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.

No wound over flow.

Challengee and Challenger locked in combat until end of phase.

Surviving Character can't consolidate or sweeping advance because he is considered locked in combat until end of phase.

by popular request, for those looking for an offshoot of this discussion. This about the tactics of either ruling and how it will affect the game.

[How will yes/no wound overflow during challenges affect tactics and lists?]
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/464878.page

hisdudeness wrote:

hisdudeness wrote: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.

Since you have it worked out; maxcarrion, explain this please? Or for that matter, anyone that says that overflow is RAW. Tell us how to handle this issue, please?

Well, since the RAW says they strike at init I would say if you're expecting enough overflow to cause problems then choose to resolve at initiative (like an HT killing a tac squad sarg - this is not a climactic battle but a road bump) but if the fight is reasonably even and you want to make it dramatic then (and you both agree), like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after. As far as I can tell that's what the RAW and FaN combined tell you to do and that's how I'm playing it. I expect in a Tourney, where people are being uber competitive, it'd be easier to just not bother with the dramatic pause and resolve it all at init as per straight up rules. That's a very reasonable explanation for why they made challenge resolution after unit resolution optional per FaN and not mandatory per RAW.

Hows that?

Me and my friends have a problem with the whole rule. I didn't read every post so i don't know if some one said this, but the reason we don't like it is some times its way to strong.
Just the other night a friend was playing Nids Vs my friends Orcs. The orcs charge a Swarmlord. Now the way the rules work is that swarm lord can Call out the nob every time and kill it as the other boyz just watch and cant even attack the swarmlord. and if he dosn't take the challenge the best hope the squad has to hurt it cant attack. and he can just do this every turn.

maxcarrion wrote:

Well, since the RAW says they strike at init I would say if you're expecting enough overflow to cause problems then choose to resolve at initiative (like an HT killing a tac squad sarg - this is not a climactic battle but a road bump) but if the fight is reasonably even and you want to make it dramatic then (and you both agree), like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after. As far as I can tell that's what the RAW and FaN combined tell you to do and that's how I'm playing it. I expect in a Tourney, where people are being uber competitive, it'd be easier to just not bother with the dramatic pause and resolve it all at init as per straight up rules. That's a very reasonable explanation for why they made challenge resolution after unit resolution optional per FaN and not mandatory per RAW.

Hows that?

So to solve the very obvious issue with overflow your answer is to not play ‘wound allocation as normal’ as per RAW?

While playing out the assault rules with and without overflow, it was one of the first issues that I found. This is not a loophole or two rules conflicting with each other, but a very visible inconsistency with overflow that any playtester would have found and addressed. A simple “resolve challenges at characters Init step” or not putting the FaN callout would easily solve this issue, yet we are told we can resolve challenges at any point during that unit’s assault. Overflow brings up more questions than it answers. With the absence of rules on how to handle overflow when challenges are resolved outside of squad assault I fail to see how it is part of the game. That is akin to leaving out the rules on running yet hint with vague grammar that a unit can run during shooting phase.

All said, when these debates break down to grammar arguments I have found that the version that causes the lease ripples is normally the correct one. In this case, the wound pool being emptied with that amount going towards overall unit assault result is the version that causes the least ripples and is easily supported by the rules (depending on your view of grammar).

Doesn't Outside forces say that the challenge models count as a separate combat?

Nope. That is one of the issues.

Thor626 wrote:Me and my friends have a problem with the whole rule. I didn't read every post so i don't know if some one said this, but the reason we don't like it is some times its way to strong.
Just the other night a friend was playing Nids Vs my friends Orcs. The orcs charge a Swarmlord. Now the way the rules work is that swarm lord can Call out the nob every time and kill it as the other boyz just watch and cant even attack the swarmlord. and if he dosn't take the challenge the best hope the squad has to hurt it cant attack. and he can just do this every turn.

That is not what is being discussed but with or without overflow this is essentially how the rule works. What this means is that the ork player in question is going to have to plan ahead little better. Its not that the rule is too strong you just have to rethink some of the ways you are used to doing things.

Really, in 5th edition the trynid player could of argued (and many did) that being able to hide the ~40pt power kalw so that it had a reasonable chance of killing the Swarm Lord was too powerful.

hisdudeness wrote:

maxcarrion wrote:

Well, since the RAW says they strike at init I would say if you're expecting enough overflow to cause problems then choose to resolve at initiative (like an HT killing a tac squad sarg - this is not a climactic battle but a road bump) but if the fight is reasonably even and you want to make it dramatic then (and you both agree), like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after. As far as I can tell that's what the RAW and FaN combined tell you to do and that's how I'm playing it. I expect in a Tourney, where people are being uber competitive, it'd be easier to just not bother with the dramatic pause and resolve it all at init as per straight up rules. That's a very reasonable explanation for why they made challenge resolution after unit resolution optional per FaN and not mandatory per RAW.

