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.

robzidious wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:I understand as RAW the wounds overflow and i have no problem with it. But the second "Forging a Narrative" box says about players doing the challenges after everyone else. So this makes me think that it was intended to be the characters can only wound each other.

But atm the rules don't mention about not overflowing so until this is addressed in an faq, the wounds do overlow imho.

No...RAW indicates no such thing as wounds allocating against the unit after a challenge. Wounds in a challenge go into the wound pool and just like a shooting attack, if they overflow (in case of a challenge) they are lost. Wait til GW FAQs it and you'll see.

You really didn't understand my post very well did you?

I agree with you that it probably was not intended for wounds to overflow, atm the rules don't mention it so we use the regular close combat allocation rules. And yes as i stated if/when the rulebook faq addresses it , it will probably change.

The "Outside Forces" paragraph tells exactly what to do about assigning wounds to the characters involved from the non-challenge folks.

It says exactly nothing about what to do with the wounds caused by the challenge folks. If the argument is that we don't use the regular assault rules for assigning wounds caused by them, then they can't even hurt each other, since there's no rules listed for it. The only way they can actually do wounds to each other is if they use the regular assault rules. If they use the regular assault rules, their wound spill over onto the unit.

Has any one even considered it was designed with wound overflow in mind so you cannot tarpit hard hitting single model characters.

It will stop you tarpitting. Challenging abbadon with a Srg will result in your Srg dying and under the currently FAQ free ruling the rest of your squad getting hurt, via wound overflow, without any come back as you cannot hit him as he is still considered to be in a challange.

The above said, it is still open to abuse. Abbandon challanges Srg and either gets the protection that offers or the Srg declines and then cannot fight and the marines cannot use his leadership.

Currently, in an effort to be fair, I think if you play wounds overflow then you 'allow' your character to be hit by any surviving squad members who's init step is after the challangee is dead. If you don't play wound overflow then perhaps the winning character should be protected for the duration of the round.

Good read.

Yes, it seems another WHFB carry-over.

combat resolution is based on the number of unsaved wounds caused right. Where does it say if I do 5 unsaved wounds to a 1 wound model that that only counts as 1 unsaved wound? Because last I checked, 5 was 5.

Combat resolution is based on wounds lost. Anything carrying above what model could lose as wounds is lost.
it's also why if you cause 1 wound with a weapon that causes instead death on a multi wound model, you get the full wounds lost in your combat resolution rather than only 1.

Doomaflatchi wrote:Seriously, though, without this overflow rule, IG platoons could tarpit a Bloodthirster for half the game for a fraction of his points cost, and there's nothing that the Daemon player can do about it. That's just silly, from both a fluff and a mechanical standpoint. It's just not good gameplay.

This is why I want there to be overflow. Some beast of an IC, who could kill 6+ guys a turn, can't do so, because the defending unit has a couple of wimpy characters who can issue challenges. Instead the beast of an IC can only kill one character a turn. Two turns of combat, where the IC could have killed a dozen plus guys, but instead, he only takes out two guys.

Joe Mama wrote:

Doomaflatchi wrote:Seriously, though, without this overflow rule, IG platoons could tarpit a Bloodthirster for half the game for a fraction of his points cost, and there's nothing that the Daemon player can do about it. That's just silly, from both a fluff and a mechanical standpoint. It's just not good gameplay.

This is why I want there to be overflow. Some beast of an IC, who could kill 6+ guys a turn, can't do so, because the defending unit has a couple of wimpy characters who can issue challenges. Instead the beast of an IC can only kill one character a turn. Two turns of combat, where the IC could have killed a dozen plus guys, but instead, he only takes out two guys.

I agree with your sentiment. But, flip that coin over. That same beast of an IC can take out those 6+ guys a turn without having to worry about being swung back at by issuing a challenge.

I.e. 30 orks get charged by some big IC. The IC challenges. The nob can either accept, die, not swing or not swing and the orks get to swing.
In either case the mob of orks is at a disadvantage relative to where they were in 5th.

The reading of the rules advocated here (allowing overflow wounds) seems to be RAW, but it's a pretty clear buff to indpendent characters. The net effect is, they don't die in the first round of combat but their killy has not been significantly reduced.

