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.

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.

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.

So, pointing out multiple locations that describe the combat being fought separately; the summary that says you can fight it after the normal initiative of combat, no wounds in from other models, 'only with each other', count unsaved wounds for combat resolution, strike each other with blows, the whole description of picking ONE opponent to fight and if they back down they can't fight at all, excluding Look Out Sir, clearly stating that other units may be bystanders who can only cheer, etc. are all 'tailored' while not directly stating 'there is no overflow' in two pages that describe one on one combat is 'everything they could to include' is logically sound?

No, stating that the overwhelming volume of rules text doesn't happen to include 'no overflow' is shaky ground when the only supporting claim is the location of the word 'only' in a single sentence not being read the same as blatant statements on the same page.

snooggums wrote:

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.

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.

So, pointing out multiple locations that describe the combat being fought separately; the summary that says you can fight it after the normal initiative of combat, no wounds in from other models, 'only with each other', count unsaved wounds for combat resolution, strike each other with blows, the whole description of picking ONE opponent to fight and if they back down they can't fight at all, excluding Look Out Sir, clearly stating that other units may be bystanders who can only cheer, etc. are all 'tailored' while not directly stating 'there is no overflow' in two pages that describe one on one combat is 'everything they could to include' is logically sound?

No, stating that the overwhelming volume of rules text doesn't happen to include 'no overflow' is shaky ground when the only supporting claim is the location of the word 'only' in a single sentence not being read the same as blatant statements on the same page.

This.


(sidenote: Man you really need to sign off on all you your posts with, "Love, snooggums". You could pretty much say whatever you wanted in the post and it would be alright because you signed off in such a warm and fuzzy way.)

Hey just a heads up to everyone who's kept up with this thread. I just got back from Game's Day. While I was there I had a chat with Phil Kelly about "Callenges and Wound Overflow". I also got my Space Wolf codex signed but that's another story. Phil was very nice and answered several rules questions I had, using a copy of the yet to be released "Rulebook FAQ" (He said it would be up in a couple of weeks). So here it goes. Drum roll please......

Me: One more quick question Phil.

Phil: Yes.

Me: There's a massive debate on Dakka about wounds from challenges spilling over into the rest of the combat.

Phil: (Pulls out the Rulebook FAQ) Yes, this is one of the questions we've been asked alot. Regarding overkill from challenges. Yes, there's no overkill from the challenge into the rest of the combat. Any excess wounds caused are lost. (Points to the FAQ)

Me: You don't happen to have an extra copy of that FAQ I can have?

Phil: Uh no. Nice try though.

If you don't believe me wait a couple of weeks and read it for yourself.

Maybe you should have also asked about FNP timing, wounding units completely out of sight, Non-shooting attacks hitting flyers...oh well, hopefully the FAQ will answer these and more.

Love bigbaboonass!!

hisdudeness wrote:Love bigbaboonass!!

SIgged?

Of course we will have to wait and see but I am sure we can all appreciate the update there baboon. I know I do

Not to be a downer, but lets hope there isn't another challenge loop hole/exploit/issue brought up by the wording of the FAQ.

If this all is correct, there's a couple guys at my FLGS that I'm really going to have to resist saying "I told you so" to them the next time I see them.

If it is true that there is no overflow, that makes me sad, because then Saga of the Warrior Born is effectively worthless as any puny character can step in the way and limit the models my Wolf Lord kills to 1 in every turn.

CanisLupus518 wrote:If it is true that there is no overflow, that makes me sad, because then Saga of the Warrior Born is effectively worthless as any puny character can step in the way and limit the models my Wolf Lord kills to 1 in every turn.

Well then you are a silly person who doesn't understand your own codex. You have access to more characters and HQ IC than any other codex. Run your WL with one of them in his unit and you are fine. Heck, you can put him in a unit of 13 other characters for crying out loud!

So long as there is a clear answer I am content. There are flaws for both methods (as we partially sorted out) and it would only make a difference in some very extreme cases (hurray for stepping away from a problem for a while and coming at it fresh). They definitely wrote the original rules poorly to have caused such a debate.