Hows that?

So to solve the very obvious issue with overflow your answer is to not play ‘wound allocation as normal’ as per RAW?

While playing out the assault rules with and without overflow, it was one of the first issues that I found. This is not a loophole or two rules conflicting with each other, but a very visible inconsistency with overflow that any playtester would have found and addressed. A simple “resolve challenges at characters Init step” or not putting the FaN callout would easily solve this issue, yet we are told we can resolve challenges at any point during that unit’s assault. Overflow brings up more questions than it answers. With the absence of rules on how to handle overflow when challenges are resolved outside of squad assault I fail to see how it is part of the game. That is akin to leaving out the rules on running yet hint with vague grammar that a unit can run during shooting phase.

All said, when these debates break down to grammar arguments I have found that the version that causes the lease ripples is normally the correct one. In this case, the wound pool being emptied with that amount going towards overall unit assault result is the version that causes the least ripples and is easily supported by the rules (depending on your view of grammar).

Except that not only do the RAW grammatically not exclude overflow they don't exclude precision strike or other effects like it, these cause exactly the same problem if you choose to resolve seperately using the FaN and either you accept that limitation for the sake of drama or you ignore the FaN for smooth play. The way the no overflow camp has it you are either assigning wounds to a slain model and using PS where you still have the problem, or treating it as a seperate combat which isn't supported by the rules even if you let it go much broader than a couple of grammatical nitpicks; and is changing the rules in a way that significantly affects game balance. I don't particularly care for challenges in general or overflow specifically but since none of the arguments based on the rules stop Precision Strike (sure the "it's seperate so no PS" does but that's not based on what's in the book) then this issue exists independant of overflow and since the effects of what is written in the book can significantly change the game then I'm all in favour of chewing over exactly what the book actually says to do, especially in a case like this where it effects every army and potentially every battle right down to the way you build your list.

While generating "lost" wounds and that amount going towards unit assault result might be a nice compromise and a nice house rule it certainly isn't the official rule, not least of which because the wounds counted for resolution are always the wounds actually done, see pg 26 "only the wounds actually suffered by enemy models count" (plenty more reasons but they're mostly covered in the thread already), it also does not address the exact same problems caused by Precision Strikes.

Geemoney wrote:Really, in 5th edition the trynid player could of argued (and many did) that being able to hide the ~40pt power kalw so that it had a reasonable chance of killing the Swarm Lord was too powerful.

This does nothing to balance that out.

Now you have a Power Klaw that is either dead because of the challenge, or not getting any attacks because he keeps refusing challenges and the Swarmlord fights through the unit without a scratch, after many turns of fighting, and goes on to do it to another unit, again without a scratch.

[sarcasm]Seems balanced to me [/sarcasm]

@ maxcarrion

Again with the grammar, I’ve stated my view on it. While a valid point, grammar debates normally are very thin arguments. To me it is akin to pulling out "Hitler" in a debate.

My main problem with your solution is that the entire ‘for’ overflow argument hinges on the idea of applying wounds as normal. Yet your answer to on how to resolve this game halting issue (try going back and reworking a 20+ model assault and tell me it doesn’t halt the game) when we use overflow is to ignore the very rule that is the foundation of overflow. Overflow not only changes game balance but greatly changes game flow. The entire rule system has been changed over the last few editions to speed up play. I find it hard to believe they would add in an option that not only slows the game down, but opens up to the possibility of stopping the game all together.

The idea of separate combats is supported just as much as the idea of wound overflow. Both are inferences in the absence of specific wording. In fact, nowhere on pages 64-65 are we told to ‘apply wounds as normal’. Just like we are never specifically told to treat challenges as a separate combat. How can you base your view on grammar interpretations yet in the same paragraph discount the view of separate combat on the grounds of grammar interpretations? What makes your interpretation of the grammar correct or any more valid than anyone else?

I view PS as a moot point; the combat is separate in every sense with the only interaction being that which we are specifically told happens in the challenge rules. More so when a simple mention either way would render this entire thread moot. The idea of the wound pool being lost is not crazy, it is used else were in the book.

Please don’t make claims of a view being a house rule or a compromise, nothing has been decided (or likely be). I don’t go around claiming you can play overflow as a nice house rule do I? No one is changing rules; we have a difference of option as to how to interpret the rules. I don’t go in to these debates with a want to win, but a want to put as much knowledge on each view as possible so others can make their own judgment on how to play absent a FAQ. In the end on these long drawn out debates that’s all we can do, but adding in jaded wording helps no one.