Especially because, RAW, nothing requires the IC to put any attacks against the character it challenges. It just says the IC is the only one who *can* put attacks against the characters it challenges. The rules tell us to move the models to be in base. The IC issuing the challenge can (will probably) be in base with other models too. It can attack them, they can't attack it.

As for challenges, they are launched at the beginning of the combat sub-phase.

They bring in restrictions but otherwise do not invalidate what happens or how the combat phase proceeds.

Correct me if I am wrong, but after reading the rules again.

Assault begins. Abaddon and a squad of CSM charges an IG platoon.
3 guardsman are in b2b with Abaddon and he issues a challenge.
1 of the sergeant accepts and replaces a guardsman in b2b

Abaddon is now in b2b with 2 guards and 1 sergeant.

Since wounds are allocated from closest to furthest, nothing indicates here that Abaddon kills the Sergeant first. The 2 guardsman in b2b could technically take the first 2 wounds and then the sergeant would bite it.

dammit dakka I was so confident in my understanding of this rule but now my whole world has been turned upside down.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voldrak wrote:As for challenges, they are launched at the beginning of the combat sub-phase.

They bring in restrictions but otherwise do not invalidate what happens or how the combat phase proceeds.

Correct me if I am wrong, but after reading the rules again.

Assault begins. Abaddon and a squad of CSM charges an IG platoon.
3 guardsman are in b2b with Abaddon and he issues a challenge.
1 of the sergeant accepts and replaces a guardsman in b2b

Abaddon is now in b2b with 2 guards and 1 sergeant.

Since wounds are allocated from closest to furthest, nothing indicates here that Abaddon kills the Sergeant first. The 2 guardsman in b2b could technically take the first 2 wounds and then the sergeant would bite it.

The rules do say that during the challenge the challenger and challengee are only in base contact with each other and no one else.

Tangent wrote:For those with access to the fantasy rulebook, is the overkill system spelled out in those rules? Or is it implicitly defined, as asserted in this thread about 40K?

There's a rule called Overkill that specifically handles it. But using rules from another system, no matter how similar, to justify rules judgements in another isn't going to fly.

Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

htj wrote:

Tangent wrote:For those with access to the fantasy rulebook, is the overkill system spelled out in those rules? Or is it implicitly defined, as asserted in this thread about 40K?

There's a rule called Overkill that specifically handles it. But using rules from another system, no matter how similar, to justify rules judgements in another isn't going to fly.

Oh, I know. What I'm getting at is... if GW intended for Overkill to be present in 40K in the same way that it is present in Fantasy, then you'd think they would give the 40K rulebook the same treatment as the Fantasy rulebook, especially considering the fantasy rulebook came out a long time ago. I say this mainly for the people who have been making RAI arguments instead of RAW.

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

Tangent wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

When the fight happens has no bearing on how the wounds are allocated, just which models are on the board when it occurs.

jcress410 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

When the fight happens has no bearing on how the wounds are allocated, just which models are on the board when it occurs.

You don't think that this entry gives insight into GW's intention on this particular issue?

Maybe. I don't think the intent matters as much.

The point of hashing the text of the rules is to create a predictable, consistent way to play the game. Relying on what we think the GW intent was hinders that goal, as there are many possible interpretations that are all valid.

I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

When real lawyers talk about the intent of legislation they found their arguments in the public writings/speeches of lawmakers. Until there's a FAQ Rules Lawyers have no such documentation.

Tangent wrote:

jcress410 wrote:

Tangent wrote:

pizzaguardian wrote:Has anybody noticed at the summary part of the book p.429

It says to do the challenge after all the models outside the challenge fought.

This is a really good point...

When the fight happens has no bearing on how the wounds are allocated, just which models are on the board when it occurs.

You don't think that this entry gives insight into GW's intention on this particular issue?

As i said on the topic before, I think that the rule was intended for to overflow to not happen.

But as long as the wording stays like this i agree that wounds should overflow.

