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.

OMG

So if your just considered you can make up rules.

Read the Slain part of the rules.

The considered part is because the other model is dead. They didn't want people to then put them into the squad fight.

If your Character had a I10 hit, say from a bike or jump pack and you kill the other Character, they didn't want your Init 4 attacks to go into the squad.

So this is why they used the word considered. So no matter when one Character is slain, for the rest of that CC he is considered locked in combat.

MJThurston wrote:No one argues that Squad wounds carry over to the challenge. Why would Challenge wounds carry over to the squads?

because it specifically states that "wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character". it does not say that wounds from either characters cannot be allocated against other attackers, this is why precision strikes can be placed on a unit outside a challenge from a model inside a challenge. This being said it would still have to follow normal wound allocation rules, starting with the model in base to base, and then moving to the next closest model once all wounds have been removed from the model in base to base.

MJThurston wrote:Because people are fishing. They know how this is supposed to work but they want to destroy a Seargeant with 1 wound and then kill more of the unit. And not have to worry about the rest of the unit doing damage to them.

I believe overflow is suppose to work, and even if you follow the summary in the back where the characters go last, the rest of the unit still gets to attack.

MJThurston wrote:It's really cowardly. I would think that people would want to have real fights. Not just try to abuse a rule so their IC can punk a 1 wound guy to kill an entire squad without the change of being killed. Sad really!

he still has the chance to miss on his attacks and wounds and the sgt living. Even then the IC could have an int. 1 weapon, where that Sgt. could punk the IC.

MJThurston wrote:Ahhh did your IC have to go through 2 rounds of CC instead of one?

thats a good portion of the game seeing as how its min. 5 rounds max 7 and two of those they are essentially rendered useless. that's 3 1/2 combats they can effectively engage in supposing the game goes 7 game turns.

MJThurston wrote:I mean you do realize that if you kill the enemy on your charge you are out in the open on the opponents turn? Challenges just saved you from this.

that is not entirely true, if the unit fails their morale test and flees, you are still left out in the open, challenges did not just save you from this.

Every game turn is 2 player turns. You realise tht right? So a combat taking 2 turns is 1 game turn. 7 combats possible.

Tactically you prefer a combat taking 2 combat rounds in any case, as this means you are safe from being shot at on your opponents turn.

nosferatu1001 wrote:He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

ok, and yet again that still doesn't answer Greg's question.

Yes, it does. He is considered to be in b2b until the end of the phase, despite falling back.

Perhaps this is time for a lock? Overflow was conclusively dismissed 18 pages ago, since then we have had the same misunderstanding of "only" (and that sentence) going round and round and round and round with absolutely no give either way.

Nothing new has been said in 18 pages.

Rather than quoting you every time you said I was incorrect I will just reply instead of quoting.

If I am interpreting what you are saying at the end of the first phase...

kambien wrote: challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Now per the rules. The challenge is on going until the unit flees from combat, or once a character is slain it ends at the end of that phase. The challenge doesn't end at the end of the phase it was started like you said. You are contradicting yourself.

But, at this point we're going off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the point that we're making here.

Your unit failing a moral test gives you the permission to not be in base to base contact, so why wouldn't the other character being slain give you the permission? All the rules state is when the character is slain you remain in the challenge until the end of the phase, therefor you can't be in base to base contact with anyone else that phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, it does. He is considered to be in b2b until the end of the phase, despite falling back.

I disagree. They're not in base to base because they broke from the challenge. If the challenge is wanted to continue, it has to be reissued.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Perhaps this is time for a lock? Overflow was conclusively dismissed 18 pages ago, since then we have had the same misunderstanding of "only" (and that sentence) going round and round and round and round with absolutely no give either way.

Nothing new has been said in 18 pages.

There is no reason to lock a thread with an ongoing discussion/disagreement because some people within the thread want to make personal attacks. I am presenting a very valid side for discussion and refuting every disagreement that is presented to me with facts and quotes from the rulebook.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Every game turn is 2 player turns. You realise tht right? So a combat taking 2 turns is 1 game turn. 7 combats possible.

Tactically you prefer a combat taking 2 combat rounds in any case, as this means you are safe from being shot at on your opponents turn.

oop my mistake, i was thinking in terms of game turn, and forgetting the player turn part on that. my bad

Greg_Hager wrote:Rather than quoting you every time you said I was incorrect I will just reply instead of quoting.

You should otherwise its hard for poeple to follow you exact line your rebuttle is for

Greg_Hager wrote:If I am interpreting what you are saying at the end of the first phase...

You interperting wrong
You said

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct? "

and i pointed out that , that line is incorrect/not 100% true . the other things that can happen are , see below

kambien wrote: challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Now per the rules. The challenge is on going until the unit flees from combat, or once a character is slain it ends at the end of that phase. The challenge doesn't end at the end of the phase it was started like you said. You are contradicting yourself.

where is the contradiction ?