I’m not saying my (and others) solution does not have issues with implementing, but it does have the less issues and causes the least amount of ripples. I still believe this is a group of people that have counted on their uber assault character to lay waste to entire squads in previous editions and see a way for them to be immune to wounds while still doing so. The possible loss of a large wound pool is a down side to challenges. My solution to the entire problem Is to not use challenges until this resolved.

but the outside forces rule says;

"simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters weren't there"

which to me implies that it is two separate combats.

@Jacob29

And it will be pointed out that the quoted rule is under the "Outside Forces" heading and thus only restricts the unit wounding the characters.

And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

It seem's to be pretty clear though that the RAI is for there to be no overflowing, even if RAW its arguable.

Captain Antivas wrote:And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

I feel ya, Captain Antivas. IMO, overflow needlessly complicates the game with the only viable solution being to run challenges parallel to unit assaults which goes against other options for challenge resolution. Why allow for multiple options of resolution timing if some of those options do not allow for overflow and then not tell us how to handle this break down in wound allocation that overflow causes? This would be a pretty major missing section of the rules and is not a simple conflict in rules that we just find which one takes precedent. We as players would have to write rules to effectively come up with a solution that works in all possible instance of challenge resolution. This is a no/go.

I am of the option that if wounds left in the wound pool after a character is killed in a challenge were allowed to be applied to the unit as a whole then we would be told how to do this. Since we are not told the HOW then I am left to believe there is no CAN.

Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

Captain Antivas wrote:Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

Say that again?

Page 65 says any unsaved wounds in a Challenge count towards the overall combat resolution.

Without overflow, that's just however many wounds you took off the enemy model to kill it that round.

With overflow, un-allocated wounds would have to get allocated to other models, which means more casualties and more unsaved wounds so more points towards your combat resolution score.

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here since it doesn't seem to make any sense to either argument.

hisdudeness wrote:@ maxcarrion

Again with the grammar, I’ve stated my view on it. While a valid point, grammar debates normally are very thin arguments. To me it is akin to pulling out "Hitler" in a debate.

My main problem with your solution is that the entire ‘for’ overflow argument hinges on the idea of applying wounds as normal. Yet your answer to on how to resolve this game halting issue (try going back and reworking a 20+ model assault and tell me it doesn’t halt the game) when we use overflow is to ignore the very rule that is the foundation of overflow. Overflow not only changes game balance but greatly changes game flow. The entire rule system has been changed over the last few editions to speed up play. I find it hard to believe they would add in an option that not only slows the game down, but opens up to the possibility of stopping the game all together.

The idea of separate combats is supported just as much as the idea of wound overflow. Both are inferences in the absence of specific wording. In fact, nowhere on pages 64-65 are we told to ‘apply wounds as normal’. Just like we are never specifically told to treat challenges as a separate combat. How can you base your view on grammar interpretations yet in the same paragraph discount the view of separate combat on the grounds of grammar interpretations? What makes your interpretation of the grammar correct or any more valid than anyone else?

I view PS as a moot point; the combat is separate in every sense with the only interaction being that which we are specifically told happens in the challenge rules. More so when a simple mention either way would render this entire thread moot. The idea of the wound pool being lost is not crazy, it is used else were in the book.

Please don’t make claims of a view being a house rule or a compromise, nothing has been decided (or likely be). I don’t go around claiming you can play overflow as a nice house rule do I? No one is changing rules; we have a difference of option as to how to interpret the rules. I don’t go in to these debates with a want to win, but a want to put as much knowledge on each view as possible so others can make their own judgment on how to play absent a FAQ. In the end on these long drawn out debates that’s all we can do, but adding in jaded wording helps no one.

I’m not saying my (and others) solution does not have issues with implementing, but it does have the less issues and causes the least amount of ripples. I still believe this is a group of people that have counted on their uber assault character to lay waste to entire squads in previous editions and see a way for them to be immune to wounds while still doing so. The possible loss of a large wound pool is a down side to challenges. My solution to the entire problem Is to not use challenges until this resolved.

What? Lets just start with

I view PS as a moot point; the combat is separate in every sense

Please could you point out the rules basis for this? The combats are never ever ever refered to as seperate in the rules and great pains are gone to to define exactly the directions of interactions.
Now

Please don’t make claims of a view being a house rule or a compromise

You declared that challenges should be resolved seperately, which I've already queries, but you also stated that wounds that are being debated as overflow/not overflow should not overflow but should count towards resolution. That has already been mentioned in this thread as a possible house rule but as an actual rule it is explicitly and blatantly forbidden in the combat resolution section in bolded type. I assumed you were talking about house ruling it that way as it was expressley forbidden from being a "real" rule and previously mentioned as a possible house rule

Yet your answer to on how to resolve this game halting issue (try going back and reworking a 20+ model assault and tell me it doesn’t halt the game) when we use overflow is to ignore the very rule that is the foundation of overflow

Huh? The foundation of overflow is playing normal wound allocation step and it not being overridden by anything in the challenge rules. The rule I suggest ignoring is the FaN optional resolve challenges after other combats for dramatic purposes, or accept that your challengee will be striking after the unit. Neither of these are conditions or foundations of overflow and the first is strict RAW (as far as when the characters strike), the second is ambiguous in the rules but would only be with opponents consent anyway as would any part of fighting the challenge after the main combat, Please could you clarify your problem with this?

