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.

I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

There is no wound overflow as the two characters are striking blows against each other and not the unit they belong to. RAW states to resolve the wound allocation as if the characters are not there. This is two fold in that wounds from the unit(s) cannot be placed on the characters nor can the wounds from the duel be placed on the unit(s).

Greg_Hager wrote: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.

I would absolutely love for you to point out a single rule I have used the word "ignore" with. I know already that you are going to reply with "normal wound allocation rules" and we are not suggesting you ignore them, simply use the modified and more specific challenge rules, which override the general wound allocation rules. I don't want you to ignore everything. It is your camp that tells us that Forging a Narrative should be ignored because it is just a guideline or suggestion, and to ignore the summary at the end of the rules because it is inconvenient and wrong. Again, if your conclusion is derived by ruling everything that opposes your argument as invalid is a fallacy. It takes a brilliant mind to claim victory after ignoring everything that refuted your argument.

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.

How did you come to the conclusion that overflow was not intended? How can you look me in the eye and say definitively that it was intended but was written differently? If, after reading the information, the only logical conclusion is that overflow is intended how do you then say it was not written that way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Greg_Hager wrote:I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

You are acting like that is the only sentence that makes us think what we do. All the sentences in context make us think that sentence means what it means. Context is everything.

* face palms *
Close this please - This is embarrassing .

Not that my opinion means anything, but the local TO opinion does.

So I talked to the TO and what I received was a very definite NO. Wounds from challenges DO NOT overflow into the rest of the combat.

So anyone playing at the Memphis Factory Store (ie. GW HQ) please keep this in mind, if you are planning on attending any official events held there.

Thanks and have a nice day.

question for you, when you guys talk to your TO's , are you bringing up points from both sides of the argument, or just leaving it one sided? Also, it seems without wound overflow characters (more specifically independent characters) are pretty useless in cc.
ie. cool i dealt four wounds and killed your sgt. that had one, now I'm going to throw out the unallocated wounds and hope you don't have another character for me to do deal...one... wound to.
that just seems pointless in its entirety.

Points don't matter. Everyone should know what is intended by the rules.

Second there is no such rules as over flow wounds. I looked in the whole book. Nothing listed and no rule called over flow wounds.

MJThurston wrote:Points don't matter. Everyone should know what is intended by the rules.

Second there is no such rules as over flow wounds. I looked in the whole book. Nothing listed and no rule called over flow wounds.

It doesn't need to exist, there's nothing saying that the normal close combat rules aren't used.

Ahhhhhhhhhh

If normal close combat rules were used then it wouldn't be called Challenges.

EAFChunk wrote:question for you, when you guys talk to your TO's , are you bringing up points from both sides of the argument, or just leaving it one sided? Also, it seems without wound overflow characters (more specifically independent characters) are pretty useless in cc.
ie. cool i dealt four wounds and killed your sgt. that had one, now I'm going to throw out the unallocated wounds and hope you don't have another character for me to do deal...one... wound to.
that just seems pointless in its entirety.

All I did was bring up the question about wound overflow. The TO informed me that it had been thoroughly discussed and that how the tourneys would be run was that there was no wound overflow until otherwise FAQ'ed.

Your TO might rule it differently , but I offered no suggestions either way. I just asked how it would be ruled.

MJThurston wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhh

If normal close combat rules were used then it wouldn't be called Challenges.

OK, guess you can't wound your opponent then, because it's a challenge, not close combat. Have fun!

"are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base.

Until this is refuted the overflow camp can not proceed further with its argument.

Its right there in the quotes posted repeatedly for the length of this thread.

Golden Throne ruled the same way. If it is so obvious that they overflow why do so many large event organizers rule against?

No such thing as over flow wounds.

Greg_Hager wrote:I wholeheartedly believe you are reading to much interpretation into it, and can't see what the words actually say because you want it to say something that it doesn't.

"Are considered to be in base to base contact until the end of the phase."

If the words stated that, then you would have a compelling argument. However they don't. Once you add on "with only each other" it becomes clear that this is only modifying who is in base to base with who, and not arbitrarily making you stay base to base with a slain model.

Is English your first language, Greg? "ARE". The modifying statement "only with each other" does not change the word "are". Many posts have pointed this out and you've failed to comprehend them too.

Even if you read it as "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to not be in base contact with any other models" as you have been, the word "are" still makes their base contact mandatory.

If I say "Those two guys are wearing powered armour", then they are wearing at least power armour or else my statement is false.
If I say "Those two guys are wearing only power armour", They must still be wearing power armour or else my statement is false. If they are not wearing power armour my statement is false. If they are wearing more than power armour, my statement is false. If they are wearing power armour, and only power armour, my statement is true.