Greg_Hager wrote:But, at this point we're going off on a tangent that has absolutely nothing to do with the point that we're making here.

Your unit failing a moral test gives you the permission to not be in base to base contact, so why wouldn't the other character being slain give you the permission? All the rules state is when the character is slain you remain in the challenge until the end of the phase, therefor you can't be in base to base contact with anyone else that phase.

Because it is implied " And neither side fled"

I tihnk a good question to get answered would be when does the end of the phase end . Is it resolution of the challenge? , the assault result ? or after sweeping advances/consolodations are done

It would have to be after you finish your movement for consolidation, because that the last step in the book for assault. Assuming there's no other combats or that's the last one.

I don't think I'm quite following you on this one, how can it be implied that they are not b2b when they flee, and also imply that if the character is slain and removed as a casualty it is still b2b? Could you go a little more in depth so I can understand you better

After a Slain Challenge/Challengee there is no consolidation. They are considered in Base to Base until the end of the phase. So no consolidation.

After the Assault Phase is when the character reverts back to the squad. So no consolidation.

It doesn't say fight sub-phase but phase.

So if you're saying there's no consolidation because they are considered to be b2b until the end of the phase, are you also saying that there is no sweeping advance, check morale, or determining assault results? So because they are considered b2b, they freeze in place and disregard the rest of the combat rules? If that is the case, then why would there be an assault result section, and why would round 2 even mention fleeing from combat if the characters are stuck in considered b2b and cant do anything else?
that would force both units to stay in combat for 2 player turns, 1 game turn.

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:Rather than quoting you every time you said I was incorrect I will just reply instead of quoting.

You should otherwise its hard for poeple to follow you exact line your rebuttle is for

Point taken.

kambien wrote:

Greg_Hager wrote:If I am interpreting what you are saying at the end of the first phase...

You interperting wrong
You said

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct? "

and i pointed out that , that line is incorrect/not 100% true . the other things that can happen are , see below

kambien wrote: challenge goes to a 2nd round , challenge goes to a 2nd round and another model does glorious intervention or the unit flees. It's all listed under "Round Two". There fore the challenge is not ongoing until one is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Now per the rules. The challenge is on going until the unit flees from combat, or once a character is slain it ends at the end of that phase. The challenge doesn't end at the end of the phase it was started like you said. You are contradicting yourself.

where is the contradiction ?

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"
and
"considered to be" --- "only with each other"

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 completely against wound overflow as 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 however, 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.

Lt. Soundwave's own references actually strengthen it. The 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. It explains how "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 because of the way they must be read to include such a conditional statement.

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."

Further more, the reference (again, chosen by the "against overflow" position) points 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 interpret those words 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 reference:
"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?

How about if we moved "only" earlier and the sentence read:
"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are only considered to be in base contact with each other."

Do you read to mean always in base to base contact as well? The only way to interpret "always in base to base contact" is by moving the word "only" AFTER the preposition "with" - WHICH YOU CANNOT DO.

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

The pro-overflow position has been very accommodating of your examples, questions, premises, and at least tried to answer them. Please return the favor and explain why you believe you can break the sentence into 3 parts, as necessary to interpret it to mean models are always in base contact. Again, we understand what you are trying to say, please explain why you think you can interpret the sentence that way.

Once you do that there is no longer an argument against overflow, but as it stands now the models are no longer in base when one dies and wounds have to be allocated to the squad RAW.

quiestdeus wrote:

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?

I have many problems with challenge wounds overflowing. Let me show you what I mean when I say all the sentences. Here is a list of all the sentences that impact wound overflow: (I will not be doing direct quotes though since I think that has been done so many times I am pretty sure we all agree what is in there.)

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another.
Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge.
Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. (Yes I made this a separate sentence because it is. The use of the dash in mid sentence is the same as using a colon: it creates a completely different thought within the same sentence, albeit along the same lines as the rest of the sentence. But it is, for all intents and purposes, a separate sentence.)
Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges. (Page 429) (Very interesting that they said resolve any challenges, implying they want you to complete all challenges on the board at the same time.)
Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit.
Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.)
(Notice I didn't include the part about being in BTB with each other. This is because that doesn't matter, but I will go into that in more detail down the road.)

I think we can agree this is the group of rules that make up the wound overflow argument. So, since the characters strike at their true initiative you have a choice: either resolve the combats at the end, like the Summary says you have to do, or choose to ignore that and do it at the same time as the rest of the unit. Lets take both scenarios.

MMMMMSMMMM
OOOOONOOOO

M=Marine, S=Sergeant, O=Ork, N=Nob. Nob and Sergeant are in a challenge. Marines and Sergeant are all I4, Orks I2, Nob I1 (poweraxe).