The idea of separate combats is supported just as much as the idea of wound overflow. Both are inferences in the absence of specific wording

Actually, overflow is an inference based on normal rules saying it one way and specific rules not forbidding it - seperate combats has no basis in the rules that I have seen or seen quoted, it's not even the arguement being made by most of the no overflow camp (which seems to be a grammatical argument that a specific sentance may forbid it, however I disagree with that assessment)

My solution to the entire problem Is to not use challenges until this resolved.

If you suggested that to me before a game I would agree, I don't like the challenge rules and the argument totally isn't worth the effort once you're actually at a table. One of the reasons it's worth having here



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

All wound allocation = N
Outside Forces allocation during a challenge = X
Therefore we infer that challengee allocation = Y?
I think I'll stick with challengee allocation = N

If the challengees had to allocate wounds as if they were not there then they could ONLY allocate to the outside forces and no model could ever die in a challenge.

If their wound allocation were restricted in a similar way that rule would not be specifically aimed at outside forces as it's placement and context blatently do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jacob29 wrote:It seem's to be pretty clear though that the RAI is for there to be no overflowing, even if RAW its arguable.

I'd be interested to know the basis of this clarity as I believe the way it has been constructed shows that overflow is a far more likely RAI - as they go to the effort of constructing specific one way barriers (outside forces may not strike challenge participants, outside forces resolve as if challenge participants were not there etc,), ensure that unit coherency is maintained and add rules for striking out of challenges (like PS), Forbid unengaged characters from making or acceptiing challenges just 4 of a huge number of clues that imply overflow was RAI - although I'm not sure I'd go as far as clear, it's pretty murky even with all that to try and work out what they really intended.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Antivas wrote:Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

That's not what the rule says, it says wounds dealt in a challenge.
Example HT is in a challenge with a Nob
He deals 2 wounds to the Nob and overflows 3 more onto nearby boyz
He is in a challenge and dealt 5 wounds => 5 wounds dealt in a challenge.

So wounds from a challenge are counted on combat resolution, unless you play no overflow where the 250pt HT only deals 2 wounds and gets 2 towards combat resolution because of a 20pt Nob, in the meantime the nob squad has gutted the entire rest of his unit. Incidently the Nob squad has 6 Nobs in so the HT is stuck here for the rest of the game killing 1 Nob a turn.

While aware that individual codex FAQ's do not override RAW for the BRB in general, the DA FAQ lists an interesting FAQ that gives credence to the idea that wounds do not overflow.

Vexator Mask:

"Enemy units locked in close combat with the bearer must pass a Leadership test at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase after challenges have been issued and accepted or declined. If they fail they may not Attack the bearer in this Fight sub-phase, though they may attack other models as normal providing they are not involved in a challenge with the bearer"

While not rock solid, here's what I'm gathering from this:

Facing DA player and in base contact, not in a challenge. Fail my test, so any wounds caused go against everyone but the bearer as I cannot attack him.

Facing DA player, in a challenge. Fail my test, and am not allowed to attack the other members of the assault because I'm in a challenge, and must attack my opponent first.

Also, here's something I was looking for but couldn't find a page reference for clarity:

If we're to allow wounds to overflow from a challenge to the squad, it would have to mean the squad was apart of the challenge combat with the exception they cannot attack either of the two combatants. However, I have yet to find a passage that says you would use the individual stat lines of each model when determining what to roll, as they would be apart of a larger unit and would use the majority value of the unit when determining such things.

Meaning if I'm a Hive Tyrant fighting against a squad of 9 Wyches with Lelith (not ideal, but meh), I wouldn't roll against Leliths WS of 9, but the Wyches WS of 4 as they are the majority for the unit.

Yes/No?

Aipoch wrote:While aware that individual codex FAQ's do not override RAW for the BRB in general, the DA FAQ lists an interesting FAQ that gives credence to the idea that wounds do not overflow.

Vexator Mask:

"Enemy units locked in close combat with the bearer must pass a Leadership test at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase after challenges have been issued and accepted or declined. If they fail they may not Attack the bearer in this Fight sub-phase, though they may attack other models as normal providing they are not involved in a challenge with the bearer"

While not rock solid, here's what I'm gathering from this:

Facing DA player and in base contact, not in a challenge. Fail my test, so any wounds caused go against everyone but the bearer as I cannot attack him.

