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.

Grugknuckle wrote: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".

They could have been clearer, yes. But the problem is no one but they know what their intent was. Their intent could be for what the rules actually say to be true, in which case wound potentially can overflow.

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.

Yes the very next sentence says that you perform wound allocation as if the characters were not there. Since the characters go at true initiative how does one allocate wounds to something that is not there? Wound allocation is done at each initiative step not once. So at each initiative step you resolve wound allocation as if the characters were not there. You can say that this places limitations on the outside forces only, and lets assume for a moment that is true, then the outside forces cannot have wounds allocated to them since the combatants are, what? Oh yeah, NOT THERE.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:

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?

Nope. There you go again taking things out of context. Naughty.

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.

But, there you go again taking them one at a time and not looking at the whole puzzle. Take that and couple it with page 429 and you have a more clear picture of the intent of the rules.

cowmonaut wrote:
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.

That only applies when there are no models in base contact. The contention is that, for the duration of the challenge the challenger and challengee remain in base contact with each other

Stop being insulting, as you seem to have missed that point. The second bullet point cannot apply if there is a model in base contact

Captain Antivas wrote:
Yes the very next sentence says that you perform wound allocation as if the characters were not there. Since the characters go at true initiative how does one allocate wounds to something that is not there? Wound allocation is done at each initiative step not once. So at each initiative step you resolve wound allocation as if the characters were not there. You can say that this places limitations on the outside forces only, and lets assume for a moment that is true, then the outside forces cannot have wounds allocated to them since the combatants are, what? Oh yeah, NOT THERE.

I'm not seeing your point here. The models not taking part of the Challenge can't allocate wounds to those combatants. They can only allocate wounds to combatants int he general melee. This has not been a point of debate.

There is no restriction on the Characters that prevents them from allocating wounds. Find the sentence that restricts the Characters.

Captain Antivas wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

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?

Nope. There you go again taking things out of context. Naughty.

It is entirely in context. It is entirely relevant. Its the crux of the whole issue!

Captain Antivas wrote:But, there you go again taking them one at a time and not looking at the whole puzzle. Take that and couple it with page 429 and you have a more clear picture of the intent of the rules.

No, you don't. You have two places in the rule book discussing the same thing. One is tell you that you and your opponent can choose to ignore the Challenge until later and the other is saying you have to. Most of my opponents have higher Initiative than me and would probably prefer to resolve the Challenge first, or at the proper Initiative step if given the option. Sometimes I would prefer to do the same, such as if I'm fighting Orks. Which one do I use? The one that gives me the biggest advantage?

But its a red herring in any event. It still doesn't affect the basic rules for wound allocation. So arguing about when a challenge occurs is a topic for another thread.

No one is going to change their mind until GW clarifies this.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:
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.

That only applies when there are no models in base contact. The contention is that, for the duration of the challenge the challenger and challengee remain in base contact with each other

Stop being insulting, as you seem to have missed that point. The second bullet point cannot apply if there is a model in base contact

If you have slain the enemy combatant you can't be in base contact with him. The model is removed, meaning you are not in base contact with anyone.

For the duration of the challenge, the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

As Captain Antivas likes to argue, context is important. The sentence is telling you that even if you are physically in base contact with other models you don't count as being in base contact with them. This forces your wounds to allocate first and foremost to the other combatant in the Challenge.

If you are arguing that the sentence means that you are in base contact with a model that is removed from the game as a casualty I think you are mistaken. Also please note that does not change the fact that Precision Strike could still allocate a wound to any enemy model in that unit the enemy combatant belongs to.

This is an argument that went 21 pages? Really, guys?

Yo, the two dudes fight. That's it. They are separate.

TheKbob wrote:This is an argument that went 21 pages? Really, guys?

Yo, the two dudes fight. That's it. They are separate.

They are part of the same overall combat. They just can only be attacked by one another. It says nothing about whom they can attack as far as I can tell.

cowmonaut wrote:
If you have slain the enemy combatant you can't be in base contact with him. The model is removed, meaning you are not in base contact with anyone.

You ARE considered to be, and for the duration of the challenge. Present tense. There is no possibility of you NOT being in base to base, and for the duration of the challenge

cowmonaut wrote:

For the duration of the challenge, the two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other.