Scenario 1 - Marines attack and kill 4 Orks. These are allocated to models in BTB with a model attacking at that initiative step. Ork player allocates them to the first 4, they fail their saves and are removed. Sergeant goes next, and causes 3 wounds. According to your rules we must follow normal wound allocation rules even with a challenge, so the Ork player allocates the 3 wounds to the 3 Orks on the end, saving one. The Nob remains and the last two Orks are removed. This is legal as, even if the challengers are in BTB with each other now it is irrelevant because wounds are allocated to a model in BTB with any attacker at the same initiative step. So the wounds flowed out of the challenge following the normal wound allocation rules, regardless of if the challengers are only in base contact with each other, or can be in base contact only with each other. However, outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge, simply resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. This says to me that each time the Wound Allocation step is resolved it is done like the challengers are not there. This means that the challengers have their wounds allocated from Never Never Land, but the Orks are not in Never Never Land. You can argue that the sentence only applies to the rest of the unit, but that goes both ways. If it applies to Wound Allocation step caused by them it applies to Wound Allocation put on them as well. So, since wound allocation is performed like the challengers were not there then the wounds are not allocated away from the Nob and he is killed, and the rest of the wounds disappear because they have nowhere else to go. You can't, at this point, have it both ways.

Scenario 2 - Marines attack and kill 4 Orks. These are allocated to models in BTB with a model attacking at that initiative step. Ork player allocates them to the first 4, they fail their saves and are removed. Orks go next and wound 6 Marines, 3 save, 3 are removed. Its now time to resolve the challenge so the Sergeant goes next and kills the Nob, then the wound allocation time paradox occurs. You say this is ok because the players chose to do this so they are ok with the wounds going to people who already fought. I don't see it as a choice because the rules in the Summary say you must do it this way, but lets assume it is not for this purpose. It is time to perform the rest of the Wound Allocation step, but, since the Wound Allocation step is completed as if the Challengers are not there, no Wounds go to the unit.

This is further supported by the blurb on how challenge results are calculated. Since the rules say that you count the wounds caused by the Challenge alongside the wounds caused by the rest of the unit it implies that the two are separate wound pools that are combined at the end to make a total. If wounds could overflow to the rest of the unit this distinction would not have to be made since it is obvious. Or, the flip side is, based on how it is written, only the unsaved wounds caused in the challenge count towards the combat results and not the overflowed wounds. "Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge count towards the assault result, (once the Nob is killed the wounds caused by the Sergeant are not part of the challenge even though the challenge is still ongoing to the end of the phase) alongside any unsaved wounds caused by the rest of the characters' units. (Caused by not allocated to, caused by) So, sadly if your Sergeant kills the Nob then another Ork you only get to count the Nob's wounds towards the combat total.

Thanks for that by the way. I definitely needed to step back for a bit to mull things over.

Dont mention it, simple courtesy when having a debate about a hobby that all taking part in enjoy. We might have different opinions but civility should be as much a part of our discussions as the discourse itself.

There does not seem to be anything that explicitly overrules the Zero Level Characteristics rules. Given the relative even split of those for and against we will probably have to wait for an FAQ update. I myself still read the rules as written as wounds overflowing.

This touches smartly on the issue. The sentence this debate is hung up on is apparently a little ambiguous...

"For the duration of the challenge the combatants are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Without trying to be a braggart, I know I have a more than solid grasp of English. To me, this sentence does not, in of itself, exclude the possibility of the combatants not being in base contact with anyone. If it had said "only in base contact with" rather than "in base contact only with", or better still "with and only with", that would be a different story.

It is a very subtle difference, and one I had been taking for granted as obvious.

I agree with the ambiguity, this sentence also appears to change the way wounds are normally allocated via disallowing certain models to take part. To myself and others who share the no overflow viewpoint this is a sword that cuts both ways. While I agree you've correctly nailed the source of the ambiguity spot on I must also point out that it does not also explicitly state you are allowed to use the default allocation method.

In fact read yet another way it was pointed out by Neorealist that:

"...'Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there..."

can also be read as removing the actions of two characters from the wound allocation step altogether; meaning they'd just flail ineffectually at each other as they'd be unable to allocate wounds to anything; having been summarily ignored during wound allocation.

He went on to say he doubted this interpretation which I think we can all agree would be silly. This would have been avoided if the writers had used Textbook english rather then conversational or "natural" english.

The two are vastly different and one of the reasons I posted the definition of "only" up.

(i) "Textbook English" and (ii) "Natural English". The textbook form of English is composed using proper English vocabulary, while strictly adhering to the rules of English grammar. The sentences in textbook English are necessarily grammatically correct and complete in all respects.

The natural form of English, on the other hand, allows liberal use of slang, jargon, phrases and idioms, lending a colorful hue to the language.

It also houses inflection, something that is near impossible to derive from text. Through inflection and context we derive actual meaning when discussing things with others. Without the reinforcement of those two things it is nigh impossible to determine the exact intent of the authors without their further clarification.

