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.

That my friend, that is the point I am making. We are told we may resolve challenges outside normal Init step. Yet, overflow causes an issue that we are not told how to resolve in the rules.

I have asked for answers to this issue but those answers break the rules.

Youd think a paradox would have been caught during play testing.

OK to save mass quoting, we seem to currently mulling 2 main points.

1) You cannot strike anyone else because you are considered in b2b contact with other challenger till end of phase

2) You cannot resolve challenges with overflow after combat without violating "Dead Before Striking"

So - 1) The rule says
"Are considered to be in b2b contact only with each other"
This is being incorrectly interpretted as
"Are considered to be in b2b contact with each other and only each other"
Where it actually means
"Can only be considered in b2b contact with each other"
As in
"No other model may be considered in b2b contact with them"

Even if you were considered in b2b with a slain model you would still get wounds assigned to enemy models in b2b with friendlies striking in the same I phase and this does not prevent PS.

2) You die in the order you resolve combat, you resolve from I10 - I1; if you agree to resolve the challenge after I1 then it is resolved after I1 and other models have already resolved.

I'm pretty sure if you "resolve after" then you are not "resolving before"

maxcarrion wrote:OK to save mass quoting, we seem to currently mulling 2 main points.

1) You cannot strike anyone else because you are considered in b2b contact with other challenger till end of phase

2) You cannot resolve challenges with overflow after combat without violating "Dead Before Striking"

So - 1) The rule says
"Are considered to be in b2b contact only with each other"
This is being incorrectly interpretted as
"Are considered to be in b2b contact with each other and only each other"
Where it actually means
"Can only be considered in b2b contact with each other"
As in
"No other model may be considered in b2b contact with them"

Even if you were considered in b2b with a slain model you would still get wounds assigned to enemy models in b2b with friendlies striking in the same I phase and this does not prevent PS.

2) You die in the order you resolve combat, you resolve from I10 - I1; if you agree to resolve the challenge after I1 then it is resolved after I1 and other models have already resolved.

I'm pretty sure if you "resolve after" then you are not "resolving before"

And aside from these,

3) Outside forces have no mention of taking wounds, only rerolls from them affect challenges, they are told to resolve wounds without the characters, and only morale effect from the challenge affect them (that is it for permissive effects)

4) Forging the narrative lets us know that within the challenge I10 to I1 still go in order, but if we want to run it aside we can

5) page 429 shows challenges as a combat aside

6) Would allocation out of the challenge means that game affects like majority T and WS affect the challenge too, not just character stats

@ maxcarrion

1) That is your interpretation. And since neither side can prove which interpretation is the correct one we are at an impasse. For all purposes of the rules, regardless of actual status of model, the victorious model is in BtB contact and is treated as such. Everyone agrees the model is removed as a casualty, but as per the rules the other model is still in BtB (with what? Who cares, if it helps, it’s the slain models ghost.) You are completely ignoring the word ‘considered’. This word gives us permission to not break any of the fight sub-phase rules while still applying a status on a model. i.e., remove a model as a casualty and still have the victorious model be in BtB with all drawbacks and benefits.

2) Where are you getting this die in order of resolution? Last time I checked you die on the Init step the wound is applied. There is only one Init step track Since we are not told that character wounds are not resolved at So, do both characters resolve simultaneously after Init step 1? Did you just claim we ignore their Init value to resolve combat for models in a challenge? Got a rule to back these points up?


My point is there is a pretty good chance that any solution you present will require us to “make up a rule” to resolve in a way that does not break other rules. It comes down to the fact that we are not told we can apply extra (overflow) wounds to the rest of the unit. Nor are we told how to do such a thing even if it where some how possible. This is not a loophole or conflict in rules; this is a complete absence of rules. Which leads me to believe there is no overflow.

What seals it for me is “For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other.” And “…the challenge is...on going until the end of the phase.” No amount of grammar-fu will change those simple words. My view does not require any rewording to prove a point. It just asks questions of the rules and reads them as written, no assembly required.

Who? “…only with each other.” What action are they only with each other? “…considered to be in base to base…” How long? “For the duration of the challenge…” There is no need for ‘if you move this word to here’ or ‘insert this meaning there’ grammar-chops. I see a simple sentence that gives us all the information we need without substituting words or moving them around. I asked simple questions that needed an answer and found them.

hisdudeness wrote:@ maxcarrion

1) That is your interpretation. And since neither side can prove which interpretation is the correct one we are at an impasse. For all purposes of the rules, regardless of actual status of model, the victorious model is in BtB contact and is treated as such. Everyone agrees the model is removed as a casualty, but as per the rules the other model is still in BtB (with what? Who cares, if it helps, it’s the slain models ghost.) You are completely ignoring the word ‘considered’. This word gives us permission to not break any of the fight sub-phase rules while still applying a status on a model. i.e., remove a model as a casualty and still have the victorious model be in BtB with all drawbacks and benefits.

2) So, do both characters resolve simultaneously after Init step 1? Did you just claim we ignore their Init value to resolve combat for models in a challenge? Got a rule to back that up?


My point is there is a pretty good chance that any solution you present will require us to “make up a rule” to resolve in a way that does not break other rules. It comes down to the fact that we are not told we can apply extra (overflow) wounds to the rest of the unit. Nor are we told how to do such a thing even if it where some hoe possible. This is not a loophole or conflict in rules; this is a complete absence of rules.

What seals it for me is “For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base to base contact only with each other.” And “…the challenge is...on going until the end of the phase.” No amount of grammar-fu will change those simple words. My view does not require any rewording to prove a point. It just asks questions of the rules and read them as written, no assembly required.

Who? “…only with each other.” What action are they only with each other? “…considered to be in base to base…” How long? “For the duration of the challenge…” There is no need for ‘if you move this word to here’ or ‘insert this meaning there’ grammar-chops. I see a simple sentence that gives us all the information we need without substituting words or moving them around. I asked simple questions that needed an answer and found them.

Most people mess up the 'only with each other' and 'with only each other', but it is unfortunately a very large difference to someone who takes the sentence entirely out of context. As has been pointed out, every other statement about Challenges treats the situation as if the author wrote ''with only each other' by noting it can occur outside regular combat, that extra unsaved wounds count towards combat resolution (they wouldn't need to if they caused models to be removed now would they?), that it lasts to the end of the turn, etc.

Wound overflow is a case of players latching onto a common wording mistake and trying to apply computer logic to a single sentence instead of using context.

snooggums wrote:
(shortened quote)
Wound overflow is a case of players latching onto a common wording mistake and trying to apply computer logic to a single sentence instead of using context.

I don't think it's about using 'computer logic', but just doing what the rules say. One good use for YMDC is trying to parse out exactly what RAW implies.

I also don't think the context paints as clear a picture as some suggest. If challenges were "completely separate", you'd think the book would say that somewhere. It really doesn't. All the pieces of text people on this thread use to illustrate the separation are really tailored.

To me, the context reads like the authors did everything they could to include wound overflow.

The author did not write it to include wound over flow. If they had you'd see something that said wound over flow.

There is no mention in the BRB about wound over flow in any way.

The author paints a picture of the two combatants in the middle of the squads striking blows against each other.

Remember the movie Troy? When Hector thought he was fighting Achilles? Everyone watching as they fought. Cheering on their champion!

That is a challenge. No wound over flow. The fight rages on as one squad fights the other squad and the character fight each other. This is why the wording of a slain character reads that they stay in base to base until the end of phase. (Phase and not Sub-Phase). They didn't want a Init 10 killing blow to mean that the character can use the rest of their attacks on the squad.

Now lets go back to the rules.

