:And please no one make a comment about intent not being important. It is very important, and possible to do without talking to the writers. Judges, lawyers, and even I do it daily. Context is everything. You don't get to ignore context and summaries because you interpret the same words differently.

Context is important. So is what is actually written down. You cannot know what the game developers intended to be the rules. You can only guess. Since we both guess differently that leaves us at an impasse.

This is why I only argue RAW. So please, show me the rule telling you to allocate wounds differently than the basic rules for wound allocation.

DeathReaper wrote:P.64 "models in a challenge are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other"

this lasts for the duration of the challenge, which lasts til the end of the phase.

Where is your rules allowing then to not be in base contact?

For the millionth time: Page 25, Allocating Wounds, second bullet point.

The rule is right there. Stop arguing when you haven't apparently read the rules. The rules right there very clearly tell you to allocate wounds to the nearest engaged enemy model not in base to base. According to Page 7's Basic versus Advanced rule, you have to find something in the rule book that expressly tells you to ignore that part of the rule.

jcress410 wrote:The reference section and the forging a narrative box are irrelevant because they don't speak to how to resolve the combat, they just say you could do it at the end if you wanted to.

Maybe it seems odd to some people to resolve at the end if there is overflow, but I don't see why that changes the RAW.

Also, neither of these sections are rules.

Right, but when judges/lawyers look at context/intent they go to primary sources. They look at the federalist papers, or public speeches, et cetera, et cetera.

My point is, we don't have access to any materials that define an intent for this issue. Everything mentioned previously in the thread might suggest one position or another, but there's no way to know.

I'm not going to overturn a plain text reading of RAW because some people think the authors left clues in the book. 40k =\= nancy drew.

We sure do. If you are going to ignore the Reference section (which is part of the rules BTW but for the purpose of this discussion I will let that one go) then the Forging a Narrative and Reference section provide context to the writing. Primary sources that are not part of the rules that provide information and a look at the intent of the writers. Please just stop saying we cannot use non-fluff writing in the main rulebook as a way to help clarify the rules. You are just plain wrong about that. In fact, answer the question I asked before. Why would they include that information if, as you claim, they are directly in conflict with the rules?

Xzerios wrote:

Here, Ill concede some ground on the notion that it does not say "allocate wounds" in the Outside forces section. But I do have to ask, what is a 'blow' then if not a wound?

It's really unfortunate that GW always uses conversational English in the rules section instead of more precise language. What does it mean exactly when they write,

"...may only strike blows against each other." ?

The action, "to strike blows" could mean "to attack". The noun, "blow" could just be a "Hit", or it could be a "wound" or it could be an "unsaved wound". How I *wish* they could stop using synonyms when they're talking about a very precise process. It would prevent so much nerd rage. It would have been so much easier if they just said, "may only attack" or "may only hit" or "may only cause wounds to" or something that has meaning in the context of the game. But they didn't.

In any case, the way I choose to interpret the action "to strike a blow" in the context of challenges is "to allocate a wound". In which case, there is no "wound overflow" as we have decided to call it.

However, I am open to reading other interpretations of a "struck blow" or the action of "striking a blow". If we make that mean, "attacks" or "Hits" or something else, what are the implications for the challenge / CC rules? Are they still consistent? Are they more or less complicated?

It's just me, but I think simpler rules are better. What is the simplest way to do this?

EDIT : And incidently...the very fact that GW always use imprecise conversational (albeit colorful) language in the rules is why an argument like the one below don't really impress me.

"Only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another." Means none of the other models can attack the challenger or chalengee. This sentence, unambiguously, does not read "challenger and challengee can only strike blows against one another"

(I removed blank lines from jcress's quote)

Obviously, GW wasn't paying too much attention to the exact meaning of that sentence. Because if they were, they wouldn't have used the word "blows".

Right, you allocate to the closest model until its removed as a casualty.

Then you move on to other models.

Even if you assume the models to be "considered to be in base to base" for the whole phase, I still think you stop allocating to the model after its been removed as a casualty.

Then the wound allocation rules tell you to allocate to the next closest


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

jcress410 wrote:The reference section and the forging a narrative box are irrelevant because they don't speak to how to resolve the combat, they just say you could do it at the end if you wanted to.

Maybe it seems odd to some people to resolve at the end if there is overflow, but I don't see why that changes the RAW.

Also, neither of these sections are rules.

Right, but when judges/lawyers look at context/intent they go to primary sources. They look at the federalist papers, or public speeches, et cetera, et cetera.

My point is, we don't have access to any materials that define an intent for this issue. Everything mentioned previously in the thread might suggest one position or another, but there's no way to know.

I'm not going to overturn a plain text reading of RAW because some people think the authors left clues in the book. 40k =\= nancy drew.

We sure do. If you are going to ignore the Reference section (which is part of the rules BTW but for the purpose of this discussion I will let that one go) then the Forging a Narrative and Reference section provide context to the writing. Primary sources that are not part of the rules that provide information and a look at the intent of the writers. Please just stop saying we cannot use non-fluff writing in the main rulebook as a way to help clarify the rules. You are just plain wrong about that. In fact, answer the question I asked before. Why would they include that information if, as you claim, they are directly in conflict with the rules?