Confusion that could have easily been avoided. Context is king.

Regardless the ambiguity exists and we clearly have camps on both sides, how then to proceed?

Well, let us assume that no one will further change their position from debate at this point as the matter has been covered quite thoroughly.

Let us further assume that we can still engage in a productive discourse about the topic.

Now, I ask all of you: Given the two schools of thought on the matter we currently have, shall we move on to discussing the potential ramifications of each viewpoint? IE game mechanics as they would relate to each interpretation.

It would seem that moving our discussion in this direction may yet yield some useful dialogue or consensus.

So at last, assume both sides of the argument are correct: What does this mean for how we play the game and what are advantages and disadvantages for each?

Edit: Damn you type fast Antivas. An excellent summary.

One final thing: Thurston dial it down a notch eh?

Greg_Hager wrote:How is it incorrect?

You stated the only way a challenge ends is if a model is slain.

Greg_Hager wrote:Your unit failing a moral test gives you the permission to not be in base to base contact, so why wouldn't the other character being slain give you the permission? All the rules state is when the character is slain you remain in the challenge until the end of the phase, therefor you can't be in base to base contact with anyone else that phase.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:Because it is implied " And neither side fled"

Greg_Hager wrote:I'm confused sir, what is implied? That they didn't flee on a failed moral test?

It is implied they would flee on a failed moral test as per Round Two
The "and neither side fled: is the actual words from Round Two.

Greg_Hager wrote:

kambien wrote:I tihnk a good question to get answered would be when does the end of the phase end . Is it resolution of the challenge? , the assault result ? or after sweeping advances/consolodations are done

The answer is C. After Sweeping Advances/Consolidations of the rest of the squad are complete.

Unfortunetly there is no way to tell. IT could be C it could be something else . It could be the end of wound allocation , it could be after assault results , it could be like you said after advanced/consolidations.
It doesn't say Fight-sub phase , just phase.

Greg_Hager wrote:[The rest of the unit that the character is comprised of does do a pile in movement. The reason they can not do a pile in movement is because to do a pile in is to place units that are not in base to base contact with the enemy unit, but still in combat with them, back in to base to base. Because the Challenge rules state that the challenge characters can not be in base to base with anyone else (only with each other) it negates the ability to perform a pile in movement. A consolidation movement IS possible if all models in the unit were destroyed in that phase. Why wouldn't it be? But wait, if it's after the Assault Phase is when the character reverts back to his squad, how is it he is removed from the challenge and flees with his squad if they lose combat and fail a moral test? Doesn't this mean that he, in fact, never left and is still a member of the unit?

The models are assumed to be in b2b contact , actual physical location doesn't matter.

The player turn is broken down into phases. The assault phase is a phase unto itself which is broken down into different sub-phases. Since it does not say that the challenge is considered ongoing until the end of the fight sub-phase the phrase refers to the end of the phase, which is after everything is done. This is actually not ambiguous.

While I have nothing more to add to this debate, I do expect that the errata that this receives will come as adding "and vice versa" to the end of the sentence immediately after the bolded sentence in Outside Forces.

Again, a good debate folks. :3

Greg_Hager wrote:Here's a question for you. Let's say we have Orks and Space Marines battling it out, with a challenge ongoing, as well as the squads going at it in close combat. The characters make all save rolls, and therefor the challenge is ongoing until one is slain, correct?

Or one side flees, or Glorious intervention happens.


We are told to swap the challenger as close as possible and assume the two to be in base contact for the pulposes of the ensuing fight if they are not actually in Base contact.

The ensuing fight is the challenge, which lasts til the end of the phase.

You have no rules to back you up (Unless you posted page numbers). Premise 1,2, and 3 say it all.

MJThurston wrote:No one argues that Squad wounds carry over to the challenge. Why would Challenge wounds carry over to the squads?

This goes back to what I was saying when I first posted to this thread. Check out this website for a more in depth explanation, but the short hand is basically this: "All apple's are fruits, but not all fruits are apples."

In other words, the rules for models outside the Challenge are different than those inside the Challenge.

MJThurston wrote:Because people are fishing. They know how this is supposed to work but they want to destroy a Seargeant with 1 wound and then kill more of the unit. And not have to worry about the rest of the unit doing damage to them.

It's really cowardly. I would think that people would want to have real fights. Not just try to abuse a rule so their IC can punk a 1 wound guy to kill an entire squad without the chance of being killed. Sad really!

Why the cheap shot? Its really unnecessary. I'm arguing the RAW is for wound overflow, yet I'm more likely to be a victim of it than a benefactor. Your assertions here just serve to distract from the core of the argument.

nosferatu1001 wrote:He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

This is exactly my point. I feel I must have missed something in the posts previous to this comment nosferatu1001, since it contradicts every other post of yours in this thread.