Although the challenge rules indicate that we can do the challenge before everybody else or after or at when the fighting goes on. (the summary tells us to do it last but the main rules section indicates it is optional). So this creates the issue of how casualty removal issue. If we do the challenge before the main combat , we might get the power fist sergeant killed but if we do it after the main combat the power fist sergeant will strike and probably will change the outcome of the combat.

htj wrote:

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

Precision Strike does indeed apply to assaults. Precision shots apply to shooting.

Interestingly: "Wounds from precision strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound Allocation". Is there anything in the Challenge rules that overrides this?
Edit: [Page 63 BRB]

Bannzai wrote:

htj wrote:

dayio wrote:I think It is quite clear that wounds would overflow. Just my opinion though. How about when a challenger/challenge hit with a 6?(precision strike). Can they allocate a hit to a special weapon just behind the char you are in a challenge with? All those arguing for wound overflow I think would have to agree, But it doesn;t make a whole lot of sense with the whole challenge.

Pretty sure that only applies to shooting.

Precision Strike does indeed apply to assaults. Precision shots apply to shooting.

Interestingly: "Wounds from precision strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound Allocation". Is there anything in the Challenge rules that overrides this?
Edit: [Page 63 BRB]

Not that I can find. It appears that to-wound rolls of 6's in a Challenge can be assigned to any model within 2" of the Challenger/gee. Then again, if you can afford to spend attacks not hitting the character you're engaged in a challenge with, and can still trounce him despite it, more power to you! Your character is obviously badass enough that the opposing unit simply can't stop his rampage.

pizzaguardian wrote:As i said on the topic before, I think that the rule was intended for to overflow to not happen.

But as long as the wording stays like this i agree that wounds should overflow.

Although the challenge rules indicate that we can do the challenge before everybody else or after or at when the fighting goes on. (the summary tells us to do it last but the main rules section indicates it is optional). So this creates the issue of how casualty removal issue. If we do the challenge before the main combat , we might get the power fist sergeant killed but if we do it after the main combat the power fist sergeant will strike and probably will change the outcome of the combat.

I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time reading the rules on this an I think I have found the reason for the way the rules are written.

As the rules state you issue the challange and the 2 models are placed BtB. Now look at the next rule...

Challanges happen AFTER normal combat. In effect the two units are fighting in a phase that happens AFTER powerfist attacks.

So if there is a challange the people that the more powerful char. would have killed STILL get to make thier attacks before the the wound allocation of the challenge kills them.

So under 5th Ed. rules SL and his TG charge into a unit. SL probably goes first and kills 4-5 guys. Then the rest of combat happens with the TG and the opposing side.

With challanges SL runs in and gets chalanged by some Sgt or commisar. They are moved into BtB and wait. Now those 4-5 guys that SL would have killed BEFORE they got thier attacks are still in combat and can do some damage. Then the challange goes off and the sgt dies a horrible death and the extra wounds kill 3-4 others.

So the advantage for the weaker char. is to buy enough time for his full squad to do some damage before the CC monster rips through the squad.

So RAW is good. Challange. Regular combat with wound allocation that avoids the chalangers. Then chalange with normal wound allocation.

Makes perfect sense.

Read more: http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=39374&page=2#ixzz1zs1SB37M

Crazyterran wrote:
I suppose. I don't see a TO or whatever taking that view, but I suppose, for now, that's how it is.

I can see this being FAQ'd to disallow it, however, but for now...

I have to wonder if this falls under the things they forgot, or figured nobody would use this kind of loophole. They should know better in either case.

I imagine the RAI is for it to be a one on one, and wounds allocated only go to each other, even overflow. But I'll guess we'll see in a month or so. (or the INAT one.)

I understand your sentiment, because I feel that way about a lot of things. But over the years it has become apparent that either they *did* mean those things, or they just didn't care.

Did they really mean to allow such wound allocation games in 5E? Do they really mean to allow wound allocation games in 6E?

How about that 'glitch' in the assault rules that you so elegantly argued. I am sure there are a number of people that feel that is a loophole that GW forgot about, and will get 'fixed' in an upcoming FAQ.