I don't think they do directly conflict the rules. Some people think it "doesn't make sense" to resolve the challenge at the end if wounds from challenges can affect outside combatants. I don't hold that view.

cowmonaut wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:You don't get to just ignore the reference section because it disagrees with your reading of the rule. The purpose of the reference section is to give clarity and context to an otherwise convoluted set of rules. Not to mention, although the Forging a Narrative is not rule, why would they add something in the Forging a Narrative that is contrary to their intended way of playing.

You apparently didn't read what I said. I'm not discounting it. There is also nothing on Page 429 that counters my argument. Point out the exact sentence that tells you to allocate wounds differently. By all means! That is all you have to do to prove you are correct.

Here is your problem. You refuse to look at all pieces of the puzzle and insist on only looking at one at a time. Sure, when reading page 429 all by itself you don't really get a clear picture. I have shown you the exact sentence, in fact sentences since one sentence alone does not refute your fallacies. Yes, that's how epic your fallacies are.

Captain Antivas wrote:And please no one make a comment about intent not being important. It is very important, and possible to do without talking to the writers. Judges, lawyers, and even I do it daily. Context is everything. You don't get to ignore context and summaries because you interpret the same words differently.

Context is important. So is what is actually written down. You cannot know what the game developers intended to be the rules. You can only guess. Since we both guess differently that leaves us at an impasse.

This is why I only argue RAW. So please, show me the rule telling you to allocate wounds differently than the basic rules for wound allocation.

Grugknuckle wrote:It's really unfortunate that GW always uses conversational English in the rules section instead of more precise language. What does it mean exactly when they write,

"...may only strike blows against each other." ?

The very next sentence tells you what this phrasing means. The very next sentence places no restrictions on the Challenger and Challengee, only the rest of the models involved in the combat.

Do you want to explain why any of the "context" you're quoting directly contradicts normal wound allocation

jcress410 wrote:Right, you allocate to the closest model until its removed as a casualty.

Then you move on to other models.

Even if you assume the models to be "considered to be in base to base" for the whole phase, I still think you stop allocating to the model after its been removed as a casualty.

Then the wound allocation rules tell you to allocate to the next closest


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:

jcress410 wrote:The reference section and the forging a narrative box are irrelevant because they don't speak to how to resolve the combat, they just say you could do it at the end if you wanted to.

Maybe it seems odd to some people to resolve at the end if there is overflow, but I don't see why that changes the RAW.

Also, neither of these sections are rules.

Right, but when judges/lawyers look at context/intent they go to primary sources. They look at the federalist papers, or public speeches, et cetera, et cetera.

My point is, we don't have access to any materials that define an intent for this issue. Everything mentioned previously in the thread might suggest one position or another, but there's no way to know.

I'm not going to overturn a plain text reading of RAW because some people think the authors left clues in the book. 40k =\= nancy drew.

We sure do. If you are going to ignore the Reference section (which is part of the rules BTW but for the purpose of this discussion I will let that one go) then the Forging a Narrative and Reference section provide context to the writing. Primary sources that are not part of the rules that provide information and a look at the intent of the writers. Please just stop saying we cannot use non-fluff writing in the main rulebook as a way to help clarify the rules. You are just plain wrong about that. In fact, answer the question I asked before. Why would they include that information if, as you claim, they are directly in conflict with the rules?

I don't think they do directly conflict the rules. Some people think it "doesn't make sense" to resolve the challenge at the end if wounds from challenges can affect outside combatants. I don't hold that view.

Oh, but they do. Since the Narrative says that the combatants attack at their true initiative then attackers that go after their initiative that should have died by your overflow would not get to attack since they would be dead. Now you can say that this doesn't mean that, but you would be wrong. I gave this paradox before and someone told me that you ignore the true initiative part. But, the insight given from the Narrative says that is not the case.

Captain Antivas wrote:We can look at what the developers intended. By reading the Forging a Narrative boxes they provide intel into what they think would make the game more awesome. AND, since these were written by the developers and are not rules they can provide context. Try again.

So you freely admit that there is not a single sentence in the entire 500 page rule book that tells you to allocate wounds differently?

Because again, you do not know that their intent is for attacks not to overflow. They are "Forging a Narrative". If you go down the "intent" path I could easily argue that the wound overflow rules allow for 'dishonorable' characters like a Chaos Lord to strike down bystanders by accident as the plucky hero dodges his blows. Then we go in circles again.

This is why I'm arguing on a RAW basis. Show me the rule that tells you to allocate differently.

Edit: I should also point out that the "Forging the Narrative" box in the Challenges section only says some players resolve Challenges at the end of combat. That implies its an option, not a requirement, and that attacks resolve at the normal Initiative step. Now you have the "rules" (the Narrative box and the Reference page) contradicting one another.

cowmonaut wrote:

Grugknuckle wrote:It's really unfortunate that GW always uses conversational English in the rules section instead of more precise language. What does it mean exactly when they write,

"...may only strike blows against each other." ?

The very next sentence tells you what this phrasing means. The very next sentence places no restrictions on the Challenger and Challengee, only the rest of the models involved in the combat.

I'll just respond by re-posting my own edit.

EDIT : And incidently...the very fact that GW always use imprecise conversational (albeit colorful) language in the rules is why an argument like the one below don't really impress me.

"Only the challenger and challengee can strike blows against one another." Means none of the other models can attack the challenger or chalengee. This sentence, unambiguously, does not read "challenger and challengee can only strike blows against one another"

(I removed blank lines from jcress's quote)

Obviously, GW wasn't paying too much attention to the exact meaning of that sentence. Because if they were, they wouldn't have used the word "blows".