As Captain Antivas likes to argue, context is important. The sentence is telling you that even if you are physically in base contact with other models you don't count as being in base contact with them. This forces your wounds to allocate first and foremost to the other combatant in the Challenge.

If you are arguing that the sentence means that you are in base contact with a model that is removed from the game as a casualty I think you are mistaken. Also please note that does not change the fact that Precision Strike could still allocate a wound to any enemy model in that unit the enemy combatant belongs to.

Noone has argued against Precision strike, at any point.

"are considered to be" allows no chance of you NOT being in base to base, and for the duration of the challenge this remains true. If you remain in base to base you cannot allocate wounds away

This has been the contention for the past 15 pages - one side reads "are considered to be" as hat it is - an absolute statement with no allowance for any chance of not being in base to base. Others dont.

21 pages and going.

Keep fishing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:This has been the contention for the past 15 pages - one side reads "are considered to be" as hat it is - an absolute statement with no allowance for any chance of not being in base to base. Others dont.

That one sentence is the only thing that affects how wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee are allocated. It does not say you can only allocate to that model. It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

For those that love to argue intent, if GW wanted you to allocate wounds in the Challenge only to the enemy combatant they would have specifically told you to do so. It would have been very easy to just write "Combatants in a Challenge can only allocate wounds to one another". That is not what the rules actually say.

It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

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.

Bolded and underlined. Thats precisely what this means.

cowmonaut wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This has been the contention for the past 15 pages - one side reads "are considered to be" as hat it is - an absolute statement with no allowance for any chance of not being in base to base. Others dont.

That one sentence is the only thing that affects how wounds caused by a Challenger or Challengee are allocated. It does not say you can only allocate to that model. It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

By virtue of the allocation rules that is exactly what the result is - until models in btb are gone, you cannot allocate to models not in base to base.

"Are considered to be" is unambiguous. Present tense meaning they ARE in base to base, for the duration of the challenge

cowmonaut wrote:

For those that love to argue intent, if GW wanted you to allocate wounds in the Challenge only to the enemy combatant they would have specifically told you to do so. It would have been very easy to just write "Combatants in a Challenge can only allocate wounds to one another". That is not what the rules actually say.

That IS what the rules DO say, just in a much more long winded way.

Until and unless you can prove that "are considered to be" doesnt actually mean that, you still have no rules argument.

Lt.Soundwave wrote: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.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

This is the argument that was given on page 6.

Repeatedly given since then.

15 pages on and there is not a single argument that has held up to scrutiny since.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

It does not say that when the combatant is slain you treat the slain model as still being in play.

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.

Bolded and underlined. Thats precisely what this means.

Seriously, 21 pages with THIS as evidence?

Do people here actively want to cheat? Am I missing something?

So, do you have an actual argument, or just wanting to violate the rules of the forum?

<Simmer down, folks.>

Sadly, what was a farily engaging debate is starting to break down into frustrated name calling.

I just want to address some things here that haven't been brought up, as maybe some new ammo.

On Pg. 3 "Zero-Level Characteristics" it states "If at any point, a model's Strnegth, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty"

I can not say for sure one way or another if Overflow should occur or not at this point. But so far, the main argument that a dead model being in base to base contact with anything has any effect just seems to carry absolutely no weight in this argument. A dead model does not exist on the table, and there is no rule that allows you to count it as such. Because of this, the line that says they are considered to be in base to base only with eachother can only mean "for as long as they are both alive".

What seems to be in debate here is the first part of the same sentence: "For the duration of the challenge, ..."

I think this sentence is in conflict with itself. And while it may be clear to people arguing on both sides, I think we can all agree that it really isn't all that clear.

Personally, I believe that if they intended there to be NO OVERFLOW, then the challenge section would have been much easier to write, and much shorter of a rule to explain in the rulebook. I also believe that they wouldn't have bothered explaining how to refuse a challenge, since there would never be a good reason to refuse in this case. That said, I intend to play as if there is OVERFLOW, and I of course will make sure that my opponent agrees before we play. If not, then we can role the dice to decide how its played that day.

I agree with CanisLupus....I will clear it with my opponent to make sure but to me this whole issue doesn't really make sense. Whether you look at it in terms of RAW I don't really see the issue and if it is RAI, then challenges without rolloever wounds doesn't make any sense. What is cinematic about dealing out 6 wounds to a squad and a dinky sergeant soaking them all up...