MJThurston wrote:OMG

So if your just considered you can make up rules.

Read the Slain part of the rules.

The considered part is because the other model is dead. They didn't want people to then put them into the squad fight.

If your Character had a I10 hit, say from a bike or jump pack and you kill the other Character, they didn't want your Init 4 attacks to go into the squad.

So this is why they used the word considered. So no matter when one Character is slain, for the rest of that CC he is considered locked in combat.

Interesting. I honestly had not considered that factor. Your Character would still have to be within 2" of a friendly model that is in base contact with an enemy to be able to allocate attacks, but it seems reasonable to me.

Lt.Soundwave wrote:

This touches smartly on the issue. The sentence this debate is hung up on is apparently a little ambiguous...

"For the duration of the challenge the combatants are considered to be in base contact only with each other."

Without trying to be a braggart, I know I have a more than solid grasp of English. To me, this sentence does not, in of itself, exclude the possibility of the combatants not being in base contact with anyone. If it had said "only in base contact with" rather than "in base contact only with", or better still "with and only with", that would be a different story.

It is a very subtle difference, and one I had been taking for granted as obvious.

I agree with the ambiguity, this sentence also appears to change the way wounds are normally allocated via disallowing certain models to take part. To myself and others who share the no overflow viewpoint this is a sword that cuts both ways. While I agree you've correctly nailed the source of the ambiguity spot on I must also point out that it does not also explicitly state you are allowed to use the default allocation method.

At the same time though, you would need a rule explicitly saying not to use the normal allocation method. I don't see this key sentence as changing that myself. Boyo, is this a hazy one...

Lt.Soundwave wrote:In fact read yet another way it was pointed out by Neorealist that:

"...'Wounds from other attackers cannot be allocated against either character - simply resolve the wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there..."

can also be read as removing the actions of two characters from the wound allocation step altogether; meaning they'd just flail ineffectually at each other as they'd be unable to allocate wounds to anything; having been summarily ignored during wound allocation.

And here I disagree. It does not restrict the models participating in the Challenge. The only mention of those models is to tell you that every other model in the combat can't "see" them. For a bad analogy, think of a one way mirror. The Challenger/Challengee are on one side and are able to see through the window, while everyone else in melee just sees themselves. The only models that can actually "see" the Challenger/Challengee are those cheering them on and not participating in the general melee (the re-rolls from unengaged models).

Lt.Soundwave wrote:Now, I ask all of you: Given the two schools of thought on the matter we currently have, shall we move on to discussing the potential ramifications of each viewpoint? IE game mechanics as they would relate to each interpretation.

It would seem that moving our discussion in this direction may yet yield some useful dialogue or consensus.

So at last, assume both sides of the argument are correct: What does this mean for how we play the game and what are advantages and disadvantages for each?

Not a bad idea. I have serious doubts anyone will be swayed from their preferred camps so it can't hurt to give this a try. Where to begin?

No Wound Overflow
1) Hammer of Wrath: As brought up by MJThurston, you can potentially kill an enemy Character at the onset of the Challenge. Should that happen, your Character would not be able to make any further attacks that turn which means that there would be no additional wounds to go towards combat resolution.

2) Which brings us to my next concern: If you have 7 attacks on a 1 Wound model and 3 of them succeed, does that mean you only get the 1 Wound towards combat resolution? Or do the excess successes go towards the total? It seems the excess should count given it says any Unsaved Wounds, but is that true? If the model is just a generic Sergeant in Power Armor and gets hit by an AP3 Melee weapon, he dies once you allocate one unsaved Wound. Are the rest lost? Page 26 seems to make it so. If this is indeed the case then cheap Characters (such as IG Blob Sergeants) are going to be able to easily nullify any expensive close combat character.

3) Precision Strikes oddly enough still seem to work as you will. They do not require you be in base contact with whomever you allocate the wound to. So even with no overflow, you already have a case where a Challenger or Challengee is affecting models outside the Challenge. This inconsistency is strange. If we are to believe the Challengers exist in a vacuum, why is it the rules do not prohibit Precision Strikes in a Challenge?

4) Model placement. Without Wound Overflow, why ever have your mighty Character lead the squad from the front? Far more intelligent to keep your Characters in the rear. This means more of your models are likely to be in base contact with the enemy, your opponent is less likely to have models "cheering on" his character, and keeps your Character safe once the Challenge is over. This seems directly counter to most every other change regarding Characters.

With Wound Overflow
1) A counter point to Hammer of Wrath's issues above. With Wound Overflow you would then be able to allocate attacks as normal to the squad. This will likely mean more Wounds for combat resolution. Oddly enough, this sort of makes sense from a "fluff" or "narrative" perspective (which seems to be GW's goal in 6th edition, to add more story to each game). A squad is far more likely to break quickly and badly if their fearless leader is cut down instantly in a duel. Unfortunately this argument isn't very persuasive on its own from a RAW perspective.