Got it yet?

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

"are considered to be" makes no allowance, NONE, for the models NOT being in base to base.

Until this is refuted the overflow camp can not proceed further with its argument.

Its right there in the quotes posted repeatedly for the length of this thread.

Please review the posts from page 13 through page 16 (at least). This has been refuted thoroughly. To take a page from Captain Antivas, context is everything.

quiestdeus wrote:As brought up earlier, the rule is that they are considered to be in base with only each other, NOT that they are always in base contact with each other. The placement of the qualifiers in the sentence matter greatly.

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

is NOT the same as

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

Because GW wrote it the first way, and not the second, nor the third, claiming they are in base contact for the duration of the challenge is incorrect. They can only BE in base contact with each other for the duration of the combat, that does not mean they ARE in base contact with each other.

For the duration of the challenge, 1)these two models 2)are considered to be in base contact 3)only with each other
Is incorrect.

For the duration of the challenge, 1)these two models 2)are considered to be in base contact only with each other
is correct.

If the "with" came before the "only" you would have a case because you could drop the prepositional phrase "with only each other" from the sentence and achieve the meaning you desire (the models are ALWAYS in base contact). HOWEVER - that is not how it was written. Thus, you *HAVE* to interpret the sentence such that the models are simply never in base contact with any other model, not that they are always in base contact.

The characters in a challenge are in base contact with NO other models.

They are NOT always in base contact with each other.

There are another dozen+ posts on page 13-15 about this exact point. Please read them and explain what is unclear about this. You cannot focus on "are considered to be" because the sentence DOES NOT END THERE.

Repeating. The. Same. Exact. Point. Over. And. Over. Is. Not. Constructive.

quiestdeus,

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?

Captain Antivas wrote:

You are acting like that is the only sentence that makes us think what we do. All the sentences in context make us think that sentence means what it means. Context is everything.

Captain - forgive me if I missed something in the repetition of other points over the past few pages, but your point of view is that the contradictions between the "Forging the Narrative" section, and the rules on pages 64 and 65 about resolving wounds is the other piece that refutes overflow?

The problem that models have to allocate wounds in initiative order, but you have the option to resolve a challenge at the end of combat instead of at true initiative?

Just trying to get on the same page - I spent a little time trying to figure out the best way to resolve that and the thing that jumped out at me is the first "Forging the Narrative" box on page XV. It explicitly states that the content of these FtN boxes is "advice" to make your playing experience better. It also is placed outside of the "The Rules" section, which starts 6 pages later, which is interesting.

To me this indicates that the Forging the Narrative sections are not rules, but purely were included to provide suggestions on how players can make the game feel more like a movie (which GW has indicated is their intention in the past - I believe the term was "cinematic").

This would mean the rules are to allocate wounds in true initiative order, but players are welcome to tweak those rules if they do not want to (much like how nearly all tournaments tweak the rules on setting up terrain).

As such, I do not think the "when to allocate wounds time travel paradox" refutes wound overflow. I also acknowledge that this is definitely getting into an ambiguous gray area, but because actions such as 'not following the terrain placement rules' does not prevent players from placing fortifications... not following the optional order of events for wound allocation should not prevent players following the normal rules for wound allocation (which would support wound overflow *if* you agree the challenger and challengee are not always in base contact). It simply means that if the players choose to resolve the challenge at the end of combat, instead of in initiative order, they are allowing models, that may otherwise be killed, a chance to attack.

Thoughts?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:quiestdeus,

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?

Happily.

The models are considered to be in base contact with no other model for the duration of the challenge, which lasts for as long as both combatants are alive and/or through the end of a phase during which one combatant has been slain.

So you are not going to answer the questions?

I just did? It appended my answer to the end of my attempt to start a conversation with Captain Antivas

No you did not. There are 5 questions there, and not 5 answers.

How about you answer this one question:
1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

DeathReaper wrote:No you did not. There are 5 questions there, and not 5 answers.

How about you answer this one question:
1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

Only if it is impossible to get the two combatants in base to base.

Edit: Sorry, I figured you couldn't see me jumping up in down in my seat with my hand raised. I'll be good.

For the duration that both are alive, both models are absolutely in base contact with each other as per the first sentence of the "Fighting a Challenge" section.

When one model is slain gameplay follows the rules on page 25 and the two combatants are no longer in base to base contact as further enforced by the sentence under the "Combatant Slain" section on page 64.

Yet they "are" considered to be in base to base, and are so for the duration of the challenge.

It is the "considered to be " that you are tripping up on; this is allowance for them to not really be in base to base, but as far as the rules are concerned they are.