It clearly says that squad wounds can not go into the challenge. Now let me get this straight. I have Kharn and 1 Berzerker left. I charge into you and your Seargeant and 9 sternguard w/ power weapons. So Kharn destroyes your seargeant and has 3 wounds remaining. Your squad does 4 wounds to my lone guy. I end up losing 1 guy and you end up losing 1 character. This should be a drawn combat. Instead you want to give 3 wounds to the sternguard and have them lose another 3 models. So know I've won combat by 3. Do you think this was the intent of the rule? Because the only leg that is holding this argument together is some so called intent to have over flow wounds.

jcress410 wrote:

To me, the context reads like the authors did everything they could to include wound overflow.

That's just plain incorrect, sir. If they did everything they could they would have told us what exactly what happens to extra wounds after the target model is slain. Even if by some yet to be found combination rules we determine overflow was a go, there is no hint as to how we handle it. As said before, this is like vague hints that a unit can ‘run’ during shooting phase yet never telling us how a unit ‘runs’. There is actually more context that points to the idea of separate combat then there is for overflow.

If there was overflow, you'd think the book would say that somewhere.

There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules. That is my challenge to this thread.

hisdudeness wrote:There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules.

Well I know I have several times in this thread already, but lets try one more time. You use the normal rules for wound allocation.

The biggest problem I have with the Challenge rules is that there is no restriction on who the challenge combatants can wound. This lets you Precision Strike out of a Challenge. To overflow it works very simply:

1.) Your Hive Tyrant causes 3 wounds.
2.) The enemy Sergeant who Challenged you is the only enemy in base contact, so you allocate one wound.
3.) The Sergeant has no Invulnerable Save so he dies.
4.) You have two wounds in your wound pool. The next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant) gets allocated the next wound and dies.
5.) Continue until you are out of wounds.

In the event the "next nearest" enemy models are physically in base contact, the enemy gets to pick which one to allocate to as per the normal rules.


The only thing that causes a problem with Challenges allowing Overflow is if you are handling them outside the normal Initiative step. Regardless of what you want to think, the rule book does not require you handle Challenges at the end of the rest of combat. The rule book flat out states that the Challenger/Challengee attacks happen during their normal Initiative Step. Its just a convenience thing to handle it separately.

This is why the argument will never end from a RAW standpoint, unless GW issues an FAQ update.

For the curious: I intend on playing without overflow unless my opponent really wants it. Its not that complicated to deal with, but it is more complicated than ignoring it. I also don't think it will make a massive difference for most armies. The Challenge system is cool but has problems, particularly when dealing with MCs that tend to be rather expensive and can be taken out of the bulk of the game if you are clever with Challenges.

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules.

Well I know I have several times in this thread already, but lets try one more time. You use the normal rules for wound allocation.

The biggest problem I have with the Challenge rules is that there is no restriction on who the challenge combatants can wound. This lets you Precision Strike out of a Challenge. To overflow it works very simply:

1.) Your Hive Tyrant causes 3 wounds.
2.) The enemy Sergeant who Challenged you is the only enemy in base contact, so you allocate one wound.
3.) The Sergeant has no Invulnerable Save so he dies.
4.) You have two wounds in your wound pool. The next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant) gets allocated the next wound and dies.
5.) Continue until you are out of wounds.

In the event the "next nearest" enemy models are physically in base contact, the enemy gets to pick which one to allocate to as per the normal rules.


The only thing that causes a problem with Challenges allowing Overflow is if you are handling them outside the normal Initiative step. Regardless of what you want to think, the rule book does not require you handle Challenges at the end of the rest of combat. The rule book flat out states that the Challenger/Challengee attacks happen during their normal Initiative Step. Its just a convenience thing to handle it separately.

This is why the argument will never end from a RAW standpoint, unless GW issues an FAQ update.

For the curious: I intend on playing without overflow unless my opponent really wants it. Its not that complicated to deal with, but it is more complicated than ignoring it. I also don't think it will make a massive difference for most armies. The Challenge system is cool but has problems, particularly when dealing with MCs that tend to be rather expensive and can be taken out of the bulk of the game if you are clever with Challenges.

I agree, we use normal wound allocation rules. I say the normal allocation rules do limit who the challenge combatants can wound.

The rules tell us how to play. It is implied we can resolve during normal Init steps as that is when we normally resolve assaults. We are also told we can resolve challenges after the normal unit Init steps. Now you claim we can overflow, yet cannot tell us how to overflow in all situations allowed by the rules that do not break a rule.

As far as your example, it is based on interpretations of the rules in question. At step 4, I say that the HT is still in BtB with the Sargent and thus cannot allocate wounds to the unit. As per wound pool rules, when you run out of targets the pool is emptied. Also in your example you fail to address the issue of what happens to any models that the “next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant)” killed in its’ Init step? Your simplicity just flew out the window. The HT killed a model at a Init step before it could take an action. Yet we already resolved the models attacks and it killed something. Do we roll back unit results? Or do we just accept that the model resolved attacks it would not normally get?

That is correct, we are not required to resolve at the end but we are given permission to do so. Yet there is not provisions for how to handle overflow in all situations allowed but the rules. Like I said and you quoted, this is a case of a missing set of rules on how to handle overflow when challenges are resolved at the end. Which points to no such thing as wound overflow.

The difference between our two interpretations is I don’t have to resort to grammar-fu and making up rules on how to handle challenges outside the normal Init steps. I have applied published rules and valid interpretations to find a solution.

My guess is you have not played out a 20+ model assault where the characters have a higher Init than the units, or else you would not be saying it’s not that complicated. But I guess if you ignore the Init step of the characters in a challenge it all works out.

jcress410 wrote:

snooggums wrote:
(shortened quote)
Wound overflow is a case of players latching onto a common wording mistake and trying to apply computer logic to a single sentence instead of using context.

I don't think it's about using 'computer logic', but just doing what the rules say. One good use for YMDC is trying to parse out exactly what RAW implies.

I also don't think the context paints as clear a picture as some suggest. If challenges were "completely separate", you'd think the book would say that somewhere. It really doesn't. All the pieces of text people on this thread use to illustrate the separation are really tailored.

To me, the context reads like the authors did everything they could to include wound overflow.

I took your advice and got a review on Misplaced Modifiers. And I have to say, you are wrong about this on many fronts. Now I know I have said that this is a moot point but I will indulge you crazy people so maybe, just maybe, we can move on to important stuff and stop worrying so much about irrelevant arguments.

A misplaced modifier is exactly what it sounds like it is: a modifier that is in the wrong place. A modifier is also exactly how it sounds: a word or phrase that modifies something else. So a misplaced modifier is a word or phrase that modifies a phrase it is not intended to modify. Problem #1: you are assuming the modifier is modifying a phrase other than the one intended. How do we know which phrase the word "only" is intended to modify? We can creatively interpret the sentence to mean what we want it to mean, but the bottom line is you cannot say without any doubt that the modifier "only" is misplaced.

Here is a proper misplaced modifier example:
I ate only vegetables. (I ate nothing but vegetables. No meat, no bread, no fruit, no dirt, no cheese, nothing but vegetables were consumed by me.)
I only ate vegetables. (I did nothing with the vegetables but eat them. I did not plant them, harvest them, wash them, prepare them, or crown them King of Scotland, I only ate them.)