2) Again, more Wounds would be available towards combat resolution. I'm unsure that Page 65 overrides the rules on Page 26 regarding excess wounds. Yet again, without overflow this makes generic cheap Characters more powerful/useful than powerful Independent Characters and Monstrous Creatures, which makes no sense.

3) As mentioned before, Precision Strike seems to happen regardless. The difference is with Wound Overflow it makes more sense as your Character is already able to strike out of the Challenge. It, to me, makes things more consistent.

4) Model placement. With Wound Overflow this encourages you to put your Character at the forefront of every charge. You would actually want him to get to grips with the enemy, for if he is able to quickly dispatch the enemy Character he can then join the general melee and try to break the foe.

With or Without Wound Overflow
Some interesting observations regarding the rules regardless who is right:

1) Precision Strike. As I have said ad nauseum, this seems to happen regardless. The rules for Challenges do not explicitly say that the Characters involved are in a vacuum. Best case, you can argue its implied. But there is nothing there stopping Precision Strikes which is just contradictory to the arguments against Wound Overflow. It is more consistent if Wound Overflow exists. Again I just see the image seen in many a fantasy movie of an epic duel between good and evil and there being bystander casualties (Spaceballs comes to mind with the camera crew getting hit by Dark Helmet, for example).

2) To Hit and To Wound rolls. If the combatants were in a vacuum, why aren't the rules more explicit? As it stands, if you join a Farseer to a squad of Wraithguard he effectively will have Toughness 6 during the Challenge. At the same time, the higher Weapon Skill some models have is largely moot as it affords little protection. For example, a Wolf Lord (WS 6) joins a pack of Blood Claws (WS 3). A Chaos Lord would be hitting him on a 3+ instead of a 4+. None of this would be happening if the Challenge wasn't a part of the general combat.

3) When do the Challenge combatants strike? Page 65 very clearly says that they strike during their normal Initiative steps, and then gives you an option to resolve it after the normal fight. This seems odd in of itself. In the context of this argument I must confess this leads circumstantial evidence towards there being no overflow. If we have overflow then there are problems introduced with this, as models could conceivably be killed before they striked. If you had resolved the general combat first, this complicates things as you likely already had those models land some wounds.

cowmonaut wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base.

This is exactly my point. I feel I must have missed something in the posts previous to this comment nosferatu1001, since it contradicts every other post of yours in this thread.

So you agree that "He is just "considered to be", not necessarily actually in base to base" yes?

If you agree with that you agree with no overflow, since we need to assign wounds to models that are in Base to base.

A model that is "considered to be" in base to base must be assigned wounds before any other models.

Basically instead of saying "considered to be" we could say we pretend they are even if they are not in base to base contact, and the meaning is the same.

DeathReaper wrote:If you agree with that you agree with no overflow, since we need to assign wounds to models that are in Base to base.

And this is where you are flat out wrong in my opinion. The rules for allocating wounds tell you what to do if no model is in base contact with your model. That's my entire point. The sentence at the center of all of this doesn't say you are always in base contact with the enemy combatant, just that you can only be in base contact with him. Nothing else is said about wound allocation other than to deny those outside of the Challenge from allocating to those inside.

cowmonaut wrote:The rules for allocating wounds tell you what to do if no model is in base contact with your model.

But the models ARE considered to be in base contact for the duration of the challenge.

Premise #3 for the duration of the challenge the Challenger is in base contact only with the Challengee and Vice Versa. Meaning they are considered to be in base contact with each other, and they are not in base contact with anyone else. (AKA They are in base contact with whom? (Only each other, no one else)).

Do we agree with Premise #3?

And the circle continues...

You either didn't read my post here or you didn't understand what I was saying. I don't know if I can make myself any more clear than that.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and wait for the FAQ update.

cowmonaut wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:If you agree with that you agree with no overflow, since we need to assign wounds to models that are in Base to base.

And this is where you are flat out wrong in my opinion. The rules for allocating wounds tell you what to do if no model is in base contact with your model. That's my entire point. The sentence at the center of all of this doesn't say you are always in base contact with the enemy combatant, just that you can only be in base contact with him. Nothing else is said about wound allocation other than to deny those outside of the Challenge from allocating to those inside.

This argument is moot. I wish we could move on.

I don't see that point as moot. I see it as the problem.

Hell, I may actually just send a letter asking for clarification on the Design Studio Podcast. At this point I'm honestly curious if they are just that bad at writing plain English or if this was intentional.

Captain Antivas wrote:

...

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another.
Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge.
Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. (Yes I made this a separate sentence because it is. The use of the dash in mid sentence is the same as using a colon: it creates a completely different thought within the same sentence, albeit along the same lines as the rest of the sentence. But it is, for all intents and purposes, a separate sentence.)
Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges. (Page 429) (Very interesting that they said resolve any challenges, implying they want you to complete all challenges on the board at the same time.)
Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit.
Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.)
(Notice I didn't include the part about being in BTB with each other. This is because that doesn't matter, but I will go into that in more detail down the road.)