Happyjew wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:No you did not. There are 5 questions there, and not 5 answers.

How about you answer this one question:
1) Are the two models in the challenge considered to be in base contact with each other?

Only if it is impossible to get the two combatants in base to base.

Okay so if we cant get them into base contact they are considered to be in base contact.

If we can get them into base contact then they are in base contact.

Good now we are getting somewhere.

Premise #1 So they are, or are considered to be in base contact.

Do we agree with Premise #1?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet they "are" considered to be in base to base, and are so for the duration of the challenge.

It is the "considered to be " that you are tripping up on; this is allowance for them to not really be in base to base, but as far as the rules are concerned they are.

Please see my post just above yours. Literally just 7 above yours...

It explains why reading "considered to be" in the way you imply is incorrect.

Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact only with each other"

NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

"considered to be" --- "in base contact".

There *is* a difference and you cannot ignore the "only with each other" part or break the one sentence up into two separate considerations.

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

I completely understand what you are trying to say. I am arguing the sentence as written does not mean what you want it to mean.

Convince me that you can break the sentence up as you are attempting to do and I will be all over why your base-to-base assertion completely refutes wound allocation because the wounds go to a dead model. Repeating the same argument over and over again is fruitless and I will take a page out of your book and begin to just copy-paste this same reply clearly stating why I feel you are wrong.

One last try: the sentence is NOT:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact" -- "only with each other"

If it was, you could remove either the "in base contact" or the "only with each other" and have a sensible sentence.
Models are "considered to be"--- "only with each other" IS NOT A SENTENCE. The models have to BE something with each other. Thus you simply cannot ignore the "only with each other" portion and assert that the models are always in base to base contact with each other.

The sentence is:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact only with each other"
Meaning the models are considered to be only in base contact with each other. Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

Explain how "Models are considered to be -- only with each other" makes sense, because if you cannot then you cannot ignore "only with each other" and have the "Models are considered to be in base contact" sentence you keep claiming is in the book.

Edit: You can disagree with me if you like, but for the love of at least prove to me you are considering the situation rather than mindlessly copying and pasting your previous posts. Explain why you think you can break the sentence up into 3 parts instead of 2.

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

-Q

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

Eldarguy88 wrote:Is English your first language, Greg? "ARE". The modifying statement "only with each other" does not change the word "are". Many posts have pointed this out and you've failed to comprehend them too.

Even if you read it as "For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to not be in base contact with any other models" as you have been, the word "are" still makes their base contact mandatory.

If I say "Those two guys are wearing powered armour", then they are wearing at least power armour or else my statement is false.
If I say "Those two guys are wearing only power armour", They must still be wearing power armour or else my statement is false. If they are not wearing power armour my statement is false. If they are wearing more than power armour, my statement is false. If they are wearing power armour, and only power armour, my statement is true.

Got it yet?

Yes, English is my first language. I was born and raised in the United States and the only reason my location says Japan is because the Marine Corps stationed me here. But this isn't about me so moving on...

Like quiestdeus has posted so many times, you can not take part of the sentence and use that, you have to use the sentence in it's entirety. We are refuting every argument with fact and everyone chooses to disagree. Nothing we can do will make you realize our stance is the correct one, however we will gladly keep trying.

quiestdeus wrote:The characters in a challenge are in base contact with NO other models.

They are NOT always in base contact with each other.

There are another dozen+ posts on page 13-15 about this exact point. Please read them and explain what is unclear about this. You cannot focus on "are considered to be" because the sentence DOES NOT END THERE.

Repeating. The. Same. Exact. Point. Over. And. Over. Is. Not. Constructive.

I totally agree...we are getting no where. The facts are right here, and in black and white in your rule book. You can't leave off the end of the sentence because that part explains the context in which to take the entire statement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet they "are" considered to be in base to base, and are so for the duration of the challenge.

It is the "considered to be " that you are tripping up on; this is allowance for them to not really be in base to base, but as far as the rules are concerned they are.

Once again, see above. They are considered to be in base to base with only each other for the duration of the challenge. Meaning that they can't be in base to base with anyone else. No where is this making them remain in base to base after a model is slain and removed.

quiestdeus wrote:One last try: the sentence is NOT:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact" -- "only with each other"

If it was, you could remove either the "in base contact" or the "only with each other" and have a sensible sentence.
Models are "considered to be"--- "only with each other" IS NOT A SENTENCE. The models have to BE something with each other. Thus you simply cannot ignore the "only with each other" portion and assert that the models are always in base to base contact with each other.