Which of of those two sentences are correct? Can anyone actually determine based on the sentence alone tell me which of these are correct? Either one could be correct, but only one is correct and it depends on the context of the rest of the paragraph, what actually happened, and the intent of the writer. Another example is:

I failed almost all of my art classes in college. (I took 5 art classes and failed 4 of them)
I almost failed all of my art classes in college. (I took 5 art classes and got Ds in all 5 of them)

Again, which is correct? Without knowing the writer, knowing what classes he took and how he did in them, or context from the rest of the writing example we cannot possibly know. Again, you can creatively interpret which one of these is correct, but without evidence it is simply a false statement of fact. But, you cannot have a misplaced modifier argument if the other places you place the modifier doesn't change the meaning of the phrase being modified, or the sentence.

"For the duration of the challenge, these two models are considered to be in base contact only with each other." The two models are in base contact with each other and no one else. Not their squad, not the enemy squad, not Santa Claus, not the Tooth Fairy, only each other. We know that because it says it. "Only" modifies what is directly after it, and what is directly after it is "with each other". We know the two models are considered to be in base contact with someone, but who are the two models in base contact with? Each other, and only each other. When you say the phrase "with each other" without the "only" means they can also be in base contact with others you are forgetting that in a misplaced modifier argument you have to put the only back into the sentence and cannot just take the context of the phrase by itself.

Now lets assume we have a misplaced modifier. Where does the only go then?

"...these two models are considered to be in base contact with only each other." (Same sentence, same meaning. "Only" modifies each other. It is a little more clear without the with, but still the same concept, same meaning)
"...these two models are only considered to be in base contact with each other." (Even more clear, but in this sentence the phrase that is modified by "only" is expanded to "considered to be in base contact with each other)
"...these two models are considered only to be in base contact with each other." (Same as above, but without the "considered". Same meaning as the line directly above as the absence of "considered" does not alter the meaning of the phrase)
"...these two models are considered to be only in base contact with each other." (Same as above, removing "to be" doesn't alter the phrase at all.)
"...these two models are considered to be in base contact with each only other." (This just doesn't make any sense at all, so clearly this is not true.)
"...only these two models are considered to be in base contact with each other." (For the duration of the challenge what happens to the models? They are in base contact with each other and only each other. This is the most clear meaning of the two being in base contact with each other and no one else, but still draws the same conclusion.

So there you have it. I want you to prove to me that there is a misplaced modifier. And I need you to prove with evidence that the phrase modified by "only" is not the phrase they had intended to modify. Then, I want you to prove with evidence that the phrase you choose to modify is the one that GW had intended to modify. Then, I need you to prove that where you place "only" changes the meaning of the sentence. Any response without all three will be ignored and mocked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:There is an entire missing set of rules telling us HOW to overflow. Say I concede that there is overflow…Please tell me how we are to do it that follows all published rules.

Well I know I have several times in this thread already, but lets try one more time. You use the normal rules for wound allocation.

The biggest problem I have with the Challenge rules is that there is no restriction on who the challenge combatants can wound. This lets you Precision Strike out of a Challenge. To overflow it works very simply:

1.) Your Hive Tyrant causes 3 wounds.
2.) The enemy Sergeant who Challenged you is the only enemy in base contact, so you allocate one wound.
3.) The Sergeant has no Invulnerable Save so he dies.
4.) You have two wounds in your wound pool. The next nearest enemy model (physically, to the Hive Tyrant) gets allocated the next wound and dies.
5.) Continue until you are out of wounds.

In the event the "next nearest" enemy models are physically in base contact, the enemy gets to pick which one to allocate to as per the normal rules.

Except you have failed repeatedly to justify how wounds are allocated to models if the rules say that the Wound Allocation step is done as if the combatants were not there. It doesn't say Wound Allocation for the Outside Forces, nor does it say Wound Allocation where Outside Forces are involved, but it simply states that all Wound Allocations are done as if the combatants are not there. How does a wound flow from a challenge to a model that is not there? You can even put one combatant in Never Never Land and the other in Timbuktu, since they are considered to be in base contact with each other the duration of the challenge they can still wound each other even if physically they are miles apart on the table. Wound Allocation step is completed at every initiative step, including the combatant's initiative step.

The only thing that causes a problem with Challenges allowing Overflow is if you are handling them outside the normal Initiative step. Regardless of what you want to think, the rule book does not require you handle Challenges at the end of the rest of combat. The rule book flat out states that the Challenger/Challengee attacks happen during their normal Initiative Step. Its just a convenience thing to handle it separately.

This is why the argument will never end from a RAW standpoint, unless GW issues an FAQ update.

Page 429 is pretty clear. After all other models have fought it is time to resolve the challenge. Initiative step is important for the challenge. Allowing wounds to overflow requires that we ignore page 429. How can you claim that a set of rules would require ignoring a part of that set of rules? How can you look me in the eye and tell me that your interpretation is correct when it involves ignoring rules?

For the curious: I intend on playing without overflow unless my opponent really wants it. Its not that complicated to deal with, but it is more complicated than ignoring it. I also don't think it will make a massive difference for most armies. The Challenge system is cool but has problems, particularly when dealing with MCs that tend to be rather expensive and can be taken out of the bulk of the game if you are clever with Challenges.

Then don't blindly send your MC into CC but use some, OMG such a foreign concept, strategy. The purpose of the changes to the rules is to avoid everyone going to the middle and assaulting the other to the death. With Overwatch, snap shots, and being able to fire on the move, even with heavy weapons, shooting armies are a lot more viable now. Use strategy and make sure your MC is not tied up in a challenge all battle. If the enemy is able to trick/lure you into the tarpit then they deserve to be able to do that since they used strategy and won. You cannot say a rule does not apply or is not a rule simply because your model can't blindly run into whatever is closest and hack away expecting to win automatically.

Captain Antivas wrote:Any response without all three will be ignored and mocked.

Let the mocking begin, I will go first!

You don't frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called "Arthur King," you and all your silly English K-nig-hts. You don't frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberry.

hisdudeness wrote:At step 4, I say that the HT is still in BtB with the Sargent and thus cannot allocate wounds to the unit.

Congratulations. Welcome to like 14 pages ago. This is a main point of contention with the rules. If a model is dead, its removed from play. If it is not in play, it is not in base contact. As has been pointed out numerous times but just gets outright ignored by yourself, Captain Antivas, and several others who like to just ignore arguments out of hand rather than try to see where others are coming from and why they think that, the RAW doesn't stipulate a clear exception for a dead model remaining in base contact with a live one.

"Can only be in base contact with" and "always in base contact with" are two different things. The difference is subtle, but that's language for you.

Captain Antivas wrote:Except you have failed repeatedly to justify how wounds are allocated to models if the rules say that the Wound Allocation step is done as if the combatants were not there. It doesn't say Wound Allocation for the Outside Forces, nor does it say Wound Allocation where Outside Forces are involved, but it simply states that all Wound Allocations are done as if the combatants are not there.

Oh my the hypocrisy... You yourself have argued repeatedly that context is king. The context of that entire section is with regards to models outside the challenge and their ability to affect those inside the challenge. The rules written down in that section do not clearly stipulate that they apply both ways. The way they are written specifically makes it one way. I'm not saying that is intentional, I'm not saying that is truly how we are supposed to do things. But that is exactly what is written down in the rule book.

Captain Antivas wrote:Page 429 is pretty clear. After all other models have fought it is time to resolve the challenge. Initiative step is important for the challenge. Allowing wounds to overflow requires that we ignore page 429. How can you claim that a set of rules would require ignoring a part of that set of rules? How can you look me in the eye and tell me that your interpretation is correct when it involves ignoring rules?

And Page 65 has a contradiction to page 429 as well. It tells you that combatants strike during normal Initiative but some players like to handle stuff after the rest of the combat is dealt with. At best, the outline on page 429 can be used to argue RAI but it can't be used to argue RAW since there is a direct contradiction in the rule book.