Hopefully some other badly written rules are all cleared up as well...

cowmonaut wrote:So long as there is a clear answer I am content. There are flaws for both methods (as we partially sorted out) and it would only make a difference in some very extreme cases (hurray for stepping away from a problem for a while and coming at it fresh). They definitely wrote the original rules poorly to have caused such a debate.

Hopefully some other badly written rules are all cleared up as well...

Here's hoping...

Lobukia wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:If it is true that there is no overflow, that makes me sad, because then Saga of the Warrior Born is effectively worthless as any puny character can step in the way and limit the models my Wolf Lord kills to 1 in every turn.

Well then you are a silly person who doesn't understand your own codex. You have access to more characters and HQ IC than any other codex. Run your WL with one of them in his unit and you are fine. Heck, you can put him in a unit of 13 other characters for crying out loud!

Silly? really? Surely you're not saying that the solution to my Wolf Lord on Thunder Wolf not being able to use Saga of the Warrior Born is to include either another Wolf Lord, or a Wolf Guard Battle Leader (the only other two characters able to ride a Thunder Wolf Mount) in the same unit? Really? 170+ points is your fix for a broken rule? Now THAT seems silly.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:If it is true that there is no overflow, that makes me sad, because then Saga of the Warrior Born is effectively worthless as any puny character can step in the way and limit the models my Wolf Lord kills to 1 in every turn.

Well then you are a silly person who doesn't understand your own codex. You have access to more characters and HQ IC than any other codex. Run your WL with one of them in his unit and you are fine. Heck, you can put him in a unit of 13 other characters for crying out loud!

Silly? really? Surely you're not saying that the solution to my Wolf Lord on Thunder Wolf not being able to use Saga of the Warrior Born is to include either another Wolf Lord, or a Wolf Guard Battle Leader (the only other two characters able to ride a Thunder Wolf Mount) in the same unit? Really? 170+ points is your fix for a broken rule? Now THAT seems silly.

Or the alternative you get free shots at a squad that has no opportunity to harm your character. That's fair. This way the squad has a chance to survive for longer than a round.

CanisLupus518 wrote:

Lobukia wrote:

CanisLupus518 wrote:If it is true that there is no overflow, that makes me sad, because then Saga of the Warrior Born is effectively worthless as any puny character can step in the way and limit the models my Wolf Lord kills to 1 in every turn.

Well then you are a silly person who doesn't understand your own codex. You have access to more characters and HQ IC than any other codex. Run your WL with one of them in his unit and you are fine. Heck, you can put him in a unit of 13 other characters for crying out loud!

Silly? really? Surely you're not saying that the solution to my Wolf Lord on Thunder Wolf not being able to use Saga of the Warrior Born is to include either another Wolf Lord, or a Wolf Guard Battle Leader (the only other two characters able to ride a Thunder Wolf Mount) in the same unit? Really? 170+ points is your fix for a broken rule? Now THAT seems silly.

It isnt a broken rule, at all. Once you have killed the easy character in your turn, you then kill the now (likely) characterless unit on their turn, protecting you from shooting.

Mind boggles that people are still missing that challenges are a great thing for monster CC characters - you have never had better control over combat than now.

Someone mentioned a squad of 30 Orks earlier. Statistically 30 Orks will kill a Swarmlord in 2 rounds of combat (if charging) while suffering 6-7 wounds themselves. The challenge let's the Swarmlord survive longer, hoping they will fallback allowing a sweeping advance. If you are the Orks just ignore the challenge, the Nob does nothing and your 30 Orks kill it in 2 turns. It's called balance. People are acting like they have to do the challenge and you don't. If it makes no sense to accept the challenge, dont!

Is there a rule on Dakka against screaming BOOYAH after an FAQ comes out?

Nope but there is a rule about what does and doesn't constitute thread necromancy

Excellent - glad I'm well within the rules, then.




Oh, and BOOYAH