...

Shortened to show only the pertinent parts

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another. - actually no.
Only characters in a challenge can strike blows against one another - moving the only changes the whole sentence from they may not strike anyone else to no one else may strike them, they are still free to strike however normal wound allocation would allow so b2b then closest once b2b is slain plus precision strikes

Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge. - This does not restrict the characters in the challenge at all so has no bearing on overflow

Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there - the context of this sentence is in reference to "outside forces" not the challenger or challengee, it has no effect on how they allocate wounds, only on how the outside forces allocate wounds, actually the use of a dash specifies that it is a comment on the previous sub sentence - in this case a clarification of how to allocate the wounds since you are not allowed to allocate them to the challenge participants (they are allocated as if the characters are not there, in case there was ambiguity that if the closest model was a challenge participant then the wound could not be allocated there so would be lost, which they clarify is not what happens) - functionally much more similar to a comment in brackets then to a colon. If you want to say this applies to the models in the challenge too then they cannot allocate wounds to each other either...

Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges - interestingly challenges doesn't mean there could be 2 or more, it could just be a short way of saying its time to resolve the challenge if there is one. Challenge would be 1 and only 1, challenges could just imply 0 or 1, it in no way implies that challenges across the board are all held till the end. In fact since this section starts with "choose a combat to resolve" it is very clear that this whole section refers to a single combat and is then repeated all the way through for other combats, including resolving challenges and the combat resolution that comes after it each time.

Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit. - This makes no comment on overflow in any way, why is it included? It is a statement of clarification that shows the 2 subcombats are resolved together, not seperately. Just because something is obvious it doesn't mean they shouldn't state it as otherwise people might decide that these are seperate combats and that each is resolved seperately. They aren't, they're the same combat and resolved together QED thank you obvious statement

Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.) - What does that even mean? The whole section on pg 63 "forging a narrative" is making it pretty clear that the rules are, the characters should strike at initiative but it may be nice to resolve it at the end for dramatic effect - this is clearly worded as optional for drama and if you're concerned by that, just resolve the attacks at the normal initiative step which is the RAW. This is then reflected on the summary on pg 429 including the optional rule (which is sadly not clearly marked as optional, which it should be) to settle challenges after the rest of the unit. What isn't clear is what part of this optional dramatisation might affect overflow either way. Apart from the clunky way that it works differently depending on which way you play it - clunky, but still doesn't change the RAW. If you have a massive power character crushing a tiny squad leader and are expecting massive overflow by all means resolve it at initiative as RAW so that you don't get hit by the models you can take out with the overflow - as that's the RAW.


So none of those arguments mean anything to wound allocation from challenge participants to units. Nothing at all.

You did bring up a point that I haven't noticed before in this thread, that if the character during the challenge has the same I as some of the outside forces then his wounds can be allocated to outside forces by the defending player and yes, the rules totally support this. May seem counter intuitive but even the "considered in B2B only with each other" being interpretted as "being in B2B with slain model" that still doesn't stop wounds being allocated to other models in b2b with other models striking at same I.

cowmonaut wrote:I don't see that point as moot. I see it as the problem.

Hell, I may actually just send a letter asking for clarification on the Design Studio Podcast. At this point I'm honestly curious if they are just that bad at writing plain English or if this was intentional.

I would love it if you were to do this. Like you, I want to get it right, not be right. I'd much rather have it settled than get my way.

If I have time, I do want to address your large post up above. It might take me awhile (grad student with full time job) so it might be moved a page or two down.

Cowmonaut

You missed one very big issue. Since we can choose when to resolve challenges, what happens when a high Init character resolves after the squad? The challenge overflow wounds would have a large effect on the squad combat that would be near impossible to backtrack and account for.

With Wound Overflow

If challenge is resolved before or after squad combat the squad combat would have to be recorded by Init step so challenge overflow wounds can be applied at the correct Init step in relation to the squad combat. Then each squad Init steps would have to be checked to account for the possible change in squad members available to attack at each subsequent step.

Without Wound Overflow

No such record keeping required as wounds of each (challenge and squads) combat are not applied to each other.


This issue alone pushes me to no overflow as the backtracking of a resolved combat will just add so much room for disputes.

maxcarrion wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

...

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another.
Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge.
Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there. (Yes I made this a separate sentence because it is. The use of the dash in mid sentence is the same as using a colon: it creates a completely different thought within the same sentence, albeit along the same lines as the rest of the sentence. But it is, for all intents and purposes, a separate sentence.)
Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges. (Page 429) (Very interesting that they said resolve any challenges, implying they want you to complete all challenges on the board at the same time.)
Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit.
Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.)
(Notice I didn't include the part about being in BTB with each other. This is because that doesn't matter, but I will go into that in more detail down the road.)