Captain Antivas wrote:Then don't blindly send your MC into CC but use some, OMG such a foreign concept, strategy. The purpose of the changes to the rules is to avoid everyone going to the middle and assaulting the other to the death. With Overwatch, snap shots, and being able to fire on the move, even with heavy weapons, shooting armies are a lot more viable now. Use strategy and make sure your MC is not tied up in a challenge all battle. If the enemy is able to trick/lure you into the tarpit then they deserve to be able to do that since they used strategy and won. You cannot say a rule does not apply or is not a rule simply because your model can't blindly run into whatever is closest and hack away expecting to win automatically.

And now you are making assumptions about someone you do not know. I realize you are a little frustrated because you don't fully understand one's side of an argument and you aren't explaining your side as others have, but try to be civil. Personally, I'm not one to just throw things away (for example: I'd never willingly charge an IG Blob with a Hive Tyrant unless it would win me the game to do so).

My point was not made very well with that example. What I meant was there are circumstances without overflow that lead to a slow down of the game. Given the rest of the changes actually speed up the game (from my bit of experience so far) it seemed counter intuitive.

Also, without overflow you still see some weird things with challenges thanks to RAW including:
1. The WS and Toughness of the majority is still used
2. Things that affect the whole unit (Wolf Standards, Preferred Enemy) still affect the combatants

A simple clause of "the challenge is treated as a separate combat for all purposes except combat resolution" or similar would be enough to hammer the nail in the overflow coffin. The RAW are ambiguous and as this 27/28 page saga has detailed, ultimately unresolvable without input from GW.

cowmonaut wrote:

hisdudeness wrote:At step 4, I say that the HT is still in BtB with the Sargent and thus cannot allocate wounds to the unit.

Congratulations. Welcome to like 14 pages ago. This is a main point of contention with the rules. If a model is dead, its removed from play. If it is not in play, it is not in base contact. As has been pointed out numerous times but just gets outright ignored by yourself, Captain Antivas, and several others who like to just ignore arguments out of hand rather than try to see where others are coming from and why they think that, the RAW doesn't stipulate a clear exception for a dead model remaining in base contact with a live one.

"Can only be in base contact with" and "always in base contact with" are two different things. The difference is subtle, but that's language for you.

Refer to the first part of my post for why you are wrong about this. I like how that whole first part was ignored though, which is what we are apparently supposed to do. And actually it does give a clear exception. If the model is dead it is still "considered to be", which says we count it as they are still in base contact even if they are not. It is you who ignores our response then claims we ignore you. Its a bitter battle between people who pay attention, and those who just want to win the argument.

Captain Antivas wrote:Except you have failed repeatedly to justify how wounds are allocated to models if the rules say that the Wound Allocation step is done as if the combatants were not there. It doesn't say Wound Allocation for the Outside Forces, nor does it say Wound Allocation where Outside Forces are involved, but it simply states that all Wound Allocations are done as if the combatants are not there.

Oh my the hypocrisy... You yourself have argued repeatedly that context is king. The context of that entire section is with regards to models outside the challenge and their ability to affect those inside the challenge. The rules written down in that section do not clearly stipulate that they apply both ways. The way they are written specifically makes it one way. I'm not saying that is intentional, I'm not saying that is truly how we are supposed to do things. But that is exactly what is written down in the rule book.

I never said it applies both ways. This only applies to Outside Forces. What you fail to consider is that it is Wound Allocation from and to the Outside Forces. There is nothing that says that the sentence in question only applies to wounds caused by Outside Forces, just when you allocate wounds do it as if the Characters are not there. Even if this applies to only Outside Forces it must apply to wounds both to and from them.

Captain Antivas wrote:Page 429 is pretty clear. After all other models have fought it is time to resolve the challenge. Initiative step is important for the challenge. Allowing wounds to overflow requires that we ignore page 429. How can you claim that a set of rules would require ignoring a part of that set of rules? How can you look me in the eye and tell me that your interpretation is correct when it involves ignoring rules?

And Page 65 has a contradiction to page 429 as well. It tells you that combatants strike during normal Initiative but some players like to handle stuff after the rest of the combat is dealt with. At best, the outline on page 429 can be used to argue RAI but it can't be used to argue RAW since there is a direct contradiction in the rule book.

The Forging a Narrative box is not rules. Unless there is something else I am missing that is the only thing that says it is optional, but since FaN is not rules it is not a contradiction. Try again.

Captain Antivas wrote:Then don't blindly send your MC into CC but use some, OMG such a foreign concept, strategy. The purpose of the changes to the rules is to avoid everyone going to the middle and assaulting the other to the death. With Overwatch, snap shots, and being able to fire on the move, even with heavy weapons, shooting armies are a lot more viable now. Use strategy and make sure your MC is not tied up in a challenge all battle. If the enemy is able to trick/lure you into the tarpit then they deserve to be able to do that since they used strategy and won. You cannot say a rule does not apply or is not a rule simply because your model can't blindly run into whatever is closest and hack away expecting to win automatically.

And now you are making assumptions about someone you do not know. I realize you are a little frustrated because you don't fully understand one's side of an argument and you aren't explaining your side as others have, but try to be civil. Personally, I'm not one to just throw things away (for example: I'd never willingly charge an IG Blob with a Hive Tyrant unless it would win me the game to do so).

My point was not made very well with that example. What I meant was there are circumstances without overflow that lead to a slow down of the game. Given the rest of the changes actually speed up the game (from my bit of experience so far) it seemed counter intuitive.

Also, without overflow you still see some weird things with challenges thanks to RAW including:
1. The WS and Toughness of the majority is still used
2. Things that affect the whole unit (Wolf Standards, Preferred Enemy) still affect the combatants

A simple clause of "the challenge is treated as a separate combat for all purposes except combat resolution" or similar would be enough to hammer the nail in the overflow coffin. The RAW are ambiguous and as this 27/28 page saga has detailed, ultimately unresolvable without input from GW.

I see no insult towards you. I see no insult at all. You say this causes a problem, I say what you define as a problem is an evolution. I also want you to show me where it says that the WS and Toughness of the squad is used in a Challenge. Page number? The things that affect the whole squad affect them for different reasons. If I am resolving an attack against just one model I am using that model's stats, not the squads. Please show me with rules where it says otherwise.

Not to mention no overflow does not slow the game down, it speeds it up. Rather than trying to figure out which models are closest and how to blah blah blah once the challenge is done you resolve the challenge, count the unsaved wounds, add them together, and move on. Quick, easy, and actually less complicated.

And for the record I am not frustrated that my opinion differs from other people on the same side as me, I understand your points and simply disagree with them. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand them. The implication that I must be confused if I don't see things your way is insulting so I would council you to do the same. I am, however, sick of hearing people whining about how their uber unit is not so uber anymore, and these rules suck because I can't face roll to victory and have to actually think before I do stuff. This, however, also applies to more than just this discussion. I remain as civil as I always am, I just have no patience for whiners. I also have no patience for people who refuse to address a particular part of an argument simply because they cannot find anything to refute it.

MJThurston wrote:The author did not write it to include wound over flow. If they had you'd see something that said wound over flow.

There is no mention in the BRB about wound over flow in any way.

The author paints a picture of the two combatants in the middle of the squads striking blows against each other.

Remember the movie Troy? When Hector thought he was fighting Achilles? Everyone watching as they fought. Cheering on their champion!

Neat idea, nice image. It just seems like the rules could have said that, and they didn't.