Facing DA player, in a challenge. Fail my test, and am not allowed to attack the other members of the assault because I'm in a challenge, and must attack my opponent first.

This could go either way, it could simply mean it's particularly effective in a challenge. It's circumstantial at best but interesting. To be fair it's lazily worded as you no longer attack specific models, instead you roll big piles of dice and the defender assigns wounds to models in b2b with models attacking in that I step (followed by nearby models) so if the model has a fairly common I step in the unit just resolving in a smart order almost entirely negates this item outside of challenges (as everyone else on that I step can wound that model as it is in b2b), so perhaps it needs that bonus in challenges to be worth a damn.

If we're to allow wounds to overflow from a challenge to the squad, it would have to mean the squad was apart of the challenge combat with the exception they cannot attack either of the two combatants. However, I have yet to find a passage that says you would use the individual stat lines of each model when determining what to roll, as they would be apart of a larger unit and would use the majority value of the unit when determining such things.

Meaning if I'm a Hive Tyrant fighting against a squad of 9 Wyches with Lelith (not ideal, but meh), I wouldn't roll against Leliths WS of 9, but the Wyches WS of 4 as they are the majority for the unit.

Yes/No?

Nothing I've found in the phrasing overrides majority, so HT attacking Lelith in a challenge is attacking WS 4, and attacking a Wraithguards Warlock is striking T6 - I can't quote a page as it's absence of anything overriding majority.

Aipoch wrote:While aware that individual codex FAQ's do not override RAW for the BRB in general, the DA FAQ lists an interesting FAQ that gives credence to the idea that wounds do not overflow.

Vexator Mask:

"Enemy units locked in close combat with the bearer must pass a Leadership test at the beginning of the Fight sub-phase after challenges have been issued and accepted or declined. If they fail they may not Attack the bearer in this Fight sub-phase, though they may attack other models as normal providing they are not involved in a challenge with the bearer

You are making a common and incorrect leap that has occurred several times this thread. A restriction on models outside a Challenge does not affect models inside a Challenge. The whole apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples thing. Its a common logical fallacy but its been beaten to death in this thread.

This rule for the Vexator Mask just keeps the wargear from breaking already established and accepted (by both sides of this argument) rules.

I need to find some time to pick up stamps... I'm really curious now.

cowmonaut wrote:You are making a common and incorrect leap that has occurred several times this thread. A restriction on models outside a Challenge does not affect models inside a Challenge.

This would be the "not rock solid" point mentioned. While you're point is true, the rule listed places an interesting restriction on a model INSIDE the challenge, not on those outside of it, which specifically forbids the model within the challenge from attacking anyone OUTSIDE the challenge.

It seems that the long and short of it is that there's a set of folks who consider a challenge to be a duel between two combatants, and those who consider it to simply be placing two combatants at the forefront of an assault that have agreed to wound each other to the death before wounding anyone else. The second seems to be more supported by the rules, specifically the absence of key points that would nip this thing in the butt cleanly and concisely.

Edited: Clarified difference.

Now you are trying to get back into RAW. There is no RAW solution to this debate. The wording of this section is ambiguous enough that both sides have valid points. You can claim your interpretation is correct for ‘X’ reason and I will come back with my interpretation is correct because of ‘Y’. This has resulted in a 25 page thread of “I’m right your wrong because my grammar is better.” We are making assumptions based on interpretations and as I doubt any of us work in the GW game studio all we can do is guess.

But since you want to get back on the marry-go-round, I will answer your points in order without quotes to shorten the wall of text:

1) The basis is due to my interpretations of the wording. I can list the wordings in question but I believe that has been done ad nauseam. Wounds are never referenced as being able to be applied to the unit either, nor are we told what to do with the wound pool once one member of the challenge is slain. You are correct, the challenge rules go through great pains to list what can be done…and overflow wounds are not mentioned. This idea comes from one interpretation of the wording. What is mentioned is that members of a challenge can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. Since the challenge lasts to the end of the phase, no wounds go to unit. BLAH, BLAH, considered, BLAH, SNARF.

2) No, the rulebook says challenges can be handled effectively at any point during the sub-phase. It is pretty much listed in three places. Checkout shooting and wound pool, you will see the basis for the wound pool being lost. That was my reference to this not being a new idea and can just as easily be inferred as the extra wounds in the pool go to the squad. Both are vaguely supported but never stated.