In this case, I think it is a mistake to allow a string of peon 'characters' hold up the Bloodthirster for 3 turns; but as you say.... we will see....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gloomfang wrote:
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time reading the rules on this an I think I have found the reason for the way the rules are written.

As the rules state you issue the challange and the 2 models are placed BtB. Now look at the next rule...

Challanges happen AFTER normal combat.

Gloomfang: You are confusing rules and fluff: You are taking a bit from a "Forging the Narrative" and applying that as an actual rule.

The one above that says that the Nid player should make a "bowels loosening" roar when making a challenge. Do you really think that is part of the rules??

coredump wrote:

Gloomfang wrote:
I don't think so. I have spent a lot of time reading the rules on this an I think I have found the reason for the way the rules are written.

As the rules state you issue the challange and the 2 models are placed BtB. Now look at the next rule...

Challanges happen AFTER normal combat.

Gloomfang: You are confusing rules and fluff: You are taking a bit from a "Forging the Narrative" and applying that as an actual rule.

The one above that says that the Nid player should make a "bowels loosening" roar when making a challenge. Do you really think that is part of the rules??

check the summary section of the rulebook please. There it says challenges happen after regular combat.

Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

is there a reason your arn't doing the challenge after all other attacks and in inti order ?

im just curious about the fact that in a challenge you might be attacking completely different WS, T and SV throws from the rest of the unit. doesnt this kind of make wounds bleeding into the unit wrong?

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

The box-out is the only thing that you shouldn't take seriously. Since it tells us that tyranid players have to make gurgling roar on page ago.

And how is adding up unsaved wounds is false? I thought that was the way we are supposed to do that

usernamesareannoying has made a great point here. should we take the unit's stats or the challenger's ?

Atm i think we should use the challenger's statline and overflow the wounds.

jcress410 wrote:
I'm also not convinced the rules are all crafted intentionally. i.e. I think a lot of the circumstances and combinations of rules were not forseen. So, we can't say the authors of the text intended X or Y on any given subject based on the text of the rules alone.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they already had practice with this sort of thing with Fantasy. Challenges exist in Fantasy, and there are Overkill rules explicitly detailed there. Challenges exist in 40K, but there are no Overkill rules explicitly detailed... one could surmise, then, that these rules were purposely left out so that Overkill can't happen in 40K. The only other way you could look at it is to say that GW either forgot to include those rules (unlikely) or that they didn't realize that this would come up (unlikely).

I'm not personally sure of any ruling on this issue, but I DO think that the fact that Overkill exists in Fantasy within the similar system of challenges and does NOT exist in 40K suggests a direction on this issue for 40K.

pizzaguardian wrote:
The box-out is the only thing that you shouldn't take seriously. Since it tells us that tyranid players have to make gurgling roar on page ago.

Only if you completely ignore context.

The box out says you will find it 'more satisfying' for Nids to roar. It never treats it as a rule.
The box out says 'many players like to resolve challenges at the end', it never treats it as a rule

But the box out says "Though the characters in a challenge strike during their normal Initiative steps", it *does* treat that as a rule.

And how is adding up unsaved wounds is false? I thought that was the way we are supposed to do that

Not at all. Once you leave the 'summary' and read the rules in the appropriate location you find
Unsaved wounds negated by saves, don't count
Unsaved wounds negated by FnP, don't count
Unsaved wounds beyond the number in the unit, don't count.
Conversely,
A single Unsaved Wound, if ID causing, could count for as many as 6 towards combat resolution.

The summary is a quick and dirty reminder of the actual rules, it is *not* a replacement for them.



And again, the entire premise of the box out of p.65 is that the RULE is that challenges happen during their init steps, but they propose an ALTERNATIVE method of doing it after everything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kambien wrote:

coredump wrote:Yes, and the summary is just a summary... it is not a primary rules source.

The summary also says you just add up unsaved wounds to determine combat winner. That is false also.

Check out the Box-out on p.65. It clearly states that a challenge is fought in standard init order... though it suggests a more cinematic alternative.

is there a reason your arn't doing the challenge after all other attacks and in inti order ?

Because there is nothing in the rules to indicate there is supposed to be two separate combats, or two different sets of initiative steps.