That is a challenge. No wound over flow. The fight rages on as one squad fights the other squad and the character fight each other. This is why the wording of a slain character reads that they stay in base to base until the end of phase. (Phase and not Sub-Phase). They didn't want a Init 10 killing blow to mean that the character can use the rest of their attacks on the squad.

I think the 'lasts until the end of the phase' is there to tell us that a character who kills the other half of his challenge at I5 can't be attacked by outside forces at I2. i.e. the challenge is still ongoing, so outside forces can't attack the challenger even if the challenge seems like it might be over because there's only one model left.

Now lets go back to the rules.

It clearly says that squad wounds can not go into the challenge. Now let me get this straight. I have Kharn and 1 Berzerker left. I charge into you and your Seargeant and 9 sternguard w/ power weapons. So Kharn destroyes your seargeant and has 3 wounds remaining. Your squad does 4 wounds to my lone guy. I end up losing 1 guy and you end up losing 1 character. This should be a drawn combat. Instead you want to give 3 wounds to the sternguard and have them lose another 3 models. So know I've won combat by 3. Do you think this was the intent of the rule? Because the only leg that is holding this argument together is some so called intent to have over flow wounds.

I really don't think the intent of the rules is a leg anyone has been using to hold together an argument for overflow. At least, from what I've read, the argument tends to stem from a strict reading of RAW.

Captain Antivas wrote:Refer to the first part of my post for why you are wrong about this. I like how that whole first part was ignored though, which is what we are apparently supposed to do. And actually it does give a clear exception. If the model is dead it is still "considered to be", which says we count it as they are still in base contact even if they are not. It is you who ignores our response then claims we ignore you. Its a bitter battle between people who pay attention, and those who just want to win the argument.

Are you not understanding that this is kind of the point of contention? Others disagree with you on this. Your counter argument is "they are wrong". The rules themselves are just not clear enough here. If they were, there wouldn't be so many people arguing about it and this debate would have ended in the first handful of pages.

Captain Antivas wrote:I never said it applies both ways. This only applies to Outside Forces. What you fail to consider is that it is Wound Allocation from and to the Outside Forces.

That is the definition of applying both ways. You are saying that portion of the rules is a two way street with regards to where wounds can be allocated. I'm saying its a one way street the way its written.

Captain Antivas wrote:The Forging a Narrative box is not rules. Unless there is something else I am missing that is the only thing that says it is optional, but since FaN is not rules it is not a contradiction. Try again.

Originally I thought that as well. But then someone pointed out to me that it doesn't say anywhere in the rule book that "Forging the Narrative" boxes are not rules. If page 429 was strict mandatory rules, there would be something on page 64 and 65 telling you about it. The only mention of dealing with challenges out of sequence is in the Forging the Narrative box. As such, I'm not as convinced as I once was that Forging the Narrative doesn't count as rules.

If this isn't a clear sign the rules are not written properly for Challenges, I don't know if there is any help for you. Edit: After posting I realise this sounds harsher than I intended. What I mean is I don't think there is any way to explain the overflow side to you and have you understand why some of us think the way we do. This isn't malicious intent or stupidity, the rules are just badly written regardless of what GW's intent for Challenges is. Outside of Forging a Narrative there is no mention of resolving Challenges out of sequence on pages 64 and 65, where they are going into detail and careful explanations.

Captain Antivas wrote:You say this causes a problem, I say what you define as a problem is an evolution. I also want you to show me where it says that the WS and Toughness of the squad is used in a Challenge. Page number? The things that affect the whole squad affect them for different reasons. If I am resolving an attack against just one model I am using that model's stats, not the squads. Please show me with rules where it says otherwise.

No, you point to me the exact page, paragraph, sentence, words that tell you that you don't follow those normal rules. Since the basic rules for rolling to hit/wound are being overridden, there must be an advanced rule doing so.

The rules for Challenges on page 64 and 65 make no mention of one. The rules state that the combatants are (1) in base contact only with each other and (2) that models other than the combatants can't attack the combatants. The rules do not state that they are not part of the same combat. Never mind the fact that items 1 and 2 are also key points of dissension central to this whole debate.

RAW, you'd still have to roll to hit and wound against the majority. Why? Because the Challenge rules do not change how the combatants attack. Which means that they are attacking the enemy unit. With the new rules for ICs, even if the Character in the Challenge is an IC its treated as a member of the unit it joined in combat. Which means you are stuck with this ridiculousness.

Captain Antivas wrote:Not to mention no overflow does not slow the game down, it speeds it up. Rather than trying to figure out which models are closest and how to blah blah blah once the challenge is done you resolve the challenge, count the unsaved wounds, add them together, and move on. Quick, easy, and actually less complicated.

I don't see it as that complicated, but I meant that it can draw out combats over several turns longer than if you had overflow in some instances.

Captain Antivas wrote:I also have no patience for people who refuse to address a particular part of an argument simply because they cannot find anything to refute it.

Like wise. I've seen you assert things as fact that are your opinion. I've seen arguments of yours refuted, yet you trudge on as if it weren't. I've seen the reverse as well. Its part of why we all keep going in circles.

jcress410 wrote:I think the 'lasts until the end of the phase' is there to tell us that a character who kills the other half of his challenge at I5 can't be attacked by outside forces at I2. i.e. the challenge is still ongoing, so outside forces can't attack the challenger even if the challenge seems like it might be over because there's only one model left.

This. Its been stated many times. Its yet another portion of the challenge rules that we have a large amount of dissent on. Arguing further about it at this point is proving pointless. One side things it means nothing more, the other thinks it means that a dead model is in base contact with a live one.

jcress410 wrote:I really don't think the intent of the rules is a leg anyone has been using to hold together an argument for overflow. At least, from what I've read, the argument tends to stem from a strict reading of RAW.

And this. If you are being very strict about your reading of the rules, then that's where the inconsistencies start coming in. Its why this argument is going on in the first place. The rules are just written poorly. We can guess about the intent of the designers, but we don't know for sure. There is no way to know. I truly hope GW just FAQs it one way or the other. In the meantime, I think I'll just play it however my opponent wants to since it doesn't effect me personally that much.

cowmonaut wrote: In the meantime, I think I'll just play it however my opponent wants to since it doesn't effect me personally that much.

Yup. Me too. I'd love there not to be overflow. I have two characters in my entire deldar/edlar army, and if wounds don't overflow that's great for me because the baron is terrible in CC. (for his points)

cowmonaut wrote: Congratulations. Welcome to like 14 pages ago. This is a main point of contention with the rules. If a model is dead, its removed from play. If it is not in play, it is not in base contact. As has been pointed out numerous times but just gets outright ignored by yourself, Captain Antivas, and several others who like to just ignore arguments out of hand rather than try to see where others are coming from and why they think that, the RAW doesn't stipulate a clear exception for a dead model remaining in base contact with a live one.
"Can only be in base contact with" and "always in base contact with" are two different things. The difference is subtle, but that's language for you.

I know this is the main contention, I just answered your assertion with canned response and added that your interpretation may not be correct. We are not ignoring your point, we just aren’t buying what you’re selling. Just because we don’t agree with your view doesn’t mean we are ignoring it, we just believe we have answered the assertion with a valid point and moved on because neither side will change their view. The entire quote above is based on your premise, which we discount as incorrect thus making the statement incorrect in our view. Your point is not based on a verifiable rule.

cowmonaut wrote: Oh my the hypocrisy... You yourself have argued repeatedly that context is king. The context of that entire section is with regards to models outside the challenge and their ability to affect those inside the challenge. The rules written down in that section do not clearly stipulate that they apply both ways. The way they are written specifically makes it one way. I'm not saying that is intentional, I'm not saying that is truly how we are supposed to do things. But that is exactly what is written down in the rule book.