I see it now, someone like swarmlord, Dante, or Ghaz rolls up to a squad and instead of finishing 5 guys in one swing decides to make a big deal out of killing sgt. Joe...Personally if this is ever FAQ'd to be different then I would be very surprised

cowmonaut wrote:

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.

Your answer to #4 and #5 are in direct contradiction to "Combatant Slain" page 64



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lobukia wrote:

Lobukia wrote:
"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other... the challenge is still considered to be on going [if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64

"If there is no enemy models in base contact with a model... the wound is allocated to the next closest model" page 25

While in a challenge, you are in base to base

the challenge continues until the end of phase

They say it in plain english

You do count as being in b2b until the end of phase, if you disagree, you have to ignore rules

From page 5 of this thread... and then we had to redefine "only" ... and ran with that to page 20+


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:1) You count as in btb for the duration of the challenge
2) Even if one model (or both) is slain, you are still in the challenge until the end of the phase
3) You cannot allocate wounds to models not in b2b with you, until there are no models in btb with you left

1 - 3 result in wounds not overflowing. You have a non-existant model in b2b with you, and ONLY with you, until the end of the [hase. You are prohibited, by the rules, from allocating to other models until that model is no longer in b2b - which is at the end of the phase.

Nos said it better here

It doesn't matter if the model is removed or not, as per the rules the model is STILL considered to be in base to base contact for the duration. Period.

Removing the model does not change the fact that the models are still considered to be base to base. They even go so far as to specify that if a character dies in challenge that the challenge continues.

On Pg. 3 "Zero-Level Characteristics" it states "If at any point, a model's Strnegth, Toughness, or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty"

I can not say for sure one way or another if Overflow should occur or not at this point. But so far, the main argument that a dead model being in base to base contact with anything has any effect just seems to carry absolutely no weight in this argument. A dead model does not exist on the table, and there is no rule that allows you to count it as such. Because of this, the line that says they are considered to be in base to base only with eachother can only mean "for as long as they are both alive".

Canis is this a basic or advanced rule? If it is a basic rule would not the challenge rules specifically override this example?

Furthermore let us look at the following assertion:

A dead model does not exist on the table, and there is no rule that allows you to count it as such.

The following excerpt:

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other... the challenge is still considered to be on going [if one is slain] until the end of the phase" page 64

Would this not be precisely that, a rule contradicting your assertion?

cowmonaut wrote:

Lt.Soundwave wrote: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.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

it is not compelling. that sentence does not read "for the duration of the challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact", and it doesn't mean that either.

It just means the two models are only considered to be in base with eachother. They can't be in base with anyone else.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

The more times I type this the less ambiguous the sentence seems...

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.

Still waiting on a Page number for where this is said in the rules.

If not, you have nothing.

P.S. P. 64 disagrees with you: "When one of the combatants in a challenge is slain, regardless of which Initiative step it is, the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase"

jcress410 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

Lt.Soundwave wrote: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.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

it is not compelling. that sentence does not read "for the duration of the challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact", and it doesn't mean that either.

It just means the two models are only considered to be in base with eachother. They can't be in base with anyone else.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

The more times I type this the less ambiguous the sentence seems...

Yup, but far too many posts and pages have been generated trying to explain grammar to folks who just do not want to hear it.

Grugknuckle wrote:No one is going to change their mind until GW clarifies this.

Requoting this ^ for truth.

So far the arguments against overflow are substantiated on a misinterpretation of one sentence as it is written and a belief that, because a contradiction exists in the book between rules and a suggestion from GW on how to make the game feel more cinematic, normal rules should be abandoned to the wind.

I would love to see the forging a narrative vs actual rules part of all this gain some traction, but the continual repetition of the misread base-to-base sentence is tiresome.

We posted our thoughts on the matter, they have posted theirs... is there a cap to how often a discussion can go in circles before a thread gets locked? Because this has transitioned from hilarious to downright depressing.