...

Shortened to show only the pertinent parts

Characters in a challenge can only strike blows against one another. - actually no.
Only characters in a challenge can strike blows against one another - moving the only changes the whole sentence from they may not strike anyone else to no one else may strike them, they are still free to strike however normal wound allocation would allow so b2b then closest once b2b is slain plus precision strikes

Yes, I wrote that wrong. What you said is what I meant.

Outside forces cannot allocate wounds to characters in a challenge. - This does not restrict the characters in the challenge at all so has no bearing on overflow

But it restricts wounds being allocated to the outside forces.

Resolve the Wound Allocation step as if the challengers were not there - the context of this sentence is in reference to "outside forces" not the challenger or challengee, it has no effect on how they allocate wounds, only on how the outside forces allocate wounds, actually the use of a dash specifies that it is a comment on the previous sub sentence - in this case a clarification of how to allocate the wounds since you are not allowed to allocate them to the challenge participants (they are allocated as if the characters are not there, in case there was ambiguity that if the closest model was a challenge participant then the wound could not be allocated there so would be lost, which they clarify is not what happens) - functionally much more similar to a comment in brackets then to a colon. If you want to say this applies to the models in the challenge too then they cannot allocate wounds to each other either...

You can't have it both ways. Either that phrase refers only to the outside forces and the challengers can still hit each other only, or it refers to them too and wounds don't overflow. That and if it applies to the wounds they cause it must also refer to the wounds applied to them since the Wound Allocation phase includes everyone, including the challengers according to your own argument.

Now that the models not in a challenge have fought its time to resolve any challenges - interestingly challenges doesn't mean there could be 2 or more, it could just be a short way of saying its time to resolve the challenge if there is one. Challenge would be 1 and only 1, challenges could just imply 0 or 1, it in no way implies that challenges across the board are all held till the end. In fact since this section starts with "choose a combat to resolve" it is very clear that this whole section refers to a single combat and is then repeated all the way through for other combats, including resolving challenges and the combat resolution that comes after it each time.

Probably. I was just pointing out how interesting it would be to do all challenges at the same time.

Unsaved wounds caused in a challenge are counted toward the assault result alongside any wounds caused by the rest of the unit. - This makes no comment on overflow in any way, why is it included? It is a statement of clarification that shows the 2 subcombats are resolved together, not seperately. Just because something is obvious it doesn't mean they shouldn't state it as otherwise people might decide that these are seperate combats and that each is resolved seperately. They aren't, they're the same combat and resolved together QED thank you obvious statement

But that's not what it says. It says specifically that only wounds caused within the challenge count towards the combat results. That is why it is important. If wounds overflow all wounds caused by the winner outside the challenge don't count for the assault result.

Although the characters strike at their initiative... (I know Forging a Narrative, as you stated, is not a rule it provide clarification as I hardly believe that they would say something that is contrary to the rules.) - What does that even mean? The whole section on pg 63 "forging a narrative" is making it pretty clear that the rules are, the characters should strike at initiative but it may be nice to resolve it at the end for dramatic effect - this is clearly worded as optional for drama and if you're concerned by that, just resolve the attacks at the normal initiative step which is the RAW. This is then reflected on the summary on pg 429 including the optional rule (which is sadly not clearly marked as optional, which it should be) to settle challenges after the rest of the unit. What isn't clear is what part of this optional dramatisation might affect overflow either way. Apart from the clunky way that it works differently depending on which way you play it - clunky, but still doesn't change the RAW. If you have a massive power character crushing a tiny squad leader and are expecting massive overflow by all means resolve it at initiative as RAW so that you don't get hit by the models you can take out with the overflow - as that's the RAW.

But it is not clearly marked as optional. Until it is RAW you can't claim it is optional. The only thing that says it is optional is the FaN which is not rules.

You did bring up a point that I haven't noticed before in this thread, that if the character during the challenge has the same I as some of the outside forces then his wounds can be allocated to outside forces by the defending player and yes, the rules totally support this. May seem counter intuitive but even the "considered in B2B only with each other" being interpretted as "being in B2B with slain model" that still doesn't stop wounds being allocated to other models in b2b with other models striking at same I.

I have said it a few times. It's why I say the only in BTB argument is moot since it has no bearing on anything important. You should read the blurb after this part though. It goes into a lot of detail about how these rules are relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:I don't see that point as moot. I see it as the problem.

Hell, I may actually just send a letter asking for clarification on the Design Studio Podcast. At this point I'm honestly curious if they are just that bad at writing plain English or if this was intentional.

Like I said in an earlier post since wounds are applied to a model in BTB with an attacker at the same initiative step being in BTB with only them or can be only them is moot if everyone is attacking at the same initiative step.