3) Yes and your answer to the timing issue of challenge wounds being applied outside of the unit assault Init steps is to ignore “normal wound allocation” rules. You claim the normal wound allocation is not affected by challenge rules…the against do. Again, interpretation on vague wording that I can see the merits of both. The foundation of the overflow is the line that states you apply wounds to BtB models first then remaining to the next closest. The sticking point is if the victorious model is still in BtB with the slain. At which point we move to arguing grammar interpretations. More BLAH, considered…only, BLAH.

4) I believe there is a specific rule forbidding it, the rule that they are still in BtB with each other and can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. But that is just one interpretation.

5) My answer to your “we are not forbidden” from applying overflow wounds to the squad so I must be able to is: “Nothing forbids me from lighting your models on fire and claiming victory because you have lumps of plastic on the table and not models , thus no models on table at end of phase equals a win for me.” This ruleset tells us what we can/cannot do…based on my interpretation I do not believe we are told we can apply overflow wounds to the unit. Or even how to handle the various situations that arise when challenges are resolved separately.

6) I Agree, I don’t like the challenge rules. They slow down assaults with and without overflow.


Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

hisdudeness wrote:
Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

Well, if you wish to resolve the challenge separately while still allowing overflow, there would be a tactical advantage depending on the unit composition. Resolving the challenge separately while allowing overflow would, effectively, allow you to negate initiative values in a big way.

As an example:

You have a Terminator Champion that's going at initiative 1 against an Archon at initiative 7. Let's say they're attached to a squad of 5 other assault termies and 6 incubi, respectively. You decide to do the challenge second. You let the Incubi smack some termies around, maybe they kill 1 or 2. 3 Termies hit back, wipe out the 6 incubi. You now have a squad of two termies and 0 incubi left, and proceed to do the challenge. Archon goes first, doesn't wound the Terminator Champion. Terminator Champion now strikes, causes 3 wounds. First save is failed by the Archon, which inflicts instant death, so 2 wounds overflow onto the squad, but there is no squad so they're effectively wasted.

Now, do the exact same scenario, but agree to allow the challenge to proceed first.

Archon strikes first, still can't get through that 2+ armor save. Terminator Champion strikes back, causes 4 wounds, first one manages to kill the archon once again, and he kills 3 other incubi as a result of the overflow, even though he goes at initiative 1. You now have 3 incubi against 5 assault termies. That's a pretty big advantage.

I have yet to find a rule that says both methods are not options available to players.

hisdudeness wrote:Now you are trying to get back into RAW. There is no RAW solution to this debate. The wording of this section is ambiguous enough that both sides have valid points. You can claim your interpretation is correct for ‘X’ reason and I will come back with my interpretation is correct because of ‘Y’. This has resulted in a 25 page thread of “I’m right your wrong because my grammar is better.” We are making assumptions based on interpretations and as I doubt any of us work in the GW game studio all we can do is guess.

But since you want to get back on the marry-go-round, I will answer your points in order without quotes to shorten the wall of text:

1) The basis is due to my interpretations of the wording. I can list the wordings in question but I believe that has been done ad nauseam. Wounds are never referenced as being able to be applied to the unit either, nor are we told what to do with the wound pool once one member of the challenge is slain. You are correct, the challenge rules go through great pains to list what can be done…and overflow wounds are not mentioned. This idea comes from one interpretation of the wording. What is mentioned is that members of a challenge can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. Since the challenge lasts to the end of the phase, no wounds go to unit. BLAH, BLAH, considered, BLAH, SNARF.

2) No, the rulebook says challenges can be handled effectively at any point during the sub-phase. It is pretty much listed in three places. Checkout shooting and wound pool, you will see the basis for the wound pool being lost. That was my reference to this not being a new idea and can just as easily be inferred as the extra wounds in the pool go to the squad. Both are vaguely supported but never stated.

3) Yes and your answer to the timing issue of challenge wounds being applied outside of the unit assault Init steps is to ignore “normal wound allocation” rules. You claim the normal wound allocation is not affected by challenge rules…the against do. Again, interpretation on vague wording that I can see the merits of both. The foundation of the overflow is the line that states you apply wounds to BtB models first then remaining to the next closest. The sticking point is if the victorious model is still in BtB with the slain. At which point we move to arguing grammar interpretations. More BLAH, considered…only, BLAH.

4) I believe there is a specific rule forbidding it, the rule that they are still in BtB with each other and can only apply wounds to each other for the duration of the challenge. But that is just one interpretation.

5) My answer to your “we are not forbidden” from applying overflow wounds to the squad so I must be able to is: “Nothing forbids me from lighting your models on fire and claiming victory because you have lumps of plastic on the table and not models , thus no models on table at end of phase equals a win for me.” This ruleset tells us what we can/cannot do…based on my interpretation I do not believe we are told we can apply overflow wounds to the unit. Or even how to handle the various situations that arise when challenges are resolved separately.

6) I Agree, I don’t like the challenge rules. They slow down assaults with and without overflow.


Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

1) You could quote the wording except what you're saying is not based on any accurate wording, it never says challengees can only apply wounds to each other, it only says that only challengees can apply wounds to each other - the first means they cannot apply wounds elsewhere, the second means elsewhere cannot apply wounds to the challengees - it's a VERY significant difference.

2) Could you quote the wording on challenges can be handled effectively at any point? The wording I see is challengees strike at their I step but some players like to resolve at the end. That's the FaN I have no problem with the concept of losing the wound pool but there are no rules that specify you should in this instance. There are rules that specify they should be assigned to the closest models, they are the close combat wound allocation rules - they apply in CC until something else states they don't

3) Huh? I never suggest ignoring normal wound allocation rules. Slain models are removed and wounds allocated to the next closest model, that's "normal wound allocation" misinterpreting "considered in b2b contact only with" as "considered in b2b contact with" is the only thing you are suggesting that I am not doing. But yeah, that's easily one of the hardest arguments to overcome as the construction is overly complicated and at it took me quite a few readings to work out the exact meaning of that sentence

4) As I said, not what that sentence means and we've been over that, but I know the one you mean, not sure where you got the bit that challengees can only apply wounds to each other though. The rules never say that.

5) What we have is basic vs advanced, wound allocation says I can apply to others; challenge does not override that rule. So we are specifically told we can apply wounds elsewhere, that permission is given and then not rescinded, that's not the same as doing something with no original permission

We can go over the same ground I just answered again, sure, FaN is not rule, FaN is optional, sarg against sarg, go ahead and resolve at end, HT against HT, go ahead and resolve at end in the event you get overflow it will be minimal and won't be game breaking but should be dramatic. HT v Sarg the HT player has a real disadvantage resolving at the end as he will almost certainly allow members of the Sarg unit an opportunity to strike when he can probably kill them with PS and overflow, so he should probably insist on resolving at I as per RAW. If you really care just ignore the FaN entirely and resolve at I as per RAW.

Captain Antivas wrote:And then I will point out that it must then limit the wounds going to the outside forces since nowhere in the rules does it say you do wound allocation for any challenges separately, and it says complete the wound allocation step as if the challengers were not there so how can they wound the outside forces if they are not there? And then that will get ignored and we will continue to harp on the definition of "only" and ignore the root of this argument because the pro-overflow group can't answer the questions we have posed to them and instead insist the forest is just a group of trees and not a forest.

and then another 775 posts and 26 pages later... we will still have no overflow.

maxcarrion wrote:1) You could quote the wording except what you're saying is not based on any accurate wording, it never says challengees can only apply wounds to each other, it only says that only challengees can apply wounds to each other - the first means they cannot apply wounds elsewhere, the second means elsewhere cannot apply wounds to the challengees - it's a VERY significant difference.

2) Could you quote the wording on challenges can be handled effectively at any point? The wording I see is challengees strike at their I step but some players like to resolve at the end. That's the FaN I have no problem with the concept of losing the wound pool but there are no rules that specify you should in this instance. There are rules that specify they should be assigned to the closest models, they are the close combat wound allocation rules - they apply in CC until something else states they don't

3) Huh? I never suggest ignoring normal wound allocation rules. Slain models are removed and wounds allocated to the next closest model, that's "normal wound allocation" misinterpreting "considered in b2b contact only with" as "considered in b2b contact with" is the only thing you are suggesting that I am not doing. But yeah, that's easily one of the hardest arguments to overcome as the construction is overly complicated and at it took me quite a few readings to work out the exact meaning of that sentence

4) As I said, not what that sentence means and we've been over that, but I know the one you mean, not sure where you got the bit that challengees can only apply wounds to each other though. The rules never say that.

5) What we have is basic vs advanced, wound allocation says I can apply to others; challenge does not override that rule. So we are specifically told we can apply wounds elsewhere, that permission is given and then not rescinded, that's not the same as doing something with no original permission

We can go over the same ground I just answered again, sure, FaN is not rule, FaN is optional, sarg against sarg, go ahead and resolve at end, HT against HT, go ahead and resolve at end in the event you get overflow it will be minimal and won't be game breaking but should be dramatic. HT v Sarg the HT player has a real disadvantage resolving at the end as he will almost certainly allow members of the Sarg unit an opportunity to strike when he can probably kill them with PS and overflow, so he should probably insist on resolving at I as per RAW. If you really care just ignore the FaN entirely and resolve at I as per RAW.

1) Yea, I forget that section is under “Outside Forces” which make for a weak argument. I call a redo!


2) FaN on page 65 and Page 429 tell us went we may resolve challenges. The only thing we have telling us we may resolve challenges during is when we are told they strike at Init step. Correct, we apply to closest model. Which in a challenge is the other model in the challenge and we are told they are in BtB for the duration of the challenge…which ends (together now!) at the end of the phase. Again, an interpretation.