NO! NO! NOPE! The 2 sentences in question that are the basis for my view are NOT in the outside forces section. Next.

cowmonaut wrote: And Page 65 has a contradiction to page 429 as well. It tells you that combatants strike during normal Initiative but some players like to handle stuff after the rest of the combat is dealt with. At best, the outline on page 429 can be used to argue RAI but it can't be used to argue RAW since there is a direct contradiction in the rule book.

There is no contradiction, in fact we are never told on page 64-65 when to resolve challenges. We assume since we are never told any other way that we resolve them during normal Init steps. Then in multiple places (FaN and 429) we are told we can resolve at the end. And it is not RAI, it is a valid option for players in which idea of overflow doesn’t work. If you want to talk about ignoring, try the request for rules on how to handle overflow outside unit Init steps that does not require use to ignore, make up, or break the published rules.

cowmonaut wrote: A simple clause of "the challenge is treated as a separate combat for all purposes except combat resolution" or similar would be enough to hammer the nail in the overflow coffin. The RAW are ambiguous and as this 27/28 page saga has detailed, ultimately unresolvable without input from GW.

Which I have stated and the reason I have tried to move to the question of “If there is overflow (or that is how you choose to play until an answer), how do we do it within the rules?” For this question I have allowed for overflow, now tell us how we play it. For this question you have ‘won’ the debate, but your ‘ruling’ causes issues…how do we resolve those issues?
The answers I get fall back in to the RAW debate or blatantly break rules. You have your interpretation of the wording, I have mine. We have 2 options: 1) keep jumping on the marry go around or 2) establish a consensus for each option so those that want to play either way can feel confident they are within the rules until GW tells us otherwise.

Without overflow
Regardless of when challenge is resolved, once one model is slain wound pool empties and unsaved wounds go to assault results.

With overflow
Resolved during: no change as there is no conflicting result due to Init step being resolved all at once.
Resolved after: Possible conflict due to characters resolving outside unit Init steps when they have a higher Init value then enemy unit. How do we handle this issue?

This is taking up far too much of my time so I'll keep it brief and address just a few points - starting with

I am buying chocolate eclaires - this is an action I am doing
Let's add a detail
I am buying chocolate eclaires at Greggs - this is an action I am doing and where I am doing it
Let's add an "only"
I am buying chocolate eclaires only at Greggs - suddenly this sentence is completely different, it no longer indicates I am currently buying eclaires, it indicates that when I buy eclaires I do it from one specific place
Finally a duration
This year I am buting chocolate eclaires only at Greggs - now there is a condition when I take the action and at the end of the year I will no longer be bound by this condition

Now in rules form
Models in challenges are considered to be in b2b contact - tells you that these models are in base to base contact right now
add a detail
Models in challenges are considered to be in b2b contact with each other - tells you these models are in b2b and who with
add an only
Models in a challenge are considered to be in b2b contact only with each other - tells you that these models may only be considered in b2b contact with each other, no longer dictates their current state, instead now restricts who may be in b2b
and a duration
For the duration of the challenge blah blah blah - tells you how long the condition is in play, when one model is slain it becomes "until the end of this phase" but no one is disputing that part anyway.

In fact for now I'm going to leave it there. Hopefully someone might read it.

hisdudeness wrote:I know this is the main contention, I just answered your assertion with canned response and added that your interpretation may not be correct. We are not ignoring your point, we just aren’t buying what you’re selling. Just because we don’t agree with your view doesn’t mean we are ignoring it, we just believe we have answered the assertion with a valid point and moved on because neither side will change their view.

Then I don't know why you are arguing still at this point, cause I'm in full agreement here. Pages ago most people either settled in to how they prefer to play it or that RAW is inconclusive and GW needs to FAQ it. Since then I just see you trying to convince people your way is right.

Review my last half dozen replies. I've said the RAW is just broken and GW needs to FAQ it. I fully see where you are coming from, but when you post an argument for one way and I disagree I'm going to point out why I disagree. Apparently I'm a glutton for punishment and enjoy merry-go-rounds.

hisdudeness wrote:The entire quote above is based on your premise, which we discount as incorrect thus making the statement incorrect in our view. Your point is not based on a verifiable rule.

And here you contradict what you said just a moment ago. You aren't ignoring one view but you are discounting it out of hand? I'm sorry but that means you are ignoring one side of the argument.

My arguments follow the letter of the rules precisely. The problem is the rules are written poorly so its very easy to interpret things both ways.

hisdudeness wrote:

cowmonaut wrote: Oh my the hypocrisy... You yourself have argued repeatedly that context is king. The context of that entire section is with regards to models outside the challenge and their ability to affect those inside the challenge. The rules written down in that section do not clearly stipulate that they apply both ways. The way they are written specifically makes it one way. I'm not saying that is intentional, I'm not saying that is truly how we are supposed to do things. But that is exactly what is written down in the rule book.

NO! NO! NOPE! The 2 sentences in question that are the basis for my view are NOT in the outside forces section. Next.

That was in reply to Captain Antivus, hence the quote tagged to him. Specifically, he had mentioned the sentence "simply resolve the Wound allocation step as if the two characters were not there." from the Outside Forces section. So please, tell me what you think I was talking about so I can respond. Because that quote is in direct reply to that sentence.

hisdudeness wrote:Then in multiple places (FaN and 429) we are told we can resolve at the end.

Emphasis mine. Page 65 says its an option, not a requirement. Page 429 says its a requirement. Page 429 is a summary of the rules while 65 is the nitty gritty. I'm not sure you understand that part of my argument is that this means the rules are in conflict with themselves.

hisdudeness wrote:For this question you have ‘won’ the debate, but your ‘ruling’ causes issues…how do we resolve those issues?

I'm assuming the following quote are the only issues you see rule wise:

hisdudeness wrote:Resolved during: no change as there is no conflicting result due to Init step being resolved all at once.
Resolved after: Possible conflict due to characters resolving outside unit Init steps when they have a higher Init value then enemy unit. How do we handle this issue?

As players given an option with potential problem, it would make sense to only take the option in situations where it won't cause problems. So i see two immediately possibilities:
1. Only resolve at the end of combat if both combatants are striking in Initiative Step 1.
2. Resolve the challenge before the rest of combat, and just remember which models in the combat will still get attacks (in the event an Unwieldy weapon slays someone at I:2 or above)
If you are given the option to resolve the Challenge outside of normal Initiative steps I don't see why you can't just do it before the rest of the combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

maxcarrion wrote:In fact for now I'm going to leave it there. Hopefully someone might read it.

Exactly. Maybe I'm just reading people's replies wrong, but it seems that some aren't understanding that this is how some of us are reading the rules. Its a perfectly valid way to read this English sentence. That's part of why the rules on these two pages in particular are so badly written. If they were better written, there wouldn't be confusion here.

It kind of doesn't matter what the correct reading of the rules is if a bunch of people aren't going to read it correctly.

To be clear, I'm not saying anything derogatory about anyone who reads the rules different from the way I do. My point is just, "being right about grammar" doesn't really matter.

As far as I'm concerned, what matters is consistency and predictability in interpretation.

If i'm going to event X or tournament Y, it's just important to know what all the rules are going to be before I get there.

YMDC is a nice tool to get a sense of what the consensus position will be in a majority of circumstances.

This thread is not going to resolve anything.

c'est la vie.

This is why I implored everyone to partake in an effort to compare and contrast the relevant outcomes of each possible ruling. Far more productive.