I'd like to hear cowmonauts take on it, as one of the more vocal points of opposition it seems like he may be shifting position. An important milestone for the debate really. It would only be polite to allow that person time to ponder and reply in a more in depth fashion after they have had some time to consider. Will opinions be swayed? Perhaps, perhaps not. However i feel that due discourse is its own reward regardless of outcome.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

When one of the combatants is slain the challenge is still considered to be ongoing until the end of the phase.

The combatants are in base contact with only each other until the end of the phase.

Lets try a simple logic exercise.

Unit A is challenged to a duel.

Unit B accepts.

Base contact is made and according to page 64:

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other..

We've established that a slain model does not end the challenge via :

. the challenge is still considered to be on going [if one is slain] until the end of the phase"

So, two things.

First, we have a challenge that specifies that two units are in B2B, second we have a line stating that the challenge does not end if one of the challenge participants is slain.

If the unit removed as a casualty does not count as in B2B then both units can NOT be in base to base for the duration of the challenge as the rule explicitly requires.

As the slain status of a combatant does not end the challenge the only way to fulfill the prerequisite of the first portion namely B2B contact is if the model still counted as being there until such time as the phase ends. Your interpretation states that a slain model or casualty is removed.

If the casualty is removed and the victim no longer counts as B2B... do you feel this does this not DIRECTLY violate the first premise? Namely that during the duration the models are considered as B2B?


Lastly, Quiestdeus
Made in us :

Yup, but far too many posts and pages have been generated trying to explain grammar to folks who just do not want to hear it.

This, is not constructive. If you do not find value in the discourse others choose to engage in feel free to not take part. Comments like these are most often interpreted as snide and do not contribute to the conversation.

Your view of the discourse being futile is irrelevant so long as others continue to wish to discuss it.

jcress410 wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:

Lt.Soundwave wrote: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.

And the first argument to make me doubt myself. I'm not sure you are correct but that is the argument that got lost in the noise for me. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

I'm still not sure it means you are considered in base contact with a model no longer in play mind you. But this is compelling.

it is not compelling. that sentence does not read "for the duration of the challenge the two models are considered to be in base contact", and it doesn't mean that either.

It just means the two models are only considered to be in base with eachother. They can't be in base with anyone else.

It does not mean, and nobody can explain why it would mean, that you consider one model to be in base with a casualty.

The more times I type this the less ambiguous the sentence seems...

The mere fact that they used the word considered is compelling. They don't say they are or they can be or anything definitive, they say considered to be. Meaning, by definition of the phrase considered to be, even if they aren't, they are. For all intents and purposes, regardless of actual location in relation to each other, they are in BTB with each other the entire phase, even if one dies and is removed as a casualty. That may not make sense to you but it is what it is.

What is most compelling, Captain, is the fact that you, and everyone else against wound overflow, wants us to ignore rules as written in favor of how you believe it should be played.

For all intents and purposes with the way it is written they are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other. Let me say that again, with only each other... The duration for this is until the end of the phase. So, they are considered to be in base to base contact with only each other, even if there are other models physically in base to base with the characters.

And Lt Soundwave, I'm kind of confused as to what you're trying to conclude here. Yes the models are considered to be base to base with only each other for the entire phase. That's a known fact that no one has argued. That does not stop a model from being removed as a causality. It also does not restrict the character into being base to base for the entire phase; it removes their ability to be in base to base contact with anyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. The ability is still there to not be base to base with anything, but if you are in base to base, you can only be in base to base with the other character in the challenge. Simply stating that they are considered to be base to base with only each other until the end of the phase does not stop you from removing the slain model and continuing on with normal wound allocation. Even if the challenge is still considered ongoing, nothing states that you don't use normal wound allocation, nothing states that you have to remain in base to base with a slain model, but what is stated is that you have to remove a model with zero wounds and allocate the remaining wounds to viable models, starting with the closest first. This is after your model that you were in base to base contact with was slain and removed.

Now, with that said, I do believe that overflow was not intended. However, this is not a RAI argument. I'm going only by rules as written, and they support overflow.

No, you are the ones ignoring that "are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base. EVen if they are not physically, actually in base to base they are considered to be.

It restricts their ability to NOT be in base to base with eachother, and it does so while the challenge is ongoing - which is the entire phase

In short, you have added precisely nothing since page 6, as you still choose to misinterpret that sentence.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you are the ones ignoring that "are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base.

Agreed.