3)

maxcarrion wrote:“…like the FaN suggests run the climactic battle after and live with the fact that slower models got to strike already despite the fact that a faster model kills them after.”

Or

maxcarrion wrote:“ HT v Sarg the HT player has a real disadvantage resolving at the end as he will almost certainly allow members of the Sarg unit an opportunity to strike when he can probably kill them with PS and overflow, so he should probably insist on resolving at I as per RAW. “

Sound familiar? Seems like ignoring “Dead Before Striking” on page 26 to me.

4) More interpretation that has been bounced back and forth. Will not be solved in this thread, so why keep bringing it up.

5) Again, interpretation. Tomato vs. Tomoto. Yes we are told we can, but the models in a challenge are only in BtB with each other for the duration of the challenge which is the end of the phase. Can we drop this one also?

No, I do not want to go over the same ground again, hence the reason to move to the ramifications of each view to see if there is anything to be found. And FaN is not the only thing that tells us we can resolve outside of normal Init step, see page 429.

Please explain to everyone how we resolve a challenge after the unit where one of the challenge models strikes at a higher Init then the enemy unit that does not ignore/break the rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aipoch wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:
Now, can we get back to the questio of how to resolve overflow when challenges are resolved separate from the unit assault that do not ignore rules?

Well, if you wish to resolve the challenge separately while still allowing overflow, there would be a tactical advantage depending on the unit composition. Resolving the challenge separately while allowing overflow would, effectively, allow you to negate initiative values in a big way.

As an example:

You have a Terminator Champion that's going at initiative 1 against an Archon at initiative 7. Let's say they're attached to a squad of 5 other assault termies and 6 incubi, respectively. You decide to do the challenge second. You let the Incubi smack some termies around, maybe they kill 1 or 2. 3 Termies hit back, wipe out the 6 incubi. You now have a squad of two termies and 0 incubi left, and proceed to do the challenge. Archon goes first, doesn't wound the Terminator Champion. Terminator Champion now strikes, causes 3 wounds. First save is failed by the Archon, which inflicts instant death, so 2 wounds overflow onto the squad, but there is no squad so they're effectively wasted.

Now, do the exact same scenario, but agree to allow the challenge to proceed first.

Archon strikes first, still can't get through that 2+ armor save. Terminator Champion strikes back, causes 4 wounds, first one manages to kill the archon once again, and he kills 3 other incubi as a result of the overflow, even though he goes at initiative 1. You now have 3 incubi against 5 assault termies. That's a pretty big advantage.

I have yet to find a rule that says both methods are not options available to players.

Problem: You cannot negate strikes at Init steps.

First example: No issue because all models resolved wounds at Init step.

Second example: Incorrect. The three incubi will still get all attacks as they would be killed at Init step 1 and are still alive during their Init step. This example breaks the rules. Where are we told you can stop a model from striking at Init step if it would still be alive?


Variation of first example: The real problem comes when the Archon kills the termie champion and has extra wounds. The assault termies and the incubi would resolve wounds and a various number of each is killed. Now, at the end we resolve the challenge and we apply the overflow wounds from the Archon to the termies (which have already stuck and killed some incubi). Now we have to go back and figure out which termie(s) die and which incubi are still alive do to wounds being applied at Init step. I hope you recorded which incubi death resulted from which wound from a termie.

To do otherwise is breaking the rule of “Dead Before Striking” on page 26, very first sentence. “If a model becomes a casualty before its Initiative step, it cannot strike back.” Since we are told challenge models strike at Init, saying that we can accept the idea that a model might get to strike even if it is slain before its Init step is expressly forbidden (as maxcarrion has stated in his solution).

So would it be more correct, then, to assume that if wounds overflow from a challenge (granted that's a huge assumption in itself), you must still resolve everything in initiative order? Meaning you cannot, as the book says, simply resolve a challenge separately from the rest of the assault?

cowmonaut wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Agreed. I also don't see how wounds can overflow when only the wounds taken within the challenge count towards the combat resolution. Why allow wounds that have no effect on the combat resolution?

Say that again?

Page 65 says any unsaved wounds in a Challenge count towards the overall combat resolution.

Without overflow, that's just however many wounds you took off the enemy model to kill it that round.

With overflow, un-allocated wounds would have to get allocated to other models, which means more casualties and more unsaved wounds so more points towards your combat resolution score.

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say here since it doesn't seem to make any sense to either argument.

A challenge is defined as 2 characters fighting each other. Once one character is slain the challenge is ongoing until the end of the phase, wounds caused to someone who is part of the outside forces is by definition not part of the challenge.