@ maxcarrion
We get it; the wording is ambiguous at best. Continuing to argue grammar will not change anyone’s mind at this point. The people paying attention understand the differences in views. You have stated your interpretation of the meaning; I have stated mine as have everyone else. As Captain Antivas pointed out some posts back, prove your interpretation of how the grammar works is correct. As stated, you can’t because neither is technically incorrect. At this point I will no longer respond to the differences in grammar in this debate. The only way I will consider your interpretation as the correct one to apply, you will have to show me what makes you an expert on the English language thus lending more weight to what you say on the matter of grammar.

@cowmonaut

cowmonaut wrote: Then I don't know why you are arguing still at this point, cause I'm in full agreement here. Pages ago most people either settled in to how they prefer to play it or that RAW is inconclusive and GW needs to FAQ it. Since then I just see you trying to convince people your way is right.
Review my last half dozen replies. I've said the RAW is just broken and GW needs to FAQ it. I fully see where you are coming from, but when you post an argument for one way and I disagree I'm going to point out why I disagree. Apparently I'm a glutton for punishment and enjoy merry-go-rounds.

I have tried repeatedly to move away from the point. But it keeps being brought back up. You know, the marry-go-around that I’m trying to get us off of.

cowmonaut wrote: And here you contradict what you said just a moment ago. You aren't ignoring one view but you are discounting it out of hand? I'm sorry but that means you are ignoring one side of the argument.
My arguments follow the letter of the rules precisely. The problem is the rules are written poorly so its very easy to interpret things both ways.

I am not discounting it out of hand…well, I am now because I have weighted your interpretation 50+ posts back and found it wanting for all the reasons I listed. Your argument follows the letter of the rules precisely as you interpret the wording of those rules pertaining to your assertion for overflow. My argument also follows the letter of the rules precisely as I interpret the wording. As you stated, we can interpret the grammar both ways…why are we still bring this up?

cowmonaut wrote: Emphasis mine. Page 65 says its an option, not a requirement. Page 429 says its a requirement. Page 429 is a summary of the rules while 65 is the nitty gritty. I'm not sure you understand that part of my argument is that this means the rules are in conflict with themselves.

That is not much of a conflict and not sure how it is relevant. I’m not seeing where we are told on p429 that we must resolve at the end. All I see is them presenting an option and referencing the rules in question.
It doesn’t matter if it is not a requirement, it is an option and this option doesn’t work with overflow. You cannot explain this away with by claim you just don’t do it. The rules are meant to cover all options available to players. I can see where there might be a missed interaction between codex and BRB, but a missed interaction between the basic and advanced part of the same phase…really?

cowmonaut wrote: As players given an option with potential problem, it would make sense to only take the option in situations where it won't cause problems. So i see two immediately possibilities:
1. Only resolve at the end of combat if both combatants are striking in Initiative Step 1.
2. Resolve the challenge before the rest of combat, and just remember which models in the combat will still get attacks (in the event an Unwieldy weapon slays someone at I:2 or above)
If you are given the option to resolve the Challenge outside of normal Initiative steps I don't see why you can't just do it before the rest of the combat.

Your solution of ‘just don’t use the option that causes the problem’ is just incorrect. What if a new player (or one that miss calculated possible outcomes) ends up in the situation in question? Do they just start over from the top because the rules break when you apply overflow? (sidenote: we cannot resolve challenges before, only during and after.)

cowmonaut wrote: actly. Maybe I'm just reading people's replies wrong, but it seems that some aren't understanding that this is how some of us are reading the rules. Its a perfectly valid way to read this English sentence. That's part of why the rules on these two pages in particular are so badly written. If they were better written, there wouldn't be confusion here.

Dude, we completely understand that is how you are reading the rules. I have even stated your is not more valid then mine and mine is not more valid then yours. Hence we move AWAY from the grammar and do as I asked 5-6 posts back.

maxcarrion wrote:
So - 1) The rule says
"Are considered to be in b2b contact only with each other"
This is being incorrectly interpretted as
"Are considered to be in b2b contact with each other and only each other"
Where it actually means
"Can only be considered in b2b contact with each other"
As in
"No other model may be considered in b2b contact with them"

Did you seriously just say "are" actually means "can"? Do you have anything to back that up? "Are" is a pretty strong word that you keep glossing over. How do you get from "are" to "can"?

hisdudeness wrote:I have tried repeatedly to move away from the point. But it keeps being brought back up. You know, the marry-go-around that I’m trying to get us off of.

I must say, you have a funny way of trying to get off the merry-go-round.

hisdudeness wrote:As you stated, we can interpret the grammar both ways…why are we still bring this up?

Because you and Captain Antivas keep asking "why do you think X" to people who think the rules allow overflow. You then argue with them and say they are wrong and they argue back. Then you repeat what you said before and wonder why not everyone is instantly agreeing with you. It seemed to me this point was lost on you and needed to be emphasized that RAW is an argument with no future until GW issues a FAQ clearing it up.

hisdudeness wrote:That is not much of a conflict and not sure how it is relevant. I’m not seeing where we are told on p429 that we must resolve at the end. All I see is them presenting an option and referencing the rules in question.

How do you see an option in this:

"Once all models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges (see page 64)."

That's a very clear and definitive statement. It isn't giving you an option. Its declaring that that is when you handle things. The rules on Page 65 differ. If Forging a Narrative counts as rules, there is a conflict in that there is an option to do things differently. If its not rules, then the actual rules in the rules section of the book don't tell you so it would make sense to assume its always at Initiative. If you count the reference pages as rules, then there is a conflict in my eyes.

hisdudeness wrote:It doesn’t matter if it is not a requirement, it is an option and this option doesn’t work with overflow. You cannot explain this away with by claim you just don’t do it. The rules are meant to cover all options available to players. I can see where there might be a missed interaction between codex and BRB, but a missed interaction between the basic and advanced part of the same phase…really?

And that's why I say the rules are poorly written. There are gaps that shouldn't exist.

hisdudeness wrote:Your solution of ‘just don’t use the option that causes the problem’ is just incorrect. What if a new player (or one that miss calculated possible outcomes) ends up in the situation in question? Do they just start over from the top because the rules break when you apply overflow? (sidenote: we cannot resolve challenges before, only during and after.)

I don't see why not doing something optional is wrong headed. Also, when you learn a game you play perfect every time and don't miss anything the first few games? Amazing. The newbie argument doesn't really fly for me. When you are leanring a system as complex as Warhammer's things will be missed and mistakes made. It happens. Its part of learning.

I'd like to hear your argument on why you can't resolve it before. I don't see how its any different than resolving after or during really. Its just when you roll the dice. Supposedly its all happening at Initiative...

hisdudeness wrote:Dude, we completely understand that is how you are reading the rules. I have even stated your is not more valid then mine and mine is not more valid then yours. Hence we move AWAY from the grammar and do as I asked 5-6 posts back.

So we're on the same page then. Why are we then arguing about the rules still and not discussing consequences of both? Probably because both you and I generally keep trying to clarify misunderstandings and points brought up by Captain Antivas, maxcarrion, and each other.

It doesn't help that comments like this keep getting made:

hisdudeness wrote:As Captain Antivas pointed out some posts back, prove your interpretation of how the grammar works is correct.

If you are truly done wanting to debate scenario A vs B, why ask people constantly to clarify their position?

cowmonaut wrote: I must say, you have a funny way of trying to get off the merry-go-round. .

Yea, forum debates are like that. My fear is that I will not answer the point and the OP will claim I’m ignoring the point or will just claim victory and lead to confusion among people not paying attention.

cowmonaut wrote: Because you and Captain Antivas keep asking "why do you think X" to people who think the rules allow overflow. You then argue with them and say they are wrong and they argue back. Then you repeat what you said before and wonder why not everyone is instantly agreeing with you. It seemed to me this point was lost on you and needed to be emphasized that RAW is an argument with no future until GW issues a FAQ clearing it up. .