The sentence is:
Models are "considered to be"--- "in base contact only with each other"
Meaning the models are considered to be only in base contact with each other. Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

Quoted for truth...this is the best way I've saw my opinion expressed. You can NOT break down the sentence any other way.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

The models are considered to be (in base contact only with each other).

-Q

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

How is that so? He is stating the same thing I am stating. You are not looking at the same sentence I am if you believe he is agreeing with you.

Models are NOT always considered to be in base contact.

This is the crux of your misunderstanding.

For the duration of the challenge those two models ARE considered to be in B2B contact. That is RAW. The challenge explicitly states it.



page 64

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.

"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

nothing states that you don't use normal wound allocation,

This boils down to basic vs advanced.

Your assertion is that a removed model does not count as base to base, a normal basic rule.

However, the challenge specifies that for its duration these models are considered in B2B only with eachother. This in turn overrides the basic rule. They go on further to say that if the model is slain the challenge continues until the end of the phase.

But, if you remove a model it is no longer in Base to base with anything (Basic rule) This conflicts with the above qouted line specifiying that the two models are considered to be B2B only with eachother for the duration of the challenge.

If my slain model counts as being removed he does not satisfy the challenge's statement of being considered in B2B with only each other.

You are fixating on the definition "only" which from your perspective shifts the entire meaning of the other lines.

So lets look at that:

on·ly (nl)
adj.
1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left.
2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence.
adv.
1. Without anyone or anything else; alone: room for only one passenger.
2.
a. At the very least: If you would only come home. The story was only too true.
b. And nothing else or more: I only work here.
3. Exclusively; solely: facts known only to us.
4.
a. In the last analysis or final outcome: actions that will only make things worse.
b. With the final result; nevertheless: received a raise only to be laid off.
5.
a. As recently as: called me only last month.
b. In the immediate past: only just saw them.
conj.
1. Were it not that; except.
2.
a. With the restriction that; but: You may go, only be careful.
b. However; and yet: The merchandise is well made, only we can't use it.

[Middle English, from Old English nlc : n, one; see one + -lc, having the form of; see -ly1.]

Usage Note: When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement follows.

As has been stated: "context, is everything."

-Lt. S

I do not think you realize this but you are agreeing with us.

Edit - at least everything you said about the usage of "only". All of my previous points and description still stand to refute the beginning of your post about always being in base contact.

You agree. Your very own example points out that "The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report" does NOT mean the committee is always making a decision by every Friday, every week. A condition on the statement follows, and thus the statement MUST be read to include said condition. Models are NOT always in base contact with each other, they are only not in contact with any other model.

Do you disagree with your own chosen reference? Otherwise you agree with why the models are not always in base to base contact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

You are fixating on the definition "only" which from your perspective shifts the entire meaning of the other lines.

So lets look at that:


[Middle English, from Old English nlc : n, one; see one + -lc, having the form of; see -ly1.]

Usage Note: When used as an adverb, only should be placed with care to avoid ambiguity. Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits. Variation in the placement of only can change the meaning of the sentence, as the following examples show: Dictators respect only force; they are not moved by words. Dictators only respect force; they do not worship it. She picked up the receiver only when he entered, not before. She only picked up the receiver when he entered; she didn't dial the number. Though strict grammarians insist that the rule for placement of only should always be followed, there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural, and if the context is sufficiently clear, there is no chance of being misunderstood. In the following example only is placed according to the rule: The committee can make its decision by Friday of next week only if it receives a copy of the latest report. Placement of only earlier in the sentence, immediately after can, would warn the reader that a condition on the statement follows.

As has been stated: "context, is everything."

FURTHERMORE (sorry for the repeated edits) you point out "Generally this means having only adjoin the word or words that it limits."

What word(s) does only adjoin? "base to base contact" and "with each other".

"Contact" and "With". You cannot split up the 2 statements, as I pointed out above, because "only" provides context as to the base to base contact.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other." is not the same as:
"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact."
"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be only with each other."

Only modifies the words it is adjoined with, you have to read them with their modifier, models are not always in base contact they are only in base contact with no other models.

If that is still enough, more from your own statement:
"there are occasions when placement of only earlier in the sentence seems much more natural,"
Earlier, not later. That is even more proof of how the sentence must be interpreted.

Moving "only" earlier in the sentence to make it feel more natural, results in: "For the duration of the challenge, only these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other."

Would you still argue that meant the models are ALWAYS in base contact with each other? Or ONLY in base contact with each other? I can see how you can misinterpret "always" from the current verbage, but how can you possibly swap one word for another entirely? If we are completely swapping words what stops English from breaking down into "banana kumquat Jose Canseco"? How do you banana kumquat Jose Canseco a challenge?