Same as above.

cowmonaut wrote: How do you see an option in this:
"Once all models that are not in a challenge have fought, it is time to resolve any challenges (see page 64)."
That's a very clear and definitive statement. It isn't giving you an option. Its declaring that that is when you handle things. The rules on Page 65 differ. If Forging a Narrative counts as rules, there is a conflict in that there is an option to do things differently. If its not rules, then the actual rules in the rules section of the book don't tell you so it would make sense to assume its always at Initiative. If you count the reference pages as rules, then there is a conflict in my eyes. .

I see an option because it points to the full rules of challenges. Maybe if you don’t read the full rules and played the game off the summary would you think it is not an option. These are not stand alone rules, but quick reference that requires us to have read and understand the full rules. A stretch I know, but not an unreasonable assumption.

cowmonaut wrote: And that's why I say the rules are poorly written. There are gaps that shouldn't exist. .

There is not a gap. This would have to be one of the all-time biggest rule writing blunders in the history of stuff…in history. This unaddressed interaction halts the game and can easily end it early if the two parties disagree on the order of things. So it comes down to some of the worst rules writing of all time or it doesn’t happen. If this was a hard thing to find or a rare interaction I could see it being missed, but the first time I tried playing with overflow I saw it was going to be an issue. And I don’t play nearly as much as the design studio, which leads me toward no overflow.

cowmonaut wrote: I don't see why not doing something optional is wrong headed. Also, when you learn a game you play perfect every time and don't miss anything the first few games? Amazing. The newbie argument doesn't really fly for me. When you are leanring a system as complex as Warhammer's things will be missed and mistakes made. It happens. Its part of learning.

I'd like to hear your argument on why you can't resolve it before. I don't see how its any different than resolving after or during really. Its just when you roll the dice. Supposedly its all happening at Initiative... .

It’s not wrongheaded but you cannot write rules that do not tell us how to resolve situations. Again this is an issue with interactions in the same phase. As of right now, there are no rules on how to handle this situation…period. So anything we come up with is a guess. GW can write some wicked crazy rules but I cannot believe this was missed.
My argument is that we are only told the other time we may resolve challenges is after. There is not any mention of before. So our choices are during (as per normal assault rules) or after (as per FaN and 429).

cowmonaut wrote: So we're on the same page then. Why are we then arguing about the rules still and not discussing consequences of both? Probably because both you and I generally keep trying to clarify misunderstandings and points brought up by Captain Antivas, maxcarrion, and each other. .

This was an answer to getting back on the marry-go-around. If someone must bring up grammar interpretations again this is what they need to bring to the table otherwise “tits or GTFO”. And I don’t want to see anyone tits on this forum.


So on to business. How do those that want overflow play out that situation and still be in the rules?

cowmonaut wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:Refer to the first part of my post for why you are wrong about this. I like how that whole first part was ignored though, which is what we are apparently supposed to do. And actually it does give a clear exception. If the model is dead it is still "considered to be", which says we count it as they are still in base contact even if they are not. It is you who ignores our response then claims we ignore you. Its a bitter battle between people who pay attention, and those who just want to win the argument.

Are you not understanding that this is kind of the point of contention? Others disagree with you on this. Your counter argument is "they are wrong". The rules themselves are just not clear enough here. If they were, there wouldn't be so many people arguing about it and this debate would have ended in the first handful of pages.

False. My argument is that the rules of English say that your argument is wrong. This is not an interpretation but a proper logical application of grammar and usage rules. I put it to you again to review my explanation and show me where I am wrong.

Captain Antivas wrote:I never said it applies both ways. This only applies to Outside Forces. What you fail to consider is that it is Wound Allocation from and to the Outside Forces.

That is the definition of applying both ways. You are saying that portion of the rules is a two way street with regards to where wounds can be allocated. I'm saying its a one way street the way its written.

Where does the rule say it is a one way street? Wound allocation step is a two way street. In every wound allocation step there is always wounds going from someone in the rest of the unit to someone else in the rest of the unit.

Captain Antivas wrote:The Forging a Narrative box is not rules. Unless there is something else I am missing that is the only thing that says it is optional, but since FaN is not rules it is not a contradiction. Try again.

Originally I thought that as well. But then someone pointed out to me that it doesn't say anywhere in the rule book that "Forging the Narrative" boxes are not rules. If page 429 was strict mandatory rules, there would be something on page 64 and 65 telling you about it. The only mention of dealing with challenges out of sequence is in the Forging the Narrative box. As such, I'm not as convinced as I once was that Forging the Narrative doesn't count as rules.

If they are rules they agree with 429 and do not conflict anywhere but support 2 separate combats. If they are not rules they support 429 and still defeat your point.

If this isn't a clear sign the rules are not written properly for Challenges, I don't know if there is any help for you. Edit: After posting I realise this sounds harsher than I intended. What I mean is I don't think there is any way to explain the overflow side to you and have you understand why some of us think the way we do. This isn't malicious intent or stupidity, the rules are just badly written regardless of what GW's intent for Challenges is. Outside of Forging a Narrative there is no mention of resolving Challenges out of sequence on pages 64 and 65, where they are going into detail and careful explanations.

I agree they are unclear. I disagree that the lack of clarity proves overflow.

Captain Antivas wrote:You say this causes a problem, I say what you define as a problem is an evolution. I also want you to show me where it says that the WS and Toughness of the squad is used in a Challenge. Page number? The things that affect the whole squad affect them for different reasons. If I am resolving an attack against just one model I am using that model's stats, not the squads. Please show me with rules where it says otherwise.

No, you point to me the exact page, paragraph, sentence, words that tell you that you don't follow those normal rules. Since the basic rules for rolling to hit/wound are being overridden, there must be an advanced rule doing so.

The rules for Challenges on page 64 and 65 make no mention of one. The rules state that the combatants are (1) in base contact only with each other and (2) that models other than the combatants can't attack the combatants. The rules do not state that they are not part of the same combat. Never mind the fact that items 1 and 2 are also key points of dissension central to this whole debate.

RAW, you'd still have to roll to hit and wound against the majority. Why? Because the Challenge rules do not change how the combatants attack. Which means that they are attacking the enemy unit. With the new rules for ICs, even if the Character in the Challenge is an IC its treated as a member of the unit it joined in combat. Which means you are stuck with this ridiculousness.

Outside Forces, page 64, first sentence. Challengers can only strike blows against each other. Since they only strike blows against each other they are only engaged with each other. The rules to hit and wound says you use the ws/t of the majority of the engaged models. Since there is one engaged model, you use their ws/t.

Captain Antivas wrote:Not to mention no overflow does not slow the game down, it speeds it up. Rather than trying to figure out which models are closest and how to blah blah blah once the challenge is done you resolve the challenge, count the unsaved wounds, add them together, and move on. Quick, easy, and actually less complicated.

I don't see it as that complicated, but I meant that it can draw out combats over several turns longer than if you had overflow

So an uberpowerful MC has a little bit of balance introduced and this is a bad thing?

DeathReaper wrote:

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]

Don't try and fight the swarm lord with boyz and a nob, there are other things in the codex that could kill the swarmlord.

Geemoney wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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]

Don't try and fight the swarm lord with boyz and a nob, there are other things in the codex that could kill the swarmlord.

Point being that 30 boyz and a Nob cost about the same as a Hive Tyrant. it should be down to dicerolls on who wins that fight.

With challenges, it is a foregone conclusion who is going to win, It is just about how long that will take now.